Since when do I need a quizz to tell meI don't believe in god?
You don't. That's not what the quiz is about.
And to the other religious people on this thread: why are you struggling with the Loch Ness Monster question? What seems to be the problem here?
Nitefly said:
If I look at my desk, I can quite factually say 'there is not a sandwich on it' - you can say the same for nessie in loch ness. However, I cannot look at my desk and claim 'there is no god' because such a force isn't quantifiable or observable.
In other words, you are implying that if god does exist, I should be able to walk up to he/she/it and pat it on the head.
For the record, I can't pat mavity on the head either.
No, that's also wrong. I am not implying that if God does exist, I should be able to walk up to he/she/it and pat it on the head. Evidence can take many forms, and the proof of something can be argued in the absence of tangible qualities.
Remember, the question asked you if you think it is rational to believe in something despite a complete absence of
evidence or argument. Notice the qualification: "evidence or argument"; not just "evidence."
The existence of something can be logically and rationally extrapolated from evidence which suggests, implies or demonstrates its existence (ie. mavity, black holes, etc.) The evidence may not constitute overt proof by itself, but it can provide the basis for an argument derived from an interpretation of that evidence.
For example, consider the Battle of Kadesh. This was an epic fight between the ancient Egyptians and Hittites. It was the largest chariot battle in human history, involving ~70,000 combatants. Yet we have no objective evidence that it ever occurred! There are no remnants of bodies, weapons, chariots, armour, or anything which might suggest that this battle took place in the manner described, at the place referred to, between the antagonists named.
In fact, the
primary source of our knowledge regarding this battle is an Egyptian historical record which is universally agreed to be grossly exaggerated in favour of the Egyptians.
Thus:
Archaeologists have been unable to verify independently any of the events recounted in the Egyptian and Hittite records of the Battle of Kadesh. Knowledge of the battle is derived entirely from the accounts of Hittite and Egyptian records, both of which disagree with each other (each side claiming victory).
Details of the battle are reconstructed with reasonable certainty by reconciling the conflicting accounts through harmonizing these contradictions. Generally speaking, the nature of the available evidence makes it possible to reconstruct the outcome as portrayed by the Hittites, while gleaning believable details from Ramesses' account wherever possible.
(Source).
So, what evidence is there that the Battle of Kadesh actually took place? In purely objective terms:
none whatsoever. But there
is evidence of some form (albeit purely textual) and from it we may extrapolate a positive argument for the historicity of the battle. In other words, we have a logical and rational basis for believing that it occurred, despite the absence of tangible evidence.
Now, if we say that we can accept the historicity of the Battle of Kadesh on those grounds, we must accept that this is a yardstick for logical, rational belief in an event or entity; in other words, we can apply it to the question of God's existence as well. To argue that it can only be used in relation to historical events would be to commit the fallacy of special pleading, which would result in logical inconsistency on our part.
