120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Atheos]

What made Jesus stand out? Why aren't there several other similar messiah figures?

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 term "independent source" is subjective. He is mentioned, but no others are mentioned.

The question to answer is: Why does Jesus stand out among all the many possible preaching messiah prophet figures during this period of history?

If he does not stand out, then there should be other similar messiah figures or hero figures who were made into gods during this time. Who would they be? Not just the 1st century -- how about from 500 BC to 1500 AD. Who is a comparable reported historical figure who displayed superhuman power and who was worshiped as a god?

How did such a singular figure arise out from everyone else if he had no unusual power? What distinguished him to cause so many to make him into a god?

The myth/legend grew with the telling and repeating of a story.

What myth? What was the myth at the beginning? Why aren't there other similar myths about other god/hero/savior figures? Why couldn't other myths/legends also grow from being repeated? Why only this one?

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.

Why is it so easy to determine in the case of Gautama and Simon Magus and others, but hard to determine in this case? One reasonable answer is that he actually did perform the miracle acts attributed to him in the legends.

You mean apart from the literally hundreds of hero god saviors that existed before the Jesus myth was invented? Perseus, Hercules, Osiris, Horus, ect. I've challenged you on this before in this thread and evidently your method of defense is to ignore the well stated cases presented by others and continue to make baseless assertions. Do you hope that by doing this somehow the process of repeating these baseless assertions will convince someone they're true?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Evidence that Jesus was a reputed psychic

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?

You mean, do we have the eyewitnesses available to question? No, 1985-year-old people are difficult to arrange an interview with.

Without those, we cannot compare the later, written accounts of an event and determine if there were details lost, added or changed.

We can determine some of that. We can compare differing accounts of the same event and determine what kind of changes took place in the text, and these comparisons can help us answer questions about what happened. We can draw some reasonable conclusions, but only the kind which still leave doubt.

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

The only eyewitness accounts of anything in history would be the few cases where an existing document is one written by an eyewitness who was there, which is very little of the historical record for that far back in history. And even such existing documents, like the writings of Cicero, cannot be verified as eyewitness accounts, because we have to take the word of the author that he was who he claimed to be.


I will cite here an incident mentioned in all 3 synoptic gospels which tells us that Jesus, at the time of the arrest and trial, had a reputation for possessing psychic power of some kind. We can piece together what happened by comparing all 3 of the accounts.

This is a scene where the guards are mocking Jesus, and someone says to him, "Who is it that struck you?" which question is found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark, while in Mark and Luke it says they "blindfolded" him as he was struck.

The Matthew version (26:67-68) says they struck him and demanded, "Prophesy! . . . Who is it that struck you?"

The Mark version (14:65) says they blindfolded him and struck him, saying only "Prophesy!"

Each of these accounts leaves something out, which loses the meaning of what happened. The Matthew version makes no sense with the question, "Who is it that struck you?" Without the blindfold to explain what's happening, that question doesn't serve any purpose.

But the Mark version leaves the command "Prophesy!" without any point. What is Jesus supposed to prophesy?

The Luke version (22:64) makes it clearer, including both the blindfolding and the command, "Prophesy! Who is it that struck you?" But even this version is problematic because the striking of Jesus comes BEFORE he is blindfolded.

The incident makes sense only if they first blindfolded him, then struck him, and then commanded him, "Prophesy! Who is it that struck you?"

What this tells us is that the writer or redactor of Mark and Matthew, possibly also Luke, did not understand the incident, but they each reported what they had as a source for it. None of them invented this incident, because they would have put together something that makes sense. The Matthew and Mark versions make no sense, as they are.

The accounts of this must have come from the actual event, from the earliest sources, or witnesses, with little effort by the redactor to make it clear or to patch it up. Mt and Mk each lacked essential elements which would have clarified it, so they just reported what they had. This shows a certain reliability on the part of the redactor/writer to report what happened without inventing anything new.

How can this incident be explained without assuming that Jesus had a reputation as a psychic of some kind who could see what's happening even though blindfolded? And we must ask: How did he acquire this reputation in 30 AD?

How could this be anything other than an accurately-reported incident? Doesn't it illustrate that the writers or compilers of these accounts tried to report accurately what happened, based on their sources?

This isn't to say they could never have also invented something to insert. But it means much of their accounts is an accurate report based on earlier sources they relied on. Also, the phrase "Who is it that struck you?" is from the Q document, not Mark, and so reflects an early account prior to 50 AD.

 

[Kharakov]

You mean apart from the literally hundreds of hero god saviors that existed before the Jesus myth was invented? Perseus, Hercules, Osiris, Horus, ect. I've challenged you on this before in this thread and evidently your method of defense is to ignore the well stated cases presented by others and continue to make baseless assertions. Do you hope that by doing this somehow the process of repeating these baseless assertions will convince someone they're true?

It just so happens that your post is the 10th multiple of 666 posts that the General Religion forum has had since its inception. Oooga booga.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Where are all the Jesus-like miracle-workers? Give an example.

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. The single most unlikely explanation for the existence of these stories is that everything happened exactly as described . . .

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.

But you're too embarrassed to name one? You know there is no evidence for them. If there is one who is comparable to the case of Jesus, then just name one.

I'll help you out a little. But I can't do your homework for you.

Simon Magus and Apollonius of Tyana are 2 examples who are often named as miracle-workers comparable to Jesus. The History Channel had a program on "rivals" to Jesus from the period, and the best example they gave was Apollonius.

Our only account of this gentleman is from Philostratus who lived at least 100 years later. Other than this one source, we know nothing about Apollonius, except that a monument dedicated to him was discovered. He was probably a noteworthy man who did some good things. He lived almost 100 years, which means he had plenty of time to build up his reputation as a great guy.

The most noteworthy miracle of Apollonius is that of raising a dead child back to life. This story was lifted by Philostratus straight out of the Gospel of Luke. The History Channel program highlighted this supposed miracle of Apollonius, and suggested that he's a typical example of a "rival" miracle-worker to Jesus because of this story. Isn't this a pathetic example?

Now if there are better examples, let's have them. Where are all the Jesus-like miracle-workers from the ancient world?

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.

Name the example. Until then you cannot claim there are others who are comparable to the Jesus example. Let's look at them one by one. But you'll have to give the example.

I gave one from the History Channel which claimed there were all these great Jesus-like miracle-workers and the best they could offer was the Apollonius character. Not to disparage him though -- all the indications are that he was a fine fellow. But if he had been in a political debate, Sen. Lloyd Bentsen would have said to him, "Senator, you're no Jesus Christ!" And the audience would have laughed poor Apollonius off the stage.

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."

You're talking about symbols, not events that took place. Where is the example of an individual person who performed miracle acts?

It's irrelevant that some of the ancient hero mythic symbols were also applied to Jesus. The question is: WHY did they apply them to him? Why not also to John the Baptist or dozens of other likely candidates for such honors?

Give an example of another person in history who did miracle acts. What is the evidence? We're not talking about Zeus or Apollo or Asclepius, who may not have existed, or if they did exist they lived more than a thousand years prior to any information source about them.

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

So you're saying that Jupiter also was a person in history who did miracles? And what are the sources for this? How long after Jupiter lived did these sources appear? How many sources are there? About what date in history did Jupiter perform his miracles?

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.

You have to answer the question how those stories became attributed to him. If you cannot, then the best explanation is that the events actually happened. We can explain how miracle stories were attributed to Gautama and Simon Magus and Apollonius of Tyana over the 100-500-year periods that followed them. But we don't have an explanation how miracle stories are attributed to a person within 50 years -- even within 20 years -- from his life, and yet his public career was only 3 years at most.

This is the problem of explaining the Jesus miracle accounts.

There is no historical evidence that any of it happened, no artifacts, nothing.

The N.T. gospel accounts we have are evidence, of which there is none in the case of all the other alleged miracle-workers. If there is such evidence for the others, then what is that evidence?

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.

I don't dismiss the alien abduction stories. If they really have evidence that is credible, including eyewitnesses, maybe something really did happen. I believe there have been some very strange events that happened. You have to judge each case. It sounds like you simply dismiss dogmatically any story that fits some formula you brand as out of bounds or crackpot regardless of any evidence. The scientific approach would be to look at each one to see if there is any evidence, and also to examine if the event that happened might have been misinterpreted by the witnesses.

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?

The point is that if it was this easy to make a god out of Jesus, then we should have many more such god-figures who were real people in history who got turned into gods. If we don't, then this does not explain how he was made into a god.

The better explanation is that he did acts which distinguished him from all the others. So there were none others available to serve this role. Or none comparable to him. What were those acts he did which distinguished him so that he stood out and became the recipient of all this mythologizing?

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.

You can name other companies that are comparable to Microsoft. Several giants exist, not just one who sticks out uniquely from the others. If someone wants to mythologize these companies and invent miracle stories for them, they have several choices, not just one, for which they may create miracle stories and virgin births and so on. And similarly, we should have other Jesus-like miracle-workers or god figures being mythologized in this period instead of only one.

And it did not take any sort of divine intervention to make one religion more appealing than another either.

What was more appealing was that Jesus was believed to have done those miracle acts, and any other possible hero figures did not have such a reputation. If he did not do those acts, it is impossible to explain why his cult spread and the Simon Magus cult e.g. did not.

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?

There's probably a normal explanation why some succeed and others do not. But there does have to be an explanation for whatever happens. Sometimes the explanation may not be a normal one.

It's not normal for a person to be deified and worshiped unless he did something unusual to attract that attention. In the case of Gautama it was his charisma exercised for over 40 years causing great influence on many disciples who were inspired, and inspired those later, to make the Enlightened One into a god. But with Jesus this explanation does not suffice. So what is the explanation in the case of Jesus? Why was he made into a god? at a much quicker speed than Gautama was deified? and even though his public life was less than 3 years?

Everything that happens needs a cause behind it. In this case we're talking about a very unusual event.

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?

You still are not saying what the "miracle" was. Did Joseph Smith heal someone who had been treated by doctors and couldn't be healed until Joseph Smith healed him?

Say what the "miracle" was. How are some tablets with inscriptions on them a "miracle"?

 

[Keith&Co.]

But we don't have access to the 'original' eyewitness reports, do we?

You mean, do we have the eyewitnesses available to question? No, 1985-year-old people are difficult to arrange an interview with.

Thus you are forced to invent odd and rather fatuous 'superior standards' to make your favored account seem more likely.

Without those, we cannot compare the later, written accounts of an event and determine if there were details lost, added or changed.

We can determine some of that. We can compare differing accounts of the same event and determine what kind of changes took place in the text, and these comparisons can help us answer questions about what happened.

No, they do not. We have no way to tell if any of the common elements were invented or not. We cannot compare them to the accounts of disinterested observers, or an account which was not subject to the Christain efforts to edit the historical record (such as all the gnostic gospels which were destroyed because they were gnostic gospels..

We can draw some reasonable conclusions, but only the kind which still leave doubt.

If they still leave doubt, they're not conclusions.

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

The only eyewitness accounts of anything in history would be the few cases where an existing document is one written by an eyewitness who was there, which is very little of the historical record for that far back in history.

Yes, thus the problem for historians.
As stated before, historical records are evaluated based on who wrote them, when and for what purpose. Not knowing any of these for the gospels, we cannot use them as trustworthy historical records.

I will cite here an incident mentioned in all 3 synoptic gospels which tells us that Jesus, at the time of the arrest and trial, had a reputation for possessing psychic power of some kind. We can piece together what happened by comparing all 3 of the accounts.

No, we cannot.
We can examine the gospels to see if they're consistent with each other, but not whether they're consistent with history.

None of them invented this incident, because they would have put together something that makes sense.

Which in no way means that there is a factual event behind the oral tradition they were cribbing from.

The accounts of this must have come from the actual event,

Bullshit. 'Must have' is way too firm a conclusion from the evidence provided. If they're recording an oral tradition, that's the best you can say, that there was a story and all three heard it.
The garble or clarity of the account cannot help us determine fact from fiction.

How can this incident be explained without assuming that Jesus had a reputation as a psychic of some kind who could see what's happening even though blindfolded? And we must ask: How did he acquire this reputation in 30 AD?

Again, humans do not need hundreds of years to simply make shit up.
It's also possible that it is an historical event, but not that it happened to Jesus. See the story of George Washington and the cherry tree. That's fictional. It did not take 200 years to establish that reputation, it was circulating within 50 years of his childhood. One theory is that the person who started telling this tale stole it from an earlier English tale about someone else.
Either way, having a story does not mean it's historical.

How could this be anything other than an accurately-reported incident?

Easy. Someone made shit up.

Doesn't it illustrate that the writers or compilers of these accounts tried to report accurately what happened, based on their sources?

But no matter how much fidelity they used with their sources, that does not in any fucking way help prove that their sources were factual.

 

[Keith&Co.]

1 guy.

1 guy writing about the life of George Washington, interviewing people who were still alive and had known GW as a child, invented the story of George Washington and the Cherry Tree.

As an example, it destroys you whole argument, Lumpy.

He wrote it down. He sourced ALL the accounts of GW that showed up in history books and social studies books and any other damned place you could find it. It was taken as fact from that one source.
UNTIL historians actually started to question the account.

NOT that they were skeptical, they just felt that before THEY wrote the story down in their history books, they wanted actual corroboration.... You know, holding the story to a 'higher standard' for evaluation.

From  George_Washington# Cherry_tree

"Joseph Rodman in 1904 noted that Weems plagiarized other Washington tales from published fiction set in England."

Plagiarized! That means he stole stories from other accounts and attributed the anecdotes to Washington.

Please consider your claims that a short amount of time helps make a story credible. In the light of this evidence, it does show that to be an empty approach to establishing historicity. It only takes one person to create bullshit. If it's popular bullshit, it'll spread quickly (thus it appearing in multiple history books and Warner Brothers cartoons).

Note, this example destroys only your argument, not Jesus.
It's possible that all the accounts are true. Or any number of the conflicting ones.
BUT nothing you've offered as a reason to accept the accounts is useful in proving that to be the case.

 

[Kharakov]

Multiverse zombie Jesus prion spread through sheep brains.

 

[Atheos]

Lumpenproletariat,

You challenge me with the following:

But you're too embarrassed to name one? You know there is no evidence for them. If there is one who is comparable to the case of Jesus, then just name one.

I've named several already but will name some again:

Horus, Osirus, Perseus, Promethus, Mithras, Hercules, Bacchus.

Each of these epic hero-god myths was around for centuries before their stories were reheated with your favorite hero-god's name inserted in place of their names. That is the exact reason I copied the Justyn Martyr quote which you evidently didn't read (or comprehend). The quote doesn't imply that Jupiter was a man, it implies that Martyr was aware of many similar myths about Roman god-men who were "sons of Jupiter" whose story lines followed virtually identical paths to the one attributed to your favorite hero-god myth.

I'd also encourage you to actually click on the link to the "Miracles of Joseph Smith" before embarrassing yourself yet another time with your lack of knowledge of the subject matter at hand. Since you evidently can't be bothered to do so I'll quote a brief portion of the article:

Healing
According to a number of eye-witness accounts, Joseph Smith is credited with the miraculous healings of a large number of individuals.

• Oliver B. Huntington reported that, in the spring of 1831, Smith healed the lame arm of the wife of John Johnson of Hiram, Ohio. This account is corroborated by the account of a Protestant minister who was present. However, he did not attribute the miraculous healing to the power of God.
• Smith related an experience in which he said the Lord gave him the power to raise his father from his deathbed in October 1835.
• Smith related another experience, occurring in December 1835, in which he said the Lord gave him the power to immediately heal Angeline Works when she lay dying, so sick that she could not recognize her friends and family.
• In his personal journal, Wilford Woodruff recorded an event that occurred on July 22, 1839 in which he described Smith walking among a large number of Saints who had taken ill, immediately healing them all. Among those healed were Woodruff himself, Brigham Young, Elijah Fordham, and Joseph B. Noble. Woodruff also tells of how, just after these events occurred, a ferryman who was not a follower of Smith but who had heard of the miracles asked Smith to heal his children, who had come down with the same disease. Smith said that he did not have time to go to the ferryman's house, but he charged Woodruff to go and heal them. Woodruff reports that he went and did as Smith had told him to do and that the children were healed.

Please note that the "evidence" in this case is of considerably greater quality than the evidence you keep presenting about Jesus. In these instances the people who wrote the things down are named (and even signed in many cases). Actual named eyewitnesses were the writers as opposed to the completely anonymous NT gospels. The location and date of the events is considerably more precise. Much of the source documentation for these events can be dated to within days of the events in question rather than decades. Why aren't you Mormon?

Asking thought-provoking questions is a great way to get people to learn things and I appreciate that is what you're trying to do here. The problem you keep running into is these questions are all so trivially easy to answer that if you'd just take a moment to run a Google search and learn a little about the information that's already out there you could avoid these sorts of downright embarrassing gaffes.

What was more appealing was that Jesus was believed to have done those miracle acts, and any other possible hero figures did not have such a reputation. If he did not do those acts, it is impossible to explain why his cult spread and the Simon Magus cult e.g. did not.

As I've already pointed out there were several other hero-god figures who had reputations of being able to perform miracles. There remains nothing in the Jesus myth that requires him to have ever existed for these stories to exist. Joseph Smith and Mohammad are both examples of individuals who started fast growing and extremely successful religious movements. When you answer the question of why each of these movements succeeded while other folks who tried to create religions met with less success please read the answer you come up with. You will have discovered the answer to the question you keep asking about "Why Jesus and not another?" So no, it is not impossible to explain. There are many possible answers considerably more plausible than that a magic Jew cured blindness with spit and walked effortlessly on the storm-tossed waters of the sea of Galilee.

 

[Atheos]

But we don't have access to the 'original' eyewitness reports, do we?

You mean, do we have the eyewitnesses available to question? No, 1985-year-old people are difficult to arrange an interview with.

Without those, we cannot compare the later, written accounts of an event and determine if there were details lost, added or changed.

We can determine some of that. We can compare differing accounts of the same event and determine what kind of changes took place in the text, and these comparisons can help us answer questions about what happened. We can draw some reasonable conclusions, but only the kind which still leave doubt.

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

The only eyewitness accounts of anything in history would be the few cases where an existing document is one written by an eyewitness who was there, which is very little of the historical record for that far back in history. And even such existing documents, like the writings of Cicero, cannot be verified as eyewitness accounts, because we have to take the word of the author that he was who he claimed to be.


I will cite here an incident mentioned in all 3 synoptic gospels which tells us that Jesus, at the time of the arrest and trial, had a reputation for possessing psychic power of some kind. We can piece together what happened by comparing all 3 of the accounts.

This is a scene where the guards are mocking Jesus, and someone says to him, "Who is it that struck you?" which question is found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark, while in Mark and Luke it says they "blindfolded" him as he was struck.

The Matthew version (26:67-68) says they struck him and demanded, "Prophesy! . . . Who is it that struck you?"

The Mark version (14:65) says they blindfolded him and struck him, saying only "Prophesy!"

Each of these accounts leaves something out, which loses the meaning of what happened. The Matthew version makes no sense with the question, "Who is it that struck you?" Without the blindfold to explain what's happening, that question doesn't serve any purpose.

But the Mark version leaves the command "Prophesy!" without any point. What is Jesus supposed to prophesy?

The Luke version (22:64) makes it clearer, including both the blindfolding and the command, "Prophesy! Who is it that struck you?" But even this version is problematic because the striking of Jesus comes BEFORE he is blindfolded.

The incident makes sense only if they first blindfolded him, then struck him, and then commanded him, "Prophesy! Who is it that struck you?"

What this tells us is that the writer or redactor of Mark and Matthew, possibly also Luke, did not understand the incident, but they each reported what they had as a source for it. None of them invented this incident, because they would have put together something that makes sense. The Matthew and Mark versions make no sense, as they are.

The accounts of this must have come from the actual event, from the earliest sources, or witnesses, with little effort by the redactor to make it clear or to patch it up. Mt and Mk each lacked essential elements which would have clarified it, so they just reported what they had. This shows a certain reliability on the part of the redactor/writer to report what happened without inventing anything new.

How can this incident be explained without assuming that Jesus had a reputation as a psychic of some kind who could see what's happening even though blindfolded? And we must ask: How did he acquire this reputation in 30 AD?

How could this be anything other than an accurately-reported incident? Doesn't it illustrate that the writers or compilers of these accounts tried to report accurately what happened, based on their sources?

This isn't to say they could never have also invented something to insert. But it means much of their accounts is an accurate report based on earlier sources they relied on. Also, the phrase "Who is it that struck you?" is from the Q document, not Mark, and so reflects an early account prior to 50 AD.

So your evidence that Jesus was a reputed psychic all boils down to one of the literary devices from the myth that has been thoroughly debunked? Hint: The "trial" of Jesus in a Sanhedrin court never happened. As you've already demonstrated unwillingness to read documentation that doesn't support your case I'll just quote some of it here so you can see what you're missing:

• Error #1: The Sanhedrin convened at the high priest's house
  Mark mentioned that the Sanhedrin met in the house of the high priest while all our other sources on the Sanhedrin tells us that the council does not convene anywhere else except in the Chamber of the Hewn Stone in the Temple. [5]
• Error #2: The Sanhedrin met at night
  The Sanhedrin was said to have convened immediately after Jesus was arrested and taken to the high priest's house. This was after the Passover supper and the prayer at Gethsemane which makes the council meet around 9 to 10pm at night. This is again incompatible with what we know of the procedures of the Sanhedrin which disallows nocturnal meetings. [6]
• Error #3: The Sanhedrin conveyed on the Passover
  To add to the absurdity, this night, if we are to believe the synoptic chronology, was Passover eve and by Jewish reckoning already the 15th of Nisan, Passover itself. As many eminent Jewish scholars have pointed out, this is simply inconceivable, given the strict ruling of no council meetings on the Sabbath, and on religious feast days, such as the Passover. [7] We quote the Jewish scholar, Joseph Klausner from his book Jesus of Nazareth (New York 1925):
  the Sadducees themselves would not have conducted even a simple judicial inquiry either on the night of the Passover or the first day of the Passover...the mishnah lays it down that capital cases may not be judged on the eve of a Sabbath or on the eve of a festival to avoid delay should the case not be finished that day, since all trials were forbidden on a Sabbath or a festival. [8]
  
• Error #4: The Sanhedrin pronounced the death sentence immediately
  Another procedural impossibility is given in Mark 14:64 which includes the sentence: they all condemned him as worthy of death. This means that the sentence was passed on the same day instead of the prescribed interval of twenty four hours. These procedural flaws in the Markan account weighs heavily against any claims of historicity for the episode described there.

... the high priest's assertion (Mark 14:64) that Jesus committed blasphemy in his reply (Mark 14:62-63) makes no sense. It was not an offence for a Jew to claim to be the messiah because eventually, according to their belief, someone has got to be he. It is no blasphemy, though of course it could be a mistake, in claiming the title of messiah for oneself. [12] The claim Jesus made, as being seated at the right hand of God does not necessarily have any divine connotation for himself, as the Jewish scholar Rabbi Morris Goldstein stated:

Use of the phrase "Son of the Blessed" or "Son of God" was no capital crime. The reference to sitting at the right hand of power (Mark 14:62) is not greatly different from King David's allusion to himself sitting at the right hand of God (Psalms 110:1), at all events, it is nowhere indicated as blasphemy.
​

...

As to the reports that members of the Sanhedrin spat on Jesus and stuck him, this is just as incredible in the proceedings of that highly dignified body as if it were reported of the high court of England or the supreme court of the United States.

The evidence for Bigfoot is much better than the evidence for Jesus. It's a hard pill to swallow if you're a believer but it is the truth.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Is Christ a mythic symbol needing an historical figure to attach to? Why aren't there several "Christs"?

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?

What is the "accident of history" as it relates to the Christ figure in history, and to the faith that has developed as a result?

The reasoning must be that the Christ narrative was ready-to-go, all decked out with the miracle stories and other elements, and that all that remained was to find a name or a personality upon whom to place this narrative. And this could happen much by accident. I.e., the person to attach the narrative to would just happen along at the right time and place and get plucked out from his otherwise ordinary setting and placed into this new narrative with a new set of facts ready to be fixed onto him.

For this to be a true description of what happened, you have to explain why this would happen to one person only. How would this super-hero-savior myth be configured so that it could become attached to one person only and not to several characters who would pop up separately and each then become a savior figure such as the Christ figure became?

There has to be a queen-bee scenario that is a necessary element here, where the first queen to hatch goes around and kills all the other queens before they hatch. Which means the new hero-myth-savior cult must go around and do whatever it takes to kill any other such cults that are also about to fill the need.

You can claim there was an effort to stamp out rival cults some time after 100 AD, when the Church began crusading against various heresies. However, those heresies were actually other Christian ones, not pagan gods or Jewish god figures. All the heretics were also Christ-worshipers.

You have to find other rival cult figures much earlier, perhaps like Simon Magus, who were killed off by the Christians, like the 2nd or 3rd queen bee that gets killed by the first queen to hatch. I don't think there is any indication that the early Christians in 30-60 AD or so went out and killed other Jesus-like figures who would have rivaled the Christ figure, or that they killed off rival cults that were emerging.

But without this queen-bee scenario, where the rival cults or the rival hero-figures are killed off by the Christians, in the early period around 30-60 AD, thus eliminating the rivals before they had a chance to emerge -- without that, how do you explain that only one such cult arose and became dominant, so that we have only one Jesus-like miracle-worker who stands out from the 1st century onward?

It's easy to explain how the Christ figure was fixed as the primary savior-of-choice for those seeking such a savior from about 200 AD onward, but how do you explain this fixing as early as 30 or 40 or 50 AD when there must have been hundreds of individuals who were just as likely candidates as this Galilean Jesus to play this hero-role for those who were seeking such a hero? What made the Jesus figure the choice for them at that early period? Why couldn't some of them have chosen John the Baptist instead? or any of several dozen other possible candidates?

Was this mythic-hero figure predestined to be named Jesus Christ? as an essential part of the pre-existent mythic entity in formation? Was he also pre-destined to be a Jew? a Galilean? Why couldn't he have been a Roman or Greek or Arab or Persian or Hindu or Egyptian?

If he could have been these also, then why don't we see a Roman Christ and a Greek Christ and an Arab Christ and Persian and Egyptian and Hindu Christs who reportedly did miracles that were recorded by more than one source? and that caught on by having the same appeal as this Galilean Christ?

 

[DBT]

What is the "accident of history" as it relates to the Christ figure in history, and to the faith that has developed as a result?

Just like Prince Siddhartha Gautama became the enlightened one, the Buddha, and still has millions of followers world wide, thousands of years later. Historically significant figures that arise from within their time and place to grow and to be a world religion.

Faith is holding a belief that is not supported by empirical evidence, a belief held on the basis of desire and psychological need. Faith is leap that goes beyond what is justified. If there was proof, verifiable evidence, to support the biblical version of events, you would not need faith. You would have a justified belief. But that is not the case.

 

[bilby]

A bloke in Goondiwindi won the Gold Lotto jackpot.

Goondiwindi must be extra-super-dooper special, because if it's not, how do you explain how none of the other towns where people play Gold Lotto hosted a winner? Where are all the winners in other towns? If Goondiwindi isn't super special, surely we would see other lotto playing regions with winners. But we don't.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It's easy to explain how the Christ figure was fixed as the primary savior-of-choice for those seeking such a savior from about 200 AD onward, but how do you explain this fixing as early as 30 or 40 or 50 AD when there must have been hundreds of individuals who were just as likely candidates as this Galilean Jesus to play this hero-role for those who were seeking such a hero? What made the Jesus figure the choice for them at that early period? Why couldn't some of them have chosen John the Baptist instead? or any of several dozen other possible candidates?

They did.
Part of the discussion at the Council of Nicaea was to identify which prophet was the actual Christ. One of the sects that participated insisted that John the Baptist was the messiah. They did not have enough votes to swing the Articles of Faith to their belief, though.

Christainity did NOT completely settle on Jesus way back when, as you're saying they did.

History does not support your claims.

 

[funinspace]

It's easy to explain how the Christ figure was fixed as the primary savior-of-choice for those seeking such a savior from about 200 AD onward, but how do you explain this fixing as early as 30 or 40 or 50 AD when there must have been hundreds of individuals who were just as likely candidates as this Galilean Jesus to play this hero-role for those who were seeking such a hero? What made the Jesus figure the choice for them at that early period? Why couldn't some of them have chosen John the Baptist instead? or any of several dozen other possible candidates?

They did.
Part of the discussion at the Council of Nicaea was to identify which prophet was the actual Christ. One of the sects that participated insisted that John the Baptist was the messiah. They did not have enough votes to swing the Articles of Faith to their belief, though.

Christainity did NOT completely settle on Jesus way back when, as you're saying they did.

History does not support your claims.

There is also those of the ancient Mandaean dualistic faith who consider John the Baptist to be one of their highest prophets, and poor Jesus is a false prophet who perverted the teachings entrusted to him by John.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There is also those of the ancient Mandaean dualistic faith who consider John the Baptist to be one of their highest prophets, and poor Jesus is a false prophet who perverted the teachings entrusted to him by John.

True.
For that matter, there's the very Council of Nicaea.
Constantine chose to make Christainity the mascot religion of the Empire, then asked, "Okay, what do i tell the people? What does it mean to be Christain?"

Then he never got the same question twice in a row. The beliefs and sect dogmas were all over the map.

Unlike Lumpen's history that presents Christainity as a monobloc from about 30 AD.

 

[funinspace]

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

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

There's more than one source for them.

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

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.

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.

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”.

The accounts of the Jesus miracles existed probably in the 40s, less than 20 years afterward.

The earliest document about Jesus is actually not the Gospels themselves or even St. Paul, but the Q document from which much of Matthew and Luke is derived. This document is likely as early as 50 AD, or 20 years after the reported events http://www.religioustolerance.org/gosp_q.htm , and is thought to be from some of the actual direct disciples of Jesus.

Though it's mostly sayings rather than miracle stories, there are two miracle healings of Jesus reported in it (Mt 8:5-13/Lk 7:1-10 and Mt 12:22/Lk 11:14), and also a 3rd reference in which these acts of Jesus are referred to (Mt 11:2-5/Lk 7:18-22).

Though this document was written probably around 50 AD, it is based on oral tradition already in existence for some period earlier. So these miracle stories of Jesus almost certainly were current in the 40s. So they were circulating within 20 years from the time of the actual events and when many eye witnesses were still alive.

Where did such stories, oral or written, at that early date, originate from? You can speculate that they were all invented maybe about 40 AD or so. But a better explanation is that they date back to around 30 AD when the events actually happened. They originated as reports based on the memories of those who witnessed the events.

By comparison, stories about other 1st-century miracle workers, like Simon Magus and Apollonius of Tyana, didn't exist until at least a century later than the life of the reported miracle-worker. So we have less reason to believe those accounts.

Nevermind 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.

Overall the accounts were preserved accurately with no significant change. During copying some minor changes happen with no change of substance.

A greater time lapse than this is normal for accounts about the events of the period. For historians like Herodotus and Livy and Tacitus etc., the time lapse is far greater from the original writing and the date of the copies we have now, and the risk of changes during copying is just as great.

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?

One of them cannot be explained: the Christ-God. All the others emerged over a period of centuries of mythologizing. But the Christ-God had a public life of less than 3 years and in less than 30 years was being worshiped as a God for whom we have more miracle story accounts than for any of the others. So for this one figure it is difficult to explain how the mythologizing process could have happened and how the stories could have emerged, whereas all the others follow a predictable pattern and are easier to explain.

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

Maybe most of the above didn't really happen. But the major figures like Moses and Joshua and Solomon probably did exist. Archaeological evidence finally was found to prove that David existed. The famous hero figures mostly did exist, including those of Homer and others, but the details are likely fiction. We can dismiss much of the accounts, as to the details, but the miracle stories of Jesus cannot be dismissed this way. It is too difficult to explain how the Jesus miracle stories could have emerged if the events did not really happen, whereas most miracle stories can easily be explained without assuming the events really happened.

There was no virgin birth.

Matthew’s 3 14’s lineage is BS, based upon the Bible itself.

We can explain how this mythologizing got started a few decades later. But we cannot explain how the Jesus healing miracle accounts got started if they did not really happen.

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 knew would happen when he created it.

The more important point is that this theologizing cannot be explained unless we assume a hero figure existed upon which the theologizing was directed. Where did this earlier hero figure come from? It's easy to see how the later mythologizing and theologizing came in to answer questions about the hero figure's origin and nature, but it's not easy to see where the original hero figure came from. What happened at around 30 AD to give rise to this new hero figure around whom the later religious symbols accumulated?

There are zero contemporary records about Jesus outside of the Bible.

But if those separate records about him had not been assembled into this collection called "the Bible," this statement wouldn't mean anything. You could say "There are no records about him outside all the several accounts about him."

By "contemporary" you must mean within 70 years, or 65 years, because there is the epistle of Clement of Rome which expounds upon him. Also Jesus is mentioned at least once in Josephus' Antiquities written about 94. It depends on what "contemporary" means. We don't necessarily need accounts written during the life of an historical figure in order for the accounts to be reliable. Obviously many historians and poets wrote about events centuries earlier, and we can believe them with good reason.

It would make no sense to say we know nothing of any historical figure unless we have accounts about him written at the time he lived, before his death. We'd always like to have more records than actually exist. But you can't assume that the only history that ever happened was that which was written down at the time that it happened and which written accounts we still have today.

How is bullshit difficult to explain?

Isn't it easy to explain how a charismatic figure like Simon Magus, probably a well-known magician during 30-60 AD who knew clever tricks, came to have some miracle stories attributed to him over a 200-year period after he lived? Isn't that easier to explain than the case of Jesus who had no such reputation in 30 AD (unless he actually did perform the miracle acts) and yet within 30 years was being worshiped as a miracle-worker with more such reports about him than any other figure of those times?

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?

It adds to the credibility if the account says something more than just a vague mention of "signs and wonders" and that's all. If certain events are described in some detail, giving a little information about who was healed or where it happened or what the setting was, etc., it makes the account more credible. This is so even if there are discrepancies or some doubtfulness about the details.

Vague remarks about "signs and wonders" have some credibility too, but very little unless also supported by other accounts giving more detailed information.

Or do you mean specific information like Matthew’s conflicting fable of the virgin birth as compared to Luke’s version?

Predictably, you raise this example, because it's so easy. We have plenty of reason to DISbelieve the virgin birth accounts. But virtually no reason to discount the miracle healing accounts. The difference between the credibility of these two kinds of accounts is huge.

The point which should be raised about the virgin birth claims is why these birth stories became attached to Jesus. Why did the early Jesus followers and two of the evangelists give us these virgin birth stories? Why did they choose Jesus as an object for this virgin birth idea? How does this mythologizing get started? There has to be an object to begin with who attracts this mythologizing process. Where did this object come from? He can't just pop up out of nowhere.

Or do you care to harmonize the differing tales about Jesus’ resurrection?

The fact that there are different accounts, with minor discrepancies, is evidence pointing to the historicity of the resurrection event generally. The minor discrepancies can be explained one way or another. Like other narrative accounts in the gospels, there can be mistakes as to detail, while the event generally is believable. It is very difficult to explain how the earliest Christian community got started and grew so quickly without this event as a catalyst to get it going. If it wasn't the resurrection event, then there must have been something else.

Or maybe you’d like to suggest a arsenic cocktail due to Mark’s added on ending?

Mark is the only source for that. There's no reason to believe Jesus said such a thing.

Getting away from ever layered quotes… Whatever Q is as a primary source is unknowable. We certainly don’t know if anything was written down in the 40’s or 50’s, though it is possible. We don’t know when the miracle stories first appeared, as Mark being the oldest source, is generally thought to have been penned 30 years after the events. Paul, whose writings are considered the oldest, doesn’t go into the miracle stories for some odd reason. By comparison the oldest extant Quran copy comes in just 40 years after Muhammad’s death.

Atheos, addressed your drivel about 30 years being such a short period for stories of “miracles” to occur, with Joseph Smith’s miraculous healings of people. And why in the world would it matter, if any of these healed people had seen a doctor or not? Do you demand the same of the ones Jesus healed?
http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...ect-Christianity&p=95433&viewfull=1#post95433

One of the things I’ve noticed in your attempted apologetics, is you seem to like to say to the effect “see these 15 random pieces of my 1,000 piece puzzle are uber unique and that is what makes it special”. The problem is that the other <fill in the blank god-religion> has a different set of 15 random pieces, which could also be relatively unique. Having some uniqueness, does not make it more real.

I try, as I can, to utilize words as they are generally understood.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contemporary

4. a person belonging to the same time or period with another or others.

Cicero was a contemporary of Julius Caesar, as they were adults in the same time period. They evidently knew each other at some level. We have extant copies of writings from both of them. When people study those documents, few are dumb enough to treat them like neither person had any agenda when writing. Who would read these writings as the whole truth and nothing but the truth? And they weren’t even trying to create a god…

Josephus was born roughly 5 years after Jesus purported death. So by the time he was an adult, Jesus had been dead for 2 decades. Never mind that the lengthier citation regarding Jesus blatantly reads as if it were written by someone smitten with the Jesus-god mythos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Scholarly opinion on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities, a passage that states that Jesus the Messiah was a wise teacher who was crucified by Pilate, usually called the Testimonium Flavianum, varies.[4][5][1] The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian expansion/alteration.

The RC tales have Clement joining the Jesus club sometime in the 60’s, which is now 3 decades after Jesus’ purported death.

Pulling out 2 quotes:

But the major figures like Moses and Joshua and Solomon probably did exist. Archaeological evidence finally was found to prove that David existed. The famous hero figures mostly did exist, including those of Homer and others, but the details are likely fiction. We can dismiss much of the accounts, as to the details, but the miracle stories of Jesus cannot be dismissed this way. It is too difficult to explain how the Jesus miracle stories could have emerged if the events did not really happen, whereas most miracle stories can easily be explained without assuming the events really happened.

Yeah, the House of David seems to have existed, but so what? We are quite confident that Mohammad also existed, but again so what? So Moses purportedly existed, but the fantasies and crazy ass dozen Yahweh miracles around this Moses are BS. A funny part about Moses, or more accurately Moshe, is that his name in Egyptian basically means “son of”. Who names their son, “son of”? Sounds like the story teller(s) didn’t know enough about Egyptian. So whatever the kernel of the Moshe story is, they could have even mangled up the leading character’s name in the telling/re-telling. Jesus purportedly does a few parlor tricks which claims to heal people, and those need to be believed, because nobody could make up that shit in a span of decades…. You do realize that to this day, we still have charlatan preachers claiming to heal people, like Benny Hinn? Even in the 21st century, there are people gullible enough to slurp such shit up.

There has to be an object to begin with who attracts this mythologizing process. Where did this object come from? He can't just pop up out of nowhere.

I have no problem with there being an initial object that got the “mythologizing process” going. My problem is that you want the mythos to only begin after your sacred miracles are accepted as facts, as you find this the easiest thing to believe. I see no reason for the mythos to start much earlier, after all you have admitted that much of the Yahweh fantasies are mostly a crock; never mind that you agree that these new Christ worshipers had no problem piling on more mythos about their sacred deity. I also don’t see a need to pin down the development of this Christ-mythos to be singularly restricted to the stories about just one man. A blending of tales is also certainly possible.

Joseph Smith is such an interesting example, partly because it happened not during some ancient fuzzy period and place from which we have so few records. It happened in spite of the large supply of 19th century media sources. It happened in spite of great hostility by the communities his new cult tried to establish themselves in. In happened in spite of a long history of Christian theological development. It happened in spike of many people no longer seeing daemons and gods under every rock. And still this goofy new theology took root, and eventually grew strong. Take this saga back 1800 years in time, squeeze it between the Egyptian pantheon, the Greco-Roman pantheon, and the pantheons of the east. Add in foreign-Roman occupation, a latter rebellion that pissed off the Romans so much that they destroyed the Jewish Temple and much of Jerusalem along with driving the Jewish diaspora. And one has a rich and bubbly cauldron, and a virtual blank slate, for creating gods.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

But the Christ belief is superior to the others, e.g., the Muslim belief.

The problem is, [Pascal's Wager] assumes there's only one religion.

Whatever. It's irrelevant. Everybody knows there's more than one religion. So, what's the point?

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.

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.

What does "to be virtuous" have to do with anything?

I'm saying I think Christ offers us a way to "eternal life" or escape from annihilation at death, or something more, beyond death. The evidence of this is the power he showed.

This has nothing to do with being virtuous or about any standard of virtue, nor does it mean there's "only one religion."

And that's the point of the wager.

But "the wager" is not the point of anything. Whether Pascal made a logical error is irrelevant. I am making no logical error by just saying: Christ offers us a way to escape annihilation at death, and "Hell" if there is any such thing. But we don't know if there is a Hell. If there is something more, a desirable or good outcome after death vs. a "Hell" of some kind, we gain that good alternative by believing in Christ, and that's all that's required.

You don't refute this by declaring that it's the same as Pascal's Wager and so must be incorrect because someone proved that anything that smells like Pascal's Wager has to be wrong. You have to address the point I'm proposing and forget what you were told about Pascal's Wager.

My proposition says nothing about there being "only one religion" or about any "standard of virtue" or about being virtuous.

There are two possibilities, God exists and rewards virtue, 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.

I'm saying none of this. Again, I'm saying I don't know if there's a "Heaven" or "Hell," but there might be something more beyond death, such as "eternal life," and there's good reason to believe that Christ offers us this Life, or escape from being annihilated at death. But it's only by believing in him and not by anything to do with virtue.

You're not pointing out any logical error in this by presenting this "Pascal's Wager" scheme and shooting it down, which is irrelevant to anything I'm proposing. Just because there's the doubt element -- I don't know for sure if there's something beyond death -- doesn't mean I'm saying the same thing Pascal said. I believe there might be, but there's doubt about it. Just because someone has doubt about something doesn't mean they're committing Pascal's fallacy.

But if there are two or more religions, then there are more ways to lose.

Assuming "to lose" means to end up in Hell, and assuming there is a Hell, then one escapes this by believing in Christ, so there's only one way to lose, which is to not believe in Christ. Now I know you're saying there are other belief systems which say something different than this, and maybe offer some other kind of choice.

But if you don't take any of them seriously, and I don't either, then why are we talking about them? 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 them give their reasons. Christ showed that he had life-giving power. 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. The existence of millions of religions that say something different doesn't automatically refute what I'm suggesting here. What do they say that refutes the point I'm making?

That there are "two or more religions" is irrelevant, unless you present one of them and show how their belief refutes mine and also is more logical or more consistent with some facts that are known. Just because an alternative belief system exists doesn't prove that this or that particular belief must be false or illogical or flawed.

You can be virtuous, say you closely follow the Koran, and still end up in Hell if the Koran is not accurate.

So, we should be considering what is "accurate" or what the truth is, or what it likely is, and not arguing that one's belief must be false if it is contradicted by some other belief. The existence of extra "religions" or beliefs doesn't prove that all of them are false. Some beliefs may hold up under scrutiny and others not.

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 Christianity.

No, it only has to say we don't know. Or rather, the agnostic doesn't know. One belief may be more likely than another, but we still don't know for sure. It is reasonable to believe without knowing for sure. I.e., if there are good reasons for the belief. Good reasons don't prove it's true, only that it's more likely.

Agnosticism means not knowing. It doesn't preclude having a belief plus also doubting at the same time. It doesn't preclude saying one belief is more likely than another to be true.

And each sect of each faith is as likely as every other sect. Even those that contradict each other.

No, agnosticism need not say any such thing. All it says is that we don't know. It's still possible to judge that one faith or sect is more likely true than the other. An agnostic need not brand them as all equally likely or unlikely.

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.

Perhaps. But if believer #1 presents his belief and suggests that it's the truth, i.e., likely the truth, though there's doubt, and there's also believers #2 and #3 who believe something contrary, it does not follow that believer #1 must be wrong until he first disproves believers #2 and #3. Rather, if he presents his belief and his reasons, then it's up to #2 and #3 to come forth and tell why their beliefs are better than #1's beliefs.

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.

No, PW does not implicitly assume only one. It leaves open the possibility of others, but perhaps believes those others are less reasonable, or that they have been refuted, or that they haven't made a good case. Or just assumes there are no others but is prepared to deal with those alternate beliefs if and when they present themselves for consideration.

Those who believe they're right have to be willing to entertain the possibility of contrary beliefs which also claim to be right. But they don't have to seek out these contrary beliefs and refute them all before being entitled to claim they have the truth. Rather, those who hold those contrary beliefs have to step forward and present their beliefs or make their case.

If those contrary believers don't make their case, then the PW arguer is entitled to ignore them and consider his belief as the correct one to choose, or as the only alternative. His belief is not refuted by the mere existence of those other beliefs.

The agnostic 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.

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

Well then let's just leave it at that -- 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?

I have stated the "means of determining which one is (or could be) true" and so don't need "the Wager." The life-giving power that Christ demonstrated is the reason or "means of determining" what the truth is, and if some other belief is contrary to this, then someone needs to present that contrary belief. It's not up to me to present all the beliefs that are contrary to mine and first refute them all scientifically before my belief is legitimate.

And this "means of determining" the truth is still not an absolute certainty, because there is doubt, and the reasoning is that of a good possibility, or stronger possibility than any other scenario that has been presented by anyone, and so this "best possibility" principle is the basis of the belief I'm proposing.

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?

The most dogmatic ones teach that you have to join their religion to avoid Hell. So it's being outside their religion that sends people to Hell, not being "heretics, apostates, followers of false prophets . . ." So, even if one stops being a heretic or apostate or follower of false prophets, one still goes to Hell unless one joins their religion.

I.e., they do not teach that being a heretic or apostate or follower of false prophets makes you worse off than you would be otherwise. If it leads you away from The Truth of their religion, then maybe you're made worse off. But it's not being in the wrong religion that damns you, but rather, failure to be in their one True Religion.

The reality today is that most religionists of any denomination believe a person is better off, or more pleasing to God, or closer to salvation, if they practice some kind of religion, even if it's not theirs. So, a Mormon or Catholic or Methodist believes you're closer to the Truth or closer to God if you are a Baptist than if you're an atheist. They say you're better off if you at least "believe in God" even if you don't believe the same way they do. Most Muslims also think this way. The militant fanatic Shi'ites and militant fanatic Sunnis who condemn the others as Hell-bound or whatever are only a small fraction of all Muslims.

So it is basically not true that they condemn to Hell the "apostates" etc. who believe differently than they do.

Catholics don't teach that Muslims, Mormons and Satanists are going to Hell?

Maybe Satanists. But they don't teach that Muslims and Mormons all go to Hell. No, Catholics teach that it's good to be religious, no matter which religion you belong to. If you "believe in God" but you're in the "wrong" religion, that membership in a different religion doesn't increase your chances of going to Hell. Rather, they believe a non-Catholic who has NO religion is more likely to go to Hell than a non-Catholic who practices some religion, even though it's a non-Catholic religion.

If i choose to be a Mormon, and the Catholics are right, i'm not going to Heaven.

Not necessarily. Making this choice does not mean you're excluded from Heaven. Your insistence that every religion is exclusivist is your caricature of them. You're using this false caricature of them in order to create your argument for bashing Pascal's Wager. It falls flat. The premise you're propping up is nonsensical and petty.

If i choose to be Muslim, and the Mormons are right, I'm not going to Win the wager.

Perhaps. But maybe the Mormons ARE "right" -- it depends on what your phrase "and the Mormons are right" means. You are wrong on this point (about what happens to Muslims if "the Mormons are right") unless you state what Mormons believe about this.

So, what do Mormons believe that would condemn all Muslims? It's interesting that you speak vaguely about what some religion teaches but don't really say what they teach. You have no argument as long as you persist in this vagueness. Rather, you must state specifically WHAT they believe before hypothesizing what it means if they "are right."

So, to give some substance to your if-Mormons-are-right hypothesis, I'll propose what it is Mormons believe, and unless you present (or someone else presents) something different, let's take the following as accurately representing their belief:

Jesus Christ is the Son of God who came to save humans from their sins and we can get to Heaven or be "saved" by believing in him.

That's it -- that's the basics. They teach that in a basic introduction to Mormonism. All the rest is extra symbolism added on to that simple formula. I learned this at a class on Mormonism I attended. Even though there's much more, this is the starting point, or foundation.

So I will use this to address your claim that "If I choose to be Muslim, and the Mormons are right, I'm not going to Win the wager" -- meaning you will end up in Hell, or at least be excluded from eternal life.

This may be a correct statement of what Mormons believe, generally, although even a Muslim might "believe in Christ" because they do believe Christ had power, shown in the miracle acts, which they believe happened, so some of them might actually think they could gain salvation as a result of this power Christ showed.

So even a few Muslims might "win the wager" under Mormon teaching that you can be saved if you believe in Christ. But all those Muslims who do NOT believe in Christ will be lost.

On this point the Mormon belief is based on evidence, i.e., on the power Christ demonstrated in his miracle acts. So it is not an equal belief with the Muslim belief, but is superior to that belief, which is based on NO evidence. There is no reason to believe that we can be saved by praying to Mecca and the other rules that Muslims require. Mohammed had nothing to show in the way of evidence of any power, such as the power demonstrated by Christ. A belief which is supported by evidence is superior/not equal to one that has no evidence.

So these are not equal beliefs -- one just as good as the other. There are not 2 equal religions here, but rather, one which is superior and has a basis for its fundamental teaching (leaving aside all the extra stuff), whereas the other has no evidence but only private revelations to the Prophet Mohammed. The Mormon belief is based on the public evidence shown by Christ, while the private revelations to Joseph Smith are not part of the basic salvation teaching.

(Someone will correct the above if it is not a correct statement of Mormon teaching.)

So your simplistic premise that every religion condemns every other as Hell-bound, and that they're all equal, equally wrong or right and there's no reasoning that supports any one of them above another, is all wrong, and so your crusade against Pascal's Wager bites the dust, being based on this false premise.

If i choose to worship the 3-in-1 god of most Christains, the Muslims say i'm a pagan and going to Hell.

Possibly. Though I think you are mischaracterizing what all these religions teach. I've heard a Muslim teacher (imam?) say that Christians are saved by Allah if they meet certain conditions without converting, so your insistence to make every religion exclusionary is artificial.

But let's say you're right and that the Muslim belief is that Christians are going to Hell. I've pointed out that the Muslim belief is inferior because they have no evidence. These are not 2 equal belief systems, because the Christian belief is based on evidence which was demonstrated by Christ.

So the two different beliefs do not cancel each other out, as if one belief is as good as another -- so scrap them all. No, they are not equal. So the PW flaw does not exist here. Because there is evidence to support the Christian belief but no evidence to support the Muslim belief.

Your repeated PW fallacy claim is based entirely on the premise that all beliefs are equal, with none having any reasonable claim of superiority to the others. Remove that premise and your basic PW refutation is refuted. The evidence for Christ belief makes your premise false by showing that all the beliefs are not equal.

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. The Christ belief is supported by evidence, while any contrary beliefs are not. So they're not equal and there is no basic PW-type flaw being committed.

You must present a case showing that other contrary beliefs are just as likely to be true, or are supported as much by evidence, as the Christ belief is.

Your argument against Pascal's Wager can hold up if it's used against one whose belief has no evidence for it, or no case to show that it is a logically-superior belief to the other beliefs that contradict it. A PW argument for that kind of belief is flawed for the reason you're giving, because "all the beliefs are equal and so just cancel each other out -- no more reason to prefer this belief to that." But the Christ belief is not that kind of belief, but rather is logically superior to any contrary beliefs, because there is evidence for it. Even though, like Pascal, the believer admits some doubt or uncertainty.

Doubt or uncertainty is not disproof. There can be good reason to believe, while at the same time there is doubt. Evidence makes the belief stronger, or more likely to be true, but doesn't necessarily remove all the doubt.

 

[Atheos]

... Again, it has nothing to do with "virtuous" anything. The Christ belief is supported by evidence, while any contrary beliefs are not. So they're not equal and there is no basic PW-type flaw being committed.

This is a baseless assertion. The "Christ" belief is not supported by evidence. All you have ever offered is the fact that there are multiple variations of the original myth (which is true for many ancient myths) and that it is a popular myth (which is nothing more than an appeal to popularity, another horribly flawed method of argumentation). The evidence for every other religious tradition is either equal to or better than the evidence supporting the Jesus myth. I say "evidence" when in fact that is not an appropriate appellation. There is no evidence.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The problem is, [Pascal's Wager] assumes there's only one religion.

Whatever. It's irrelevant. Everybody knows there's more than one religion. So, what's the point?

It's not irrelevant. The wager ONLY WORKS if one only considers one religion. That's the fatal flaw. It does not drive one to a belief, it only works as a rationalization once you've picked a single religion. . It ignores the possibility of joining the wrong religion or following a false prophet.

What does "to be virtuous" have to do with anything?

I thought i had suggested that you actually become familiar with what Pascal actually wrote?

The evidence of [Christ] is the power he showed.

So if you have evidence of a religion, then The Wager is meaningless.

This has nothing to do with being virtuous or about any standard of virtue, nor does it mean there's "only one religion."

There's only one way to eternal life. So following the wrong religion is not the way to eternal life.
Thus, the wager is not correct 'some of the time.' It's wrong ALL the time.
And the actual wager has rather a bit to do with virtuous living. Look it up.

And that's the point of the wager.

But "the wager" is not the point of anything.

This whole part of the discussion was about whether or not one should reject Pascal's Wager because it's a load of hooey. That's the point of pointing out the big fucking flaw in people pretending it has some use in having one choose a belief.

Whether Pascal made a logical error is irrelevant.

it's relevant to your claim that it's not always wrong.

I am making no logical error by just saying: Christ offers us a way to escape annihilation at death, and "Hell" if there is any such thing. But we don't know if there is a Hell.

Well, if you don't qualify that statement wiht a preface like 'I have faith that' then you're making a logical error. Or a lie.

You don't refute this by declaring that it's the same as Pascal's Wager and so must be incorrect because someone proved that anything that smells like Pascal's Wager has to be wrong.

Where the fuck do you get this shit? I don't refute anything because it's 'like' PW. I refuted the wager because it's fucked up.

You have to address the point I'm proposing and forget what you were told about Pascal's Wager.

I was not 'told' about Pascal's Wager. For one thing, of the two of us, i appear to be the only one who's actually read it.

My proposition says nothing about there being "only one religion" or about any "standard of virtue" or about being virtuous.

If your proposal is that Pascal's Wager isn't always wrong, (which you did post) then your proposal is wrong.

There are two possibilities, God exists and rewards virtue, 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.

I'm saying none of this.

Wrong again. You're the one who brought up the Wager and presented it as worth a shit.

Assuming "to lose" means to end up in Hell, and assuming there is a Hell, then one escapes this by believing in Christ, so there's only one way to lose, which is to not believe in Christ. Now I know you're saying there are other belief systems which say something different than this, and maybe offer some other kind of choice.

But if you don't take any of them seriously, and I don't either, then why are we talking about them?

If you're going to take ONE religion seriously, and argue from that, theneither your evidence or your logic needs to be credible. You offer special case fallacies for your evidence and you ignore countering arguments to your arguments. You've offered no reason to think Christainity is any different from any other occult supperstitious system, but appear to be rationalizing your choice.


Poorly.

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 them give their reasons.

Actually, i'm asking you why you dismissed everything but your flavor of Christainty. You don't prove any other religion is wrong by trying to get me to agree to ignore them.

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.

That there are "two or more religions" is irrelevant, unless you present one of them and show how their belief refutes mine

Don't need to. I was just showing that two or more religions pretty much refutes Pascal's Wager.

So, we should be considering what is "accurate" or what the truth is, or what it likely is, and not arguing that one's belief must be false if it is contradicted by some other belief.

There seem to be two different topics in your participation in this thread. You appear to be abandoning Pascal's Wager. That's fine.

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 Christianity.

No, it only has to say we don't know.

So, agnosticism is NOT like Pascal's Wager, which offers a conclusion. Good.
You're finally learning.

Or rather, the agnostic doesn't know.

But Pascal's Wager does. It does say that... Well, you have to read it.

Agnosticism means not knowing.

The popular concept of agnosticism, sure.
That's why it's nothing like Pascal's Wager.

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

Perhaps. 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. Basic English.

No, PW does not implicitly assume only one.

Yes, it does.
It's a zero-sum game. You win, lose or it doesn't matter.
Nothing in it allows any suggestion that some virtuous lives are better than others, or more correct than others.

It leaves open the possibility of others,

No, it does not.

Well then let's just leave it at that -- 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.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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.