Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

That narrow band of fabric that does the damage up the crack has for ever since been called the Gozer Strip.

The quiz seemed to be JCI specific. That is unfortunate.

Ahtman wrote:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Cheque's in the post Cannerus

There was a quiz on TV called Family Fortunes
Contestants have to give answers that 100 members of the public had answered.

Q: Name characters in the Bible whose name begins with J.

Joseph
Jacob
Jeremiah
Joshua
Jezebell
Top answer was...
oh erm ...
what could possibly be that top answer?


seriously they didn't get it

But in the Latin alphabet, "Jehovah" begins with an "I".

Funny story about that, I was looking for the grail this one time and...

7/10, indonesia got me along with 2 others that I can't remember...

The bit asking if the "golden rule" was one of the ten commandments made me lol

I got nine out of ten, I am understandably rusty on Supreme Court rulings.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:That narrow band of fabric that does the damage up the crack has for ever since been called the Gozer Strip.

Oh my God, dude. That was too funny.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:That narrow band of fabric that does the damage up the crack has for ever since been called the Gozer Strip.

Most excellent.

Christian (LDS) 8/10. I had a brain fart on the sabbath one. I knew the jewish day begins at dark hence the sabbath started on friday...

Hordini wrote:

In a similar vein, I heard a lot of "Christians believe this and that" and most of the time I felt it was hugely simplified and horribly misrepresented. Of course, I also hear many other Christians say "Muslims believe this and that" or "Buddhists believe this and that" and so on, and it infuriates me because it's the exact same kind of misrepresentation, and most of the time they have no idea what they're talking about.

Yeah I love it when people tell me what I believe. That's my favorite. And belonging to one of the most misrepresented religions out there it's happened far too often.
Having had many religious discussions, I find that often people find out enough about a religion to bash because they are insecure in their own religion (or lack thereof) and will use out of context passages, quotes, what their preachers/professor tells them,etc. as a shield against having an intelligent conversation which they fear will cause them to doubt their current beliefs. I'm not pointing fingers at any one group- there are plenty of people in any group that fit this bill.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:That's not the fault of atheism Hordini, that is the fault of ignorance
Pretty much my earlier point about general knowledge.

Another factor is that a lot of people in the UK who only see a church at Christenings, weddings and funerals pop CofE on forms. They may say they are Church of England and believe in God but little religious knowledge.

No sarky coments about Anglicans and belief in God please, too easy a target

Budda budda budda!

I always list myself as CofE because it saves a lot of time.

I don't believe in God, or at best I am an agnostic. I have quite a lot of religious knowledge, having gone to Sunday School, Divinity class, preparation for confirmation and also taking an interest in other religions.

Hatches, matches, and dispatches!

Agnostic 8/10. Brainfart on Sabbath and Supreme Court.

Had to do an educated guess on the Supreme Court question.

Heads Yes
Tails No
The God of Coin Tossers smiled upon me in the moment of that flick of the thumb!

A 15 question sample provided by pew.

http://features.pewforum.org/quiz/us-religious-knowledge/index.php?q=16

14/15. Missed the Great Awakening one. The sabbath one is easy, I simply remembered watching Hebrew Hammer and the Jews all shutting down and going to sleep at 7 PM on Friday.

Here's the full test (you have to self score) if anyone is up for it. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0928/Are-you-smarter-than-an-atheist-A-religious-quiz/When-does-the-Jewish-Sabbath-begin

30/32 on the actual thing. Automatically took the Great Awakening one off since I missed it the first time. I missed the Maimonides one, sounded middle eastern so I guessed Hindu. I don't know why really.

10/10 for this atheist. Thank you Comparative Religion 101.

Most people -- regardless of whether they are religious, agnostic, or atheist -- don't base their beliefs on any sort of informed study, knowledge or reason. Most people base their belief on purely emotional reasoning.

For every atheist I know who rejects religion for logical reasons, I know a half dozen who reject religion because they are shocked, embarrassed, disgusted and offended by the behavior of religious people -- which is fairly understandable, I think, given how fruitcake insane a lot of evangelicals are. Not to mention the rampant hypocrisy of religious leaders, etc.

By the same measure though, for every Christian I know who is Christian because they believe Christianity makes the most sense, I know thirty who are Christian because their parents were Christian. These people tend to know nothing at all about Christianity.

Most Christians I know fall into two camps: hate-filled, judgmental bigots who latch onto some parts of the bible in order to justify hating someone else (usually gays), and generally nice, caring, decent people who think Jesus is a giant fluffy bunny that grants wishes and makes sure good things happen to good people. Neither group is particularly interested in knowing anything about religion.

Many Christians I know, possibly because I move in very liberal circles, are actually humanists based on their beliefs, and only believe in a God that is undefined, indefinable, inactive, distant and essentially absent. In fact, I would argue that someone claiming to be Christian is such a meaningless statement that it contains no information value at all. You can literally believe anything and still believe you are a Christian. Which is why I'm skeptical of studies that find that 80% of Americans are Christian.

As for agnostic, almost every single agnostic I've ever met (I actually can't think of a single one I've met who this isn't true of) are not agnostic because that is actually rational, but because they've been intimidated into an agnostic positions by haters of atheism who insist that all atheists are arrogant fundamentalists. But the reality is that most agnostic are just being intellectually dishonest. They give God a special pass, an exemption from normal logic that allows them to sit on the fence, but can't really be justified -- and isn't extended to anything else.

What I mean is that I never encounter agnostics who think it can't be known if Thor, leprechauns, unicorns, magic, the Easter Bunny, or any other supernatural entity exists and thus we must sit on the fence. For all these entities that complete lack of evidence of their existence is sufficient for them to agree that such things do not exist. But apply the same reasoning to God, and suddenly they aren't so sure.

Which is funny to me. Because I have been called arrogant, presumptive, and a fundamentalists for saying that god doesn't exist, but I've never been called that for saying unicorns don't exist. Even though there is exactly the same amount of evidence for the existence of unicorns as for God, and the evidence against unicorns is exactly the same.

You saying the mighty Thor, God of Thunder and wielder of the Wyrm slayer, Mjollnir, doesn't exist?

He who topples mountains with a single swing and drinks mead from the skulls of his enemies is superstitious hokey?

The protector of Midgard, champion of Asgard, the Son of one-eyed Odin is nothing but fairy tale told to children?!? Sir you are only fit to have your skull caved in by greater men on their path to Valhalla.

Get Shadowbrand in here.

He knows a thing or two about Thor!

avantgarde wrote:You saying the mighty Thor, God of Thunder and wielder of the Wyrm slayer, Mjollnir, doesn't exist?

He who topples mountains with a single swing and drinks mead from the skulls of his enemies is superstitious hokey?

The protector of Midgard, champion of Asgard, the Son of one-eyed Odin is nothing but fairy tale told to children?!? Sir you are only fit to have your skull caved in by greater men on their path to Valhalla.

I'm saying it is as likely that Thor exists as it is that fellow Marvel comic star Spider-man exists.

Monster Rain wrote:Get Shadowbrand in here.

He knows a thing or two about Thor!

Add that to the list of buttons dakka needs.

A frazzled alert button and now a shadowbrand alert button

Thor may not exist as a anthropomorphic mighty ale swigging, trough guzzling god.
He does represent a relationship between humans and nature, whereas Spidey is someone who swings in his jim-jams. But hey, whatever. I'm broadminded.

Gailbraithe wrote:
Which is funny to me. Because I have been called arrogant, presumptive, and a fundamentalists for saying that god doesn't exist, but I've never been called that for saying unicorns don't exist. Even though there is exactly the same amount of evidence for the existence of unicorns as for God, and the evidence against unicorns is exactly the same.

I dont think those insults have anything to do with your religious affiliation, per se....

4/10. I remembered Bethlehem from those Christmas songs in elementary school, the other three I got were lucky guesses. never read a bible, or been to a church. The closest thing I came was when I washed dishes at a bible camp one summer.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Thor may not exist as a anthropomorphic mighty ale swigging, trough guzzling god.
He does represent a relationship between humans and nature, whereas Spidey is someone who swings in his jim-jams. But hey, whatever. I'm broadminded.

How about we compromise, and agree that Thor is an archetypal character used to convey concepts about a culture and its values through a story-telling medium, and so is Spider-man.

Gailbraithe wrote:

avantgarde wrote:You saying the mighty Thor, God of Thunder and wielder of the Wyrm slayer, Mjollnir, doesn't exist?

He who topples mountains with a single swing and drinks mead from the skulls of his enemies is superstitious hokey?

The protector of Midgard, champion of Asgard, the Son of one-eyed Odin is nothing but fairy tale told to children?!? Sir you are only fit to have your skull caved in by greater men on their path to Valhalla.

I'm saying it is as likely that Thor exists as it is that fellow Marvel comic star Spider-man exists.

Wouldn't it be easier to disprove spider man since you could just google all the peter parkers, kidnap them and subject them to genetic testing to determine if they have super powers?

Just as I thought predictions for this thread were not going to come to pass...
If we can just steer clear of the prosleytising please chaps it may keep ticking along nicely a while longer


Automatically Appended Next Post:
lol
Is that even legal Brock?
It might be fun, well, maybe not for all the peter Parkers

agree. so far only one person seems to be interested in getting that whole gak storm started. hopefully no one else.

re Spidey
Yeah it's a tricky one as I am not well versed enough in such studies Gailbraithe
Gut feeling is that the impetus for Mythological beings such as Thor come from a wholly different level of thought than that of literary figures.

Am sure that it can be well argued that both are constructs of the imagination in response to external stimuli and internal impusles.
Which they are but in a way it is the distinction between Myth and Folktale?

BrockRitcey wrote:Wouldn't it be easier to disprove spider man since you could just google all the peter parkers, kidnap them and subject them to genetic testing to determine if they have super powers?

That assumes a literal reading of the comic book. If one can't reasonably expect believers in God to believe every little thing in the bible is true, and no one has challenged Hordini or Wraithlordmechanic on that point, then one can't reasonably expect Amazing Spider-Fans to believe every single thing in every single issue is canon. I mean true. Amazing Spider-Fan's totally get to pick and choose what they want to believe, that way you can never, ever pin them down on anything. That way one can believe that the comic book claims that no one knows Spider-man's identity, yet almost everyone clearly knows that Peter Parker is Spider-man, so clearly Peter Parker cannot be Spider-man's secret ID, and be not at all bothered by the torturous logic of that argument.

Much like one could believe Thor exists in some sense, despite the fact that the aurora borealis is not a rainbow bridge to asgard. You totally get to pick and choose what is true. That's the great thing about religion.

BrockRitcey wrote: ...google all the peter parkers, kidnap them and subject them to genetic testing to determine if they have super powers?

What do you think the US govenment has been doing all these years to unsuspecting citizens? Kidnapping them in those "grey alien" suits and shoving probes into their rectal cavities to test their DNA.

They aren't testing for DNA
They are looking for spinarets.
This is what I don't get, we all know that they are in his wrists.

But if he was a true spideyman, he would squirt the webs out of his jacksie

The US military is already working on(well, sponsoring research) spiderman technology.

They have already unlocked the fearsome powers of Spider-Goat

Edit: Ooh,400 posts!

Gailbraithe
I'm tempted to respond to your ideas from a theist perspective..... your carefully reasoned and insightful views on politics lead me to believe such a conversation would be deeply profitable for all involved......

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Gailbraithe
I'm tempted to respond to your ideas from a theist perspective..... your carefully reasoned and insightful views on politics lead me to believe such a conversation would be deeply profitable for all involved......

Nah, I'll just annoy you, because I'm constitutionally incapable of taking a theist perspective seriously, and I'll piss you off by mocking the whole enterprise by referencing otherkin, the flying spaghetti monster, Eris and the aneristic principle, and, of course, the ever-present, invisible, intangible unicorns that are the basis of my faith.

Theists can't do the one thing that would make me take the proposition of theism seriously -- provide a definition of god that is relevant to living and empirically testable -- and consequently I don't take theist perspectives seriously.