Are you a religous hypocrite? Take the test and find out!

[whiterabbit]

2 hits, no bullets. I would have liked a “no opinion” option on some of the questions.

[matt_mcl]

Re flawed, they admit as much:

First, because you only have choices between pre-selected and carefully worded statements, you might find that you have taken a direct hit because the statement closest to your own conviction leads into a contradiction. However, had you phrased the statement yourself, you may have been able to avoid the contradiction while expressing a very similar belief.

Such possibilities are unavoidable given the constraints on the game. We merely ask that you do not take it personally if you suffer a direct hit and don’t get too frustrated if the choices we offer you sometimes seem to force you into a choice you’d rather not make.

I got one hit, no bullets.

[yoyo3500]

Looks like the work of theophobics…

[Beadalin]

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

One hit, no bullets. Woo hoo! Although it looks like I hit the same snag pepperlandgirl did. I guess I think that God can do anything except change basic laws, because my puny brain can’t conceive of a universe in which 1 + 1 = 72. Nope. So, I’ll take that hit with my chin held high.

[flood]

*Originally posted by SnoopyFan *
**1 direct hit, 1 bullet **

Me too. That rapist question and the square circles question.

[Muad_Dib]

*Originally posted by Beadalin *
**One hit, no bullets. Woo hoo! Although it looks like I hit the same snag pepperlandgirl did. I guess I think that God can do anything except change basic laws, because my puny brain can’t conceive of a universe in which 1 + 1 = 72. Nope. So, I’ll take that hit with my chin held high. **

Yup, that is where I got my hit too. I am a little gladdened to see that I was not alone in being tripped up by that one.

[Blonde]

– You’ve just taken a direct hit! Earlier you said that it is justifiable to base one’s beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction. But now you do not accept that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in doing just that. The example of the rapist has exposed that you do not in fact agree that any belief is justified just because one is convinced of its truth. So you need to revise your opinion here. The intellectual sniper has scored a bull’s-eye! –

One hit, no bullets. Score another point for the rapist question…and it was #15, almost made it! No fair.

[Tarrsk]

1 hit, 1 bullet.

*Originally posted by Priceguy *
Two hits, but I think the test’s wrong. Here’s my first hit:This is just playing with words. What was I supposed to say, that evolution is false because there’s no certain proof, or claim that it’s a brilliant thing to believe in God without proof? There’s a distinction between ordinary and extraordinary claims, and besides evolution has evidence, God doesn’t. This is no inconsistency.

Yes, it is (and for the record, this was my hit as well). Whether evolution is actually true or false is irrelevant to the question- the point is whether you’re willing to accept something as true due entirely to inductive reasoning. Like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution cannot be deductively proven to be true. It does, however, have a huge mound of observed evidence in its favor. That observational evidence is enough for today’s biologists to assume that the theory is correct, but does not discount the possibility that a better theory may come to replace it in the future.

In your answer to the evolution question, you state that you believe the theory of evolution to be true. Therefore, you are accepting the theory based on induction. However, you state that you will not believe in God without certain proof. By that, the test was referring to deductive reasoning- that one must be able to logically demonstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt that God exists before you will believe in His/Her/Its existence. The answer you gave essentially states “observed evidence be damned where God is concerned.” If you accept evolution inductively, then it is a logical inconsistency for you to refuse to accept God the same way. I agree that the question was very poorly worded, but that’s the distinction.

[photopat]

Two hits, one bullet. I too think the test is flawed by requiring absolute answers.

[hajario]

Atheist. 0 hits. Medal of Honor.

If I am anything, I am consistent.

Haj

[Mr_Tambo]

One direct hit (the evolution thing). I think the test is easier for atheists like me though; flat denials make it much less easy to trip yourself up later on.

[Marley23]

Good point about some of the flaws in calling for absolute answers. I guess indirectly, that was what I meant when I said I didn’t have an opinion on some of them.

4 of 4 on the logic test.

[Shodan]

I don’t see why it is so awful to bite a bullet.

They seemed to assume that I would be upset to find that my reasoning led me to say that I wouldn’t assume there were no intelligent aliens on Mars, absent any conclusive evidence.

This sounds to me like a basic element of rational thought. If there is no convincing evidence that a proposition is true or false, then we can only conclude that it is unproven - not that it is false. We can assume one way or the other, but that is faith.

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.

I don’t buy this either.

Could God make the “if A, then not A” proposition true? Sure. What would the universe be like it He did? This is literally unanswerable.

Interesting test, despite the agenda, though.

Regards,
Shodan

[MovieMogul]

2 hits, 1 bullet, but…

You’ve just taken a direct hit! Earlier you said that it is justifiable to base one’s beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction. But now you do not accept that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in doing just that. The example of the rapist has exposed that you do not in fact agree that any belief is justified just because one is convinced of its truth. So you need to revise your opinion here. The intellectual sniper has scored a bull’s-eye!

:rolleyes: Please, there is a big difference between feeling justified in having a conviction and feeling justified in acting out on that conviction when it negatively impacts others (and choosing “regardless” instead of “despite” loads the question, too).

[Weirddave]

I agree that the two hits I took were bullshit, both have been mentioned here already. Equating belief/non-belief in a tangiable physical object, like the Loch Ness Monster with the belief in an intangeable being, like God, is apples and oranges. There are plenty of ways which Nessie could be touched, proven to exist, etc., and since they have not yeilded a monster, it is safe to assume that the monster dosen’t exist. There are no ways in which God could be similarly proven to exist. Also, the square circle question. If God, by definition is an omnipotent being, then he could change 1+1 to 72 or make circles square anytime he wanted to, what’s more, we’d never even know it. Our frame of reference would also have changed so that those things were true.

A thought provolking test none the less.

[Muad_Dib]

Fundamentally, no. Not if the conviction is based on nothing but your feeling.

[Cervaise]

Strong atheist here. Zero hits, zero bullets.