hilarious athiest quiz.

[siead_lietrathua]

ok, i'm just gonna say that this quiz is a joke, and also pretty darn controversial. but i was laughing my head off while reading it.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dayligh...01-final-exam/

sample questions:

1) Which of the following is the most compelling evidence for the existence of an intelligent and loving Designer?
1) The little girl born in Egypt with two functioning heads
2) The screams of a baby seal as it is torn apart by a shark
3) The superiority of the octopus eyeball to the human
4) A Caribbean sunset

15) Only human beings have souls, and thus only human beings can go to heaven. What is the cutoff point for entry into paradise?
1) Homo habilis
2) Homo erectus
3) Homo Neanderthalensis
4) Homo sapiens

16) According to at least one sainted church father, one of the pleasures of the saved in paradise will be to behold the agony of the damned in hell. What would be the best time of day in heaven for a mother to behold the agony of her only son who didn’t make it?
1) Early in the morning before it gets too crowded
2) Mid-day when she can compare notes and share the celebration with other mothers
3) Late at night when she can enjoy the flames in starker contrast

it's 26 sarcasm-laced questions, but it does kind of make a point. when you take the morality of the bible, and really start to look at it closely, it's pretty twisted.

(sidenote, i'm reading "the message" translation of the bible now because it's my parent's preferred version. i can totally see why. it's totally more watered down in the negative parts.)

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

It's silly fun. But like most polemic stuff, it sort of depends on ones perception of religion to be monolithic and literal to an extreme. Essentially, much easier to kick a fundamentalist in the nuts with than a Catholic. Some faiths are far more fluid than others.

The big question with a lot of older religions tends to be are modern adherents capable of viewing things in historic context. Frequently the answer is yes and frequently the answer is no. It's when the answer is no that these kinds of questions feel like attacks.

[Skunkle]

I know it's intended to be tongue-in-cheek, but it's mostly funny, I imagine, to the crowd who, reading this, go, "Ha ha, Christians sure are stupid, aren't they?" I read these and go, "Well, I don't believe that. I don't believe that one, either. Or that. Or that. etc."

The Bible is jam-packed full of contradictions which is, in my opinion, one of the biggest signs that it should be taken neither as entirely literal, nor as a cohesive thing. I mean, it's even common knowledge that the original church had more writings, and decided which ones went into the final compilation or didn't. And by what standards was that decision made? Who decided, "This prophet told the truth. That prophet didn't. This one's work goes in. That one stays out. etc."?

[Kheldarson]

The Bible is jam-packed full of contradictions which is, in my opinion, one of the biggest signs that it should be taken neither as entirely literal, nor as a cohesive thing. I mean, it's even common knowledge that the original church had more writings, and decided which ones went into the final compilation or didn't. And by what standards was that decision made? Who decided, "This prophet told the truth. That prophet didn't. This one's work goes in. That one stays out. etc."?

I can answer this. I forget which council it was, but the leaders of the church met (I'm thinking Antioch for some reason) and discussed. For the Old Testament, they used the Hebrew Bible as the basis with focus on books that Jesus and his disciples referenced themselves.

I'm not sure what the deciding factors were for the New Testament (perhaps just agreement on how the books reflected dogma or perhaps what was being referenced most) but it was a debate for several centuries.

[Gravekeeper]

I'm not sure what the deciding factors were for the New Testament (perhaps just agreement on how the books reflected dogma or perhaps what was being referenced most) but it was a debate for several centuries.

Took a good 400 years of politics, debates, meetings and arguments. With Revelations being added last a good 100 years after the rest of it was made official. Why anyone these days treats it like it just fell out of the sky whole and unsullied is beyond me.

I especially like that Revelations was considered to be a complete crack trip even back then. So anyone that actual takes it seriously now is ironically at odds with how it was viewed by early Christians.

[Kelmon]

As an atheist, I can easily see what very common theist arguments/sayings some the tongue-in-cheek questions come from, so it's a good bit of fun for me. But nothing new, really.

It's of course also (partially) unfair, and not something you could seriously use in a discussion about the topic of faith. (Unless it's someone believing in the literal truth of the bible, which is fortunately a true rarity where I come from).

[BlaqueKatt]

I'm not sure what the deciding factors were for the New Testament (perhaps just agreement on how the books reflected dogma or perhaps what was being referenced most) but it was a debate for several centuries.

It was the four out of 400, with the least amount of contradictions between each other, everything else was branded heresy. At the time almost every church had their own gospel, the RCC gathered them up and made a unilateral decision based on "which ones don't disagree the most" which at the time the contradictions didn't matter because the laypersons couldn't read, so the clergy just told them what they wanted to, and no one knew any different.

and actually canon differs by religion-list here

[ExRetailDrone]

I know it's intended to be tongue-in-cheek, but it's mostly funny, I imagine, to the crowd who, reading this, go, "Ha ha, Christians sure are stupid, aren't they?"

I'll admit I found this pretty damn amusing, but I don't think that Christians as a whole are stupid. I find the [holy text] literalists incredibly stupid, and this little joke test seems to mostly focus upon that small group of believers as the punchline.

[siead_lietrathua]

yeah it's about literal interpretations of a book, not alot of it is about spirituality as a whole (except maybe the sunset thing)

[Panacea]

The Bible is jam-packed full of contradictions which is, in my opinion, one of the biggest signs that it should be taken neither as entirely literal, nor as a cohesive thing. I mean, it's even common knowledge that the original church had more writings, and decided which ones went into the final compilation or didn't. And by what standards was that decision made? Who decided, "This prophet told the truth. That prophet didn't. This one's work goes in. That one stays out. etc."?

The Bible should not be taken literally. Much of it is allegory; it is meant to teach a specific lesson about spirituality and a relationship with God, but to take it literally simply makes no sense at all.

The development of the New Testament took several centuries; the idea started with a guy named Marcion, who collected the books he thought were most important. Marcion was later branded a heretic though because he believed the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament were two seperate deities.

Eventually the Vulgate Bible was accepted as canon by the RCC; Eastern Orthodox Churches have slightly different versions (most don't include the Book of Revelation).

Martin Luther's Bible excludes several books of the Old Testament accepted by the RCC (such as the Book of Wisdom). Ever since, Protestants and Catholics use slightly different Bibles.

Because of all the textual differences, the notion that the Bible should be taken literally is laughable.

However, most of the issues surrounding the New Testament revolve around the dispute between Orthodoxy and Gnosticism. Gnosticism was a very "New Age" kind of Christianity; the goal was to leave the mortal world behind for the perfect spiritual world. The material world was regarded as a sort of trap to be escaped; following Jesus would reveal to you the secret of escaping the world.

I especially like that Revelations was considered to be a complete crack trip even back then. So anyone that actual takes it seriously now is ironically at odds with how it was viewed by early Christians.

The author of Revelation was talking about his own time; he was speaking in code to hide his true intent from Roman authorities. It's not prophecy.

But it is a hell of a crack trip. It's one of my favorite books in the Bible; I love the poetic imagery of it.