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.
Yee-ha!
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?
[italics mine]
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 possibilities that most people would find bizarre.
What hogwash.
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.
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. 
I answered all question false, except 1, 6, 9, and 10.
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.
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>
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).
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!
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.