Flying SquidAny time you want to help out, go ahead...
uphillbothwaysAvailable options include:
Most people choose option 3.
FlyswatThis is a classic argument called “the problem of evil” which says if God exists then why is there evil on earth, implying He should intervene otherwise it means God either:
The Muslim answer is that this short life is a test and the real eternal life will be a reward based on how we lived and submitted to God. The harder the trial, the greater the recompense. This means the rapist will be held responsible for his wrongdoing and is given eternal hell. Responsibility starts around the age of puberty, when a person starts knowing how to differentiate between bad and good. So children who die before that are given eternal bliss.
Atheists, who do not believe in God and yet talk about him by picking and choosing which concepts they want to include in their caricature and which they want to ignore, often present this straw-man and conclude: therefore there is no God.
In your paradigm this life all there is: there is no afterlife, therefore no consequences. Which means that evil doers get away with whatever they did in their life. Hitler? He ended his life and so he got away with what he did.
So of course in your worldview where there is no possible justice you are pessimistic and do not understand when a person stands firm regardless of the tribulations he/she is facing.
Sounds like you're saying that children dying is the good ending...? And, that Hitler being forced to hide and shoot himself in a bunker while his evil empire was ripped to shreds was getting away with it unless someone believes in your version of god?
So, you're clearly in some demented version of option 3, the most common option, as I outlined.
Maybe option 1 with the whole child death thing though, idk...
GlitchingtonSounds like their argument relies upon the existence of an afterlife, which leaves the burden of proof on them. Don’t strain yourself too hard on this one.
Sounds like their argument relies upon the existence of an afterlife
Exactly.
which leaves the burden of proof on them.
Yes. Proof we received is testimony from someone who demonstrated through documented prophecies and miracles that he is a messenger of the divine and who has ulterior motive in what he did than solely conveying said message.
We need far more tangible proof than that. I can claim wholeheartedly and faithfully the core of the earth is made of citrus. Until I provide tangible proof, I’m making things up.
Why should I trust what YOU say?
You’re preaching faith on an atheist community. What did you actually expect? People to renounce their ways and take up your faith?
I don’t expect you to trust me, but if you are fishing for a debate, you won’t get anywhere with an empty argument and zero tangible evidence. And no, some random jackass’s “testimony” doesn’t count.
I don’t expect you to trust me, but if you are fishing for a debate, you won’t get anywhere with an empty argument and zero tangible evidence. And no, some random jackass’s “testimony” doesn’t count.
My half answer about the evidence, which is the testimony, is because in this age of technology and information should be largely accessible and known. If not I can of course elaborate. I might have falsely assumed you were familiar with it.
And the question why YOU should be trusted is to beg the question on which criteria can we accept a testimony. The quotes you put around testimony suggest you don’t consider testimony as a reliable source is information.
I would try to show that it is, however I can see that you failed to understand what I meant in the points above, maybe you don’t want or can’t reflwct, so I shall leave you to your blissful jackassing.
As you were.