Battleground God

Remove all ads!

I ran into this quiz and thought that with all the religion-related discussions we have been having, this one is quite interesting.

For reference's sake, I took 2 direct hits and bit one bullet

 

I didn't get hit nor did I bite any bullets.

 

I got hit 4 times because of inconsistent answers. I like this quiz it makes you think.

I also did the 'create your own diety' one. I need to work on that one too.

Arabwel

 

No problems at all. But as someone who has spent most of their life to this point in school, I'm very cautious about absolute answers like "must" or "needs". Being agnostic means that most of those questions I answered False just on an "I can't know that" level, which I imagine didn't give the test much to work with.

 

I bullet, one hit.

 

No hits, no bullets. Consistent Atheist.

 

You have been awarded the TPM service medal! This is our third highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground. Two hits, no bullets.

Interesting.

 

Two direct hits, one near miss.

First, I said that It was rational to assume that the Loch Ness monster didn't exist, but then Aethiesm was in fact a matter of faith.

Also, I acknowledged that it was okay to base your understanding of spiritual matters, but then would not say that the Serial Rapist was right when he claimed that God wanted him to rape those women. I question this, because I believe that his belief was out of whack because it contradicted the laws as set out prior to his lifetime. Since God doesn't change, the laws He set in place don't change, and thus Rape is still forbidden, and the Lord will not demand that we commit rape...

The near miss was because I stated that it was okay to assume that the Loch Ness monster didn't exist, but was okay to believe that God does exist. I believe that my answer to question 1 where I said that He does exist may have prevented that from being a third hit.

 

Survived unscathed. My lack of belief is quite consistant

Not that much of the rest of my personal philosophy is - run that through a test like this and I'd be a corpse.

 

I bit one bullet.

My problem was with evolution vs. religion. I said it was foolish to believe in something without certain proof (in this case gods) yet I am prepared to accept evoloution as fact without certain proof.

My personal argument was that there is proof of evoloution working throughout time, things HAVE evolved and will continue to do so. There is no certain proof because we can't go back in time to watch this stuff happen, rather we have to make recordings now and wait a million years to prove it. So far there has been no damning evidence that evoloution is not real. Religion however can only ever be proven should the god appear in some divine manifestation and claim his existance. Yet there have been no 'small' appearances by gods yet there have been 'small' proofs of evoloution.

 

We've done it on SP before. Those bullets and contradictions are more often presumed than not and it's too simplified. Otherwise, a nice test.

 

i got hit once but i disagree with why

i said that it was justifiable to believe with strong internal conviction that there is a god but then i said that it was foolish to believe in god without evidence they said thats a contradiction, i dont believe it is, even something which is justifiable can be foolish- i can justify throwing myself off a cliff, its still foolish.

 

I got two direct hit and bit two bullets. I dont really agree with the hits as they in my opinon can be argued in a logical way and to me not inconsistencies in my views.

 

@Abomination, Shoshino, and anyone else who disagrees with their results:
Read the FAQ. There are explanations in there. There are even some listed exceptions based on certain logic.

 

Hmmm... No direct hits for me either. It seems like the more you answer false, the less likely you are to get hit. If you don't hold any firm convictions about the existence of god, then you can gladly answer false in regard to any of god's powers, which really cuts down on the chance of causing a contradiction. Out of all the questions, I think only about 3 or 4 of my answers were true.

 

I bit one bullet and took one direct hit. Supposedly I'm inconsistent for believing that evidence is required when dealing with the external world, but not when dealing with God - but isn't that what faith is all I about? I call on that one.

Also, I completely disagree with their comparison of the Loch Ness Monster and atheism. When there's no evidence in either direction, staking any position is a matter of faith.

 

I find I must disagree with their logic on a few points. First off, they presume that something is either the only reasonable conclusion or that it is not reasonable, or maybe its a problem with a poor definition of faith. This I hit with the Loch-Ness vs Atheist bit. I said it was reasonable to believe that the Loch-Ness didn't exist, and I said that Atheists believe so on faith. The consistency here is that the lack of belief in the Loch-Ness Monster is still faith, it may be rational faith, but it is still faith. It stops being faith when it stops being belief. If you KNOW one way or the other, then it isn't faith.

The next point is the 'Bite the Bullet' one, where I say God can make the illogical work. Their presumption is that it would still be illogical, and thus we could not understand how it would work. Mine is that God could make what we now see as illogical, logical and reasonable, thus it is valid to argue the existance of God in whatever framework He has set up for us to do so in.

Total: 1 hit, 1 bullet.