"Did they die for something that they knew was a lie?"

[BurtWorm]

This is called begging the question. It is logically equivalent to the statement: "If they were foolish enough to die for something, it must have been a lie."

Note that either statement could be applied equally to Christian martyrs or the 9/11 gang.

[trotsky]

1. Mormon martyrs, Muslim martyrs, Jewish martyrs, etc.

Every religion has 'em. Does that mean every religion is right?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Sort of right, sort of wrong

Remember the old story of the blind men and the elephant? Each blind man was sure he totally understood the elephant from the bit he'd grabbed onto. So each man was right that the elephant was what they described, but each was wrong because the elephant was much more than their limited perception. So it is with God and religion.

[trotsky]

4. God is an elephant?

By the many arms of Vishnu, I swear that is a lie!

[trotsky]

5. By the way, I'm really tired of that analogy.

In the case of blind men & an elephant, at least you could rotate the blind men around and they could personally verify the different experiences of each of them.

Not so with religion.

[PsychoDad]

6. If the blind men were so inclined.

To try and feel the aeras the others had, then they would know that what the others had discribed was true, but perhaps more importantly, they would discover for themselves that there were still starteling simularities, such as the texture of the skin, temperature, etc.

Given time, they may even discover, it is in reality one creature.

But, some blind men refuse to touch any part of the elephant beside their own, claiming some special relationship with it, and that it is the whole of the elephant, and that there is no more than their small grasp of it.

On the other hand, there are blind folks who refuse to even touch the elephant, and thus insist it is not there...

Meanwhile, the elephant just likes to be touched.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

7. You are so right!

Thanks for the beautiful post. :)

[trotsky]

8. Of course, it's just that simple, isn't it?

If the multitudes of religions, some of which are in direct conflict with each other, would simply take a step back they'd all see that they are worshipping the same wonderful god.

Meanwhile, atheists simply "refuse" to acknowledge your god. You can get away with saying this, and yet when a non-believer calls Christianity a "myth" they get blasted for hate speech. Normally that would be called hypocrisy, but no one gets in trouble for atheist bashing.

[PsychoDad]

9. Well.

"If the multitudes of religions, some of which are in direct conflict with each other, would simply take a step back they'd all see that they are worshipping the same wonderful god."

Even if they couldn't, I would hope that they would accept the oneness of the family of man. That would be a good start.

Having explored a number of religions myself, I would have to say that I don't think any religion naturally opposes any other. In fact, many if not most intertwine. What are opposed are small people with big hatreds, intolerances and agendas.

Something most religions try and discourage.

"but no one gets in trouble for atheist bashing."

Firstly, I think you should have the right to say what you will, to who you will, just as anyone should have. Of course they have just as much as a right to not listen.

But it is much better when people do activly listen to each other.

I was not aware I had bashed any atheists. (I thought we were talking about blind folks and elephants. ;)) Nevertheles, It was not my intention to "bash" anyone. Sorry if you took it that way.

Everyone has a right to their paradigm.

[trotsky]

10. The difference.

I would hope that they would accept the oneness of the family of man. That would be a good start.

That concept, of course, has nothing to do with gods or religion, and is actually one that most atheists would strongly agree with.

Having explored a number of religions myself, I would have to say that I don't think any religion naturally opposes any other.

Perhaps not your view of each religion. But ask a Southern Baptist, a Shiite Muslim, an Orthodox Jew, and a devout Hindu what they think will happen to the followers of other religions. What you are venturing into is telling THOSE religions what they are "naturally" supposed to be. Many religions and sects are quite comfortable with putting front & center the "fact" that their path is the ONLY one that will lead to "god."

At a bare minimum, recognize that Judaism says Jesus is NOT the Messiah, while Christianity says that he IS. Pretty hard to reconcile that as being two different perceptions of the same god.

I was not aware I had bashed any atheists.

Of course you're not, most people do it automatically. At best, we're dismissed as fools for not "seeing" what's there. At worst, we are accused of being selfish and sinful, and "afraid" of a god's judgement for our horrible thoughts and actions. Your comment was of course towards the "friendly" part of that spectrum, but by implying that there MUST be an elephant there, and the atheists are the blind people who just refuse to reach out and touch it, you are displaying an insensitivity towards those who have honestly and sincerely rejected religious belief. It's not a matter of refusing, it's a matter of having personally investigated and found nothing there.

As I said, I am tired of the elephant analogy. Other reasons it fails:

1) An elephant can't speak or help blind men experience it more completely. A sentient, creative intelligence would have that ability.
2) As noted above, many religious opinions ARE mutually exclusive. They can't just be dismissed as a different viewpoint of the same god.
3) The same limitation ("blindness") applies to the person who is trying to tell everyone they're touching the same "elephant." The parable was created to show the limitations of humanity being able to completely comprehend or describe god - well, when extended to that level, we are ALL "blind." No one is capable of stepping back and "seeing" the elephant. And so there is no resolution to the conflicting perceptions.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. I think the answer is that they were deluded

the 911 hijackers by hate. Can't speak for Christian martyrs because there have been many and they haven't all died under the same circumstances.

That being said, not everyone who dies for a cause does so out of delusion or because the cause was wrong. There was a young lady who worked for the French underground during WWII. She was betrayed by a neighbor and taken to Dachau where she was tortured and then murdered. Her last words were "Liberty!"