So let me get this right, you are asserting that there are atheists who don't believe in certain versions of God based on the argument from the existence of evil? Well, as you say, we may have vastly different experiences with atheists, however, the formulation I most hear from many atheists is "I cannot believe in a God that would allow evil." Perhaps I just happen to experience the minority of them the majority of the time.
What I hear from atheists most often is that they simply fail to find sufficient evidence to believe in God. This includes a lack of rational validation.
I tell you what, why don't we try to avoid speaking for atheists. I'll just put it plainly: The problem is not that evil exists; the problem is that evil exits and most Judeo-Christian concepts of God claim he is simulataneously omnibenevolent as well as the the creator of EVERYTHING. If evil exists, then God created it or is responsible for it. This seems to be inconsistent with the notion that he is All-Good.
It is not the existence of evil that is the problem. It is that the existence of evil isn't consistent with the nature of God as proposed by most Judeo-Christian doctrine.
This obviously allows that you can ignore any difference in opinion since you would only have to assert, "I could not understand them." Kind of a comical "out" in the discussion, would you not agree?
I am sorry. Seriously, I have no idea what you are saying. What I was trying to convey was that within the English-speaking world, the Judeo-Christian God is the most prevalent of dieties, at least that is my experience. So, most of the atheists that I've been able to converse with have focused their attention in that direction.
Believe me, I am not trying to be dishonest or assert false claims, which is what you seem to be implying. I was merely trying to point out that most atheists I've personally encountered and have been able to discuss matters with, they find problems and inconsistencies with the Judeo-Christian God. And those problems are not necessarily with the existence of evil. It is the inconsistency of claiming God is omni-everything and the creator of everything, and yet evil still exists. If he is omni-benevolent and the sole creator, it would seem like evil couldn't exist.
Essentially, it would seem to me that if Christians could reconcile the problem of an All-powerful, All-Good God and the existence of evil, that would be a big step forward. Again, it is not the existence of evil that is hard to believe in. It is the existence of evil in a universe engineered solely by a supposedly perfectly good and just Creator.
I am not aware of an over arching "Judeo-Christian doctrine". If there is such a thing, it would be interesting to read about it. There is a Judeo-Christian worldview, which is what I referenced in my previous post. This potential error in your understanding, so it seems to me, could introduce significant inconsistency in the analysis of your observations, would you agree?
I don't believe I claimed there was an 'over-arching' Judeo-Christian doctrine. What potential error in my understanding? Are you trying to attribute things to me I have not written and then argue against them?
What I said was as follows:
". . . when atheists challenge aspects of Judeo-Christian doctrine, especially ontological plausability, they are certainly not 'importing significant elements of that worldview into their beliefs'. They are, indeed and conversely, challenging those significant elements because of inconsistencies contained therein. Or so it seems to me."
There may not be an 'over-arching' doctrine, but there is most certainly splintered factions. But then again, what does this really have to do with my point?
My point was that you claim 'most atheists import elements of the Judeo-Christian worldview into their beliefs while denying the basis for that worldview', and I find that to be flat-out wrong. So, I asked if you would please give us some examples of how atheists import these Judeo-christian elements into their beliefs while simultaneously denying them. And sincerely, without trying to offend you, I would point out further that you still haven't done so.
It was a simple question. Will you answer it? You made a claim. Why not back it up?
Your response would pretty much confirm that you misunderstood, but lets see if I can help you along. By what would an atheist use to determine what is "evil" apart from at least a theistic basis?
Reason. Rationality. These are just a couple of things that one might use to identify evil. I don't need a priest or a God or a son of God to tell me the world would be better if we treated each other the way we'd want to be treated. I don't need religious commandments to identify that murder and theft are wrong.
Also, any argument against the God of the bible presupposes a certain reading of the Judeo-Christian scriptures, would you not determine that would constitute an importing of at least some elements of the specific viewpoint?
No. Reading scriptures does not mean one has 'imported' Christian-Judeo elements into their viewpoint. It certainly means one has been exposed to those elements and beliefs if they've read about them. But I have read about Hitler and racial supremists groups, as well as islamic terrorists and reality television, and I've certainly not 'imported' any of these ideas into my beliefs. I've rejected all of them immediately upon exposure.
The Judeo-Christian worldview carries a commitment that the scriptures communicates a truth about God. What I most often find is that atheists must import the most fundamentalist viewpoints into their discussions about God to prop up their own straw man arguments.
Again, I am not really sure what you are talking about without specific examples being provided. However, what you appear to be saying is that most atheists make a straw-man out of fundamentalists beliefs, then argue against other versions of God based on these fundamentalist concepts. Is that right?
If so, I couldn't disagree more. I mean, I am not disagreeing this has been your experience. If you say this is what you've experienced, then I won't challenge it. I certainly can't tell you what you've experienced. What I would say, however, is that you should ignore those types of confrontationists. If that is what they're doing, why argue with them?
Do you believe that is the type of argument presented in the OP? Because I don't see it that way. As a matter of fact, the OP's author seemed to be very clear about asking, "If you believe that God is wrathful and vindictive . . . " This would seem to eliminate anyone who doesn't hold certain fundamentalists beliefs that God is wrathful and vindictive. If you don't believe this, then the OP was not addressing you, right?
What I see more often are atheists asking very direct questions that people don't read clearly enough and then theists respondents inappropriately react to those questions as if they held challenges to all God concepts. Though I didn't write the OP, it seems fairly clear to me that we are discussing religious concepts of wrathful, vindictive Gods. This is not a strawman. It does not appear to be intended as a refutation of ALL God concepts, only very particular ones.
