Still a Christian - ask me questions/tell me about yourselves

[Cyberman]

Has anyone mentioned the September 11 hijackers yet? Clearly they got their seventy-two virgins, or raisins or whatever. They would never have died for a lie, surely?

[GUBU]

1. If god actually exists why would it take a process? All it would take is an appearance, showing up, proof that it exists in reality. The fact that it does not and requires a "process" only indicates that god is a man made fantasy. Maybe a useful fantasy for some, but still a fantasy. 

2. So did the believers in Heavens Gate. So have thousands of other martyrs (not just christian). Not much of a point. People die for delusional beliefs all of the time.

The argument in response is that 1) God did show up, and revealed Himself to many people over many years. He is not obligated to us because we have forsaken Him and often continue to do so. Plus, you can't know an infinite God all at once when you're finite. That process needs to be there. 

2) The difference is you're talking about people who came after the apostles. The apostles themselves didn't have to die for Jesus' name's sake, in theory, except that they clearly really believed the things they preached because they knew the man. Why would they die for something they didn't believe in?

What evidence can you provide for tour two claims, first of all that god was ever evident(ps the bible is the claim so inadmissable as evidence) and secondly that the apostles lived and dued?

[Whateverist]

Hell, even fairy tale stories -about- martrydom seem to confer benefits.

The crucifixion of Christ is the gift that just keeps giving .. but only if you send in your money now.

[brewer]

Hell, even fairy tale stories -about- martrydom seem to confer benefits.

The crucifixion of Christ is the gift that just keeps giving .. but only if you send in your money now.

OOOhhhhh, you going to hell for sure.

[Rev. Rye]

Has anyone mentioned the September 11 hijackers yet? Clearly they got their seventy-two virgins, or raisins or whatever. They would never have died for a lie, surely?

To me, a lie has a specific meaning: it requires the person in question knows what they're saying is false and acting like it's true anyway.

You think you can demonstrate Mohammed Atta and pals didn't believe in Islam, but decided to die for it anyway?

That's why I used the Bando Mitsugoro example. To paraphrase an Internet reviewer I follow, what he was doing was wrong, he had to know it was wrong, but he did it anyway.

[pocaracas]

Has anyone mentioned the September 11 hijackers yet? Clearly they got their seventy-two virgins, or raisins or whatever. They would never have died for a lie, surely?

To me, a lie has a specific meaning: it requires the person in question knows what they're saying is false and acting like it's true anyway.

You think you can demonstrate Mohammed Atta and pals didn't believe in Islam, but decided to die for it anyway?

That's why I used the Bando Mitsugoro example. To paraphrase an Internet reviewer I follow, what he was doing was wrong, he had to know it was wrong, but he did it anyway.

So you'd say that a statement can be true, not true, or a lie?
The difference between the not true and the lie statements is intent of deception?

[Rev. Rye]

To me, a lie has a specific meaning: it requires the person in question knows what they're saying is false and acting like it's true anyway.

You think you can demonstrate Mohammed Atta and pals didn't believe in Islam, but decided to die for it anyway?

That's why I used the Bando Mitsugoro example. To paraphrase an Internet reviewer I follow, what he was doing was wrong, he had to know it was wrong, but he did it anyway.

So you'd say that a statement can be true, not true, or a lie?
The difference between the not true and the lie statements is intent of deception?

Correct. Otherwise, it's misinformation or delusion, or a whole mess of other terms, but if they honestly believe in a demonstrably wrong thing, it doesn't count as a lie.

The OED defines a lie as "an intentionally false statement." Call me old-fashioned, but I tend to defer to Oxford when it comes to words with ambiguous connotations.

[Cyberman]

You think you can demonstrate Mohammed Atta and pals didn't believe in Islam, but decided to die for it anyway?

I dont recall saying that. Perhaps you could point it out to me?

The question on the table is "why would people die for a lie", not "would they die for what they know is a lie".

[The Grand Nudger]

People do that too, so it's not like it makes a difference. That a person is willing to die for x is in no way demonstrative of the truth of x, or even whether they believe in the truth of x. Further, people routinely -fail- to give their lives for what they insist is true, for what they do believe in.

The entire line of inquiry is fundamentally uninformative. Neither belief nor truth are necessary or sufficient as an explanation.

[Rev. Rye]

You think you can demonstrate Mohammed Atta and pals didn't believe in Islam, but decided to die for it anyway?

I dont recall saying that. Perhaps you could point it out to me?

The question on the table is "why would people die for a lie", not "would they die for what they know is a lie".

I did explain my definition of "lie" in that very post, if you recall. In my eyes, the term "lie" only applies if there's an intention to deceive. If they don't, it's anything from misinformation to delusion, but not a lie per se.

And, if the question is, in fact, "why would they die for a lie," the question becomes even less meaningful. If people can die for what they know is a lie, people dying for what they believe is true even if it is a lie somewhere down the line becomes a lot more understandable. That distinction may have a difference, but it's one that undermines the whole point of the question, because people die for wrong things happens every day and in a shockingly high number of contexts.