atheist or believer? take this quiz to find out

[McKenzie]

beware, it's a very well constructed set of questions and not a throwaway fun thingy. More good stuff on the home page.

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

and while you're at it have a go at constructing your ideal deity...

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

[Spider Jerusalem]

1. Okay...

Congratulations!


You took zero direct hits and you bit zero bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.12 bullets. 242524 people have so far undertaken this activity.

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!

[skygazer]

2. I don't think it is well constructed and here's why

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.


This is what it's telling me, forcing this choice on me. However, I believe that there IS plenty of proof that evolutionary theory is correct. It may not be certain, irrevocable proof but I see it as proof nonetheless.

I don't beleive a higher standard is required for belief in god but I have seen no proof whatsoever. Therefore, there is no contradiction here and this is geared improperly by going on the premise that there is no proof of evolution which I dispute.

[Misunderestimator]

8. I had the same roadblock, so I took a hit.

... I do agree with you though.

[MrModerate]

12. As they explain, the constraints of the game force them . . .

to ask pretty stupid questions (as I see it).

And yeah, there is just a TINY bit of difference between "essentially true" and "certain, irrevocable proof" -- at least a enough to make the question nonsensical.

I got through unscathed by taking the point of view that all characterizations of god were inherently false (no matter what the question) because the concept of god is inherently false. That worked for me.

[arcane1]

30. got me in the same place too

and I had no choice but to accept their flimsy premise

[soothsayer]

3. well, I got the second highest award

1 direct hit, bit two bullets.

[toddaa]

4. The first quiz was interesting

The second was monotheistic nonsense (I'm a Taoist Pantheist).

[Schema Thing]

5. I'll take my A-Team badge now, thank you.

You took zero direct hits and you bit zero bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.12 bullets. 242544 people have so far undertaken this activity.

[Misunderestimator]

6. Hmmm ... "Medal of Distinction"

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!

How did you do compared to other people?

* 242545 people have completed this activity to date.
* You suffered 2 direct hits and bit zero bullets.
* This compares with the average player of this activity to date who takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.12 bullets.
* 38.50% of the people who have completed this activity have, like you, been awarded the TPM Service Medal.
* 7.48% of the people who have completed this activity emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.
* 45.90% of the people who have completed this activity took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.

[Krupskaya]

7. I disagreed with it, too...

...because I hate the assumption that a God figure can stop human suffering if S/He wanted to. What I've found is that God has given us the tools to stop the vast majority of human suffering -- we could stop world hunger or the AIDS crisis or child abuse. We have that power. We just choose not to. We're fucking it up; it isn't God's fault.

[Z_I_Peevey]

9. Some of the questions were poorly worded,

but that was interesting. I bit two bullets, BTW.

[sinkingfeeling]

10. I also had zero hits and zero bullets!! I got a reward!!

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

[signmike]

11. I may already be a weiner!

I enjoy 'tests' like this. 2 bullets, no hits

[Xipe Totec]

13. One hit, no bullets

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.

But I disagreed with the results for the following reason:

A belief that there is no Lock Ness Monster can be rational and can also be based on faith. In other words, one person can believe for one reason, and a different person can believe it for the opposite reason. Neither is wrong necessarily.

A belief that the is no God can be rational, and can also be based on faith. Same argument as before; Two people, two answers.

The questions are posed relative to an indeterminate third party and there is no requirement that the same third party be the basis for the answers to Q10 and Q14

Therefore all four combinations of replies to Q10 and Q14 can be valid; no combination of replies can be deemed to be in contradiction so long as the questions specify an indefinite individual.

[pres2032]

14. this is a bad test, certianly not made by any believers

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 know how to respond to that other than to say, look at the resurrection, the raising of Lazarus, the healing of the lepers and the blind and etc...

Sure there are plenty of things in the bible and in religion that defy "rational" thought, but that's what having real, true faith is all about. To say that because i beleive in unrational things makes it impossible to have a rational discussion is hogwash and taking the easy way out of having to talk about things your brain says is impossible, but your heart says otherwise.

[toddaa]

17. It's a "philosophy" quiz

Rational discourse is the basis for philosophy. Rational discourse are the groundrules for any philosophical discussion. Once you take away the rational part, it's very difficult to play the philosophy game because you are no longer playing by the rules.

Don't feel bad, there are many philosophical constructs which are rock solid logical. They're also nonsensical.

[Spider Jerusalem]

21. The answer to that is...

that if god created the universe then he has to play by the rules. A circle can never be square, because it is NOT POSSIBLE...it is more impossible than raising the dead. Area of a circle =π*r², area of a square with side of length a=a²; also, in base-ten arithmetic, one plus one can never equal 72....if these kinds of contradictions did or could exist then the universe as we know it could not. It;'s generally agreed that god must be constrained by certain logical principles which cannot be contravened.

[pres2032]

23. but then too...

isn't raising from the dead going against the "rules" too? That seems to go against biological rules. I see your point that God should play by his own rules, but then doesn't He also have the right to break them too. After all, that's kinda what Jesus was sent to do, to clarify and rewrite the old Jewish laws.

[Spacemom]

15. This from the Heathen Pagan....

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 1.39 hits and bites 1.12 bullets. 242589 people have so far undertaken this activity.

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!

[Mr. McD]

16. I disagree that there is a contradiction.

There is evidence of evolution. There is no evidence of god.


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!


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.

[dean_dem]

18. Doesn't the fact that I selected for #1...

That I believe God does not exist negate most of the other questions ? It seems that whole quiz was constructed by someone who did believe in god, rather than someone who was really objective. A lot of those questions seemed really black-and-white.

EDIT: Even more problems with this quiz: so for the sake of argument, I continue to select what would define a God. So if a God is all-powerful, then it would have the power to want what is sinful? Hey, its their contradiction, not mine.

[pres2032]

19. i thought that it was made by someone who did not

believe in God. See post # 14

[dean_dem]

22. I guess it depends on how you look at it....

My point was that its kind of pointless to debate what it is right to call something that I don't believe exists. Its even more pointless to call me on the contradictions that result from it.

I guess it goes to show why you can't really have a rational debate with an online quiz. I'll keep my debate limited to people.

[pres2032]

please delete

hit the "post message" button a bit too much

[pres2032]

please delete - same as above

[pres2032]

24. very true

a lot easier to debate and discuss with someone who doesn't "shoot you" when you make a supposed contradiction and then you're not able to clarify it.

[furrylitldevil]

20. A few of those questions were loaded

focusing more on logical fallacy than belief. The whole "Can God make 1+1=72" is like asking "Does God have to follow the rules of logic or is God bound by them as humans are" it really has no bearing on faith.

[yellowcanine]

26. Of course it is about logical fallacy because it it is illogical to

believe in an omnipotent God and to accept the notion of "free will" at the same time. Religion, or at least Christianity does not work without "free will", so the notion of an omnipotent God is absurd, at least for Christians. Another way of saying this is to say that it is illogical to believe in an omnipotent God and in good and evil. Think about it.

[m0nkeyneck]

25. new reality TV show?

my big fat ugly god...

[SheilaT]

27. I likewise took no direct hits

and bit one bullet over the evolution thing.

The problem is that this quiz seems to assume that god exists, and the quiz is looking at now non believers in god are consistent, without fully recognizing that to believe in god in the face of no evidence whatsoever is pretty weird.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

28. You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction!

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!

[arcane1]

29. no hits, bit 2 bullets

I could have enjoyed arguing some of the premises therein

[Rowdyboy]

31. kick

[hyphenate]

32. 1 direct hit, 1 bite the bullet

The way I approached it was taking into consideration that while I personally don't believe a lot of it, I respect those who do (but don't shove it down my throat).

I think if it's made a little clearer to NOT take other POVs into consideration, you could get through with no damage at all. I did send them an email mentioning that aspect.