Put your Beleif to the Test!

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-13 07:20pm

Number one you can also set to don't know.

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2002-11-13 07:56pm

Argh. Took one hit. Didn't bit any bullets though.

XPViking

ElBlanco · Post by **ElBlanco** » 2002-11-13 08:09pm

I took that before and made "medal of honor", but it still is a fairly simplistic test.

And how exactly does anybody know how a "fundie" would answer?

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-13 08:10pm

ElBlanco wrote:I took that before and made "medal of honor", but it still is a fairly simplistic test.

And how exactly does anybody know how a "fundie" would answer?

Take anything that supports what a fundie what believe.

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2002-11-13 08:21pm

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!

Guess what? The bullet was in the evolutionary contradiction.

Soontir C'boath · Post by **Soontir C'boath** » 2002-11-13 08:26pm

Warspite wrote: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!

Guess what? The bullet was in the evolutionary contradiction.

Me too. That was bull.

Cyaround,
Jason

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-11-13 08:54pm

Bit one bullet, because I agreed that God can require humanity to do something that appears to be wrong.

Nova Andromeda · Post by **Nova Andromeda** » 2002-11-13 10:52pm

Here are my results:

You have reached the end!

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

You took zero direct hits and you bit 1 bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.35 hits and bites 1.09 bullet. 76259 people have so far undertaken this activity.

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

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!

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.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2002-11-13 11:06pm

No direct hits. No bullet biting.

Alan Bolte · Post by **Alan Bolte** » 2002-11-14 12:03am

No hits, no bullets, but only because I had to 'play by the rules', that is, make certain assumptions in my answers as to the position the quiz is written from. For example, if you have an undefined quantity such as God, there is no reason to believe that he could not make 1 + 1 = 72, simply by changing meanings, the universe as a whole, whatever. With such an undefined quantity, anything is truely possible, whether or not it follows logic or science. It can only be said that God has certain limits within the bounds of logic and science, which are the only reasonable tools we have of understanding the universe, but that outside the measurable realm he may still have power. Clearly, however, there is no indication within the empirical realm that God exists, so rationally he does not, and cannot make 1 + 1 = 72, which is what the quiz is getting at, if you follow the path I did. It's a very confusing issue for me, and there's really no point to it, so I just go about my day to day business and don't bother with it.

Datana · Post by **Datana** » 2002-11-14 01:05am

Bit one bullet on the evolution and God "proof" questions -- that was probably the most poorly-worded set on the test. It's a bit annoying how the author makes a series of assumptions based off of the true/false response provided, but that's already been addressed here. I haven't tried for a scratchless trip through yet, so that might be on the agenda later.

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-11-14 01:15am

Datana wrote:Bit one bullet on the evolution and God "proof" questions -- that was probably the most poorly-worded set on the test. It's a bit annoying how the author makes a series of assumptions based off of the true/false response provided, but that's already been addressed here. I haven't tried for a scratchless trip through yet, so that might be on the agenda later.

I didn't have any trouble with the "proof" questions. What annoys me is that it is impossible to get through unscathed unless you say that God cannot do everything, when there is no option for "everything that is logically possible" Grrr.

Datana · Post by **Datana** » 2002-11-14 01:27am

data_link wrote:I didn't have any trouble with the "proof" questions. What annoys me is that it is impossible to get through unscathed unless you say that God cannot do everything, when there is no option for "everything that is logically possible" Grrr.

I was actually lucky there more than anything else; I skipped a line while reading one of those questions, and ended up answering one of those in a way contrary to how I would have normally.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2002-11-14 01:54am

You have reached the end!

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

You took zero direct hits and you bit zero bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.35 hits and bites 1.09 bullets. 76303 people have so far undertaken this activity.

Wow I'm great, and I didn't even understand half of the questions!

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2002-11-14 03:55am

And I recieved:

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!

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2002-11-14 08:53am

Vendetta wrote:You're getting that contradiction because you believe the theory of evoilution to be true, even though it is just a theory with strong supporting evidence

Creationist propaganda. This is false. Evidence for evolution is as concrete as the theory that dinosaurs existed. There is NO doubt that it didn't take place.

John Rennie can say it better than I can:

RE: Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

Spoonist · Post by **Spoonist** » 2002-11-14 11:22am

I think that they should change the wordings of their questions.

It is totally logical to have an emotional response to an emotional question and a rational response to a rational question.

This is not a contradiction:

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.

What I may consider foolish may have nothing to do with what I consider logical.

Even if I think that it is logical to steal of you are poor I do not think that it is right to steal even if you are poor.
This is not a contradiction. This is an emotional response.

Skelron · Post by **Skelron** » 2002-11-14 11:39am

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!

Yay me... I'm unsure on this I think the result it gave me is about right, but not on the question it pulled me up for. I studied Theology and one of the parts about God is he can no Anything, but it can also be qualified to include that is Logically possible. Now the question didn't make it clear, at least in my eyes that it ment Litterally anything and not Logical Possible things. (The two are still classed as being able to do anything.)

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-11-14 11:41am

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!

A good test. I didn't see the evolutionary contradiction- I thought that was dumb. I also thought that when I said God can do anything- it didn't include logically INVALID things. Like DER. That part of the test was STUPID.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2002-11-14 12:02pm

Bitten Bullet 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 bite the bullet.

I think I bit the bullet on this one because I've been around so many people that assume God's existence based on indoctrination and totally resist the idea of evolution without a basic understanding of science.

In otherwords I have enough of a chip on my shoulder about God/evolution that it screwed with my logic enough that I didn't answer how I would have for a question about the Loch Ness Monster.