Found this in the ED

[Baron von Turkeypants]

Very fun quiz.

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

Here's what I got:

* 386474 people have completed this activity to date.
* You suffered zero direct hits and bit 1 bullet.
* This compares with the average player of this activity to date who takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullets.
* 45.72% of the people who have completed this activity, like you, took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.
* 7.67% of the people who have completed this activity emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.

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.




The reason I "bit that bullet" is because I figured the idea of God was more extraordinary than the idea of evolution, and thus merited stronger proof. amirite? amirite?  

[AnonymouZ]

I like that test. I bit 2 bullets and took one hit i think. Goes to show how ambivalent i am. BUT b.O.t.

It really amounts to the same, IF the definition of god changed to: 1. creator 2. Specimen (or from the species) that creates, and lets the world (universe)to be.

Crap... did i even made sense? Whatever, what i'm trying to say is: no, dude. Speculating about the past, which is pretty much what evolution tries to nail, is speculating about something that you can never find PROOF about, but rather, strong evidence affirming/updating current believes. Evolution answers for lots of differences/similarities with animals and stuff... but it does a crappy job of explaining how does a plant living in the abyss gets to have the same protein base (DNA) that Homo Sapiens have.

Or maybe it's just me the one who can't see the jump from plancton or algae and fish... which is why i reiterate "no, dude, i think it's the same thing"  

[ProjectOmicron88]

I bit two bullets and took two direct hits. The thing that I kept constant was the notion that moral concepts of "right" and "wrong" depend upon who you ask, but I contradicted myself more that once with regards to something being justifiable as long as an internal conviction is present. I began to falter and instead rationalized that external evidence also plays a crucial role, but all too late. Looks like I need some practice. X_X  

[Theophrastus]

Quiz

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 never said that God had to be a rational being and, in my understanding of the world, omnipotence is irrational and internally inconsistent (burrito so hot, etc).

Quiz

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 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullet. 386528 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.

Wewt.  

[Redem]

The exact same result as the good Baron, above. Same bullet I had to bite. Such an extraordinary claim will need extraordinary evidence to make it compelling.  

[Baron von Turkeypants]

Ah, someone can see reason talk2hand

EDIT: gj too, redem





rational hi5!  

[Redem]

*rational hi5s back*  

[Zambimaru]

You took 1 direct hit and you bit zero bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullets. 386568 people have so far undertaken this activity.  

[SkeletonPhoenix]

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. 386570 people have so far undertaken this activity

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


This one got me because ether way I was going to take a hit or bullet. That is because I said earlier that God could do anything he or she wanted. So this would have conradicted my previous answer if I did not answer that way.

I also agree with Theophrastus about this question.

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.

No, this is not fight we do have proof of evolution Micro evolution but still it is proof. Hell HIV evolves and adapts everytime it takes a new host so Take it. Or am I out of my finger liking mind here. blaugh  

[Theophrastus]

Your mind likes fingers?

No, brother, you and I see from the same angle. Good times.  

[Meirelle]

I took several hits. The questions were rather ambiguous at times.

Tricky bastards. stare  

[Baron von Turkeypants]

not to me...  

[Oracle for Hire]

Bit a bullet. I'm not going to belive that god exits without proof. I won't say it isnt real without proof either.

There are known knowns and unknown knowns. But there are also known unknowns and unknown unknowns, things that we know we don't know, such as the existance of a higher power, and thing we don't know that we don't know, in which giving an example would make it a known unknown.

I hope this wasnt too confusing.  

[Baron von Turkeypants]

Sometimes a cigar...

No, but I think this explains it more eloquently:

...is]http://youtube.com/watch?v=m9R-Et6sezs

...is just a cigar.

 

[Oracle for Hire]

Thanks, I knew I heard something like that somewhere before but I couldn't remember where.