Misotheism and dystheism

Misotheism is hatred of god. A related concept is dystheism. Dystheism is the belief that God is not wholly good, and/or is evil. I believe that since the mind of God is infinitely complex, it is therefore unknowable, and thus it is irrational to claim knowledge that God is good.

...

Dystheism sounds about right. I can't say that I hate god (if there is a god), but I could say that I would be severely annoyed at god (or, perhaps, gods) (if there is a god).

Good is an ideal. God is the source of all ideals and thus the highest degree of each. We can know that God is supremely good if good is real. If evil has no positive existence but is an absence, like how darkness is an absence of photons and not the positive existence of "darkons", the Supreme Being cannot be evil.

Good and evil are ideas, and as such are subjective. Theoretically, I could say that god is neither good nor evil, because such things only exist in the individual mind. I.e. god can be good in your opinion, but opinions aren't objective.

I suppose an omniscient being could change this, but...

The second clause doesn't follow from the first. Are you assuming materialism?

If you consider evil not an absence of good, but an ideal in its own right, then is God not ALSO the supreme evil? Is he not the most just and the most unjust? The most faithful and the most faithless?

Personal opinion: It is unlikely God (as described in any religious text) is real, but if he were, he would most certainly be evil.

An idea is an abstract. What makes an idea matter is the actions that relate to an idea.

For example, from a "life is precious" axiom, euthanasia is wrong. From a "suffering is bad" axiom, euthanasia is right. What is "good" and what is "bad" depends entirely on what point of view one comes from. They are not objective.

I would hesitate to call the presence of evil just an expression of the absence of good.

In fact, that's a huge assumption.

Your argument is valid, but you'll need to shore up the defenses in the soundness department for that proposition.

Did I really just apply the formal logic I learned in Philosophy? Hell yeah!

Or both axioms are objectively right, and it's simply a matter of deciding which one takes precedence over the other. Morality is definitely a game of compromise

edited 27th Sep '11 4:33:12 PM by cadeonehalf

Indeed. In fact couldn't we say just the opposite? "Good is absence of evil". This would imply that all things are naturally 'good' but are corrupted somehow. That is not the first time such thing have been said, I believe.

edited 27th Sep '11 5:40:07 PM by Heatth

"Good" and "evil" are not substances, they are categories.

There is no "most good" anymore than there is a "most bird" or a "most reptile".

The absence of of good is just neutral. I hate to use Dn D for morality talk but dammit this makes sense to me.

A good person donates to charity. A person with the absence of good doesn't donate to charity. An evil person robs a charity. A person with the absence of evil doesn't rob a charity.

Also old testament god was a jerk.

edited 27th Sep '11 6:45:24 PM by Thorn14

Says who? If God created us in his image, would we not be fairly similar to him?

The idea of the Christian God simplybeing powerful but our intelligence is interesting.

I don't believe there is a god, and if anything convinces me otherwise, based on what evidence there is of his/her/its actions in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, that the Abrahamic god is one of evil, not good.

Evil is not the absence of good, but rather doing the opposite there of. For example, you come across a dog. Good would be if you decided to Pet the Dog, neutral would be if you just decided to ignore this dog, and evil would be if you decided to Kick the Dog. Ignoring the dog clearly not good, but it is also rather clearly not evil.

I think dnd's good/evil axis has caused far fewer edit wars than it's law/chaos axis.

edited 27th Sep '11 6:50:02 PM by Balmung

I don't accept the premises of this thread. As far as I'm concerned, God must be perfect in every respect or, by definition, He is not the being I call "God", merely some other being to whom the name is being applied.

I don't agree. "Good", as I understand the term, denotes a quality. One good thing can be better than another, and it's reasonable to infer from that the existence of a hypothetical best thing, which may or may not be wholly good (perfect).

If one good thing can be better than another, then which is better: An AK-47 assault rifle, or a large pepperoni pizza?

"Good" only has meaning when you compare the qualities of two things. Nothing can possibly be "all good" or "all bad". It all depends on what it's for and what it does.

A god that is "totally good" is impossible and absurd.

The pizza, obviously.

OK, no, fair point. I suppose I should clarify that "good" denotes a range of different positive qualities. God is not the tastiest pizza, but He is the strongest, wisest and kindest being.

30 AK bullets = 30 deers to cook = 30 meals.

Unless you're Winona Ryder.

So we can't prove that it exists, we can't prove what it is, we can't define it, and now we can't even define what knowledge of it is.

This is why I'm a theological noncognitivist.

edited 27th Sep '11 8:52:35 PM by RadicalTaoist

Why do I keep reading Rott's posts in Dewey's voice?

edited 27th Sep '11 9:02:05 PM by PacificState

Pardon me, but I'm not sure I get the topic. So we have defined misotheism and dystheism... though I personally do not agree. God is not just all-powerful, but also good.

I also agree with the earlier statement that God made humans intelligent and able enough to understand basic qualities of God. Not completely, but basically.

I am an atheist; however, I was raised Christian, and do not believe that God, if he existed, would be evil. Why not? Because he could make us all suffer far far more than he already has. Misotheism would be pushing it, if you wanted to get a good idea of my views on God, read Paradise Lost. Of course, if he existed, I wouldn't take the Devil's side, either, since his vow of enmity includes me; however, since neither are real, I'd say that Lucifer was justified in his rebellion. After all, if you create something to surpass, and to be the greatest, you cannot expect it to live to serve, can you?

Lucifer wasn't created to surpass. It's just a property of the soul to have free will.

With misotheism it is better to specify just which god we are talking about.