Introducing Wrong Atheism

Originally posted by bbarr
Nope, if God is by definition morally perfect (which is the case), and being just is a necessary condition for being morally perfect (which also is the case), then any entity that is unjust can't be God. An entity that would condemn another ...[text shortened]... tions for being a Wrong Atheist. So, there are no Wrong Atheists.

I'm not sure why you insist that God must be just. For example, the God of Abraham, whom a very large portion of theists believe in, is not just. I'm not willing to accept as an axiom that the God of Abraham cannot exist simply because he doesn't have all the properties that you think a God should have.

For instance, I am not omnipotent, but that doesn't mean that I don't exist. Similary, the God of Abraham could exist, even though he is unjust. And if he does, he could have damned souls to hell, and those souls could very well believe that God - you can use your definition here if you like - does not exist. In that case, under your definition of God, they would be Wrong Atheists, although not wrong. Under the Christian's definition of God - the God of Abraham - they would be wrong, in addition to being Wrong Atheists.

At any rate, replace "condemned to hell by God" with "condemned to hell by some powerful being who decides the fate of souls post-mortem." Replace "no just God" with "no powerful being..." Under this revision, would you agree that it is logically possible for Wrong Atheists to exist?

Originally posted by bbarr
An entity that would condemn another to eternal torment is unjust

why is this statement necessarily true? would it be unjust to condemn someone to eternal torment if that person deserves eternal torment?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I'm not sure why you insist that God must be just. For example, the God of Abraham, whom a very large portion of theists believe in, is not just. I'm not willing to accept as an axiom that the God of Abraham cannot exist simply ...[text shortened]... u agree that it is logically possible for Wrong Atheists to exist?

O.K., if you want to use 'God' to refer to any supernatural entity of sufficient power, then fine by me.

Originally posted by bbarr
O.K., if you want to use 'God' to refer to any supernatural entity of sufficient power, then fine by me.

I don't see why we shouldn't. Neither the Christian nor Jewish God meets your definition of God. To the extent that Atheism is a rebuttal of Theism, the atheist should rebut the theist's notion of God, not his own notion of God.

Originally posted by LemonJello
why is this statement necessarily true? would it be unjust to condemn someone to eternal torment if that person deserves eternal torment?

How could one deserve eternal torment?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I don't see why we shouldn't. Neither the Christian nor Jewish God meets your definition of God. To the extent that Atheism is a rebuttal of Theism, the atheist should rebut the theist's notion of God, not his own notion of God.

O.K. I would actually prefer it is the 'People of the Book(s)' would admit that their deity is a megalomaniac.

Originally posted by bbarr
O.K. I would actually prefer it if the 'People of the Book(s)' would admit that their deity is a megalomaniac.

Me too. Now we are in agreement.

Originally posted by bbarr
How could one deserve eternal torment?

i personally don't know the answer to this. i am inclined to think that no one ever would deserve eternal torment.

the fundies all seem to think it's possible though. the bible paints that picture.

Originally posted by LemonJello
i personally don't know the answer to this. i am inclined to think that no one ever would deserve eternal torment.

the fundies all seem to think it's possible though. the bible paints that picture.

Right, and that is why condemning someone to eternal torment is inconsistent with being just. Holy-Rollers would like to redefine 'just' or, failing that, redefine 'desert' such that condemning an entity to eternal torment is morally justifiable. Of course this is nonsense on their part, but they'll go to any length to preserve their patently false claim that their's is a God of love and peace and light, rather than one of blood and rage and jealousy.

The God of the Old Testament is a difficult concept that I don't always understand or agree with. Is it possible that we (and maybe even God) have attributed qualities to him out of misunderstandings, perhaps fear?

I think I was a better prepared parent with my second child. Is not God learning as he goes as this relationship with humans is something he has (initially) no experience with. Thus Jesus is a kinder, gentler God, and perhaps the Holy Spirit may be more inclusive.

My point is this: perhaps we ask God to be a God of content instead of a God of process. We want God to establish the rules, doctrines, and punishments, but who is to say that God isn't trying to figure things out.