Problem of good and evil for an atheist

[Edwardo Piet]

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

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

So are you going to answer my question?

To paraphrase if I have to, if you say the biblical assertions are logically supported... then are you saying the bible logically supports itself with itself?

[Entropist]

All I know is that the end result of genocide is the mounds of corpses of innocents, regardless of the goal, regardless of who is responsible for it. Anyone with a shred of empathy would condemn all genocide. This requires no mental gymnastics.

[fr0d0]

Of course it does Evie. If it didn't it would be internally inconsistent.

The other question is a non question, given the answer to the first. Hence I didn't bother answering.

---

All I know is that the end result of genocide is the mounds of corpses of innocents, regardless of the goal, regardless of who is responsible for it. Anyone with a shred of empathy would condemn all genocide. This requires no mental gymnastics.

I'm going to ignore this as you don't seem to be interested in engaging on this topic.

[Edwardo Piet]

then are you saying the bible logically supports itself with itself?

Of course it does Evie. If it didn't it would be internally inconsistent.

So are you saying that logically supporting the Bible with itself is not circular reasoning?

[fr0d0]

An accusation of circular reasoning is far too simplistic. Hence the need to reduce it to the bible says so so it must be true. That isn't what's asserted. What's asserted are many logical points which go together to make a consistent whole.

If that were not true, it would be like saying that science is true because science says it is. As far as I know that holds true, but we then look into the detail and can discern evidence that supports other evidence: where conclusions are drawn.

[downbeatplumb]

An accusation of circular reasoning is far too simplistic. Hence the need to reduce it to the bible says so so it must be true. That isn't what's asserted. What's asserted are many logical points which go together to make a consistent whole.

If that were not true, it would be like saying that science is true because science says it is. As far as I know that holds true, but we then look into the detail and can discern evidence that supports other evidence: where conclusions are drawn.

I dont think that the judeo/christian religion makes a consistant whole.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/d...ncies.html

[fr0d0]

If just one contradiction was proven I might believe you dbp. And I really do try to find one.

[The Omnissiunt One]

Back to the topic of whether God comands evil, the trouble is that you, Frodo, have no way of distinguishing between a god who has unknown reasons for slaughtering the Midianites, and one who does so because he's cruel, though claims to be nice. Indeed, you have no way of telling that the story wasn't written by primitive men. So to say that this story is an example of good moral behaviour is intellectual folly of the highest order. It commits you to believing that God allows people to beat their slaves (Exodus 21:21) for a good reason. We are all entitled to own, and beat, slaves,'cos God says it's okay. This is absurd. It is utterly implausible. If I were to arbitrarily claim that Hitler was omniscient and benevolent, you could not say that he wasn't doing things for the greater good. Faith leads to the most reprehensible conclusions.

[fr0d0]

You introduce inaccuracies regarding the story of the Medianites

"this was neither a (1) "slaughter"; nor (2) "wholesale"! It was a deportation, based upon a judgment that would have found consensus among world leaders of the day! There were elements of mercy THROUGHOUT the entire deal--from the 'early warnings' before the Sojourn in Egypt, to the 'heads up' warnings four decades before Entry, to the 'little by little' invasion tactic for the less-institutionalized, to the careful limits on Israelite behavior. The migration of much of the Canaanite peoples (and religious culture, unfortunately) into Phoenicia is testimony of the scale of this migration.

1. The annihilations are judgments [But the conquest judgment was a deportation, not an annihilation.]
2. These judgments are for publicly-recognized (indeed, international and cross-cultural in scope!) cruelty and violence of an EXTREME and WIDESPREAD nature. [This applies to the Canaanites, plus the additional 'load' of long-term "being a curse" to Israel.]
3. These judgments are preceded by LONG PERIODS of warning/exposure to truth (and therefore, opportunity to "change outcomes").[This applies to the Canaanites extensively.]
4. Innocent adults are given a 'way out' [This is very true here--in additional to the extensive warnings, plenty of time & space is given to allow migration before Israel arrived. We even have one example of a non-migration exception--Rahab--which suggests there might be others that were not recorded.]
5. Household members share in the fortunes of the parents (for good or ill). [This is true here as well--everyone in Rahab's house was spared--whether they were good or evil!]
6. Somebody ALWAYS escapes (Lot, Noah, Kenites). [In our case, the mass of people that migrated north to Phoenicia, Rahab+household, plus Gibeonites (although through deception).]
7. These are exceptional cases--there are VERY, VERY few of these. [We have two other cases structured after this deportation--that of Israel and Judah--after the same standards and structures.]"

from: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html

[The Omnissiunt One]

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.