emotional

First, I'll state the obvious: emotional arguments can't prove or disprove the existence of God any more than they can the blue sky of daytime. The evidential case for atheism is expansively covered elsewhere. For my part, I think all evidence points to atheism, and those who still believe in the God of the Bible/Qur'an in our day and age do so out of emotional reasons. Conversely, even if all evidence pointed to the truth of theism, the following arguments show why human beings are morally and emotionally obligated to disobey God. Here goes:


Argumentum contra Pascalem (Argument against Pascalian systems):

Theistic religions have the element of reward and punishment according to people's deeds, lifestyles, faiths and so forth. The believer is promised a carrot for doing God's will, and a stick for disobeying. While this has its uses, it means that the believers are not doing anything spiritual in their way of life, but just following a wise business proposal, very much like fire insurance. Any religion that contains the element of reward and punishment is tainted, and can no longer be considered a basis for spiritual life. In atheism there is no reward or punishment. Of course this means the murderer and the helper of the needy have the same end, which may lead one to think that life is a free-for-all to act without account, but this is a lowly way of thinking. The higher way of thinking is that, with no reward or punishment awaiting, things are done for intrinsic reasons and not for extrinsic compulsion.


Argumentum contra machinam (Argument against the machine):

This is an inverse result of the Argument from Design and refers to biological evolution. The oft-made complaint that evolution makes "mere animals" out of us is far outweighed by saying that the Intelligent Design prospect makes machines out of us. We are, accordingly, God's machines, designed to serve him, very much like the computers that we build. It's a degrading concept. I prefer to be an animal.


Argumentum ad naturae miraculum (Argument from Wonder of Nature):

Theists point to the Glory of God as reflected by His Creation (nature). But when you think of it, what's so glorious here? We have granted that God is omnipotent; therefore, nothing he creates is of any surprise to us. Did God make an effort in creating things? I think not, for He transcends effort, right? Then the Wonder of Nature, far from being reflective of God's worthiness of worship, is just a pompous show of "look how great I am". In contrast, Blind Watchmaker Creation (ie evolution) is simply stunning in its concept of how meaningful complexity could arise without plan. This is truly wonderful.


Argumentum contra dictationem (Argument against dictation):

We are told to obey God because He is the most powerful. But is this not a dangerous teaching of "might makes right"? So He's powerful, so what? If we are to obey Him only because He's the most powerful, then we are worshipping out of fear. Might as well worship Stalin. God's being the most powerful is a very weak argument for His being worthy of obedience, and a detrimental idea to society (school bullies would be encouraged by it).


Argumentum contra scripturam (Argument against scripture):

In the question of God, which most people think about some time in their lives, it appears that no-one really has an idea of Him except from various writings which all claim to be His words. Both Bible and Qur'an claim to be God's infallible word. Which are we to believe? It's a life decision, and you might realize you're worshipping a book instead of God. Better, then, to evaluate things according to the one thing which is in "universal language", without dispute, known by all not to have been created by humans: nature. Searching for God is OK, but scriptures are not the key.


Argumentum ad compassionem (Argument from compassion):

A partner of the Anti-Pascal argument, referring especially to the concept of eternal punishment. We take great human pity on those who are tortured, those who are imprisoned for life, those who suffer for nought; shall we not take pity on those who are damned in hell for eternity? I cannot worship that God who burns people in hell anymore than I can worship Stalin. It's not justice, it's outright sadism. Theists will say, "by whose standards? Yours or God's?", and I will reply, "yes, by my standards, and if God's standards are so different as to see it good to torture people forever, then I will not waste a single second of my life worshipping that fiend". Human compassion must prevail upon the greedy, selfish drive to make treasures in heaven. A person is no less greedy for striving to gather treasures in heaven than for striving to gather treasures on earth.

DMB

I'm not sure that all these are arguments for atheism. Some of them rather appear to be arguments for what theists are always (to my mind mostly incorrectly) calling our rejection of god. I.e. they suppose that in our heart of hearts we know that god exists but that we perversely reject him. You give various arguments for refusing to worship or obey a god who displays the characteristics attributed to him by the Abrahamic religions.

I agree with you that many aspects of the god of these religions are disgusting, but that's not why I am an atheist. I simply find the tenets of most religions unbelievable.

hinduwoman

I am an atheist because I find it impossible to believe there can be such a thing as God.
I suppose that can be considered as an emotional argument?

emotional

"Impossible to believe" is not a logical objection. There are many people who find it impossible to believe in evolution by natural selection (the Argument from Personal Incredulity, as Dawkins puts it), but that doesn't prove or disprove it.

None of the objections listed above have to do with logic; it's just that many people are convinced that theism is bankrupt but stay there because it has great emotional appeal, so these arguments may sway them over (think of it as a "marketing move"); and also, those who have thoughts about embracing theism ought to think about those emotional issues (the question of "can you really bring yourself to serve such a God?").

Atheist_4_life

I'm an atheist because all of the god concepts that I've studied are logical and natural impossibilities, except for the most abstract, uninvolved, impersonal, 1st cause god of deism. But just because the god of deism might be logically possible and maybe even naturally possible doesn't mean that it exists. Many things are logically and naturally possible (silicon-based lifeforms living at the center of Pluto, plotting the takeover of Earth) but that doesn't mean that they all should be believed in, without credible proof or evidence, which even the aforementioned god of deism lacks. So until such a time as credible evidence is found I will remain without belief in any god(s).

Jayhawker Soule

Speaking as an atheist, and leaving aside the fact that this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic's title, this seems an inordinantly silly fool's errand.

This sounds a bit like Montessori meets Dr. Spock. What the heck is a "higher way of thinking"? By the way, having raised four children, I would not want to totally disregard the role of reward and punishment, nor would I take serious an argument that my kids were "morally and emotionally obligated to disobey".

How, precisely, does the fact that you prefer to bean animal "show why human beings are morally and emotionally obligated to disobey God"?

So, you "are morally and emotionally obligated to disobey God" because Dawkins makes you feel good?

What you actually mean is that God encourages atheist school bullies, since the theistic ones, i.e., those followers of "a lowly way of thinking", should be worried about punishment.

"Searching for God is OK, but" "human beings are morally and emotionally obligated to disobey God" because "scriptures are not the key". Better to rely on nature. Got it -- don't want it, but got it.

I agree. If there were a "God who burns people in hell", I would like to be a conscientious objector -- not that it would do any good. But this, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with "arguments for atheism", emotional or otherwise.

Wyrdsmyth

I agree with most of your arguments, but frankly I find them unnecessary. Superfluous. Atheism does not need an appeal to emotional arguments. With atheism, there is no invocation to "suppress your reason, and go with your emotions." No, with atheism, it's all about encouraging people to question claims, and to examine the evidence -- or lack thereof.

In my opinion, that is the strongest argument for atheism. It is the lack of evidence for any gods or the supernatural that should naturally lead us to not believe in them. We don't need any reasons beyond that. The burden of proof is always on the positive claim, and it always comes back to that, doesn't it? Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.

emotional

devnet wrote:
... the following arguments show why human beings are morally and emotionally obligated to disobey God.

ReasonableDoubt responded:
Speaking as an atheist, and leaving aside the fact that this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic's title, this seems an inordinantly silly fool's errand.


devnet responds:
I respect your opinion, but I have the advantage of experience. I agree that the above arguments are no proof - but I know from experience that evidential proof is often not enough to wrench people away from theism.

---

Argumentum contra Pascalem (Argument against Pascalian systems):
Theistic religions have the element of reward and punishment according to people's deeds, lifestyles, faiths and so forth. ... The higher way of thinking is that, with no reward or punishment awaiting, things are done for intrinsic reasons and not for extrinsic compulsion.

This sounds a bit like Montessori meets Dr. Spock. What the heck is a "higher way of thinking"? By the way, having raised four children, I would not want to totally disregard the role of reward and punishment, nor would I take serious an argument that my kids were "morally and emotionally obligated to disobey".

You've just pointed it out yourself: little kids, having no understanding and no discernment as of yet, need rewards and punishments to keep them in line. The Biblegod/Qur'angod is, in effect, treating us like little kids.

---

Argumentum contra machinam (Argument against the machine):
... We are, accordingly, God's machines, designed to serve him, very much like the computers that we build. It's a degrading concept. I prefer to be an animal.


How, precisely, does the fact that you prefer to bean animal "show why human beings are morally and emotionally obligated to disobey God"?


This is how: being God's machine is disgusting and degrading. You're a servant of God, a robot of God, a tool used by Him. This has low emotional appeal.

---

Argumentum ad naturae miraculum (Argument from Wonder of Nature):
... the Wonder of Nature, far from being reflective of God's worthiness of worship, is just a pompous show of "look how great I am". In contrast, Blind Watchmaker Creation (ie evolution) is simply stunning in its concept of how meaningful complexity could arise without plan. This is truly wonderful.


So, you "are morally and emotionally obligated to disobey God" because Dawkins makes you feel good?


My point is that the wonder of nature becomes much diluted as God's creation, being just a show of pomp on his part. I refuse to worship a hidden, invisible show-off creator of nature. I revere created things much more than a transcendent creator. His hiddenness, as opposed to the revelation of nature, is a major factor in my choice to disobey.

---

Argumentum contra dictationem (Argument against dictation):
... God's being the most powerful is a very weak argument for His being worthy of obedience, and a detrimental idea to society (school bullies would be encouraged by it).


What you actually mean is that God encourages atheist school bullies, since the theistic ones, i.e., those followers of "a lowly way of thinking", should be worried about punishment.


WHAT?! How ever did you get to that conclusion?! That's the ultimate opposite of what I was saying! The concept of the all-powerful God encourages all types of school bullies, whether theist or atheist, and it also encourages bullying religions (viz, Christianity and Islam). The argument is that God's being the most powerful in the Universe is no moral reason to obey Him.

---

Argumentum contra scripturam (Argument against scripture):
Both Bible and Qur'an claim to be God's infallible word. Which are we to believe? It's a life decision, and you might realize you're worshipping a book instead of God. Better, then, to evaluate things according to the one thing which is in "universal language", without dispute, known by all not to have been created by humans: nature. Searching for God is OK, but scriptures are not the key.


"Searching for God is OK, but" "human beings are morally and emotionally obligated to disobey God" because "scriptures are not the key". Better to rely on nature. Got it -- don't want it, but got it.


OK, I stand corrected, I didn't make this clear enough. I mean that, when people try to search for God not according to scriptures, but according to natural fact, they realize that the scriptural God does not exist. Or they realize that he's such a fiend that it's better to disobey him. "Love of God" and willingness to kill and be killed for him are results of scriptural programming.

---

Argumentum ad compassionem (Argument from compassion):
... I cannot worship that God who burns people in hell anymore than I can worship Stalin. It's not justice, it's outright sadism.


I agree. If there were a "God who burns people in hell", I would like to be a conscientious objector -- not that it would do any good. But this, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with "arguments for atheism", emotional or otherwise.


I disagree on that last remark, that it has absolutely nothing to do with emotional arguments for atheism. Again, it is no proof or disproof, but that's not the point of such argument. The point is that even if the Biblegod existed, those emotional factors should make one live a life of practical atheism - not wasting one second on worshipping that demon.

emotional

Strictly and rationally speaking, I agree with all you say here. But I beg to differ with you in your saying that those emotional arguments are worthless. Remember that religious beliefs, or lack thereof, are often a matter of marketing (what is religious conversion but buying into a new product?). I know from myself, and from many other theists who became atheists and vice versa, that evidence alone is not always what determines belief or unbelief. One could have all evidence in the world of the truth of atheism, yet stay a theist because of the greater emotional appeal of theism (as it was in my case: I left the theistic way of life a year and a half after I'd been convinced of its evidential poverty).

Atheism is well developed and honed in appealing to people's mind. No doubt about that, and atheistic evidential arguments are like cutting razors. But when evidence still doesn't work (you present the evidence before the theists and they pervert it to fit theism), then it may be that emotional factors are preventing theists from going to atheism. In other words: in this thread I don't offer proof (appeal to the mind) but feelings (appeal to the heart, so to speak).

Jayhawker Soule

In my opinion, an intense and pervasive hostility towards a particular religion or set of religions is a fine topic for psychology and sociology but a poor foundation for atheism. Which of these purported "Emotional Arguments for Atheism" will serve you when discussing the Sadducees or Buddhism or the seemingly endless forms of New Age pablum? "To hell with your God" may well be a satisfying battle cry, but for your battle, not mine. Take care.