If anything it's at least Chaotic Neutral, or completely amoral. But I hear it all the time "God is good!" , and some atheists the opposite "God is evil!". Why does it necessarily have to be those? It does "Good" things and it does "Bad" things. But in the end is there a reason to call it anything other than Chaotic Neutral?

i prefer the phrase god is just. makes more sense and creates less confusion.

Edit: awaiting the incoming shitstorm of people quoting me.

If you're talking about the Abrahamic god, then by our modern standards he'd probably be on the ranks of Pol Pot or Stalin. If you think genocide and treating women and children as property is neutral.....

Just...? Slavery is just? Wow. http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm
Obviously just.

since leviticus never claims it self to be the laws of god, its widely accepted and know that it is written by moses and possibly joesphs, it was compiled over time and by different authors, some of which have added and manipulated text to fit their own plans. it is also not to be taught by preist but was concerning laity. the only reason it is kept in the bible is some of the text deal with the importance of following gods laws (ten commandments).

keiskay:
since leviticus never claims it self to be the laws of god

The book opens with God speaking and the laws listed are quoted directly from him.

If you're going to misquote something, at least do it from a few chapters in so people are less likely to find it.

AtheistGuy:
If anything it's at least Chaotic Neutral, or completely amoral. But I hear it all the time "God is good!" , and some atheists the opposite "God is evil!". Why does it necessarily have to be those? It does "Good" things and it does "Bad" things. But in the end is there a reason to call it anything other than Chaotic Neutral?

Well, it's part of Christian doctrine to believe God is good. I mean, if you believe the Bible to be word for word true, but support Satan, you aren't Christian, despite believing in the Christian cosmology.

Oirish_Martin:

keiskay:
since leviticus never claims it self to be the laws of god

The book opens with God speaking and the laws listed are quoted directly from him.

If you're going to misquote something, at least do it from a few chapters in so people are less likely to find it.

the book opens with moses saying he heard god and lays down the rules. he is thought by many scholars to only have written the first 13 chapters, the rest were said to be written by other men, writing as moses. remember the bible wasnt written all at once.

Pretty much what thaluikhain said. You might as well ask, "why do so many Christians insist their god exists" - being objectively, morally "good" is part of the definition of the christian god (regardless of how repugnant he may seem from other moral standpoints).

Because it's an easy sell. "Our God is kind and caring, he loves you, and always will", a great, caring father-figure keeping an eye on you.

Of course, how to balance those words with his actual actions is a fun exorcise in itself.

Well I hate to point out that the entire argument about morality is pretty flawed given that morality is inherently subjective rendering the concept good and evil ultimately pointless and not worthy of consideration.

Subjective ideas are impossible to quantify, given a ephemeral nature of such things. As any philosophy goes, it needs to be examined as objectively as possible. The individual who subscribes to and ideology is most often the worst person to examine that very subject due to their personal bias, though they may be able to offer insights into that philosophy not previously considered.

That aside, those religious individuals that posit that their deity of choice is in fact "good" primarily do so because to admit otherwise would mean their reasoning is flawed and admitting to one's own mistakes is often difficult due to the perceived or very real loss of social status. This can be especially true in restrictive social circles such as religious ones, which often result in tight nit communities that bar or reject influence from outside sources.

I think that most religious individuals never even examine the book they claim to adhere to. Were they to do so, most of them would reject the idea, fail to understand why, or even out right fail to understand the meaning of most biblical passages. This explains why, in part, there remains a place for priests among any society. The devout permit the ecclesiastical professionals to inform them of what the book means. There in lies the problem.

Rather than exploring for themselves, they're never pushed to question. It could even be that they don't know how to explore or they are just too apathetic to do so.

I think whenever anyone asserts that, it's a good time for a definition check. What do they mean by "good"? How do they define that word?

Eh, the responses vary somewhat by group. I've seen several variations (Granted though, some of these were inferred based on their answers to other questions).

One of the more common claims I've seen is that "it is not our place to question God's will". Now, let me be perfectly clear here: I never liked this answer, but I have tried to at least understand the perspective. The main concept behind it seems to be that everything done 'happens for a reason', and that God's actions are justified by some long-term benefit that will inevitably result. I find it easiest to compare to the way people treated Yulia's Score in the game Tales of the Abyss: Anything in the score - even mass destruction - was a good thing because of the promised prosperity at the end. Granted though, most christians who ascribe to this notion don't have that level of complacency about events, but the basic principle is roughly analagous.

Less common would be the claim that "God can do whatever he wants". I'll admit, this one is very tempting to interpret as meaning "Might makes Right", and the context I've seen the claim in would seem to support that interpretation. Of course, one could also interpret this as what TVTropes calls "Blue and Orange Morality" - Trying to judge God by human moral standards would be as futile as trying to apply tiger morality to people. Much like how people have little to no concept of tiger morality, so too would God have little to no concept of human morality and thus will occasionally (or often, it makes little practical difference for the sake of argument) act in ways that don't align with the morality being applied. This is further complicated by the fact that human moral standards vary somewhat by culture, so it's questionable as to whether there's a proper human standard to use in the first place

Others...well, I'm tempted to say that some of them don't really even ask the question of whether their god is moral. In these cases, God's good nature is treated as a given, which I personally attribute to the fact that the notion is what they're told for years (in the case of people raised christian, this would be their whole life) and establishes itself in their minds through what I'd characterize as argument from repitition. Church sermons often talk about how wonderful God is, hymns do much the same (ex: "Our God is an awesome god he reigns from heaven above with wisdom power and love..."), and the core statement of faith for christians is that "God so loved the world that he gave his only son" which is nigh-invariably treated as the ultimate sacrifice and thus an incredible act of compassion and benevolence. And then of course, the typical depiction of God in any media for the last couple centuries has been that of a wise and loving father figure perhaps best exemplified by the poem "Footprints in the Sand".

I can practically guarantee there are other groupings, but it's late here and those were the factions that came to mind first.

Because if they didn't claim he was good, they wouldn't feel so good about worshipping and supporting him. You can believe your god is evil, but then you don't worship him out of agreement but out of fear and while many Christians do fear punishment and Hell, plenty of them worship decidedly not out of fear but out of support and love towards what that god supposedly represents. But as always, it's not that simple a question because it is very broad. Christians differ a lot. Just take the difference between fire and brimstone types and happy-go-lucky "god lovey everybody" types.

Danyal:

Asita:
Trying to judge God by human moral standards would be as futile as trying to apply tiger morality to people. Much like how people have little to no concept of tiger morality, so too would God have little to no concept of human morality and thus will occasionally (or often, it makes little practical difference for the sake of argument) act in ways that don't align with the morality being applied.

Genesis 3:22
New International Version (NIV)
22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

We've eaten from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and our knowledge of good and evil and "we've become like on of them". We've got an amazing amount of holy scripture.
I don't think God's morality can differ that much from our own.

I don't think we could truly become like a god unless some sort of mechanism was invented by which humans could bypass mortality. I'll ask the favorite question of fantasy and SF that involves immortal or exceedingly long-lived beings, "how does perspective change after one has existed for thousands of years?" Then do an additional perspective flip and see humans as rather like an ant farm, a very short-lived ant farm, and see the greater pattern of existence over millions of years. Just from a completely theoretical perspective (and the fun of conceiving and writing immortal characters), I don't think it's possible for an ordinary human to see existence on that scale, see that bigger pattern and how the tiny grain of one life figures in it. I can imagine morality being entirely different when viewed that way. (Or, as a much smaller-scaled analogy, look at the difference between the foot soldier's perspective and the general's perspective-- what is moral to the general, as he moves units of troops around like game pieces, and does it look the same as it does to the foot soldier who *is* one of those game pieces?)

But we only *have* our limited perspective, and even if we can't see the wider pattern we still have to look at what we do see and judge it by our morality. That's why I find questions like "is God good" kind of... well, not exactly meaningless, just meaning... less. Less than the question of "what is this God asking of humans, according to this religion, and do I see *that* as good?" A god's reach is translated through human filters, and if we can't judge the god due to limited perspective, we can certainly judge the filters. That's why I think "God can't be good, God hates homosexuals" is kind of hopelessly tangled. The Christians will come back with "God is good, even if we can't see it, because we trust that the bigger pattern is to the good", because the question is hung on "what does God think". We *can*, however, say that it doesn't matter what the Abrahamic God thinks, if his interpreters and his book require things that we find immoral.

Polarity27:
But we only *have* our limited perspective, and even if we can't see the wider pattern we still have to look at what we do see and judge it by our morality.

I think humans can actually acquire that sort of perspective, at least in glimpses (as Sagan said, the astronomical perspective towards the universe is a very humbling and inspiring experience; paraphrasing). However, we ourselves are limited, yes. And things that happen to us and on our scale, must be judged based on our standards.
To use your analogy of an ant farm: Ants aren't exactly equals to humans. But what would you think of a human who enjoys pulling ants' legs off? I think we can judge "superior beings", be they gods, advanced aliens or what have you, based on our own morality. And just because a "superior being" loses sight of what morality entails on a smaller scale than its own doesn't mean it is justified in its behaviours simply by its status of being "superior".
More importantly, actions done for "the greater good" can still be highly immoral despite their positive goal. In the Utilitarian weighing of actions and consequences, hurtful actions don't suddenly cease being hurtful and it'd be a horrendous mistake to assume that they do. It's just that in the weighing of the pros and cons, the hurtful is deemed less than whatever alternative is around. But you still have to take responsibility for the hurtful actions; you're not suddenly absolved by your intentions.

Skeleon:

To use your analogy of an ant farm: Ants aren't exactly equals to humans. But what would you think of a human who enjoys pulling ants' legs off?

The problem is that you have to be able to prove the human *enjoys* it, and that it's not a case of "I'm sacrificing this hill over here so that these four over here can thrive", and that's just a rhetorical rabbit warren, you could get lost in the twistiness of trying to figure out a god's mindset.

I think we can judge "superior beings", be they gods, advanced aliens or what have you, based on our own morality. And just because a "superior being" loses sight of what morality entails on a smaller scale than its own doesn't mean it is justified in its behaviours simply by its status of being "superior".

That's why I was careful not to use superior/inferior language. (Not least because I just don't look at gods quite that way.) And why I used the SFF analogy, because every decent story about immortals always has the risk of the immortal being so focused on the long term/big picture that they stopped giving a shit about the individual ants. It's a *different* perspective, it's not necessarily a better one.

More importantly, actions done for "the greater good" can still be highly immoral despite their positive goal. In the Utilitarian weighing of actions and consequences, hurtful actions don't suddenly cease being hurtful and it'd be a horrendous mistake to assume that they do. It's just that in the weighing of the pros and cons, the hurtful is deemed less than whatever alternative is around. But you still have to take responsibility for the hurtful actions; you're not suddenly absolved by your intentions.

Good point, and I agree. The morality of gods was actually a factor for me in choosing a religion-- I can't be Christian in large part because I find the ask unethical, both what the God is said to be asking and what the religion is asking. It's just, since the human filter is all we have, it makes more practical sense to me to judge the human effect of the god's religion, since at the end of the day it doesn't really *matter* what a god's mindset is if it's not coming through his/her/their vessels.

RedEyesBlackGamer:
Why does it necessarily have to be those? It does "Good" things and it does "Bad" things. But in the end is there a reason to call it anything other than Chaotic Neutral?

The obvious answer is that any sufficient concentration of power generates its own moral justification.

Unless we can posit something above God which creates the definition of "good" and "evil", then God, as an omnipotent, omniscient being, would have the ultimate power to arbitrate good and evil. If God decided something was good, it would be good. There would be no point arguing.. after all, what would you be appealing to, your own tiny judgement and limited ability to influence the world? If the entire laws of reality function at the whim of this being, then it has the power to enforce its definition of good and evil irrespective of whether you and I agree. Any action beyond total surrender to that definition would be not just "evil", but also colossally stupid.

Of course, this only applies if you believe in the Christian God.

So basically, Lord Voldemort was kind of right on this one.

RedEyesBlackGamer:
Personally? The existence of Hell would make any argument for God being good seem shaky at best. But that is just me.

Depends what you consider hell to be. For medieval Christians, hell was a real place with fire and angry demons who would physically torture you. Generally speaking, I think few modern Christians still believe that, and it's actually quite out of keeping with the Old Testament idea of the afterlife.

I think the normative theological position on hell right now is that it's merely a separation from God caused by a person's own sin, not a place God chooses to send people. Unfortunately, the people who do still believe in a medieval hell tend to be quite vocal about it.

Polarity27:
It's a *different* perspective, it's not necessarily a better one.

Yeah, I guess I misinterpreted it to be meant as a justification rather than merely an explanation. To be fair, it is often used as a justification, although you didn't do so.

It's just, since the human filter is all we have, it makes more practical sense to me to judge the human effect of the god's religion, since at the end of the day it doesn't really *matter* what a god's mindset is if it's not coming through his/her/their vessels.

Plus, gods, are said to work through people quite commonly but rarely do things directly. Especially the Christian god is often said to work through the human beings in question; when talking about successful surgery, rescue missions or similar, for example. Conversely, in that sense, the religious adherents' actual deeds are more important than supposed actions of their gods if the gods in question don't intervene directly but through human beings, anyway.

AtheistGuy:
WWhy do so many Christians insist their god is good?

It's just in the dogma. It's how they've set up the paradigm. If you want to think in the paradigm, you have to follow the rules laid for it.

Kind of like how if you want to enjoy the Lord of the Rings, you have to accept that Aragorn can carve through a horde of orcs without getting so much as a scratch, or how in Star Wars "only Imperial Storm-troopers are so precise" until they're aiming at a main character, when suddenly all their iron sights get misaligned.

For the same reason that so many people insist Obama is President, because he is.

evilthecat:

The obvious answer is that any sufficient concentration of power generates its own moral justification.

Which is just another way of saying "might makes right".

Rastelin:

My questions as well to anyone cheering for the biblical god. A popular response to this is "We cannot hope to understand gods ways". Show that argument where the sun don't shine. It is a cowards answer.

Well the argument is correct based on a Judeo-Christian concept of God. If you don't like that then I am sorry.

Seekster:
For the same reason that so many people insist Obama is President, because he is.

So, you think it's an objective and verifiable truth that the Biblical God is good?

Because I'd find it difficult to agree with that... but to each their own.

Batou667:

Seekster:
For the same reason that so many people insist Obama is President, because he is.

So, you think it's an objective and verifiable truth that the Biblical God is good?

Because I'd find it difficult to agree with that... but to each their own.

Since we can't prove objectively that God exists then its impossible to objectively prove something ABOUT God. If however you stipulate that the Judeo-Christian concept of God is accurate then there is no question that God is good.

Well, you can claim your god is "good" or "just", OR you can claim the Bible is true, but you can't have both, because if the Bible tells us anything, it's that christian god is anything but "good" or "just". christian god is petty, vindictive, jealous, and murderous.

Seekster:

Batou667:

Seekster:
For the same reason that so many people insist Obama is President, because he is.

So, you think it's an objective and verifiable truth that the Biblical God is good?

Because I'd find it difficult to agree with that... but to each their own.

Since we can't prove objectively that God exists then its impossible to objectively prove something ABOUT God. If however you stipulate that the Judeo-Christian concept of God is accurate then there is no question that God is good.

We can, however, prove the existence of a man called Barack Obama, and verify the fact that he is, in fact, the President of United States of America.

nyysjan:

Seekster:

Batou667:

So, you think it's an objective and verifiable truth that the Biblical God is good?

Because I'd find it difficult to agree with that... but to each their own.

Since we can't prove objectively that God exists then its impossible to objectively prove something ABOUT God. If however you stipulate that the Judeo-Christian concept of God is accurate then there is no question that God is good.

We can, however, prove the existence of a man called Barack Obama, and verify the fact that he is, in fact, the President of United States of America.

Yes but the question was "Why do so many Christians insist their God is good?" Even though it cannot be proven in the same way as what you said, it is just as certain to those who believe in God.

Christians are not the only ones who believe that their god is good/just. So do Muslims, Jews and pretty much every other organized religion out there. What's your point?

Counterpoint: Why do atheists insist that other religious gods are not good?

You don't believe that God exists, so why do you care if he's "good" or not? Seems to me someone is just trolling for an argument.

Well, since religion is by definition a system of shared authoritative beliefs, it's simply part of that authoritative set of beliefs that the Christian "god" is inherently good and just.

You simply aren't a Christian without subscribing to that belief. Just like you simply aren't a Muslim without subscribing to the Qu'ran being the authoritative words of an archangel, to be understood as they were understood and recanted by Mohammed, or a Scientologist without believing Thetans exist.

---

A rational reason from reality for choosing to subscribe to this belief, you then ask?

It's a religion. There's no such thing in the first place to be found.