I disagree. We would need to further define 'intellectual' and 'emotional' to demonstrate a difference between the two.
I find the distinction (dividing human faculties into two categories) useful in terms of understanding myself and explaining my beliefs, but that particular distinction isn't so important to me that I'm motivated to present an argument in support of it. I hope my intended meaning comes across even if one questions that detail of the presentation.
However, the way I take you to mean, I would argue that the 'emotional' faculties are what over-ride the 'intellectual' and point people toward Christianity.
I agree that emotional appeals are at the basis of most Christian proselytizing or "evangelism" throughout history. Personally I find there are much stronger emotional reasons to reject rather than believe Christianity, especially if one is at all well-educated.
"Are you going to believe me or your own eyes? It is an appeal to emotion. And that is why I argue that emotional faculties do not point away from Christianity, but towards it. "
I think that using your own eyes is another way of saying that you're using your senses or faculties (biological, emotional, intellectual, or what-have-you). Telling any reasonable and well-educated person to do that would lead that person to reject Christianity, in my view.
Priests are not accountants. They do not simply point out facts. They are charismatic. They make you feel something very visceral and that is what takes over your mind and makes you reject 'evidence'. You feel it so you know it to be true.
I try to avoid doing these things myself when talking about Christianity because I find such tactics as potentially deceptive and manipulative as you do, I think.
Christianity claims other religions are false because it is bad for business, not because it is offensive and therefore somehow, according to your logic, proves it is true.
I didn't say or mean to say that offensiveness proves
that Christianity is true, but I did mention a certain sort of offensiveness as being in support
of Christianity's truth, as I understand it. Do you see the important difference there? I assume you know that supporting points do not always add up to conclusive proof of an argument, and in this case, I tried to make it clear up front that the preponderance of proof goes against Christianity.
And you still have not provided any sort of evidence beyond ...
This is correct, MM. I'm saying that the evidence goes against it, and still
Christianity is true. The best rational arguments that I've heard go against it, and in spite of that, it's true. I am not saying that it's true because
of those things, although I do make the case that those things can be seen as support for its truth, if one chooses first to believe Christianity's claims about reality.
I don't expect anyone to necessarily buy my argument, or to believe Christianity is true.
By that line of thinking I should believe in Unicorns as well. I can easily take up the flag that no one can definitively prove that Unicorns do not exists and we are right back to the same circular arguments I see time and again for religion.
Yes, I don't disagree. All I want to point out is that the apparent and admitted limitations of the arguments do not
add up to conclusive proof that Christianity is false
So why do you choose Christianity and not Unicorns?
At the end of the day, I just do; it's a free and personal choice, just like the free choices of others to reject Christianity.
BTW, if I sound like a broken record, repeating myself a lot, partly that's because not everyone reading along has seen so many of my posts elsewhere (as you probably have, MM); and partly it's because I think my understanding of Christianity is too unusual to be widely understood without careful explanation. I don't mean for that to sound impressive ... Do you know any other Christians who will freely admit to believing Christianity while simultaneously conceding that rational evidence points conclusively
away from it? I don't, although I would like to find some, because that is my view. I also don't know any Christians who consider it to be offensive and upsetting in the specific ways that I do (and I desperately want to find at least one such person). (Do you know such people? It's not a facetious question, nor is it a good reason for you to accept my claims as true -- I would think that it would be just the opposite, in fact.)
The choice remains for each person to make: believe Christianity or not?
You have presented nothing that would distinguish the two.
... And, once again, I ask you to show me the difference between picking your religion over the thousands of others that could make the same argument. An argument you, yourself, have said is weak.
I'm afraid that people who reject Christianity expect Christians to rationally argue with them, or to try to woo them with emotional appeals, because that is what many Christians do. What I do instead is try to explain how I have personally been able to reconcile my belief in Christianity with the rational arguments against it, and with certain strong emotional reasons to reject it. My goal is not so much to change your mind as to express my views and get you to understand them clearly, whether or not you accept them or adopt them yourself.
It's the same goal I assume everyone has here -- to express their views and help others to understand them, etc..
Further, I believe, that if any other given religion, including say, Pastafarianism, had made that strong emotional imprint, you would be making the same exact argument just swapping the name of your particular belief.
I can make a very
strong emotional appeal to reject
Christianity, but I don't do so, because I assume most people here already reject Christianity. Alternatively, I could make a strong emotional appeal to accept Christianity as true, but I don't do so, because I see such appeals as manipulative, undignified, and inappropriate in most contexts, including here.