• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Battleground God--Are your attitudes towards religion rationally consistent?

Stevo

New member
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Messages
406
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Here's a little test that checks to see if your attitudes and views toward religion are rationally consistent. It does not make judgements and no answers are "right", of course, but it is in my opinion an excellent test.

If any were curious, I suffered no "direct hits" and never had to "Bite the bullet", both terms of which are explained on the site.

Battleground God
 

Take Five

Supreme Allied Commander
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
925
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
1w9
I took it but don't think it's that good of a test. The "problem of evil" and my understanding of God, good and evil, doesn't match up with how the maker perceives them.
 

Stevo

New member
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Messages
406
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
I took it but don't think it's that good of a test. The "problem of evil" and my understanding of God, good and evil, doesn't match up with how the maker perceives them.

How so?
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
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!

Ok now what?
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
Either accept these inconsistencies and move on or re-evaluate your religious views so they entail no contradiction.

"The ordinary man has always been sane because the ordinary man has always been a mystic. He has permitted the twilight. He has always had one foot in earth and the other in fairyland. He has always left himself free to doubt his gods; but (unlike the agnostic of to-day) free also to believe in them. He has always cared more for truth than for consistency. If he saw two truths that seemed to contradict each other, he would take the two truths and the contradiction along with them....It is exactly this balance of apparent contradictions that has been the whole buoyancy of the healthy man."
--GK Chesterton Orthodoxy, pg. 230

Yeah that's my answer.
 
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
7,312
MBTI Type
INTJ
You answered False to Question 7 and True to Question 17.

These answers generated the following response:

You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you said that it is not justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction, but now you say it's justifiable to believe in God on just these grounds. That's a flagrant contradiction!

I took this direct hit, but I don't believe that this is a contradiction. My answers here are based on the idea that it is impossible to empirically prove that there is not a God. To be a contradiction, this question must assume that you CAN empirically prove that there is not a God.
 

Polaris

AKA Nunki
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
2,529
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I don't really care about "rational consistency," but I took the test anyway and got one direct hit and one bit bullet. The reason I got those was because I place a weight on my convictions that I don't place on those of other people unless they happen to agree with me. Naturally, I understand where people who disagree with me are coming from and consider them to be right in their own limited ways; a similar limitation applies to me, as well, but to a lesser extent since, like everyone else, I see reality primarily from my own point of view, a fact that means my beliefs automatically take priority over theirs.

To other people I'm basically what "God" is to me: my convictions stand trial before a Truth beyond reality, and in the same manner, other people's convictions stand trial before my own (which isn't to say accountability is a one-way street; the point is that the traffic is heavier in one direction, and that everything lying in the opposite direction is relatively contingent, which gives it the appearance of something you can override to the point of discarding it altogether; it's only there because you [must] permit it). In the mind of the test maker, that was not a possibility; it was a contradiction.
 

Stevo

New member
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Messages
406
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
I took this direct hit, but I don't believe that this is a contradiction. My answers here are based on the idea that it is impossible to empirically prove that there is not a God. To be a contradiction, this question must assume that you CAN empirically prove that there is not a God.

There are many things it is impossible to prove do not exist, and yet I would be willing to bet you have no qualms denying their existence. To be cliche, things such as unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, the FSM, Fairies, etc.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
Bitten Bullet

You answered True to Question 16.

This answer generated the following response:

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. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.

WEEEEE!

(Ironically, the passage of my signature addresses the same basic principle, I intentionally answered this way to see what would happen).
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Bitten Bullet

You answered True to Question 16.

This answer generated the following response:

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. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.

WEEEEE!

(Ironically, the passage of my signature addresses the same basic principle, I intentionally answered this way to see what would happen).

That was exactly the one bullet I bit (and otherwise, I took no damage).

EDIT: Off-topic posts moved to Graveyard off-topic thread.
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
You've just bitten a bullet!
You say that if there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, then atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality. Therefore, it seems that you do not think that the mere absence of evidence for the existence of God is enough to justify believing that she does not exist. This view is also suggested by your earlier claim that it is not rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist even if, despite years of trying, no evidence has been presented to suggest that it does exist.
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?

I only bit one bullet, and this one I will gladly bite. The test assumes that if no evidence is found then the problem is with the subject of study. Logically the problem could also be with the method of inquiry. The test failed to take this into account and therefore it is less logical than I. ;)

I have judged this test and found it to be wanting. :D
 

Fluffywolf

Nips away your dignity
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
9,581
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Crap test.

You've just bitten a bullet!

You say that if there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, then atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality. Therefore, it seems that you do not think that the mere absence of evidence for the existence of God is enough to justify believing that she does not exist. This view is also suggested by your earlier claim that it is not rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist even if, despite years of trying, no evidence has been presented to suggest that it does exist.

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?

In order to make scientific discoveries, one much never exclude possibilities. I can't see how anyone would find that bizarre.

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. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.

What a stupid ass question. Just because we happened to name the numerical system 1 and onwards, doesn't mean God is incapable of swapping around the logical value of numbers and names of bodies. I did not answer this question with in mind that God would create a world that isn't logical. I wrote it in mind that God would have the ability to rename that which we have named.

The test should have clarified if it intended to state that God was to make the world without logicality.

You have reached the end!

Congratulations! You have made it to the end of this activity.

You took zero direct hits and you bit 2 bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.38 hits and bites 1.10 bullets. 490577 people have so far undertaken this activity.

Click the link below for further analysis of your performance and to see if you've won an award.

I suppose this test doesn't test your logical consistency as much as how your view on things stand in contrast to other peoples opinions. How subjective. :p
 

Arthur Schopenhauer

What is, is.
Joined
May 1, 2010
Messages
1,158
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
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!

I am not satisfied with this... I feel cheated and my logic was sound. Whoever wrote this deserves to be roasted alive and then fed to gnomes and gremlins.

Analysis of your Direct Hit:

You answered True to questions 6 and 13.

These answers generated the following response:

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.

What the fuck? Look at how this question is worded:

Evolutionary theory maybe false in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true.

If I select TRUE then evolutionary theory is then MOSTLY TRUE but if I select FALSE then evolutionary theory is then MOSTLY FALSE; this question was worded so that one WOULD FAIL no MATTER WHAT. I think evolution is COMPLETELY TRUE but I couldn't select it! Also, look at this shit, I will repost it:

The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true.

What the fuck kind of contradiction is this? This test was designed to fail you!

So it seems that you require certain, irrevocable proof for God's existence, but accept evolutionary theory without certain proof.

LIES!

So You've got a choice: (a) Bite a bullet and claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution. (b) Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses.

You chose to take the direct hit.

I HAD to take a hit because I couldn't defend my logic, you stupid moron test. I've taken shits smarter than you... Imbecile.

Analysis of your Bitten Bullet

Bitten Bullet 1

You answered True to Question 16.

This answer generated the following response:

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. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.

God is omnipotent, you stupid fuck. He has unlimited power but that does NOT MEAN THAT HE USES IT. FUCK!

:steam: :steam: :steam: :steam:
 

Fluffywolf

Nips away your dignity
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
9,581
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I agree MM, I stated evolution theory is essentially true and that it isn't foolish for people to have religion.

But neither of my answers had anything to do with each other. Those two questions simply doesn't match.

Evolution theory is essentially true because there is evidence suggesting it. Nothing however is absolute, neither in the question or reality.

My reason for stating that it isn't foolish to have faith was because faith and religion helps people develop morals and values that ultimately can benefit society and the world. If the question was "Is it foolish to interpret religion with absolute extremecy" then my answer would have been yes.

The test has a subjective perspective based on its own subjective view.. 1=1 sure, but an apple isn't equal to a pear, even though both have only 1 of them.
 

Arthur Schopenhauer

What is, is.
Joined
May 1, 2010
Messages
1,158
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
All I know is that I won the test and I also beat it.

The end. I'm god. And king of everything. Suck these.
 

Tamske

Writing...
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,764
MBTI Type
ENTP
Nice, but the statements and choices are inaccurate. I'm an atheist.
Now:

"Belief in a God is foolish without direct evidence" - I chose True and got a bullet, because before I said I believed in evolution. But isn't it a bit of a catch-22?
False then? I wouldn't say it with those words ("foolish" - I hate to call people foolish en masse) , but I believe in observation. Evolution has been observed. God hasn't been observed (yet?). Of course, observation is not a mathemathical proof. You can let an apple fall a thousand times, but there is no proof that the apple will not float in the air the 1001th time. Same for God. If any God (with which I mean: some spiritual power that is more powerful than a human) shows himself or some effects, I'll believe. I've seen the effects of gravity.

Then this one:
"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."
What do you mean by "justified", oh automated sniper? His beliefs don't justify his actions. No way. But I don't condemn him on his beliefs. To me, anybody can believe what he or she wants. I condemn him because of his actions. Should I take true or false, then?
I took the direct hit there... probably because of a misunderstanding... If not, please hit me again.
 

Tamske

Writing...
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,764
MBTI Type
ENTP
God is omnipotent, you stupid fuck. He has unlimited power but that does NOT MEAN THAT HE USES IT. FUCK!
Then he is not all good, nor all bad; otherwise we would live either in a paradise or in a hell. Why would you care about an indifferent god?

Moreover: do you *need* to be omnipotent in order to be called a god?

(Argh. Belief is becoming my new ENTP peak interest)
 

Stevo

New member
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Messages
406
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Oh wow. I didn't think that this test would piss people off so much. I'd reply to Magnificent Mind's rant against evolution and scientific philosophy but it's way too early in the morning for me to do any serious posting.
 
Top