Our Beliefs may take a hit.... (686 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0.42 on 33 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Anjie <anjiekristeena.at.hotmail.com> (View user info) at 2003-10-28 12:31:12 EST
I came across a great quiz to look at how we think about God. I am not going to say whether I am a believer or not. It is beside the point. This little quiz takes almost every arguement I have seen here on Uber and puts it up against other beliefs we all have to see how hypocritical we are.
Go thru the quiz and see if you make it to the end. I really think is it worth it....
http://www.philosophyquotes.net/cgi-bin/god_game1.cgi
You'll understand the picture once you take the quiz.....
User Reviews
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2003-10-29 11:14:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
one hit one bullet
what was the point?
Submitted by Natophelia (user info) at 2003-10-29 11:04:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Whoohooo! Not a scratch! And I don't believe in the Christian god. Or Jebus.
Submitted by Smurfsalot (user info) at 2003-10-29 11:00:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
This test is biased towards a agnostic/rational take on god...
----------
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.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2003-10-29 10:45:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Robbjt : I see that I fit the definition but I object to being defined if you see what I mean?
Submitted by Franger (user info) at 2003-10-28 21:43:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Part 2:
Thirdly I was pissed off that they put one in that no matter which way you answer you get a bullet, but heres the way I answered truthfully:
"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."
I don't see how, yes I'm saying that there is nothing rational about there being a God and everything relating to God. I mean if God exists then he/she/it is probably well beyond our dimension and understanding and everything we perceive as rational, hell your talking about something that do ANYTHING. So I don't believe in god, I think its possible God exists but I personally don't believe it to be true. Yes the entire debate is not possible as there is no real evidence for either argument, again your talking about a something that is far beyond us. Franger 3 : Battleground God 0
Then they outright start making things up:
"You've just taken a direct hit!
Earlier you said 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 it's justifiable to believe in God on just these grounds. That's a flagrant contradiction!"
No its not a contradiction actaully, in one your asking me to apply my beliefs to society which I do not believe is correct to do, in the other your asking me if I'm allowed to have my own personal belief based on how I feel which I am. These matters don't relate at all, its a matter of opinion vs action. This one is so bad I'm taking a point off them as well for such terrible logic. Franger 4 : Battleground God -1
Then finally: "The direct hits you suffered occurred where your answers implied logical contradictions. You did bite a number of bullets. These 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."
Why does having beliefs different from others or having beliefs that others don't like mean I have to suffer a hit? Wow they really are full of shit. Franger 4 : Battleground God -2
Submitted by Franger (user info) at 2003-10-28 21:43:19 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
What a load of shit, first there was this:
"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?"
Well yes I do believe that it is POSSIBLE that there are aliens on Mars and we can never know for certain either way until either we discover them or we pull apart the entire planet and find nothing. And they even state there are no logical inconsistencies so why should I take a bullet. If any of you have studied logical circuits in mathematics then you'll know that my reasoning is true (I'll have to use words as I can't remember the symbols anymore). "If a is true then b is true". So for this particular logic case when a is true obviously b will be true, however when a is not true b is still true by default as this is not an "if and only if" scenario. Same thing applies with the cases asked on this site Franger 1 : Battleground God 0
Secondly:
"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!"
Yes he was justified in his belief that he was doign God's will, but as I was trying to express (with their limited options) in my first answer you can't apply your beliefs to society though, so althogh he was justified in HIS BELIEF, he was not justified in pushing his beliefs onto others and taking action in a society that disagreed with him. Franger 2 : Battleground God 0
Submitted by heatherm (user info) at 2003-10-28 20:29:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I stopped after the 10th question.. this quiz is crap.
It wanted me to bite the bullet b/c I said that, if God exists he/she should not be able to do what h/she wants, just b/c he/she is GOD. THEN.. it asked me if God could do anything, would it be possible for he/she to make everything that is sinful, moral, and everything moral, sinful.. and I said yes.. what the hell does the possibility have to do with it? I still don't think it's right, BUT it is possible. Because obviously, in the event of the existance of a God.. they DO let bad things happen. I'm rambling.. I'm not sure if that makes sense..fuck this test.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2003-10-28 20:05:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
0 hits, 1 bullet.
Submitted by Tom (user info) at 2003-10-28 18:54:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't need a quiz to tell me what I think about God.
-Tom
Submitted by Yes at 2003-10-28 17:49:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i bit one bullet....
Submitted by GRiM_PeePeR (user info) at 2003-10-28 17:36:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"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."
PWNED!
Submitted by sublime (user info) at 2003-10-28 17:13:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i only got hit once and bit zero bullets
Submitted by robbjt (user info) at 2003-10-28 16:01:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Interesting quiz.
SpikeGoddess - "No. Atheists believe there is no god."
Not quite. Athiest can also mean that you lack the belief in God. It doesn't mean you hold the belief that there is not a God, just that do you have no belief at all. Do you see the difference?
apollo88 - Do you see how this would make you an Athiest?
Submitted by beer-turtle (user info) at 2003-10-28 14:21:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I got some medal of honor score.
Shrug.
-turtle
Submitted by SpikeGoddess (user info) at 2003-10-28 13:48:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Apollo - "I do not believe in God therefore I am an atheist. " Wouldn't you be more of an agnostic?
No. Atheists believe there is no god.
A---prefix meaning 'non'
Thesim---belief in god
Agnostics do not know if there is one or not.
A---prefix again
Gnosis---knowing
These are paraphrased and innaccurate, but in the general ballpark of the word derivations.
SpikeGoddess
Submitted by Anjie (user info) at 2003-10-28 13:47:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
No worries.... I didn't think you were aiming at me. I was just trying to understand your thoughts. I enjoyed this quiz because it made me think about things. I answered the questions thinking not if I believe a certian way, but is it...um non-hypocritical (DOn't know how else to say it). I answered the questions generically.
Thanks for taking the time to make a logical and intellegent reply.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2003-10-28 13:40:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Anjie : Please don't think my outburst was aimed at you.
I am neither a christian, and agnostic or an athiest or anything! That is my point. I don't follow baseball. It doesn't interest me. Should I be labelled as "someone who doesn't follow baseball" or am I just a person?
Religion means nothing to me.
It is just another quirky interest that other people have, that is how I see it.
To be fair I think religion is a LOT more of an issue in the US than in Britain.
Submitted by Anjie (user info) at 2003-10-28 13:35:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Drunk - It means that you are very equal in you thinking and are well rounded in how you look at things.
Submitted by DrunkMonk (user info) at 2003-10-28 13:29:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I rock.
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.
Therefore, everything I think is right and anything opposed must be wrong. Right?
Submitted by Anjie (user info) at 2003-10-28 13:24:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Apollo - "I do not believe in God therefore I am an atheist. " Wouldn't you be more of an agnostic?
Submitted by marc01 (user info) at 2003-10-28 13:20:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
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
however i have a problem with their thinking..........
Q. It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists.
My answer was true. their response was...
You may have just taken a direct hit!
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 do require a higher standard of proof for belief in God than belief in evolution. I'll bite the bullet!
I choose to take the bullet to continue with the quiz. However to me evolution has been proven as
certain truth. There are numerous studies done on rapid generation species that will prove to me evolution works. These people are making an assumption right here and this invalidates their tests. Just because they do not believe the evidence does not make it untrue.
Submitted by Phinch (user info) at 2003-10-28 13:08:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
this game is interesting because it points out flaws in one's belief systems.
i think murphy might find it interesting.
Submitted by itchy (user info) at 2003-10-28 13:07:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I took one hit, and bit one bullet. I got whatever the second highest level medal was. I'm still pretty pissed about biting that bullet though. Their explanation was that I need to have a logical justification for (they do get points for admitting that there could be one) having an opinion that people might find "odd."
Submitted by SpikeGoddess (user info) at 2003-10-28 13:07:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I got the award thing too b/c I only took one hit.
The problem is that this questionnaire discusses an anthropomorphic God, which is not my concept of Divinity. This works well for the Judeo-Christian God, but not for my pagan ways.
SpikeGoddess
Submitted by Titinita (user info) at 2003-10-28 13:05:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Well, to correct myself, primase starts at the 5' end of the new strand being sythesized because DNA strand because DNA polymerase can ONLY add on to the 3' end of the RNA primer. The direction of replication always goes toward the 3' end.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2003-10-28 13:03:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I hate the way Christians and this "game" in particular try to label people.
I do not believe in God therefore I am an atheist.
No.
I have no opinion on religion at all.
Religion is an irrelevance to me.
I don't believe in Santa Claus does that make me an Asantaclausist? No.
Fuck off.
Man, I just feel like screaming at these people - FUCK OFF AND LEAVE ME ALONE.
I don't try and sell you indifference do I? Stop trying to sell me your bullshit.
I am not a serf.
I am not a 14th century peasant who needs the fear of hell and the promise of heaven to ensure my obedience.
It is 2003.
We have microwaves. We have cars. We can see to the edge of the universe. We have polyester pants.
FUCK OFF FUCK OFF FUCK OFF.
Phew.
Still angry, but not as much.
I am now going to go and lift weights.
Submitted by Random Joe at 2003-10-28 13:02:11 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
bah, this test was crap. it sure is good at pointing out logical inconsistencies, but no one is truly logical, we all are human. it doesnt take faith into account. youre allowed to have faith in certain areas and not in others. i dont, but people can, and so what if they do? peh. hogwash
Submitted by gascs (user info) at 2003-10-28 13:01:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I got the second highest - I took a hit on the 'all-powerful' deity question. I assumed that they meant within logical boundaries (i.e., not creating a rock so heavy it couldn't be lifted).
Oh well, I guess this just means I'm not the smartest person in the world. Crap.
Submitted by Titinita (user info) at 2003-10-28 12:59:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I think that the way this test sought and pointed out supposed "contidictions" in one's beliefs is deeply flawed. When it comes to believing in something no one can ever prove or disprove, sooner or later you are going to have to make a choice to believe something or not, regardless of how much evidence you find that either supports or contradicts these beliefs. When it comes to "reality," it really is subjective. What is true for one culture or individual may or may not be true for another, but that doesn't make it True or False with capital letters, because no one can know for sure, except perhaps for God. Looking at this from an artistic point of view, "realism" differs from culture to culture and from time to time. An ancient depiction of a god is just as "real" for that culture and a human figure is for ours. And while it is fun and educational to debate these things, no one ever wins, and it is pointless to deem someone's beliefs unfounded and therefore worthless, because that doesn't change how one sees and interprets the world for himself. I, for example, can know something rationally, but that doesn't change what I feel, and this feeling is so strong, it is REAL for me, just as real as anything I can see and touch and prove. Rational thought is good for trying to convince others to believe what you believe, or at least see where you are coming from, it may not change how another feels and believes, because it is not rational for that person.
I accept there are somethings nobody know, and probably will never know. Why does DNA replicate the way it does? Why have leading and lagging strands, when it is so unefficient that after every replication, it grows a little shorter? Why can't RNA primase begin from the 5 prime end? Was aging and death designed on purpose? Scientists will never know, and it is up to an individual to decide for himself. The more I learn in Bio and Chem, the more intricate and amazing the world becomes, and the more I start to believe there MUST have been some kind of design.
Submitted by Legendary_Threat (user info) at 2003-10-28 12:58:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
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 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!
Submitted by Anjie (user info) at 2003-10-28 12:53:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
DJMattB241 - I agree I think what it was trying to show us is that we hold higher standards to believe in somethings and lower standards to believe in others. I thought that this might show some of the people that do posts about whether there is or isn't a god that maybe they should look at their beliefs a little more closely....
Submitted by DJMattB241 (user info) at 2003-10-28 12:44:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
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.
------
only got hit once. i liked this. very crafty. i think, by the way, the way i got hit was CHEAP!
After 10 years of trying, no proof of loch ness monster. is it rational to not believe in the monster?
of course
No proof of God EVER for sure. Is it okay to believe despite this?
of course
i reeeeally dont think those are contradictions. just because its rational to not believe, doesnt mean it's irrational TO believe.
Submitted by Anjie (user info) at 2003-10-28 12:32:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Not sure if anyone will care or even like this, but here is my score...
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 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 where your answers implied logical contradictions. You did bite a number of bullets. These 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.
The fact that you did not suffer many hits means that you qualify for our third highest award. Well done!