The "Faith" Arguement.

[R. U. Sirius]

The question is, why does the Almighty fucking bother with that shit, anyway?  If he knows all things, he already knows how its going to play out.  "All-knowing" implies that he can literally see the future with unerring accuracy, ergo, he'd know the outcome of his own pointless war.  His ways are inefficient at the best of times, and are more often than not breath-takingly cruel.  Though, at least that part makes sense considering Yahweh was basically the Jew version of Ares, back in the day, and only became the "one god" because of a few devoted followers and dumb luck.  It doesn't excuse the fact, though, that the Abrahamic god is a cruel, genocidal monster.

I think part of the answer is that God chooses to move inch by inch.

And this cruelty was done to people who were themselves already irredeemably cruel.  Cain was the first murderer.  The people of Sodom and Gomorrah gang-raped foreigners.  The Pharaoh of the Exodus put his pride before his country.  The Amalekites repeatedly tried to commit genocide against the Israelites.  The Phoenicians sacrificed children.  Every time I look at one of God's atrocities, I can't help but feel that the victims deserved it.

Exodus 9:12: But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses.

To me, that reads as if God deliberately took away the Pharaoh's free will just so he'd have a chance to show off. Additionally, it should be remembered that Cain's mark was intended to PROTECT him from the revenge of others. The story of Abraham and Isaac would also seem to me to point to at least occasional practice of human sacrifice among the ancient Israelites' predecessors.

As for whether or not the rest of your examples deserved it, that is ENTIRELY beside any sort of point. Whether you take the stories as literal, mythical or ancient propaganda (which a LOT of them read like), it doesn't excuse an all-loving, all-forgiving god serving up even worse atrocities on them, or blessing his followers to do so. What about all the children who were drowned in Noah's flood or fried in Sodom and Gomorrah or wiped out in the Tenth Plague? If you believe that God is all-knowing and all-powerful, then there's really no excuse even for natural disasters that kill hundreds of people, much less the millions attributed to his direct action in the Old Testament. Why wasn't every child caught in the tsunami in India a few years ago miraculously spared? Or New Orleans in Hurricane Katrina? Why does God's punishment, or even lack of action, have such dire consequences for the innocent as well as the guilty?

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
-Epicurus

Even if we concede the point of humanity's evils against each other as a necessary price of free will, the natural and biblical disasters pointed out in your own examples and in mine make a very strong argument for God's either malevolence, incompetence or (what I consider most likely) nonexistence.

[Ultimate Paragon]

I understand your concerns.  I've struggled with them myself, and I still don't have a completely satisfactory answer.

[Witchyjoshy]

The only thing I'd change about Epicurus's statement anymore is change "Then why call him God?" to "Then why worship him?"

Because there's something wrong with worshiping a malevolent deity that doesn't even have the power to follow through on most of his threats, regardless of whether he exists or fits in the rather nebulous requirements to be considered a "deity" and not just a "spirit".

[Old Viking]

Faith is impregnable to reason, evidence and facts.  It is belief when there is -- quite literally -- no justification for belief. 

[Sleepy]

All relationships are dependent on faith.  After all, we can never fully understand another person, so some degree of trust is a requirement.  I see no difference between trusting God to answer my prayers and trusting my wife not to cheat on me.

I think those are two very different definitions of "faith." A dictionary gives me the following:

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

I have faith that my boyfriend won't cheat on me. When used in that sense, my "faith" is not blind because I know who he is as a person and trust him not to cheat on me. Basically, there is plenty of evidence and reassurance that he would never cheat on me. If I didn't have that evidence, then I wouldn't have such trust.

On the other hand, trusting a god to answer your prayers requires blind faith because there is no evidence for the existence of such a being.

[RavynousHunter]

That was kinda the last nail in the coffin of faith, for me.  The supposedly mystical things; fires, floods, famine, pestilence, and other disasters all had perfectly worldly, scientific explanations.  A little cursory research, even in an elementary school library (I happened to be an elementary school student when this "crisis" occurred), pretty much sealed the Bible's fate, for me.  If his so-called "miracles" were nothing of the sort, what other parts of that book were inaccuracies, misrepresentations, or outright lies?  Once I got access to the internet, whatever tiny amount of faith had been leftover was fucked.  With the greatest repository of knowledge since the Great Library at my fingertips (even on dial-up), everything I needed to affirm the fact that the supernatural is complete bullshit was uncovered for me and laid bare.

Faith accepts without evidence.  Even Sleepy's example above isn't what most would consider "faith" in a religious sense.  She has perfectly valid evidence for her boyfriend's constancy, and the rest isn't so much faith as it is an extrapolation based upon his personality traits.  Unlike the supernatural, Sleepy's belief in her boyfriend's commitment to monogamy has tangible evidence to prove her theory.

The word "faith" is as much an excuse for a fundamentalist's position as "honour" is to a sore loser who just lost a fight.  They feel the need to scream about it because their own beliefs are so shaky that even the mere fact that atheists exist threatens their reality.  Just like how a sore loser goes on and on about his opponent's "dishonourable conduct" when said opponent kicked him square in the nuts and won the fight in a single move.  For them, its nothing more than an excuse to bitch.

[Søren]

Because it implies that we dont trust that God exists, if we had tangible evidence that he existed, then we wouldnt need to trust in him

[Ultimate Paragon]

Simply put, faith means trusting in God.  Soren Kierkegaard said that faith is like floating in the ocean.  If we tense up and thrash around, we will eventually sink.  But if we relax, we will float, no matter how deep the water.

For most Christians, faith is not simply coasting around blindly.  Me, I am firmly convinced that God exists.  I believe, as Descartes believed, that the fact that we can conceive of an infinitely perfect being must mean that one exists.

But really, faith in the spiritual sense is not about truly about logic.  Nor does it oppose logic.  The two operate in separate spheres of influence.  Sometimes they interact, but each can exist without the other.

Now to address some specific points you made.

Sirius, when the Bible said that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, he did so by inaction.  God did nothing to the Pharaoh, he just gave Pharaoh the choice, and he chose wrong.  In the same way that you can cause bread to harden by leaving it outside the refrigerator for too long, God caused Pharaoh's heart to harden simply by letting him make his own decisions.  The same sun that melts the wax, hardens the clay.

It's true that the Mark of Cain was meant to protect Cain from death.  However, this was an act of cruel mercy.

And as for the story of Isaac, it should be kept in mind that Abraham was a pagan until God spoke to him.

Rav, maybe the "perfectly natural" phenomena were still caused by God.  The fact that they happened then and there so consistently raises quite a few eyebrows.  I believe it was Ian Fleming who said "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, and three times is enemy action".

I believe I have a solution for the Riddle of Epicurus.  Simply put: God already has removed evil and suffering.  To God past and future are the same as present.  Evil exists and no longer exists to God.  He saw the problem arise and ended it once and for all before time ever began.  Being in the temporal realm ourselves, God gave us Jesus to demonstrate that the matter had been cared for (which is the whole theology behind the cross).  While the end of evil is a future event for us, just as the passion of Christ was a past event for us, both these events “are” to God.  Evil is no different.  It was, and is, and will not be once and for all for you and me.  But to God evil was, is, and not.  God is able to stop evil, God is willing to stop evil, and God has stopped evil once and for all.  It is a mistake to think that time as we experience it is not relative.

If you want to disagree with me, that's fine.  I'm not here to change your minds, I just want to open them.

[Sigmaleph]

I believe I have a solution for the Riddle of Epicurus.  Simply put: God already has removed evil and suffering.  To God past and future are the same as present.  Evil exists and no longer exists to God.  He saw the problem arise and ended it once and for all before time ever began.  Being in the temporal realm ourselves, God gave us Jesus to demonstrate that the matter had been cared for (which is the whole theology behind the cross).  While the end of evil is a future event for us, just as the passion of Christ was a past event for us, both these events “are” to God.  Evil is no different.  It was, and is, and will not be once and for all for you and me.  But to God evil was, is, and not.  God is able to stop evil, God is willing to stop evil, and God has stopped evil once and for all.  It is a mistake to think that time as we experience it is not relative.

If you want to disagree with me, that's fine.  I'm not here to change your minds, I just want to open them.

Well, that's at least one I haven't heard before, so you get points for that. Still it seems the obvious question is, then, why not remove evil from all of time rather than some unspecified future portion of it?

[Witchyjoshy]

I'd call "handwave" on that, but my own delusion of choice has some temporal musings of its own so I'm in no position to judge.

[Sleepy]

For most Christians, faith is not simply coasting around blindly.  Me, I am firmly convinced that God exists.  I believe, as Descartes believed, that the fact that we can conceive of an infinitely perfect being must mean that one exists.

Frankly, that's silly to me. I find the Christian god to be wildly imperfect anyway, but ignoring that, why is this the case? Why would our ability to whip up the image an all-powerful being mean that it undoubtedly exists?

[Askold]

There is movie in theaters right now that kinda deals with the riddle of Epicurus: Noah.

According to the bible the reason for the flood was that there were so many evil humans and God decided to kill them and spare only few good humans. The bible also says that afterwards God promised not to do it again. That and free will are why I don't consider it contradictory that a benevolent God would allow evil to exist on Earth. Basically, people have the right to do live their life the way they want and any punishment or rewards won't come untill the afterlife.

But that's just my opinion on this matter.

[RavynousHunter]

Rav, maybe the "perfectly natural" phenomena were still caused by God.

If they were, then there would be proof.  As it is, there is no peer-reviewed, scientific proof that an all-knowing, all-powerful being exists, even less so that its the Abrahamic god or that we'd even register as life to it.  The problem with omnipotence I primarily have is that, when you actually take the time to think about it, it causes so many paradoxes to pop up.  If it can do anything, then its not a stretch to assume that it knows everything, past, present, and future.  Thus, we have a predestination paradox.  The only way to prevent that paradox from happening, thus preserving free will, is by stripping said god's omnipotence, limiting his power and knowledge to extremely well-educated guesses about future events.

The fact that they happened then and there so consistently raises quite a few eyebrows.

Quick question: what the hell are you even talking about here?

I believe it was Ian Fleming who said "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, and three times is enemy action".

The implication being that your god is our enemy, which fits in perfectly with his representation in the Bible.  He is the enemy of justice, compassion, and mercy.

I believe I have a solution for the Riddle of Epicurus.  Simply put: God already has removed evil and suffering.  To God past and future are the same as present.  Evil exists and no longer exists to God.  He saw the problem arise and ended it once and for all before time ever began.  Being in the temporal realm ourselves, God gave us Jesus to demonstrate that the matter had been cared for (which is the whole theology behind the cross).  While the end of evil is a future event for us, just as the passion of Christ was a past event for us, both these events “are” to God.  Evil is no different.  It was, and is, and will not be once and for all for you and me.  But to God evil was, is, and not.  God is able to stop evil, God is willing to stop evil, and God has stopped evil once and for all.  It is a mistake to think that time as we experience it is not relative.

If you want to disagree with me, that's fine.  I'm not here to change your minds, I just want to open them.

So, god's in a state of temporal compression where past, present, and future exist simultaneously?  That, again, begs the question, as Sigma pointed out, why does he not affect all of time instead of a certain portion of it?  Assuming that, somehow, the predestination paradox created by omniscience is solved, why does your god allow suffering to exist?  To "teach us a lesson?"  He's been doing that since the Garden of fucking Eden.  Even THEN, he's punishing the descendants of criminals for the actions of their predecessors.  In a modern court of law, that kind of bullshit would either have you laughed out of the courtroom, or in the case of the Abrahamic god, on trial for crimes against humanity.

Its funny how most humans are more compassionate, just, and merciful than the god Christians, Muslims, and Jews say we should give our undying loyalty.

You know, I have a theory on what "god's plan" actually is: its for us to get up off our collectively lazy arse and work to make this world heaven, so we eventually don't need its apparently constant intervention just to keep from blowing our own toes off with firecrackers.  If god is a metaphor for a parent, then it'd be reasonable to assume that, were he an actually good parent (and not an abusive cockhole), he'd want us to grow the fuck up and move out of his cosmic basement and make something of ourselves, instead of constantly begging him for help with every little thing that comes our way.

In short, if god exists and he loves us, then he would want us to stop praying for him to solve our problems and do it our-fucking-selves.

[rookie]

You know, if we accept all that, Ultie, it still begs this question. Why the Abrahamic deity? There have been, what, 3000 his and goddesses. Putting no thought or research into the subject, I can come up with five more good that have books of spiritual worship. The Abrahamic god had three very distinct factions that all claim to worship him but are constantly at each other's throats. Sometimes literally.
Anyways, why the faith in your deity and not one of the countless others?

[Ultimate Paragon]

You know, if we accept all that, Ultie, it still begs this question. Why the Abrahamic deity? There have been, what, 3000 his and goddesses. Putting no thought or research into the subject, I can come up with five more good that have books of spiritual worship. The Abrahamic god had three very distinct factions that all claim to worship him but are constantly at each other's throats. Sometimes literally.
Anyways, why the faith in your deity and not one of the countless others?

Faith is a tricky thing.  See, the main reason is that I've had several experiences that have shaped my religion, in the same way that I've had experiences that shaped my political views.  Christianity just... speaks to me.  It's hard to describe.