Well? What about the Amalekites? Let's examine the issue, shall we?
Point #1-The Amalekites were not sitting around playing tiddly-winks, committing various, pagan inspired acts of charity and leading the Ancient Near East toward any sort of awe-inspiring enlightenment. Quite the opposite in fact. A famous archeologist, William F. Fullbright, once noted that the Amalekite religion was "perhaps the most depraved religion known to man.” Or, as Mike Woodruff describes for us...
"..the primary reason the Amalekites were to be punished is because they were wicked. The tribes that fall under “the ban” and are to be wiped out are vile. We certainly see that with the Amalekites. They were distant cousins of the Israelites who gained God’s ire by going out of their way to provoke him. They likely knew that the promise God had made was to bless everyone through the blessing of Israel, and they certainly heard of the way God was providing for the Jews; but the Amalekites did not fear God. Instead, they attacked the weakest of God’s people. After giving their promise not to attack, they waited for the Jewish slaves to file through their land on the way to Sinai and then attacked the stragglers—the sick, tired, and elderly. This actually became a bit of a pattern for the Amalekites. They preyed on the weak, and they never missed a chance to attack the Jews.
Even if we leave the Jews out of it, the Amalekites were vile. They burnt their children in front of statues of the idol Molech."
The act of defending child sacrifice never seems to make it's way into the atheist psyche as this item is somehow conveniently glossed over and apparently forgotten. One technique utilized by atheist apologists is to cite what they feel is a lack of evidence that the Amalekites were actually that evil. Paul Edwards encountered this type of, *ahem*, reasoning while discussing the matter with arch-atheist Christopher Hitchens.
"His (Hitchins') initial response was to suggest that the historical record relative to the Amalekites and child sacrifice could not be trusted because it was in the Bible. Interesting that Hitchens trusts the Bible relative to what it says about what Israel did to the Amalekites, but the same Bible can’t be trusted on what it says relative to what it says the Amalekites had done to their own children. (Here is an excellent exposition of the question of whether or not the actions of Israel against the Amalekites constituted war crimes.)"
So You see folks, they just can't have it both ways.
Point #2-The killing of the animals owned by the Amalekites actually had a purpose. Chuck Colson, Norm Geisler, Hank Hanegraaff explain why...
"The question, of course, being that if God said that He would so utterly wipe the Amalekites off the face of the earth – even the memory of them – then why do we remember them in our Sacred Texts? Even today, some Jews still see the Amalekites as those who opposed Israel – from Adolf Hitler to the Palestinians. Those who do so see no problem with the biblical text as they seemingly do not take it as literal as many Christians.
The author who penned the 83rd psalm didn’t see utter destruction for the Amalekites, instead asking God to humble them, among other names, to His Name:
As a fire burns a forest and as a flame sets mountains ablaze, chase them with your fierce storm; terrify them with your tempest.
Utterly disgrace them until they submit to your name, O LORD.
Let them be ashamed and terrified forever. Let them die in disgrace.
Then they will learn that you alone are called the LORD, that you alone are the Most High, supreme over all the earth." (Psalm 83:13-18 NLT)
So, what do the biblical literalists do? Do we feign an answer and say that God hasn’t kept His promise yet but will? How could He when he put the history of the Amalekites into the Sacred Text which will never perish? Esther’s author changed the name of the Amalekites and the Psalmist instead sung of the day which they would submit to the Name of the Lord. Where they expecting a complete wipe of memory, especially seeing that they recorded the events?"
In the end, the Amalekites were not completely destroyed. They were however, diminished to the point that they werent quite the threat that they previously were.
If atheists are still going to cling to such a shoddy criticism of God as this one, then they must abandon another pet grievance of theirs, that of the problem of evil, pain and suffering. It seems that when God actually DID do something to a cruel, horrible people who caused pain and destruction, the best that atheists can offer up is that they think they certainly could have done better if they had the chance. Yeah right. Good luck with that line of reasoning. Keep believing that and there's a bridge on Brooklyn that I want to show you.