Belief in Christ is based in reason and evidence, not superstition or prejudice or flawed logic.
You've offered no reason to think Christainity is any different from any other occult superstitious system, but appear to be rationalizing your choice.
The difference is that we have evidence that Christ had extensive life-giving power, whereas we do not have evidence of others having such power, or, where there are some claims of some miracle events, like for Gautama, that evidence is very poor compared to the evidence we have for the Christ miracles. Or, in a very few cases, where someone may have performed a miracle act, their power was very limited, like Rasputin the mad monk, who apparently had power to cure one person.
I'm giving reasons why I think Christ has this power, to grant eternal life. If there are also some other proposed routes to "Heaven," then let believers in them give their reasons.
Actually, i'm asking you why you dismissed everything but your flavor of Christainty.
If I "dismissed everything . . ." etc. then I should be taken out and shot.
My "flavor" is simply believing in Christ, which means basically believing that he had power, though most christology tries to emphasize more than just his power, but his power seems to be at the basis of the belief or the theology. So I'm not dismissing any "flavor" of Christianity that is based on belief in Christ, which most of the denominations are, despite the many different doctrines.
You don't prove any other religion is wrong by trying to get me to agree to ignore them.
My only point about "any other religion" is that the mere existence of other belief systems does not disprove the Christ belief. Whatever alternative beliefs there are, let those beliefs be presented and we can consider their credibility and if they might contradict the Christ belief. But just the existence of these other beliefs by itself does not disprove any reason I'm giving for believing in Christ.
If there's anything in those beliefs that disproves my reasons, then you need to present those alternative beliefs, or have such a believer present those alternate beliefs. Just the fact that alternate beliefs exist does not in itself invalidate the reasons I've given. You have to do more than just point out the existence of these alternate beliefs in order to disprove the Christ belief. What are those alternate beliefs and how do they refute or undermine the Christ belief?
The Christ believer is not proved wrong just because he might not be aware of those alternate beliefs. Of course every reasonable person who believes something should be willing to consider alternate beliefs that someone wants to present for consideration. It's probably even good for a believer to do an "affirmative action" search for alternate beliefs out there that are floating around, to become more aware of alternate beliefs; but people can still have a true belief even if they don't do such a search; or, not doing such a search does not mean their belief is false or invalid or refuted.
A thinking rational truth-seeker has a certain "moral" obligation, as it were, to consider alternate belief systems and not try to avoid them. But many people devote their lives to other activities than truth-seeking or philosophising or debating, and they might have a genuine belief that is true and still not engage in considering all the alternatives to their belief. This does not falsify or invalidate their belief. Their belief is still true or false based on the objective merits or logic of the belief itself, not on whether they personally engage in vigorous truth-seeking or philosophising.
There is no logical flaw in believing this, based on the evidence he provided, even though at the same time there is doubt, or uncertainty.
If there's doubt or uncertainty, then it's not evidence.
Yes it is evidence. We can have evidence for our reasonable belief and yet still have doubt or uncertainty about the truth. So, we don't know for sure, and we know our belief might be incorrect, but we still maintain the belief based on good evidence. That evidence does not have to eliminate all doubt in order for it to be "evidence" and a basis for reasonable belief.
There are a million examples of this. I'll cite Will Durant again, who presents many historical facts, and yet it's clear that he understands there is some doubt about much of it, maybe even most. He said: "
History is mostly guessing, the rest is prejudice."
E.g., he says that the oldest profession is not prostitution, but midwifery. How does he know a thing like that? with certainty? I'm sure he has good reasons, and I believe him. But of course this is only a good guess. And there are a million -- a billion -- other guesses that make up our knowledge of history, and perhaps most science generally.
I'm saying that belief in Christ is a reasonable belief based on evidence, the power shown by the miracle acts recorded in the gospels. It's not certainty, just reasonable, and hopefully true.
Agnosticism would have to say that islam is as likely as Christianity.
No, it only has to say we don't know.
So, agnosticism is NOT like Pascal's Wager, which offers a conclusion.
No, agnosticism can also offer a conclusion or a reasonable belief based on evidence. The agnostic can say "I don't know for sure what the truth is, but I believe A B or C rather than X Y or Z, because there are better reasons or better evidence to support A B or C over X Y or Z.
An agnostic is not prevented from ever drawing a conclusion just because he admits not knowing for sure.
But if believer #1 presents his belief and suggests that it's the truth, i.e., likely the truth, though there's doubt, . . .
If he has doubt, he's not a believer.
Yes he is a believer though he still has doubt. His belief is a good guess, just like Will Durant's history is mostly guessing. It's good to hold reasonable beliefs and still retain some doubt. In some cases, if the evidence is overwhelming, it approaches certainty, and the doubt may be near zero.
We don't need the "Wager" -- forget it. I don't need it, haven't needed it, you don't need it. Nobody needs it, so why are we talking about it?
Because you don't know what it is, what it says, what its flaw is, and yet defended it.
Others brought it up, thinking it was similar to what I was saying, and made a religion out of condemning it.
I only defend the idea that one can have a reasonable belief and also have doubt. One can admit that their belief might be wrong, but still adopt that belief for good reason, or have a rational basis for the belief, even though admitting uncertainty. Pascal said something similar to this, and this much is defendable. The rest of what you claim he said is of no interest. There's no point in quibbling over what Pascal really said. There are pointless disputes like this about any philosopher. All of them are interpreted in opposite ways by different ideologues.
It's better to argue the ideas per se rather than nitpick over what this or that philosopher said or didn't say.
Also, in some cases it's better to adopt a belief that turns out to be incorrect, than to adopt no belief at all. It is adopted because it is the most reasonable belief at the time, but later it's found to have error in it. By believing it and remaining open to other possibilities, one actually learns more and gains more understanding about the matter than is gained by dismissing all beliefs as wrong.
But in each case, the wager will tell me that i'm a virtuous man, and i've won.
Again, it has nothing to do with "virtuous" anything.
Wrong, again.
The "wager" is irrelevant. Belief in Christ is not about virtue. There are examples of "faith" or "belief" in the New Testament, and it clearly is not about virtue or courage or steadfastness or dedication or bravery or compassion or other meritorious or righteous qualities. The virtues are mentioned, but "faith" is mentioned far more, and it is defined by the examples. Here is one example of many:
A woman suffering hemorrhages for twelve years came up behind him and touched the tassel on his cloak. She said to herself, "If only I can touch his cloak, I shall be cured." Jesus turned around and saw her, and said "Courage, daughter! Your faith has saved you." And from that hour the woman was cured.
Mt. 9:20-22
There was nothing "virtuous" about what this woman did. The phrase "Your faith has saved you" occurs in another situation where it was not a case of healing a bodily affliction. So "save" here also means something beyond just healing from a body affliction, though healing is also one meaning of the Greek word.
(Any Aramaic scholars may enlighten us as to what Aramaic word Jesus may have used and whether there is also an Aramaic word which means "save" in this two-fold sense as the Greek word here.)
So, believing in Christ to be healed or saved is not about being virtuous. I am disagreeing with the "Reasons to Reject Christianity" from the standpoint that "Christianity" is basically about belief in Christ, as shown in this example, or about
pistis (faith) and
pisteuo (believe) as we see it defined by this and other examples. I'm not dealing with other versions of "Christianity" or religion etc., which make "virtuous" or "virtue" a basic element. Virtue is an earlier Greek (and Jewish? and Hindu? and Chinese? etc.) concept which is not basic to Christ. I take "Christianity" to refer to whatever new was added by Christ, not a rehashing of previous teaching.
Yes, it does. It's a zero-sum game. You win, lose or it doesn't matter.
For Pascal's Wager, he assumes we can make one choice and that there are four consequences, depending on one condition.
The condition is that there may be a god. If there's no god, there are no souls, no afterlife, nothing we do can alter our fate.
if there is a god, though, there is a personal afterlife. So this ignores the possibilities of any religion which does not include a personal afterlife, that you will remain 'you' in the afterlife.
It's a given, also, that if there is a god, there IS a Heaven. So this ignores any religion that may have a different afterlife plan. No reincarnation, no loss of self to join with God, no advancement along a path.
And if there is a god, there IS a Hell. So this discounts your agnosticism towards Hell. Or any other religion that only has happy endings.
Plus, the Wager assumes that we can personally choose to take actions that will affect our disposition in this afterlife. So it discounts any sort of predestination religions.
It concludes that there is only one way to win, to get to Heaven, and that is to adopt belief in God. And the only way to lose, to go to Hell, is not to live a life of godly belief.
It is nothing like agnosticism. Not even your heavily weighted pretense of agnosticism.
I see nothing in the above needing any response.
Except that I acknowledge the uncertainty of my belief, i.e., that it might be wrong, and that evidence and reasoning and logic has to prevail. And I understand that Pascal also said something about the possibility of being wrong, because of uncertainty, but that it is good to believe anyway, because one can hold a true belief, or be right in their believing, while still being uncertain. So the uncertainty need not prevent one from believing.
One can believe for good reasons while still being uncertain, or admitting to not having definite knowledge or proof beyond any doubt. Pascal did say something similar to this, and so there is a similarity between his argument and mine. So in this he had a good point, even if he also committed logical errors. These do not negate his legitimate point that one can adopt a reasonable or true belief while at the same time taking an agnostic position, or admitting that it is belief rather than definite knowledge which can be proved with certainty.
One can believe in Christ without dogmatically insisting that there are no other beliefs or that the Christian belief is absolutely proved or that the Bible or the Pope or the Church or other symbols have to be infallible. In other words, one can believe in Christ based on evidence and reason rather than on dogmatism or prejudice or superstition or religious indoctrination or emotion etc.
This is not changed by the fact that there may be many Christians who are dogmatists or emotionalists or superstitionists or doctrinarians etc. Or that there may be logical flaws in much of the theology, such as Pascal's flaws. Any such flaws or defects do not invalidate the basic essentials or core of the belief in Christ based on his power demonstrated in the miracle acts he performed, which one can reasonably believe based on the evidence rather than on superstition or flaws in logic or dogmatism or prejudice or other defective thinking.