Are all atheists this ill-informed about religion?

[GrandizerII]

State the differences.

Sure. From dictionary.com:

benevolent: characterized by or expressing goodwill or kindly feelings

good: morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious

While I didn't define these, I illustrated them earlier with an example, which everyone has ignored. Expanded version:

A judge is sentencing a convicted murderer. The judge tells the man that he's really good at heart and sentences him to eat a piece of chocolate cake, then go on his way. This would be benevolent of the judge, as it expresses goodwill and kindly feelings. It would not be good of the judge, as it is not morally excellent or righteous.

Regarding god, judgments such as the flood are obviously not benevolent, but they are from god's POV righteous, and therefore good.

According to dictionary.com, one of the synonyms for benevolent is good.

You are forcing a distinction where there shouldn't be. For a lot of people, and from the point of view of justice, it wouldn't be benevolent or good for a judge to let a convicted murderer go his merry way without having him be held accountable for his actions.

[GrandizerII]

Sure. From dictionary.com:

benevolent: characterized by or expressing goodwill or kindly feelings

good: morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious

While I didn't define these, I illustrated them earlier with an example, which everyone has ignored. Expanded version:

A judge is sentencing a convicted murderer. The judge tells the man that he's really good at heart and sentences him to eat a piece of chocolate cake, then go on his way. This would be benevolent of the judge, as it expresses goodwill and kindly feelings. It would not be good of the judge, as it is not morally excellent or righteous.

Regarding god, judgments such as the flood are obviously not benevolent, but they are from god's POV righteous, and therefore good.

According to dictionary.com, one of the synonyms for benevolent is good.

You are forcing a distinction where there shouldn't be. For a lot of people, and from the point of view of justice, it wouldn't be benevolent or good for a judge to let a convicted murderer go his merry way without having him be held accountable for his actions.

Anyway, all this is so you can still attribute all-goodness to the god you believe in., lol

[Mudhammam]

State the differences.

Sure. From dictionary.com:

benevolent: characterized by or expressing goodwill or kindly feelings

good: morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious

While I didn't define these, I illustrated them earlier with an example, which everyone has ignored. Expanded version:

A judge is sentencing a convicted murderer. The judge tells the man that he's really good at heart and sentences him to eat a piece of chocolate cake, then go on his way. This would be benevolent of the judge, as it expresses goodwill and kindly feelings. It would not be good of the judge, as it is not morally excellent or righteous.

Regarding god, judgments such as the flood are obviously not benevolent, but they are from god's POV righteous, and therefore good.

What difference does all of this hairsplitting make with respect to the evidential problem of evil? Your larger error is that you concede that God's malevolence is accurately characterized in the biblical flood myth yet insist that this doesn't imply that he isn't all good.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

State the differences.

Sure. From dictionary.com:

benevolent: characterized by or expressing goodwill or kindly feelings

good: morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious

While I didn't define these, I illustrated them earlier with an example, which everyone has ignored. Expanded version:

A judge is sentencing a convicted murderer. The judge tells the man that he's really good at heart and sentences him to eat a piece of chocolate cake, then go on his way. This would be benevolent of the judge, as it expresses goodwill and kindly feelings. It would not be good of the judge, as it is not morally excellent or righteous.

Regarding god, judgments such as the flood are obviously not benevolent, but they are from god's POV righteous, and therefore good.

Look up the term jurisdiction.

A judge must establish that he has the right and the legal authority to even speak about the law on a case. We have established to you why the God described in your story could never lawfully serve as a judge... let alone as the legislature (maker of laws), cops (watches for breaking the law), judge (pronounces sentence for violation), and executioner (carries out the sentence) all-in-one.

When you say "god is the judge", you are presuming that we have cause to believe that your judge 1) exists, 2) has legitimate jurisdiction, 3) and makes the rules as you say, then 4) has a requirement to equate whatever we do with the act of murder, for which the only punishment is torture and then death if we do not suck the judge's dick.

I mean, um, confess our sins and declare him master. My bad.

Your God concept is not only a moral quagmire, it's patently ridiculous, no matter how you spin it.

Edit to Add: Seriously, in your version, all the murderer has to do is blow the judge and walk free... while I get shot for my traffic ticket because I won't suck it.

[John V]

What difference does all of this hairsplitting make with respect to the evidential problem of evil? Your larger error is that you concede that God's malevolence is accurately characterized in the biblical flood myth yet insist that this doesn't imply that he isn't all good.

Lack of benevolence does not equal malevolence. A judge can sentence a criminal with neither benevolence or malevolence.

[John V]

Look up the term jurisdiction.

OK. First two from dictionary.com

1. the right, power, or authority to administer justice by hearing and determining controversies

2. power; authority; control

So, God has jurisdiction over everyone, as he has power over everyone.

A judge must establish that he has the right and the legal authority to even speak about the law on a case.

According to the definition you had me look up, power is sufficient, and god has that. I'd argue he has the other two as well, but power is enough.

We have established to you why the God described in your story could never lawfully serve as a judge... let alone as the legislature (maker of laws), cops (watches for breaking the law), judge (pronounces sentence for violation), and executioner (carries out the sentence) all-in-one.

God is portrayed as a king. Judgment is within the role of king.

When you say "god is the judge"

Did I say that? I'm old fashioned - to me quotation marks mean a direct quote. Consider using italics for paraphrases.

you are presuming that we have cause to believe that your judge 1) exists,

No, in a thread on atheists' knowledge of religion, the question is your understanding, not your acceptance.

2) has legitimate jurisdiction,

He does, as noted above.

3) and makes the rules as you say,

Again, it's a question of knowledge of religion, not acceptance.

4) has a requirement to equate whatever we do with the act of murder, for which the only punishment is torture and then death if we do not suck the judge's dick.

Do you never ask someone's forgiveness? If you do, do you actually suck their dick? It's odd that atheists characterize it as such, or as kissing ass.

I mean, um, confess our sins and declare him master. My bad.

Seems like a good deal to me.

Your God concept is not only a moral quagmire, it's patently ridiculous, no matter how you spin it.

If it were patently ridiculous, it wouldn't have so many followers.

Seriously, in your version, all the murderer has to do is blow the judge and walk free...

No, just ask forgivenss and walk free. Again, I suppose atheists find asking for forgiveness to be extremely objectionable, since they frequently characterize it as sucking dick or kissing ass.

while I get shot for my traffic ticket because I won't suck it.

You won't be the one deciding if it was just a traffic ticket.

Guess what, if you let the criminals decide whether they're guilty, or what their sentence should be, the prisons will be mostly empty.

[John V]

According to dictionary.com, one of the synonyms for benevolent is good.

You are forcing a distinction where there shouldn't be. For a lot of people, and from the point of view of justice, it wouldn't be benevolent or good for a judge to let a convicted murderer go his merry way without having him be held accountable for his actions.

It certainly would be benevolent. It would not be good.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Look up the term jurisdiction.

OK. First two from dictionary.com

1. the right, power, or authority to administer justice by hearing and determining controversies

2. power; authority; control

So, God has jurisdiction over everyone, as he has power over everyone.

No. Try a legal definition, since that's what we're talking about: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionar...risdiction

Jurisdiction generally describes any authority over a certain area or certain persons. In the law, jurisdiction sometimes refers to a particular geographic area containing a defined legal authority. For example, the federal government is a jurisdiction unto itself. Its power spans the entire United States. Each state is also a jurisdiction unto itself, with the power to pass its own laws.


Jurisdiction also may refer to the origin of a court's authority. A court may be designated either as a court of general jurisdiction or as a court of special jurisdiction. A court of general jurisdiction is a trial court that is empowered to hear all cases that are not specifically reserved for courts of special jurisdiction. A court of specialjurisdiction is empowered to hear only certain kinds of cases. [...]

Jurisdiction can also be used to define the proper court in which to bring a particular case. In this context, a court has either original or appellate jurisdiction over a case. When the court has original jurisdiction, it is empowered to conduct a trial in the case. When the court has appellate jurisdiction, it may only review the trial court proceedings for error. [...]

Finally, jurisdiction refers to the inherent authority of a court to hear a case and to declare a judgment. When a plaintiff seeks to initiate a suit, he or she must determine where to file the complaint. The plaintiff must file suit in a court that has jurisdiction over the case. If the court does not have jurisdiction, the defendant may challenge the suit on that ground, and the suit may be dismissed, or its result may be overturned in a subsequent action by one of the parties in the case.

[GrandizerII]

According to dictionary.com, one of the synonyms for benevolent is good.

You are forcing a distinction where there shouldn't be. For a lot of people, and from the point of view of justice, it wouldn't be benevolent or good for a judge to let a convicted murderer go his merry way without having him be held accountable for his actions.

It certainly would be benevolent. It would not be good.

So Jesus taking the punishment for your sins was not good at all.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

In his book A History of Political Theory, George Sabine collected the views of many political theorists on consent of the governed. He notes the idea mentioned in 1433 by Nicholas of Cusa in De Concordantia Catholica. In 1579 Theodore Beza wrote Vindiciae contra Tyrannos which Sabine paraphrases: "The people lay down the conditions which the king is bound to fulfill. Hence they are bound to obedience only conditionally, namely, upon receiving the protection of just and lawful government…the power of the ruler is delegated by the people and continues only with their consent." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed