Can your beliefs about religion make it across our intellectual battleground?

[daws101]

Battleground Analysis

Bookmark and Share
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!

Hits and Bullets criteria

Philosophy Experiments



Comparative Statistics

577093 people have completed this activity to date.
You suffered 1 direct hit and bit 1 bullet.
This compares with the average player of this activity to date who takes 1.37 hits and bites 1.09 bullets.
46.09% of the people who have completed this activity, like you, took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.
8.20% of the people who have completed this activity emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.
Analysis of your Direct Hit

List of questions

Direct Hit 1

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

Analysis of your Bitten Bullet

List of questions

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.

Battleground God FAQ.

love how most of the believers, are either bashing the test without taking it .
or have trouble with non mono syllabic words..

 

[daws101]

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.

So you have the answers to the origins of life? You can therefore explain with unimpeachable facts how life was derived from a void. Please do.

false concept, space, the universe
etc, are not a void efinition of void (adj)
Bing Dictionary
void[ voyd ]
not legally valid: having no legal force
devoid: totally lacking in something
not containing anything: having no contents
thanks for playing..

 

[Amelia]

"love how most of the believers, are either bashing the test without taking it .
or have trouble with non mono syllabic words.."

Most of the believers?

LOL. Speaking of wild, unfounded bashing.

 

[daws101]

"love how most of the believers, are either bashing the test without taking it .
or have trouble with non mono syllabic words.."

Most of the believers?

LOL. Speaking of wild, unfounded bashing.

just stating fact.
if I were bashing I would not have been that nice!

 

[Sunshine]

Here was my 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 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!

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!

Analysis of your Bitten Bullet

List of questions

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.

I don't believe evolution is fact because it is still theory. So, IMO, my thinking on it is not inconsistent. No animal has ever been found in the process of morphing into another animal. Until they find evidence of that, I cannot accept evolution as fact. However, I do have a Nursing bachelor's with an area in science. So, I had to accept the theory in order to pass my classes. It was never presented as fact. Only theory. And no example was given of any animal that changed into another animal through natural selection, we only got examples of animals that changed color or some such through natural selection. I did ask the question and was told that there has never been an animal found in the stage of turning into another animal.

And nowhere is any proof that God exists required. According to the Bible FAITH is the requirement AND the evidence:

Hebrews 11:1

King James Version (KJV)

11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen

So, I simply don't agree that my thinking consists of inconsistencies. Neither evolution nor God have been proven as fact. One can accept God on faith just as those who accept evolution accept it on faith.

 

[Sunshine]

"love how most of the believers, are either bashing the test without taking it .
or have trouble with non mono syllabic words.."

Most of the believers?

LOL. Speaking of wild, unfounded bashing.

just stating fact.
if I were bashing I would not have been that nice!

Since at least half of the participants in the thread other than yourself appeared to have taken the test, the "most" in your statement is automatically unfounded.

Thanks.

And I gave a rational explanation of why I don't believe my thinking is inconsistent.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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 1.37 hits and bites 1.09 bullets. 577096 people have so far undertaken this activity.

Battleground Analysis

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!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

gosh, gotta love a rigged test written by god haters.

I don't believe there's a loch ness monster so....

What makes you think they’re ‘god haters’?

Because they spell honor with a ‘u’?

 

[Montrovant]

Here was my 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 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!

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!

Analysis of your Bitten Bullet

List of questions

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.

I don't believe evolution is fact because it is still theory. So, IMO, my thinking on it is not inconsistent. No animal has ever been found in the process of morphing into another animal. Until they find evidence of that, I cannot accept evolution as fact. However, I do have a Nursing bachelor's with an area in science. So, I had to accept the theory in order to pass my classes. It was never presented as fact. Only theory. And no example was given of any animal that changed into another animal through natural selection, we only got examples of animals that changed color or some such through natural selection. I did ask the question and was told that there has never been an animal found in the stage of turning into another animal.

And nowhere is any proof that God exists required. According to the Bible FAITH is the requirement AND the evidence:

Hebrews 11:1

King James Version (KJV)

11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen

So, I simply don't agree that my thinking consists of inconsistencies. Neither evolution nor God have been proven as fact. One can accept God on faith just as those who accept evolution accept it on faith.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that evolution does not posit the kind of change you seem to be speaking of. It's supposed to be a more gradual process (from a human perspective), not one creature giving birth to a completely different one. Small differences that, as they accumulate, eventually lead to a new species.

So, you would not find 'one animal in the process of morphing into another one'.

Besides, the question didn't ask if evolution was a fact rather than a theory, did it? I thought it just asked if it was essentially true, even if some details may be incorrect.

 

[daws101]

Here was my 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 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!

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!

Analysis of your Bitten Bullet

List of questions

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.

I don't believe evolution is fact because it is still theory. So, IMO, my thinking on it is not inconsistent. No animal has ever been found in the process of morphing into another animal. Until they find evidence of that, I cannot accept evolution as fact. However, I do have a Nursing bachelor's with an area in science. So, I had to accept the theory in order to pass my classes. It was never presented as fact. Only theory. And no example was given of any animal that changed into another animal through natural selection, we only got examples of animals that changed color or some such through natural selection. I did ask the question and was told that there has never been an animal found in the stage of turning into another animal.

And nowhere is any proof that God exists required. According to the Bible FAITH is the requirement AND the evidence:

Hebrews 11:1

King James Version (KJV)

11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen

So, I simply don't agree that my thinking consists of inconsistencies. Neither evolution nor God have been proven as fact. One can accept God on faith just as those who accept evolution accept it on faith.

the morphing of one animal into another is false assumption..try googling speciationEvolution 101: Speciation

 

[Sunshine]

Here was my 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 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!

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!

Analysis of your Bitten Bullet

List of questions

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.

I don't believe evolution is fact because it is still theory. So, IMO, my thinking on it is not inconsistent. No animal has ever been found in the process of morphing into another animal. Until they find evidence of that, I cannot accept evolution as fact. However, I do have a Nursing bachelor's with an area in science. So, I had to accept the theory in order to pass my classes. It was never presented as fact. Only theory. And no example was given of any animal that changed into another animal through natural selection, we only got examples of animals that changed color or some such through natural selection. I did ask the question and was told that there has never been an animal found in the stage of turning into another animal.

And nowhere is any proof that God exists required. According to the Bible FAITH is the requirement AND the evidence:

Hebrews 11:1

King James Version (KJV)

11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen

So, I simply don't agree that my thinking consists of inconsistencies. Neither evolution nor God have been proven as fact. One can accept God on faith just as those who accept evolution accept it on faith.

the morphing of one animal into another is false assumption..try googling speciationEvolution 101: Speciation

I have had Biology 101, thankyouverymuch. And a helluva lot more. A moth turning brown is just a moth turning brown. It does not explain birds evolving from dinosaurs. And my profs were forced to admit that when asked.

 

[daws101]

Here was my analysis:



I don't believe evolution is fact because it is still theory. So, IMO, my thinking on it is not inconsistent. No animal has ever been found in the process of morphing into another animal. Until they find evidence of that, I cannot accept evolution as fact. However, I do have a Nursing bachelor's with an area in science. So, I had to accept the theory in order to pass my classes. It was never presented as fact. Only theory. And no example was given of any animal that changed into another animal through natural selection, we only got examples of animals that changed color or some such through natural selection. I did ask the question and was told that there has never been an animal found in the stage of turning into another animal.

And nowhere is any proof that God exists required. According to the Bible FAITH is the requirement AND the evidence:



So, I simply don't agree that my thinking consists of inconsistencies. Neither evolution nor God have been proven as fact. One can accept God on faith just as those who accept evolution accept it on faith.

the morphing of one animal into another is false assumption..try googling speciationEvolution 101: Speciation

I have had Biology 101, thankyouverymuch. And a helluva lot more. A moth turning brown is just a moth turning brown. It does not explain birds evolving from dinosaurs. And my profs were forced to admit that when asked.

must have been a very long time ago:Are Birds Really Dinosaurs?

Ask your average paleontologist who is familiar with the phylogeny of vertebrates and they will probably tell you that yes, birds (avians) are dinosaurs. Using proper terminology, birds are avian dinosaurs; other dinosaurs are non-avian dinosaurs, and (strange as it may sound) birds are technically considered reptiles. Overly technical? Just semantics? Perhaps, but still good science. In fact, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of birds being the descendants of a maniraptoran dinosaur, probably something similar (but not identical) to a small dromaeosaur.
Dinobuzz: Dinosaur-Bird Relationships

 

[Sunshine]

the morphing of one animal into another is false assumption..try googling speciationEvolution 101: Speciation

I have had Biology 101, thankyouverymuch. And a helluva lot more. A moth turning brown is just a moth turning brown. It does not explain birds evolving from dinosaurs. And my profs were forced to admit that when asked.

must have been a very long time ago:Are Birds Really Dinosaurs?

Ask your average paleontologist who is familiar with the phylogeny of vertebrates and they will probably tell you that yes, birds (avians) are dinosaurs. Using proper terminology, birds are avian dinosaurs; other dinosaurs are non-avian dinosaurs, and (strange as it may sound) birds are technically considered reptiles. Overly technical? Just semantics? Perhaps, but still good science. In fact, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of birds being the descendants of a maniraptoran dinosaur, probably something similar (but not identical) to a small dromaeosaur.
Dinobuzz: Dinosaur-Bird Relationships

Go to school. Get a degree. Then we'll talk.

 

[daws101]

I have had Biology 101, thankyouverymuch. And a helluva lot more. A moth turning brown is just a moth turning brown. It does not explain birds evolving from dinosaurs. And my profs were forced to admit that when asked.

must have been a very long time ago:Are Birds Really Dinosaurs?

Ask your average paleontologist who is familiar with the phylogeny of vertebrates and they will probably tell you that yes, birds (avians) are dinosaurs. Using proper terminology, birds are avian dinosaurs; other dinosaurs are non-avian dinosaurs, and (strange as it may sound) birds are technically considered reptiles. Overly technical? Just semantics? Perhaps, but still good science. In fact, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of birds being the descendants of a maniraptoran dinosaur, probably something similar (but not identical) to a small dromaeosaur.
Dinobuzz: Dinosaur-Bird Relationships

Go to school. Get a degree. Then we'll talk.

I have 3 an A.A ,B.A AND A MASTERS in technical theatre (it's the showbizz equivalent of an engineering degree)
thanks for playing!

 

[BDBoop]

My nephew is an atheist, he took the highest honor.

I've always defined myself as a woman of faith - and I don't think me questioning said faith to be a bad thing. That said, I was kind of sad that I had contradictions within my beliefs ... and I certainly don't feel free to say "Well, logic is illogical." There was a definite contradiction there.

 

[Gracie]

I took the test but was offended a few times in the question.

To me...it looksl ike the author of the test just wanted to take a stab at stabbing anyone who believes in a higher power. You know...for shits and grins.

 

[BDBoop]

I sort of thought so too, but on the other hand - our own beliefs shouldn't contradict each other.

 

[whitehall]

A person's religious beliefs are based on faith. The concept is similar to the radical liberal belief in man-made global warming.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

Said the sanctimonious twit.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Why do people believe that their god does not like suffering while watching him/her/it cause enormous suffering?

Why is that?