18 May 05
3 edits
Originally posted by bbarrThis is not true. There very well may exist Wrong Atheists, if an unjust God has placed them in hell. The only claim the Wrong Atheist makes with regard to to justice is that no just God would have placed him in hell. There is nothing in the definition of Wrong Atheism that entails that wrong atheists cannot exist; their existence would lead to no contradiction based on the definition. It is not logically inconsistent that
It is impossible for there to exist a wrong atheist, as no perfectly just God would condemn a soul to eternal torment.
1) An unjust God exists
2) That unjust God has placed a soul in hell
3) That soul holds the belief stated in the first post of this thread
Of course, the Wrong Atheist is wrong, because he claims God doesn't exist when even God does exist. I don't dispute that the wrong atheist is wrong. But holding a wrong belief doesn't mean you can't exist. Otherwise, we wouldn't have both Jews and Christians around us, would we?
18 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by KneverKnighti don't think so. at least, not by the definition put forth by Scribs because the wrong atheist is dead and condemned already by defintion -- ie, a living atheist is by defintion not a wrong atheist. i still think the idea of being a wrong atheist is contradictory and confusing: suppose you are an atheist, and then you die and god condemns you to hell -- then to say you are now a wrong atheist is a contradiction because god has condemned you and therefore you know he exists. i am not sure how one could pass from being an atheist to being a wrong atheist without encountering this contradiction unless he were clueless as to why/how he was condemned.
If god exists then aren't all atheists wrong atheists?
18 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by KneverKnightNo. Wrong Atheism is an arbitrary term. I could just as easily have called this belief Sribbletydibbletydoo. Being wrong about God not existing does not make one a wrong atheist. Being in hell and believing that God does not exist because no just God would send somebody to hell makes one a wrong atheist.
If god exists then aren't all atheists wrong atheists?
18 May 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloMany theists hold logically untenable positions. That doesn't mean those theists don't exist. Why shouldn't the atheist be granted the same permission?
i don't think so. at least, not by the defintion put forth by Scribs because the wrong atheist is dead and condemned already by defintion. i still think the idea of being a wrong atheist is contradictory and confusing: suppose you are an atheist, and then you die and god condemns you to hell -- then to say you are now a wrong atheist is a contradiction ...[text shortened]... without encountering this contradiction unless he were clueless as to why/how he was condemned.
18 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesCouldn't that say instead god is not just and the wrong atheist is wrong for assuming that god is just?
No. Wrong Atheism is an arbitrary term. I could just as easily have called this belief Sribbletydibbletydoo. Being wrong about God not existing does not make one a wrong atheist. Being in hell and believing that God does not ex ...[text shortened]... no just God would send somebody to hell makes one a wrong atheist.
EDIT Nevermind, I'm muddying things up.
18 May 05
3 edits
Originally posted by KneverKnightWrong Atheism is a view that somebody willingly adheres to, like Strong Atheism. It's not an analytical judgment about somebody's belief. What you state is an analytical judgment of Wrong Atheism. Now, that belief could itself be given a name, such as Long Wrong Atheism. The Long Wrong Atheist believes that the Wrong Atheist is wrong for assuming that God is just. For the record, I'm not a Long Wrong Atheist, but I suspect that I have a better understanding of Wrong Atheism than you do, since I invented it, and thus I see a flaw with the Long Wrong Atheistic stance.
Couldn't that say instead god is not just and the wrong atheist is wrong for assuming that god is just?
18 May 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYup. Just edited my post because how can an atheist assume that god is just? My post made no sense.
Wrong Atheism is a view that somebody willingly adheres to, like Strong Atheism. It's not an analytical judgement about somebody's belief. What you state is an analytical judgement of Wrong Atheism. Now, that belief could itself be given a name such as Long Wrong Atheism. The Long Wrong Atheist believes that the Wrong Atheist is wrong for assuming that God is just.
18 May 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerI'm using the standard notion; the notion people use when they say things like 'that was unjust', or 'justice will prevail' or 'being just is part of acting well'. I am not using some theistic fantasy notion of 'just' according to which punishing an entity for all eternity qualifies as 'just'. In general, I do not support stipulative definition when it comes to normative predicates.
What notion of "just" are you referring to? And what do you mean by "condemn"?
18 May 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesNope, 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 to eternal torment is unjust and therefore can't be God. Since is impossible for God to condemn an entity for eternity it follows that nothing could ever satisfy on of the necessary conditions for being a Wrong Atheist. So, there are no Wrong Atheists.
This is not true. There very well may exist Wrong Atheists, if an unjust God has placed them in hell. The only claim the Wrong Atheist makes with regard to to justice is that no just God would have placed him in hell. There is nothing in the definition of Wrong Atheism that entails that wrong atheists cannot exist; their existence would lead to no ...[text shortened]... an you can't exist. Otherwise, we wouldn't have both Jews and Christians around us, would we?