Battleground God: Are You Logically Consistent?

[Johnsgirl727]

This is a more serious quiz. It in no way a judgment for or against the belief in God. Rather, it is a test to measure how rationally consistent one is.

In this activity you’ll be asked a series of 17 questions about God and religion. In each case, apart from Question 1, you need to answer True or False. The aim of the activity is not to judge whether these answers are correct or not. Our battleground is that of rational consistency. This means to get across without taking any hits, you’ll need to answer in a way which is rationally consistent. What this means is you need to avoid choosing answers which contradict each other. If you answer in a way which is rationally consistent but which has strange or unpalatable implications, you’ll be forced to bite a bullet.

Intrigued? Take the quiz.

http://www.philosophyquotes.net/cgi-bin/god_game1.cgi?num=0&hits=0&bullets=0&bulletcount=0&hitcount=0

I took the test and took one bullet and one hit. ;)

[Scaper_S]

I am totally inconsistent in my beliefs and ended up dead in this quiz. Oh Dear - maybe it's because I'm conflicted.


"The number of direct hits that you suffered and bullets that you bit as you progressed through this activity suggest that you need to give some thought to your beliefs about God. :shrug:


The direct hits occurred because some of your answers implied logical contradictions. 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 hits and bitten bullets. Have a careful look at them before you attempt active service again! Thanks for taking part!

155096 people have completed this activity to date.
You suffered 2 direct hits and bit 4 bullets.
This compares with the average player of this activity to date who takes 1.40 hits and bites 1.11 bullets."

[Frellster]

I took two hits as well, but honestly, if I was able to explain my answers, I would have been fine.

[Johnsgirl727]

Yeah, what tripped me up was I answered true that one could have a belief based on a firm inner conviction without any external evidence to back it up, then I answered false to the question that said that that rapist/serial killer guy was justified in killing because he had a strong inner conviction that God wanted him to do that......The test certainly makes you think.

[LadyCrais]

I had one hit and one bullet.

[samati75]

You took 1 direct hit and you bit 1 bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.40 hits and bites 1.11 bullet. 155107 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!

Something about LochNess monsters and rapists scewed me up.

[who45]

I had one bullet and one hit.

[generic_screenname]

Originally posted by samati75
Something about LochNess monsters and rapists scewed me up.

Me too...

one hit, one bullet.

[BlackThorn]

0/0

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!

-------

Who'd have thought? *shrugs*

[NYPinTA]

I took the quiz.
They have interesting questions.
The only thing is they 'catch' you in inconsistencies when comparing your belief in actual objects and your belief in theories or the intangible. For Example: The lake the Loch Ness monster is in is a finite space. The fact that no one has found anything yet to support the stories of a Loch Ness monster and therefor make me believe it does not exsist is easier to accept the that Athiests know more then anyone else. The lack of proof of god is a much more complex thing and because it would take so much more for me to believe that Athiests have it right, then they are just working under a belief like those who believe in God. A thing is a thing, a belief is a belief. It's easier to disprove the tangible don't you think?

[MJS]

1 bullet / 1 hit, Loch Nes / rapist thing got me too.

[Antrobus]

One hit and one bullett

I got messed up wth "Nessie" too - and the bit about atheists. I said that atheism was a religion which went against my answer to the "Nessie" monster!:mad:

[Sunderflame]

Congratulations!
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 have progressed through this activity without suffering many hits and biting only one bullet 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. 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. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hits and bitten bullet.


Very interesting test...:whip: :ewink:

[Sunderflame]

A direct hit occurs when you answer in a way which implies a logical contradiction. We have been very careful to make sure that only strict contradictions result in a direct hit. However, we do make two caveats.

First, because you only have choices between pre-selected and carefully worded statements, you might find that you have taken a direct hit because the statement closest to your own conviction leads into a contradiction. However, had you phrased the statement yourself, you may have been able to avoid the contradiction while expressing a very similar belief.

Such possibilities are unavoidable given the constraints on the game. We merely ask that you do not take it personally if you suffer a direct hit and don't get too frustrated if the choices we offer you sometimes seem to force you into a choice you'd rather not make.

You have to bite a bullet if your choices have an implication that most would find strange, incredible or unpalatable. There is more room for disagreement here, since what strikes many people as extraordinary or bizarre can strike others as normal. So, again, please do not get too upset if we judge you have bitten a bullet. Maybe it is our world-view which is warped!
:smokin:

[grinner]

there is faulty logic in those questions.

[Johnsgirl727]

Originally posted by grinner
there is faulty logic in those questions.
Please share grinner. I'm very interested.:)

[grinner]

Fun only if you take it as a test of semantic processing ability and not of your actual beliefs. The questions take the form "given assumption-X and thinking-Y, and only thinking-Y, do you take position-Z." If you affirm Z, but could give a damn about X and Y, the test will hold you accountable for the assumption-X and the thinking-Y, even though you base your position Z on assumption-R and thinking-Q.

The test would be more boring and less infuriating if it instead asked which givens in each question you feel are valid.

In its current, provocative form, it would be best given as an oral exam for discussion. It's a better teaching tool than a testing tool.

[Johnsgirl727]

Originally posted by grinner
Fun only if you take it as a test of semantic processing ability and not of your actual beliefs. The questions take the form "given assumption-X and thinking-Y, and only thinking-Y, do you take position-Z." If you affirm Z, but could give a damn about X and Y, the test will hold you accountable for the assumption-X and the thinking-Y, even though you base your position Z on assumption-R and thinking-Q.

The test would be more boring and less infuriating if it instead asked which givens in each question you feel are valid.

In its current, provocative form, it would be best given as an oral exam for discussion. It's a better teaching tool than a testing tool.
Hmm. Good points. I agree the test works better to provoke discussion than as a real indicator of one's beliefs (which is why I wanted to post it;) ).

But I also think that people tend to hold a lot of beliefs that are based solely on their feelings, or what's convienient at the time, and less on thinking about why they believe the things they do.

By the way, what did you score? :ewink:

[Sunderflame]

Must we do the math?
http://www.emotipad.com/newemoticons/Doof.gif

http://www.emotipad.com/newemoticons/ButButBut.gif

[grinner]

1 hit no bullets

[grinner]

Me thinks this gamester has made a God of "rational thought". The questions asked presume that human logic and reason should be applied equally to matters of this world, as well as to God.

Of course, we may glimpse some small understanding of His nature through the application of reason, but the "mystery" that is God begins precisely where our human understand and reason fail us. At that point we refer to belief beyond understanding as matters of Faith. Religion can help us define these points.

The application of rational thought can and often has been used as a means of either spiritual discovery, or denial. In the case of denial; rationality is simply a dead end logic trap that can be used to prove the futility of existance. In the case of spiritual discovery; rationality is an extremely valuable gift endowed to us by God that enables us to not only understand our place in the world, but also to find our way to Him. The choice of how and to what end we apply our reasoning ability is.....ours.

[Madre Farbot]

Battleground Analysis

Congratulations!

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 any direct hits indicates that your beliefs about God are very consistent.

However, you have bitten a number of bullets, which suggests that some of your beliefs will be considered strange, incredible or unpalatable by many people. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of the bitten bullets.

Despite the bullets that you bit, the fact that you did not suffer any hits means that you qualify for our third highest award. Well done!
---------------------
3 bullets / 0 hits
---------------------

I got to be honest, but I'm not 100% sure that I understand the answer. What does this mean; Am I truely Madre Farbot or what!

[B Sharp]

I bit two bullets and took no hits.

Regarding the whole bullet biting routine....I believe that the statement that "choices have an implication that most would find strange, incredible or unpalatable" is a very slippery "bite the bullet" sort of position to take... Using this logic, the standard by which choices are compared is that of "most" (meaning a majority) of people. People living where? in our culture? And where's the reference point or study that was done to show how "most" were asked whether the positions were "strange, incredible or unpalatable"?

There are also factual errors and other problems in the wording of some of the questions. I knew what was meant by "evolutionary theory", but I think (based on context) that what was intended was natural selection.

[Third EYe]

Originally posted by grinner
there is faulty logic in those questions.

Extremely so.

[Sunderflame]

You always seem to be to good to be true...hahahaa just an observation.
You are just too sweet for your own good.
http://www.emotipad.com/newemoticons/Hero.gif

[MrVesham]

Wouldn't have expected this, but, cool I reckon: You took zero direct hits and you bit 1 bullets.

My bullet was the 'square circle' thing.

[grinner]

Originally posted by Sunderflame
You always seem to be to good to be true...hahahaa just an observation.
You are just too sweet for your own good.
http://www.emotipad.com/newemoticons/Hero.gif how do you mean?

[Frunium Slip]

Originally posted by MrVesham
Wouldn't have expected this, but, cool I reckon: You took zero direct hits and you bit 1 bullets.

My bullet was the 'square circle' thing.

Me too...

[Clarsax]

I got the second highest award, TPM medal of distinction and took one bullet and one hit. But I can see how there were some problems with the questions in this test. Some of the questions were worded strangely and had double negatives hidden in them, which made it more difficult to figure out just what they were asking. And there were questions counted as irrational which could have been explained as being perfectly rational if there had been room for discussion. It seems the test was based on a certain kind of logic without allowing for different points of view or ways of thinking. The general idea seemed to be that one point of logic that works for a particular situation must also apply to all other situations that show any remote similarity.