Let's see how consistent people are in their approach to religion... - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Lanny_MacDonald · 08-11-2006, 09:21 AM

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

And let's everyone be honest. I bit one bullet (freaking Loch Ness monster). Have at er and lets see how consistent we are in approaching out stances on religion. I'm especially interested to see how CalgaryBornAgain does. If he has a leg left after the first check-point I will be shocked! I'm also looking forward to seeing how my man Cheese does. This one's up your alley buddy, knock it out of the park!

Flames Draft Watcher · 08-11-2006, 09:28 AM

Bit two bullets. No direct hits.

troutman · 08-11-2006, 09:30 AM

The Loch Ness question is tricky with the double negatives. I disagree with the premise that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true.

My results:

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.

Azure · 08-11-2006, 09:31 AM

Well here are mine...

Quote:

You have claimed that God exists, that she knows about suffering, wants to reduce it and can reduce it. But now you say you don't think that there is any higher purpose which explains why people die horribly of painful diseases. Why then does God allow it? Surely, a God which knows about, wants to stop and can stop suffering would put an end to pointless suffering.

Which is kinda confusing, as I took the question meaning that some people believe they need to suffer in order to reach heaven...

Quote:

People who die of horrible, painful diseases need to die in such a way for some higher purpose.

ken0042 · 08-11-2006, 09:32 AM

I suffered 2 direct hits and bit 3 bullets.

I do take issue with the fact that " it is justifiable to believe in God based only on inner-convictions"; but for some reason the test has issues with me saying that acting upon those beliefs (like the example it gives of the rapist) can be wrong.

kermitology · 08-11-2006, 09:33 AM

Yeah I got hit twice, but I found the questions that I contradicted myself on were slightly ambiguous. Not really the best to be true false.

photon · 08-11-2006, 09:33 AM

Heh, got caught on the last question.

EDIT: 1 hit and 0 bullets.

JiriHrdina · 08-11-2006, 09:35 AM

Bit one bullet...the serial rapist question which admitedly confused me.

Bobblehead · 08-11-2006, 09:39 AM

One bullet (feaking Loch Ness Monster)
And 2 Hits.

Edit: Although looking at the analysis, my hits were both because of one question. I wonder if I had ansered the earlier question different, whether I would have had different hits.

Interesting test.

FurnaceFace · 08-11-2006, 09:45 AM

This was fun. One hit, no bullets.

I answered "True" to Question 7 and "False" to Question 15:

Quote:

You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you said that 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 this conviction. But now you do not accept that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in doing just that. The example of the rapist has exposed that you do not in fact agree that any belief is justified just because one is convinced of its truth. So you need to revise your opinion here. The intellectual sniper has scored a bull's-eye!

Fair enough, question 15 gives me an angle on question 7 I didn't think of. Revision done.

ernie · 08-11-2006, 09:47 AM

0 hits, 1 bullet bitten.

Bring_Back_Shantz · 08-11-2006, 09:48 AM

Only one hit and no bullets.

The last question got me. I said it's irrational to beleive in stuff based on an inner conviction, but okay to beleive in God based on this. I know these are conflicting opinions, but that's just me I suppose.

StoneCole · 08-11-2006, 10:02 AM

I bit one bullet (no hits):

"I do require a higher standard of proof for belief in God than belief in evolution. I'll bite the bullet!"

Yeah, that may be true, but I'm with troutman on this one:

Quote:

I disagree with the premise that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true.

BlackEleven · 08-11-2006, 10:05 AM

2 hits, zero bullets.

Table 5 · 08-11-2006, 10:10 AM

0 hits, 0 bullets.

you punks better start doing as I say!

notoepik · 08-11-2006, 10:50 AM

1 direct hit and bit 1 bullet.

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!

worth · 08-11-2006, 11:05 AM

You took zero direct hits and you bit 1 bullets

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.

looooob · 08-11-2006, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by photon

Heh, got caught on the last question.

EDIT: 1 hit and 0 bullets.

ditto

FireFly · 08-11-2006, 11:45 AM

I found the test to be designed by those who do not believe in God to make it impossible for those who believe in God to pass it. For example, take the 1 + 1 question... If God can do anything, God can certainly make 1+1=72... after all it is man that has designated that 1+1=2 , not God. But by saying God has the power to change that, I got it wrong? Huh? Didn't I already say God could do anything and you're telling me he cannot do that which is logically impossible... but you're only human so your logic does not apply to God. Whatever, that was lame.

Buff · 08-11-2006, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FireFly

I found the test to be designed by those who do not believe in God to make it impossible for those who believe in God to pass it. For example, take the 1 + 1 question... If God can do anything, God can certainly make 1+1=72... after all it is man that has designated that 1+1=2 , not God. But by saying God has the power to change that, I got it wrong? Huh? Didn't I already say God could do anything and you're telling me he cannot do that which is logically impossible... but you're only human so your logic does not apply to God. Whatever, that was lame.

I felt the same way. When they referred to God as "she" I knew something fishy was up.