Who's 'we'? It annoys me when people claim to speak for 'everyone'.
It's definitely a strawman yes, since you mentioned 'arguing to try to convince people of a belief' when I was never trying to convince people that "there is a god".
Only thing I was trying to convince is that the 'problem of evil' is a bad argument against the general idea of a god (which is not limited to the omnipotent, ruler style of god in modern religions), because it is.
It's definitely a strawman yes, since you mentioned 'arguing to try to convince people of a belief' when I was never trying to convince people that "there is a god".
Only thing I was trying to convince is that the 'problem of evil' is a bad argument against the general idea of a god (which is not limited to the omnipotent, ruler style of god in modern religions), because it is.
The argument is that "there's no hard proof" doesn't mean a person can't have an opinion. One of the popular opinions against believing in a god I hear is that "it's stupid to believe something without proof", but I disagree, if the belief isn't something reliant on proof to begin with.
It was reactionary because I went out of my way to explain I wasn't talking about a theistic or omnipotent god, but people immediately showed up with the same claims about god (ex. 'demanding worship', just sitting by and 'letting bad things happen', etc).
Again, 'design' refers to things which pre-date the physical universe (before the big bang), which brought the universe into being. It sounds like you're talking about "intelligent design", which is totally different and theistic (it argues that things in the known world were created in their present state rather than evolved, which is pretty much the same as "creationism"). Apples to oranges.
Beliefs can't be 'honest or dishonest' since they're beliefs. Saying a person believes there is a god is not saying "I can provide evidence that there is a god".
__________________
I may go back to hating you. It was more fun.
I may go back to hating you. It was more fun.