Let's see how consistent people are in their approach to religion...

[fleudian]

"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. 331107 people have so far undertaken this activity."

[Five-hole]

I have a beef with the quiz.

I had a "direct hit" because I claimed it is still justifiable to believe in God despite a lack of evidence, but it is not justifiable to believe the Loch Ness monster exists despite a lack of evidence.

It's much easier to prove that there is no "monster" in a small lake than there is a deity somewhere in the Universe. The two, while maybe rationally similar, are not practically similar whatsoever.

[HalifaxDrunk]

1 direct hit and bit 1 bullet.

[Five-hole]

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 think you're looking at it the wrong way.

1+1=2 is an abstract equation that reflects the laws of the universe. The numbers are irrelevant as they are merely signifiers in a language that reflect these laws. If 1+1=72 it doesn't matter, it would simply be a different name for the same properties of the universe. It has nothing to do with God, only people's interpretation of the Universe.

[transplant99]

I did this...

You took 2 direct hits and you have bitten zero bullets

[Mike F]

0 hits, 1 bullet, but I disagree with the bullet:

"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?"

So it's logically consistent, but because most people don't think this way I have to bite a bullet?

[shutout]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

I have a beef with the quiz.

I had a "direct hit" because I claimed it is still justifiable to believe in God despite a lack of evidence, but it is not justifiable to believe the Loch Ness monster exists despite a lack of evidence.

It's much easier to prove that there is no "monster" in a small lake than there is a deity somewhere in the Universe. The two, while maybe rationally similar, are not practically similar whatsoever.

Same here. I got hit with this. While it may be the same logical arguement it losess it validity because of the difference in size.

One hit and one bullet.

Not sure about the bullet either. It came for saying that there is no evolution because the scientists say there is. That is crap. These are the same type of scientists that said the earth was the center of the universe, and that the earth was flat. Because you dont agree with these idiots should not be a knock against anybody.

[evman150]

God cannot make a square circle. This "test" says he can. I think I took a direct hit for that one.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

I think you're looking at it the wrong way.

1+1=2 is an abstract equation that reflects the laws of the universe. The numbers are irrelevant as they are merely signifiers in a language that reflect these laws. If 1+1=72 it doesn't matter, it would simply be a different name for the same properties of the universe. It has nothing to do with God, only people's interpretation of the Universe.

Five-hole is a post-modernist! Cool.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

I think you're looking at it the wrong way.

1+1=2 is an abstract equation that reflects the laws of the universe. The numbers are irrelevant as they are merely signifiers in a language that reflect these laws. If 1+1=72 it doesn't matter, it would simply be a different name for the same properties of the universe. It has nothing to do with God, only people's interpretation of the Universe.

But that's my point. If you can read that question two ways, isn't there the possibility you can read any other question more than one way? The test is clearly skewed towards telling the religious that their beliefs are in conflict.

[SaprykinPWNSjoo]

2 hits zero bullets on the ones i got wrong they were just to contradictory for my simple mind.

[photon]

I don't really see it tas skewed towards telling religious people their beliefs are in conflict, it just is trying to demonstrate some logical fallicies and inconsistencies.

For the 1+1=72, I took it to mean not just the language definitions but the nature of the universe itself would be changing.

And saying that God can't do that I don't think is a problem for believers because if you believe God created the universe then a ) he said it was good so a change would damage it b ) God can't do anything He wants, He's limited in his own context (i.e. He limits himself by His own words, no more floods, or promises He makes).

It's possible to hold a belief in God and still pass the test, you just have to be consistent in your beliefs.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by photon

I don't really see it tas skewed towards telling religious people their beliefs are in conflict, it just is trying to demonstrate some logical fallicies and inconsistencies.

For the 1+1=72, I took it to mean not just the language definitions but the nature of the universe itself would be changing.

And saying that God can't do that I don't think is a problem for believers because if you believe God created the universe then a ) he said it was good so a change would damage it b ) God can't do anything He wants, He's limited in his own context (i.e. He limits himself by His own words, no more floods, or promises He makes).

It's possible to hold a belief in God and still pass the test, you just have to be consistent in your beliefs.

Okay, but saying that God can do anything, and saying he can change 1+1=2 gave me a wrong. That's what I'm saying. If God can do anything as I claimed, then he CAN change the laws of the universe, and therefore, I was not inconsistent with my beliefs. But the test said I was.

[Crazy Flamer]

I took one hit and bit one bullet. I thought I would have done worse.

[photon]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Okay, but saying that God can do anything, and saying he can change 1+1=2 gave me a wrong. That's what I'm saying. If God can do anything as I claimed, then he CAN change the laws of the universe, and therefore, I was not inconsistent with my beliefs. But the test said I was.

The bullet for the 1+1=2 isn't about being inconsistent with a prior statement, but I think about being illogical overall. Saying that God can do anything irrational, illogical and impossible means that any discussion on God is irrational because God and reality aren't constrained by any logic. So there's no point in any discussion on the topic. That's the fallicy in choosing that God can do anything without any constraints that the test is trying to point out I think:

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.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by photon

The bullet for the 1+1=2 isn't about being inconsistent with a prior statement, but I think about being illogical overall. Saying that God can do anything irrational, illogical and impossible means that any discussion on God is irrational because God and reality aren't constrained by any logic. So there's no point in any discussion on the topic. That's the fallicy in choosing that God can do anything without any constraints that the test is trying to point out I think:

Which means, it's trying to tell people who believe in God that either
A) their belief is irrational, or
B) their belief is inconsistent.

The test wants people who believe in God to fail. Someone who believes in God cannot get 0 wrong because while their belief may be consistent, it's calling it irrational and marking it wrong anyways.

So thank-you, you've made my point for me. The test is indeed skewed.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

I think you're looking at it the wrong way.

1+1=2 is an abstract equation that reflects the laws of the universe. The numbers are irrelevant as they are merely signifiers in a language that reflect these laws. If 1+1=72 it doesn't matter, it would simply be a different name for the same properties of the universe. It has nothing to do with God, only people's interpretation of the Universe.

No I think you're missing the point.
The point of this question is that it is logically impossible for 1 + 1 = 72, so what it is saying is that if you believe that god can make completely illogical and irrational things true, than you are accepting that any logical arguement is therefore invalid, so there is no real point to seeing if your beleiefs in god are rational or not.

[ken0042]

I agree with Firefly.

As for the 1+1=72; I took it as a simplification of the Great Flood and the Ark. Now, while I still believe the story is a metaphore or exageration, I do believe it is possible for God to flood the entire earth. Even though there may not be enough water on the earth to cause it to flood, I still believe that God could make it flood.

And if God can defy the laws of chemistry and physics, I can see that He could also change the laws of mathematics.

[Neeper]

0 hits, 1 bullet.

[arsenal]

This is me:

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.