Honest answers to the infamous Ten Questions

[Zzyzx]

.
I suggest the following are honest answers to the questions (though they be distasteful to many fervent believers).

1. What OTHER THAN stories in the bible, church dogma and speculation shows that an "afterlife", "heaven" and "hell" exist as anything more than imagination?

Nothing

2. What OTHER THAN stories in the bible, church dogma and speculation shows that Jesus actually "arose from the dead"?

Nothing

3. What OTHER THAN stories in the bible, church dogma and speculation shows that Jesus was "divine", "the savior" or "the son of god"?

Nothing

4. What OTHER THAN stories in the bible, church dogma and speculation shows that the "biblical god" created the universe and its contents?

Nothing

5. IF (since?) religions have nothing more than unverified stories in a book, church dogma and speculation to show that their "god" is real, how can a REASONED decision be reached concerning which "god" to worship?

A reasoned decision cannot be made in the absence of evidence. With over two thousand "gods" available for worship the chance of picking the right one is 0.0005 " one in two thousand.

6. Since Jesus has not been shown to be "divine" or "the savior" (other than in bible stories and church dogma), how can Christianity be shown to be anything more than worship of a human preacher (or idol)?

It cannot be shown

7. Unless gospel writers (whoever they may have been) can be shown to have personally witnessed the events and conversations about which they wrote, WHERE did they get their information and how can anyone know it was truthful and accurate?

Bible writers cannot be shown to have personally witnessed the events about which they write and their sources of stories cannot be identified or evaluated

8. Since other "gods" are said to have come back to life after being killed (in stories told by their worshipers and substantiated only by the tales themselves and religious dogma), how is the "resurrection" of Jesus proof of "divinity" or anything special or different (or are the other "gods" divine also)?

The Jesus "came back to life" story cannot be shown to be significantly different from (or more truthful than) similar competing "god" stories.

9. Since some parts of the bible are recognized as being fictional (parables for instance), HOW can fictional parts be distinguished from non-fictional parts unless they are self-identified as such? What means can ANYONE use to come to a reasoned conclusion that is anything more than opinion?

There is no means by which to distinguish fictional / legendary / exaggerated portions of the bible from parts that are literally true (disregarding mention of a few cities, rulers, battles). None of the supernatural claims are supported by other sources.

10. Unless Jesus was "divine" (which cannot be shown to be true outside bible stories making the claim), what is the basis of Christianity?

Unless Jesus was "divine", Christianity worships a human preacher / idol / icon

[McCulloch]

A reasoned decision cannot be made in the absence of evidence. With over two thousand "gods" available for worship the chance of picking the right one is 0.0005 " one in two thousand.

This makes the assumption that each of the options is equally probable. I doubt that this is a reasonable assumption.

[Zzyzx]

.

A reasoned decision cannot be made in the absence of evidence. With over two thousand "gods" available for worship the chance of picking the right one is 0.0005 " one in two thousand.

This makes the assumption that each of the options is equally probable. I doubt that this is a reasonable assumption.

The options may not be equally probable. I am open to reconsider -- and request information from anyone to indicate that the probability of any "god" being real is greater than the probability of any other "god" being real.

I firmly stand by the key element of my statement, "A reasoned decision cannot be made in the absence of evidence."

[McCulloch]

This makes the assumption that each of the options is equally probable. I doubt that this is a reasonable assumption.

The options may not be equally probable. I am open to reconsider -- and request information from anyone to indicate that the probability of any "god" being real is greater than the probability of any other "god" being real.

To start, the probability of the existence of a "god" that is logically impossible is lower than the probability of the existence of a "god" that is not logically impossible. That would give the Olympian pantheon the edge over the Christian Omni⁴ Trinity.

I firmly stand by the key element of my statement, "A reasoned decision cannot be made in the absence of evidence."

Aside from quibbling over rather minor details, I agree.

[JayDeist]

.

A reasoned decision cannot be made in the absence of evidence. With over two thousand "gods" available for worship the chance of picking the right one is 0.0005 " one in two thousand.

This makes the assumption that each of the options is equally probable. I doubt that this is a reasonable assumption.

The options may not be equally probable. I am open to reconsider -- and request information from anyone to indicate that the probability of any "god" being real is greater than the probability of any other "god" being real.

I firmly stand by the key element of my statement, "A reasoned decision cannot be made in the absence of evidence."

I like your approach. I also agree. Do you care if I use this list of ten questions? It may come in handy someday. This agrees with my reasons for giving up Christianity altogethor. I searched for reasons to help me better understand Christianity, and these are some the conclusions I came up with. It helped me make my decision to switch my belief system. I could more agree if Christians admitted these things, and approached it in the light it should be approached, and just used the parables to help teach people to live a good life. I know this will never happen, so I'm sure I won't be returning. Oh well, I believe I've found a good place just for that at the UU church.

[Zzyzx]

.

To start, the probability of the existence of a "god" that is logically impossible is lower than the probability of the existence of a "god" that is not logically impossible.

I have difficulty with "logically impossible god" vs. "not logically impossible god".

[Cathar1950]

Sometimes I think of myself as either a recovering Christian or even Jewish when it means some things but mostly I just can't know about things beyond what we can and do know without being suspicious.

I recall reading where being Jewish meant holding yourself or your community to a treaty with God even if and when the name doesn't keep His part.
It was being Jewish because God didn't keep his end of the deal and broke even any imaginary covenant. Christian seems to have adopted the writings filtering them through Greek thought and left behind the wisdom presuming they made a New covenant with God ultimately revealed to them for all people.

[forumwarrior]

heres what i think. i think that those ARE honest answers according to you. according to me, the questions are kind of silly because belief in god, jesus, the bible etc is not a "reasoned decision" like you say but a FAITH based decision. you cant quantify faith, stick it in a beaker and measure it. faith is faith and your loaded questions wont ever account for that.

as i understand it, the way it worked in the old days was people who believed in one god were on one side, people who believed in the other god were on the other side, they duked it out and whoever won either slaughtered the other group of people thereby eliminating their "god" or they end up converting them to their own religion. matter of fact you can read stories about that taking place in the old testament.

so i guess i could make the argument that because christianity is the most prevalent religion that that must mean christianity is the most valid religion. because if it wasnt, those other "gods" would have made a better representation of themselves. id be curious to know what you would say if i were to make that argument.

as for your list of 10 questions, id like to focus on #10 and say that the basis of christianity as i practice it is the combination of both sacred scripture and sacred tradition. holy texts combined with practices that originated with the religion itself.

of course you can make the argument that its just a fantasy book and theres no proof that any of it ever really happened. and thats why you throw faith into the equation. religion is based on faith. and again, you cant measure faith in any science experiment.

you can make up as many "infamous questions" as you want. you have to realize that religion is faith based.

[Janx]

You can make up as many "infamous questions" as you want. you have to realize that religion is faith based.

Except it is not.

What you are actually saying is not that it can't be understood but that you don't want it to be understood - why?

Religion is about is about as faith based as Communism, believing in Santa, or crossing the street. Religion, just like anything else, is made up of pieces that can be looked at, analyzed and probed. This is what we are doing here.

And faith. Faith is nothing special. We all have faith and use it on a regular basis. Using faith to believe in God is the same as using it to believe in Reaganomics or that saturated fats will give you heart disease. I'm sure it's the exact same mechanism in your brain.

So here we are forumwarrior. Religion is under the microscope with all it's icky, gooey, not so appealing to look at bits exposed. Ugh! I wouldn't look if I were you

[bernee51]

as i understand it, the way it worked in the old days was people who believed in one god were on one side, people who believed in the other god were on the other side, they duked it out and whoever won either slaughtered the other group of people thereby eliminating their "god" or they end up converting them to their own religion. matter of fact you can read stories about that taking place in the old testament.

To a point...ecept that the god concept itself has evolved (and is evolving)

so i guess i could make the argument that because christianity is the most prevalent religion that that must mean christianity is the most valid religion. because if it wasnt, those other "gods" would have made a better representation of themselves. id be curious to know what you would say if i were to make that argument.

I'd say it was a logical fallacy.

Besides, the god of christianity is the same god held by the Judaism and Islam.

That must make all three religions 'valid'

you can make up as many "infamous questions" as you want. you have to realize that religion is faith based.

ALL religions...or just yours?