120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Keith&Co.]

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.

For Pascal's Wager, he assumes we can make one choice and that there are four consequences, depending on one condition.
The condition is that there may be a god. If there's no god, there are no souls, no afterlife, nothing we do can alter our fate.


if there is a god, though, there is a personal afterlife. So this ignores the possibilities of any religion which does not include a personal afterlife, that you will remain 'you' in the afterlife.
It's a given, also, that if there is a god, there IS a Heaven. So this ignores any religion that may have a different afterlife plan. No reincarnation, no loss of self to join with God, no advancement along a path.
And if there is a god, there IS a Hell. So this discounts your agnosticism towards Hell. Or any other religion that only has happy endings.

Plus, the Wager assumes that we can personally choose to take actions that will affect our disposition in this afterlife. So it discounts any sort of predestination religions.

It concludes that there is only one way to win, to get to Heaven, and that is to adopt belief in God. And the only way to lose, to go to Hell, is not to live a life of godly belief.

It is nothing like agnosticism. Not even your heavily weighted pretense of agnosticism.
So

 

[DBT]

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.

The very same source material that you believe tells you ''Christ offers us a way to escape annihilation at death,'' tells you about eternal damnation. You accept one but reject the other because it doesn't suit the image of Godly compassion. Nor is it Christ who offers salvation, but the authors of the text who include in their narrative both the carrot, the promise of salvation, and the stick: eternal damnation for disbelievers..

 

[Atheos]

How Indeed? ... One Possible Scenario

Lumpenproletariat's entire line of reasoning boils down to nothing more than an appeal to popularity. "Why would so many believe if it were not so?"

One might as well ask why any number of obvious hoaxes were believed by large numbers of people. The answer almost invarably comes down to how the story is marketed. Usually it involves the charismatic prowess of an original messenger. Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite, David Koresh, Sun Myung Moon and A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada are but a few examples of many in the 20th century alone who by virtue of their charisma convinced many people to follow their teachings. The proliferation of this sort of phenomenon cannot be denied. Evidence lies squarely in favor of the premise that certain charismatic people can convince sizeable numbers of followers to believe nearly any set of doctrines or revisionist history no matter how preposterous it may sound.

So before I present this scenario let me say that it is merely one of many possible scenarios that accomplish the following:

• Is consistent with all available evidence
• Explains how the Jesus myth may have come to be popular
• Is considerably more plausible than believing that the miracles described in the story actually happened.

My scenario:

The myth of Jesus was appropriated by "Paul," the writer of the authentic Pauline epistles. Paul was a charismatic individual who got a taste of the power and influence (as well as financial gain) one could wield by being the leader of a cult. His "Jesus" was very simple at first - a hero god who sacrificed himself for the benefit of humanity. This was a common theme, borrowed from many similar hero-god myths such as Promethus, who endured the ignomy of 1000 years of torture for giving fire to humans.

Paul claimed that he did not receive any of the information he had about Jesus from anyone but Jesus himself, and that through direct revelation. Paul never wrote about the birth narrative, the calling of the apostles, the miracles, the conversation with Nicodemus, the woman at the well, etc. He never mentioned Mary or Joseph. He never mentions Herod's threat or Jesus's relationship to John the Baptist. He never quoted anything Jesus was supposed to have said during his lifetime. He never mentioned Pilate, the Sanhedrin trial or the jewish mob who called for his crucifixion. In fact there is nothing Paul wrote about that even required Jesus to exist as a human at all. Everything Paul wrote about Jesus could just as easily have happened in a spiritual realm, separate and apart from the physical world. The only thing Paul originally wrote about Jesus was the death and resurrection.

But things change. Over the 40 or so years between when Paul started selling his "Jesus" product and the time the product became popular enough that some anonymous people started writing it down the details about his earthly life were added. Every hero-god worth his salt was born of a woman impregnated by either Ra, Zeus or Jupiter, so Jesus's myth gets that detail. Poseidon could walk on water so Jesus had to be able to as well. Bacchus could turn water into wine, so the Johnny-come-lately me-too cult incorporated that bit into their mythos. Asclepius could cure every disease known to man (including raising people from the dead) so Jesus had to be able to do the same things or suffer the ignomy of inferiority, which just would not do. The point of the matter is that every power Jesus demonstrates in the legends about him had been demonstrated by other god-myths before him. There would have been tremendous pressure on the part of the myth-marketers to overcome any weakness in their product by enhancing it with the features competing products had. This is how legend-building works. The product developed over decades of enhancement.

It didn't matter if there were critics. If the charismatic cult leader could furrow his brow with enough conviction and claim he knew the things to be true (even if he knew no such thing) he could keep selling the product. His flock already believed him and would be inclined to continue doing so. Others who claimed to know differently could easily be dismissed as liars or deluded. As long as the product was viable it would keep selling, and time was on their side. As the years continued to obscure the difference between reality and fantasy the belief became less and less vulnerable to contradiction via physical evidence.

Once you have a core group of believers and an economy there is a lot of incentive to milk it for all it's worth. It is obvious that the followers were expected to give of their means to a collection, which meant that purveyors of these myths stood to make a tidy bundle selling snake oil. Why not continue enhancing the product and making it more appealing? Marketing, marketing, marketing. Held true then, still holds true today.

Once again I emphasize, this may not have been the way it happened, but it is one way it could have happened. Every single piece of evidence available to us today is completely consistent with this scenario, and it has the advantages of not requiring one to believe in mind-reading or levitation. So kindly stop insisting that these things are impossible to explain other than by swallowing them hook, line and sinker. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are much easier to explain by jettisoning the miraculous elements, looking calmly at what is left and considering the evidence of thousands of years of similar cult development.

Finally, in the interest of beating the bloody carcass of this horse a bit more, I offer the testimony of the gospel narratives themselves, which directly contradict the claim made by Lumpenproletariat, namely that the miracles were so undeniable that they effected this massive wave of belief: The very people who saw the miracles according to the storyline were not impressed with them enough to believe. The crowds of 5,000 and 7,000 who were fed by the multiplying food miracle dissipated quickly. Those who saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead, walk on water, calm storms, cure blindness, heal deformities and "cast demons" out of people still didn't believe in his power enough to stand with him when the soldiers showed up to arrest Jesus. Instead they all "forsook him and fled." The very towns in which most of his works were done were the very places where unbelief reigned supreme, a plot device alluded to in Jesus's soliloquy about "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who stones the prophets..." Even Jesus himself was reported to have said that an "Evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign," an escape clause written into the text for the benefit of those marketing this hooey because they could not actually produce such signs themselves and had to rely on their ability to sell folks on the gimmick (lie) that the signs had already been given. The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus belittles the effect of the miraculous, asserting that if folks won't believe Moses and the prophets they won't believe even if someone raises from the dead. Jesus ostensibly told Thomas, "Blessed you are because you have seen and believed. Even more blessed are those who haven't seen yet believed." This clever bit of marketing pats the back of the believer who simply accepts the incredible story with absolutely no evidence. Super marketing gimmick that.

Lots of clever marketing, nothing of substance. Lots of escape clauses to explain why god behaves today exactly like he would if he didn't exist. Plenty of good reason to keep marketing it today though, as it has virtually no cost of goods, turns high profit margins and gives the purveyor considerable power over huge demographics.

 

[Keith&Co.]

This was a common theme, borrowed from many similar hero-god myths such as Promethus, who endured the ignomy of 1000 years of torture for giving fire to humans.

I think that's an important part of religious domination. Tell the people stories they already know.

When the Romans conquered a land, the priests moved in. They didn't just put up temples to the official gods, they asked about the local gods.

Such as Bath. They asked the locals what Bath did, what she was in charge of.
"Ah, well," they said after she was described, "she's basically our Minerva."
Then the Romans built a temple to Bath-Minerva and both were worshiped together.
Some time later, a generation or so, they would replace that or rededicate the temple to Minerva-Bath.
And eventually, there'd only be a temple to Minerva, the official Roman deity.

When Rome turned Christain, they did this, too. But rather than say that certain mythical heroes, demigods or goddesses were Christain gods, they claimed them as saints.

or edited the myth. Beowulf, a mead-swilling, sword swinging, bracelet giving, battle seeking Viking wins against Grendel because he's a humble Christain who eats all his vegetables and prays before hunting monsters.
Hagar the Horrible wearing a Prince Valiant mask....

 

[Keith&Co.]

Once you have a core group of believers and an economy there is a lot of incentive to milk it for all it's worth.

Which would also explain their early efforts to stamp out the heresy of gnosticism.
it's not that it was religiously wrong to seek a direct, personal relationship with the Divine. It's that it doesn't give anyone else much of a handle on your life if you don't need a priest to intercede wiht God on your behalf.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Before you can believe anything, do you first have to refute every other belief in the universe?

According to Pascal's Wager, as you seem to understand it, our options are Heaven, Hell or It doesn't matter. The only way to get to Heaven, it concludes, is to accept a religion, and the only way to get to Hell is not to accept a religion.

No, the way to "get to Heaven" is to believe in Christ.

This is a lie, though, as you concede that picking the wrong religion leaves you 'just as bad off.'

A phrase like "the right religion" or "the wrong religion" is non-serious and has to be understood only in a sarcastic sense to have any legitimate point to it.

So of the four possible outcomes, the choice you make will more likely lead you to Hell than Heaven, thus the Wager lies.

What "four possible outcomes"? My point is that if there is a "Heaven" to get to or a "Hell" to escape from or a way to avoid annihilation at death, I think it's by believing in Christ that it's possible, or it's the life-giving power he possessed that might make it possible. I.e., this is the best possible hope for gaining that "salvation" or escape from death/Hell. And I think there is evidence for this, though there is also doubt.

The phrase "the Wager lies" means nothing.

Or at least, it's only valuable as a rationalization to feel smug after you've selected a religion.

And your obsession with bashing PW is only a rationalization for you to feel smug after you've rejected a religion. Your inability to explain your nonbelief without continuing to beat this dead horse suggests you might be insecure in your nonbelief.

You seem to think i have some sort of prejudice against 'better safe than sorry' arguments because of PW.

The actual state of affairs is that PW only purports to be an argument.

It's too flawed to count, though.

You've not pointed out any real flaw in it. Just because you can nit-pick it doesn't mean it's 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.

But i've explained why Pascal's Wager is not valuable for reasoning.

You mean it is always unreasonable to say something like, "we don't know" or "I'm not sure" or "there is some doubt"? Whenever someone says this in a reasoning process, they are committing the flaw of Pascal's Wager and so whatever the point is, it must be incorrect? Any statement that says "I don't know for sure," or "this might be, but it's not a certainty," has to automatically be false? or the point being made must always be false?

Why is it not sometimes "valuable for reasoning" to say that one still has doubt, or that we don't know but that here is a possibility that might be true? Why is it automatically wrong to believe something based on evidence or reasoning, but also add that it is not a certainty, or that there still is doubt? What compels you to immediately pounce on that and accuse that doubting believer of committing some imagined logical flaw which you impulsively brand as a Pascal's Wager fallacy?

So once more, PW is a lie.

So according to you, it's a lie to ever say "I think this is the truth, but it's not a certainty," or "I don't know it for certain."

You can adopt a virtuous life and still be burning in Hell, just like an atheist.

Yes, it's only by believing in Christ that one escapes Hell (if there is a "Hell"), not by being morally superior.

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.

Not at all. I don't believe because i see no reason to believe in gods. Or damnation. I have thought about the wager, though, and i see why it's seductive.

It just isn't worth a damn as an argument.

Then why do you waste space here propping it up as though it is an issue someone has raised, and then bash it again and again as if someone needs to be deprogrammed from it, and pretend that someone is committing this fallacy?

Your obsession with PW suggests that you feel insecure in your unbelief and need PW as a scapegoat to beat up on to make you feel good about your nonbelief. If you really are strong in your nonbelief, or have reasoned it through, why don't you find a way to express it without continually making PW your punching bag?

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.

But it's not reasoning, therefore that 'kind' of reasoning cannot be correct.

It can be correct.

If someone begins by saying, "I have a belief which I can support with evidence or reasoning, but I do not have certainty, only good reasons to believe it is true, but there is still some doubt, . . ." that is a P.W. kind of reasoning. There is nothing wrong with holding a belief in this manner, where you think it might be true, that it's even probably true, but still you have some doubt, and allow the possibility that it might not be true. And yet, because of the reasonable possibility, you believe it.

An agnostic might believe this way: "I don't know the truth, but I have a belief about it based on good reasoning or evidence." That is a legitimate agnostic view. It means not knowing, or admitting one doesn't know. But that does not preclude the possibility of holding a reasonable belief about it. And this is a Pascal's Wager kind of reasoning. It IS reasoning. It is an approach of questioning and looking for answers and being open to different possibilities, even though one has made a choice to believe one of the possibilities because it is reasonable.

I had a philosophy instructor in college who said that he figures some percentage of his beliefs are probably incorrect. I don't remember exactly, but maybe he said something like 5% or 10% of them.

I'm sure he meant that he would argue for every one of those beliefs. Taken one at a time, he thinks each one is true, and he would make the case for it. And yet, add them all up, maybe a hundred beliefs, and probably 5 or 10 of them are actually false. Why isn't it good to hold beliefs in this way? Why shouldn't this kind of believer try to make his case, even argue with gusto to prove the truth of it, even though there's a possibility he might be wrong? What's wrong with believing and reasoning that way? How is that not a form of reasoning?

You claim that no one can ever act or choose an answer or make a judgment without first establishing The Truth with absolute certainty? Only an ABSOLUTIST can ever be right or be entrusted to make a good decision?

One can hold a good belief, one which might be true and for which there is good reasoning or evidence, yet also have doubt about it, and from that standpoint make a valid argument, or state a reasonable case for that belief. If our reasoning is good, we will turn out right most of the time, and yet, we have to recognize sometimes that what we once believed, even with good reason, turned out to be incorrect.

I once believed that the "Trojan Horse" story was in Homer. Though this was an error, I was more correct in holding this belief than I would have been if I had thought it came from Herodotus. Believing it came from Herodotus would have been a worse error than the error of believing it came from Homer. You cannot simply brand every belief as true or false and condemn all the false ones equally. We can keep improving our beliefs, but it is a mistake to reject every belief no matter what until we KNOW the truth for certain. It's better to adopt beliefs based on reason and evidence, and recognize that some of those beliefs could turn out to be incorrect.

And science works better this way. Adopt a belief, or hypothesis, and proceed on the assumption that it's true, and go wherever it leads. But not just ANY belief. Choose what seems most likely as the hypothesis to work from. It's not blind faith. It's belief or faith based on evidence. There is still uncertainty, less evidence than one would prefer, but you believe based on what evidence there is.

There can never be anything wrong with saying, "I don't know, but what if it's true?"

[First, I need to correct my statement above. I should have said: There's nothing wrong with saying, "I don't know, but what if it's true?" Rather than: There's never anything wrong with saying . . . etc. Of course it might be wrong in some cases. Generally it's not wrong.]

Well, by 'it' do you mean all religion in general? Because then we have to determine

what if Satanism is true? and,
what if Shintoism is true? and,
what if Shatnerism is true? and,
666 Watch
Adidam The Way Of The Heart
[etc.]

The above listed beliefs and the millions more which could be added, are not mutually exclusive and might be considered as possibly true. Perhaps several on this list are true, or mostly true. There are degrees of truth here, where you have a complex belief system.

Is "Marxism" true? There are parts of Marxism that are true. It would be incorrect to brand it or almost any ideology as 100% false. And this being the case, all the "isms" on this list (except any prank names slipped in) should be considered to determine how much truth there may be to them.

African Methodist Episcopalian Church
AME Church
Amish
Anglican
Anthroposophy
Apollinarian
Apostolics
Aquarian Concepts
Aradianic Faerie Witches . . . . . . .

. . . . .Yoga Research Society
Zen Atheism
Zen Buddhism
Zodian New Age
Zones of Apollyon Sell your soul here.
Zukav New Age
Zendik Farm
Zentech
Zerubbabel
Zoroastrianism
Tenets of the Zoroastrians
Zygon International

How do you go about considering what if it (all of the above) is true?

What's the point? Most are at least partly true. You're saying no one can consider any belief at all unless one considers EVERY belief that ever existed? Can't read Plato unless you also read Plotinus and Spinoza and Squarcialuppi and every crackpot who ever self-published his theory of the universe?

Or, how do you go about trimming off some of the possibles?

You start by choosing the one on the list which you think is the most believable, and you consider it, having a proponent of it present their pitch to you.

You aren't making any case for anything on this list. What kind of claim do they make? Do they claim to have disproved that Christ ever had any power? What do they claim that addresses my point, or the point Pascal makes in his "wager"?

Just printing a long list of names, perhaps just random names from the phone book, doesn't prove anything. What claim are you making about anything on this list? It's not up to Pascal to examine every possible list of random names and disprove everything on the list.

If you think something on this list has something to say about our topic, tell us what it is. Just running out a long list of loose names doesn't disprove anything about Christ.

Choose one name off this list and tell us what that "ism" teaches that contradicts Christ or Pascal or the church or the Bible or whatever you claim it contradicts.

Not by PW, that's for sure.

Why does PW need to trim this list? Maybe many of them believe the same teaching that Pascal believed in. It's up to you, not Pascal, to show the relevance of something on this list. If you think this random list of names needs some trimming, then it's your job to do it.

If you're saying some of these are "rival" cults to the Christ belief, then pick out one of them and tell us how it is superior or equal to the Christ belief.

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.

But the wager does NOT help find the TRUTH. It does nothing to help a seeker differentiate between two offered truths to find the real one.

It doesn't have to. That help already exists, before Pascal presented his wager argument. Pascal doesn't have to provide what already exists.

It has no capacity for their being more than one religion.

Yes it does. There IS more than one religion and everyone knows there's more than one. And "the Wager" does not deny that there's more than one. The truth-seeker who considers "the Wager" argument has to take that into consideration. He doesn't need "the Wager" argument to tell him of the different many religions or beliefs. Rather, "the Wager" offers one, and the truth-seeker considers this one choice along with any others he thinks are equally important.

A choice that is presented to someone seeking answers does not have to provide ALL the choices that are possible to the seeker. Rather, the seeker has the option of considering any other choices that may also be out there.

If someone offers you a $100 bill (suppose you're a panhandler), do you have to make him wait while you first check everyone else in the world who might offer you a larger amount instead? No, there's nothing wrong with responding to the one choice offered, even if there are a million other choices also out there, and taking only the one presently offered. Or, you can also check around for other choices if you want. But the existence of all those other choices does not negate the one choice that is presently offered to you.

You could ask: Why is your offer better than any of the others out there?

But others offered this choice might not ask this. They may already know of other choices and have decided they're not very attractive.

Maybe, e.g., they know about Hinduism and Islam and Buddhism, and they know that the founders or teachers of these doctrines have no power or any evidence of the truth that they teach. Or that they teach only elusive mystical feelings about "oneness with the Universe" or "enlightenment" and so on which have no tangible meaning. Whereas they know that Christ performed miracle healing acts, thus demonstrating power that the others do not have.

So the hearer of "the Wager" already has knowledge of the other choices or beliefs and doesn't need Pascal to present those to him.

Any philosophical teaching has some imperfection or element of incompleteness about it that leaves it open to attack. The Golden Rule ("Do unto others . . ." etc.) is "flawed" because the one who is to "do" might be a masochist who likes to be whipped or beaten, and so if he follows the rule strictly, he has to go around whipping or beating others.

Any rule of life, or any principle, however lofty, will have some minor technical flaw that you can nit-pick about. That doesn't disprove the rule. It can still be a good rule or good principle. That Pascal doesn't provide a run-down on ALL the choices in the universe is just a nit-picking attack that does not undermine the basic point of his "Wager" argument. It doesn't refute Pascal anymore than the fact that some people are masochists refutes the Golden Rule as a universal ethical rule.

It is easy to factor in any of the other choices also, if one wants to, and ask why choice 1 or 2 or 3 would not really be a better one. If Pascal was asked that, I think he'd have to give some kind of answer. But he has to be asked first. Did someone interrupt him and ask: "Hey Blaise, what about this cult that teaches I can get to Heaven by believing in the Great White Pumpkin? How do I know their way is not the true path to salvation?"?

You have to put forth one of the choices like this and make a case for the Great White Pumpkin, or whatever it is, and show why you think that's not a better belief than the Christ belief. Then there's a real question to deal with, or a "Reason to Reject Christianity" to answer -- but just running out a long list of Great White Pumpkin cults does not give us anything of substance to deal with. (And I don't mean to ridicule the fine organizations listed here, many of which I know have some valuable ideas or teachings, but I don't think their existence per se constitutes some kind of refutation of Christ belief.)

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!"

I'm not saying that a rejection of PW means that i reject everything BECAUSE i reject PW.

Your rejection of PW, as you've stated it, means that you reject ANY choice offered to you, unless you first examine ALL the choices in the universe first, and prove that all the other choices are worse than the one offered to you, and then only can you ever make a choice. You're branding that one choice offered as being "one religion only" which ignores all the others, and so it has to be rejected because all the others are not also presented to you along with it.

A better response to PW would be to mention 2 or 3 other choices and ask, "Why wouldn't these choices be just as good?" and show that these 2 or 3 alternative choices seem just as attractive or even more attractive than the PW choice.

I'm saying PW is not an argument.

It's a principle of arguing just as legitimate as any other. Even if it has flaws in it, that doesn't mean it isn't an argument. An argument doesn't have to be flawless to be an argument. Ptolemy's argument for the geocentric theory was an argument, even though it was wrong. There are arguments for a flat earth. I heard a flat-earther on a radio talk show who gave arguments, and he ran circles around every caller who challenged him. Just because you don't agree with an argument, or it has flaws, does not mean it's not really an "argument."

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

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.

That is not demonstrably true.

Imagine that the most correct religion in the universe is that practiced by the Southern Baptist church in Macon at the corner of Peachtree and 3rd.

Now, someone who was raised Mormon seeks the Truth. He examples Pascal's Wager. He finds that he is already living a virtuous life, and not an atheist. The Wager tells him that he's going to Heaven and has no need to seek further truth. According to the Baptists, he's going to Hell for worshiping the wrong Christ.

No, they probably don't have an opinion.

I'll make you a wager: Have someone take a survey at that church, asking them randomnly as they file out on Sunday morning, and I'll bet you $100 that most of them say they don't know. If you want, the loser will have to pay the $100 as a donation to this website talkfreethought.org

But a few of them would say, "Well, if he believes in Christ, then he's going to Heaven, regardless what church he belongs to." This is very common among Baptists at the 3rd and Peachtree church.

His appeal to PW has doomed him.

No it hasn't. He believes the same either way, and the PW made no difference. Changing his denomination to Baptist would not have changed anything. Or, even if it should be an improvement, it still wouldn't change whether he goes to Heaven or Hell.

So, you can't really pretend that it all boils down to 'better safe than sorry.' PW doesn't allow for any chance of more than one religion being considered .

Yes it does allow for more than one. PW does not say there's only one religion or one belief choice to consider. Just because Pascal doesn't provide to every reader a 50-pound directory listing and describing every cult or denomination or ashram on the planet does not mean it's denying the existence of more than one religion or one choice.

 

[Juma]

No, the way to "get to Heaven" is to believe in Christ.

There is no support whatsovever for that being true but still you believe that. That is an perfect example of how useless PW is: if you believe you dont need PW, if you do not believe then PW doesnt work.

As an argument PW is totally useless.

 

[Juma]

I'm saying PW is not an argument.

It's a principle of arguing just as legitimate as any other. Even if it has flaws in it, that doesn't mean it isn't an argument. An argument doesn't have to be flawless to be an argument. Ptolemy's argument for the geocentric theory was an argument, even though it was wrong. There are arguments for a flat earth. I heard a flat-earther on a radio talk show who gave arguments, and he ran circles around every caller who challenged him. Just because you don't agree with an argument, or it has flaws, does not mean it's not really an "argument."

Arguments can be evaluated in many ways. You can see them as more or less persuasive, judging them for the usefullness when trying to make others believe what you want them to believe.

That can be very useful in real life situations when you want to steer other people (politics, military, parents vs children etc)

But here, on this forum, an argument is judged by is wether it is logically sound.

And by that standard WP is utter crap.

And so is your argument for believing in christ.

 

[DBT]

No, the way to "get to Heaven" is to believe in Christ.

As a requirement, what does that say about the nature and character of this God?

 

[Keith&Co.]

According to Pascal's Wager, as you seem to understand it, our options are Heaven, Hell or It doesn't matter. The only way to get to Heaven, it concludes, is to accept a religion, and the only way to get to Hell is not to accept a religion.

No, the way to "get to Heaven" is to believe in Christ.

So you've abandoned logic and you're just preaching, now. Okay, at least you're out of the closet.

This is a lie, though, as you concede that picking the wrong religion leaves you 'just as bad off.'

A phrase like "the right religion" or "the wrong religion" is non-serious and has to be understood only in a sarcastic sense to have any legitimate point to it.

So every time a member of one sect or religion has told me that all other religions are going to Hell, they were sarcastic?
Somehow, i doubt that.

This is soundly more and more like Charlie Brown's Comparative Religion Christmas Special.

So of the four possible outcomes, the choice you make will more likely lead you to Hell than Heaven, thus the Wager lies.

What "four possible outcomes"?

Motherfuck....
Read the Wager, some day.

The phrase "the Wager lies" means nothing.

It's hard to take that seriously since you don't seem to know what the Wager actually says.

Or at least, it's only valuable as a rationalization to feel smug after you've selected a religion.

And your obsession with bashing PW is only a rationalization for you to feel smug after you've rejected a religion. Your inability to explain your nonbelief without continuing to beat this dead horse suggests you might be insecure in your nonbelief.

What makes you think i have no other way to explain my nonbelief? You brought up the Wager, you don't understand the Wager, you asked to let the Wager go, you're still discussing the Wager... You've never asked me to explain my non-belief.
But you're willing to diagnose all this as MY insecurity.

You seem to think i have some sort of prejudice against 'better safe than sorry' arguments because of PW.

The actual state of affairs is that PW only purports to be an argument.

It's too flawed to count, though.

You've not pointed out any real flaw in it.

I guess i can take a page out of your playboook and turn this onto you?
Your lack of familiarity with the actual Wager, and your inability to understand it's flaws do not mean my critique is 'nitpicking.'

You mean it is always unreasonable to say something like, "we don't know" or "I'm not sure" or "there is some doubt"?

That is not what the Wager says.
So your point is pointless.

So once more, PW is a lie.

So according to you, it's a lie to ever say "I think this is the truth, but it's not a certainty," or "I don't know it for certain."

Again, you're wrong on trying to translate a critique of PW in this manner.

You can adopt a virtuous life and still be burning in Hell, just like an atheist.

Yes, it's only by believing in Christ that one escapes Hell (if there is a "Hell"), not by being morally superior.

And that's the fatal flaw of Pascal's (actual) Wager. One can feel that one has justified their moral superiority by using it, even if they do not belief in Christ.

Not at all. I don't believe because i see no reason to believe in gods. Or damnation.

Oh, look. There's me, explaining my disbelief. Huh.

why don't you find a way to express it without continually making PW your punching bag?

Scroll up just a tiny bit....

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.

But it's not reasoning, therefore that 'kind' of reasoning cannot be correct.

It can be correct.

Pascal's Wager is not agnosticism. You're trying to prop up a bad misunderstanding of what he actually said.

You claim that no one can ever act or choose an answer or make a judgment without first establishing The Truth with absolute certainty?

Nope. Never said that.

Only an ABSOLUTIST can ever be right or be entrusted to make a good decision?

Never said that, either.
Your confusion about what PW says informs your misunderstanding about my critique of the Wager.
You have a separate issue with putting words into my mouth so you can defeat a strawman argument of my position.

I once believed that the "Trojan Horse" story was in Homer. Though this was an error, I was more correct in holding this belief than I would have been if I had thought it came from Herodotus. Believing it came from Herodotus would have been a worse error than the error of believing it came from Homer.

Odd that you refer to this 'belief' as something of value when it's something you could have easily corrected at any time by looking up actual evidence.
As a 'belief,' it's just 'wrong.'

You cannot simply brand every belief as true or false and condemn all the false ones equally.

If they have objective evidence that they're wrong, i sure can. That's what 'evidence' is for, to determine what's wrong.

What's the point? Most are at least partly true. You're saying no one can consider any belief at all unless one considers EVERY belief that ever existed?

No, not saying that. I AM willing to say that your argument that there's evidence for Christ seems to involve completely ignoring a shitload of other religions and pretending Christianity is unique.
It really isn't.

Can't read Plato unless you also read Plotinus and Spinoza and Squarcialuppi and every crackpot who ever self-published his theory of the universe?

No, but if you're going to say that PLATO was the only philosopher to accurately describe ththe universe, without every even reading a summary of Polotinus, Spinoza and so on, then you're going to end up looking like a fucking moron.

You start by choosing the one on the list which you think is the most believable, and you consider it, having a proponent of it present their pitch to you.

You START by choosing the most believable? THEN examine their evidence?
Do you begin to understand how fucking wrong that is?
Or, how IMPOSSIBLE that would be? IF you haven't listened to the 'pitch,' then how in the world would you know if The First Church of Shatnerism is believable or not?
What nutty system would you use to consider what's 'believable' if you don't know why the proponents think it's true?

Jesus Christ and his All Nurse Band, what a bunch of presuppositionist crap you're flogging, there.

You aren't making any case for anything on this list. What kind of claim do they make? Do they claim to have disproved that Christ ever had any power? What do they claim that addresses my point, or the point Pascal makes in his "wager"?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
You don't know.
But you've already chosen Christainity as the most believable!
HEEHEEHEEHEEHEE!

Stars and Stones, man, that's the best laugh i've had all fucking week.

That's perfect.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Imagine that the most correct religion in the universe is that practiced by the Southern Baptist church in Macon at the corner of Peachtree and 3rd.
Now, someone who was raised Mormon seeks the Truth. He examples Pascal's Wager. He finds that he is already living a virtuous life, and not an atheist. The Wager tells him that he's going to Heaven and has no need to seek further truth. According to the Baptists, he's going to Hell for worshiping the wrong Christ.

No, they probably don't have an opinion.

Man, you need to get out more.
Or find the thread about protesters at the Oklahoma Satanist Prayer event.
And all the Christains there to protest Satanism that ended up pointing fingers at other Christains who were all going to Hell for their heresies.

I'll make you a wager: Have someone take a survey at that church, asking them randomnly as they file out on Sunday morning, and I'll bet you $100 that most of them say they don't know.

I appear to have spoken to more Baptists that you over the years.
That church doesn't exist, but Baptists do.
I chose Southern Baptists because they tend to be quite certain about the Catholics and the Mormons being members of faiths that are all going to Hell.

But a few of them would say, "Well, if he believes in Christ, then he's going to Heaven, regardless what church he belongs to."

That's a Methodist dogma.
Not Southern Baptists.

This is very common among Baptists at the 3rd and Peachtree church.

It would be nice to believe, but it's not true.

His appeal to PW has doomed him.

No it hasn't. He believes the same either way, and the PW made no difference.

THe Mormon does not believe the same way at the Baptists. The Mormon believes that the Baptists are going to a better Heaven than the Muslims are going to, but not as good a Heaven as the Mormons are going to.
He also believes that their drinking of coffee is a sin.
Not the same beliefs.

Changing his denomination to Baptist would not have changed anything.

Dude, if you're not going to even TRY to talk sense, then don't bother.

 

[Rhea]

Curious, Lumpen, have you never talked to a Christian who is convinced that their theology claims some other "so called" christian is actually going to hell?

Ever?

Are you aware that they exist - in droves? Legions? Each saying the other does not "actually" have salvation?

 

[Keith&Co.]

You start by choosing the one on the list which you think is the most believable, and you consider it, having a proponent of it present their pitch to you.

I
Imagine using this strategy on the question about the shape of the Earth. Someone says it's flat. Someone says that it's a globe. Someone says that it's an oblate spheroid.

You look around and decide that it's more believable that the Earth is flat. It looks flat. As far as you can travel in any direction, you never find yourself sliding down the side of the Earth or falling off the bottom. So you pick the Flat.
Then you ask for a proponent.

William Carpenter wrote a pamphlet, 100 proofs that the Earth is not a Globe.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/... Earth is not a Globe (William Carpenter).pdf

You let William provide his evidence. It seems sound, convincing, and you adopt that position.

Then you, Lumpy, seem to stop. You won't listen to anyone else describe their view of the world's shape until they can address the 100 points of Mr. Carpenter's argument.

You also seem to think that examining the arguments for the other shapes is unnecessary, because they're all at least partially true.

And all the people who are obsessed with saying the Flat Earth society is a bunch of goobers, they're just insecure about where they stand on the globe.

Probably afraid they're going to start rolling off at any time.

 

[Atheos]

Curious, Lumpen, have you never talked to a Christian who is convinced that their theology claims some other "so called" christian is actually going to hell?

Ever?

Are you aware that they exist - in droves? Legions? Each saying the other does not "actually" have salvation?

Evidently Jesus doesn't agree with Lumpenproletariat either.

Matthew 7
:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Apparently even many of those who believe they are working for Jesus will get the shove. Musta been 3rd Baptists instead of 2nd Baptists. Buncha heretics.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Why is anyone listening to the Lump?

If you don't believe in Jesus, he has bumpkus to convince you.

Four books in a 2000 year old canon is all he's got.

Sherlock Holmes otoh had four novels and 56 short stories

And he has plausibility on his side and an actual physical address.

You would do better believing in Sherlock Holmes

 

[funinspace]

No, they probably don't have an opinion.

Man, you need to get out more.
Or find the thread about protesters at the Oklahoma Satanist Prayer event.
And all the Christains there to protest Satanism that ended up pointing fingers at other Christains who were all going to Hell for their heresies.

I'll make you a wager: Have someone take a survey at that church, asking them randomnly as they file out on Sunday morning, and I'll bet you $100 that most of them say they don't know.

I appear to have spoken to more Baptists that you over the years.
That church doesn't exist, but Baptists do.
I chose Southern Baptists because they tend to be quite certain about the Catholics and the Mormons being members of faiths that are all going to Hell.

Yep!!!! Lumpy has obviously not spent much time around even a few evangelicals/fundamentalists. I personally spent about 6 years within an independent Baptist Church, that though was not part of the SBC, certainly considered that most of those lukewarm “Christians” (like those within the UMC and the ELCA) to be disgustingly lukewarm, and their God would spit them out. The funny part is that this conservative church is the one that finally got me to think for myself, and figure out the BS.

A noted pre-Vatican II traditionalist RC father:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/EXTRAECC.TXT

NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH

by Fr. William Most

It is a defined doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church. Yet, as the Holy Office pointed out in condemning L. Feeney (DS 3866) we must understand this the way the Church means it, not by private interpretation.

Can you guess which horrendous sect, this hardcore evangelical is getting ready to identify ROTFLMAO....
http://www.reachingcatholics.org/cult-cult.html

For decades evangelicals have diligently and faithfully attempted to identify, analyze and warn the church against cults. Included in the standard list are Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Unity School of Christianity, Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church, etc. Yet the most seductive, dangerous and largest cult (many times larger than all of the rest combined) is not included in the list! Most cult experts refuse to identify this horrendous cult as such! Instead, they accept it as "Christian."

Now I couldn't find how many RC's are traditionalists by a few minutes of Googling, but I did see that there are roughly 100,000 radical traditionalists. So, I would guess that maybe around 10% of RC's are traditionalists. So toss them in with the maybe 20-30% of evangelicals/fundies, and one ends up with a significant populations of exclusivist Christian people/groups. And most all evangelical/fundamentalist Christians consider the LDSs a hell bound cult. The funny part is that there is probably just as many on the liberal side that aren't all worked up about the idea that one needs to grovel at Jesus' feet, in order to gain access to the pearly gates. These same liberals tend to not believe in an eternal Auschwitz for the masses either. So one ends up with American Christians roughly broken down something like this:
Exclusivists Christians: 20-25%
Middle that thinks all/any who accept Christ are saved: ~50-60%
Who cares, just be good Christians: 20-25%

Seeing that only about 25-30% of American even bother to attend any Church with any regularity, it is obvious that the large majority of Christians really don't give a shit about this savior-god. Their (lack of) actions are far more telling, than their poll answers about faith.

So Lumpy is betting on the roughly 50% of those 25-30% of Americans who even bother to play at being Christian. So Lumpy has joined the 13-15% of American Only-Jesus-but-Any-Varient club...wooo-hoooo.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why is anyone listening to the Lump?

Because he's HILARIOUS!
Pick a belief, then look for the evidence?
What "four possible outcomes"?
The Wager has nothing to do with virtues?
Absolute knee-slapping good times.

 

[Clivedurdle]

Just come across a thought provoking reason!

The forgotten "rock" 7 Jan 2014
By Bette Inman - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Paperback Verified Purchase

This book was commission by the AMA (American Medical Association) to identify the roots of the Hippocratic Oath.

But, in the process, they have thrown back the curtain on where some of the religious myths that we attribute to Jesus came from. Any serious religious scholar should avail themselves of this resource and the culture at the time that Peter founded x-tianity on is "rock" - a term lifted from the prevailing god of healing at the time - Asclepius.

This book actually has two sections of translations - the second section starting on page 421 that is a summary and analysis of the translations. I would recommend that the reader read that section first and then read the paragraph by paragraph translations in section II.

I see this as one of the most significant books for serious students of forgotten history that roots so much of our current world view. If it were up to me - I would move this book to the theology reading list and make it mandatory reading!


http://www.amazon.co.uk/Asclepius-I...418246801&sr=8-1&keywords=edelstein+asclepius

Throughout nearly all of antiquity, the legendary Greek physician, Asclepius, son of Apollo and Coronis, was not only the primary representative of divine healing, but also so influential in the religious life of later centuries that, as Emma J. Edelstein and Ludwig Edelstein point out, "in the final stages of paganism, of all genuinely Greek gods, [he] was judged the foremost antagonist of Christ." Providing an overview of all facets of the Asclepius phenomenon, this book, first published in two volumes in 1945, comprises a unique collection of the literary references and inscriptions in ancient texts—given in both the original and translation—to the deity, his life, his deeds, his cult, and his temples, as well as an extended analysis of them.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

How "independent" must the gospel accounts be in order for us to believe them?

Some Bible miracle stories don't meet the proper rigid standard. Partly for lack of eye witnesses, and some other reasons too. But the Jesus healing stories meet a high standard.

Really? Then you will have no problem in pointing us to solid evidence from a source other than the Bible.

The fact that these sources were assembled into one collection 200 years later does not change the fact that they are multiple sources. There are multiple authors/writers coming from different backgrounds and each having a different interpretation.

Since it's appropriate to rely on one source only for normal events, why isn't it appropriate in the case of "miracle" stories to rely on 2 or 3 or 4 sources?

You are clearly incapable of determining what is or is not a source, and what is or is not independent. If there were 2, 3 or 4 INDEPENDENT stories of Jesus's miracles, then they might be worth further investigation . . .

Though they are collections of earlier accounts of the events, that does not change the fact that they are separate "independent" accounts. The fact that there is overlapping of the sources they use does not mean these collections are not independent.

Of course. That something builds on the same information doesn't mean that they are dependent...

Yeah right...

But then, in this sense, "independent" is not good. What is important is if the accounts are credible, or truthful. But an "independent" account, in the extreme sense you're now demanding, would be one where the author fabricates his own account without any regard for the truth. Whereas an author who is trying to report to us what really happened would rely on earlier accounts as much as possible. I.e., he would be "dependent" on earlier sources.

So in the extreme sense of an "independent" source where the author fabricates his own story "independent" of the truth or the recorded or remembered facts that happened earlier -- in that sense you're right, the "gospel" accounts are not "independent" -- nor should we demand such independence.

The honest or credible writer would use the earlier accounts rather than disregard them. What is important is that we have several SEPARATE accounts about the miracles of Jesus, not only one, as is the case for most miracle stories. These accounts are "independent" in the sense that they do include some content which does NOT derive from earlier sources, plus also these authors or redactors did not collaborate with each other (as the discrepancies between them show).

Some "dependence" on earlier sources is beneficial in terms of credibility. This reliance means that the compilers are basing their document mainly on earlier accounts from those who were closer to the actual events. This increases the document's reliability.

However, these collections, the "gospel" accounts, are independent from each other in the proper less extreme sense. Some use of Mark by Mt and Lk does not change the fact that each compiler or redactor produced his own total account independently of the others, in that there was no collaboration between them, and each one was free to introduce something further if it was important.

What kind of "independence" do you demand from these writers, or from these "gospel" accounts, that would make them more credible than they are in this form that we have them?