I would still volunteer for crucifixion if the only benefit was that I am remembered and worshiped by billions. Jesus had this plus knowing he would get to go to heaven immediately after said crucifixion.

In poker terminology: snap call.

You can make the right play for all the wrong reasons. One has to wonder, though, that in a spiritual realm in which intent and desire are dominant players (see the Sermon on the Mount -- looking at woman lustfully is already adultery in the heart) whether this logic would actually suffice.

You would? I wouldn't. I cannot think of anything more useless to me than being remembered after I am dead.

I suppose I value eternal life (of some sort) more than you do.

I think we can all find flaw with the reasoning used in that passage, so I'm not sure intent and desire should be dominant players.

Maybe, but being remembered after you are dead is not eternal life. Perhaps you had something else in mind.

Well, yes, I value being remembered rather highly. Of course it's not the same thing as eternal life, but it's as close (imo) as we can get.

You're free to make the argument. I'm certainly not saying that they are the *only* players. Actions matter as well (that is, in addition to those things). But the corpus of Jesus' teachings points out that outward behaviors are not always indicators of inner righteousness (see most comments he makes about the Pharisees).

More importantly, it's not sufficient to simply have been crucified, because MANY people died by crucifixion.

That's the subject of a different thread.

I'm new to this subforum but I just want to say that there is no need for 100+ replies to this thread when the answer was given perfectly above by RLK in the 4th post.

Actually that was another logical fallacy, I think one like this http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-question.html

swing and a miss.

No, that's pretty accurate. Simply because you can't make the connection does not make it untrue.

Simply because you think there's a connection does not make it true. I've got an idea. Since you didn't want to answer my other question (too hard for you?):

Why don't we try another one that might be a little bit easier. Consider Post #4:

Why don't you try to explain why it is you think that this is begging the question? (Remember: Less speed. More accuracy.)

No one that follows a religion or believes in a God can prove of God's existence because there is no evidence. There is nothing you can say to avoid committing a logical fallacy, no where you can go with your circular reasoning, or belief that just because something is popular makes it true. Attempting to compare God to the electron is moronic at best. It might at one point in time worked on you because you do not possess any critical thinking skills but what else could I expect in the religion forums?

There's some points to quibble here about the definition of evidence and its relationship to beliefs. You can see, for example, the Belief and Knowledge thread in which it's noted that beliefs can be justifiably held without a particularly high standard of external empirical evidence. But there are other sentences to pick on which are far more entertaining.

And you're going to supply an argument for this, right? Oh... you think it follows from the first sentence? This is what we call a non sequitur. The inability to provide evidence for a claim does not imply that the claim is the result of circular reasoning (or some other logical fallacy) or some sort of popularity contest.

Failing at reading comprehension is similarly moronic.

You're right. I fail at critical thinking because I've properly analyzed your statements and pointed out the flaws. I've noted the failure of your original post to present a meaningful argument, and I've shown you that you've made factually incorrect claims in several places. I've further challenged you to provide support for claims, and this has led to more of the same.

You are clearly superior in your critical thinking skills because you keep posting.

What to expect from a religion forum? If you keep posting like this, you can expect to look silly.

Lol at saying Aaron W has no critical thinking skills. Ask the other Atheists and Agnostics on this board their opinions on that question. You're clearly just reaching. Once you begin to feel cornered in your argument, just launch a baseless and clearly false personal attack. Classic.

That was an excellent post.

Yeah, forget about the billions of muslims and jews over the years. Christians sure are lucky.

Most capable, yes. But I'm still working on my mind-reading.

Not to derail the derail, but I think TheraminTrees addresses the OP in a favorable manner.

His 'there are no gods' series is very well done.

The Impossible Game extract specifically addresses what the OP is trying to say.