Problem of good and evil for an atheist

[Existentialist]

Whether you think there is any such thing as evil depends on your definition of the word evil. That in turn depends on whether you think words are defined by a dictionary or by each of us individually. Personally, I don't think dictionaries are ever any help since they are always produced after the usage of the words they describe, never before. I decided about 15 years ago to stop using the word evil completely, at least outside the world of artistic fiction. It seemed to me that the word evil had become inseparable from the concept of supernatural badness, and I didn't want to be mistaken as inferring a supernatural component to unpleasant human actions. I am also keen to try and make the transition from being culturally Christian to being culturally atheist, which is the biggest transition that anybody can make in our society and I'm not sure anyone has ever achieved it. But to make such a transition I think it is essential not to engage in any activity that replicates religious behaviour and religious thinking. Calling things evil is just such a behaviour. It's a way of keeping ourselves in familiar territory. I'd rather get away from all that.

[fr0d0]

Whatever you say to defend God in this case is irrelevant. God could've achieved what he wanted without killing so much as a fly. Plus, there is much evidence in the OT (Exodus 21:21, for instance) to suggest that he doesn't give a monkey's about anyone but his chosen people, and even then he lets them wander in the desert for forty years. Other religions are far more enlightened than the petty tyrant called Yahweh, and, indeed, secular humanism is best of all. The fact that you have to defend God's actions suggests that he's really not all that great a fella at all, or at least not as he's depicted in those Bronze Age scribblings, anyway.

Secular humanism is people wanting their own selfish way.

In the story we're talking about, the people followed God best they could, and were as fair as they could be to the Medianites given the situation.

Exodus 21 has the opposite message: http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/co...g-Servants

If a defence is sound then I don't see a problem in forming one.

[Edwardo Piet]

Secular humanism is people wanting their own selfish way.

Its either people's selfish ways or God's selfish ways. And he almost certainly doesn't exist so

[The Omnissiunt One]

In the story we're talking about, the people followed God best they could, and were as fair as they could be to the Medianites given the situation.

Exodus 21 has the opposite message: http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/co...g-Servants

If a defence is sound then I don't see a problem in forming one.

This link doesn't answer anything, as far as I can see. It just says that servants were an 'emblem of that bondage to sin, Satan and the law', whatever the hell that means. Your defence isn't sound, because an omnipotent god can't be defended on grounds of necessity, or the lesser of two evils. As I said, God doesn't have to kill anyone.

---

Secular humanism is people wanting their own selfish way.

Not my version.

[Edwardo Piet]

Well it depends how altruism is defined. If you want happiness for others it is still you who wants it for them. In other words, others' interests are part of your own self-interest. Your 'us' is part of your 'me'.

[The Omnissiunt One]

That, I suppose, is true for most moral behaviour. A person could achieve true altruism by behaving morally out of a sense of duty or obligation alone, though I doubt that often happens, if ever. Basically, humans are selfish bastards... and proud of it.

[Edwardo Piet]

That, I suppose, is true for most moral behaviour.

Or all?

A person could achieve true altruism by behaving morally out of a sense of duty or obligation alone

Only if you opt to do so. It still comes down to a matter of your own preference. Whether you believe you're being selfish or not.

Basically, humans are selfish bastards... and proud of it.

I'm more likely to be ashamed of who I am than proud of it. But neither response is rational of course.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Secular humanism is people wanting their own selfish way.

Its either people's selfish ways or God's selfish ways. And he almost certainly doesn't exist so

Another fascination; the staggering hypocrisy of believers who accuse others of being 'selfish' (mainly self interested),as if they are not. Plus the arrogance of inferring that self interest is morally wrong.

Human beings are innately self interested.If we were not we would not survive as a species.

Morality is based on pragmatism and self interest,not some transcendent moral authority.That is why there are no absolute moral imperatives.

[Existentialist]

Human beings are innately self interested.

But where are the boundaries of the self?

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

But where are the boundaries of the self?

I would imagine that would be where the skin and hair ends on our bodies.