Emotional Appeals Are Not Evidence

Emotional Appeals Are Not Evidence

True enough, but then one is forced to ask, "where is the need for evidence, within the context of faith?"

If one possesses faith, questions cease to arise, and are replaced with a willingness to surrender a human being's most prized possession; free will.

It is not the place for a christian to "push" the word of G-d to anyone-- assuming the target of information is already aware of the gospel of salvation. Nearly all people in all lands, have heard one version or another of the christian gospel. The story of salvation has nearly saturated the planet. Evangelism is no longer required in the same way it was required before mass communications began, making this a very small world indeed.

I'll leave you with this-- in my mind, global warming or climate change is a chimera, fed and kept alive by little more than EMOTION. There is no definitive proof mankind is to blame for something that could easily be argued as naturally occurring cycles of nature.

This doesn't keep the true believers from saying things like "the debate is over," or "a consensus of scientists believe," blah blah blah.

I wonder if you are as quick to notice and condemn the hypocrisy in all facets of life, and not just within the context of a dogmatic faith.

Of course I'm quick to condemn any hypocrisy where I see it, jJack. I'm with you on the climate change. There's strong evidence to suggest that the earth's temperature is rising, but there isn't 100% proof that humans are the cause of it. In any case we should focus on gauging how big the problem is, and see if there is something we can do about it. But I'm not sure that the debate is driven just on emotion alone.

Back to the topic at hand, you're right about not needing evidence if you've got "faith". Hopefully you understand the absurdity of using such a device as any kind of "proof" or "knowledge" at all. The point I was making in the video is that many religions simply try to sway you to their side by scaring you or otherwise playing on your emotions...no logic required: Do you want to burn in fire forever? Then you better do what we do! And just because an idea causes negative feelings doesn't make it true -- indeed, it could cause very positive feelings and still not be true. The validity of the claim isn't subject to how one feels about it; it's got to stand on it's own merits.

Faith, in all it's glory, will impart "knowledge" on a level unable to be achieved by logic. Faith supplies answers, when logic fails; which explains why so many are so willing to reduce their faith, to a merely emotional declaration of fealty.

"Proof" is as maleable as the warm orange clay of Georgia and Alabama. "Proof," as it pertains to a deity, and a human being's desire to fathom such things, is more than ample once salvation is ensured.

What you call tenuous at best, fantasy at worst, is defined as "proof" by most believers.

For instance, I see the "proof" of G-d, whenever I see an ocean-- or see love expressed in so many various ways. G-d is deep in the tropical jungles, and high upon the highest peaks.

This "burning in hell" business isn't really a factor any longer, when women believe they can be "good catholics" and still engage in abortion, when married men believe they can commit adultery, and still be a "good husband, or when children believe they can be disrespectful to the parents, while still abiding by His word. No one believes in such "fantasies" any longer, save the most zealous fundamentalists.

Too bad really, for if people DID accept the inevitable consequences of their behavior over the span of a lifetime, perhaps human nature would evolve spiritually, as we have already grown physically and mentally.

There is nothing at all "glorious" about faith. There is no knowledge of any kind that "belief without evidence" can offer -- except that of empty knowledge. You can't possibly know anything that way.

Proof as it pertains to a deity is non-existent. We've heard it all before: "Look at the trees, the sky, a baby's smile, and tell me there's no God!" You may call such things proof, and it may be proof enough for you, but it's hardly any proof of anything other than what it is. How exactly can you go from "look at how my knee bends" to "my specific God with these specific attributes and qualities performed these specific actions"? And, more importantly, how does the former qualify as proof for the latter?

You are right about one thing, though...people rarely accept the consequences of their actions, whether it be out of ignorance, apathy, or complete lack of care. Perhaps we're just not that good at looking toward the future.

okay

Interesting points on both sides.

There is no knowledge of any kind that "belief without evidence" can offer -- except that of empty knowledge. You can't possibly know anything that way

Boy, for someone to be professing so adamantly about such things, I wonder where he would tell us which well his faith springs from; you see, just as our sneering friend condemns the "believers," so he also is forced to admit he has no "proof" there is no G-d.

he can say it
he can believe it
but at the end of the day his guess is no better than mine
we all have to wait for the "truth" until we are dead....

--------------------------------
one man's proof is another man's con
liberate the sinners and kill all the g-ds
slit the wrists of the lawyers
go without sin my son
you have been given the nod
so long
so long

jJack, I have NO faith. Zero. No faith in anything. I'm an athiest. That means that I have no beliefs about any god or gods. I also never claimed to have proof that there is no GOD.

You infer that because we have no definite proof on either side, somehow the likelihood of God existing is 50/50. Hardly. What about the likelihood that a Marathi-speaking, pink-haired giant fruit bat lives inside Saturn? Do you have proof either way? Then it's a 50/50 chance, huh? The bat's got a pretty big chance of being real; I guess I'd be justified if I went around worshiping the bat and trying to get laws passed in the name of the bat (did I mention he hates baby showers?).

The more assertions one makes about the properties of their deity, the easier it is to actually test for such things. I don't have faith in anything, and I believe in as little as possible. I only accept things that are backed up with solid evidence and reason.

jJack, I'm assuming that you subscribe to some form of "higher power", this G-d thing. I'm always curious about what people believe and why they believe...why don't you tell me about your "faith"?

No faith in anything

How sad. Are you an only child? Are you an orphan? Faith is a requisite component of any human life, even if no deity is considered.

We all have faith each day when we get behind the wheel of a car, and make the leap of faith required to drive without fear--- we have faith others will obey the laws and not put our life jeopardy.

Do you not have faith in the thin blue line, separating the criminal element from the law abiding?

Do you not have faith the fire truch will arrive if you ever need to make that call?

When you seek to "limit" what you give over to "faith," you in effect seek to limit your world, your knowledge about this world, and the acceptance of things unseen.

Telling you about my faith, is precisely what I have been doing.

Well over 90% of the people that have ever roamed this earth, have believed in a deity. At any given point in history, g-ds have given aid and comfort to to the weak and courageous alike, the poor and the rich, the well fed and the hungry.

You cannot possibly fathom the kind of "proof" offered up once you have accepted salvation and redeemed your soul.

We have a completely different vernacular, you and I, and as a consequence our perceptions of this world differ greatly; leaving us unable to connect with any meaningful dialog.

What you see as yes, I see as no, what you see as correct, I see as false. There is no common ground for us to walk upon. You have rejected the concept of a diety, because you petulantly DEMAND "proof."

What makes you so special ???

You're equivocation fallacy is overdone. Either that, or you and I have very different definitions of the word "faith". I have faith in nothing. All the things you listed -- that other people will behave, that rescue workers will do their job, even that the sun will rise in the morning, or a bowl will fall to the ground if I drop it -- are all based on reasonable assumptions, not "faith". I've seen these things happen before (on a regular, reliable, INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIABLE basis) and I can strongly expect them to happen. Keep in mind here that "faith" is not equal to "hope". I have hope in lots of things; I hope you and many others begin to question more. I have faith in nothing. I'm faithless, soul-less, godless...but not hopeless!

And I'm not "special", jJack. I simply hold myself to a higher standard of reason, that is to say, I don't let others decide what I believe and I don't believe anything for no reason (or for poorly supported reasons). It matters not that most people believe in a sky-daddy; that doesn't make it true. At one time, slavery was considered okay with most people, and even farther back, most people believed that the earth was flat. Numbers (like emotion) mean nothing to the truth. Either something is or it is not.

"At any given point in history, g-ds have given aid and comfort to to the weak and courageous alike, the poor and the rich, the well fed and the hungry." Indeed, the outcomes for many people are credited to imaginary beings, but I hope you're not trying to use this as evidence that they're real?

You keep saying that I "cannot possibly fathom the kind of 'proof' offered up once I have accepted salvation and redeemed my soul." Tell me, 1) what is "my soul" [and how do you know], 2) why does it need saving [and how do you know], and 3) redeemed by whom [and how do you know]? Indeed, we differ greatly, but I think a meaningful dialog can be had. Just remember that I will require valid reason, not arguments from authority, appeals to emotion, or faulty logic.

The concept of G-d is a reasonable assumption too, you simply fail to recognize it. If you don't know what your soul is, there is little reason to continue a dialog. All souls require salvation for eternal after life-- according to christian dogma, and salvation is offered up by G-d.

What you call "valid reasoning" is little more than petulance you've decided to call logic.

There is no logic available to persuade anyone, G-d does not exist. It isn't possible.

As I said, we don't even speak the same language. You have made of yourself, the center of the unverse, and proclaimed yourself a deity, capable of "logic" that denies the very creator you dismiss at your own peril.

Your "standard" of reasoning, is unreasonable at best, and very dysfunctional hubris at worst.

"Your 'standard' of reasoning, is unreasonable at best, and very dysfunctional hubris at worst."

You fail to show how, jJack.

"The concept of G-d is a reasonable assumption too, you simply fail to recognize it. If you don't know what your soul is, there is little reason to continue a dialog. All souls require salvation for eternal after life-- according to christian dogma, and salvation is offered up by G-d."

Here again, you say nothing. The part in brackets about HOW DO YOU KNOW wasn't meant to be ignored. I'm willing to listen, but you've gotta start talking. Step one: describe your "g-d".

Show how ??

You assume you are the sole arbitor of what is acceptable "proof" and what is not-- YOU define "logic" and exclude one third of what it means to be a human being. What else should I show you ?

Try to think of something equally ethereal in nature-- love perhaps??

Try to define love, if you are able-- then try to deny the concept of love is PROOF LOVE EXISTS.

The very things making any religion tangible are the believers themselves.

Attempting to describe the creator is blasphemy; an unfounded elevation of sentient pleasures, power and control.

-------------------------------------

How can I show you the light, if you demand your right to be eternally blind?

The man seeking a "description" for G-d is a man without the will to believe something might exist beyond the mush encased within his skull.

When you tell me I have said nothing, I know the sleep will be easy on that night. I don't begrudge you if you feel the need to cling to your chimera, and call it your pet. There is nothing in the passage of mortality offering even a semblance of "truth."

-----------------------------------------

genetics or environment
why does an electron do what an electron does ?

how do you "know" what you think you "know?"

jJack, have you even looked at the articles I've linked to? Where do I give a proprietary system for understanding? Where do I use "my own version" of logic? Yes -- SHOW ME.

And let's get this old chestnut out of the way...

Love is an emotional state, and there is plenty of evidence that this emotional state exists. People who claim to be "in love" behave in markedly different ways from people who do not. Studies of the brain show that certain areas are activated by feelings of love.

"Exist" is an ambiguous word, which lends itself to an equivocation fallacy. When we say that an apple exists, for example, we are speaking of a specific entity that occupies a position in space-time. But there are also abstract concepts that "exist," and the meaning is different. The color green might be said to exist. However, "green" is not an object; it is a name that we humans have chosen to give to a range of wavelengths in visible light. The color green exists only in the sense that certain real objects have the property of being green, which has meaning because of the definitions that humans have assigned. Love exists in this second sense: not as a standalone object, but as a property that appears in certain minds and has meaning to people due to common experiences.

So jJack, in which sense does God "exist", or can you tell me that without "blaspheming"? Is your g-d a real, physical object existing in some real universe; or is he/she/they/it an abstract concept, like love, which exists primarily in the minds of those who feel it?

And don't forget that you haven't answered the how do you know questions either! Last time I let you ignore that.

A wise man once told me: "Those who seek a description for the fluzzelfisk are without the will to believe in something that they can't know!!!!"

I answered your every petulant demand. Sorry, I don't give warnings.

See ya in the funny papers pal.....

As I said, you speak the language of your religion of humanism, I speak the language of christianity.

How could I possibly dissuade someone that has made a deity of himself, that he is little more than an arrogant piss ant ???

Thanks for playing sports fan.

This comment is to let you know that this content has reached at least ten comments, and as such has been removed from Comment Speedway! Congratulations, and check out this week's Help These Videos!