In recent years, J. L. Schellenberg has developed and defended a forceful argument for atheism. He argues that the existence of inculpable nonbelief, together with the (a priori) claim that this is not what we would expect if a perfectly loving God exists, provides probabilistic support for atheism. In response, most critics have focused on either denying the existence of inculpable nonbelief offering reasons why it is compatible with the existence of a perfectly loving God. I propose a new strategy for responding to Schellenberg's argument, however, which focuses on clarifying what perfect love entails. I claim that since Schellenberg employs perfect being theology in formulating his argument, he is thereby committed to the assumption that perfect love entails infinite love. I argue, however, that this assumption is unwarranted, and that if it can be shown that God's love is possibly not infinite, then Schellenberg's argument fails.