Problem of good and evil for an atheist

[Edwardo Piet]

fr0d0, if you can't know God, if God is indeed, unknowable... then you can't know that he is really all-loving.

You just start with the premise that he is all-loving.

[fr0d0]

Xtianity doesn't propose that God is unknowable Evie, just not completely knowable. Otherwise how would we explain the bible?

The construct of God (as perfection/ creator/ etc) necessitates his attributes. All loving isn't quite accurate. To quote Arcanus:

"(Benevolence isn't) “the unwavering drive to do good,” (or) going so far as to state that it is “the lack of power to do anything but good.” This does not exactly correspond to the meaning of it within Christian theism, which asserts that bene-volence means nothing more substantive than that God possesses no malevolence—exhibiting or wishing malicious harm to others—against which his benevolence might compete, but leaves room for God to possess more attributes than just benevolence, such as his just wrath against sin."

[downbeatplumb]

Xtianity doesn't propose that God is unknowable Evie, just not completely knowable. Otherwise how would we explain the bible?

The construct of God (as perfection/ creator/ etc) necessitates his attributes. All loving isn't quite accurate. To quote Arcanus:

"(Benevolence isn't) “the unwavering drive to do good,” (or) going so far as to state that it is “the lack of power to do anything but good.” This does not exactly correspond to the meaning of it within Christian theism, which asserts that bene-volence means nothing more substantive than that God possesses no malevolence—exhibiting or wishing malicious harm to others—against which his benevolence might compete, but leaves room for God to possess more attributes than just benevolence, such as his just wrath against sin."

I find this a poor argument, just a linguistic trick to excuse the god of the bibles little quirks, (like killing all but one family and two of every animal and turning people into food condiments)

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

If Christianity is true, you know what's almost worst than killing an innocent baby: sending an innocent person to eternal torture for the harmless act of being skeptical to death.

[Edwardo Piet]

Xtianity doesn't propose that God is unknowable Evie, just not completely knowable. Otherwise how would we explain the bible?

How is he even remotely knowable if all you've got to go by is bare assertions in an ancient book?

[fr0d0]

dbp : lol @ condiments Otherwise : Argumentum ad lapidem

@ TFS : Hey! I'm skeptical!

@ Evie : Ancient book +1; Bare assertions -1. Score = 0

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

dbp : lol @ condiments Otherwise : Argumentum ad lapidem

@ TFS : Hey! I'm skeptical!

@ Evie : Ancient book +1; Bare assertions -1. Score = 0

i meant in my case. i'm skeptical of the existence of deities and i know you're skeptical of your own beliefs too but you already believe in the Christian deity based on grounds that I am skeptical of.

[Entropist]

Are you a perfect being Ent? If not then yes, I think I could safely say that your morality is inferior to that of God. Apparently you disagree. You, not knowing, judge God to be imperfect.

I judge this fictitious god to be no different than a war criminal. As I said, I see no distinction between the slaughter of Midianites, or the many other -ites slaughtered by Yahweh's command or directly by Yahweh himself. The only distinction is your definition, Yahweh = "perfect" and that makes all the difference in the world to believers like you. It all hinges on an airtight syllogism that has no contact with reality. Yahweh can do everything Pol Pot does, except whatever he does is good by virtue of the fact that he is Yahweh.

But, in the end, I don't judge Yahweh, since he, along with the thousands of other gods, doesn't exist. But his followers have and still do and still do and justify the most monstrous things that would ordinarily be condemned as criminal or worse. Do I judge? Damn straight I do. I am not "perfect" (whatever that means). But one thing I don't do is go around slitting people's throats, nor do I go around nodding approval of it, regardless of who it is giving the orders.

I would never kill (justly take life). My religious guidance supersedes that of the OT.
I would never murder (unjustly take life) because I know that to be morally wrong.

This is an evasion of my original question, but I'm not surprised. It would mean being accepting the possibility of ACTING on your insular syllogism, something that not everyone has the fanatic urge to follow through. To go that far might make one sound... insane.

[Edwardo Piet]

@ Evie : Ancient book +1; Bare assertions -1. Score = 0

You are saying that the Bible backs up its assertions? The Bible is proved with the Bible?

[fr0d0]

@ Ent: "People like me"? You're not listening. Pol Pot = proven immoral acts. God = no proof of immoral acts. If you are arguing with Christianity and it's construct, then you are arguing that God who is good is then not good by Christianity's own terms. Because it doesn't matter what slant you put on the interpretation: what we are discussing isn't your interpretation. I think we've circled this particular argument enough times with you repeating the same accusation without facing the answer given.

@ Evie: those assertions, to be bare, would have to be logically unsupported, which isn't true.