I've found it to be the case that most atheists just talk to themselves, as most Christians just talk to themselves. I can't back those statements up with any scientific polls, I know. But it seems true for all I know. If true, I have one answer as to why this is true. When people identify with a group, any group, they want to influence that group and want the recognition of that group. So atheists write about issues of concern to atheists and Christians write about issues of concern to Christians. There will always be fewer people reaching out to others because of this. Your thoughts please. *People have recently told me they cannot comment here, and I don't know what to do about it*
As mentioned by Hemant Mehta today, this debate took place in 2010. Apparently it was just released. It’s a debate between Brown and Ehrman on "Does the Bible provide an adequate answer to the problem of suffering?" Quick answer? No! Hell No! It was written in a barbaric era where God-concepts were modeled on what they knew about their kings. No one expected kings to be kind and humble or even good. They were sometimes cruel and vindictive. In the tale of Job we find the lead character complaining about his suffering. He could not find a reasonable answer for it. Yet his god-king basically told him to shut up and believe despite the evidence. What secret knowledge did Michael Brown receive that Job didn't receive, even though Job actually talked with God? *wink* Again, God said Job should trust him despite the evidence. Or, to personalize it, "trust me despite the evidence!" This cannot be an adequate answer to suffering unless you're a dolt. See below: