CM: You didn't answer my question. Saying that the jewish god is the same god as the christian god does not say which god you are referring to.

"Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding" -Martin Luther

The entire idea that clinging to a superstition in the face of death means that superstition gains value is bullshit.

One could make the same claim to the 9/11 hijackers. They certainly bought into their particular crazy monotheist stuff, despite threat of death. Just because you're willing to be killed (or kill!) for your beliefs doesn't make those beliefs any more or less valid.

It just means you have a terminal disease of the mind.

good thing we dont believe in martin luther

"terminal disease of the mind"

is that sort of like a Total Eclipse of the heart?

@Jack_Klein: You're misunderstanding the point. The 9/11 hijackers thoguht that Islam is correct. They weren't around when Islam started so they don't have knowledge from back then. So they died for what they thought was true. But if they were aroung in Mohammed's time, they might have known something that led them to believe that Islam is not true, and then they wouldn't die for it. But since they live now, they have no first-hand evidence, and are just believeing what was told to them. But Jesus' apostles were around when Jesus died. They have first-hand evidence either way. There are only two possiblitities here: 1. Jesus rose from the dead. 2. Jesus didn't rise from the dead. The apostles would have known which of those is true. If Jesus rose from the dead, then Christianity is true. If Jesus didn't rise from the dead Christianity is false. So by extension, the apostles KNEW whether or not Christianity was real. So why would they die for something they KNEW was fake?

@dexter: "Joseph Smith died for his claims of revelation... does that make his revelation true?" He likely hallucinated. I'm sure he believed his claims were true, and that's why he died for them. Like in my argument above. The apostles would have died for Christianity, because they BELIEVED Christianity is true. But if Jesus didn't rise from the dead, they would have no reason to believe Christianity is true, and wouldn't have died for it.

@CM

Do you actually believe the words you're saying, or are you trolling?

If Joseph Smith hallucinated, why couldn't the apostles have? What the shit?

@abge: What exactly could the apostles have hallucinated? Either they knew Jesus didn't rise from the dead (because either A. They stole the body, or B. they knew it was left out as carion) or they knew that Jesus did rise from the dead, because perhaps they knew that Jesus was in fact buried instead of left out for carion, and they saw him. Now that could have been hallucinated, but I ask you this: If Jesus was buried (we're assuming he was for the purposed of this argument), where is his body?

@Santa - I agree that the entire nation of Israel is a significantly larger group. I was referring to the statement that Jesus' witnesses were a small number and pointing out that they weren't that small for the day.

I don't know why you are getting angry at me. Jehovah is Jehovah. He is the great I Am. And the concept that the Massiah is an aspect of God is not anti-Jewish nor is God being one God mean he can't be made of many parts. Echad refers to the unity of oneness. This is the same word used in Genesis 2:24 when it speaks of a man and woman becoming one flesh. Exodus 24:3 uses it when the people answer with one voice. Echad means the many as one. Quite literally E Pluribus Unum is the latin equivalent. Therefore, when god says he is one [echad] God, he is referring to the multiple aspects of himself. Seriously, dude, if your going to spout Judaistic views, you should consult a learned scholar first. I knew this and I'm not even a Jew.

What I'm saying his, even if they hallucinated Jesus, the only way they'd believe the hallucination is if they didn't know where Jesus' body was, other wise it just wouldn't make sense to hallucinate.

*what I'm saying is

Seriously?

His body is 2000 years old. There's nothing left of it. He was crucified as a heretic; he probably wasn't given a royal burial mound.

Where's Genghis Khan's body? Did he raise from the dead?

@abge: I meant back then. They should have known where his body was BACK THEN.

Because only a couple people knew? They did secretly take him off the cross after all.

Also here's some motivation for lying about the resurrection: being super pissed at Rome (it was tyrannical). They probably would have been killed anyway if they were ever found. Might as well become a martyr.

Oh, I'm sure they believed that he rose from the dead. But believing something doesn't make it any more or less true.

And the fact that they're willing to die for a bullshit belief doesn't make their beliefs any more or less true.

Crazy paranoid people are convinced that the government has put a chip in their heads... their absolute belief in silly shit doesn't make it true. Likewise, just because the apostles thought their leader became a zombie doesn't mean he did.

As people have said before, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Prattling on about what a group of religious fanatics thought happened two thousand years ago isn't going to win you any points, sir.

Do you think Muhammad rode to Heaven in a golden chariot from Jerusalem? Because a lot of people believed that to be true when it "happened". Doesn't make it true.

I do wonder somehow how religious people can buy into crazy bullshit. They believe in zombie Jesus or something similar, but Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are obviously kids stories.

@abge: "They probably would have been killed anyway if they were ever found." There's no proof of that, so that evidence is no more solid than mine. Let's face it, we both have confirmation bias, and this argument is going nowhere. I think it's time we let this thread die.

@JackKlein: Do you honestly not get what I'm saying to you?!!!!! The apostles eithe KNEW Christianity was right, or they KNEW Christianity was wrong. There was no believing about it. If Jesus rose from the dead, they would KNOW it because 1. his body would be missing, and 2. He would likely have visited them. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, they would KNOW it because A. They stole his body, or B. He wasn't buried but was instead left out as carion.
As you can see, the was no believing in the case of the apostles. They either KNEW Christianity was right, or they KNEW it was wrong. And who in their right minds would die for something they KNEW was wrong? What part of this don't you understand?!

Anyway, Jack, I'm done here if you don't understand that, because if you don't, then it's obvious you're an idiot.

CM, your rhetoric skills haven't improved in your hiatus.

I've read what you've said, but you have no idea how to construct an argument.

Just because the apostles thought they knew what was going on doesn't mean they were right. I have no doubt they believed that Jesus rose, but just because they thought it happened, doesn't make it true. Personal testimony is one of the weakest methods of evidence.

Again. You are the one putting forth an extraordinary claim. That requires that YOU, not US provide proof of this claim. So far, you have failed. Repeatedly. Don't worry, you're not alone. Far better people than you have tried, and failed.

@CM

*You* wanted a debate; I'm sorry if you can't actually defend your position.

No, that are absolutely *not* of equal solidity. Rome had a long, long history of crucifying heretics. There is also a long history of people lying about gods. There is not a long history of people being shuttle up into the sky.

Here. Following on what Abgemacht said:

There are X number of people from religions that have made "firsthand" claims about supernatural activities. By your rationale, a claim that a person witnessed something that "proves" the religion is the case means that we have to take them at their word.

In my own life, one of my ex-girlfriends was a practitioner of Haitian vodou. She claimed to have been "ridden" (possessed) by the loa of Papa Legba. She was absolutely convinced this had happened.

I happen to think that its not true. But by your own rationale because SHE believes this to be true, I have to assume her beliefs are true?

I call bullshit. And this is why your 'argument' barely deserves the name.

Of course, it could simply be that the claim that any apostles died for their belief is not true.

History is filled with people who died "for their faith". I'm willing to entertain the notion that they did so more or less convinced they had the right idea. But its not like all of those blessed idiots agreed (or even mostly agreed).

Like I said before, people willing to die for their faith doesn't make that particular creed any more or less credible. Its the "argument from people being batshit" which doesn't hold water with me.

Conservative Man, the hijackers committed mass murder because they believed it was approved by their God, not Islam or Allah. Islam does not condone what Osama and his followers did. Saying the hijackers were Muslim is the same as saying Ted Bundy or Charles Manson is a Christian. The hijackers, Bundy, and Manson can call themselves whatever they want, but that does not make them Muslim or Christian.
You have to act in the tenets of the faith to be Muslim or Christian and neither religion condones mass murder.

"Imagine someone long jumping across the atlantic ocean. You can imagine it, therefore it is logically possible."

"Things I am able to imagine" are "logically possible." I CAN imagine the moon growing wings and rocket boosters and threatening to crash into the Earth unless Jersey Shore is taken off the air. And I think you just did too. LOGICALLY POSSIBLE.

"But no Human Being can do it. So it is physically impossible."

Which means that not even God can take Jersey Shore off the air, even by threatening humanity with lunar annihilation.

"My definition of logically impossible: Impossible to even imagine. My definition of physically impossible: Something that breaks a law of physics. Undertsand the difference now?"

God is limited by our imaginations, got it. He's sounding more and more like a PRODUCT of imagination all the time.

"You actually have a good argument here, but only because I have been making statements without thinking them through completely. I will have to revise the statement: There is only one logically possible way God can stop evil, and that requires letting it happen for now. God will, however, eventually stop it, as descriped (somewhat symbolically) in the Book of Revelations."

The Book of Revelations was about those damn Romans getting what the deserved. Whoever wrote it, whether it was John the Apostle or just someone writing under his name, didn't like the Romans one bit. I find it a lot easier to believe that Revelations' author was writing about things that were going on around him than that he was granted insight into future events by a God I'm not convinced exists.

I must admit that I have religious tendencies, myself. If I were walking in a forest, I would see and feel everything. I would wonder how this could have possibly formed without divine intervention. The similarity, yet innumerable differences, of all the leaves. Every vein, perfect. Without divine intervention, how could have any of this happen. We humans must be God’s chosen people to live on this wonderful, blue-green orb that we call Earth.

Then I stop. Why? I ask. 
Why would a being so powerful and omnipotent waste his time on something as insignificant as us? Why does he love and care for us, as the scriptures say? Why does he give us heaven and hell? Why did he send Jesus? What is the point of it all? How did he do it? Who is this God person anyway?

I remember. The God we know today was formed over eons of Whys? From the first caveman, thinking: “Why?” to myself today, man has wondered “Why?” Now, at first, man believed that it was the elements and the animals that created him. This is called animism, and still exists today in some isolated areas of the world. So began worship. The early man logically thought: “If I worship the clouds, and perhaps sacrifice my best pig to it, the clouds will bring me rain.” The coincidental coming of rain brought faith that the gods were real. So started religion.

As man advanced, their religions, worshipping, and sacrifices grew more complex. Gods now had names, and controlled selective areas. Religion became a status quo. To a ruler, it brought peace and order, for the peasants would be calm, in fear of the afterlife. To the peasants, it brought life. Rulers would aggressively enforce their religions. For all, it brought a sense of security, after all, the Gods were on their side.

About two millennia ago there was a man named Jesus. He took religion a step further. He said that there was one God. That God was that was benevolent, and kind; unlike the harsh Gods of the Romans. This God cared for his people, and granted them eternal paradise if they were god-fearing. Now, I have no doubt that Jesus exists, but his journeys and miracles are covered in the dense fog of legend. We will probably never know what really happened.

Nevertheless, Christianity was formed. It’s attractiveness and military conquests quickly brought it to be the premier world religion. It supported scientific discovery, brought order and unity. Yet, it did terrible things: the Spanish Inquisition, indulgences, the murder of those that questioned the church.

As time progressed, man clumsily stepped out of the shadows of the dark ages. Newer technologies brought more leisure time, and through that, more time to think. Although some continued the status quo of religion, brought down by the generations, others ventured out to question it. They, like me, questioned God. They saw that it was man had created religion, not God. Religion is man's doing.

As I walk in that forest, I see the world in a different way. The leaves, and their beauty, was not by intelligent design. Instead by ambitious single-celled organisms, that had transformed over eons, into this form now. Strategically beautiful so I wouldn't kill it. This view upon life may seem cold and scary at first, but as I think more, I notice impossibilities with God. The brain is simply a network of cleverly aligned atoms. How could be transported to paradise after the whizzing chemicals come to a stop? Why does this all-powerful begin even care enough to transport us there?

To some, it may seem scary to have there be nothing after the lights go out. Blink! And darkness. To them, it is better to imagine a better place after death.

I stand before the world, watching. The world has gotten faster, more orderly. Is there still time for religion? Religion guided us through dark times, gave us unity, direction. But the times are dark no more. We, as humanity, no longer need to believe in fairytales to calm us and unify us. We have grown up.

Still, there are those that cling to religion, crying: "the world is cold without it, cold, and calculated. There is no beauty in this world."

I patiently wait for them to see. See that the world ... Is just here. No god ... just here.

Sorry, everyone. That was longer than I thought.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FQZlc4S268

^If there is a god, Carl Sagan is his prophet.

"You have to act in the tenets of the faith to be Muslim or Christian and neither religion condones mass murder."

Sure they do.

Exodus 12:29

Exodus 17:13

Numbers 21:35

Numbers 31:17-18

Numbers 31:31-40

Deuteronomy 3:6

"And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city."

And on and on and on

If the Bible does anything, it sanctions mass murder.