Battlefield God

shankar · 04-10-2005, 07:35 AM

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.htm

Find out how logical your beliefs about God and spirituality are. There are 17 questions. Quite interesting, especially the discussion at the end. I took no direct hits and bit 3 bullets.

Burpey · 04-10-2005, 07:49 AM

I took 1 direct hit and bit one bullet

Slow Love™ · 04-10-2005, 07:53 AM

I'm doing real good so far:

"You're doing brilliantly - Only five more questions to go and not so much as a scratch so far! Well done!"

Burpey · 04-10-2005, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slow Love™

I'm doing real good so far:

"You're doing brilliantly - Only five more questions to go and not so much as a scratch so far! Well done!"

What else would we expect from you

?

Slow Love™ · 04-10-2005, 07:59 AM

Bwahaha!

You have reached the end!

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

You took zero direct hits and you bit zero bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullets. 282869 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 was actually fairly surprised on one particular question:

"It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists."

I said false, and wasn't sure whether I'd take a bullet on that one. I didn't. Something tells me this quiz will be far harder on the casually religious though.

Slow Love™ · 04-10-2005, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by burkey_1988

What else would we expect from you

?

To be riddled full of holes?

Dammit, I'll fess up, I went through it as many times as it took for me to know the right answers...

.

You should try the taboo game at the same site - it's actually pretty funny...

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/taboo.htm

Shounak · 04-10-2005, 08:07 AM

Quote:

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 without being hit and biting only one bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and well thought out.

A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. 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. However, because you bit only one bullet and avoided direct hits completely you still qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

I'd like to see someone like Nnanden or any other strongly religious people do this. Would be interesting..

shankar · 04-10-2005, 08:08 AM

Only not taking direct hits should matter. I don't see why 'biting bullets' should count as a damage. The only thing that should matter is whether my views are consistent and logical; If the implication of the views is that a view widely held as truth by society is disproved then that shouldn't be seen as a fault in my set of views IMO

shankar · 04-10-2005, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slow Love™

Something tells me this quiz will be far harder on the casually religious though.

I think it's designed to catch the odd overeager atheist as well

BoyBrumby · 04-10-2005, 08:40 AM

This was mine:

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 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!

My beliefs about the Loch Ness monster conflict with my beliefs about God. Obviously....

SirBloody Idiot · 04-10-2005, 08:43 AM

I took one direct hit, bit no bullets.

Interesting none the less.

Direct Hit 1

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!

David · 04-10-2005, 08:55 AM

1 hit, no bullets bitten.

shankar · 04-10-2005, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slow Love™

To be riddled full of holes?

Dammit, I'll fess up, I went through it as many times as it took for me to know the right answers...

.

You should try the taboo game at the same site - it's actually pretty funny...

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/taboo.htm

Results
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: -1.

Slow Love™ · 04-10-2005, 09:35 AM

I got:

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.29.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.33.

The "having sex with frozen chickens" hypothetical was very interesting. Given the choices available, I think I said it was OK for the individual guy - I mean, it's a bit strange, but I'm not sure what to make of it morally. Then I said he shouldn't be punished (I was thinking, how do you legislate on this?). But then when it asked whether I thought a society where this was normal was OK, I thought "what might I think of a society where having sex with frozen chickens is the norm?" And I said it was bad.

Sanz · 04-10-2005, 09:41 AM

Results -
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.42.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.25.

04-10-2005, 07:35 AM	#1 (permalink)
shankar International Debutant Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Southampton Posts: 2,350	Battlefield God http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.htm Find out how logical your beliefs about God and spirituality are. There are 17 questions. Quite interesting, especially the discussion at the end. I took no direct hits and bit 3 bullets.

04-10-2005, 07:53 AM	#3 (permalink)
Slow Love™ International Captain Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 6,079	I'm doing real good so far: "You're doing brilliantly - Only five more questions to go and not so much as a scratch so far! Well done!" __________________ "Youre known for having a liking for men who look like women." - Linda "FFS I'm sick and tired of having to see a bloke bend over to pick something up or lean over and see their arse crack. For christ's sake pull your pants up or buy some underpants you bogan because nobody want's to see it. And this is a boat building shed (well one of them) not a porn studio." - Craig

04-10-2005, 08:40 AM	#10 (permalink)
BoyBrumby Englishman Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Doing the stance Posts: 42,567	This was mine: 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 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! My beliefs about the Loch Ness monster conflict with my beliefs about God. Obviously.... __________________ *- As featured in The Independent.* "This is not the time for namby-pamby promising youngsters who might just do something; not the time for building for the future. Pragmatism rules and they don't come more pragmatic than Rogers." - Victor Marks makes the case for stiff-legged and stiff-armed 35 year old left-handers in Ashes squads

04-10-2005, 08:55 AM	#12 (permalink)
David International 12th Man Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 3,661	1 hit, no bullets bitten. __________________ Signatures are like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're going to get. Cricket Web Red FC: 263 Matches. 1830 Runs @ 7.66. HS: 57*. 92 Ducks. 170 Catches 1107 Wickets @ 26.91 . BB 7/38 First CW player to reach 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1100 FC wickets .

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

04-10-2005, 07:49 AM	#2 (permalink)
Burpey Cricketer Of The Year Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Sydney Posts: 7,584	I took 1 direct hit and bit one bullet

04-10-2005, 07:59 AM	#5 (permalink)
Slow Love™ International Captain Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 6,079	Bwahaha! You have reached the end! Congratulations! You have made it to the end of this activity. You took zero direct hits and you bit zero bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullets. 282869 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 was actually fairly surprised on one particular question: "It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists." I said false, and wasn't sure whether I'd take a bullet on that one. I didn't. Something tells me this quiz will be far harder on the casually religious though.

04-10-2005, 08:08 AM	#8 (permalink)
shankar International Debutant Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Southampton Posts: 2,350	Only not taking direct hits should matter. I don't see why 'biting bullets' should count as a damage. The only thing that should matter is whether my views are consistent and logical; If the implication of the views is that a view widely held as truth by society is disproved then that shouldn't be seen as a fault in my set of views IMO

04-10-2005, 08:43 AM	#11 (permalink)
SirBloody Idiot Cricketer Of The Year Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Moving the hole in the o-zone layer Posts: 8,442	I took one direct hit, bit no bullets. Interesting none the less. Direct Hit 1 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!

04-10-2005, 09:35 AM	#14 (permalink)
Slow Love™ International Captain Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 6,079	I got: Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.29. Your Interference Factor is: 0.00. Your Universalising Factor is: 0.33. The "having sex with frozen chickens" hypothetical was very interesting. Given the choices available, I think I said it was OK for the individual guy - I mean, it's a bit strange, but I'm not sure what to make of it morally. Then I said he shouldn't be punished (I was thinking, how do you legislate on this?). But then when it asked whether I thought a society where this was normal was OK, I thought "what might I think of a society where having sex with frozen chickens is the norm?" And I said it was bad.

04-10-2005, 09:41 AM	#15 (permalink)
Sanz Hall of Fame Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: USA Posts: 16,228	Results - Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.42. Your Interference Factor is: 0.00. Your Universalising Factor is: 0.25.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)