Are you a religous hypocrite? Find out here

[Foghorn Leghorn]

www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm

[zakur]

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!

How did you do compared to other people?

* 118291 people have completed this activity to date.

* You suffered zero direct hits and bit 1 bullet.

* This compares with the average player of this activity to date who takes 1.37 hits and bites 1.10 bullets.

* 46.95% of the people who have completed this activity, like you, took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.

* 7.48% of the people who have completed this activity emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.

[Lord Emsworth]

Same as Zakur!

[Dancing David]

Two direct hits and no bullets!

[Foghorn Leghorn]

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!

:D I think this means I'm God.

[Lord Emsworth]

Getting the "TPM medal of honour" is not that hard.

Simply hit SUBMIT without selecting one of the options everytime. No hits will occur and you don't have to swallow any bullets

[Foghorn Leghorn]

C'mon, that's cheating, but an interesting loop hole none the less.

[iankaplan]

I suffered a direct hit when I stated that someone would need irrevocable proof of the existence of God. This contradicted my earlier assertion that I believed in evolution.

I will now engage in some serious introspection w/r/t what it might take for me to believe in God as strongly as I believe in evolution. It would take a lot of evidence, that's for sure. But, I guess it wouldn't take irrevocable proof if I want to avoid hypocrisy.

[scribble]

We all did this a while back. I came through unscathed on my first try, but it was pointed out at the time some of the questions are "unfair."

-Chris

[justsaygnosis]

Originally posted by iankaplan
I suffered a direct hit when I stated that someone would need irrevocable proof of the existence of God. This contradicted my earlier assertion that I believed in evolution.

I will now engage in some serious introspection w/r/t what it might take for me to believe in God as strongly as I believe in evolution. It would take a lot of evidence, that's for sure. But, I guess it wouldn't take irrevocable proof if I want to avoid hypocrisy.

Me too. That's arguable, but I tok the hit rather than bite the bullet.
I felt it was being true to the test.
Vagueness is for believers; oh ; I forgot about the word accountability too.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by iankaplan
I suffered a direct hit when I stated that someone would need irrevocable proof of the existence of God. This contradicted my earlier assertion that I believed in evolution.

I will now engage in some serious introspection w/r/t what it might take for me to believe in God as strongly as I believe in evolution. It would take a lot of evidence, that's for sure. But, I guess it wouldn't take irrevocable proof if I want to avoid hypocrisy.

I got the same hit. I considered it and decided that, in my mind, there is no significant difference between "proof" and "overwhelming evidence."

But anyway, that objection is not necessarily fair. The person may, in fact, believe he has irrevocable proof of evolution, in which case he is not holding God to a different standard.

Jeremy

[justsaygnosis]

How did you do compared to other people?

118556 people have completed this activity to date.
You suffered 1 direct hit and bit 4 bullets.
This compares with the average player of this activity to date who takes 1.37 hits and bites 1.10 bullets.
38.14% of the people who have completed this activity have, like you, been awarded the TPM Service Medal.
7.49% of the people who have completed this activity emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.
46.96% of the people who have completed this activity took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.

This was playing it as a woo woo.
It appears the test is meant to wound but not kill.
It couldn't have been a believer that set it up.

[RichardR]

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!

[Lord Kenneth]

A problem is there are different definitions and conceptions of "God"-- and some of the questions really are unfair (God not being able to do logical contradictions being a limitation? Come on!)

[Fade]

This pops up quite a bit.

I am not sure what type of person created it, but it's quite biased. It's not possible to answer all the questions with "true" or "false." Opinions are often deeper than that.

[ceo_esq]

We had a thread about this quiz a long time ago.

[Marvel Frozen]

I have a problem with a number of the "hits" I took.

Earlier you claimed 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 that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in basing his beliefs about God's will solely on precisely such a conviction. That's a bull's-eye for the intellectual sniper!

The problem here is that the rapist was already basing his beliefs on an inner conviction, simply for believing in God, so what's the problem with him basing his beliefs about God's will on an inner conviction as well?

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.

I already view the idea of a God as irrational, so what's wrong with assuming God can do something irrational? The way I see it, a God, by defintion, has to be able to anything, even if it's irrational or illogical. Since the world, as far as I can tell, is rational and logical, that's exactly why I don't believe in God.

You claim that it is not justifiable to believe in God based only on inner-convictions, but earlier you stated that it was justifiable for the serial rapist to draw conclusions about God's will on the same grounds. If this form of justification is good enough for the rapist, why is it not good enough for the believer in God? There's an inconsistency here.

Basing a belief in God on inner convictions is different than basing a belief about God's will on inner convictions. As I said earlier, in order to believe in God you already have to do so on inner convictions. So what's wrong with basing your belief about God's will on inner convictions as well. It seems silly to believe in God on inner convictions, but want to have evidence for determining God's will.

Really, though, my main problem is having only a true or false answer, a lot of the questions were more complicated than that.

[Yahweh]

3 direct hits and 1 bitten bullet! AHHH! I hate computers!