Perhaps I can be more clear. Christ existing is obviously a necessary condition for Christianity to be true - but it's not sufficient. I suppose some people might say "Oh, Christ never existed so Christianity isn't true", but I don't think anyone's doing that here - and that's why I thought it was an odd thing to bring up. I think most non-Christian people here would say something more like "Jesus probably existed, and probably said more or less the same stuff that's in the Bible - but he didn't do miracles, isn't the Son of God, and didn't come back from the dead".

The belief that Jesus is a myth seems to be more prevelent, actually, and many of the people I have debated here have claimed this. I think only a very unthoughtful and intellectually incurious person could actually believe it, as you'd be hard pressed to even find a secular historian who does. He is by far the most influential person in history, which continues to this day. That in itself speaks to His claims. Our great land was founded on judeo-christian values, and the freedom that we enjoy today was predcated upon those values of personal liberty.. Even the pursuit of science was founded upon Christian understaniding; It was thought we could determine the operation of the cosmos because the Universe is orderly and has regularity due to Gods oversight. Yet, even with all this some people close their eyes to the simple truth that Jesus Christ even existed. Yet, these are the same people who champion their own rationality as being superior.

This martyr argument is another one you come back to, but surely with any reflection you understand why it isn't convincing. Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on martyrs - there's been plenty of, for example, Muslims who've chosen to die for their beliefs in a great variety of circumstances, sometimes very pro-active ones. But even if Christianity has the most (or most spectacular martyrs), certainly there are many people who've died for all sorts of causes: religious, secular, or personal.

While it certainly says Christianity is a powerful idea that so many have died for it, I don't think an idea has to be true to prompt this level of conviction.

I think the martyr argument is very powerful when you consider the original disciples. They were the ones who truly knew if Jesus was in fact risen. If Jesus was not raised from the dead, there isn't any plausible explanation as to why they would all willingly die for something they knew to be a lie, when all they had to do was recant their testimony. It is also powerful for the early church because it was formed in the times of the living witnesses of Christ, and it was under very heavy persecuation. It was to a persons great disadvantage to follow Christ, socially, economically, and was often putting your life on the line. Being a Christian then was like being a Christian in Iran today. There is no good reason why the church should have ever survived under those conditions, but it did more than; it thrived and expanded expodentially. Yes, people martyr themselves today..most notably members of Islam. Islam isn't under persecution though..people are indoctrinated from birth and told if they even think one bad thought about Allah they will face eternal torment. There is no atonement in Islam, so if you screw up once you're done for. Under these conditions, and considering that Islam advocates exterminating all other religions and people, it isn't surprising it creates conditions in which people willingly martyr themselves. These situations however are night and day in regards to motivation.

First off, I should say that I appreciate the effort you're putting into legitimate debate here. I do. While I disagree with your recent points, I also accept them as honest reasoning and I think we're discussing things on a better level than we have in the past. So thanks, and I'll try to rein in my own douchebag forum persona.

Anyways, I'll (hopefully) explain what I was trying to get at better. It is my belief that religions often effectively "poison the well" for detractors by saying that the detractors are doing so for alternative motives, or that those detractors cannot understand the truth because of some flaw. To illustrate this, I was saying that Scientologists are quick to call out detractors (who are, to be fair, usually former members with a grievance) for their character flaws or crimes. Facetiously (because I don't actually know Scientologist beliefs), I was suggesting that they might also blame detractors' disagreements on confusing Thetans.

I was attempting to illustrate how awkward this attack is to refute for the detractor. The detractor certainly does have "crimes" (because, as I think we all agree, people all do things they aren't proud of). And he certainly can't be convincing if he says he has no Thetans. How can he make the case for that, when he doesn't even believe in Thetans anymore, and is definitely no longer being cleared of them?
From a perspective of a non-believer, a Christian detractor is in a similar position. Many (or even most) will have personal grievances that make their arguments sound suspect. And all will have sins. Many will have sins associated with their departure. Given that it's common Christian thought that sin clouds thought (or bars revelation or conscience or similar), we're left with a tidy way to undermine almost all detractors.

The most common objection I hear from someone is not that they haven't done evil, or that they aren't guilty of crimes against God. It's not even that they would disagree that they deserve to be punished. It's that they just defacto reject Gods authority over them because they don't want to stop living the way they do. In a very real way, they reject God over their preference to sin as they wish. This is exactly what the bible means in John 3:19-21 when it says:

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil

Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.

Even Christopher Hitchens outright admits it. Skip to 6:26 for his confession.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AX1CswHCkA

A person who is railing against Christianity due to personal grievances is not only not rational, but is completely disingenuous. Such a person willfully avoids the truth, because their objection isn't based on rational grounds, but emotional ones. I have yet to meet a single person who has a legitimate gripe against Christianity as it is described in the bible. It is all due to the failings of men who didn't live up to Gods word. Yet, to the world you're a Christian if you say you are, and every evil thing man has done in the name of Christianity is ascribed to it, ignoring the fact Christ specifically taught against it.

I understand your argument..but you're basically saying it's unfair because the bible accurately describes the condition of man. That it's easy for a Christian to pigeonhole unbelievers because man is in fact habitually evil and hypocritical as the bible describes.. Man has a sin problem, but how is it any different when one might reference a scientific worldview. To blame the wickedness of human beings on animal instincts, or the "reptile brain" (serpent consciousness), or chemical reactions. Survival of the fittest. Science even says that people who believe in God have it in their DNA to do so, and even associate it to a certain area of the brain. There is no real empirical evidence for any of this, so how is it much different than saying man is corrupted by sin? It really isn't. They are competing worldviews. Science says it's a physical issue, but the bible says it is spiritual. Only one can be right.

So my overall point is an analogy. Both the Scientologist and the Christian believer have similar reasons to doubt the detractor. However, I think we'd both agree that the Scientologist detractor is right despite those reasons. So while I understand that you still would not accept the Christian detractor, my point would be that we can't completely refute him on these grounds because he could (in principle) be the same as the Scientologist detractor. The differences between the Christian and the Scientologist detractor (with regards to these ideas) are generally only differences from the perspective of someone who already believes Christianity and not Scientology (and certainly I think we'd agree that believing Christianity is more rational than believing Scientology - I'm just using it as a convenient analogy).

My point was that instead of looking at him (the detractor) in terms of his grievances, or in terms of factors (like sin or Thetans) that could cloud his judgement - it's safer to just consider his arguments, which will stand or fall on their own qualities regardless of the speaker.

Yes, I do understand your analogy. Yes, a scientologist might reject a detractor because they think he has thetans, but we know those are made up. There is a similarity in that basic approach, but since Scientology is easily disproven, there aren't any arguments to consider. In that case, people are rejecting his truth because its clearly not true, not because it isn't possible that people reject truth because they are corrupted by evil. It's still a strawman any way you look at it. The point here is, what is the best explanation for reality and the human condition. If it is true that everyone sins, and that people are hypocrites, then that is something you as an unbeliever have to come to terms with. If I can accurately portray the human condition better than you can, and give reasonable explanations for human behavior according to biblical truth, those are obviously points in favor of the bible and not some cheap tact. It's perfectly legimate to point out that the objective stance people claim to take (and the claim they lay to reason itself) is mostly just smoke and mirrors for their personal prejudices and very real rebellion against Gods authority.

Sorry for two posts, but I missed a section there in the middle.

Your entire premise here is a fallacy. You are falsely equivilcating Christianity to Scientology, and then using attacks upon your Scientology strawman (which are easily refuted) to try to knock it down. Scientology was a story authored by a science fiction writer trying to deify himself.

First off, I should say that I appreciate the effort you're putting into legitimate debate here. I do. While I disagree with your recent points, I also accept them as honest reasoning and I think we're discussing things on a better level than we have in the past. So thanks, and I'll try to rein in my own douchebag forum persona.

Anyways, I'll (hopefully) explain what I was trying to get at better. It is my belief that religions often effectively "poison the well" for detractors by saying that the detractors are doing so for alternative motives, or that those detractors cannot understand the truth because of some flaw. To illustrate this, I was saying that Scientologists are quick to call out detractors (who are, to be fair, usually former members with a grievance) for their character flaws or crimes. Facetiously (because I don't actually know Scientologist beliefs), I was suggesting that they might also blame detractors' disagreements on confusing Thetans.

I was attempting to illustrate how awkward this attack is to refute for the detractor. The detractor certainly does have "crimes" (because, as I think we all agree, people all do things they aren't proud of). And he certainly can't be convincing if he says he has no Thetans. How can he make the case for that, when he doesn't even believe in Thetans anymore, and is definitely no longer being cleared of them?

From a perspective of a non-believer, a Christian detractor is in a similar position. Many (or even most) will have personal grievances that make their arguments sound suspect. And all will have sins. Many will have sins associated with their departure. Given that it's common Christian thought that sin clouds thought (or bars revelation or conscience or similar), we're left with a tidy way to undermine almost all detractors.

So my overall point is an analogy. Both the Scientologist and the Christian believer have similar reasons to doubt the detractor. However, I think we'd both agree that the Scientologist detractor is right despite those reasons. So while I understand that you still would not accept the Christian detractor, my point would be that we can't completely refute him on these grounds because he could (in principle) be the same as the Scientologist detractor. The differences between the Christian and the Scientologist detractor (with regards to these ideas) are generally only differences from the perspective of someone who already believes Christianity and not Scientology (and certainly I think we'd agree that believing Christianity is more rational than believing Scientology - I'm just using it as a convenient analogy).

My point was that instead of looking at him (the detractor) in terms of his grievances, or in terms of factors (like sin or Thetans) that could cloud his judgement - it's safer to just consider his arguments, which will stand or fall on their own qualities regardless of the speaker.

Now in this specific case (back to Bill Maher), he's a comedian and a bit of a jerk. He doesn't make a lot of arguments; he is more like a football player who doesn't carry the ball, he just does perpetual endzone celebrations. Sometimes I think he's funny, but generally I find him annoying. When he does debate, he seldom makes any effort at the debate part - typically it's just ridicule, and winking at an audience who he can count on agreeing with him already. This doesn't stop some people from thinking of him as making great points, mostly because they agree with him.

But I don't care about his personal life.

I see plenty of Scientology-knocking in here, and that's great. I just hope you're all atheists doing it (and realizing that statistically, you're probably not). Scientology like any religion is based on a set of ridiculous assertions that have no basis in reality nor are backed with any factual evidence. If you're a theist knocking Scientology, you're making the rest of the world laugh and embarassing yourself and you'd be better off to just keep it to yourself.