Print

[Anthony Horvath]

Cogito argued that history is filled with people dying for things that they sincerely believed is true.  No argument there, however, in Christianity, the people who died were people who would have known the resurrection claims were a lie.  This must be pretty common, but I am unaware of any examples of people dying for things they know to be a lie.

I would like to hear some examples besides Christianity.

[Anthony Horvath]

My bad.  One example- the faked abduction in Iraq.

[Copernicus]

I can always tell when you are having trouble with an argument, because you tend to start spinning out new threads that don't really have a new point to make.  

...however, in Christianity, the people who died were people who would have known the resurrection claims were a lie.

Actually, this is a "fact not in evidence".  This is exactly the claim that we have all disagreed on.

This must be pretty common, but I am unaware of any examples of people dying for things they know to be a lie.

I don't know many cases of this either, but I did like the ending of A Tale of Two Cities:  "Tis a far, far better thing I do..."  

I would like to hear some examples besides Christianity.

Nobody has claimed that any Christian martyrs died for for what they knew to be a lie.  This is your invention.  The argument has been that people can die for sincere beliefs that are wrong.

[Anthony Horvath]

If the disciples did not know it was a lie, than it means that they were 'deceived' or convinced.  In either case, that presumes that there was an underlying set of events that led them to be deceived or conviced.  Trust me, I am more than happy to presume that there was an underlying set of events that moved them to take the positions they did.  :)

If there were no such events in order to deceive them, an account for their testimony must still be provided.  Without any such events, obviously it must have been made up by the whole lot of them.  It is not uncommon for people to lie as it suits their purpose, so that is not silly on its face.  However, to then go to their deaths despite knowing it was a lie, that seems to be something fairly unique within history.

However, if its going to be believed of the first Christians, than we ought to allow it to be something characteristic of humanity.  There should be many such examples.  I can only think of the one I've already mentioned.

If you have to erect an explanation that is plausible ONLY in this ONE case, I submit that that is nothing more than an ad hoc, arbitrary, biased explanation.  Either its valid throughout time and experience, or it is not.

[Cogito]

If the disciples did not know it was a lie, than it means that they were 'deceived' or convinced.

But why bring this up again? We've alread assumed for argument purposes that the apostles were convinced that their beliefs were true. Why revisit the same argument in this thread?

But, OK. Once again. . .  

Let's assume for argument purposes, as we did in the other thread, that the apostles sincerely believed Jesus was resurrected from the dead. Let's assume also that, for some reason, the apostles decided to submit to torture and to eventual death rather than to deny what they sincerely believed to be true.

All this can possibly mean, if it happened, is that the apostles sincerely believed that Jesus was resurrected. But believing that a proposition is true and a proposition's actually being true are two entirely different affairs.

Do you believe that all Muslim suicide bombers are drugged when they blow themselves to kingdom come? Isn't it likely that at least a few of them sincerely believe that they will be rewarded for their actions in the great beyond?

So what does their willingness to give their lives for that belief signify? It signifies only that those suicide bombers sincerely believe that their beliefs are true. It in no way means that their beliefs are true.

Beyond that, we don't know that the apostles did in fact die "for the belief that Jesus was resurrected from the dead."

We don't even know that the apostles died martyrs' deaaths. Only one (possibly two?) of their deaths is recounted in the Bible. The remainder are based on legend.

[Anthony Horvath]

I'm not revisiting any argument here.  I'm just assembling a catalog of like examples.

I see neither of you have any other like examples to offer.

If you've got some, I'd like to hear them.

[Cogito]

If the disciples did not know [that the resurrection] was a lie, than it means that they were 'deceived' or convinced. In either case, that presumes that there was an underlying set of events that led them to be deceived or conviced. Trust me, I am more than happy to presume that there was an underlying set of events that moved them to take the positions they did. :)

I agree. If the persons who wrote the accounts attributed to the apostles in the Bible were not lying (which for propagandistic purposes, they very well may have been) then most likely there was an underlying set of historical events on which they based their account. Even at that, it is about as extremely unlikely as it gets that that set of events would include an actual resurrection.  

If there were no such events in order to deceive them, an account for their testimony must still be provided. Without any such events, obviously it must have been made up by the whole lot of them. It is not uncommon for people to lie as it suits their purpose, so that is not silly on its face. However, to then go to their deaths despite knowing it was a lie, that seems to be something fairly unique within history.

Why are you so eager to believe that men would willingly go to their deaths rather than that, under torture and threat of death, they would say that the resurrection never happened?

And why wouldn't they simply say that?

I know of no one who believes that confessions compelled by torture and by threat of death are genuine confessions. Can God not discern the difference between words spoken sincerely and words spoken only as a means to avoid torture and death? Is it your opinion that anyone who denies Jesus under threat of death is not a true Christian?

Besides, how can we know that they didn't deny Jesus and were not then summarily executed anyway?

It's funny to me that Christians are willing to suspend disbelief to the point that they seem to assume that unbiased observers just happened to be standing around accurately recording all the events depicted in the Bible.

It seems imminently more likely to be the case that this is a tale invented by early Christians to inspire the faithful rather than that it is an accurate recording by unbiased observers of an actual historical event.

[Anthony Horvath]

"It's funny to me that Christians are willing to suspend disbelief"

Its funny to me that skeptics are willing to invoke explanations for things they don't want to believe in but refuse to invoke those explanations anywhere else.

BTW, 'suspend disbelief' is an unfortunate term, because it assumes that the default position ought to be 'disbelief.'  This shows the bias and irrationality of the position.  If there is any default position,  it ought to be agnosticism.  

Only in the mad minds of atheists, and only in regards to questions they have categorized as 'religion,' and no where else in real life, do we find it 'reasonable' to begin with our bias and reason with that bias as its starting point.

Anyway, this thread has served its purpose.

Nobody except me can think of any other time in history where someone died for something that they knew was a lie.

Thus, its invocation in regards to the disciples does nothing but concede the amazing singularity that the whole phenomena represents:  its invocation is ad hoc, arbitrary, and inconsistent with demonstrable human nature, as observed throughout history.

This thread is closed.

[Ragnar]

Umm, SntJ, no one but you ever implied the disciples died for something they knew to be a lie. The contention from the beginning, at best, has been that they died for something they believed to be true. Although that wasn't even the position that Cop was arguing. Cog might have been, but Cop's position was that it was merely WRITTEN that the disciples died for what they believed to be true. There is very little evidence to even give any credence to what has been written. Then we had another possibility offered - that they in fact recanted their position and were killed anyway, something that oppressors have done throughout history, so that is a perfectly plausible scenario worthy of consideration.

So congrats, you effectively demolished the flimsiest strawman I've ever had the misfortune of witnessing someone construct.

[Anthony Horvath]

"Umm, SntJ, no one but you ever implied the disciples died for something they knew to be a lie."

That is not true, as cogito agreed to as much just above.

"The contention from the beginning, at best, has been that they died for something they believed to be true."

The key word, again, 'believed.'

"So congrats, you effectively demolished the flimsiest strawman I've ever had the misfortune of witnessing someone construct."

Actually, the whole thing has been a reaction in the most strenous fashion against the strawman erected and constantly maintained by you, Cog, and Cop:  The disciples did NOT die for something they believed to be true.  They died for something they SAW.

I believe it was you, but it may have been Cog as well, who not merely agreed but argued that it must be conceded that one must trust their senses, even if perhaps their senses deceives them.  This apparently is a courtesy you do not wish to extend to the disciples themselves, who never claimed to have a 'belief' but a 'testimony.'

[Copernicus]

So congrats, you effectively demolished the flimsiest strawman I've ever had the misfortune of witnessing someone construct.

As strawmen go, this was a bit convoluted, wasn't it?  Sntjohnny's actual position is that the disciples did not believe a lie, but he had to impute to us that they did believe a lie in order to make this whole thing work.  We, of course, have never made such a silly claim, but he couldn't let it go.  Then he started this entire thread to prop up his strawman argument, finally burning it all down with our enthusiastic help.  We should all bring marshmallows for his next refutation of imaginary atheist arguments.  

[Anthony Horvath]

I agree. If the persons who wrote the accounts attributed to the apostles in the Bible were not lying (which for propagandistic purposes, they very well may have been) then most likely there was an underlying set of historical events on which they based their account.

[Copernicus]

Sntjohnny, you can quote the Bible all you want, but don't expect my interpretation of it to be the same as yours.  Similarly with Cogito's responses to you.  I think that he has been clear and consistent, and you have, too.  You have clearly and consistently misconstrued his remarks as support for your convoluted strawman argument.  

[Ragnar]

"Umm, SntJ, no one but you ever implied the disciples died for something they knew to be a lie."

That is not true, as cogito agreed to as much just above.

If you are talking about this:
I agree. If the persons who wrote the accounts attributed to the apostles in the Bible were not lying (which for propagandistic purposes, they very well may have been) then most likely there was an underlying set of historical events on which they based their account. Even at that, it is about as extremely unlikely as it gets that that set of events would include an actual resurrection.

then he did not agree with that. Again, he is talking about the WRITERS, not the disciples themselves. You seem to have trouble understanding that we do not take the scriptures as historical documents, but merely as stories that people wrote. Some of the places and people may be real, as Troy was a real place and Greece is a real place, but we regard the stories themselves as exaggerations or outright fabrications.  

"So congrats, you effectively demolished the flimsiest strawman I've ever had the misfortune of witnessing someone construct."

Actually, the whole thing has been a reaction in the most strenous fashion against the strawman erected and constantly maintained by you, Cog, and Cop:  The disciples did NOT die for something they believed to be true.  They died for something they SAW.

No, someone else wrote that they died for something they saw. That would actually make it, what, a third-hand account? fourth hand? more? Who wrote that the disciples died for what they say they saw? When? Where did they get the information? Who actually witnessed the disciples being killed, and who, if anyone, recorded their last words?

I believe it was you, but it may have been Cog as well, who not merely agreed but argued that it must be conceded that one must trust their senses, even if perhaps their senses deceives them.  This apparently is a courtesy you do not wish to extend to the disciples themselves, who never claimed to have a 'belief' but a 'testimony.'

I believe my own senses, yes. Hearsay is another matter entirely. Surely you can understand the difference between you actually saying something and me writing on my blog: Anthony Horvath said, "I am an atheist and maintain my Christian website as a way to use illogical arguments to show Christians how silly Christianity is so that they convert to atheism."  

[Cogito]

BTW, 'suspend disbelief' is an unfortunate term, because it assumes that the default position ought to be 'disbelief.' This shows the bias and irrationality of the position. If there is any default position, it ought to be agnosticism.

"Agnosticism" is disbelief.

agnosticism: (a) a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God. (b) the disbelief in any claims of ultimate knowledge.

[Anthony Horvath]

lol, whatever.

You know what I meant, and you know what YOU meant.

I love watching you guys run back and forth within the accepted denotations of a word.  I do hope someday some philogist comes and gives you all a good drubbing.

[Cogito]

No, seriously. "Agnosticism" is disbelief.

Many folks (in fact, probably most) interpret "agnosticism" to be a third way between having a belief in god(s) and not having that belief. They do so, however, only by taking the position that a disbelief in god(s) is actually itself a belief that requires justification. This is probably how you use the word "agnosticism.'

Agnosticism in this sense is the equivalent of refusing to believe that the Tooth Fairy is nonexistent because evidence for the Tooth Fairy's nonexistence cannot be found -- and no such evidence can be found, BTW.

Evidence of a nonexistent's nonexistence is itself necessarily nonexistent. We can have only reasons to believe that a putative entity is actually nonexistent; and chief among those reasons is an utter lack of evidence in places where evidence ought to exist if the putative entity itself exists.

[Copernicus]

I love watching you guys run back and forth within the accepted denotations of a word.  I do hope someday some philogist comes and gives you all a good drubbing.

Give US a drubbing?  You're the one who can't even spell their name correctly.  

People forget that Huxley was anything but ambivalent about belief in gods.  Agnosticism for him was the denial of 'gnosis'--ultimate knowledge about the nature of reality.  Many people nowadays think of agnostics as people who can't decide whether or not gods exist.

[Anthony Horvath]

lol

[Anthony Horvath]

I knew it didn't look right.  On the other hand, I think I've seen it that way.  I'll be keeping a sharp eye out for it!