Problem of good and evil for an atheist

[fr0d0]

You're telling me the slaughter of the Midianites was for the greater good?

Yes

[Edwardo Piet]

Wow, they must have really been total cunts.

[Entropist]

The bible was written by men and is potentially errant, yes. The repulsive stories remain as important information on the nature of God. It doesn't show God as cruel as that would be contrary to his nature and therefore logically inconsistent.

It is "repulsive" but not "cruel"? Because by your definition this god cannot be cruel, the slaughter this god commands (and occasionally does the slaughter himself) is NOT cruel. Nice circular logic there.

So when a human being commands the slaughter of people, that's cruel. But when this particular god is issuing the orders, that's good. Orders are orders, eh?

[ABierman1986]

One of the interesting features of the bible is its ability to reconcile a slaughtering God with a loving God. From the beginning, in the OT and NT, in the oldest translations available, the word used to describe humans that subscribed to the religion was different than the word for other humans, pagans.

The word for followers implied "Trueness", real emulation of God, whereas the second word was more akin to "dirt", or animal-like humans. Many scholars have debated that inside the genesis story all non-followers were created with the rest of the animals, and Adam and Eve only representing the first true humans. This explains the paradox of the Cain and Able story to a large extent, and also how God can be loving and cruel together. Slaughtering the first born of Egypt was like slaughtering sheep, similar with heathens and idol worshippers. The true followers are spared and treated differently. This is a point that isn't usually brought up in discussion, but it really does help theist arguments to some extent in that it provides reasoning behind the bible.

I personally feel this differentiation is a perfect example of the tool religion is used as, to divide and conquer and control.

[Entropist]

Repeatedly in life, I have witnessed that in order to quarantine oneself from doubt, the true believer must seal himself within a syllogistic bubble.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Repeatedly in life, I have witnessed that in order to quarantine oneself from doubt, the true believer must seal himself within a syllogistic bubble.

Don't we all? (rely on the syllogism) The difference is the skeptic does not infer truth from logic,he merely implies.

I'ts been argued that the syllogism is the basis of Western philosophical thought. It's certainly the most common form of argument to be seen in daily life in the form of a few common logical fallacies.EG: argument from ignorance, argument by consensus, argument from authority and no true Scotsman.

[fr0d0]

The bible was written by men and is potentially errant, yes. The repulsive stories remain as important information on the nature of God. It doesn't show God as cruel as that would be contrary to his nature and therefore logically inconsistent.

It is "repulsive" but not "cruel"? Because by your definition this god cannot be cruel, the slaughter this god commands (and occasionally does the slaughter himself) is NOT cruel. Nice circular logic there.

So when a human being commands the slaughter of people, that's cruel. But when this particular god is issuing the orders, that's good. Orders are orders, eh?

The story is illustrative of God's judgements, which whilst to us appear to be cruel (because we aren't privvy to the information), are just. Logically God can only be just.

I can't think of a justification for a human to slaughter people. It's the limited knowledge thing. Orders in this sense are only so if one knows enough to ascribe them to God. Assuming one or the other we evaluate the story : either it was God's will and just, or people's will and unjust.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

.
" in the oldest translations available, the word used to describe humans that subscribed to the religion was different than the word for other humans, pagans. "

Sorry to be pedantic,but 'pagan' is from the Latin 'paganus' and only means a rural person. What we might call a 'hick' or perhaps a"redneck'.The meaning changed over centuries.

Paganism (from Latin paganus, meaning "country dweller", "rustic"[1]) is a blanket term, typically used to refer to polytheistic religious traditions, although from a Christian perspective, the term can encompass all non–Abrahamic religions.[2][3]

[Entropist]

Repeatedly in life, I have witnessed that in order to quarantine oneself from doubt, the true believer must seal himself within a syllogistic bubble.

Don't we all? (rely on the syllogism) The difference is the skeptic does not infer truth from logic,he merely implies.

I have a problem when deductive logic is used to the exclusion of induction-- a necessary trait common to religion.

The story is illustrative of God's judgements, which whilst to us appear to be cruel (because we aren't privvy to the information), are just. Logically God can only be just.

"Do as I say, not as I do." Nothing wrong with genocide as long as the Judeo-Christian god is the one giving the orders. And Christians think atheists lack a moral compass...?

BTW Padriac, this is what I am talking about when referring to a "syllogistic bubble": Logically this god can ONLY be just, therefore...

[ABierman1986]

.
" in the oldest translations available, the word used to describe humans that subscribed to the religion was different than the word for other humans, pagans. "

Sorry to be pedantic,but 'pagan' is from the Latin 'paganus' and only means a rural person. What we might call a 'hick' or perhaps a"redneck'.The meaning changed over centuries.

Paganism (from Latin paganus, meaning "country dweller", "rustic"[1]) is a blanket term, typically used to refer to polytheistic religious traditions, although from a Christian perspective, the term can encompass all non–Abrahamic religions.[2][3]

Fine. The definition may not have been exactly "pagan" but they were DESCRIBING pagans, humans worshipping gods other than YHWH, however the dictionary currently defines it. And the meaning which changes over centuries is no good, we're discussing the words used 2000 years ago for which there may no longer be a perfect translation. I'd rather hear people respond to the implications of this than the grammar.