Uploaded March 2025 | Updated September 2026, 3 hours ago
I critique Mel Gibson's claim on the Joe Rogan Experience that "nobody dies for a lie," which many apologists have used in the past to argue that the martyrdom of Jesus' disciples supports the truth of the resurrection, as they wouldn’t die for something they knew to be false.
First, I challenge this by questioning the historical evidence for the apostles' martyrdom, noting that accounts are late, based on oral traditions, and often embellished with legendary elements, such as milk flowing from Paul’s severed neck. Even if the apostles were martyred, the reasons for their martyrdom are uncertain due to the difficulty of establishing motivations and crucial details surrounding the apostles' deaths, like whether it would have mattered if they'd recanted. I further undermine the apologist's slogan by proposing scenarios where someone could die for a known lie, such as being falsely accused and coerced into confession under torture; and by highlighting human irrationality, like people confessing to capital crimes they didn’t commit. Finally, Matthew Hartke recounts the story of the Millerites, alerts us to the shortcomings of folk psychology, and explains how cognitive dissonance could explain Christian origins.
Ultimately, "nobody dies for a lie" fails under scrutiny, as history and human behavior are far more complex than the claim allows.
Linktree https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
Matthew Hartke - How Cognitive Dissonance Explains Christianity youtube.com/watch?v=_x8SB_gy8jg @MatthewHartke
Shameless Popery - The Hidden Danger of Mel Gibson youtu.be/NDDrIn9ul2k?si=6ctEAhJf5JQNFFhP @shamelesspopery
Bart Ehrman - Were the disciples martyred for their belief in the resurrection? ehrmanblog.org/were-the-disciples-martyred-for-believing-in-the-resurrection
Joshua Schachterle - How did the apostles die? bartehrman.com/how-did-the-apostles-die
00:00 Who would die for a lie?
2:47 Do we know the apostles were martyred?
9:41 How To Die For A Lie
14:02 Folk Psychology & Irrationality
17:00 The Millerites
23:53 Outro
I critique Mel Gibson's claim on the Joe Rogan Experience that "nobody dies for a lie," which many apologists have used in the past to argue that the martyrdom of Jesus' disciples supports the truth of the resurrection, as they wouldn’t die for something they knew to be false.
First, I challenge this by questioning the historical evidence for the apostles' martyrdom, noting that accounts are late, based on oral traditions, and often embellished with legendary elements, such as milk flowing from Paul’s severed neck. Even if the apostles were martyred, the reasons for their martyrdom are uncertain due to the difficulty of establishing motivations and crucial details surrounding the apostles' deaths, like whether it would have mattered if they'd recanted. I further undermine the apologist's slogan by proposing scenarios where someone could die for a known lie, such as being falsely accused and coerced into confession under torture; and by highlighting human irrationality, like people confessing to capital crimes they didn’t commit. Finally, Matthew Hartke recounts the story of the Millerites, alerts us to the shortcomings of folk psychology, and explains how cognitive dissonance could explain Christian origins.
Ultimately, "nobody dies for a lie" fails under scrutiny, as history and human behavior are far more complex than the claim allows.
Linktree https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
Matthew Hartke - How Cognitive Dissonance Explains Christianity youtube.com/watch?v=_x8SB_gy8jg @MatthewHartke
Shameless Popery - The Hidden Danger of Mel Gibson youtu.be/NDDrIn9ul2k?si=6ctEAhJf5JQNFFhP @shamelesspopery
Bart Ehrman - Were the disciples martyred for their belief in the resurrection? ehrmanblog.org/were-the-disciples-martyred-for-believing-in-the-resurrection
Joshua Schachterle - How did the apostles die? bartehrman.com/how-did-the-apostles-die
00:00 Who would die for a lie?
2:47 Do we know the apostles were martyred?
9:41 How To Die For A Lie
14:02 Folk Psychology & Irrationality
17:00 The Millerites
23:53 Outro



![Why I dont care about logical fallacies [Full Podcast Episode]
Take a look at nearly any book on critical thinking and you’ll come across a list of fallacies: ad hominem, argument from ignorance, appeal to emotion, appeal to authority, post hoc ergo propter hoc, god of the gaps, and so on. The problem is that many of these “fallacies” closely resemble good lines of reasoning. Overreliance on fallacy lists – common practice in the skeptic community – fosters shallow criticism, distracts from the substance of an issue, and doesn’t even accomplish the ostensible purpose of demarcating good and bad reasoning.
I’m hard on skeptics in this episode, but that’s because I used to lean on this crutch myself. Over time, the usefulness of this approach struck me as less and less credible, and talk about fallacies tapered off. Fortunately, philosophers like Maarten Boudry and Michael Huemer, whose work you can find below, explained in clear terms what is so unhelpful about this mode of thinking. “Fallacy theory,” as Boudry calls it, is only one feature of a shallow, facile mode of philosophizing, one which isn’t very conducive to a genuine search for truth. I would suggest that one way of improving the quality of our discourse would be to lay off the fallacy accusations a bit. It would lead to a more fruitful search for knowledge and understanding.
After the first five minutes or so of big picture criticism, the bulk of the episode is dedicated to concrete examples, focusing on the ad hominem fallacy, ad populum, “correlation does not imply causation” – the post hoc ergo propter hoc (or cum hoc) fallacy – and begging the question.
https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
The Fallacy Fork: Why It’s Time to Get Rid of Fallacy Theory - Maarten Boudry https://maartenboudry.be/2017/06/the-fallacy-fork-why-its-time-to-get.html
Playing Fallacy “Gotcha!” - Maarten Boudry https://maartenboudry.be/2018/01/playing-fallacy-gotcha.html
Knowledge, Reality, and Value: A Mostly Common Sense Guide to Philosophy - Michael Huemer https://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Reality-Value-Mostly-Philosophy/dp/B091F5QTDS
The Fake, the Flimsy, and the Fallacious: Demarcating Arguments in Real Life - Maarten Boudry, Fabio Paglieri & Massimo Pigliucci https://philpapers.org/rec/BOUTFT
Twitter @waldenpod
Transcript https://emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/2022/04/21/logical-fallacies/
/ Counter Apologetics /
Consider supporting at https://www.patreon.com/counter
Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/counter-apologetics/id1273573417
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0xp05xgyg04BWh0U1tCZ0z
/ Walden Pod /
Consider supporting at https://www.patreon.com/waldenpod
Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walden-pod/id1474408172
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/5It3kjkrB9CTDen1Sx3aGl?si=fZ6MENZ4TdSLDPLAJ_6dAA&nd=1
/ Timestamps /
00:00 Introduction & the Big Picture
05:31 Post hoc ergo propter hoc
07:36 ad hominem
16:36 ad populum
19:19 Begging the question
23:27 Conclusion Why I dont care about logical fallacies [Full Podcast Episode]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/p4wDWMzvkA0/mqdefault.jpg)






