NationStates Jolt Archive

I found this neat quiz, http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.htm

You guys might have seen this already...but what the heck, this tests how consistent your belief structure is.

So go ahead..see if your beliefs are contradictory or not. =)

I myself only bit one bullet...to one damn question!

Anyone that answer's true to question 16 will probably see what i mean. ;)

Anyways have fun.

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 without being hit and biting only one bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and well thought out.

A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullet occurred because you responded in a way that required that you held a view that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, because you bit only one bullet and avoided direct hits completely you still qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.htm

Battleground Analysis
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 without being hit and biting only one bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and well thought out.

A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullet occurred because you responded in a way that required that you held a view that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, because you bit only one bullet and avoided direct hits completely you still qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

I wasn't paying attention to the questions in the beginning, so I forgot what I had answered once, and that's where the bullet came from. Meh.

I bit three bullets by saying that evolution is false, that things unproven might be true and that rational discourse about God is impossible. I took one direct hit by first saying that it is not justifiable to base one's beliefs solely on internal feelings and then forgetting about it and saying that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs in God solely on internal feelings. D'oh!

Dammit! I've never been good with question concerning logic, even less with in a foreign languange (and apparently I missed a couple of nots in two questions making them say the opposite?)

Anyway:

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

You took 2 direct hits and you have bitten zero bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullets. 276813 people have so far undertaken this activity."

I stated that Nessie wouldn't have to be disproven, but God had to be. And I said that internal conviction is enough but didn't see that lunatic rapist coming...

Mmh. Not really good but not too bad either - I'm satisfied and enjoyed that little mind-binding :D Thanks!

*Off to try it again!*

Fass: It shows where you bit bullets and took direct hits around the bottom of the page.

German: Eh...kinda beats the point of seeing how consistent it is...but i myself have done this quiz like 30 times...mainly to see all the direct hits and bullets. =)

I myself bit a bullet when saying G-d could make 1+1=72. Which got into a discussion that rational discussion with G-d is impossible.

isn't that the point? ;)

"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 without being hit and biting very few bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and well thought out.

A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullets occurred because you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, because you bit only two bullets and avoided direct hits completely you still qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!"

One of the bitten bullets was obtained through requiring a higher standard of evidence for God than for other things, and the other was for saying something equivalent to 'abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence'.

I'm only two questions into it and it's already bullshit. I said that there 'Is no God' and then my dude walked backwards when I answered that there can be a rational basis for morality without Him.

Fuck this test; it's propaganda like most other philosophical questionaires.

EDIT: my initial response was too hasty; I didn't realize how it worked until now. However, I still have some problems with it:

You're under fire!

You claimed earlier that any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the world as possible. But you say that God could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful. What this means is that God could make the reduction of suffering a sin... yet you've said that God must want to reduce suffering. There is a way out of this, but it means biting a bullet. So you've got to make a choice:

Bite the bullet and say that it is possible that God wants what is sinful (to reiterate the argument here - she must want to reduce suffering; she could make the reduction of suffering a sin; but if she did so, what she wanted (reducing suffering) would be sinful).

Take a direct hit and say that this is an area where your beliefs are just in contradiction."

I call bullshit. If God is "all powerful" s/he can and should have the ability to reverse the very laws of morality s/he devised: to say otherwise is like saying an architect can't get behind a wrecking ball. For the purposes of the test, I'll say I'm "contradicting myself," but I'm not. Since this "God" business has little credibility with me in the first place, I can't say I have any qualms with totally blundering the test.

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!
I noticed that one of the questions was poorly worded. I suspect this was done intentionally to trap people into a "wrong" answer in order to project the illusion of intellectual superiority that so many "enlightened atheists" strive so hard for. I also couldn't help but notice the assertion that god is female, which is also a thinly veiled insult toward Christians. No wonder it was so easy to get a perfect score. This is just more asinine political propaganda.

Okay, first I tried to avoid the mistakes I made during the first run. Then I redid my first run (including "mistakes") and actually hit the results button to see what kind of medal I'd get:

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

The fact that you progressed through this activity without suffering many hits and biting no bullets suggests that whilst there are inconsistencies in your beliefs about God, on the whole they are well thought-out.

The direct hits you suffered occurred because some of your answers implied logical contradictions. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hits. 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, and consequently, you qualify for our third highest award. Well done!

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.

Direct Hit 2

You answered "True" to Question 7 and "False" to Question 15.

These answers generated the following response:

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!

Then again - beliefs and logic were never a good match (and as I've said before, logic is not my playing field, I'm a biological scientist...)

How did Bones put it? "I'm a doctor, not a Vulcan!" Or something :D

I also couldn't help but notice the assertion that god is female, which is also a thinly veiled insult toward Christians.

Grow some skin.

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!

Hahahaha, you're so sad.

It doesn't matter which way he walks and by the way, he walks backwards no matter what you choose.

Battleground Analysis
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!

Fass: It shows where you bit bullets and took direct hits around the bottom of the page.

I myself bit a bullet when saying G-d could make 1+1=72. Which got into a discussion that rational discussion with G-d is impossible.

I checked my cache, and apparently I bit the same bullet as you. The weird thing is that I bit it over something I do not believe; I myself do find omnipotence to be irrational since it does require that an omnipotent being be able to make 1+1=72. However, I understand that people who believe in omnipotent beings, in this case God, do claim as his/her attribute this omnipotence, hence why I answered that omnipotence would be required for it to be that particular deity and for it to be able to make 1+1=72; it would not be omnipotent otherwise.

So, I guess I ended up being trapped in other people's irrationality, in a sense, since I was entertaining their definition of the deity. I guess I'll just have to repeat myself: meh.

This is a pretty awful "test"
I took one direct hit, but during the entire thing, i couldn't help but think that the person who made it constantly thinks they are smarter then the person taking the "test" - m any of the questions seemed condescending to one who beleives in the existance of a God...
and completely tossing a thing called "moral standards" out the window.


Much of the wording was intentionally confusing, indeed, But I don't see how that could make the "test" any more accurate or authentic.
That and it was pretty easy to predict waht the next question was going to be.

You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. So it seems that you require certain, irrevocable proof for God's existence, but accept evolutionary theory without certain proof. So you've got a choice:

Bite a bullet and claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution.

Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses.
i disagree. there is MORE justifiable proof that evolution is true than there is that God exists - not that more proof of God is required, but more exists for evolution (compared to NONE for the existance of god)

hence i'm comparing two things, neither of which have irrevocable proof, but one of which, evolution, has a large amount of evidence, and the other, the existance of god, has none. i can believe that evolution is essentially true (almost but with a few 'technical flaws') because of this, but require at least SOME proof of the existance of god.

cleverly worded, but damnit i made no slip-up.... proof and evidence are not just black-and-white or only in irrevocable terms, as this tries to make out.




oh ho! another one

In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like creating square circles), you are saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality. This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.

i said before if god does indeed exist then to be "God" the being would have to have ultimate power to do anything and everything... i would argue that includes defining what is rational, defining and being able to break the laws of mathematics and physics, and reshaping the universe in whatever form - no matter how irrational - as it saw fit.
confining god to the realm of natural laws and rationality defeats the all-powerful nature of god itself



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 without being hit and biting very few bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and well thought out.

A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullets occurred because you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, because you bit only two bullets and avoided direct hits completely you still qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

hmm not bad seeing how i'm practically a-religious (a very weak agnostic who believes in nothing in particular, rather than staunchly believing nothing exists)

You have been awarded the TPM medal of honour! This is our highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.
Ok, well it's quick and a spot of fun, ;) where do people find all these nifty little sites? I never come across quirky/fun stuff sites unless someone points it out to me. :confused:

Grow some skin.
I don't know why you're telling me to "grow some skin". I didn't say it was an insult toward me, I said it was an insult toward Christians. It seems you mean to imply that if I believe insulting Christians is childish and asinine, then I must be a Christian myself. In reality, it means that I'm an adult, and gives no indication of religious belief. It is really quite pathetic when people can gain a feeling of intellectual superiority by throwing childish insults. Especially considering the fact that this type of behaviour is most typically participated in by people who are not entirely secure in their beliefs.

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 very few 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. The bitten bullets occurred because you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hit and bitten bullets.

Because you only suffered one direct hit and bit very few bullets, you qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!


Direct Hit 1

You answered "True" to Question 7 and "False" to Question 15.

These answers generated the following response:

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!


The above was caused by my carelessness in not answering question 15 correctly. I made the mistake that "within reason" may be implied. IE it's fine to base beliefs, but not action.


Bitten Bullet 1

You answered "True" to Question 16.

This answer generated the following response:

You've just bitten a bullet! In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like creating square circles), you are saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality. This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.

paft. Just because I say that if a god did exist that it could behave outside the rational, does not mean it can ONLY behave outside the rational, as this implies. Plus, everything is up for debate.

I don't know why you're telling me to "grow some skin". I didn't say it was an insult toward me, I said it was an insult toward Christians. It seems you mean to imply that if I believe insulting Christians is childish and asinine, then I must be a Christian myself. In reality, it means that I'm an adult, and gives no indication of religious belief. It is really quite pathetic when people can gain a feeling of intellectual superiority by throwing childish insults. Especially considering the fact that this type of behaviour is most typically participated in by people who are not entirely secure in their beliefs.

No, I told you to grow some skin because it seems that you are looking for insults and victims to insults where there are none, so you can act all indignant over nothing. I won't tell you what that sort of behaviour is indicative of; you should be capable of deducing it yourself, mister Mature.

Hahahaha, you're so sad.

It doesn't matter which way he walks and by the way, he walks backwards no matter what you choose.
Read my edit, Lepton.

I took three hits because of my claim that it is sometimes justifiable to be foolish. Would you say that it is contradictory to say that 1) I think that X is foolish and 2) X might be justified for somebody, under some (unrealistic) circumstances

Battleground Analysis
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 without being hit and biting only one bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and well thought out.


A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullet occurred because you responded in a way that required that you held a view that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, because you bit only one bullet and avoided direct hits completely you still qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

This is a pretty awful "test"
I took one direct hit, but during the entire thing, i couldn't help but think that the person who made it constantly thinks they are smarter then the person taking the "test" - m any of the questions seemed condescending to one who beleives in the existance of a God...
and completely tossing a thing called "moral standards" out the window.


Much of the wording was intentionally confusing, indeed, But I don't see how that could make the "test" any more accurate or authentic.
That and it was pretty easy to predict waht the next question was going to be.

Sorry, but belief in god is not a requirement to have morals. Most Atheists are moral people, you know.

I've seen this before. I hate this quiz for their multiple negatives. Instead of sticking to positive terms, they compound negative on negative in their questions and explanations of (supposedly) what you do believe, which I find to be a very confusing way of talking. I also get caught up on their use of terms like "justified". They seem to think that "justified" has something to do with moral correctness, dispute using the word in a different context in the very next question.

EDIT: My score: You took zero direct hits and you bit 2 bullets.

No, I told you to grow some skin because it seems that you are looking for insults and victims to insults where there are none, so you can act all indignant over nothing. I won't tell you what that sort of behaviour is indicative of; you should be capable of deducing it yourself, mister Mature.
Well, you're wrong. I wasn't looking for insults where there are none, I simply saw them where they are. Columbus wasn't looking for North America, but there it was. I'm also not "acting all indignant". I'm actually laughing. What I find especially funny at this point is how you try to defend one insult with another. I just bet my friend $20 that your next response will prove my point. Please win me the $20.

Ok, well it's quick and a spot of fun, ;) where do people find all these nifty little sites? I never come across quirky/fun stuff sites unless someone points it out to me. :confused:
That's an exellent reason to visit NS, ain't it?

@ Pure Metal: Have you read the FAQ on that site? I just went trough them and they cover much of what you've talked about as well...

[SIZE=1]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.

This so-called "contradiction" is actually a serious problem with the test.

It assumes -- without justification -- that "rationality" and "faith" are mutually exclusive. They also ignore the rather well-known Popperian problem with inductive logic: it is not, strictly speaking, logical.

Thus, the problem here is that an atheist can reply that it is perfectly rational to believe, based on lack of evidence, that the monster does not exist... and also rational to believe, based on lack of evidence, that God does not exist. But the truly self-conscious and honest atheist has to admit that true disbelief requires a certain kind of faith, viz. the faith that there will never be any evidence of God's existence.

In a rather important way, this test confuses the rationale of the agnostic with that of the atheist. The atheist's insistence that God does not exist comes down to a kind of faith.

(By the way... I am an atheist. As it happens, I am more certain that God does not exist than I am that neither does the Loch Ness monster.)

Well, you're wrong. I wasn't looking for insults where there are none, I simply saw them where they are. Columbus wasn't looking for North America, but there it was.

"I also couldn't help but notice the assertion that god is female, which is also a thinly veiled insult toward Christians."

Yup, no fishing for things to annoy you there! :rolleyes:

I'm also not "acting all indignant". I'm actually laughing.

"intellectual superiority that so many "enlightened atheists" strive so hard for," "thinly veiled insult," "asinine political propaganda."

Yup, your soft and delicate language is a clear indication of someone not acting indignant. :rolleyes:

What I find especially funny at this point is how you try to defend one insult with another. I just bet my friend $20 that your next response will prove my point. Please win me the $20.

I'm not defending your insults, so you will just have to learn to part with that $20 (which is like what, €2?) and hand them over to your "friend," who, if he exists, really should think about the sadness of watching and betting on someone else's faux indignation on the Internet, of all places.

This so-called "contradiction" is actually a serious problem with the test.

It assumes -- without justification -- that "rationality" and "faith" are mutually exclusive.
Agreed.

@ Pure Metal: Have you read the FAQ on that site? I just went trough them and they cover much of what you've talked about as well...
nope.... but i'm going to assume they make smart-assed preprepared counter-arguements to whatever it was i was on about.... so i think i'll choose to remain in blissful ignorance :D
(at least till tomorrow after some sleep - i'm curious now)



ps: that site did seem a tad up its own arse

Mighty multi-post, Pure Metal!

ps: that site did seem a tad up its own arse

So true you said it three times.

"I also couldn't help but notice the assertion that god is female, which is also a thinly veiled insult toward Christians."

Yup, no fishing for things to annoy you there! :rolleyes:



"intellectual superiority that so many "enlightened atheists" strive so hard for," "thinly veiled insult," "asinine political propaganda."

Yup, your soft and delicate language is a clear indication of someone not acting indignant. :rolleyes:



I'm not defending your insults, so you will just have to learn to part with that $20 (which is like what, €2?) and hand them over to your "friend," who, if he exists, really should think about the sadness of watching and betting on someone else's faux indignation on the Internet, of all places.
Thank you.
That was a really easy $20.
Its a shame that its so easy to get under your skin. Maybe you just need to "grow some skin". ;)

Thank you.
That was a really easy $20.
Its a shame that its so easy to get under your skin. Maybe you just need to "grow some skin". ;)

It is he who takes any of that as an insult that needs the skin graft, or an irrigation of his sandy "birth canal". Perhaps your "friend" can assist.

It is he who takes any of that as an insult that needs the skin graft, or an irrigation of his sandy "birth canal".

What just happened in the last few posts? :confused:

Mighty multi-post, Pure Metal!
bah jolt is being all crazy with me today :headbang:

I really, really don't like that site. One of their other "games" called Staying Alive told me that I only want to keep my body intact to save my soul. Bollocks. In the course of the game, they presented the hypothetical option that there is a soul. I do not belive in a soul in real life. These people are morons.

I'm rubber. You're glue. Whatever you say bounces off me, and sticks on you.
OK.

I took one hit, which I will dispute to the end. The maker of the test seems to believe that rationality and faith are mutually exclusive, while I believe that faith itself can be either rational or irrational.

OK.

If you need to resort to inventing what I am to have said to gloss over your argumentative shortcoming, then please, do. You fool but yourself, which I suppose is just what you need.

bah jolt is being all crazy with me today :headbang:

You? Just today? :p

If you need to resort to inventing what I am to have said to gloss over your loss, then please, do. You fool but yourself, which I suppose is just what you need.
(laughing)
I can't believe you keep going. Every one of your replies has served only to prove my point. I guess your arrogance prevents you from seeing that. I have no idea what "loss" you're referring to, but whatever. This is obviously a much bigger deal to you than it is to me.

You? Just today? :p
lol no i guess not :p

though it has been behaving itself recently i have to say (lets hear it for jolt :))

(laughing)
I can't believe you keep going. Every one of your replies has served only to prove my point. I guess your arrogance prevents you from seeing that. I have no idea what "loss" you're referring to, but whatever. This is obviously a much bigger deal to you than it is to me.

You keep telling yourself that, and remain oblivious to the hypocrisy that lies in your reply. I expect nothing else.

lol no i guess not :p

though it has been behaving itself recently i have to say (lets hear it for jolt :))

Boo, Jolt! Boo! Every time you allow yourself to think it might work like it's supposed to, things like your multi-post happen! *spits three times in salt shaker*

(laughing)
I can't believe you keep going. Every one of your replies has served only to prove my point. I guess your arrogance prevents you from seeing that. I have no idea what "loss" you're referring to, but whatever. This is obviously a much bigger deal to you than it is to me.


well named

well named

+1.

I noticed that one of the questions was poorly worded. I suspect this was done intentionally to trap people into a "wrong" answer in order to project the illusion of intellectual superiority that so many "enlightened atheists" strive so hard for.
Which question?

You keep telling yourself that, and remain oblivious to the hypocrisy that lies in your reply. I expect nothing else.
Can't we all just get along? I mean, you're not really mad, are you? Is it really necessary to insult me just because we seem to have a slight difference of opinion?

well named
That would have won me another $20, but none of my friends were dumb enough to take the bet. I guess you kids are just too predictable.

That would have won me another $20, but none of my friends were dumb enough to take the bet.

With all those friends hanging around, I'm surprised you don't have better things to do than continue this "argument". Why don't you go spend your $20?

Which question?
#14: As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality.

This implies that to have faith in something is irrational. Maybe I just define "faith" differently. Isn't it possible to have faith in rationality?

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 without being hit and biting only one bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and well thought out.


A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullet occurred because you responded in a way that required that you held a view that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, because you bit only one bullet and avoided direct hits completely you still qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!



Edit: Also, is it just me or did they label God a female out of spite?

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 without being hit and biting only one bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and well thought out.


A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullet occurred because you responded in a way that required that you held a view that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, because you bit only one bullet and avoided direct hits completely you still qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

What bullet did you bite?

#14: As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality.

This implies that to have faith in something is irrational. Maybe I just define "faith" differently.

Agreed... I made this point a few posts back. ;)

What bullet did you bite?



You've just bitten a bullet! You say that if there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, then atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality. Therefore, it seems that you do not think that the mere absence of evidence for the existence of God is enough to justify believing that she does not exist. This view is also suggested by your earlier claim that it is not rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist even if, despite years of trying, no evidence has been presented to suggest that it does exist.

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'm telling you, the little green men are there, plotting an invasion! :D

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!

I'm telling you, the little green men are there, plotting an invasion! :D

Hell yeah!

Sorry, but belief in god is not a requirement to have morals. Most Atheists are moral people, you know.




Two assumptions, I don't suppose you would care to back that up?

Two assumptions, I don't suppose you would care to back that up?

Please don't turn this into a religious debate.

Please don't turn this into a religious debate.



Actuallyy, I'm rarely the one to make the first religious assertion in a debate. Notice how he made two statements without providing a logical backing or statistics? I try to avoid starting fights, but if someone else says something that irks me, I can't help but respond. It's a character flaw :(

OK well I havent read it as i shavent had the shitting time (drinking) The wavhttp://www.leagueagainsttedium.co.uk/ i see it is this: i believe is both creationism and evolution- SOMETHING WITH CONCIENSENESS created us AND we evolved and we can BECOME AS SMART AS THE CREATORS.



fuck i dont understand cuasse im drunk... jeres a pic.... 4

http://jassebombscans.free.fr/envois/jb_scarlett_johansson02.jpg

fuck i havent better ones but go to my site (hot bebe) if you want

OK well I havent read it as i shavent had the shitting time (drinking) The wavhttp://www.leagueagainsttedium.co.uk/ i see it is this: i believe is both creationism and evolution- SOMETHING WITH CONCIENSENESS created us AND we evolved and we can BECOME AS SMART AS THE CREATORS.



fuck i dont understand cuasse im drunk... jeres a pic.... 4

http://jassebombscans.free.fr/envois/jb_scarlett_johansson02.jpg

fuck i havent better ones but go to my site (hot bebe) if you want





Ermm? O.o

Actuallyy, I'm rarely the one to make the first religious assertion in a debate. Notice how he made two statements without providing a logical backing or statistics? I try to avoid starting fights, but if someone else says something that irks me, I can't help but respond. It's a character flaw :(

Hmm...I can see why you would respond. I possess a similar flaw.

snip

Don't spam. There are places you can go to do that sort of thing.

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 very few 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. The bitten bullets occurred because you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hit and bitten bullets.


Because you only suffered one direct hit and bit very few bullets, you qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

Here's where I screwed up:

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.

This contradiction is bogus. It is obviously rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist if no evidence is shown it to exist, especially if extensive searches were made. If it existed, it would be a natural creature confined both by the space, time, and natural laws that we are able to thoroughly explore, meaning that it exists where we can find it. We are able to search for the Loch Ness Monster but cannot find it, so we must assume that it does not exist.

God, on the other hand, would occupy a supernatural realm that we are completely unable to explore or document. It would be unconfined by space, time, or natural laws, meaning that we cannot feasibly search for it. Since we are unable to reasonably search for it, it is impossible to assume that it doesn't exist.

It is possible to rationally falsify the Loch Ness monster, it is not possible to rationally falsify God.

You've just bitten a bullet!

In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like creating square circles), you are saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality. This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.

Is this really biting the bullet? This exactly describes my beliefs concerning religion. How is possible to rationally debate the intentions or nature of a supernatural being?

You answered "True" to questions 6 and 13.

These answers generated the following response:

You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. So it seems that you require certain, irrevocable proof for God's existence, but accept evolutionary theory without certain proof. So you've got a choice: (a) Bite a bullet and claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution. (b) Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses.

You chose to bite the bullet.

See the last two answers. Evolution is based on scientific data and logical deduction. As it is impossible to apply scientific data and logical deduction to God's existence, a higher standard of proof and evidence is needed.

I was awarded a TPM. However, I must say that some analysis of my answers turned out to be a contradiction to my exact beliefs. If I was able to talk back, I could've explained exactly why I answered as such.

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!

W00t! (Had to do it a few times though, I can misread a question at thirty places and answer incorrectly at a dozen at least...)

It is obviously rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist if no evidence is shown it to exist, especially if extensive searches were made. If it existed, it would be a natural creature confined both by the space, time, and natural laws that we are able to thoroughly explore, meaning that it exists where we can find it. We are able to search for the Loch Ness Monster but cannot find it, so we must assume that it does not exist.

Here's another piece of evidence to suggest it's bogus:

Simply put it, reports of it have gone back 100s of years. For it to survive that long, it would either have to have an unrivaled lifespan, or there would be maany of them. I've heard for there to be a family of "Nessies" that could survive for a long time, there would have to be at least 14 of them...

Makes you think.

#14: As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality.

This implies that to have faith in something is irrational. Maybe I just define "faith" differently. Isn't it possible to have faith in rationality?That was precisely the point that I raised with the site's founders. It is possible for the belief of the absence of something to be rational and yet uncertain. Belief in no Loch Ness Monster is reasonable. So is belief in no God. But they are both matters of Faith, nonetheless.

#14: As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality.

This implies that to have faith in something is irrational. Maybe I just define "faith" differently. Isn't it possible to have faith in rationality?

That question is a poor one, but only because atheism is a combination of faith and rationality, not because faith can be rational.

It is possible to combine reason and faith into one's beliefs, but it is not possible to rationally have faith in something.

For example, an atheist can come to the conclusion that the existence of God is not rational. However, as God cannot be confined by our rationality, they still must rely on the faith that God doesn't exist in order for their rationale to be correct.

Whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooop!

Who's your logical daddy?!

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!

Click here if you want to review the criteria by which hits and bullets are determined.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How did you do compared to other people?

276950 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 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullets.
7.61% of the people who have completed this activity, like you, emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.
45.84% of the people who have completed this activity took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.

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!

I'm rational now?

2 tasty bitten bullets and 1 direct hit. I believe in god although I believe that it, like darwinistic evolution, is faith based. I just have my egg in one basket and not the other. How is that contradictory?

These questions are to unspecific to be so objective O.o

e.g
"If God exists-snip-"
true

"In saying that God has -snip-"
but you said IF God exists!

The message we were supposed to recieve is that if you believe in god, then your beliefs are contradictory, and therefore stupid.

The message we were supposed to recieve is that if you believe in god, then your beliefs are contradictory, and therefore stupid.

That does appear to be the case.

While I am atheist, to test your assertion I went through doing my best to give a believer's responses in the most consistent possible way. Indeed, I was not even your "typical" believer... I avoided asserting, for instance, that God must be omniscient -- which involves obvious trouble.

Basically, I said that I believe in God, that God must be good, and that it is justifiable to base belief on a "firm, inner conviction."

The problem, again, is that this test assumes (without justification) that rationality and faith are mutually exclusive. Thus, on that "firm, inner conviction" question, it specifies that your belief is "regardless" of any external evidence.

This excludes, automatically, the person who justifies belief in God on a firm inner convinction, but determines for rational reasons that God must be good and even that morality is independent of God. Thus, this person would be inclined to distrust a "firm inner conviction" that the same God wants him to rape women.

But the question about the rapist excludes this possibility.

Thus, if one believes in a good God on the basis of personal inspiration -- not an irrational belief in even my atheist opinion -- one is stuck on Question 15. No matter what the believer chooses, he/she will always either have to contradict her/himself, or "bite a bullet."

That hardly seems fair. And seeing as it stems from a prior conception that reason and faith are mutually exclusive, the "testers" have decided from the outset that believers are irrational.

It's people like this who give atheists a bad name.

EDIT: It gets worse. If you try to hedge a bit by admitting that it is not justifiable to believe something due to an inner convinction regardless of the external evidence, then they catch you on Question 17, which asks more specifically about belief in God due to an inner conviction. It seems reasonable to make a distinction on the grounds that "God" was never a falsifiable assertion in the first place, so "evidence" one way or the other is irrelevant... but then you are contradicting yourself on the former point.

In other words, if you believe that belief in God is justified due to a firm inner conviction, you are automatically screwed on either question 15 (if you answered affirmatively that, in general, belief is justified due to convictions) or question 17 (if you answered negatively to what was, anyway, a rather absurd absolute).

They really have it in for believers. Ironically, the only believers who can pass this test with a perfect score are those who believe that there is "proof" of the existence of God -- and these are, in my opinion, the most irrational!!

That does appear to be the case.

While I am atheist, to test your assertion I went through doing my best to give a believer's responses in the most consistent possible way. Indeed, I was not even your "typical" believer... I avoided asserting, for instance, that God must be omniscient -- which involves obvious trouble.

Basically, I said that I believe in God, that God must be good, and that it is justifiable to base belief on a "firm, inner conviction."

The problem, again, is that this test assumes (without justification) that rationality and faith are mutually exclusive. Thus, on that "firm, inner conviction" question, it specifies that your belief is "regardless" of any external evidence.

This excludes, automatically, the person who justifies belief in God on a firm inner convinction, but determines for rational reasons that God must be good and even that morality is independent of God. Thus, this person would be inclined to distrust a "firm inner conviction" that the same God wants him to rape women.

But the question about the rapist excludes this possibility.

Thus, if one believes in a good God on the basis of personal inspiration -- not an irrational belief in even my atheist opinion -- one is stuck on Question 15. No matter what the believer chooses, he/she will always either have to contradict her/himself, or "bite a bullet."

That hardly seems fair. And seeing as it stems from a prior conception that reason and faith are mutually exclusive, the "testers" have decided from the outset that believers are irrational.

It's people like this who give atheists a bad name.

EDIT: It gets worse. If you try to hedge a bit by admitting that it is not justifiable to believe something due to an inner convinction regardless of the external evidence, then they catch you on Question 17, which asks more specifically about belief in God due to an inner conviction. It seems reasonable to make a distinction on the grounds that "God" was never a falsifiable assertion in the first place, so "evidence" one way or the other is irrelevant... but then you are contradicting yourself on the former point.

In other words, if you believe that belief in God is justified due to a firm inner conviction, you are automatically screwed on either question 15 (if you answered affirmatively that, in general, belief is justified due to convictions) or question 17 (if you answered negatively to what was, anyway, a rather absurd absolute).

They really have it in for believers. Ironically, the only believers who can pass this test with a perfect score are those who believe that there is "proof" of the existence of God -- and these are, in my opinion, the most irrational!!
Exactly. The whole thing is intended as an insult to Christianity. That's what I was saying in my first post on this thread, right before I got accused of "fishing for insults".

Two assumptions, I don't suppose you would care to back that up?
I know plenty of atheists who have very fine morals that they actually appear to live by. I see no reason to believe that atheists do not have morals, or that they are any less 'morally inclined' than any other analogous group.

I know plenty of atheists who have very fine morals that they actually appear to live by. I see no reason to believe that atheists do not have morals, or that they are any less 'morally inclined' than any other analogous group.



And you're one to define morals? :p

And you're one to define morals? :p
Yes. Is there some reason I should not be?

well why not do one of their moral check tests...
this one deals with internal tensions: http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/check.htm
(i got 7%, issue in art...)

or this one:
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/morality_play.htm

Yes. Is there some reason I should not be?



Yes, something about human fallibility and limited wisdom ;)

Battleground Analysis
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 very few 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. The bitten bullets occurred because you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hit and bitten bullets.

Because you only suffered one direct hit and bit very few bullets, you qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

Hurray.

Yes, something about human fallibility and limited wisdom ;)
What exactly is the relevence between these 'somethings' and my ability to define morality?

That does appear to be the case.

While I am atheist, to test your assertion I went through doing my best to give a believer's responses in the most consistent possible way. Indeed, I was not even your "typical" believer... I avoided asserting, for instance, that God must be omniscient -- which involves obvious trouble.

Basically, I said that I believe in God, that God must be good, and that it is justifiable to base belief on a "firm, inner conviction."

The problem, again, is that this test assumes (without justification) that rationality and faith are mutually exclusive. Thus, on that "firm, inner conviction" question, it specifies that your belief is "regardless" of any external evidence.

This excludes, automatically, the person who justifies belief in God on a firm inner convinction, but determines for rational reasons that God must be good and even that morality is independent of God. Thus, this person would be inclined to distrust a "firm inner conviction" that the same God wants him to rape women.

But the question about the rapist excludes this possibility.

Thus, if one believes in a good God on the basis of personal inspiration -- not an irrational belief in even my atheist opinion -- one is stuck on Question 15. No matter what the believer chooses, he/she will always either have to contradict her/himself, or "bite a bullet."

That hardly seems fair. And seeing as it stems from a prior conception that reason and faith are mutually exclusive, the "testers" have decided from the outset that believers are irrational.

It's people like this who give atheists a bad name.

EDIT: It gets worse. If you try to hedge a bit by admitting that it is not justifiable to believe something due to an inner convinction regardless of the external evidence, then they catch you on Question 17, which asks more specifically about belief in God due to an inner conviction. It seems reasonable to make a distinction on the grounds that "God" was never a falsifiable assertion in the first place, so "evidence" one way or the other is irrelevant... but then you are contradicting yourself on the former point.

In other words, if you believe that belief in God is justified due to a firm inner conviction, you are automatically screwed on either question 15 (if you answered affirmatively that, in general, belief is justified due to convictions) or question 17 (if you answered negatively to what was, anyway, a rather absurd absolute).

They really have it in for believers. Ironically, the only believers who can pass this test with a perfect score are those who believe that there is "proof" of the existence of God -- and these are, in my opinion, the most irrational!!

The question about the rapist has nothing to do with the mutual exclusiveness of rationality or morality. It asks whether it is justifiable to have a belief based "on a firm, inner conviction, even in the absence of any external evidence for the truth of these convictions." If one answers "yes" to this, he/she is stating that he/she believes it is justifiable to have a belief based purely on faith.

The rape question asks whether the rapist was justified in having "a firm, inner conviction" to commit his crimes as the work of God.

Having answered the prior question "yes", again one states that beliefs based purely on faith are justified. This means that the rapist, having his belief that he was to carry out the work of God based purely on faith would be justified.

You are correct that most would be incredulous of the rapist's belief that he was carrying out the work of God. But the quiz does not concern itself on whether one actually feels that the belief is valid, but if one can justify his holding of the belief. If you answered that beliefs based purely on inner conviction, with no regard to external evidence are justified, then you must say that the beliefs of the rapist are justified.

What exactly is the relevence between these 'somethings' and my ability to define morality?



It is that a human definition of morality will inevitably be incorrect, unless it corroborates with the definition created by a perfectly moral and omniscient Being. We are not Gods, we are not all-knowing, we are laughable.

It is that a human definition of morality will inevitably be incorrect, unless it corroborates with the definition created by a perfectly moral and omniscient Being. We are not Gods, we are not all-knowing, we are laughable.

Which is the central reason why most monotheistic religions are truly irrational. A perfect being creates an imperfect race and expects them to understand its rational and morality. The being would know that it would be impossible for us to understand his nature and know how to stay on his good graces, yet he deems that we must or be subject to his wrath.

God states that we should obey his morality, yet we cannot hope to understand his morality.

Two assumptions, I don't suppose you would care to back that up?

This is taken from a site which criticizes "Intelligent Design" and "creationism", but this ection has some relevance:

One of the most popular creationist attacks upon evolution theory (and science in general) is the moral attack. As the argument goes, science, evolution theory, and atheists are immoral, so they must all be wrong. This is a bizarre and logically indefensible argument; there are a lot of things about nature which are brutal and which may strike us as immoral, but that doesn't change the fact that they exist!


Even if we were to accept the nonsensical argument that a scientific theory can be judged by the morality of its proponents, would the "moral argument" hold water? In order to for it to hold water, one would have to first show that atheists are immoral, and not only have creationists never produced a shred of evidence, but they've never even tried. As far as they're concerned, it's an unquestionable truth and no evidence is required.


In "1984", George Orwell's totalitarian state altered the language and created "NewSpeak" because its leaders understood that if you can control the language, you can control the way people think. Did Orwell invent that idea? Hardly. Any student of the English language can see that this is precisely how religionists have been subtly influencing people's thinking for centuries. The growth of the English language has taken place under the care of evangelical Christians, and it should come as no surprise that it was deliberately designed to glorify religion and vilify rationalism. The word "materialism" refers to the idea that the material universe is all that exists (ie- the atheist viewpoint), but it is also synonymous with greed and selfishness. The word "faith" describes religion, but the word "faithful" describes trustworthiness and loyalty. In other words, the English language itself subtly reinforces the idea that religion is virtuous and atheism is immoral!


The English word "atheism" has a literal meaning, which is simply non-theism. Therefore, it is defined in most dictionaries as the absence of theism, or the refusal to believe in a God or gods. However, the Third Edition of the American Heritage Dictionary (copyright 1992,1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company) still retains an older definition which happens to be quite convenient for the fundamentalist hate-mongers:


Atheism
Noun.

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
Godlessness; immorality.

Did you notice the third definition? According to the American Heritage Dictionary as of 1996, atheism is immorality! What is it about America that breeds Christian fundamentalism? Why should it surprise no one that the "American Heritage" dictionary still shows the ancient 18th century definition of atheism as "immorality"? Whatever the reasons, America is a land of overt hostility towards atheism, and the continued use of the above definition is only a minor symptom. Perhaps the Minnesota Atheists put it best:

"Religionists regularly slander atheists as immoral and it goes far beyond a difference of opinion. Because of our supposed immorality, for which no evidence is ever given, we are barred from admission to organizations such as the Boy Scouts, the VFW and the American Legion. We are insulted publicly by clergy of all faiths, who seem to consider us unworthy to be citizens of the United States. A climate of opinion is created in which the chances of a known atheist being elected to office, no matter how ethical and well qualified, are slim to none."

They aren't exaggerating. In the 2000 federal election, both prospective leaders loudly and repeatedly bragged about their piety, in an obvious attempt to court the religious bigot vote. Newsweek magazine commented that it doesn't matter which religion a candidate belongs to, as long as he is religious. The notion that "religious piety = moral fortitude" is deeply ingrained into the public consciousness, and no one ever stops to consider how hateful its consequences are: if piety is morality, then a lack of piety (ie- atheism) must be immorality! And with that, millions of Americans are instantly slandered as immoral, perverse degenerates who are unfit to hold public office. In fact, the state of Texas is one of several states which has even enshrined this bigoted policy into law: its state constitution bars anyone from public office if he does not acknowledge the "existence of a Supreme Being".


Of course, there is no evidence whatsoever for religionists' bizarre assumption that atheists are immoral, and while it would be considered hateful to make similar attacks upon Jews or Muslims, no one raises an eyebrow at this continued, public mistreatment of atheists. These pages were written with the goal of explaining, in some detail, the following points:


Christians have been systematically rewriting history in order to pretend that Christianity versus Atheism is symbolic of Good versus Evil. We are never allowed to forget evil atheists (eg. Stalin), but evil Christians receive a distinctly different treatment. Their crimes are minimized or forgotten, and their religious affiliations are either concealed or misrepresented as atheism.


You don't need faith in God in order to be moral.


Humanist morality is universal, while Biblical morality is not.


Humanist sexual liberation is not the assault on family values that the fundamentalists seem to think it is.


Humanists are no more likely to commit immoral acts than Christians.

From here: http://www.creationtheory.org/Morality/

The question about the rapist has nothing to do with the mutual exclusiveness of rationality or morality. It asks whether it is justifiable to have a belief based "on a firm, inner conviction, even in the absence of any external evidence for the truth of these convictions." If one answers "yes" to this, he/she is stating that he/she believes it is justifiable to have a belief based purely on faith.

Right. The problem is in the wording. They exclude the possibility that people have beliefs that are partly justified on faith, while subject to the criticism of reason. It's a false distinction, and one in which the believer is bound to lose.

And yes, the hidden assumption is that either one is rational, or one has faith. The test assumes that one cannot both have faith, and be a rational person. Of course, one may be inclined to make this case... it would make for an interesting argument. But it is an argument that the site does not make. Instead, they assume from the beginning that anyone who has faith is irrational. I call that a biased test.

EDIT: To be clear, I am not arguing that the test is wrong in its assertions of contradictions. It is true that answering in the affirmative to the question on faith sets one up for either a contradiction or bullet-biting on the rapist question. What I am complaining about is the fact that the test leaves no room at all for a rational, faithful person who does not also agree that the rapist was justified in his belief. And they do this by assuming that rationality and faith are mutually exclusive -- that assumption being contained in the wording of their questions. (Not just this one, but even more obviously the "contradiction" between rational disbelief in Nessy and atheism-as-faith.)

You took 1 direct hit and you bit 1 bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullet. 277062 people have so far undertaken this activity.

...

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 very few 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. The bitten bullets occurred because you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hit and bitten bullets.

Because you only suffered one direct hit and bit very few bullets, you qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!
Fun.

It is that a human definition of morality will inevitably be incorrect, unless it corroborates with the definition created by a perfectly moral and omniscient Being. We are not Gods, we are not all-knowing, we are laughable.
Great, so no one is moral because God's morality is morality, but God's morality is not comprehensible to humans. I'm not buying. I do not believe you would have challenged the poster had their post being exactly the same, other than the word 'christian' being in place of the word 'atheist'.

It is that a human definition of morality will inevitably be incorrect, unless it corroborates with the definition created by a perfectly moral and omniscient Being. We are not Gods, we are not all-knowing, we are laughable.Would the same be said for Empathy as a moral standard?

Well, that was mildly amusing.
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 very few 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. The bitten bullets occurred because you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hit and bitten bullets.


Because you only suffered one direct hit and bit very few bullets, you qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

Never mind that it was severely biased by the beliefs of the person who wrote it. But so is everything about religion.

:p

Hey, not that I put any stock in that, but my consistancy is .9
I think that's pretty good.

Right. The problem is in the wording. They exclude the possibility that people have beliefs that are partly justified on faith, while subject to the criticism of reason. It's a false distinction, and one in which the believer is bound to lose.

And yes, the hidden assumption is that either one is rational, or one has faith. The test assumes that one cannot both have faith, and be a rational person. Of course, one may be inclined to make this case... it would make for an interesting argument. But it is an argument that the site does not make. Instead, they assume from the beginning that anyone who has faith is irrational. I call that a biased test.

EDIT: To be clear, I am not arguing that the test is wrong in its assertions of contradictions. It is true that answering in the affirmative to the question on faith sets one up for either a contradiction or bullet-biting on the rapist question. What I am complaining about is the fact that the test leaves no room at all for a rational, faithful person who does not also agree that the rapist was justified in his belief. And they do this by assuming that rationality and faith are mutually exclusive -- that assumption being contained in the wording of their questions. (Not just this one, but even more obviously the "contradiction" between rational disbelief in Nessy and atheism-as-faith.)

I mostly agree with you here, especially concerning the Nessy contradiction.

I don't really think that the test purposefully assumes that people can either have faith or reason and not both, as that is a ridiculous idea. I think that, in the interests of brevity, the authors left out any ideas of the rationality based belief and chose only to show the irrationality of faith (Faith, in my opinion, is where you put your trust once your reason runs out, so it must be irrational). It would take 100+ questions to thoroughly and accurately explore these ideas, and these half-assed internet quizzes are more concerned with short term entertainment than true studies.

Bah, this thing was bullshit when I did it a year ago and it still is. Not quite as bad as that racism test floating around but it's still a crock of shit. Of course the same could be said for most of these tests so..... :p

As for my score.

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!

________________

Same as the last time I took it.

Direct Hit 1

You answered "True" to questions 6 and 13.

These answers generated the following response:

You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. So it seems that you require certain, irrevocable proof for God's existence, but accept evolutionary theory without certain proof. So you've got a choice: (a) Bite a bullet and claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution. (b) Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses.

You chose to take the direct hit.


****************

Direct Hit 2

You answered "False" to Question 7 and "True" to Question 15.

These answers generated the following response:

You've just taken a direct hit!

Earlier you claimed that it is not justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner-conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction. But now you say that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in basing his beliefs about God's will solely on precisely such a conviction. That's a bull's-eye for the intellectual sniper!


****************

Direct Hit 3

You answered "True" to Question 15 and "False" to Question 17.

These answers generated the following response:

You've just taken a direct hit! You claim that it is not justifiable to believe in God based only on inner-convictions, but earlier you stated that it was justifiable for the serial rapist to draw conclusions about God's will on the same grounds. If this form of justification is good enough for the rapist, why is it not good enough for the believer in God? There's an inconsistency here.

This test kinda annoyed me... I was hit twice by the same problem, because I stuck to the same theoretical belief but was inconsistent in the example question. I also don't think this measures the consistency of your beliefs, only your skill/attention towards strictly logical thinking. I didn't really pay enough attention, as I don't think you need certain, irrevocable proof to believe something.