Your thoughts on atheism...

[PotatoStew]

I'll give you an example (using the most common western god):

Premise 0. The bible is correct
Premise 1. God is described as being just in the bible.
Premise 2. Just people do not kill innocents.
Premise 3. God kill innocents in the bible. (flood, 10 plauges of egypt, etc.)

Possible conclusions: The god of the bible is either unjust, does not exist, or is just but got misquoted. Alternatively just people can kill innocents.

One alternative you missed: No one is truly innocent.

But that's neither here nor there to the topic of this thread. So now I shall fade back into the ether...

 

[wittgenst3in]

One alternative you missed: No one is truly innocent.

Point. How's this then;

Possible conclusions: The god of the bible is either unjust, does not exist, or is just but got misquoted. Alternatively just people can kill innocents, or if no-one is innocent, just people can kill anyone they like.

edited for apostrophe catastrophe.

 

[PotatoStew]

Point. How's this then;

Possible conclusions: The god of the bible is either unjust, does not exist, or is just but got misquoted. Alternatively just people can kill innocents, or if no-one is innocent, just people can kill anyone they like.

Better -- that would be a possible alternative. Although technically I don't know that you could consider the god of the bible a "person". Now that I think about it, if that's the case, then Premise #2 has no bearing on the situation. As it is, Premise #2 sets up a relationship of "equals" between those people and God, but that's not how the bible portrays the relationship, and I think that has bearing on the matter.

You could change it to "a just entity" I suppose. To which I'd reply that another possible alternative would be "a just creator entity may pass judgement on his non-innocent creations in any way and at any time he sees fit." Would you agree that that's a logical alternative?

 

[gnome]

You could change it to "a just entity" I suppose. To which I'd reply that another possible alternative would be "a just creator entity may pass judgement on his non-innocent creations in any way and at any time he sees fit." Would you agree that that's a logical alternative?

I wouldn't call that "just" except if someone wants to argue that an all-powerful entity gets to define "just". The fact remains that we have our own meaning of "just" and advocates of God-as-a-supreme-and-just-being aren't shy about supposing the definitions are congruent when pitching the "good" things.

 

[PotatoStew]

I wouldn't call that "just" except if someone wants to argue that an all-powerful entity gets to define "just". The fact remains that we have our own meaning of "just" and advocates of God-as-a-supreme-and-just-being aren't shy about supposing the definitions are congruent when pitching the "good" things.

I understand what you're getting at gnome, but if we're agreeing that a possible alternative is that "no one is innocent" then that means "all are guilty". Surely "justness" allows for the judgement or punishment of the guilty?

 

[wittgenst3in]

To which I'd reply that another possible alternative would be "a just creator entity may pass judgement on his non-innocent creations in any way and at any time he sees fit."

So if I can paraphrase your position, God can do anything he likes, and it won't be unjust. Ever.

If a just creator entity can pass judgement any way he likes, what possibly could an hypothetical unjust god do, that would be demonstratably unjust?

I.e. If a just God can kill(punish) anyone he likes, how would an unjust God behave? It seems to me that he could kill(punish) anyone he likes too.

In which case it becomes meaningless to say that God is just.

 

[PotatoStew]

If a just creator entity can pass judgement any way he likes, what possibly could an hypothetical unjust god do, that would be demonstratably unjust?

I.e. If a just God can kill(punish) anyone he likes, how would an unjust God behave? It seems to me that he could kill(punish) anyone he likes too.

In which case it becomes meaningless to say that God is just.

Good question. Perhaps an unjust god would punish innocent people as well, if any existed in our hypotheticals, whereas the just god only punishes the guilty. In other words, *if there happened to be any innocent people* the unjust god would punish them, but the just god would not.

But if there happens to be no innocents (as specified in one of our alternatives) then does that fact render the distinction of just/unjust meaningless, or is it enough that in theory there would be a difference?

If only guilty people are brought before a particular judge, and he hands out punishment to each of them, you can't say he's unjust, can you? Likewise, based on your original premises, I don't think you can conclude that "God is unjust" (as you did for one of your possible conclusions). At best, if there are no innocents, you could say "he may be unjust, but we have no way of knowing". If it's decided that the statement "God is just" is meaningless, then your series of premises seems to break down at #1, and all you can say is "the bible makes a meaningless statement concerning God's justice." Does that seem right?

I'm not particularly trying to argue that god is just, per se, I'm just looking at your original argument and saying that I don't think you can logically draw from it the conclusions that you did. They may be possibilities, but as I'm trying to point out, there are other possibilities as well.

 

[Z]

If it's decided that the statement "God is just" is meaningless, then your series of premises seems to break down at #1, and all you can say is "the bible makes a meaningless statement concerning God's justice." Does that seem right?

It's certainly consistant - the Bible makes a lot of meaningless statements about God. And certainly, about God's justice.

 

[wittgenst3in]

PotatoStew, I'm very busy in the next two days, but I'll reply then. Don't want to give the impression I'm ignoring anyone.

 

[Atlas]

... Perhaps an unjust god would punish innocent people as well, if any existed in our hypotheticals, whereas the just god only punishes the guilty. In other words, *if there happened to be any innocent people* the unjust god would punish them, but the just god would not.

It seems a bizarre but effective brainwashing. A newborn is innocence. It is hard to blame a newborn for anything that happened before it's arrival into the world of sunlight.

But we have been taught that we cannot consider them innocent. All are sinners, carrying the stain of the first sin by Adam and Eve. Curiously, more believe in this innate sinfulness than believe in Adam and Eve.

So we cannot recognize innocence where it appears, up close and personal. But we can somhow divine what JUST means, as long as it remains invisible, no matter how cruel and devastating it's effects are.

 

[maddafinga]

What had innocence got to do with this at all? If just applies differently to god than it does to man, how does the word have any meaning at all when applied to a supernatural being? The same with innocence. If the term just is meaningless then the basis for deciding on who deserves justice wouldn't have any meaning either. The whole concept of god is rife with contradictions.

 

[wittgenst3in]

If only guilty people are brought before a particular judge, and he hands out punishment to each of them, you can't say he's unjust, can you?

I most certainly would, if the judge sentenced some with capital punishment, and let others go, with no consistency of sentencing. Surely justice is supposed to be for all, not for some. Anything else is favouritism at best and (in the case of 'Gods chosen people') nepotism at worst.

Take for example the firstborn children of Egypt. These are portrayed as being wiped out in enourmous bloodshed.
If one takes the assumption you stated before, that no-one is innocent, and everyone deserves death, then why is only a select group held accountable for their actions? If children are considered to have commited so grave a sin that death is warrented, why are some allowed to walk free, even rewarded, and others killed?

Likewise, based on your original premises, I don't think you can conclude that "God is unjust" (as you did for one of your possible conclusions). At best, if there are no innocents, you could say "he may be unjust, but we have no way of knowing". If it's decided that the statement "God is just" is meaningless, then your series of premises seems to break down at #1, and all you can say is "the bible makes a meaningless statement concerning God's justice." Does that seem right?

I think if one worked of the premise that no innocents exist, then the problem would lie with premise 3, not with premise 1.

How's this for a recap:

Premise 0. The bible is correct
Premise 1. God is described as being just in the bible.
Premise 2. Just people do not kill innocents.
Premise 3. God kill innocents in the bible. (flood, 10 plauges of egypt, etc.)

Possible conclusions: The god of the bible is either unjust, does not exist, or is just but got misquoted. Alternatively just people can kill innocents.

Footnote: If one takes the postion that none are innocent, and also the postion that non-innocent people can and should be punished then the conclusion could be "God's actions are indistinguishable from a evil deities actions".

Edited for typo

 

[Kimpatsu]

I was listening to a radio program in Philadephia that featured Randi (There's an archive link to the show in the "Forum Community" under the thread of "Randi vs Rodney..") and hear the commentator ask Randi if he was an atheist. Randi's response was something like "There are two types of atheists; One who says there is no god, and one who says there is no evidence for god. (He was the latter type). I was wondering what the difference between the second type of atheist and an agnostic (As I think of agnostics as people who don't know if there is a god). Maybe my understanding is not correct and I need to learn more about the distinctions.

Thanks.

I guess that, paradoxically, I'm an atheist of both types. I know damn well that there is absolutely no evidence for anything paranormal (which includes the existence of gods), and more to the point, that you don't need the paranormal to explain the existence of the universe, or the existence of life. (See my sig. line for details.) I also know that gods were created by pre-scientific peoples to explain natural phenomena in the absence of science; today, however, we know that lightning is not Zeus tossing thunderbolts, and earthquakes are not waking giants or angry deities. So, this leads me to conclude that there IS no god (of any stripe, shape, or colour) in the absence of any evidence. Of course, if rational evidence were to be presented, then I'd change my position. The working hypothesis that there is no god (because of the lack of evidence for a god), however, stands unrefuted. Good luck in proving otherwise.

 

[Kimpatsu]

I...These words are used in different ways by different parts of the US population (I restrict myself to the US because I am most familiar with English as it is used in the states).

...In other words, incorrectly.
(Now that I've got the gratuitous colonial insult out of the way...)
I don't think this is a disagreement of usage based on geographical demographics. I think it's more to do with "sensibility demographics", by which I mean that people who are predisposed to believe in gods, fairies, and Leprechauns paint all non-believers with the same brush as "atheists", which to them is synonymous with "lacking moral fibre". Believe you me, the same attitude is prevalent among born-again Xpians in England, too. This is far from an attitude confined to the United States. (You just have a bigger percentage of whackos.) Rather, it is an attitude adopted by all BAX (Born-Again Xpians), who see themselves as morally superior by virtue of their faith in the sky fairy. Personally, I wear the badge of atheist with pride, as it shows I have at least a modicum of critical thinking. Something that normally goes out of the window where the sky fairy is concerned...