Religion 101 Final Exam

[AngusJS]

http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/g...ligion101.html

Some of these are unfair, but some are pretty good. My favorites are:

You are a product tester and frequently bring your work home. Yesterday, while dressed in a flame resistant suit (up to 3,000 degrees) and carrying the latest model fire extinguisher, you discover your neighbor's house is on fire. As the flames quickly spread, you stand and watch your neighbor's new baby burn to death. Which of the following best describes your behavior?

1. All-powerful
2. All-knowing
3. All-loving
4. Mysterious

Although you are new at golf, you have just hit a beautiful 200-yard drive and your ball has landed on a blade of grass near the cup at Hole 3. The green contains ten million blades of grass. The odds of your ball landing on that blade of grass are 10,000,000 to one against, too improbable to have happened by mere chance. What's the explanation?

1. The wind guided it
2. Your muscles guided it
3. There is no need for an explanation
4. You consciously designed your shot to land on that particular blade

We know that Christianity is true because the Gospel writers, inspired by God who can make no error, recorded the founding events. For example, on the first Easter morning, the visitors to the tomb were greeted by which of the following:

1. A young man (Mark 16:5)
2. No, no, it was no man, it was an angel (Matthew 28:2-5)
3. You're both wrong, it was two men (Luke 24:4)
4. Damn it, there was nobody there (John 20:1-2)

[Frame57]

What is taught in regards to this and other similar comparisons of the text is that people do not account for time. Those that visited the tomb did not all arrive at the same time, hence they all could have indeed encountered different scenarios.

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by Frame57

What is taught in regards to this and other similar comparisons of the text is that people do not account for time. Those that visited the tomb did not all arrive at the same time, hence they all could have indeed encountered different scenarios.

I think that's pretty problematic.

How many women came to the sepulchre?

One John 20:1
The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

Two Matthew 28:1
As it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

Three Mark 16:1
And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

Five or more Luke 24:1, 10
Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.
...
It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.co...sepulchre.html

Notice how John, Matthew and Luke all say that this occurs sometime early on the first day of the week.

And even if you ignore that, in order to have all four different events be true, you have to have Mary Magdalene make four different trips, and have her witness four different circumstances, and then have each gospel writer choose a particular trip about which to write, while ignoring the others.

Is that possible? Yeah... but is it likely? Anyone can rationalize to save their favorite idea from evidence or arguments which dispute it. In any other sphere but religion, this would be a sign that there are problems with that idea. For religion, it's par for the course.

[Aramike]

I've seen these kinds of things before. While I don't ascribe to religion, they are clearly loaded (and not too smart) questions designed to haphazardly support the argument that religion is fundamentally flawed.

Rather, any serious thinker would see that the questions themselves are flawed. For instance:

Although you are new at golf, you have just hit a beautiful 200-yard drive and your ball has landed on a blade of grass near the cup at Hole 3. The green contains ten million blades of grass. The odds of your ball landing on that blade of grass are 10,000,000 to one against, too improbable to have happened by mere chance. What's the explanation?

What is conveniently side-stepped is that, a ball landing on the green has a 1:1 chance of hitting a blade of grass. Also, the golfer specifically controlled that outcome.

1) Which of the following is the most compelling evidence for the existence of an intelligent and loving Designer?

1. A Caribbean sunset
2. The screams of a baby seal as it is torn apart by a shark
3. The first time your perfect new baby smiles at you
4. The speed of the Ebola virus converting an African child's organs into liquid

This is another loaded question. The existance of evil is the only thing that can confirm the presense of good.

One can go on and on. Here's another gem:

One day while jogging in the park, you see a maniac with a butcher knife about to attack a six-year old girl. Which would be the most morally proper action to take?

1. Grab the nearest rock and beat off the attacker
2. Call the police on your cell phone
3. Yell "POLICE!" and run toward the attacker in a threatening manner
4. Calmly walk away, because God works in mysterious ways, and what appears "evil" to our finite human mind, may in fact be part of a vaster plan in God's infinite mind, so it's best not to interfere

What if God's plan was for you to interfere with option A, B, or C? Or, what if God doesn't have a plan for the situation at all? Wouldn't being unable to NOT have a plan be an odd limitation to impose upon an all-powerful deity?

One could write a similar "quiz" in support of any ideology they wish.

[Frame57]

One record that you guys can have fun with are the gospel record dealing with the crucifixion itself. If memory serves me right i think three of the four gospels have it. Anyway if you read each one you will see interesting differences like when they cast the lots for the garment, when the two other were led either before or after jesus. when they placed the accusation over his head etc.. They differ quite a bit. But what casts some light on the matter is that the greek word for the two others are different greek words in each gospel. meaning that four were crucified with him and not just two. One set of two was led before him and one set of two after him. This semantically is accurate with the greek text. the four gospels must be read as a unit to get the entire picture. This is called scripture build up in theological circles.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Frame57

One record that you guys can have fun with are the gospel record dealing with the crucifixion itself. If memory serves me right i think three of the four gospels have it. Anyway if you read each one you will see interesting differences like when they cast the lots for the garment, when the two other were led either before or after jesus. when they placed the accusation over his head etc.. They differ quite a bit. But what casts some light on the matter is that the greek word for the two others are different greek words in each gospel. meaning that four were crucified with him and not just two. One set of two was led before him and one set of two after him. This semantically is accurate with the greek text. the four gospels must be read as a unit to get the entire picture. This is called scripture build up in theological circles.

All gospels have them parting his garment after Yeshua was crucified and casting lots for it as prophecied 600 years prior to the event (Psalms 22).

As far as the number crucified with Yeshua there were 2

Mathew 27:38 Then were there two theeues crucified with him: one on the right hand, and another on the left.

Mark 15:27 And with him they crucifie two theeues, the one on his right hand, and the other on his left.

Luke 23:32 And there were also two other malefactors led with him, to bee put to death.

John 19:18 Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Iesus in the middest.

<edit> The Greek word δύo (duo) defined as a primary numeral; "two": - both, twain, two. Is used to describe the number crucified with Yeshua in all four books. The other events are in order throughout.

Of those δύo one joined the side of the mob in order to gain their favor but died with them the other believed the truth and lives. As it is written

And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Luke 23:39-43



AngusJS Im not quite sure what the argument is concerning the timeline of events at the tomb are but would be happy to discuss it with you.


.

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by Aramike

I've seen these kinds of things before. While I don't ascribe to religion, they are clearly loaded (and not too smart) questions designed to haphazardly support the argument that religion is fundamentally flawed.

This is satire. It doesn't have to be 100% ironclad.

Rather, any serious thinker would see that the questions themselves are flawed. For instance:

What is conveniently side-stepped is that, a ball landing on the green has a 1:1 chance of hitting a blade of grass. Also, the golfer specifically controlled that outcome.

This is just lampooning theists who say it takes more faith to believe that, the universe came to be the way it is through blind chance than it does to believe in a creator.

To remove any chance of an actor influencing the event, forget the golf example and just think of a gigantic automated Plinko board 10 miles high with a billion slots at the bottom. You could have the theist who makes this argument hit a button which releases a disc at the top, which eventually falls into a slot. When he reports that the disc fell in slot # whatever, you could, with the same incredulity he voiced, question how the disc could have fallen in that slot by mere chance - after all, it was a billion to one. Some other intelligent force must be involved. Obviously there was a 1:1 chance that the disc would fall into a slot. The point is that theists always forget that.

This is another loaded question. The existance of evil is the only thing that can confirm the presense of good.

I disagree. The existence of good is predicated on the existence of evil only if you choose to define either as the opposite of the other, i.e. good is that which is not evil. But such a definition is circular, and therefore uninformative.

If you define good as that which leads to a state in which there is no physical or emotional pain, and evil as that which leads to a state where the opposite is true, then it is possible in principle to have an only-good world. In fact, with advancements in medical science such as the eradication of smallpox, we're already on our way. Granted, as soon as you reach the state where there is no more pain, then pain will lose its meaning, but that doesn't mean the lack of pain will cease to exist.

One can go on and on. Here's another gem:

What if God's plan was for you to interfere with option A, B, or C? Or, what if God doesn't have a plan for the situation at all? Wouldn't being unable to NOT have a plan be an odd limitation to impose upon an all-powerful deity?

I really don't see what you're getting at. What if the creator is in fact a lump of flying spaghetti. But no theist says that, whereas as some theists do say "who are we finite beings to question the infinite god?" You seriously have never heard that line trotted out for any tragedy that comes along? This is just a reductio ad absurdum argument, stating that if it really is true that god does allow bad things to happen for reasons unknowable to us, then a theist would be perfectly justified in choosing the fourth option. Obviously anyone would want to say it's immoral, but how can they if god works in mysterious ways? Maybe option 4 is for the greater good in god's plan.

One could write a similar "quiz" in support of any ideology they wish.

One certainly could. Please show me the ideology which makes claims that are more fantastic, and which has less evidence and reason to back them up, and then states that it posseses something akin to the Mystery of Faith immunity idol whenever it is questioned. As religion does all those things, I think it most assuredly deserves to be the object of satire.

[Aramike]

This is just lampooning theists who say it takes more faith to believe that, the universe came to be the way it is through blind chance than it does to believe in a creator.

The point is, why bother?

Please show me the ideology which makes claims that are more fantastic, and which has less evidence and reason to back them up, and then states that it posseses something akin to the Mystery of Faith immunity idol whenever it is questioned. As religion does all those things, I think it most assuredly deserves to be the object of satire.

Again, why bother?

Until you have the answers and evidence to prove them your beliefs have no more intellectual validity than any others. So, why bother?

Quite frankly, I find many atheists to often be more "dingbatted" than many followers of religion. What's the point of your incitefulness? One can no more prove that there is no deity than one can prove that there is.

So, again, why bother?