Questions for Skeptics and Bible Critics

Quibbler Gets an F

A Response to a Quiz for Skeptics

James Patrick Holding

Word was dropped to me of late that a certain "Quibbler," a known fundy atheist, "answered" our Quiz for Skeptics. From the looks of it someone copied and pasted the list to him, so that out D-links didn't show, so that in a real sense we can't blame Quibbler for not taking our challenge to answer them. But what he does offer is bad enough and exemplary enough of fundy atheist "scholarship" -- Quibbler added his own "E" answer in every case, and many speak for themselves in terms of the rational and scholarly inability of this sector. Still, of course, we have comments.

You walk into the home of a friend in the Ancient Near East. He says, "You have extremely honored me by coming into my abode. I am not worthy of it. This house is yours; you may burn it if you wish. My children are also at your disposal; I would sacrifice them all for your pleasure." What do you do?
1. Burn down his house and kill his children, just like the man says.
2. Call the police and the mental hospital to pick up this obviously sick man.
3. Run screaming from the house.
4. Reply, "I am unworthy of your honor and of being a guest in your home."
Tell the guy that I'm glad to see him too, but that the grovelling and self-effacing melodrama is a bit over the top, even as a charming cultural traditions [sic] go. Not hard to see the orientation from the start. This is an insensitive, bigoted answer, and we will want to be sure that we never make Quibble our ambassador to any Near Eastern country; he'll start a war.
You need to know something about the social world of the New Testament. Who should you ask?
1. No one, because you don't plan on listening to what anyone has to say anyway.
2. Farrell Till
3. One of your Skeptical friends who once attended a speech by Marcus Borg, and even helped set up his sound equipment
4. Bruce Malina or Richard Rohrbaugh
I would go to a real library and choose research from one of hundreds of critical biblical scholars, including theistic and skeptical authors alike. Sure he would. There are actually only a handful of scholars dealing in these issues, and none of them are "skeptical" in orientation. Note as well that "critical" here means, "those who take a view I like."
There is evidence that the pagan deity Mithra was thought to have been crucified and resurrected, but the evidence dates around 400 AD. What does this mean?
1. Obviously, Mithra was an influence on the story of Jesus, and the Christians destroyed or tampered with all the evidence showing this.
2. You have to find a liberal professor of history who will date the evidence earlier.
3. Christians must have been actually followers of Mithra at one time.
4. Mithraism was influenced by Christianity, if anything.
Even if it were true that cults of mithra dated to after the alleged time of Jesus, this does not mean that they necessarily drew on the Jesus story. Furthermore, even if they did draw upon the jesus story, that doesn't make the myth any more believable. It just means that people borrowed from xian mythology in the same way that xians borrowed from jewish mythology and jews borrowed from others. If they didn't draw on the Jesus story, then I suppose it would be merely a coincidence. Quibble otherwise missed the point of the question, perhaps because he does not know how mythers from this camp work. They take allegedly pre-Christian crucified deities as definite evidence that the Jesus story relied on them.
Luke 14:26 has Jesus saying we should hate our family. What is the meaning of this?
1. That's obvious. We're supposed to hate our family. Any other interpretation is an excuse for what the text plainly says.
2. We're supposed to hate our family, but love God. That's kind of masochistic.
3. It's God's 'freebie' because it is the only commandment that I can keep.
4. It's extremist language typical of ancient writers like Poimanes, who said: "If you do not hate your body first, O child, you will not be able to love yourself." In other words, it's hyperbole.
It's just nonsensical gibberish with no clear meaning. We don't really know what Jesus was trying to say and we shouldn't care either. Translation: "I don't like to read or think." If he really wanted to tell us something he would have said it clearly, rather than talking like a **cking fortune cookie. Translation: "If it isn't said like a modern American would say it, it isn't clear." Please pass the white robe sheet with the eyeholes. While it's not believable that Jesus hated his family, he certainly didn't always show his mother, adoptive father or potential siblings much respect at various times. Without specifics, not much can be said, but presumably Quibble means decontextualized arguments like about this.
Why did God order the Amalekites exterminated?
1. Because if left to exist, the Amalekites would later provide scientists with genetic evidence of the 'missing link.'
2. Because Israel wanted their land (called "Amalekiteland"). "God" was just a sick excuse to take it.
3. Because God is a vengeful and spiteful idiot.
4. Because the Amalekites were ruthless warriors and had a long and violent history of aggression against early Israel (and other nations as well), raiding, plundering, and kidnapping them for slave trade.
A through D are correct, but also, the ancient Israelites were barbaric, psychopathic murderers who preferred plunder to honest toil. I guess Quibble doesn't get that A is a joke and that B and C aren't compatible with D. Meanwhile the Nazis and Japanese could have said the same of us with just as much justification.
What sort of religious practices did the Canaanites engage in for hundreds of years?
1. They didn't need to practice because they were already good enough.
2. It doesn't matter. Their religion was as good as anyone else's.
3. They went to church, right?
4. Orgiastic rites, incest, bestiality, and child sacrifices.
They engaged in many of the same rites practiced by the so called Habiru or nomadic Israelite people. Oh? Where is this documented? It isn't. Quibble is confusing different ANE trajectories. The jewish bible confirms that Hebrews adopted many of the same behaviors that the Canaanites did. Uh, yeah, and what does this have to do with what the Canaanites did? Both parties were punished, of course. Even in the xian tradition, god sacrifices his own child, just like the Molech worshippers did in their religion. Um hmm. See here. Big difference between immature child-unwilling victim and mature adult child-willing martyr/hero.
Matthew 2:15 cites Jesus fulfilling a verse in Hosea in his trip to Egypt. But Hosea was talking about Israel. What's up?
1. Hosea mistakenly called Israel God's son when he really should have said God's daughter Israel.
2. Matthew obviously used the text dishonestly.
3. Matthew was using Hosea carelessly.
4. Matthew was using a typical Jewish exegetical procedure.
None of the above. However, Matthew was entirely unjustified in pretending that any prophecy was being fulfilled at all here. No honest reading of Hosea 11:1 indicates that a prophecy is being made of jesus. In any event, this so called "prophecy" would describe anyone who passed through Egypt. That this might have been common literary tradition at the time does not excuse it. Of course. Quibble is judge and jury of valid exegetical procedure, without even knowing what it is. If you disagree, you are dishonest. Case closed. Paine is God.
According to Gen. 30-31, what was the actual cause of Jacob's goats being striped or spotted?
1. Oil paint.
2. Sympathetic magic.
3. Stock market trends.
4. Direct divine intervention as a means of countering Laban's trickery against Jacob.
While some of the answers are possible the fact is that we don't know why the sheep might have turned out like this or even if the story is accurate. There is no evidence, other than the testimony of one or more unknown genesis writers that supports it. Therefore, the status of the claim is dubious at best. Not that the epistemic status of the story was at issue in this question to begin with. Quibble just saw a need to plug his freethinker's epistemology, which is followed consistently would render all historical study worthless as we complain that "there is no evidence, other than the testimony of one or more unknown historical writers that supports it. Therefore, the status of the claim is dubious at best." All of history just went down the toilet with Quibble.
The OT law has a rule about having barriers around your roof. Why?
1. It was to prevent injury to would-be, sue-happy robbers.
2. Because it's just some stupid rule they thought up.
3. It was to make money for the priests, who had a roofing business on the side.
4. It was because ancient people went out on their roof for work and recreation; the barrier was like a balcony railing.
Who gives a **ck? Nobody. Hummm...that's what I thought. He thought wrong. Dennis McKinsey gives one.
In Matt. 6:19-34 Jesus talks about not storing up treasures on earth. This means:
1. Nothing, because Jesus didn't exist.
2. Jesus irresponsibly encouraged us not to save for our retirement.
3. Benny Hinn is in big trouble.
4. Jesus was giving his contemporaries the same advice as other sages of the time, which was the only sensible alternative in an era prior to mutual funds and safe deposit boxes, and when the average lifespan was 35.
While A, B and C are accurate, D is a blatant, dishonest apology. While jesus might have been ignorant of the bank systems operated by the romans, What bank systems? Any branches in Judaea? Don't you love this thorough documentation? Rome did have an advanced banking system, but from the looks of it, it was only from the rich to play with. it was indeed quite possible to store wealth with a fair amount of security. No, it wasn't. The scholars disagree entirely, as the link shows. Quibble is just doing the usual, "yeah I say so" tactic these sorts engage for lack of knowledge. Additionally, whether jesus is plagiarizing the works of sages or not, Who said anything about plagiarizing? Paralleling, yes. his advice is ludicrous and rather poorly argued. Yep, all the sages were dumb as dirt and only Quibble knows how we really should have lived in the first century. Amen! Lifespan is not really relevant here, though, if anything, a shorter lifespan should behoove people to indulge now, while they can. It is relevant indeed, and Quibble as much as admits it, for a more "party down" form of the reasons we give in the link.
What do you think of Luke 6:29-30? ("Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.")
1. I think it means I'm gonna find me a Christian and take all his money.
2. I think it's a little unreasonable.
3. I think passages like this make Benny Hinn very joyful.
4. I think it makes sense in a time when there were no police to administer justice for the average person and the only recourse would have initiated a cycle of violence.
Again, while A, B, and C are fairly accurate, D is just laughable nonsense. That's the word from Quibble, Ph. D. in Ancient History and NT Studies. Among other things it suggests that the supposedly eternal wisdom of jebus actually has a rather finite shelf life. Uh, well, who said that the application of the wisdom was eternal to begin with? So if Jesus advised people to keep away from dodo birds, and his advice "expired" when dodos became extinct, does that mean he was stupid for saying it? it also suggests that many of the ideas of jesus are outdated. Yes, and so what? Applications of those words are in certain cases outdated. So is Quibble saying that laws regulating the use of velocipedes were stupid because the creators of the laws didn't anticipate that they would cease to exist at some point? All kinds of things might have seemed reasonable under certain circumstances in the time of jesus. But because he does not properly spell out those qualifications, he ends up giving very bad advice to people reading him today. The qualifications don't need to be spelled out. This is Quibble the low context reader reading a high context text from a high context society in which qualifications could be taken for granted as implied.
Lev. 11:19 says that the bat is a bird. This means:
1. The Bible is clearly in error. A bat is a mammal.
2. Bats are actually birds, or secretly want to be.
3. Jesus didn't exist.
4. Translators have unwittingly anachronized by imposing a category of distinction upon the text that didn't exist at the time.
It doesn't really matter what distinctions existed at the time. You heard it, folks, "it doesn't really matter" because modern systems are superior in every way, shape or form for anyone, including for the purposes of agricultural peasants who would have lived far better lives had they only had a complete list of all the Latin names of animals. A bat is quite clearly nothing like a bird and certainly a divine holy book would manage to make this distinction known. Bats are homoplasic with birds (i.e. they appear to have similar features such as wings, but these are not based on descent). Uh huh. So first Quibble says bats are "clearly nothing like a bird" but then says that they appear to have similar features. Nothing like the subtle art of self-contradiction, especially in adjoining sentences. Apologists like to claim that the bible got it right about rabbits "chewing their cud" when in fact they perform refection upon certain kinds of fecal matter. But now, when it's obvious that there is no way to make a bird actually like a bat, they play a language and culture game. You heard it here, references to language and culture are a "game". The Journal of Roman Studies and books on ancient anthropology are filled with crossword puzzles. Authorial intent means zip. Of course on the rabbit see here.
What was a primary source for language and concepts describing the doctrine of the Trinity?
1. Pagan religions.
2. Overactive imaginations.
3. The Nicene Creed.
4. Pre-NT Jewish Wisdom traditions.
The ***** of bible apologists trying to explain away other manifest translation problems in the old testament and bizarre claims made by Jesus in the New Testament. There you have it. Quibble's scholarship in a nutshell. Just throw out vague references to "translation problems" and "bizarre claims" and sit back munching popcorn with Jed Clampett.
In 1999, a Biblical scholar wrote a paper for a peer-reviewed scholarly journal of Biblical studies in which he argued for a new and better understanding of a certain Hebrew word. How should we react?
1. Ignore it, because it is obviously impossible that anyone could have new linguistic insights into an ancient language.
2. Ignore it, because the 1611 KJV says what the word means, and that's good enough for me.
3. Check to see if the author teaches at a fundamentalist Bible college.
4. Attempt to find contrary evidence if we can.
All of the above. Uh huh. Whatever. So Latin studies too are a waste of time.
What does Proverbs 26:4-5 tell us?
1. The writer was suffering from bipolar disorder
2. The writer was a mean-spirited person who called people fools
3. Proverbs was written by at least three sources: the Mind Your Own Business source, the Loud and Obnoxious source, and a later redactor, all dating to at least to after the Council at Carthage.
4. The passage is describing a dilemma, not two absolutes.
The author of this question probably means "multiple personality disorder" rather than bipolar disorder in option A. No, they don't. They mean bipolar. B is correct, but may not be the only answer. Yep, challenge and riposte used in other cultures makes them all a bunch of meanies. C is a possible theory He actually thinks it is possible. Amazing. and D is a non-answer that also happens to be wrong. Yep, tell that to all the specialist in the ANE who study stuff like The Man Who Was Tired of Life. It actually doesn't matter whether a fool thinks himself wise or not. Verse 15 also indicates that sluggards think themselves wise, but it does not require that one debate with them. As far as the first sentiment in verse 4, it is ridiculous to think that one loses wisdom by talking to a fool. Nothing of the kind appears to actually happen. Quibble perhaps wouldn't know the difference.
According to the Bible, how big are stars?
1. It depends on the size of their egos.
2. About 2 foot by 4 foot.
3. They're tiny objects that could easily fall onto the ground of Earth.
4. Some of them are tiny objects that could fall to Earth, because the ancients also used the word for "stars" to refer to meteorites, but the Bible doesn't offer a detailed cosmology otherwise that shows it to be in error (though it does use non-literal, poetic and apocalyptic language at times).
The bible doesn't make a distinction between stars and meteorites because it doesn't appear to be aware that there is any distinction. Sure there is. Meteorites are falling stars. Surely an all knowing god could have easily corrected this misconception in his holy book. "Surely an all knowing god could have kissed my rear to cover my ignorance 2000 years later." Yep. Meanwhile Quibble would have God talk about meteorites when the average NT person has other concerns.
According to the Bible, when was Jesus born?
1. He wasn't. He didn't exist.
2. 0 A. D.
3. 6 or 7 A. D.
4. 8-4 B. C.
While A is technically correct, Uh huh. See here of course. according to the mythology he was likely born sometime around 0 AD, plus or minus 4-6 years. Since the jesus character could have been based in part on other characters, they could have been pretty much born at any time before the gospels were actually written. Okey doke.
One Gospel says that Heli was Joseph's father. The other says Jacob. What's the deal?
1. Obviously, these people can't keep simple facts straight.
2. It's like one of those "Heather has Two Mommies" things.
3. His Dad's name was "Jacob Heli Smith."
4. They are from different sides of the family and both are legitimately used in accord with the proper ancient use of genealogies and other relevant social factors.
This different sides of the family stuff is ridiculous. "I know nothing about how ancient genealogies were composed or used." If this is the case then the bible is woefully incomplete. So are other ancient genealogies. And why is this a problem at all? We are told in genesis about who begat whom, but they apparently forget to tell us about the other side of the family. I wonder why that is? See the links. The ancients apologize for not anticipating Quibble's ignorance.
You find a Hebrew manuscript showing a discrepancy in the number of horse stalls Solomon had between the Kings and Chronicles accounts. The obvious conclusion is:
1. Christianity has been thoroughly refuted. In fact, Jesus did not exist.
2. This only proves Solomon did not exist.
3. This proves writers were beefing up Solomon's accomplishments, since having so many horse stalls shows what a great king he was and they were trying to make him look better by adding a zero.
4. There was a minor scribal error, in which the evidence suggests an extra zero was added. This does not affect critical doctrines.
A scribal error is still an error. So much for fundamentalists who claim biblical inerrancy. So much for Quibble's knowledge of the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy. No one claims Biblical inerrancy for anything past the originals, except KJV Onlyists. No surprise that Quibble the fundy atheist has no conception of any other type of inerrancy.
What shape is the Earth, according to the Bible?
1. Flat as a pancake.
2. Square as Farrell Till.
3. Hexagonal as the Pentagon.
4. The Bible's language is equivocal and non-specific about such things, as we would expect.
Actually the depiction was that of an upside down bowl, surrounded by water on all sides. The Earth was said to be this? Quibble is perhaps confusing the Earth with the alleged "firmament".
A hypothetical group of self-styled scholars forms a seminar of sorts and, beginning with the assumption that Jesus could not have said anything eschatological in nature, uses colored beads to sift through the gospels and declare which passages are probably not the actual words of Jesus. In the end, they are left with a thoroughly non-eschatological Jesus. They are:
1. Gods whose word is not to be doubted under any circumstances.
2. Brilliant, mainstream scholars who dispassionately and objectively glean the truth of the Bible.
3. A brave, minority voice for rational tolerance in our modern era, making contributions to the quest of finding the historical Jesus.
4. Probably still in kindergarten.
They are about as qualified as any other religious council or seminar. Oh, please, no, Quibble -- don't bother to get up from your La Z Boy; Richard Hays and Philip Jenkins will come to you....
According to the Bible, how are we saved?
1. In little plastic baggies.
2. Faith alone.
3. Works.
4. A real faith that produces works, expressed in line with the Semitic Totality Concept.
By rolling a natural one on a d20. Otherwise you take half damage. "I have no answer, so here's a joke. What do you get when you cross a Quibble with a Persian rug?"
Christmas celebrations include trees. Which of the following is true?
1. Jesus was crucified on a Christmas tree, just like Odin and Krishna.
2. Christmas is a thoroughly pagan holiday, proving that Christianity copied all of its ideas from a pagan religion.
3. Jeremiah prophesied about the use of the trees, proving it was written long after Constantine.
4. This is completely irrelevant to any discussion of Christian beliefs.
Xians certainly celebrate xmas and claim it as their own holiday. They love that, "Jesus is the reason for the season", when really it has more to do with the axial tilt of the Earth. When pressed to explain the tree and the holly and the yule log they don't have a ****ing clue. But that doesn't stop them from attempting to co-opt the holiday and demanding that non-xians refrain from gift giving around this time of year. That sure was relevant, wasn't it? And who told Quibble to refrain from gift-giving outside his own paranoid little corner of the world?
Enuma Elish provides a creation account of Apsu and Tiamat giving birth to Anshar and Kishar, who bears Anu, who bears Ea, but Ea kills Apsu, Marduk is born, Tiamat takes Kingu as husband, Ea loses to Tiamat, as does Anu, and Marduk cuts Tiamat's body in half, forming the sky and earth. Which of the following is true?
1. Obviously, the entire Genesis account is copied from it.
2. In fact, the name Marduk spelled sideways in some ancient language is Yahweh.
3. Indeed, there is no way anyone could have written a creation story without copying it from somewhere.
4. Genesis is nothing like this story and may have even been written to counter the false notions of its contemporary pagan creation myths.
Genesis clearly incorporates certain legendary stories from the enuma elish and from other ancient literature. The link shows otherwise. It was never claimed that the stories are identical, though the flood story is strikingly similar and other stories, such as that of the garden of eden and the fall of man are also found in pre-Hebrew mythology. Hmm. Couldn't suggest a common source in real history, could it? Nah....
Hume noted that a savage who had never seen ice would be rational not to believe its existence. Which conclusion is true?
1. Relativism is absolute truth.
2. Empirical truth always leads to proper conclusions.
3. Experience is a great teacher.
4. Maybe we should reevaluate his definition of "rational".
Hume appears to be right, at least in this case. You heard it here. Believe in ice without seeing it and you're stupid.
Christians must all be wrong because they cannot agree on something like the procedures for and recipients of baptism. Applying this same standard, which conclusion is produced?
1. Fish cannot exist because we cannot decide whether to use English or Latin names for them.
2. The weather does not exist because we cannot agree on accurate prediction of it.
3. Chocolate cake does not exist because no one can agree on how many cups of flour to use.
4. Evolution cannot be right because scientists do not agree on the mechanism for natural selection and ancestry of various species.
None of the above. In fact scientists can agree that natural selection occurs through many well known and documented mechanisms. For example, sound bites. The point is, they don't agree. Gradualism and punctuated equilibrium and Lamarckianism are mutually exclusive.
1 Corinthians 7:1 says it is good for a man not to touch a woman. This means:
1. Paul did approve of men touching other men.
2. We should stone men who accidentally touch women.
3. As they say in kindergarten, "Keep your hands to yourself."
4. It is a figure of speech for sexual intercourse.
Quibble only offers a crude sexual comment. Need we note more?
1 Samuel 20:41 says, "And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times; and they (i.e., Jonathan and David) kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded..." This means:
1. David and Jonathan were gay lovers.
2. David and Jonathan were talking about the latest episode of The Young and the Restless.
3. David and Jonathan were weirdos who cried in public.
4. David and Jonathan were expressing the sort of intense emotion typical of Easterners even today.
There isn't agreement as to what it means. It is possible that David and Jonathan had a thing for each other. David was certainly sufficiently over-sexed for this to be a live possibility. The link proves otherwise. Enough said. But in reality it doesn't matter much since the weight of evidence doesn't support the existence of either one. Yep, them inscriptions mentioning the House of David are just a fundy conspiracy. Actually no one in the ancient world existed; they were all myths.
A man on the street is running around with a sign that says, "JESUS IS COMING! YOU WILL BURN!" The obvious conclusion is that:
1. All Christians run around with signs that say, "JESUS IS COMING! YOU WILL BURN!"
2. Some law in the Bible requires people to type with all capital letters.
3. If Jesus does not come in the next 5 minutes, Christianity must be false.
4. One should stay a few hundred feet away from this individual, whose eschatology is not particularly sophisticated anyway.
Quibble proposed doing violence to the man. There's humanist love for you.
A skeptic remarks on the intellectual bankruptcy of religions and is applauded for his rationalism. A Christian remarks on the intellectual bankruptcy of skepticism and is:
1. Mentally ill.
2. A judgmental, intolerant, hateful fanatic.
3. Resorting to ad hominem attacks.
4. Contending for rational faith.
I didn't know that "religions" or "skepticism" could file for bankruptcy. What did they spend all their money on? Quibble has never heard of "bankruptcy" used to refer to intellectualism....case in point.
In one place Jesus says the disciples can take a staff (Mark 6:8); elsewhere he says they can't (Matt. 10:10, Luke 9:1-6). The obvious conclusion:
1. These people can't even keep something this simple straight.
2. Staves were out of fashion when Matt and Luke wrote.
3. Someone had stolen all of the Christians' staves at Mark's time.
4. We need to look more closely at the linguistic data.
Xians need to stop lying to defend their erroneous myths about jesus. Nothing like a relevant comment to settle the issue!
A Christian tells you that willful sin is open rebellion that will lead to eternal damnation unless you repent. Your response is:
1. "Good. I plan on breaking each one of the Ten Commandments."
2. "Phooey! Sin is an artificial construct created by authority figures to keep the masses in line."
3. "Why can't God just forgive sin?"
4. "Well, that makes sense, because any sin is infinitely evil before an infinitely holy and just God, though at least the punishment will be according to deeds done in life."
None of the above. Sin is not infinitely evil just because a supposedly infinite being is judging it. By that standard, sin would be a chocolate fudge sunday [sic] if god happened to be hungry. That made so much sense I almost converted! Most so called sins are not even covered in the ten commandments. For example, if homosexuality is so evil then why wasn't it covered in the decalog [sic]. What makes the Decalogue the only location sins can be recorded? The likely answer though is that homosexuality was relatively rare among the denizens of the ANE. In any event, sins are often committed against other people, not god. How does stealing an apple from farmer John become god's business all of a sudden? The answer is that it doesn't. Torah was made up by lying humans. It does whether Quibble likes it or not. How does stealing an apple from farmer John become the police's business? Never heard of crimes also being against society, eh? This is what I mean when I say people like this have no sense of the holy.
A spacecraft, clearly not from earth, is found on the moon. Some claim that it must have been designed by aliens. You respond by saying:
1. "That is not a scientific explanation, since there is no scientific evidence that aliens exist. That aliens exist is just some people's unverifiable belief. Science cannot comment on what is not verifiable."
2. "If we accept that aliens exist, then any unexplained phenomenon can be attributed to aliens and scientific progress will stop. It will literally be alien-of-the-gaps."
3. "Aliens are just something you imagine as a psychological crutch."
4. "Only aliens could have designed this, so obviously aliens exist."
E. None of the above. A is obviously flawed because the craft is possible evidence for the existence of aliens, contrary to the assertion. And he doesn't get the parody.... B is ridiculous because we are not using the craft to explain anything. We aren't? Not to explain how it came to be what and where it is? C is contradicted by the evidence So is the claim it parodies. and D is only true once we dismiss the possibility that the evidence has been staged and/or that other humans have not manipulated and misinterpreted key data. Yep. Now who was it who staged or manipulated the universe? Speak up!
What is a 'straw man'?
1. A good accusation to make when you become confused during a debate.
2. A farmer who sells it.
3. A man without a brain.
4. Something frequently burned by Skeptics.
Something that theists fight against rather than having to face the actual arguments of atheists. For example, this whole questionnaire is a series of straw men. Never mind that they all reflect actual answers atheists Skeptics have offered. Quibble needs to get our more and talk to his friends.
How much of a skeptic are you? When you suddenly smell smoke, you...
1. Doubt that there is a fire, and to avoid dealing with the conclusion that there is one, hypothesize that you suddenly have a rare disease.
2. Tell the fireman who informs you that your house is on fire, "Yeah, right," and return to your TV program.
3. Accuse the fireman of threatening you with the fire because he told you that you will burn unless you vacate.
4. Assume that your wife is done cooking dinner. (Our special thanks to the woman who contributed this answer. )
There is no substitute for seeing the smoke and flames with one's own eyes. The smoke may very well be coming from the neighbor's backyard, where he is burning weeds. Yep, this in spite of B, huh? One is loath to believe in invisible, smokeless, odorless fires exist and likewise is skeptical about invisible gods. Oops, it says above, you smell smoke. That's typical: Pretend the evidence doesn't exist.
What do you consider sufficient proof of evolution?
1. It's so obvious that some animals look like other animals. That's all the proof I need.
2. All the scientists say that's what happened and I doubt that they could be wrong about such a thing.
3. The fossil record.
4. A fast forward videotape of Australopithecus evolving into my next-door neighbor.
Theories are never proven. Sound bites are often administered.
What do you consider sufficient proof of Christ's resurrection?
1. No amount of evidence would be sufficient because everyone knows that dead people never come back to life.
2. A videotape that recorded the event.
3. All the Christians believe in it and I doubt that many people could be wrong about such a thing.
4. The gospel accounts, which were written within the lifespan of those who would easily be able to dispute such an extraordinary claim and which would have been seriously challenged in the social world of the NT, had it not occurred.
Jesus isn't a theory. Huh? What's the relevance of this comment? But I will start with the same proof demanded by the apostle Thomas and go from there. And shall likewise be chastised for being so snotty. Strangely, Thomas didn't believe the sworn testimony of the other apostles. This suggests that their accounts might not have been altogether reliable, if we are to believe this story to begin with. Um, yeah, couldn't be that Thomas was being irrational in his demands, could it? According to Quibble, that part is believable; the rest isn't because it's not convenient. If they were so unreliable, why was Thomas even still hanging with them?
In Numbers 31, Moses ordered his army officers to kill all of the male children, kill all of the nonvirgin females, but to save alive all of the virgin girls for his troops. This means:
1. Moses was a perverted sicko, and so is God, and so are you for believing this stuff.
2. Israel was letting little girls join the army.
3. The Israelites needed someone to cook dinner for them after 40 years of manna.
4. The Israelites were mercifully absorbing these young girls into their population.
Quibble only offers a crude sexual comment. For the second time. That's so much easier than a detailed study of life in the ANE, isn't it?
You live in a world with multitudes of vastly different belief systems with many different kinds of beliefs within those systems, one of which happens to be evangelical Christianity. What does this mean?
1. Atheism, by its rational existence, automatically renders all other worldviews false and irrational.
2. We should throw our hands up in the air and say, Why bother? We'll never know what is really true and what isn't.
3. It is only truth if you can feel it.
4. We should systematically investigate the claims of each worldview, from the monotheistic religions to atheism to eastern religions and others, and deduce from the evidence which belief system is most logical and has the "ring of truth" to it.
You might want to investigate some world views. But the most important thing is to think for yourself and develop your own philosophy that works for you. Oh. So if it "works" it is true. That makes sense. It's option C. If this coincides with a particular religion then you have probably done something wrong. Hmm, we couldn't be showing a little bitterness, could we? It's also A.
Since there is no classical historian at all that believes Jesus Christ was a myth, which of the following is true?
1. Skeptic philosophers and professors of German are more qualified to comment on history than those who have spent almost a decade learning history and the methodology of assessing historical claims
2. Degrees in historical studies must be written on toilet paper
3. Christmas trees prove that Christianity is a pagan mythology!
4. This is a valid appeal to authority, so they are probably right that there was a historical Jesus
This is not a valid appeal to authority. You heard it here. Appealing to qualified, educated historians is not valid. Consult Quibble instead! Xians had a very bad habit of destroying or rewriting "evidence" that contradicted their beliefs. Ah yes, the usual bit of butter -- see here. And of course Quibble somehow knows what all these destroyed and rewritten documents originally said? In any event, what counts is specific evidence that jesus actually did the things claimed. The name jesus was a common one and I'm sure that someone of that name existed. He might have even taken some actions similar to jesus. But the real question is whether this person's life matches the bible closely enough to determine that in fact there was an historical jesus. That can only be determined by solid evidence, of which xians have none. See link above. And of course, the Gospels are excluded automatically by virtue of them not supporting Quibble's point. Never mind explaining why.
Hume taught that anything that it is irrational to believe in something that doesn't conform to personal experience. Your reaction should be:
1. Preach on, brutha Hume!
2. Hume is a god!
3. I certainly can't disagree with that
4. The "uniform experience" Hume decided on was based on circular reasoning, since in order to establish it, he had to assume a priori that miracle eyewitness testimonies where false.
Hume does not necessarily rule out the experience of miracles. It's just that most people do not experience miracles and lacking such experiences people are being irrational in expressing confidence that they do occur. Once more, the fine art of contradicting yourself in consecutive sentences. We might recommend a recent book out there titled Hume's Abject Failure.
You find that, so far, Theoretical Physicists are unable to reconcile Quantum Physics and Relativity. What do you do?
1. You decide all science is bogus, and join a New Age, pantheistic cult.
2. You decide that science is really only a social construct designed to keep straight, white, European males in power as an excuse to oppress everyone else.
3. Look for an essay by Isaac Asimov on the subject
4. You decide that more research by scientists will eventually find the deeper truths underlying both theories.
Options A through D are possible, but none are guaranteed to be correct. That's the way -- avoid answering and giving a positive alternative!
You wish to refute material on this site or in the links above. What is the proper course of action?
1. Quote this site's mission statement. That proves everything on it is worthless.
2. Note that this site solicits financial support. That proves everything on it is worthless.
3. Get a bunch of your grumpy Skeptical friends together to create counter-parodies of this quiz, and ignore the other approximately 1,000 items on this site as much as you can.
4. All of the above, because you can't refute actually refute any of it.
This is not a parody. Also, I didn't get together with anyone to answer these. In short, he doesn't get the joke, which is fine in this case. But I have refuted pretty much every question in this survey. Yep. Just a sound bite at a time. No sources needed! I'm not surprised that a theist would try to add an unfalsifiable clause to the end of his ludicrous ravings. That that doesn't make any of his nonsensical theistic gibberish actually true. Um hm. Well, Quibble, just drop us a line at jphold@earthlink.net and we'll take you on head to head and see who buckles under pressure. Remember to read the links this time.