Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
In this activity youll be asked a series of 17 questions about God and religion. In each case, apart from Question 1, you need to answer True or False. The aim of the activity is not to judge whether these answers are correct or not. Our battleground is that of rational consistency. This means to get across without taking any hits, youll need to answer in a way which is rationally consistent. What this means is you need to avoid choosing answers which contradict each other. If you answer in a way which is rationally consistent but which has strange or unpalatable implications, youll be forced to bite a bullet.
Commiserations
Unfortunately, you have not won an award! However, you have been granted an honourable discharge!
The number of direct hits that you took as you progressed through this activity suggest that your beliefs about God are not entirely consistent.
At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hits. Have a careful look at them before you attempt active service again! Thanks for taking part!
Analysis of your Direct Hits
List of questions
Direct Hit 1
You answered True to questions 1, 3, 4, 5 and 8; and False to Question 11.
These answers generated the following response:
You've taken a direct hit! 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.
Direct Hit 2
You answered True to questions 4 and 12.
These answers generated the following response:
You claimed earlier that any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the world as possible. But you say that God could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful. What this means is that God could make the reduction of suffering a sin... yet You've said that God must want to reduce suffering. There is a way out of this, but it means biting a bullet. So You've got to make a choice: (a) Bite the bullet and say that it is possible that God wants what is sinful (to reiterate the argument here - she must want to reduce suffering; she could make the reduction of suffering a sin; but if she did so, what she wanted (reducing suffering) would be sinful). (b) Take a direct hit and say that this is an area where your beliefs are just in contradiction.
You chose to take the direct hit.
Direct Hit 3
You answered True to questions 3 and 5, and False to Question 16.
These answers generated the following response:
You've just taken a direct hit! You say that God does not have the freedom and power to do impossible things such as create square circles, but in an earlier answer you said that any being which it is right to call God must be free and have the power to do anything. So, on your view, God is not free and does not have the power to do what is impossible. This requires that you accept - in common with most theologians, but contrary to your earlier answer - that God's freedom and power are not unbounded. He does not have the freedom and power to do literally anything.
Direct Hit 4
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!
Battleground God
In this activity youll be asked a series of 17 questions about God and religion. In each case, apart from Question 1, you need to answer True or False. The aim of the activity is not to judge whether these answers are correct or not. Our battleground is that of rational consistency. This means to get across without taking any hits, youll need to answer in a way which is rationally consistent. What this means is you need to avoid choosing answers which contradict each other. If you answer in a way which is rationally consistent but which has strange or unpalatable implications, youll be forced to bite a bullet.
My results;
Commiserations
Unfortunately, you have not won an award! However, you have been granted an honourable discharge!
The number of direct hits that you took as you progressed through this activity suggest that your beliefs about God are not entirely consistent.
At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hits. Have a careful look at them before you attempt active service again! Thanks for taking part!
Analysis of your Direct Hits
List of questions
Direct Hit 1
You answered True to questions 1, 3, 4, 5 and 8; and False to Question 11.
These answers generated the following response:
You've taken a direct hit! 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.
Direct Hit 2
You answered True to questions 4 and 12.
These answers generated the following response:
You claimed earlier that any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the world as possible. But you say that God could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful. What this means is that God could make the reduction of suffering a sin... yet You've said that God must want to reduce suffering. There is a way out of this, but it means biting a bullet. So You've got to make a choice: (a) Bite the bullet and say that it is possible that God wants what is sinful (to reiterate the argument here - she must want to reduce suffering; she could make the reduction of suffering a sin; but if she did so, what she wanted (reducing suffering) would be sinful). (b) Take a direct hit and say that this is an area where your beliefs are just in contradiction.
You chose to take the direct hit.
Direct Hit 3
You answered True to questions 3 and 5, and False to Question 16.
These answers generated the following response:
You've just taken a direct hit! You say that God does not have the freedom and power to do impossible things such as create square circles, but in an earlier answer you said that any being which it is right to call God must be free and have the power to do anything. So, on your view, God is not free and does not have the power to do what is impossible. This requires that you accept - in common with most theologians, but contrary to your earlier answer - that God's freedom and power are not unbounded. He does not have the freedom and power to do literally anything.
Direct Hit 4
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!
Very interesting. Not sure how anyone else will do, but I think it will be fun to find out!
Religious games are for religious sinners who have no idea who our Creator is.
Religious games are for religious sinners who have no idea who our Creator is.
I just don't know how you are able to lower yourself to speak to us lowly folk...
Sanctimonious twit...
Congratulations!
You have been awarded the TPM medal of honour! This is our highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.
The fact that you progressed through this activity neither being hit nor biting a bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and very well thought out.
A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. 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, you avoided both these fates - and in doing so qualify for our highest award. A fine achievement!
A ridiculous test. What is rational is completely subjective to the writers.
I got the TPM medal of distinction because i made it through without being hit and biting few bullets, which were incredibly subjective. The people who wrote the test need to realize that just because they see things a certain way, doesn't mean there's is the only rational way to see it.
A ridiculous test. What is rational is completely subjective to the writers.
I got the TPM medal of distinction because i made it through without being hit and biting few bullets, which were incredibly subjective. The people who wrote the test need to realize that just because they see things a certain way, doesn't mean there's is the only rational way to see it.
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!
Bitten Bullet 1
You answered False to questions 6 and 7.
These answers generated the following response:
You're under fire! You don't think that it is 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 in the previous question you rejected evolutionary theory when the vast majority of scientists think both that the evidence points to its truth and that there is no evidence which falsifies it. Of course, many creationists claim that the evidential case for evolution is by no means conclusive. But in doing so, they go against scientific orthodoxy. So You've got to make a choice: (a) Bite the bullet and say there is evidence that evolution is not true, despite what the scientists say. (b) Take a direct hit and say that this is an area where your beliefs are just in contradiction.
You chose to bite the bullet.
Bitten Bullet 2
You answered True to questions 1, 4 and 11, and also True to one or more of questions 3, 5 or 8.
These answers generated the following response:
You've just bitten a bullet! Many people cannot accept what you have just accepted; namely, that a loving God - a God who possesses great power and insight - has created the world in such a way that people need to suffer horribly for some higher purpose. There is no logical contradiction in your position, but some would argue that it is obscene. Could you really look someone dying of a horrible flesh-eating disease in the eye, and tell them that their suffering is for the greater good of themselves or the world?
Bitten Bullet 3
You answered True to questions 4 and 12.
These answers generated the following response:
You claimed earlier that any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the world as possible. But you say that God could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful. What this means is that God could make the reduction of suffering a sin... yet You've said that God must want to reduce suffering. There is a way out of this, but it means biting a bullet. So You've got to make a choice: (a) Bite the bullet and say that it is possible that God wants what is sinful (to reiterate the argument here - she must want to reduce suffering; she could make the reduction of suffering a sin; but if she did so, what she wanted (reducing suffering) would be sinful). (b) Take a direct hit and say that this is an area where your beliefs are just in contradiction.
You chose to bite the bullet.
Bitten Bullet 4
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.
A ridiculous test. What is rational is completely subjective to the writers.
I got the TPM medal of distinction because i made it through without being hit and biting few bullets, which were incredibly subjective. The people who wrote the test need to realize that just because they see things a certain way, doesn't mean there's is the only rational way to see it.
But there's IS the only rational way to see it. Believing in supernatural invisible beings isn't rational.
Religious games are for religious sinners who have no idea who our Creator is.
I just don't know how you are able to lower yourself to speak to us lowly folk...
Sanctimonious twit...
Religious games are for religious sinners who have no idea who our Creator is.
I just don't know how you are able to lower yourself to speak to us lowly folk...
Sanctimonious twit...
It's pretty easy for arrogant people like him to speak to us lowly folk. They like talking down to people. It's getting them to talk with us that is impossible.
As far as these kinds of "who or what are you?" tests go, this one was interesting on a number of levels. As is usually the case, a number of questions are not able to be rationally boiled down to YES or NO, but you need to answer, so the data is going to be skewed and the participant has to try an err on the side that will least negatively effect his answer visa vi the reality of his convictions or philosophy.
The test also creates false conclusions based on its simplistic structure. For instance, the question of the serial rapist, and his (alleged) belief that he abused women on the word of God, was he acting correctly. I said TRUE, he acted in accordance with his beliefs. Well they did not ask if I agree that this is the right thing to do, but whether I thought the rapist did the right thing is HIS mind. Those are not the same thing, so the attempted GOTCHA that I was handed was silly and irrational.
I enjoyed the test most in seeing the attempt of the creator to load questions for pre conceived results. In politics this is called "push-polling". A disingenuous but somewhat entertaining exercise.
You're doing brilliantly!
Only five more questions to go and not so much as a scratch so far! Well done!
You've just taken a direct hit!
Earlier you agreed that it is rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.
The contradiction is that on the first ocassion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.
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've taken my first direct hit:
You've just taken a direct hit!
Earlier you agreed that it is rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.
The contradiction is that on the first ocassion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.
I disagree with the analysis. Loch Ness is relatively small and has been searched for many years with technology which I have reason to believe to be equal to the task. If no proof has yet been found of Nessie's existence then it is rational to believe she doesn't exist.
On the other hand, the universe is vast and theoretically has more dimensions than we can confirm with our senses, much less explore. We don't have tools to do anything approaching an adequate search of it so it is grotesquely premature to conclude there is no God and call the deduction rational.
p.s.
10. If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been presented to show that there is a Loch Ness monster, it is rational to believe that such a monster does not exist.
14. As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality.
