120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Keith&Co.]

So, on the doctrine of Easiest:

it's really easier to assume that all supernatural claims are bullshit.
Because then we're done. Period, end of conflicts. Sure, there's room to examine the human psyche and wonder why we're attracted to such stories, why we make them, how we can maybe create automatic filters that detect pure bullshit and prevent stories of AIDS-dipped needles or missing birth certificates from floating around the internet. But the question is done.

ALMOSt as easy would be to assume that all supernatural claims are valid, because someone made them. Except, some claims contradict other claims. There can't be two gods that created the world, for example. We have problems if we assume Ptah and Jehovah are both true. So that's a difficulty, trying to explain how all the creator claims can be true. But creationists have done some stellar work in apologizing for conflicting truths to be held at the same time in one mind. I'm sure we'll conquer it eventually.

Least easy would be to assume that SOME supernatural tales are true. It would resolve a lot of the conflicts in the second method, and it would make work of the psyche investigations in the first method, but there's the difficulty in knowing which supernatural claims are true. It would be dishonest to just pick one, without any evidence at all. Of course, if you did, then all the claims for that tradition would tend to self-support, but that's circular. And if one did that, someone else could pick a different tradition, assume THAT is the one true one, and build up a circular-logic structure that self-verifies it. And someone else with yet another tradition, and so on down the line.
It'd be chaos!

Certainly not the easiest option... All those parallel but equally futile efforts...

 

[Atheos]

For our purposes, let's assume this is correct, i.e., this is Christian doctrine, even though most Christians deny it. So if Hitler was a believer in Christ, he went to Heaven. Catholics believe he must have gone to Purgatory first and no doubt has to be there a long time.

But let's assume the worst here, that he went straight to Heaven, despite all his crimes.

On the other hand, the 6,000,000 Jews that he condemned to death, and who by default failed to accept Christ, were sent to Hell.

Let's say that's also Christian doctrine generally, however it is possible that some of these Jews actually were believers in Christ. In such a large number, there are likely a few who actually had such a belief, so these ones went to Heaven according to Christian doctrine, even though they were Jews.

The image of Anne Frank writhing in pain while Adolf enjoys a latte presents a stark visual that there is something seriously wrong with Christian doctrine.

No, there's nothing wrong with this doctrine if it is properly understood.

If you take Christian doctrine of salvation as one of reward for merit, then there is something wrong with this picture. But the Christ doctrine of salvation is not one of merit. St. Paul wrote: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." --Romans 6:23.

So eternal life is a gift that is not earned, whereas what we have earned is death.

So Christian doctrine agrees that Hitler does not deserve eternal life, and neither does anyone else. All of us, including Hitler, deserve only death. All of us and all those 6 million Jews and Anne Frank and all those Nazis including Hitler deserve the same thing, which is death.

However, there are some Bible verses that seem to say the opposite, i.e., that one gains salvation by doing good deeds or obeying the Law and being righteous and so on. This is the teaching of religion generally, and these ideas were obviously inherited by the N.T. writers who included them along with the new alien teaching that we can be saved as a gift which is not earned. So we have both these conflicting doctrines taught in the Bible.

However, the doctrine of salvation by merit is inconsistent with the totality of the New Testament message. It makes meaningless the idea of "the Good News" or "Gospel" or "Euangelion" which is the second-most common theme in the N.T. after "faith" or "belief."

So to make sense out of the idea of "Euangelion" it is necessary that salvation is conditioned only on believing in Christ, so it is gained as a gift, and reject the notion of salvation by merit. There is no merit to belief, which is not an act of morality or righteousness or valor, but almost an accident.

How do we judge between the gift vs. merit doctrines? How do we judge that God would be wrong to offer salvation to us as a gift instead of demanding merit from us as a condition for being saved?

To begin with you have not debunked anything with any of the other arguments you've presented. Your arguments have been soundly defeated at every turn. Moving on to the next point without treating the obvious and well pointed out flaws in your previous lines of reasoning is a tactic more suited to unchallenged preaching than actual discussion.

However there is a more parsimonious explanation for the differences between biblical doctrines of merited salvation vs salvation by grace only: Different bible writers had different opinions. This is consistent with the evidence today as thousands of contradictory doctrines taught by various religions all claiming to be under the umbrella of "Christianity" attest. The writer of "James" is evidently much more in lockstep with those who would later be Catholic, whereas the writer of the Pauline epistles was more in line with the preponderance (but certainly not all) of modern-day Protestant groups. It is neither necessary nor appropriate to begin with the assumption that these writers were all inspired by some god. The evidence falls squarely on the side of these documents reflecting the individual opinions and beliefs of the writer or groups of writers who produced them.

There is no consensus in Christianity regarding what is necessary to be saved. This is because the doctrines presented in the bible are so piecemeal and contradictory as to be useless for drawing any conclusion that cannot immediately be controverted using the same source documents. However, the single most basic point on which nearly every christian denomination stands firm is that taught in Hebrews 11:6 - "Without faith it is impossible to please him; for he that cometh to god must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

Whatever else one chooses to select cafeteria-style from the remaining buffet of available teachings there is almost always this core doctrine. Applying that to the "Hitler" example we arrive at a very simple but horrifying doctrine, one which doesn't prove anything other than how abominable these faith-based religions are: It's not important how you behave, it's only important what you think.

Because if you think in patterns that allow you to accept uncritically stories about a magic Jew who was born of a virgin, could literally read minds, turn water to wine, heal (then) incurable diseases such as paralysis, blindness, congenital deformity, leprosy, etc.; who could walk on water, raise dead people from their graves, come back from being killed and levitate off into the sky, then you can be saved. That is, provided you don't think in patterns that allow you to accept uncritically stories of Joseph Smith performing miracles, or Mohammad, or any other competing stories that describe the same types of extraordinary events.

So if you're the right kind of gullible you can be saved. Hitler may have been the right kind of gullible, so he's a candidate and may right now be basking in this salvation.

But as for me, I'm a pretty good guy. I pay my taxes, keep my lawn mowed, never take from others what is not mine, try to deal honorably with everyone I encounter and in short try to show respect to others. I've done things I regret, certainly. But I have done nothing -- absolutely nothing ever in my life -- that would merit torment even for a moment. However, I happen to be skeptical. I've looked honestly into the Bible, the Koran, the Hindu Vedic traditions, several native American religious traditions and even delved into some of the ancient and extinct religions of other cultures. Never have I found any evidence that any of these traditions required the presence of a god to come into existence.

So because of my skepticism about all religions I've investigated, and because advocates of each one are equally persuasive in the arguments they present in favor of their preferred belief, I cannot ever be a candidate for salvation. Skepticism is therefore the most heinous crime of all, as it guarantees that no matter what else one does one will be tormented for all eternity.

 

[funinspace]

Can you, in short, list these "higher standards"?

There's more than one source for them.

Wow, 2 primary sources….

The stories existed a short time after the alleged events took place.

Well, at least you dropped the 10-30 year BS. Though I hardly consider 30 to 60 years a “short time”. Never mind the 2 centuries the stories got to percolate before we ended up with any copies. We have strong evidence in a few cases showing that the followers of this new cult were not above amending the stories.

It's difficult to explain the stories without assuming they're true. If they're stories about a sage who taught disciples for several decades, it is much easier to explain how they could have been invented and attached to the master. Or if the stories don't appear until centuries later, then it's easier to explain how they could have emerged over that time lapse. And in other ways it can be easy in some cases to explain how the stories originated but more difficult in other cases. If it's more difficult to explain how the stories could have been invented, then it increases the chance that they're true.

Uhm…Biblical theologians say he only taught for 1-3 years, not decades. You should try learning some Christian history. Humans have been quite entertaining in creating gods, from the Sumerian pantheon, the Greek pantheon, the Egyptian pantheon, Akhenaten, Vishnu, Bahá'ís god, the Jainism pantheon, Allah, Yahweh, Christ-God, LSD, the Mayan pantheon, the Shinto pantheon, Ik Onkar, the Tao pantheon, and last but not last Ahura Mazda. Building gods seems to be one of our larger and oldest hobbies. Care to explain how all these could have emerged?

The world was not created in 7 days, nor is man ~6,000 years old.
There was no floody.
There was no day when the sun stood still for Joshua, nor reset back a few degrees for a later dude.
There was no Exodus.
Solomon only exists in the Bible, but he was world famous…hum
There was no virgin birth.
Matthew’s 3 14’s lineage is BS, based upon the Bible itself.
Jesus seemed to like the Tanakh
The Trinity construct of this sort of 3 headed god, is hopelessly tortured; with said god, temporarily sacrificing a part of itself, to its other self, for the sins of his creation that he new would happen when he created it.
There are zero contemporary records about Jesus, outside of the Bible.
How is bullshit difficult to explain?

There is specific information in the stories about the event, such as when or where it happened and who was present and what the setting was. We can assume that such detail might be partly fictional but also partly factual. The presence of such detail makes the story more credible.

Wow…vague hand waving??? Most stories have “specific information”, so what? Or do you mean specific information like Matthew’s conflicting fable of the virgin birth as compared to Luke’s version? Or do you care to harmonize the differing tales about Jesus’ resurrection? Or maybe you’d like to suggest a arsenic cocktail due to Mark’s added on ending?

 

[Atheos]

I might add that in nearly every case where there is "specific information in the stories about the event, such as when it happened..." it turns out that the historical record is at odds with the "facts" presented in the gospel narratives. Some examples include the fact that Herod died 10 years before Cyrene (Quirinius) became governor of Syria, making it impossible for Jesus to have been born when Herod was a threat (Matthew's version) and when Cyrene had issued any edicts (Luke's version). Somebody be lying.

Another example, albeit an argument from silence is the fact that there is zero historical evidence for Herod's slaughter of "all the male children throughout the coasts," an event that would have stood out like the proverbial turd in the punchbowl of mundane history we have been able to excise from that time period. Josephus was openly hostile towards Herod and even in his histories this atrocity is never mentioned.

There are other problems with just the birth narrative contradictions, so much so that many modern bible scholars (even apologists) now argue that "Luke" was possibly mistaken and careless. Doesn't say much about the reliability of the rest of the writings, but more importantly it demonstrates that there is good reason to be skeptical of the tales. They do not jive with the historical record. Heck, they don't even jive with each other.

The evidence is quite conclusive that huge elements of these stories were fabricated. It is rational to assume that other parts (perhaps all) of the narratives were fictional.

 

[funinspace]

I might add that in nearly every case where there is "specific information in the stories about the event, such as when it happened..." it turns out that the historical record is at odds with the "facts" presented in the gospel narratives. Some examples include the fact that Herod died 10 years before Cyrene (Quirinius) became governor of Syria, making it impossible for Jesus to have been born when Herod was a threat (Matthew's version) and when Cyrene had issued any edicts (Luke's version). Somebody be lying.

I always found the census requirement to travel to their place of ancestry or what not, to be interesting. As this was unheard of in the Roman Empire, especially considering the means of transportation back then. Maybe it made for a nice story, but it certainly makes no more sense than a trot down the Yellow Brick Road.

 

[kyroot]

You are precisely correct.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Are miracle-workers like Jesus a dime-a-dozen?

For example, how is it that the miracles attested to by witnesses in the bible are to be accepted but the miracles by which Joseph Smith brought forth the book of Mormon are to be disbelieved? The witnesses to Smith's miracles are much more readily identifiable than those claimed to have occurred in the stories about Jesus.

What are Smith's "miracles"?

There are 8 signed witnesses who claim they saw the golden plates themselves:

BE IT KNOWN unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold ; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

- Signed by Christian Whitmer, Hiram Page, Jacob Whitmer, Joseph Smith, Sen. Peter Whitmer, Jun., Hyrum Smith, John Whitmer and Samuel H. Smith

These plates, inscribed in "reformed Egyptian," were ostensibly taken back up to Heaven by god after Smith was through translating them, conveniently making it impossible for real scholars to get their hands on them and demonstrate that the whole story was BS.

What is the "miracle"? Assuming someone witnessed the "plates," how is that a miracle? Did someone see them float up to heaven? Did a giant Hand come down from the sky and did a deep echoing Voice boom down saying "I need back the plates, Joe"? It's not clear that a "miracle" took place here, even if the witnessed statement is all truthful.

Another similar comparison would be the story of  Barney and Betty Hill, who claimed they were abducted by aliens in 1961. There is no physical evidence any of it happened but there are plenty of witnesses. Witnesses that actually can be identified personally. Witnesses who are more than just anonymous names. Yet the same people who swallow uncritically the absurd claims of Jesus walking on water during a fierce storm dismiss with good reason the claims made by Betty and Barney Hill. They simply cannot find the consistency to employ the same level of rational thinking to their favorite fairy tale.

How does the existence of UFO reports or alien abduction stories cast doubt onto the truth of the Jesus miracle stories? All accounts of something unusual have to be judged on the evidence in each case. The fact that some less credible stories exist does not disprove the more credible ones.

But the most damning nail in the coffin . . . is the fact that the bible itself is of unknown origin. . . . The "four gospels" cannot be traced back to anything closer than 40 years after the alleged events they describe. And that's being generous. The reality is more along the lines of 80-100 years minimum for "Mark" and later for the others.

The mainline dating of 70-100 AD, which is most widely accepted, serves best for most purposes, even if there are some indications of a later hand at work. Even if something in the 2nd century came into play, there are elements that had to be much earlier.

Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107 or 116 AD) must have known either the Gospel of Matthew or a pre-Matthew document. This document probably contained most of what we know as this Gospel. It might have been slightly different -- there's no way to tell. But he had something that must have been much the same document. He mentions the virgin birth and the star of Bethlehem (which is found only in Matthew). Even if these did not really happen, the Matthew gospel in its basic form must have existed for Ignatius to be familiar with this.

Also Clement of Rome, writing about 97 AD, shows knowledge of a document which reads the same as some sermon text from Matthew and Luke. Since it varies slightly, it could be from a third document that is connected with those 2 Gospel accounts. The wording between these cannot be coincidental but shows essentially that those words in Mt and Lk originated from a source prior to Clement, if not that Clement's document originated from Mt or Lk.

There are at least 2 narrative elements in Paul, who wrote mainly in 50-60 AD, which coincide with subject matter found in Acts and in all the Gospel accounts. Namely the Last Supper scene and arrest of Jesus (1 Cor. 11:23-26), and the scene of the escape from Damascus when he was lowered down from a window in a basket (2 Cor. 11:32-33).

Also Paul's recounting of the resurrection appearances of Christ (1 Cor. 15:3-8) coincides with the Gospel accounts of this.

Paul's reference to the arrest of Jesus uses the same word which is translated as "betrayal" in the Gospels and other places, and shows a familiarity with the arrest of Jesus described in the Gospel accounts. The word means at least a "handing over" of Jesus, if not "betrayal," and so shows that Paul was familiar with the account that Jesus was delivered or handed over to the authorities. So Paul, writing prior to 60 AD, confirms that these parts of the Gospel accounts and Acts are of early origin.

This shows that much of the subject matter in the Gospel accounts is of early origin, i.e., prior to 60 AD, and likewise shows an early origin for some of the activity of Paul reported in Luke-Acts.

There might be some reason to suppose a 2nd-century origin for Luke-Acts, i.e., the final redacted version, but not for the other 2 Synoptic gospels. And in any case, whatever the date of the final redacted version, the more important point is that much of the subject matter in the Synoptic gospels has to originate from much earlier, around the period that mainline scholars place them, from 70-100 AD, and likely earlier for some portions, including oral reports. Whatever date you speculate for the final redacted version of it, the subject matter or text of these accounts is based on mostly 1st-century sources.

If there are also some 2nd-century elements added later, this does not change the basic point that the accounts generally are of early origin, or rather, the sources are early, not 2nd-century.

They are all anonymous books, never identifying who wrote them. The names traditionally given to the writers don't even appear in the historical record until decades after the books are in circulation, making it impossible for anyone to establish with a straight face any sort of chain of custody between the events described therein and the codified descriptions of said events.

What does this tell us about the reliability of the accounts?

Since each of the 3 Synoptics is recognized to be a redaction, or group of components that were assembled, might it not be appropriate to omit any author's name, since these components are not the redactor's own compositions, but are earlier accounts or reports he put together, adding some original wording and putting them into a chronological order? Why is the omission of an author's identification any indication of something wrong? How does this lead to any conclusion that the account is unreliable?

Add to that the fact that the events described therein include details the writers could not possibly have witnessed (such as the secret meeting between Herod and the Magi . . .

The Bethlehem stories should be taken only as symbolic. There is no knowledge of the infancy or childhood of Jesus. What is more relevant is to explain how this extra religious subject matter came to be added to the original narrative. Why did they make Jesus into a God like this? such as adding the virgin birth and putting his birth in Bethlehem and other symbols relating to his origin? If you strip these away, what is the core that is left which was the original Christ figure that they felt compelled to add these symbols to? There had to be something there to begin with which was real and not symbolic.

. . . or the claim that the guards were offered money to bury the story about the angel(s) who showed up at Jesus' tomb).

We don't know the origin of this story, but let's assume it was a much later addition, perhaps in the 2nd century. The main substance of Matthew is from the 1st century and is close to the events. Even if there are some later add-ons like this story about the guards, or editing, the main substance is early.

The whole thing is bluster on top of bluster.

No, even if there is some "bluster" added on top of something earlier, you have to explain what the original earlier core was to which the first "bluster" was added to. It couldn't have started out as only "bluster." The extra additions, whatever they are, had to be added to something real as the starting point.

When one digs into it with even a modicum of skepticism there is nothing of substance, only the vestiges of the original tall tales upon which the entire facade was built.

No, there had to be something prior to the "tall tales" upon which to build whatever came later. There could be some "tall tales" or fiction that was added -- probably the story of the dead bodies rising out of the graves at the time Jesus died. But there can't be just this adding on of symbols or sensationalism without something of substance being there originally which serves as the magnet that attracts the adding-on of the symbols.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Extra evidence is required. However, you can't set a standard that says in effect that nothing highly unusual could have ever happened in history.

If there are extra sources for the events, then this is the extra evidence that is needed. Usually just one source is sufficient for an event if it's not unusual. Something strange requires an extra source. For the Jesus miracles we have at least 4 sources. And also, the Jesus miracle stories cannot be explained the same way other miracle stories can be explained. They stand apart as a singular case in history.

The evidence might not be "proof" in the strictest sense, such as for proving a case in court, but it is strong evidence giving good reason to believe that the events really did happen.

Anonymous tales of questionable origin are a dime a dozen, both then and now.

Again, since the sources are many, and the writing is mostly not that of the final redactor, it might not be expected that the sources would have an author named in them. And clearly the original oral reports would not have an "author" connected with the event.

Stories such as the Gospel miracle stories are not "a dime a dozen." There is not another example of a miracle-worker historical figure for whom we have evidence such as we have in this case. I.e., the abundance of evidence including eye-witnesses and sources near to the events.

In modern times it's different, because of the mass media. It's difficult to make comparisons or to imagine what would happen if this same Christ figure should appear in today's world. But in past history, prior to the invention of printing, there is clearly no other figure who is comparable or for whom there is any evidence that he had such power as we see in this one case.

There is no reason to believe these ridiculous tales.

Not if you start out with the premise that no such event can ever happen, no matter what.

Might "Jesus" have existed? Sure. Did he cure blindness? Gonna take more than some musty old anonymous account for me to swallow that one. Personally, however, I doubt there ever was a Jesus. The tales in the New Testament do no better job convincing me that Jesus existed than the tales of Perseus (hundreds of years before Jesus) convince me that he existed.

The only 2 sources for Perseus are at least 1000 years later than he lived, if he did live.

Some of the legendary figures may have really existed. The closer are the sources to the actual events, the more likely it is that the persons did exist. Some characters in Homer almost surely did exist.

Both were born of women impregnated by gods, both were menaced by jealous rulers when they were babies, both escaped the menace by travelling to a distant country, both came back to the land of their birth . . .

The general pattern/formula of hero legends can become attached to an historical figure. But before the legends can emerge and attach to the historical figure, the latter must have some reputation of accomplishment or performance that draws the initial attention. So legend attached to Alexander the Great and others. But this cannot happen to someone who has no reputation or who did nothing initially of great noteworthiness. So, how did the cycle of legends become attached to the Jesus of Galilee figure? There has to be an explanation for this. He must have done something highly unusual. And it had to happen in a short space of time.

. . . to perform many wonderful deeds . . .

Barring any other explanation, this is the part that best explains how Jesus got his initial reputation and thus became the figure of legend to attract all the other heroic symbolisms.

. . . both met with skepticism and ridicule, both were triumphant in the end of their respective stories. Both stories were believed by many religious followers. This mythic hero storyline was very popular for many centuries before it was applied to the Jesus myth.

But what was the original Jesus myth beforehand to which the mythic hero storyline then was applied? There had to be the original "myth" which was not just a storyline but something real.

Even the story of Moses followed the same story line.

In this case, the story evolved over many centuries. And even in the case of the real historical Moses, he went through several decades building up his reputation and power. You cannot explain the attachment of the mythic storyline to Jesus by analogy to Moses.

Can you think of a better analogy? A great legendary historical figure whose reputation developed within 50-100 years and whose public life was short and who was not a great emperor or Pharaoh of some kind? and for whom there is more than one source of information?

 

[none]

Yeah i can. God. Seems to be the subject of many a fairytale. So now i ask you please.produce god.

 

[Keith&Co.]

What are Smith's "miracles"?

Direct revelation from God is not a miracle?

Wow. What would you require, as a bare minimum, for a miracle? "For a miracle from God, God would have to...." Fill in the blank, could you?

 

[none]

What are Smith's "miracles"?

Direct revelation from God is not a miracle?

Wow. What would you require, as a bare minimum, for a miracle? "For a miracle from God, God would have to...." Fill in the blank, could you?

I'd say god.would have to exist in order for godly revalation. There has been a lot of empty promises and pot and pan banging but actual evidence of god is well just testimonial.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What made Jesus different from all the others?

The single most plausible explanation of the existence of the "Jesus" myth is that the character evolved from a variety of sources with extraordinary details (miracles) added as the story grew over decades of retelling.

Then why aren't there several of these Jesus myths? Why aren't there other characters, other names, in other places, where the same story unfolds and we would have several of them instead of only this one?

The single most unlikely explanation for the existence of these stories is that everything happened exactly as described (including "Matthew's" zombie resurrection narrative when Jesus died on the cross).

Aside from the zombies, why wouldn't a good explanation be that the healing accounts are mostly true? What is the reason this explanation has to be rejected other than a dogmatic premise that such events must ipso facto be ruled out as impossible?

There are too many outright contradictions between the narratives for this to be possible even if one were to suspend all rationale and accept the extraordinary claims with absolutely zero evidence for doing so.

The healing stories can be substantially true despite some contradictions. Even many contradictions.

Accepting these stories uncritically is no more rational than . . .

One can be very critical of the stories and eliminate the unreasonable elements and still conclude that the healing stories are substantially true.

My take is that the whole thing probably started off with a simple itinerant preacher named Jesus who had a small following, spoke out against the injustices of society in his day and got his ass crucified for his efforts.

There were many such itinerant preachers. What caused this one to stand out? Why was he made into a God and none of the others were?

From there the legend grew, people putting words into the mouth of this "prophet." Pericopes were added, such as the story of the woman taken in adultery.

Why didn't this happen in the case of all the other itinerant preachers? Why weren't they turned into prophets who had words put into their mouths and pericopes added? including miracle stories?

The myth was fortified with other tales to combat the most common claims of Greek gods who could turn water into wine, control the elements, heal diseases, etc. "My god is better than your god..." As time went by various anonymous redactors attempted to create "gospels" from the stories they'd heard, borrowing from each other along the way.

Why weren't other redactors creating "gospels" to promote some of the other hundreds of itinerant preachers who were essentially the same as this Jesus of Galilee preacher?

These coalesced into the many different gospels that proliferated for awhile until the council of Nicea (325 AD) decided to summarily declare all gospels except for the four we commonly think of today as the "four gospels" as heretical.

But why were these gospels, the accepted ones and the banned ones, all centered on this one Jesus of Galilee figure and not any of the other many itinerant preachers that were out there doing the same thing this one was doing?

This may well not be how it happened at all, but it is a very plausible scenario based on the evidence we have available.

Except that it doesn't explain why we don't have multiple itinerant preacher figures being made into gods and having miracle stories published about them and gospels similar to the Jesus ones. It doesn't explain what made this Jesus stand out from all the other itinerant preachers.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

My point is that it is more likely that the stories were at least fabricated in part.

No doubt there is some fabrication in the accounts. But even so the healing stories could be substantially true. If there is no truth to these accounts, then why does Jesus stand out among all the many possible preaching messiah prophet figures during this period of history?

The existence of extraordinary elements such as walking on water, virgin birth, raising dead people and levitating off into the sky are far better explained by people making shit up than they are by "well it actually happened just like this."

But why weren't they "making shit up" about all those other prophets and gurus who were doing the same things this one was doing?

It is plausible that Jesus as presented in the bible was inspired by some actual person. It is also plausible that the legend was entirely developed from whole cloth using the mythic hero formula and a super hero-god who was a composite of many of the already existing myths of the Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks and Romans.

If the latter, then we should have more than one hero figure of this kind. There should be rival prophet hero-god figures resembling Jesus, each with its Holy Books or "gospel" accounts and miracle stories and new spreading cult.

What is not plausible is that the stories as written in the canonical gospels actually happened exactly as described . . .

Probably there are no accounts where the stories as written actually happened exactly as described. But the stories can be substantially true, with some discrepancies and fictional elements mixed in.

Calling them "eyewitness accounts" is so far from what they are as to be downright dishonest, yet people parrot this claim uncritically as if somehow saying it often enough will make it true.

But there were eyewitnesses present at the reported events. And the original reported events, in oral form, were eyewitness accounts. Not written, but oral, which the later written accounts were based upon.

 

[DBT]

No doubt there is some fabrication in the accounts. But even so the healing stories could be substantially true. If there is no truth to these accounts, then why does Jesus stand out among all the many possible preaching messiah prophet figures during this period of history?

He didn't stand out enough to be noted or mentioned by an independent source during the period of history when he was said to exist, or for sometime after. The myth/legend grew with the telling and repeating of a story. Whatever kernel of truth lies at the heart of it, the existence of the man, the character of the man, etc, is hard to determine.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But there were eyewitnesses present at the reported events. And the original reported events, in oral form, were eyewitness accounts. Not written, but oral, which the later written accounts were based upon.

But we don't have access to the 'original' eyewitness reports, do we?
Without those, we cannot compare the later, written accounts of an event and determine if there were details lost, added or changed.

So, the accounts we have access to are not eyewitness accounts, nor can they be considered eyewitness accounts.

 

[Atheos]

Then why aren't there several of these Jesus myths? Why aren't there other characters, other names, in other places, where the same story unfolds and we would have several of them instead of only this one?

There are. Your lack of knowledge about the various non-canonical gospels is your problem, not mine. I'd recommend googling "Early Christian Writings" and reading up so you don't look so ill-informed about the subject matter at hand.

Additionally it would be helpful for you to be aware of the magnitude of hero-gods that inspired the legend of "Jesus the Magic Jew." The similarity between the Jesus myths and the Egyptian / Roman / Greek myths that inspired them was so striking that people who actually knew about the similarities (such as early christian apologist Justin Martyr) offered insane rationalizations such as "The devil got people to make these stories up hundreds of years before Jesus was born so folks would think Jesus was just another "me-too" hero god."

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.

Justin Martyr - First Apology Chapter 21

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - in the Jesus myths that requires that any of it happened in order for it to have been written down as it appears today. There is no historical evidence that any of it happened, no artifacts, nothing. You are welcome to produce anything that contradicts this statement and I will retract it. Please don't embarrass yourself by producing the "Testimonium Flavianum," an obvious forgery created by early "liars for Jesus."

Meanwhile we do have ample evidence of hoaxes being perpetrated by various people for whatever purpose. I mentioned alien abduction stories as an example, one which you dismissed even though the examples are very similar to "eyewitness testimony" you appear to believe about equally unlikely events from completely anonymous people.

You keep asking "why Jesus and not someone else?" I might as well ask "Why Microsoft and not Digital Research?" We could get into endless debates over whatever happened that allowed one competitor to succeed where another disappeared into complete oblivion, but what's the point? It remains true that Digital Research once existed as the Goliath to Bill Gates' David. Did it take a god's intervention to make Microsoft successful and dissolve their once vast pool of competitors? No. And it did not take any sort of divine intervention to make one religion more appealing than another either. Why is it that the Mormons are now the fastest growing non-catholic christian denomination? Is it because God is with them? Is the spread of Islam, second only to Catholicism as an organized religion, evidence that Allah is real and approves of that religion? What, exactly, is your point in pursuing this line of argument?

You ask "What miracles did Joseph Smith perform?" Wikipedia is your friend. Once again your ignorance of the subject matter you are discussing is your own problem, not that of those with whom you are having the discussion. There is no shame in being ignorant, but there is great shame in choosing to remain ignorant when information that would avoid such embarrassing gaffes is so readily available. So I ask you again, upon what criteria should one accept the testimony of anonymous people making these claims in the bible and reject the claims made by actual, named individuals who swore and even signed documentation attesting to the miracles of Smith?

 

[none]

Atheos, it read well and had the essetial parts to make it ass kicking, but will lumpenrate admit is true..

 

[Cobalt]

Lumpenproletariat, you would profit from considering the phrase "accident of history". Consider, for instance, that the 5th day of the week is called Thursday in English and Jueves in Spanish (to say nothing of why the week is seven days long as another such accident). That the day has those names imply anything significant about the deities from which the names originate? Is Thor made slightly more real or plausible by Thursday? Is Jupiter made likewise by Jueves?

 

[Clivedurdle]

Came across an interesting one

Aconia Paulina wanted to know if all cults would be represented in the priesthood. I said yes. Every god and goddess known to the people...would be worshipped, for multiplicity is the nature of life.

We all believe--even the Galileans, despite their confused doctrine of trinity--that there is a single Godhead from which all life, divine and mortal, descends and to which all life must return. We may not know this creator...ut through intermediaries...he speaks to us...prepares us for the next stage of the journey.

"To find the father and maker of all is hard," as Socrates said.... Yet, as Aeschylus wrote with equal wisdom, "men search out god and searching find him."

The search is the whole point to philosophy and to the religious experience.

It is a part of the Galilean impiety to proclaim that the search ended three hundred years ago when a young rabbi was executed for treason.

http://www.gorevidalpages.com/1964/10/julian-by-gore-vidal.html

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Pascal's Wager is imperfect, but we shouldn't make it the ultimate FOCUS OF EVIL in the Universe.

Didn't Pascal say something like: "We don't know if there's a Heaven or Hell, so just go to Mass anyway just to play it safe -- Who knows, it might end up saving your soul -- it can't hurt, can it?"

Sort of. That's how it's taken, anyway.

The problem is, it assumes there's only one religion.

Maybe so in the case of Pascal's particular argument. But a Pascal's Wager argument can take a form that doesn't assume that.

E.g., that there may or may not be a life after death, a Heaven or Hell, does not assume there is only one religion. We just don't know if there is or not. To say that there might be, and it might even matter what we think about it or what we do, etc., does not necessarily assume there's only one religion.

This P.W. kind of argument is really much like agnosticism. One can be an agnostic and still consider the possibility of there being some form of Heaven or Hell or Something More. And it can leave open the possibility of different beliefs about it.

A legitimate question would be: If there is something beyond this life, how do we know anything about it, or which of the many beliefs about it is more likely correct? The inquiry cannot be dismissed simply because it resembles Pascal's Wager. One could come up with a reasonable response to the question, taking it seriously, finding an answer, perhaps tentative or doubtful, and conclude that it might be true. Just because there are many different religions or beliefs about it does not preclude the possibility that this or that belief might be true. One or more of those beliefs could be true while others are false.

It is not scientific or rational to say: Well, there are many beliefs about this, and we don't know the truth about it for sure, and so therefore there is no truth to it and all the beliefs have to be rejected as false.

Many religions that humans practice DO hurt if you join the wrong one.

No, not really. Most of them that are dogmatic or exclusivist do not teach that if you join the wrong one it makes you worse off. Rather, they say you are worse off if you don't join their religion, but not that you are even more worse off if you join the wrong one. Rather, you're just as bad off either way whether you join the "wrong" one or you just join none.

The war between conflicting religions derives from the rivalry among them as they compete for the same turf. It's not because each one thinks the other makes the people who join it worse off than they would be if they joined none.

Just because Pascal's Wager is partly flawed does not mean that any argument that resembles that thinking has to be flawed. The outburst "Pascal's Wager! Pascal's Wager!" is not a good argument against a "we don't know" or "it might be" reasoning. Being a rational agnostic does not preclude one from considering the possibility that "it might really be so" after all.

Heresy sends you directly to Hell at the front of the line, according to more than a few theologies.

Not really. You probably can't find one theologian who says: "You're better off to believe or practice nothing at all than to believe or practice something different than our religion." What theology teaches that today? I doubt you can find it even in past history. What the anti-heresy dogmatists were doing was trying to eliminate rival groups who were muscling in on their turf. They are like the drug cartels that fight over market share.

What they teach is: "Believe ours and you're better off." But if you don't believe theirs, it doesn't matter if you believe a "heresy" or just believe nothing at all -- you're just as bad off either way.

Pascal's Wager is only good as a rationalization after the fact. To make a believer feel good about their belief.

No more so than rejecting Pascal's Wager is also a rationalization after the fact -- to make a non-believer feel good about their nonbelief.

Absolute rejection of anything that resembles a P.W. argument is simply based on the premise that the belief(s) in question must be wrong. If instead one takes an agnostic view that we don't know what the truth is, then a P.W. kind of reasoning might be correct. There can never be anything wrong with saying, "I don't know, but what if it's true?" and then considering that possibility. And one does have to consider the existence of other beliefs besides the one being entertained. If the reasoning is a kind which totally ignores alternative conflicting beliefs about it that are just as likely, then it's incorrect. But not every P.W. argument commits this error.

It's worthless to help one choose which religion to adopt.

You can say that only because probably there is no one "true religion" superior to the others. But if there is, then P.W. is not worthless to help one choose.

It's never worthless to seek what is more likely true, even if you can't know for sure, unless there is no benefit from finding truth. If there is a benefit to knowing the truth, or believing it, then it's beneficial if P.W. comes into play to help one find that truth. This is so even though there may be several conflicting beliefs competing for attention. This competition going on does not then lead to the conclusion, "Oh they're all hogwash! To Hell with them all!" No, that does not necessarily follow. In fact, one of them might be the "One True Religion" and all the rest of them false -- though this is improbable. But there could be some true belief(s) among the conflicting choices.

P.W. is worthless only if there's no truth worth finding. If the truth, or believing it, is also worthless, then the P.W. argument that would "convert" you to that truth is also worthless. I.e., PW-bashing is just a way of saying you know there's no truth there worth finding.

Pascal's Wager per se should not be used as an argument for or against believing one way or the other. It makes no sense to say: "AH! Gotcha! That's a Pascal's Wager argument, so you must be wrong! I win the debate because you used a P.W. argument!"

That kind of reasoning is always wrong. It's OK to say things like, "We don't know -- it could be one way or the other" and so on, and it's not ipso facto fallacious because it smells like a P.W. argument.

Like wearing a seatbelt:

Bad analogy. It's more like an ejection seat.

A plane had a difficulty on an aircraft carrier and slid into another aircraft. One of the pilots saw the accident coming and ejected. The nose of the aircraft they hit slid through his canopy and would have killed him if he hadn't ejected.

The other pilot did not eject. But the initial difficulty the first plane had caused his canopy to buckle. They could not open it right away and later determined that if he'd ejected, the rocket in his seat would have smashed his brains against the glass.

So, Pascal's wager is more like two pilots both insisting that using AND not using their ejector seat was the right thing to do. You can't use either anecdote to predict the outcome of a casualty in your plane.

In that example, yes. But it's not the Pascal's Wager reasoning that was wrong, but rather the false information about the likely benefits/harms of using the ejector seat.

In a decision, you have to act on the best information about the likely results. It has nothing to do with the P.W. argument, but about what are the likely harmful or beneficial outcomes. In some cases, where you have a strong indication one way or the other, you can make a choice based on "I don't know for sure, but this choice looks preferable to that one" reasoning, which is like P.W. And then in a fluke situation, you may end up killing yourself because you chose the safest course, but it was an unlucky case and it backfired.

How about a vaccination that usually works, but in a rare case it kills the patient. You don't know for sure that it will help you. Maybe less than 50% chance, but you take the vaccine anyway as being the better gamble. That's a P.W. choice, which usually makes no difference, but in many cases does give a good result, but one in a million ends up killing you.

So, the Pascal's Wager argument is not totally flawed.

It provides no information to justify choosing one of the thousands of religions that mankind offers. That's a flaw. it's a fatal flaw if used by a non-believer to approach belief.

It's a comforting rationalization but not much else.

But you are basing this on the premise that it doesn't matter what one believes. Your reasoning is correct, provided that your premise is correct that it does not matter what one believes. But if that premise is false, then a Pascal's Wager argument could justify choosing the right belief.

So again, it is silly to just blurt out "Pascal's Wager! Pascal's Wager!" and think you have disproved a particular belief or religion or theory. Even when that kind of reasoning comes into play it is not that PW reasoning that is the issue. Rather, it may be reasonable to argue that "We don't know for sure -- it might be this or it might be that."

It's not always wrong to say "It may or may not be true, but it's safer to assume it's true."

It is wrong exactly because the Catholics say the Mormons are going to suffer for their religion, the Mormons say the Catholics are going to suffer for their religion.

No, you're getting all worked up over nothing. Neither the Catholics or the Mormons say this. I challenge you to find either a Catholic or Mormon who says: "If you join that other religion you'll be worse off than if you joined no religion."

You cannot find any who say that. You're going to extremes here to try to bash Pascal. He's not the Devil Incarnate as you're trying to make him out to be. There's nothing wrong, and it might be reasonable, if you say "We don't know for sure, but this seems more likely than that." Even if it's about which religious belief is better.

We cannot say it's safer to assume that any single belief is safer than non-belief. Maybe God loves atheists more than Baptists.

Christ asked for belief. Belief in him or in his power was stated as a condition or as a means to gain healing and salvation. Whether God loves atheists or Baptists more is not what matters. Rather, what matters is which one is more likely to believe in Christ. Believing in Christ is "safer" than non-belief as regard to the possibility of gaining salvation. When he healed someone, their belief in him or in his power was "safer" as a way to gain that healing than non-belief. So in that sense belief is "safer" than non-belief.

And it seems a Baptist is more likely to meet that condition than an atheist. The Baptist is no more meritorious or morally deserving, but the qualifying condition is one's believing in Christ, not being meritorious.

It's not true that a "Pascal's Wager" kind of reasoning must ipso facto always be wrong.

But it is. As noted, it starts with the assumption of only one religion being available to the Seeker. That's false.

Not always. Again, in the case of someone who came to Christ to be healed, if they believed in his power they could be healed. Had they not believed, they would not have gained the healing. Only one choice was "available" or under consideration, which was to believe. This choice had the possibility of leading to the desired outcome, whereas it posed no risk of making the person worse off. Whereas not believing posed the risk of leaving that person without the desired healing. So because of the fact of his demonstrated power, there was one choice, or "religion" if you want to call it that, and choosing this could lead to the desired result.

The following scenario could easily be a "Pascal's Wager" example:

There was a woman afflicted with hemorrhages for twelve years. She had suffered greatly at the hands of many doctors and had spent all that she had. Yet she was not helped but only grew worse. She had heard about Jesus and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak. She said, "If I but touch his clothes, I shall be cured." Immediately her flow of blood dried up. She felt in her body that she was healed of her affliction.
--Mark 5:25-29

This woman might have thought, "I don't know for sure, but it might work. Just in case he really does have power, I'll touch his cloak." That would be a "Pascal's Wager" case, where there is a choice that might work, and at the same time there's no way it could make her worse off. So there's only one choice, or one "religion" to try out, not many, and it can only lead to a good result, not a bad one. The worst would be that it just doesn't work. Surely this woman thought of all the previous healers who tried their treatment on her, and how could she now be sure that this time it would be different? But it was worth a try. Why wasn't that a reasonable way for her to think of it and to choose on that basis?

Especially since just "believing" is so easy.

Anyway, we have statistics on car and plane accidents. We can actually come up with risk tables for the benefits/costs of wearing seat belts, using the eject, changing your mind after Monty Hall reveals one of the goats.

You mean there's evidence to use as a guide, so there's a probability factor that helps.

The woman in my example also had evidence. "She had heard about Jesus," meaning she knew of reports of his earlier healings. This increased the probability that she might be healed this way. Why isn't this similar to using statistics on the effectiveness of seat belts? The better the stats, or the evidence, or the previous success stories, the better is the chance that this will work. So Pascal's Wager is valid where there is evidence in support of the choice being considered.

That the woman in this example was not a scientist or learned intellectual who read Plato and others does not preclude her from exercising this kind of logic. Her simple knowledge of some earlier reports gave her some evidence to go on and she acted, or believed, based on that.

Pascal did not invent this kind of logic several centuries later. In all likelihood, there is some argument from Aristotle or other earlier thinker who put forth a similar argument to Pascal's Wager. There are scholars of that period who say that everything that ever needed to be said in philosophy was all said by the Greeks, and everything since then is just window-dressing.

So we should not fall all over ourselves obsessing on Pascal's Wager.

Such an effort is useless . . . unless we have a means of determining the disposition of souls in any actual afterlife, should such a thing exist.

OK, we don't have "data" on souls in an afterlife such as we have on previous healing events, which could be verified. So it's more difficult to believe in the total "healing" of eternal life than in limited individual healing events like the Jesus miracle healing acts. But if there is a basis for believing in the limited individual healings, doesn't this logically suggest the possibility of the greater total "healing" of conquering death entirely? Why shouldn't a power to heal, if it is extended far enough, also lead to a power to grant eternal life? Isn't this just an expansion or gradation from a lower-scale healing to a much higher level of the same power?

(In this regard, the N.T. word for "healing" is the same as that used for "salvation" of the soul, so that they are not two separate concepts. Rather they blend into one another, so that "salvation" becomes a higher completed process of healing, or the total ultimate healing. I.e., what really is the difference between dying "of old age" and dying of cancer at 50? If the latter form of death can or should be overcome, why not all death?)

So the "faith" for salvation is a higher-level faith, or more difficult, perhaps more hypothetical or more fine-tuned than that of a victim being healed of leprosy or blindness, etc. But isn't the logic fundamentally the same, with the final conclusion (eternal life) just a further/longer step, and yet still grounded in the same reasoning of the possibilities of an illness being cured?

But we have no "means of determining the disposition of souls in any actual afterlife" as we have for some particular healings, because there are no reports from the afterlife to give us information or evidence. So does that mean that the probability of something after death has to be extremely low? less than 1%? less than .1%?

And if it's so low, then it makes no sense to adopt any belief about it, or to waste any time thinking about it? The harm from this distraction (longing for an afterlife) is too great and the probability of an afterlife too low to justify spending any resources such as brain power or research etc. to seeking an answer. This is a net waste, if there's no afterlife to ever be found, and it's highly probable that there is none.

One weakness to this argument is that we do not know what the probability is of some kind of afterlife. The lack of "data" on this, i.e., no evidence on the disposition of souls that have passed, does not mean that the probability of an afterlife is low. We can only say that we don't know, not that it is improbable. It's still a possibility that there is Something Else, and we don't know what the probability of it is.

If all the known facts could be put into a computer that can analyze every possible problem and deliver a probability figure for this or that puzzle, then perhaps the probability of some afterlife could be computed and the figure provided. But that computer technology does not yet exist. Maybe the technology is coming, but we're nowhere near it yet.

So you can't just start out with the dogma that an afterlife has to be highly improbable. Below a certain level, such as 1% or .1%, one must grant the pointlessness of expending great effort to determine how one gains eternal life if it should exist. But we don't know if the probability is that low. What if it's 20% or 30%? Might it not then be worth the effort? And maybe it's really higher.

What's wrong with reasoning that, if eternal life, or an afterlife, is possible, our best hope for finding it, based on every historical consideration, is through whatever power this historical Christ figure was in contact with. He had power that suggests the possibility of the Something More beyond death, or beyond the world we know of. Where else in history do we have comparable indication of such power being possible?

As to the time/energy wasted pursuing the afterlife, what if the only condition to gain the eternal life is to believe in Christ. Since this is so easy, and doesn't really require expending much energy or resources, why couldn't one just believe it and go on with all the other matters of life that we have more certainty about? And so then what is the great waste or harm done if it turns out that there is no eternal life after all? What was the waste in having held that belief? Don't we hope for some things, even wish, as a possibility, but go on with life and not let this wish interfere with life?

Now if instead it requires going to Mass and Confession and other religious rituals, as Pascal suggested, or praying toward Mecca every day as the Muslims require, then maybe you could argue that the time and effort wasted is not worth it, given the very low probability that there really is any Heaven or afterlife to be gained.

So if anything, the wasted effort/time argument is only one that is against performing difficult religious observances, but not against the simple requirement that one must believe in Christ. Which anyone, even a bad person, can do with little effort.

But then, if we have actual numbers on where souls go after death, we have no need of Pascal's Wager . . .

What if your "actual numbers" are flawed or inconclusive? as most numbers tend to be?

Why are you so obsessed with proving that anything resembling Pascal's Wager has to be logically flawed?

What you're doing is arguing that Pascal is wrong if there are numbers, and also wrong if there are no numbers. If there is evidence, he's wrong, and if there's NO evidence, he's wrong. He has to be wrong no matter what, and therefore anything that smells like Pascal's Wager has to be wrong. You are virtually saying that if we don't know with absolute certainty, we must NEVER choose or make a judgment on something, because any choice is equally likely to damage us as to do us any good unless we have absolute certainty which choice is right.

Having "actual numbers" does not usually resolve a question. It helps, maybe, but there can still be doubt, and there are still possibilities one way or the other. There can be a reason to choose this way or that, even though we don't know for sure what the truth is. There are times when we can say, "choosing this might work, even though we don't know for sure."

Why must it be so etched in stone that no decision can ever be made that way?

There are times when one choice is a clear possibility for a better result, and yet it's not certain, and at the same time that one choice is very unlikely to do any damage if it is chosen and yet turns out to be mistaken. Why does there ALWAYS have to be a possible negative result from making such a choice, which then leads to the conclusion that one can never make a judgment or choice about anything unless one has ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY about the likely result?

Doesn't much beneficial scientific discovery stem from trying out something that might work, but they don't really know? How many labs got blown up as result? half a dozen?

Where does this extreme fear of anything resembling Pascal's Wager come from? How does PW-bashing become such a religion?

Aren't there times when a person might rightly think, "I don't know for sure, but this choice might work and can't do any harm." No? smells too much like Pascal's Wager -- can't allow that.

Should you cringe anytime you hear someone say, "No harm in trying"? Should you start pulling your hair out and plead with them not to do it, because it might do more harm than good?

That woman who reached out to touch Jesus' cloak -- should someone have grabbed her and screamed, "No, lady, don't! It might actually kill you! No! I beg you, don't do it!!!"

 

[Keith&Co.]

Pascal's Wager is imperfect, but we shouldn't make it the ultimate FOCUS OF EVIL in the Universe.

Wow. I just said it was worthless as an argument, not the focus of evil.

Sort of. That's how it's taken, anyway.

The problem is, it assumes there's only one religion.

Maybe so in the case of Pascal's particular argument. But a Pascal's Wager argument can take a form that doesn't assume that.
E.g., that there may or may not be a life after death, a Heaven or Hell, does not assume there is only one religion.

First off, you really ought to go out and find Pascal's actual wager.

We just don't know if there is or not. To say that there might be, and it might even matter what we think about it or what we do, etc., does not necessarily assume there's only one religion.

Yes, it does. Because it only allows a man to be virtuous, or not to be virtuous. But if there are two standards of virtue, then we cannot reduce it to two possibilities.
And that's the point of the wager.
There are two possibilities, God exists and rewards virtie, or God does not exist.
There are two choices, the seeker can live a virtuous life or the seeker can choose not to.
The only way to 'win' is for there to be a god and live a virtuous life for the reward.
The only way to 'lose' is for there to be a god and to not live for virtue.

But if there are two or more religions, then there are more ways to lose.
You can be virtuous, say you closely follow the Koran, and still end up in Hell if the Koran is not accurate.

This P.W. kind of argument is really much like agnosticism.

No, it's not even close. Agnosticism would have to say that islam is as likely as Christainity. And each sect of each faith is as likely as every other sect. Even those that contradict each other.

One can be an agnostic and still consider the possibility of there being some form of Heaven or Hell or Something More.

Sure. But Pascal's Wager does fuck-all to help trim down the possibilities. It starts by assuming those have already been dispensed with.

A legitimate question would be: If there is something beyond this life, how do we know anything about it, or which of the many beliefs about it is more likely correct? The inquiry cannot be dismissed simply because it resembles Pascal's Wager.

No, it does NOT resemble Pascal's Wager.
It implicitly lists 'many beliefs.' PW does not do that, it assumes only one.

does not preclude the possibility that this or that belief might be true. One or more of those beliefs could be true while others are false.

True. Sure. But if you have a means of determining which one is (or could be) true, then you don't need the Wager.

It is not scientific or rational to say: Well, there are many beliefs about this, and we don't know the truth about it for sure, and so therefore there is no truth to it and all the beliefs have to be rejected as false.

No one's saying that.

Seriously, no one's an atheist simply because of so many, many candidate religions. But then again, no one has ever used PW to choose one religion out of many.

Many religions that humans practice DO hurt if you join the wrong one.

No, not really. Most of them that are dogmatic or exclusivist do not teach that if you join the wrong one it makes you worse off.

So, no one teaches that heretics, apostates, followers of false prophets are going to Hell? Catholics don't teach that Muslims, Mormons and Satanists are going to Hell? This is where Pascal's Wager fails.

If i choose to be a Mormon, and the Catholics are right, i'm not going to Heaven.
If i choose to be Muslim, and the Mormons are right, I'm not going to Win the wager.
If i choose to worship the 3-in-1 god of most Christains, the Muslims say i'm a pagan and going to Hell.
But in each case, the wager will tell me that i'm a virtuous man, and i've won.