Given those points, I'd like to offer a fairly simple logic based but emotive argument, similar to Pascal's wager — Reformed Nihilist
So we have two people who, for whatever reasons, in good faith (no pun intended), see the same things and come to mutually exclusive conclusions. — Reformed Nihilist
If, on the other hand, I am wrong, and there is an eternal judgement, I will be punished with eternal damnation for simply believing what makes most sense to me and speaking honestly and openly about that belief. — Reformed Nihilist
No need to do this. Most atheists already disbelieve God for emotional reasons, which are merely masked under elaborative arguments, which, however, ultimately lack rigour. — Agustino
Nope, most of them already had the conclusions prior to seeing the things; that's the sad and unfortunate aspect of it. — Agustino
No - you will, if you are like most atheists, have believed something because you didn't want God to exist, not because you had ample evidence that he didn't. — Agustino
Not to mention that this does not actually argue against the existence of god, it just shows that this god would be a dick. — darthbarracuda
In which case, so what? So what if the commonly-accepted form of god is showing him as benevolent? That doesn't change the fact that this god would be malignant! — darthbarracuda
I am such an atheist Reformed Nihilist. But I despise atheists generally, because intellectually they are very shallow, just like S. Harris, R. Dawkins, etc. — Agustino
I just sought to make the point that most atheists are atheists due to emotional motives, so they don't really need an "emotional argument", which is what you seek to provide :) — Agustino
it is to make an emotive argument, that doesn't suffer from logical inconsistencies, that might be persuasive. — Reformed Nihilist
I'm not sure if that's possible. — darthbarracuda
The argument is is directed at theists, and more specifically, as darthbarracuda rightly points to, at the modern western theists one is likely to encounter either on the internet on in north america. — Reformed Nihilist
So you think your argument can convince a theist to become an atheist? Why do you think an argument can facilitate this conversion, as opposed to life experiences, etc.? — Agustino
An emotional argument stems from emotions, not logic. — darthbarracuda
I have no doubt that those who make those claims look at the world, and for reasons that don't have to be listed here, their claims seem to be the most tenable, and make the most sense. — Reformed Nihilist
That doesn't seem very fair at all, does it? — Reformed Nihilist
If, on the other hand, I am wrong, and there is an eternal judgement, I will be punished with eternal damnation for simply believing what makes most sense to me and speaking honestly and openly about that belief. That doesn't seem very fair at all, does it? To put it bluntly, what kind of an asshole god would punish someone for believing and expressing what the brain they were "given" concludes? If such a god did exist, would it be moral to worship it? I don't think it would be.
So therein concludes my emotive argument for atheism. Thoughts? Critiques? — Reformed Nihilist
So therein concludes my emotive argument for atheism. Thoughts? Critiques? — Reformed Nihilist
I find most people do not critically examine the beliefs they purportedly hold, religious or otherwise. Much less are they even capable of stating clearly what said beliefs are. In other words, there is no weighing of evidence, whereby religious conviction appears as the caboose to a train of reasoning. People's beliefs rather hover about in their mental space like a fog, which makes it impossible to separate them out for logical scrutiny. The apologists who try to make arguments and debate with people are a very tiny minority of religious people and to the average believer serve merely as a tool to avoid critical thinking and to maintain the illusion of credibility. — Thorongil
To the extent that everyone worships something, everyone is religious, and there are two kinds of religious person in the world: the ietsist and the mystic. The masses, no matter their professed religion or lack thereof, belong to the former. — Thorongil
Believers will retort with a common appeal to ignorance: "God's way are not our ways." So what seems unfair to you may in fact not be in reality and in the grand scheme of God's plans. This, of course, immediately strikes one as a cop out and leaves a fairly bitter taste in one's mouth. — Thorongil
Can you reasonably mix appeals to 'fairness' with 'emotiveness'? — mcdoodle
This doesn't prevent me from being a Christian, just from accepting orthodoxy. — Landru Guide Us
The problem is that the emotional/conceptual distinction is a bit of a red-herring (the difference you are really talking about is between talking about God in terms of whether God exists or talking about God in terms of whether we ought to believe God exists). All the "emotional" arguments are conceptual in the sense that they make promises accusations on which danger and desire are dependent. Your argument there, for example, is working in the idea God is immoral and because of that, it immoral to worship God. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Believed in or not, God is a great mystery and difficult to explain. But then, so are homo sapiens difficult to explain and mysterious. — Bitter Crank
Is the testimony of believers actually reliable in providing information about God? Why do non-believers assume that believers actually know something about God? Do you (nonbelievers) think that believers have a pipeline to the truth which you can not have? — Bitter Crank
Believers have no more knowledge about God than non-believers. They think they do, because they have been on hand to hear all sorts of preaching. But, you know, it wasn't God who was doing the preaching. It was just one more devious homo sapiens who was doing the talking.
You don't like some, many, most, or all of the features which you have heard ascribed to God. Fine. What makes you think any of that is true? Jews, Christians, and Moslems know no more about God than you atheists do.
You are quite free to imagine God as you like. — Bitter Crank
Lint is a great mystery. — Reformed Nihilist
You know that the notion of god didn't come from nowhere, right? — Reformed Nihilist
So do you believe in and worship a dickish god? Or do you reject all traditional claims about god exempting it's existence? Or is there a third option that I'm not seeing? — Reformed Nihilist
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. — Unknown but sometimes attributed to Marcus Aurelius (121-180)
Appeals to fairness are usually emotive. Try giving a candy to one 5 year old, but not to his twin brother, and I promise you, you will hear a very emotive appeal to fairness. Why are we outraged (an emotive response) about the rich "1%", or the lobbying power of corporations? We perceive their level of influence as unfair. "Those fuckers!" we think. Can you reasonably expect appeals to fairness not to be emotive? — Reformed Nihilist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.