Game for atheists and theists

[JudasImok]

You've gotta check this out! I don't know if this has been posted but I don't think so. Tell me what you think.
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.htm

Click on the link near the bottom that says "If you're ready to start..."

The link on the top for the "do-it-yourself deity" is also pretty cool.  

[The MoUsY spell-checker]

It's interesting. For people who aren't good with words (like me - despite the fact that I'm also very picky about spelling and grammar), it's useful for refining arguments before actually debating with someone.  

[Kyouiki Ikeike]

I'm curious as to what everyone got. Here's mine:

Quiz

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!

 

[JudasImok]

For Battleground God:

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!  

[Kyouiki Ikeike]

JudasImok

For Battleground God:

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!

Congrats! 3nodding

 

[Redem]

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!  

[JudasImok]

I really hope more people will take this quiz. So far the few that have, seem to have a good grasp of what they think about the concept of God. I'd really love to see more. (And remember, no cheating!!!)  

[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.  

[The Rock Buster]

This is my "direct hit."

The Quiz

You've just taken a direct hit!

Earlier you agreed that it is rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.

The contradiction is that on the first ocassion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.

This is bullshit, because I think someone could just toss a sub in Lake Loch Ness and end the debate about the Loch Ness Monster, and disproving God is considerably harder.

Nevertheless, I got this.

The Quiz

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 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!

 

[LleuLlawGyfes]

I got the third highest medal, because on the question about the serial prostitute killer/raper:

Quote:

The serial rapist Peter Sutcliffe had a firm, inner conviction that God wanted him to rape and murder prostitutes. He was, therefore, justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will in undertaking these actions.

I said Yes, because he thinks God wants him to rape/murder prostitutes, he is justified in thinking it was God's will that he should rape/murder prostitutes. I can't change what he thinks. If I think that the sky is plaid I am justified in thinking that I think the sky is plaid. In both cases Peter and I are ******** crazy, but we believe what we believe and are justified in thinking that we believe that.  

[Lethkhar]

I bite the bullet:

Quote:

You claimed earlier that any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the world as possible. But you say that God could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful. What this means is that God could make the reduction of suffering a sin... yet you've said that God must want to reduce suffering. There is a way out of this, but it means biting a bullet. So you've got to make a choice:

Bite the bullet and say that it is possible that God wants what is sinful (to reiterate the argument here - she must want to reduce suffering; she could make the reduction of suffering a sin; but if she did so, what she wanted (reducing suffering) would be sinful).

Take a direct hit and say that this is an area where your beliefs are just in contradiction.

The question was if God could change morality, not if it wanted to. The wording was off.

And here's another:

Quote:

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.

Yet I said at the beginning that God must have to power to do anything, even the logically impossible.

Sure, it doesn't work rationally, but neither does the idea of God being able to do anything, and I wasn't called on that.

Quote:

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 very few bullets 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 bullets occurred because you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, because you bit only two bullets and avoided direct hits completely you still qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

I still think I'm right... stare  

[Southwest]

I've seen this site before and noticed that there is a slight bias against atheism in it.

Nevertheless, I got a medal of distinction-- bit two bullets.

Whatever, I don't need an online test to tell me my beliefs.  

[Zoten]

I got a medal of distinction in that one. I toke one direct and bit one bullet. It was odd to see some of my beliefs in logical contradiction.  

[SmurfsonAcid]

I bit one bullet, but I know that it was unfair.

The evolution question said that it accepted that detail hadn't been proved, but there were mountains of evidence supporting it, and I believe in evolution, but, when I said that there had to be proof for God's existence, it said I was in contradiction.

Eh, whatever.  

[Sanguvixen]

I got the Medal of Distinction, I bit one bullet, and got no hits.

The way I look at it you cannot compare the idea of God, and Evolutionary Theory.

The idea of God has zero proof. It is not a scientific subject. I hate how people insist of putting science and philosophy together. It is like trying to put apple and oranges together and come out with one number...it doesn't work. You end up with two.

The idea of Evolution has proof. There is much bias in thier statement that Evolution has no proof.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Evolution is a big claim, with much proof. The idea of God is an even bigger claim with zero proof. I'll bite that bullet proudly.