Game for atheists and theists

[Old Pouncey]

"Medal of distinction. One bitten bullet and no direct hits. Good enough, in my opinion. I forget what the questions were, exactly, but the first one was about evolution theory, finding it justifiable to believe in without completely certain evidence, then the justifiable to believe in god without any evidence.

"It kind of implies that a lack of proof is consistent with a lack of evidence.

"So I'm with Sangu on this one."  

[Aepix]

Xanthir

Yep, I played this before, and I got the same score this time. I always have to bite one bullet, because I hold belief in god to a higher standard of truth than evolutionary theory. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and "God exists" (at least the sort of god that they're implying in the questionaire) is just about the most extraordinary claim there is.

Same here. Extraordinary claims indeed.  

[puresilver]

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!  

[Sinak]

I took two bullets.

I would post the score, but I exited out of it....

It was the second one though  

[Xiporah]

This is hard. The language used confuses me. I just don't understand some of the questions at all.

Either way, I got Medal of Distiction.

 

[S. Shark]

I bite one bullet and took three direct hits, all in the last 1/3 of the quiz. Mostly because I was concentrating more on my Cheetos than the questions. xd  

[_C r y s t a l_RB]

Xanthir

Yep, I played this before, and I got the same score this time. I always have to bite one bullet, because I hold belief in god to a higher standard of truth than evolutionary theory. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and "God exists" (at least the sort of god that they're implying in the questionaire) is just about the most extraordinary claim there is.

That's the same one I bit. So I got the second highest rank, The Medal of Distinction.  

[_C r y s t a l_RB]

sybex Shark

I bite one bullet and took three direct hits, all in the last 1/3 of the quiz. Mostly because I was concentrating more on my Cheetos than the questions. xd

A likekly story. LoL. I was actually very nervous when I did that quiz, because I didn't want to end up being a giant contradicion. Took a lot of thought.  

[Uchihas Blood]

Quote:

You've just taken a direct hit!

You say that God does not have the freedom and power to do impossible things such as create square circles, but in an earlier answer you said that any being which it is right to call God must be free and have the power to do anything. So, on your view, God is not free and does not have the power to do what is impossible. This requires that you accept - in common with most theologians, but contrary to your earlier answer - that God's freedom and power are not unbounded. He does not have the freedom and power to do literally anything.

Ouch. I did kinda contradict myself...

Quote:

You have reached the end!

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

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. 341696 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.

Quote:

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!

 

[The Seven Deadly Sinz]

here is how i did if any one cares:

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!  

[Aino Ailill]

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!

---

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

The Report

Plausibility Quotient

Plausibility Quotient = 0.9

The metaphysical engineers have determined that your conception of God has a plausibility quotient (PQ) of 0.9. A PQ of 1.0 means that as far as the metaphysical engineers can determine your conception of God is internally consistent and consistent with the universe that we live in. A PQ of 0.0 means that it is neither internally consistent nor consistent with our universe. More than likely, your PQ score will be somewhere between these two figures. But remember that this is your PQ score as determined by the metaphysical engineers. The editors of TPM have no control over their deliberations, so don't blame us!

---

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

Taboo - The Results

Results

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: -1.

What do these results mean?

Are you thinking straight about morality?

You see nothing wrong in the actions depicted in these scenarios. Consequently, there is no inconsistency in the way that you responded to the questions in this activity. However, it is interesting to note that had you judged any of these acts to be morally problematic, it is hard to see how this might have been justified. You don't think that an act can be morally wrong if it is entirely private and no one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it. The actions described in these scenarios are private like this and it was specified as clearly as possible that they didn't involve harm. One possibility might be that the people undertaking these acts are in some way harmed by them. But you indicated that you don't think that an act can be morally wrong solely for the reason that it harms the person undertaking it. So, as you probably realised, even this wouldn't seem to be enough to make the actions described in these scenarios morally problematic in terms of your moral outlook. Probably, in your own terms, you were right to adopt a morally permissive view.  

[Prince Rilian]

I have one problem with this game.

I answered as if God were omnipotent and omniscient, but not omnibenevolent.

Then came the question about whether God could make square circles, or make 1+1=72. Since I had previously said that God can do anything (on more than one question), the correct answer is True, God, if he existed, could make square circles, and make 1+1=72. That's how we know God doesn't exist-- because HE, just like square circles, is self-contradictory.

So, I played the game again, and kept all my answers the same, except that one. I changed it to False. When I said it was true, it said I had "bitten a bullet" and gave me the 2nd highest award, and when I said it was false, it said I had taken a direct hit and still gave me the 2nd highest award. So there is no way to win on this game! Maybe if I change my answers to the questions about God being omnipotent. But that's the typical christian definition, isn't it? That God is omnipotent?  

[Prince Rilian]

Aino Ailill

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

So I assume you said God is not omnipotent. What is your justification for that?

I suppose the only right answer for question 16 is false, so you HAVE to say that God is not omnipotent. But I answered the question honestly: Anything worth being called God would be omnipotent. Omnipotence is impossible, so God is impossible.

Also, the do-it-yourself-deity thing said that a God would in fact be omnipotent. So WTF? That means I answered correctly about God being omnipotent, which means there is NO right answer about the square circles !!!???!!!  

[Aino Ailill]

Rilian

Aino Ailill

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

So I assume you said God is not omnipotent. What is your justification for that?

The Christian God is not the only one. Look at Greek gods, they were not all powerful.

Quote:

I suppose the only right answer for question 16 is false, so you HAVE to say that God is not omnipotent. But I answered the question honestly: Anything worth being called God would be omnipotent. Omnipotence is impossible, so God is impossible.

Also, the do-it-yourself-deity thing said that a God would in fact be omnipotent. So WTF? That means I answered correctly about God being omnipotent, which means there is NO right answer about the square circles !!!???!!!

There is no correct answer. The purpose of the test is to see if your logic is consistent.  

[Prince Rilian]

Aino Ailill

There is no correct answer. The purpose of the test is to see if your logic is consistent.

If you answer the question of omnipotence as True, then the correct answer for square circles is True, yet it takes away points for that.

Basically what it is telling you is that if you think a being which deserved to be called God would be omnipotent, then you are being unreasonable. And yet on the do-it-yourself deity, they say that a God SHOULD be omnipotent. So that means the right answer to the omnipotence question is True, and the right answer to the square circles question is also True, and they take off points for it because they didn't scan for internal consistency in their website.

Don't respond by telling me that I am taking it too seriously or w/e. I'm not taking it seriously. I'm just saying what the problem with the game is.