Battleground God - consistency test

[CBCD]

If you liked the BeliefNet test, you might enjoy this test. The purpose is to determine if your views about God are rationally consistent, regardless of what they are. A fun test...

http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm

[Honey]

Medal of honor. 0 hits, 0 bullets.

[Padeye]

Interesting test. I fared less consistently than I hoped (though only by one hit) but I disagree with some of the conclusions because of wording and unasked quesionts. Worth a look for anyone.

[Meatros]

4 hits, 1 bullet bitten, and an honorable discharge.

I SUCK!

[astorian]

I'd like to know if any BELIEVERS get through that test without getting shot to pieces.

I ask because, as soon as I finished entering my real beliefs (and got buried for my troubles!), I decide to pretend I was an atheist. I'm not, but I knew the answers an atheist would be expected to give. And sure enough, I zipped through without a scratch.

Now, it's POSSIBLE I'm just pathetically illogical and inconsistent. But it's also possible the designers of this quiz have their own agenda.

If any Christians make it to the end alive, let me know!

[Padeye]

Well, I'm a Christian and got through with two hits and two bitten bullets but I contest at least one of the hits. I think that earned me the TPM service medal, equivalent to a "participant" certificate I think. I agree the test is somewhat biased against theists but I didn't let it get to me. The site almost, but not quite admits the bias.

[Ethilrist]

One hit, two bullets. TPM medal of something-or-other. Believer.

[SandyHook]

You took zero direct hits and you bit zero bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.36 hits and bites 1.09 bullets. 85088 people have so far undertaken this activity.



7.61% of the people who have completed this activity, like you, emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.



Sort of confirms what I've always suspected. I may not know what I'm talking about, but I'm consistant with it.

I think Padeye's comment about it being biased against "believers" is probably correct.

[XJETGIRLX]

I'm a believer and I got one hit and two bullets. However, I don't see the logical inconsistency that they supposedly "got" me on.

It was the question about justifying your beliefs on strong convictions. I answered that true, you can justify your (own) beliefs on strong convictions.

Later, when I answered that the rapist would not be justified just because he claimed he was told to do so by God, I answered false, although I could agree that in his *own* mind he probably consiered himself justified. My interpretation of the question was that they were asking if *I* felt he was justified, thus an answer of false.

I think they failed to distinguish the perspective for the two instances. Just because I feel justified in doing/believing something doesn't mean I expect anyone else to believe I am justified in doing/believing so, and 'justification' is not exactly a term that connotes exact and universal meaning.

I won't even get into the part about where they said an absence of evidence would mean that you would have to come to the conclusion that there is not intelligent life on mars, and the whole loch-ness thing. That's just waaay too much for right now.

I agree that the test is skewed, but not altogether worthless.

[Padeye]

Pretty good Ethilrist. That's likely to be as high as most believers will get.

Safe to say this test may be extremely unkind to some believers. Don't let it get to you and don't let it batter your faith. Use it as an opportunity to examine our outlook on the world and logic. Heck, use it to pick apart their logic and conclusions. Faith transcends logic but logic and reason are still good things.

[CBCD]

As a believer, I got hit when I said I thought it was incorrect to believe in the Loch Ness Monster when there has been no sign of such, and yet I believe in God. Well who said faith is about reason, anyway?

[jazzmine]

Athiest. 0 Hits, 0 Bullets.

[UncleBeer]

I scored 0 & 0, too playing as an atheist, which I am. I also fooled around with it starting from agreeing that (a) God definitely exists. The best I could do was 0 direct hits and 2 bitten bullets. I don't think it's possible to get through the game cleanly when one makes the initial assumption that God exists.

[cadolphin]

Originally posted by astorian
I'd like to know if any BELIEVERS get through that test without getting shot to pieces.



yes

[Soup_du_jour]

This game is...how shall I say...biased.

[Soup_du_jour]

Oh, I got 3 hits and one bullet.

[astorian]

Apparently, one of the game's assumptions is that if I elect to believe in God, I'm inconsistent not to believe in every other mythical or legendary being.

I gather that, by their logic, if I accept the existence of God, I'm also required to accept the existence of the Loch Ness monster, or I'm "inconsistent."

Of course, as Ralph Waldo Emerson said, that sort of "consistency" is the hobgoblin of little minds.

[king of spain]

Ha! I made it through completely clean as a believer. But I was on the lookout for ambiguously worded questions.

[FriarTed]

1 bullet bitten (saying the scientific consensus is wrong about evolution) & 1 direct hit (irrationality of Nessie belief w/o evidence while saying atheism is matter of faith)- altogether I got a Medal of Distinction for having my beliefs of God thought out & almost consistent.

[bluecanary]

2 Hits as an agnostic (Don't Know to first question). Q14 and Q16.

Q14--the one about the Loch Ness Monster--is the most controversial (as the FAQ shows), as I considered the standard of proof for a physical entity like Nessie to be different to that for an allegedly spiritual, non-laws-of-physics-abiding-by entity such as the Christian God.

[Ice Wolf]

0 hits, 0 bullets, as a whatever-the-heck-I-am-but-it's-not-as-a-Christian. :) I'm unlabelled, but consistent in my belief.

Astonishing.

[js_africanus]

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

[NaSultainne]

Another believer here, also 0 hits and 2 bullets. Internally consistent, it says and well thought out. Gee thanks. I feel ever so much better now. I'll ditto on the scales being tipped against believers. The phrasing of some of the questions seemed intended to trip people up. Take a look at their logic:

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?


First, by defining evidence and quantifying it, you've determined the basis of the argument. If I choose not to accord the same weight, or lack of it, to the so-called evidence, it simply does not follow that I then must accept, and give equal credence to, any and all subsequent [i]possibilities that most people would find bizarre.


What hogwash.

[Tristan]

You took 1 direct hit and you have bitten 1 bullet.

No worries. My beliefs, such as they are, are firm. I'm not that worried about it. I think what threw me off is my belief that everyone has the right to their beliefs, even if they go against mine.

[Achernar]

Wow, I expected to be thoroughly inconsistent. But I answered as a believer and got 0 and 0. Clearly the test is biased against me personally. :D

I answered all question false, except 1, 6, 9, and 10.

[Achernar]

Whoa. I just took it again, and answered the same for everything, except I changed the answer for question 1 from True to False. Still 0/0. I don't know what to make of that; I guess that not believing in much of anything counts as being consistent. :)

[Zoe]

0 hits 3 bullets!

NaSultainne, I also had trouble with this accessment:
"...you are required to countenance possibilities that most people would find bizarre."

I think that means that I am consistently crazy.

At least I was able to recognize the question that was a reference to Kierkegaard's theory of the teleological suspension of the ethical. (Sigh...)

Actually, I have waited for THIRTY-SEVEN YEARS to be able to use the above underlined phrase in a sentence!!! I am mad with joy!!! <Snoopy dance>

[Early Out]

There are some inherent flaws in the test, particularly if one doesn't believe in God. Many of the questions are of the "could God do x, y, and z" variety. But if you don't believe that there is a God, the question makes no sense. If pigs had wings, could they fly? Since pigs don't have wings, the answer is (null).

[CBCD]

A big flaw in the test is to equate lack of tangible evidence for the existence of the Loch Ness monster with lack of tangible evidence of the existence of God. I don't need the Loch Ness monster in the same way I need God. Belief in God is not the same as beleif in the Loch Ness Monster.

Nonetheless, I thought it was interesting. I REALLY like the general website. I am an active Episcopalian with a degree in Philosophy. Fun for me!

[lynn73]

Originally posted by Padeye
Interesting test. I fared less consistently than I hoped (though only by one hit) but I disagree with some of the conclusions because of wording and unasked quesionts. Worth a look for anyone.

I took 2 direct hits and bit 1 bullet. I agree with you about the wording and unasked questions. I don't consider God to be a "she", either. Some of the questions assume things I don't agree with and not all can be answered with a true or false.