Battleground God

Sankari · 26 Aug 2009 at 15:45

Interesting quiz at an atheist site: available here.

My own result:

Quiz said:
You have reached the end!

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

You took zero direct hits and you bit zero bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.10 bullets . 454920 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.

Quiz said:
Battleground Analysis

Congratulations!

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

The fact that you progressed through this activity neither being hit nor biting a bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and very well thought out.

A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. 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, you avoided both these fates - and in doing so qualify for our highest award. A fine achievement!

Nitefly · 26 Aug 2009 at 15:47

Eugh.

Evolutionary theory maybe false in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true.

:/

What a load of rubbish.

platypus · 26 Aug 2009 at 15:53

Odd little quiz. Got through in full health though.

Nitefly · 26 Aug 2009 at 15:54

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.

Finding the lock ness monster is observable (quantifiable) whilst meassuring a God is potentially not :confused:

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!

So nobody can base their opinions on philosophical reasoning, because if they do they are advocating for the rape of children?!

Doctor_Zhivago · 26 Aug 2009 at 15:57

"that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and very well thought out"

Told you atheists are religious

something daft already!! · 26 Aug 2009 at 15:57

Same as you. I am enjoying The God Delusion at the mo, required reading me thinks.

Bar · 26 Aug 2009 at 16:00

Exact same result as Nitefly on the exact same questions.

Gackt · 26 Aug 2009 at 16:02

What a rubbish quiz. Seriously poor.

SB118 · 26 Aug 2009 at 16:04

Got to question 14 and gave up, would be nice if the questions were in english.

siuko · 26 Aug 2009 at 16:07

Hehehe! Just one hit at the end and no bullet biting...

I think I just misunderstood what the last one ment - damn my poor english

Sankari · 26 Aug 2009 at 16:07

I'm surprised that so many people are having trouble with this. It's not difficult unless you have problems with critical thinking and logical reasoning.

stinamoo · 26 Aug 2009 at 16:09

*deleted*

RDM · 26 Aug 2009 at 16:09

Doctor_Zhivago said:
"that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and very well thought out"

Told you atheists are religious

Covered very well in a monumental thread in SC. Atheism at it's heart is a faith based position but that is very different from it being religious. I, for example, have faith that my wife will not stray but it is not the basis of a religion.

But as I am agnostic to the idea of God I have no worries about my position being faith based.

Nitefly · 26 Aug 2009 at 16:10

Evangelion said:
I'm surprised that so many people are having trouble with this. It's not difficult unless you have problems with critical thinking and logical reasoning.

Apart from the fact that the answers are completely skewed towards an atheists beliefs?

The response to the loch ness monster question shown alove (see above) demonstrates how flawed and biased the logic in this quiz really is. Because, you know, the loch ness monster and a god are clearly comparable... not to mention the lol-worthy comment about evolution at the start.

bam0 · 26 Aug 2009 at 16:12

Evangelion said:
I'm surprised that so many people are having trouble with this. It's not difficult unless you have problems with critical thinking and logical reasoning.

The Loch Ness Monster "trap" is a false one though, absence of evidence is most emphatically not evidence of absence. In the case of the Loch Ness Monster you have the latter plus it's an inherently knowable quantity, depending on the definition of God you have only the former and an inherently unknowable quantity.

Le_Petit_Lapin · 26 Aug 2009 at 16:17

I came out like looking like a cheese grater if I'm honest.

callmeBadger · 26 Aug 2009 at 16:19

To black and white, doesn't seem to take into account that I believe otehrs can thaink what they like. I took a direct hit on the loch ness monster as nitefly did.

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 terrible things are right. You have agreed that the rapist is justified in believing that he carries out the will of God, and in an earlier answer you indicated that you think that God defines what is good and what is evil. Therefore, to be consistent, you must think the rapist is justified in believing that he acts morally when he acts on his inner conviction. Hence, you bite the bullet and justify the rapist.

Also, took a bullet with the Peter sutchcliffe rape question. He thought it was justifiable as gods work. Not sure how I took a bullet there. I answered true, he thought he was justified, but it didn't ask if i thought it was justified.

The question was about his perspective not mine. The rapist thinks he's justified, i think the rapist thinks he's justified. I think he's not.

Stupid quiz.

Doctor_Zhivago · 26 Aug 2009 at 16:22

A scientific proof for God's existence? What a silly thing to ask for. You might as well go looking for polar bears in Woking and, finding none, conclude that polar bears don't exist

Topper · 26 Aug 2009 at 16:23

I enjoyed it, was a nice little distraction. Nitefly, no they arent. Atheists like myself DO infact believe in lots of things. mavity for example, toberlone and jam are all things I believe exist because there is solid and unasailable evidence that they exist.

"The response to the loch ness monster question shown alove (see above) demonstrates how flawed and biased the logic in this quiz really is. Because, you know, the loch ness monster and a god are clearly comparable. " Eh??????

Sankari · 26 Aug 2009 at 16:28

Nitefly said:
Apart from the fact that the answers are completely skewed towards an atheists beliefs?

But it isn't. The quiz is simply intended to test the internal consistency of your beliefs. It seeks to determine the extent to which your beliefs are logical, rational, and consistent.

I'm a religious person (a Christian, in fact) and as you can see, I had no difficulty with this quiz whatsoever. This is because although I have religious beliefs, those beliefs are logical, rational and internally consistent.

Problems only arise if you hold self-contradictory beliefs which are logically and/or rationally flawed.

The response to the loch ness monster question shown alove (see above) demonstrates how flawed and biased the logic in this quiz really is. Because, you know, the loch ness monster and a god are clearly comparable... not to mention the lol-worthy comment about evolution at the start.

No, that question is actually a very good one. Its purpose is to determine whether or not you hold double standards regarding the burden of evidence.

The question does not compare the Loch Ness Monster and God; it simply compares your standards of evidence for one entity against your standards of evidence for another entity. It does not seek to determine whether or not you actually believe in God or the Loch Ness Monster, nor does it ask you if there are grounds for believing in one over the other.

bam0 said:
The Loch Ness Monster "trap" is a false one though, absence of evidence is most emphatically not evidence of absence. In the case of the Loch Ness Monster you have the latter plus it's an inherently knowable quantity, depending on the definition of God you have only the former and an inherently unknowable quantity.

It is not a trap, and it does not claim that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. All it does is to ask you whether it is rational to believe in something despite a complete absence of evidence or argument. If you answer "No" in relation to the Loch Ness Monster, what grounds do you have for answering "Yes" in relation to God? Speaking as a Christian, I do not believe it is rational to believe in God despite a complete absence of evidence or argument.

On an unrelated note, I think this quiz could serve a dual function as a literacy test. Some of the questions are quite complex and require more than a casual skim read. You have to read everything, process it, and ensure that you understand it before attempting to answer the question.