From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: FOR WHATEVER IT'S WORTH
Date: 21 Aug 92 08:51:46 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Aug20.201052.21811@meaddata.com> joyce@meaddata.com writes:
>I am convinced that people will believe what they want to believe so I
>could argue all I want until I'm blue in the face and people will
>still believe what they want.

Lovely example of Poisoning the Well.  Most atheists don't "believe
what they want", they simply disbelieve what they have no good reason
to believe, no matter whether they would want to believe it or not.

>It's the first (and last) time I will ever be in this newsgroup

Not the last one.  Stay here and defend your point of view.

>I just ask that you consider
>the person of Jesus Christ, the most loved and most hated person who
>ever lived, all because He claimed to be God.

We have, don't worry.  We still prefer Quetzalcoatl (well, I do).

>There are 3 possibilities to His
>claim, 1) He was not telling the truth and He knew it which makes Him
>a liar; 2) He was not telling the truth and He did not know it which
>makes Him a lunatic; and 3) He was telling the truth.

4) He never said most of what he is reported to have said, nor did any
  of the events in the Gospels (and Acts) really happen.
5) He never existed.

>1) If He was lying, then He
>chose to suffer and die for a lie, which makes Him really stupid and
>all His followers nuts;

Probably he hoped to get away with it, and then at some point he
realised that there was no way back.  There were two other fellows
crucified with him, weren't there?  People often run big risks without
it being really worth it.

As for his followers, I think most of us here don't need to be
convinced that they are nuts.

>for a lie, Paul was beheaded, Peter was sawed
>in two, Stephen was stoned, etc.

That's nothing, compared to the myriads of people put to gruesome
death by the Church for their beliefs.  They wouldn't have suffered
and died for a lie, would they?  So, by your logic, their beliefs
(which often included a denial of Jesus' crazy claims) are immediately
valid.  Good to know.

Also, recall how one of your bonny god's favourite OT fellows
slaughtered a huge number of prophets of Baal.  Did they die for a
lie, or was Baal the Lord?  On your knees, quick, and worship him.

Side note to the Lord Keeper of the FAQ list: This is the umpteenth
time that we are asked to believe that "the apostles wouldn't have
died for a lie", and I'm beginning to think that this argument ought
to be dealt with in the FAQ list.

>To those who are interested, I
>suggest studying the lives of your ex-contemporaries:

Ex-contemporaries?  What the hell is that?

I suggest studying the life and work of Leo Taxil.

[drivel deleted]
>I hope I don't sound like I`m preaching

What a silly hope.  Of course you sound like you're preaching, and
that's because preaching is exactly what you're doing.

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,soc.motss