Hi Guys,

This is a really great way to test your consistency. Remember, this is not a test to determine your faith, or how much of it you have, as you can be Christian and score perfect or an Atheist and score perfect.

All it tests is your reasoning and consistency for why you believe the way you do.

"Battleground God" Test yourself.

Here's my results:




My results linky.

Can't wait to see everyones!

cool little test

Ditto. But it is also possible that I have bullet-proof beliefs. I am agnostic, think that Odin would make a fine god (as would a neighbor's beagle, PBUH), and do not hold that it is justifiable to believe anything regardless of the evidence on point.

Also, umm, "So-and-so is a serial rapist... blah, blah, blah .... Are so-and-so's beliefs that serial rape is OK justified?"

I am thinking no. Go figure.

Great find, all kidding aside, SDD.

TRM medal of honor....No hits...

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 very few 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. 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. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hit and bitten bullets.

Because you only suffered one direct hit and bit very few bullets, you qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!


Well just took it for fun,
Always a pleasure

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!

whew that was close lol

Ok let’s look at my two hits:

My counter bullet is that the existence of a sea monster is irrelevant to my existence but a creator of all things is very much relevant to my existence. As well as a sea monster would have no reason to leave us recorded messages of its existence but a Deity would.

My counter bullet is that Peter Sutcliffe was justified only within his own mind yet it is in violation of the recorded word of God in scripture. If our own thoughts contradict what one believes is the word of God than the mistake is within us entirely.

The inventor is not subject to his inventions but lives outside of the paradigm of his invented. In this case it is “logical thought and reason from a human perspective” and we are trapped within it paradigm because we are part of creation.

Interesting exercise anyway, good find
Irish

Wow that was tough. There were some questions I don't want to answer true or false on. What is true in the spirit world isn't necessarily true in the physical world. Did you notice they referred to God as she.

And I bit one bullet.

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

Total: 1 Direct Hit, 1 Bitten Bullet.

Some questions had a more than "True/False" possibilities. At least once I was compelled to say "I don't know", but did not have that option. Other times I wanted to write "mostly true", or "mostly false". Playing with such absolutes is just not right. And once I wanted to reply "maybe". The Direct Hit:

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 these convictions. True

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. False

I scored a Direct Hit for this one, naturally. However, I think there is a difference between "belief" and "action". You may be justified in a belief, but if that belief causes actions harms other people, then the action is not justified. In any case, i would have liked to answer "in some instances" to the first question, rather than the absolute "true".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Interestingly, I tried it again with all the same answers but clicked "True" for the rapists justification. I got a Bitten Bullet for admitting that a Rapist/Murder could be justified in their action/belief. The same thing happened when I chose the opposite answer for my bitten bullet (I got a Direct Hit - I stated that God being God could do anything, which also facilitated that 1+1 can equal 72). Which leads me to conclude:

For those who are Christian, the only way to score a perfect answer is to:

1- say that it is not justifiable to base what you believe about the external world on your inner convictions, and thus claiming you have no reason to act on your Faith, and,

2- to admit that God cannot do everything (hence deny the very nature of God)

I submit that it is impossible for a Christian to reach the end with a perfect score, unless they say there is no justifiable reason for them to believe, and thus invalidate their own belief

Just a few thoughts to consider,

~ PA

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 have progressed through this activity without suffering many hits and biting only one bullet 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. 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. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hits and bitten bullet.

The fact that you did not suffer many hits and only bit one bullet means that you qualify for our third highest award. Well done!

Yeah, you are right. I went back and did it again, and answered all the questions as I would if I were still a Christian, and I will admit, I think the test is a little biased.

I apologize, I was just going by what the site said.

And, as always, the fact that everything was in absolutes is for simplicity in the quiz I am sure. Can you imagine how many possible answers there could have been to every question? So, in a way, this was a very basic little quiz, open to interpretation by the test taker.

I don't think you need to. I think the test in unbiased enough to justify your description of it. (umm, a Pagan reports similar difficulties as two Christians... hmm, tell me more about this bias you speak of....)

I think the main repeated problem stems from a way of using language that comes naturally to professional philosophers, but does not reflect the way people generally use words in their everyday lives.


based on answering true to


See the difference? It is the piece that begins with regardless.

In everyday life, regardless means many things, like "despite overwhelming adverse evidence," or "I am familiar enough with the evidence that actually exists to be confident that no change in that evidence will actually occur that changes my mind."

For a philosopher, regardless means what the word looks like it would mean: without looking, without regard, sight unseen. Appeal to evidence is unavailing.

So, if you assent that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs on personal conviction regardless of any evidence (or argument, wasn't that in the original question?), then you must agree that a serial rapist's sincere self-vindication is justifiable.

The only alternative would be to regard the evidence and arguments and say that the rapist's convictions, however sincerely held, are absurd and grotesque.

As to the other point raised by PA,


based upon


And so you asserted that 1 + 1 can equal 72, which is, on its face, exactly a contradiction.

I have no doubt that there are some people who believe that "God can do anything" carries no hedge. However, it is my understanding that many devout people do believe that God is incapable of doing things that are impossible in the sense that doing them is properly a contradiction (as distinct from things that are merely paradoxical, beyond human ken, or not "what I would do if I were God").

I respect your right to differ with that view, PA. But it is not bias to call a spade a spade, and to assert that "1 + 1 can equal 72" is to assert a contradiction. It would be a contradiction even if making that so were among God's prerogatives.

To say that something is what it is simply is not an anti-Christian statement, and so innocent of bias. Since some Christians do believe that God's anything is hedged, SDD's statement about the possibility of a Christian attaining a perfect score is true as she wrote it.

Just a final note, when I took the test, answering the initial questions as an agnostic, I was asked a variety of hypothetical questions about what God would be like if he or she did exist. And I was also asked all of the questions mentioned by PA.

So, the oppotunity for asserting contradictions was as available to me as to a Christian.

It would seem to me that even an avowed atheist might assent to some general authority for personal conviction, misconstrue how radical regardless is when taken literally, identify the serial rapist is a crackpot, and so fall into the same wordtrap as the godly did, and the clueless like me might have.

Its worded similar to the old argument "Can God make a rock so heavy he could not lift it?'

If you look at the question from a human perspective I think you would find the answer!

I have the knowledge, skill and ability to build a room that I can not get out off but I also have the wisdom and good sense to know that that would not be very bright thing to do.

Well, Irish, that is another way professional philosophers differ from thee and me.

They think God thinks just like them.

A philosopher prays "Dear God, can you make a rock that you cannot lift?" and imagines that the clouds will part, a ray of light will stream down, and a booming voice will intone "What a great question! Let me get back to you on that."

One Bullet Bit.

"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."

My response to that isn't repeatable on a family-orientated website.

So the question remains are the philosopher’s still pondering life or just waiting for Got to get back to them?

No need to apologise, I was just making an observation. I agree about the absolutes for simplicity though. Again I was just making an observation

It's not just biased towards Christians. Pagans also believe in gods, so for them also, the only way to score a perfect score is to say that there is no reason they should believe, and thus invalidate their own beliefs. Perhaps I was too narrow in my statement that "the only way a Christian can score perfect". I should have perhaps referred to anyone who believes in God/s/esses.