(September 30, 2015 at 9:32 pm)robvalue Wrote: Regardless of specifics, the "die for a lie" argument is totally broken. Simply put, the level to which someone believes something, and what they are prepared to do for that belief, in no way tells you whether the belief is actually true. People can be mistaken. There seems to be this weird notion that no one from 2000 years ago could possibly ever be mistaken about anything.
Tracey Harris gives a clinical takedown of it here:
http://youtu.be/bHEiBvB-Xu0
Tracey Harris is a badass.
She said it much better than I could have.
I love where she details why the claims of the "they were martyred for what they believed, so they couldn't have believed in a lie, because nobody dies for a lie" argument is simply not true, or at least it's a terrible, terrible argument, and it's made worse when they try to claim that we know all the apostles and (alleged) eyewitnesses died for this reason.
For instance, she explained, Stephen was martyred for saying the Jews murdered Jesus, not for preaching the resurrection.
These preachers who are telling their sheep to claim that they have evidence that they simply don't have, then to say, "Ha, atheists, prove otherwise!"
They should be ashamed of themselves for this... but it's no stranger than the Christians who tried to manufacture bits of the cross, the apocrypha, and the many many interpolations. It's okay, to them, as long as people "get saved".
But, as I've said many times, Lying For Jesus™ is still lying.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
