Interesting Religion/Logic quiz...

[vi edit]

http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm

I sucked at it the first time I did it. Maybe read *too* far into the questions. Anywhoo...for the closet philosophers and just curious in general, it's certainly worth a couple minutes of your time.

 

[nd]

<< Congratulations! You have made it to the end of this activity.

You took zero direct hits and you bit 2 bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.29 hits and bites 1.07 bullets. 32889 people have so far undertaken this activity.

Click the link below for further analysis of your performance and to see if you've won an award. >>

I disagreed with the "bullets" that I bit... it made some assumptions about my thinking that were not true. Everything I answered was logically consistent, though

Excerpt from bitten bullet #1: There is no logical inconsistency in your answers. But by denying that the absence of evidence, even where it has been sought, is enough to justify belief in the non-existence of things, you are required to countenance possibilities that most people would find bizarre. For example, do you really want to claim that it is not rationally justified to believe that intelligent aliens do not live on Mars? - I don't think I'm that bizarre here, despite my claims in my answers. It's NOT rationally justified to believe that intelligent aliens absolutely, without a doubt do not live on Mars. However, that doesn't mean I won't admit that it PROBABLY isn't true based on lack of suggestive evidence. I'm simply accepting the fact that although it seems unlikely, you can't be 100% certain.

Excerpt from bitten bullet #2: You've just bitten a bullet! You are consistent in applying the principle that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity this conviction. The problem is that it seems you have to accept that people might be justified in their belief that God could demand something terrible. - What I really indicated was that they are justified in believing that they are doing the right thing, not justified from society's perspective to violate someone else's rights. They can believe what they want, but will still have to deal with the consequences of society.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

You took zero direct hits and you bit 1 bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.29 hits and bites 1.07 bullet. 32912 people have so far undertaken this activity.

 

[vi edit]

I took it a second time, answering the questions the way that *I* wanted to instead of how the quiz wanted me to and I only bit one bullet.

I do not agree with them on their views on evolution. I think that the evidence of evolution FAR outweighs anything we have on the existance of god.

 

[bandXtrb]

<< You took 1 direct hit and you bit 1 bullets. >>

 

[Optimus]

Background:
Well, I'm pretty much known here as the resident Catholic - and all my answers were in line with the nature of my beliefs, which are %100 in line with Catholicism.

Results:



<< Congratulations!
You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity being hit only once and biting no bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are well thought out and almost entirely internally consistent.

The direct hit you suffered occurred because one set of your answers implied a logical contradiction. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analysis of your direct hit. You would have bitten bullets had you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, this did not occur which means that despite the direct hit you qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

Direct Hit 1

You answered "True" to questions 10 and 14.

These answers generated the following response:

You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you agreed that it is rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.

The contradiction is that on the first ocassion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.
>>




I'm not sure I agree with the analysis of the "direct hit"...
1) I agreed that it is rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. i.e. - It is rational, but not necessarily %100 true, to believe that it dies not exist.

2) But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.

I don't think this is the case - the question was whether the belief that there is no God was one of faith. I still maintain it is. It is a belief - a rational one yes, but a belief none the less.

i.e. - I beleive that both atheism AND belief in God are rational beliefs. The difference is in the evidence one accepts to arrive, rationally, at each belief.

Although its likely I'm just misunderstanding thier definition of "athesit" - do they mean "someone who believes God does NOT exist", or someone who isn't sure, but decides its more thier belief that there is no God?

Actually, I still think both require a degree of faith...

 

[shiner]

Congratulations! You have made it to the end of this activity.

You took 1 direct hit and you have bitten zero bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.29 hits and bites 1.07 bullets. 32929 people have so far undertaken this activity.

 

[amnesiac]

<< You took zero direct hits and you bit 1 bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.29 hits and bites 1.07 bullet. 32944 people have so far undertaken this activity. >>

 

[vi edit]

The quiz is kind of hard to understand on some of the questions. The first time I took it, I did it mind using the traditional Christian definition of God, and not how I truely felt. I bombed it big time

The second time I took it, I answered how I really felt about the questions and passed nearly unharmed.

I do agree with you Optimus. I think their defition of Athiesm is one of logical, and rational conclusion based upon lack of evidence.

 

[Jzero]

<< I took it a second time, answering the questions the way that *I* wanted to instead of how the quiz wanted me to and I only bit one bullet.

I do not agree with them on their views on evolution. I think that the evidence of evolution FAR outweighs anything we have on the existance of god. >>



Yeh I feel that some of the questions were "loaded."
For instance it never really poses a question "God exists: T/F" but it does pose a question "Evolution exists: T/F" Then when I say evolution exists it turns around and says "Well you screwed up because you said it's bad to assume God exists without conclusive evidence but then you say evolution exists even though there is also not conclusive evidence."

Apparently I also have a different definition of atheism than they do.

I don't really understand the one bullet that I bit.

Interesting read, but I think some of the questions were intentionally leading...

 

[vi edit]

My thoughts are that they are lumping in their definition of evolution as an alternative to creationism. I really didn't even consider that until after they nailed me for answering the question.

When I think of evolution, I think of what "humans" of 20,000 years ago may have been compared to what they are now. I think that evolution in that reguard is a very real thing.

 

[GasX]

Despite getting the Medal of Honor for taking no hits and biting no pillows (I mean bullets...), I wonder about this test.

Can someone who knows the grammar well translate this sentence: "Any being which it is right to call God must be free to do anything." The were several questions written like this and although my answers were rational and consistent, they were based on an interpretation of wtf the question was asking.

That sentence does NOT make any sense grammatically speaking...

 

[b0mbrman]

Some things in there sounded like bad translations...but whatever

 

[vi edit]

Well, the test came from a UK site, so I don't know if the dialect is any different or not.

 

[Athanasius]

I scored the same as Optimus and took my hit on the same exact question.

That we scored the same is not surprising.

 

[mk]

<< You suffered zero direct hits and bit zero bullets. >>

 

[GasX]

<< Well, the test came from a UK site, so I don't know if the dialect is any different or not. >>

I speak the Queen's English, and that ain't it...

 

[Kev]

i got 2 direct hits, but i disagree with them:




<< You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you said that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction. But now you do not accept that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in doing just that. The example of the rapist has exposed that you do not in fact agree that any belief is justified just because one is convinced of its truth. So you need to revise your opinion here. The intellectual sniper has scored a bull's-eye!
>>



i misread this one. i would say that his belief is justified, but he is not justified in actually doing it. if i had read it right i would have gotten it right



<< You've just taken a direct hit! You say that God does not have the freedom and power to do impossible things such as create square circles, but in an earlier answer you said that any being which it is right to call God must be free and have the power to do anything. So, on your view, God is not free and does not have the power to do what is impossible. This requires that you accept - in common with most theologians, but contrary to your earlier answer - that God's freedom and power are not unbounded. He does not have the freedom and power to do literally anything. >>



This is a really stupid hypothetical situation. It doesn't really make any sense to me at all how god would make squares circles and circles squares. We'd still call them by what they are.

 

[Sophia]

<< Yeh I feel that some of the questions were "loaded."
For instance it never really poses a question "God exists: T/F" but it does pose a question "Evolution exists: T/F" Then when I say evolution exists it turns around and says "Well you screwed up because you said it's bad to assume God exists without conclusive evidence but then you say evolution exists even though there is also not conclusive evidence."

Apparently I also have a different definition of atheism than they do.

I don't really understand the one bullet that I bit.

Interesting read, but I think some of the questions were intentionally leading... >>



Uhh... Question 1: "God Exists." True, false, don't know.

 

[BigJohnKC]

took zero direct hits and bit zero bullets - guess my faith is well founded according to these folks.

 

[Jzero]

<<

<< Yeh I feel that some of the questions were "loaded."
For instance it never really poses a question "God exists: T/F" but it does pose a question "Evolution exists: T/F" Then when I say evolution exists it turns around and says "Well you screwed up because you said it's bad to assume God exists without conclusive evidence but then you say evolution exists even though there is also not conclusive evidence."

Apparently I also have a different definition of atheism than they do.

I don't really understand the one bullet that I bit.

Interesting read, but I think some of the questions were intentionally leading... >>



Uhh... Question 1: "God Exists." True, false, don't know. >>


Yeh I went back and noticed that. This makes my point doubly true--I was given the choice to question the existence of God without outright denying it, but I wasn't given the same option for evolution, thus I was "trapped" into contradicting myself.

 

[Rio Rebel]

ROTFL.

Hey Optimus and Athanasius...

Guess who got the exact same score and "took a hit" on the exact same question?

<--------------------------

 

[Kev]

<< Despite getting the Medal of Honor for taking no hits and biting no pillows (I mean bullets...), I wonder about this test.

Can someone who knows the grammar well translate this sentence: "Any being which it is right to call God must be free to do anything." The were several questions written like this and although my answers were rational and consistent, they were based on an interpretation of wtf the question was asking.

That sentence does NOT make any sense grammatically speaking... >>


makes sense to me

 

[Ramsnake]

How did you do compared to other people?

33165 people have completed this activity to date.
You suffered zero direct hits and bit zero bullets.
This compares with the average player of this activity to date who takes 1.29 hits and bites 1.07 bullets.
8.29% of the people who have completed this activity, like you, emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.
49.11% of the people who have completed this activity took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.

"8.29% of the people who have completed this activity, like you, emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour."

Man feels good...some good news for in bad week

 

[GasX]

<< makes sense to me >>

Ok, I understand the "Any being [...] must be free to do anything", but "which it is right to call God" is gibberish. Do they mean, "Any being which you can correctly call God..." or do they mean, "Any being rightly called God" or perhaps "Any being with a right to call God (on the telephone)..."???

hmmm?