Wikipedia's mistake is that it considers healthy people to be fools and psychos.
It recognises they are spouting pure fiction, with no rational basis. That isn't a mistake.
It's just that the world before the Biblical Great Flood
So to try to show you aren't a fool or psycho, you refer to a mythical flood as if it was real?
Not a great start.
Appealing to a work of fiction won't help you.
Even most "Christians" will claim Genesis (or at least large portions of it) are not meant to be taken literally as a history of Earth, as it is pure fiction.
No problem with Physics or Cosmology in Flat Earth regime.
As it directly contradicts how Earth formed in cosmology and physics, there is a problem.
Earth formed by smaller bits of matter colliding to form a large, roughly spherical shape.
By the time Earth formed, it was already roughly spherical.
To claim otherwise is to go directly against physics and cosmology.
If you need to appeal to a god to explain how things work, you are not using physics/science and your work is not science. Instead you are using religion and likely going against physics/science.
the Holy Spirit and the evil spirit (satan).
Satan is a name, show it the respect it deserves with a capital S.
Satan is the comparatively good one in the Bible.
God is far more evil than Satan.
Evil is the absence of good
No, evil is the opposite of good.
Neutrality is the absence of good and evil.
As a simple example, consider a burning building, with someone trapped inside.
Good would be saving the person from the building, putting yourself in danger.
Evil would be trapping someone else.
Neutral would be neither.
Another example is consider a homeless person who needs money.
Good would be giving them money.
Evil would be taking the money they have.
This also makes no sense in light of your previous statement where you claimed Satan was evil. If evil is just the absence of good then it would be "and the spirit (Satan)".
It also makes no sense in the light of how your evil tyrant "punishes" people.
If evil was merely the absence of good, then as soon as you do any good, you would be a good person, with no amount of evil able to undo that good; and that means you don't deserve to be punished.
This would mean people like Hitler and Stalin (and even fictional characters like the evil tyrant you call God) would be deemed good as soon as they do any good with no amount of evil unable to counter it. Is that really what you think?
Biblically it makes far more sense for good to be the absence of evil.
That way as soon as you do any evil, you are evil and worthy of punishment, with no amount of good able to make up for that evil.
An atheist, speaking of god, is not talking about Jesus, but about an idol.
No, an atheist who says they do not believe in a god is talking about all gods. This includes your false idol Jesus and the evil tyrant God.
Note that Jesus is an idol, by definition:
"an object of extreme devotion"
"god" is a noun, which can refer to any god.
"God" is a name, used to refer to a god of a monotheistic religion/deism, usually the Abrahamic tyrant.
If my proofs of Riemann and abc conjectures get published, then any my subsequent texts will be positively peer-reviewed and published. No text will be unpublished. Why? Because the Science and Math are based on authority.
Pure nonsense.
Science and math are not based upon authority.
If the reviewers find problems with the work, it will be rejected. Even if you have already published other work.
It is also quite ridiculous to think a publication on math will make you more likely to be published in physics journals.