Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes, the problem of evil is the main reason for my deconversion, but not the only reason.
Nope. You're the one who is saying gods exist. You're the one who's gonna have to prove it if you want me to believe you. Until you or any other theist comes up with either evidence or a better, non-contradictory definition of a god, I have no reason to believe that any such being exists.
That's an interesting argument, and I suppose I agree. If it's a choice between saying that the clever authors of the Old Testament are "wrong" for taking literary liberties that fit their culture's traditions, or saying that those who read it and don't understand the cultural context and intentions are the ones who are wrong, I would choose the latter.
Actually both early Christians and modern Christians have information that gives them advantage. We have hindsight, we can see clearer what God foresaw. But we don't have cultural context or fresh memories of the events around that time, plus we have lots of accumulated baggage garbage from heretics, false teachers etc.
Let me get this straight: Because Group A has chosen to construct a certain view of a deity, the burden of proof is on Group B to disprove their ideas or else lose the right to disagree? Does Group A have any evidence that makes it worth Group B's while?
Why? Do you feel that you need to prove that there are no water nymphs in order to state that they don't exist? Disagreeing with someone because they haven't brought evidence to the table does not bring the burden of proof upon oneself. The whole point is that there's no evidence to be contradicted.
Whoever is making an assertive claim (whether the claim is that God exist or that God does not exist) is on the hook for backup. You're not just sitting back and critiquing our arguments. In this case, you affirm that the problem of evil argument is a valid argument. Therefore you have now stepped up to the plate with making an assertive claim that God does not exist. So you are now bound to provide backup for that counter-claim. That's the nature of debate.
Do you honestly go through life feeling that you can't make any negative claim unless you've searched every corner of the Earth and have empirical evidence that _____ does not exist? The human imagination is amazing and has come up with countless concepts that cannot technically be disproved, but I feel perfectly comfortable saying that they're just products of imagination unless evidence is presented.
Why should I have to prove anything? I don't care if you believe me or not. I'm not trying to "win you over to atheism" or enlighten you in any way. It's theists who are trying to convince people that invisible beings with contradictory definitions exist. Those are the people who have something to prove.
I'm sorry, I was raised Roman Catholic and I don't always understand the more flowery Christian rhetoric. Not an insult at all. I'm just not used to thinking in these terms and I'm not sure what you're asking. I was a Christian. I believed and was content.
Except, it isn't God making any claims, it is nameless, ancient men and the credulous who follow their claims. I've never heard God speak. I've never felt any kind of supernatural or divine presence. I only hear laymen talking about things that either happened 20 centuries ago or will happen after I die.
