Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 15, 2024, 5:14 pm
Thread Rating:
Who Dies For A Lie?
|
(January 13, 2015 at 8:10 pm)Nope Wrote: Some Christians say that the bible must be true because according to tradition, several of the apostles were killed spreading Jesus's message. their is a sharp contrast that your thread is missing. The proposition usally deals with The apstoles dying for a lie, not just random people who dont know anybetter.. The idea being none of the subsequent martyrs would have died if the apstoles didnt die for the truth.. (January 14, 2015 at 1:02 pm)Drich Wrote: their is a sharp contrast that your thread is missing. The proposition usally deals with The apstoles dying for a lie, not just random people who dont know anybetter.. The idea being none of the subsequent martyrs would have died if the apstoles didnt die for what they believed to be the truth.. Bolded mine, fixed that for you.
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
4.3 million Wehrmacht personnel died defending Naziism.
The problem with the "would they die for a lie?" question is that it is malformed, intentionally so in my view, in order to force the discussion into a direction it shouldn't, and that a correctly formulated question of this sort wouldn't address the truth of the belief at all.
Why do the believers insist we stick with "lie," as the only other option? It's clearly not; you can believe wholeheartedly in a false claim, and that's just another possible solution that grants every other spurious element of this claim, such as the accuracy of the events depicted on the deaths to begin with. When we get asked about dying for a lie, the conversation is being shaped so that we're considering the apostles as either believers in a true claim, or knowing accomplices in a fraud, for which the rational course of action, all things being equal, would not have been to die for their fraud if it could be safely recanted. Therefore, they must have been in possession of the truth when they died. But that's not the discussion we should be having. Even if the apostles died for their faith because they believed it honestly, that says nothing at all about the truth of the propositions in which they believed, only about their conviction that they were true. And we know human subjectivity leads us to entertain false beliefs all the time. If they died for their beliefs, that still doesn't mean the premise that christians begin their false dichotomy with is true. At base this is the same fallacy that presuppositional apologetics is based on, the idea that certainty of belief directly correlates with the truth of that belief, and it just doesn't. If an argument would fit perfectly well into Sye Ten Bruggencate's personal repertoire, it's probably just worth discarding.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects! RE: Who Dies For A Lie?
January 18, 2015 at 6:58 pm
(This post was last modified: January 18, 2015 at 6:59 pm by watchamadoodle.)
(January 14, 2015 at 1:02 pm)Drich Wrote: their is a sharp contrast that your thread is missing. The proposition usally deals with The apstoles dying for a lie, not just random people who dont know anybetter.. The idea being none of the subsequent martyrs would have died if the apstoles didnt die for the truth..I agree with you that the "who dies for a lie" requires a special type of religious martyr: - the martyr must be given an opportunity to reveal the alleged lie to save himself/herself - the martyr must have been in a position to know about the alleged lie Even if the apostles existed and were executed, there are many explanations: - maybe the apostle was executed for causing trouble - maybe the apostle was never given an opportunity to escape death by revealing the alleged lie - maybe the apostle was himself deceived by other apostles and believed the alleged lie - maybe the apostles died for an earlier form of Christianity that never claimed the alleged lie - ... (January 13, 2015 at 9:06 pm)professor Wrote: I remember watching an army tank shooting fire into the wooden Koresh compound. Liar! It did no such thing. The crazy kooks inside set the fires. Quote: Who started the fire that erupted a little more than six hours after the FBI began inserting the tear gas on April 19?http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...ml#started
Find the cure for Fundementia!
(January 13, 2015 at 9:06 pm)professor Wrote: However, there is a big difference between dying (or dying in the process of being a murderer- in the case of Islam) in the belief that action will (by itself) will warrant Paradise, verses being willing to die rather than reject one's belief.The issue in either case is that if the belief is wrong, you wasted your life (and potentially that of others) on something with less value than a stick of gum.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould Quote: The proposition usally deals with The apstoles dying for a lie, not just random people who dont know anybetter. Apstoles? Why don't you call them Assholes? Anyway, you can't prop up one part of fiction by citing another. When you can provide evidence that there ever were any fucking apostles get back to me. Right now, they seem as likely as Robin Hood's Merry Men, drippy.
Simple answer: those who believe it.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method. |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)