The Immorality of God - The Canaanites

[athrock]

Reasoning usually moves the individual in the direction of faith.

What's your evidence of this?  This seems little more than a bare assertion that you'd like to believe is true.

In my experience, reasoning isn't the deciding factor in which direction it moves you, but rather pre-existing biases and goals do.  This seems obviously the case with you and your conclusion here.

Jormungandr-

Have you ever read many books or articles written by former "cradle atheists" who were raised in atheist homes? I recently read an online article by Dr. Francis Collins - the head of a big human genome research group in the US. Obviously, the man is no slouch.

The common theme in these accounts is that the atheist went through a slow, sometimes painful, process of discovery guided by reason to overcome the "pre-existing biases and goals" that had undergirded their atheism. The "Paul knocked off his horse on the road to Emmaus" kind of conversion is pretty rare. When men of science apply their skills to an examination of the claims of Christianity and come to the conclusion that it's true, it's worth noting.

Now, would you say that you have "pre-existing biases and goals" that contribute to your present state of unbelief?

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Normally, when an account includes a large amount of magic stuff happening, that's a warning sign that it's bollocks.

These accounts, at best, are probably retroactive explanations for why they went and slaughtered a bunch of people. Seriously, how hard is it to make some shit up about god telling you to do it? Or maybe some of them were genuinely deluded and were hearing/seeing things.

Normally? Sure. Supernatural stuff doesn't happen every day, does it?

But tell me, atheist, does that mean supernatural stuff NEVER happens? Has it EVER happened in all of recorded history?

If it had occurred in the past, how would you know?

Nobody here has to answer your cunthair-smug, rhetorical questions, but you need to present evidence for your assertions or stop making them. Insulting those who don't believe your bullshit when you cannot do that isn't convincing anyone on anything other than how good you can be at being a smug, insulting cunthair.

[athrock]

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”

― Martin Luther

So sayeth a xtian cocksucker.

Ignored.

[athrock]

Many people argue that God acted immorally in the Old Testament when He ordered the Israelites to destroy the Canaanites who were living in the land that God had promised to Abraham and his descendants. However, there are several reasons why this is a poor argument.
 
First, if God does not actually exist, then the accounts of His deeds in the Old Testament are meaningless fables, and it does not matter what these stories claim about God.
 
Second, if the purpose of objecting to Old Testament accounts is to hold God and His followers to a standard of behavior, then it is reasonable to ask whose standard should be used and why?
 
Third, if believers in the Judeo-Christian God are to answer for God’s actions in their scriptures, then it seems reasonable to examine the justifications for and explanations of those actions as offered by them including:
 

1. The Canaanites were actually a perverse people, and God patiently waited 400 years (from the time of Abraham to Joshua) allowing the Canaanites time to amend their evil ways. Instead, their wickedness actually increased, so God used the Israelites to punish the Canaanites for their sins – just as He had punished all mankind by means of the flood earlier, the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and even the Israelites themselves by means of forty years spent in the wilderness and the Babylonian captivity. Clearly, God was no harder on the Canaanites than He was upon His own people.
   
2. The Canaanites had the opportunity to flee; by choosing to stay and fight, they resisted God and sealed their own fate. 
   
3. It is evident that the Israelites didn’t literally kill every single Canaanite man, woman and child, because the Canaanites continued to appear in the Bible long after the time when they were allegedly wiped out. It is more likely that the authors of the Old Testament books used metaphorical or hyperbolic language to express the message they wanted to convey about Israel’s victories over the Canaanites.
   

 
Each of these points suggest that there is nothing inconsistent or contradictory about the Judeo-Christian view of a God who is both loving and capable of wiping out evil.

Ironically, atheists often ask, “If God exists, why doesn’t He prevent evil?” The destruction of the Canaanites is an example of God putting an end to evil practices (such as child sacrifices to a false god) just as these atheists demand. Unwilling to let go of this convenient (if impotent) cudgel, however, atheists continue to object to God’s judgment and destruction of the Canaanites—a clear example of wanting to have it both ways.

Finally, while objections to the immorality of the God of the OT may explain why one may not be Jewish or Christian, they offer only an incomplete explanation for why someone is an atheist since there are many alternative views of God that do not require acceptance of anything from the Bible.

Why in unholy fuck do you expect anybody who doesn't believe in your god to be impressed by this scurrilous bit of chest-beating bullshit? I don't think you have any purpose for posting anything here other than to insult people with your annoying twaddle!

Then you're not reading for comprehension.

[Lemonvariable72]

So based off of your original post, why wasn't god rewarding the righteous in that society like he claims to do all the time?
In any society of size you have a bell curve of human behavior. So all god has to do is show favor indirectly to people he knows are better humans, thus allowing these people to slowly rise in society and over time alter the bell curve. In this way god could have solved the entire Canaanite issue

[robvalue]

So I'm living in a magical fairy land...

No. I'm still not going to go slaughter people just because he's been handing out presents. The minute he starts ordering violence is the minute I stop paying attention to him.

I'm sad to hear your morals are so easily corrupted by some sparkles.

Typically shallow thinking, rob. Try again. 

As a member of one of the tribes of Israel, you've witnessed actual miracles performed by God with your own eyes.

Do you trust Him? Do you obey Him?

No, I don't mindlessly obey anyone. I consider what they are asking me to do. I don't care if they've done miracles. I certainly don't trust a god who wants me to do his dirty work.

This is pretending that any of this actually happened of course.

[Cato]

Clearly, yours is the minority opinion. A few billion people have read the same texts to which you object and arrived at the opposite conclusion - including, btw, former atheists raised by atheist parents. So, don't give me any of the usual crap about all these people having been brainwashed when they were children. 

Ludicrous. If this were true rape would be legal.

The God of the Bible is NOT a demonstrably evil prick, and simply stating this as your opinion in this regard does nothing to prove your case.

God commanded rape; therefore, he is evil. It is that simple. Your attempt to make it more complicated than that means you are having trouble reconciling the fact with your mistaken conclusion that God is kind and loving.

The point of all this, Cato, is simply to point out that it is possible to examine the concerns you and others share about God's actions in the OT and arrive at a reasoned conclusion that God is not a prick. 

But that will require courage and effort...and openness to what the implications of your research might be for your view of God.

No, it requires rationalization based on willful ignorance or a labotomy.

[robvalue]

It's also possible to examine the actions of Superman and Legolas. Are you open minded enough for that I wonder? Or do you dismiss them as fiction just as readily as we dismiss holy books?

[Cecelia]

If god is by definition moral, that means that Yahweh is effectively disproved.

God would be by definition moral.
Yahweh is not moral.
Therefore Yahweh is not god.

[athrock]

And, FWIW, the question of God's immorality in the OT is a huge deal to a lot of folks. Cecelia, for example, is beside herself with hatred of God for his alleged sexism. I don't know what may have happened to her in the past to make that her hot button, but there it is. Others here are gay and that's their obstacle. I suspect one person may have even been molested by a priest - though this is just a guess on my part. My point is that people have different reasons for their atheism, and thoughtful discussion of these things might actually remove some barriers. I'm not sure that everyone is emotionally ready to have that kind of conversation, though.

Do you understand how disrespectful you're being to these people and their views when you dismiss them all as emotional reactions to something in their past? I know it's easy to just say "you're only an atheist because you're gay," or were molested, or somesuch, but aside from being simplistic and reductive, it's also profoundly rude; you don't know us, you have no basis at all for even ascribing a hatred of god to us, much less reducing our atheism to a simple emotional reaction rather than a legitimate position arrived at via means of evidence.

Why do believers so often try to undercut the people instead of tackling the arguments?

Hold on...I'm not being disrespectful in any way.

If I say, "Well, of course this person cheers for the Patriots...what do you expect from a native Bostonian?", am I being offensive? No, I'm offering an explanation as to why someone might cheer for the team.

Similarly, if I suggest that someone might have an issue with God because he was raped by a priest or because she was threatened with hell by her baptist parents, am I being offensive? Or simply offering an explanation for an observed enmity?

This thread is all about tacking the arguments...well, one of them, anyway. The idea that God must be a moral monster because he ordered the destruction of the Canaanites. I have offered explanations for that order...though they are not sitting well with most.

But the fact is, the destruction of the Canaanite cites has not been shown to be incompatible with the concept of a loving, personal God. And this is significant, because many in this forum falsely assume that God of the OT is a "prick" as one poster put it, and this misunderstanding supports their atheism.

Seriously, if you're going to be an atheist, be a good one. Not one taken in by lame arguments like those foisted upon you by Richard Dawkins.  

One other thing I've observed: most of the people in this forum are westerners and they come largely from a Judeo-Christian background. I'm not seeing too many people identifying as former Hindus or Muslims or Buddhists. I'm sure there may be a few here, but not the majority who are clearly coming from Catholic and Evangelical Protestant backgrounds for the most part. This means that they didn't say, "Well, I'm not happy with the Catholic Church's teaching on X, Y or Z, so, God must not exist." People with hot button issue like that usually become Protestant. No, the former believers here seem to have emotional or experiential reasons for their animosity toward God and believers.

Dissatisfaction with church teachings is irrelevant to this. You're right when you say that such dissatisfaction may lead one to change denominations- I'd add the possibilities of simply changing one's personal interpretation of the scriptures or setting aside one's personal opinions because these are the words of god to that list, though- but that's not what's at play here. It's the realization that none of these teachings are grounded to anything real or justified that makes one an atheist, not simply dislike of what the teachings are.

That there's so much to object to within religious doctrine is a corollary to atheism, not a reason for it.

And if someone slowly, carefully shows you otherwise? What then?

Reasoning usually moves the individual in the direction of faith.

Reason and faith are antitheses. If a position is reasonable it doesn't require faith; this statement of yours is claptrap.

Did you read what Dr. Francis Collins wrote here?