Battlefield God
-
just how internally consistent are you? http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm[^] i took a couple of direct hits on what i consider to be bad questions / internal inconsistencies in the test itself. :) -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
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. I still thought the test was kind of bad and the questions were anti-religion.
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi -
just how internally consistent are you? http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm[^] i took a couple of direct hits on what i consider to be bad questions / internal inconsistencies in the test itself. :) -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
-
just how internally consistent are you? http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm[^] i took a couple of direct hits on what i consider to be bad questions / internal inconsistencies in the test itself. :) -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
I did ok; took a couple of hits. But, I have always had a fundamental problem with these types of tests including the supposed personality test. Just knowing that I am taking a test affects my answers. Too many years in collage trying to figure out what answer is wanted based on the question :) Hey don't worry, I can handle it. I took something. I can see things no one else can see. Why are you dressed like that? - Jack Burton
-
just how internally consistent are you? http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm[^] i took a couple of direct hits on what i consider to be bad questions / internal inconsistencies in the test itself. :) -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
2 bullets in my face :) I took one I don't understand in their conclusion: "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." Why? My faith is beyond any debate or rational discussion because it is a faith. The concept of faith by itself is opposite to a rational discussion, where the concept would rather be "I know or I don't, but I don't believe". I could speak about it with others (generally I don't), but it won't change my position. My faith is related to feelings, not logical deductions. It is possible to demonstrate someone is in love or not? "You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction" :cool:
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
-
just how internally consistent are you? http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm[^] i took a couple of direct hits on what i consider to be bad questions / internal inconsistencies in the test itself. :) -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
"You've taken a direct hit! You have said that you don't know whether God exists and also that there is no basis for morality if God does not exist. But now you say that torturing innocent people is morally wrong. But if you do not know whether God exists, on your view you do not know whether there is a basis for morality either. This means you are not rationally entitled to say of any act that it is morally wrong: you should be as agnostic about your moral judgements as you are about your belief in God, since you think that the two go together." I guess maybe "If God does not exist then there is no basis for morality." is false:confused: confused Roman Catholic and American... "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."-The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies :-D Later,
JoeSox
www.joeswammi.com "Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men." General George S. Patton, Jr -
2 bullets in my face :) I took one I don't understand in their conclusion: "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." Why? My faith is beyond any debate or rational discussion because it is a faith. The concept of faith by itself is opposite to a rational discussion, where the concept would rather be "I know or I don't, but I don't believe". I could speak about it with others (generally I don't), but it won't change my position. My faith is related to feelings, not logical deductions. It is possible to demonstrate someone is in love or not? "You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction" :cool:
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
-
just how internally consistent are you? http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm[^] i took a couple of direct hits on what i consider to be bad questions / internal inconsistencies in the test itself. :) -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
After #6: "No injuries so far, but watch out! Danger ahead!" :~ #7: ugh... #12: toughie... I'm starting to discuss individual words... #15: one hit #17: I take that hit - knowingly. OK, no bullet bitten, at least. OK - the loch ness thing: I don't believe in absolute duality, The "law of the excluded third" (tr?)
Italian is a beautiful language. amare means to love, and amara bitter.
sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen -
just how internally consistent are you? http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm[^] i took a couple of direct hits on what i consider to be bad questions / internal inconsistencies in the test itself. :) -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
1 hit, one bullet bite TPM medal of distinction
Jon Sagara
You know the world is off tilt, when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest basketball player is Chinese, and Germany doesn't want to go to war. -- Charles Barkley
-
just how internally consistent are you? http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm[^] i took a couple of direct hits on what i consider to be bad questions / internal inconsistencies in the test itself. :) -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
Hmmm. I did better than I expected. You took zero direct hits and you bit 1 bullets. 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! ------------------------------------------ "What happened in that Rhode Island club is shocking. To think that over a hundred people would attend a Great White concert." - The Onion
-
just how internally consistent are you? http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm[^] i took a couple of direct hits on what i consider to be bad questions / internal inconsistencies in the test itself. :) -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
(at least for me): Morality Play[^] OK, OK, I accept that my strong distinction between "acting knowingly" and "not preventing" is sub-average....
Italian is a beautiful language. amare means to love, and amara bitter.
sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen -
just how internally consistent are you? http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm[^] i took a couple of direct hits on what i consider to be bad questions / internal inconsistencies in the test itself. :) -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
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. 96917 people have so far undertaken this activity. 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!
David Wulff
"i said no to noddy like 20 times but in the end i just couldnt say no to him anymore" - Wishful Thinking
-
just how internally consistent are you? http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm[^] i took a couple of direct hits on what i consider to be bad questions / internal inconsistencies in the test itself. :) -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
Some of the questions were worded in such a way for you to have no out...it's pretty anti-religion, so if you're an atheist, you'll do just fine. However, if you're religious, it's kinda unbalanced. In my opinion at least.
Hawaian shirts and shorts work too in Summer. People assume you're either a complete nut (in which case not a worthy target) or so damn good you don't need to worry about camouflage... -Anna-Jayne Metcalfe on Paintballing
-
just how internally consistent are you? http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm[^] i took a couple of direct hits on what i consider to be bad questions / internal inconsistencies in the test itself. :) -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! One hit. whoopee However I have to agree with those that feel this is highly anti religious. The logic they use does not consider what a perfect entity would limit itself to do, so as to not contradict itself with a change of mind. For example my question missed was: Question 16 If God exists she would have the freedom and power to create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72. My answer was false not because God could not have done so originally, but because to alter this now would have forced God to change God's mind about the laws of physics and since God did not make an error, God would not choose to do so now. To many questions have these issues of belief tied to them, so what they take as inconsistencies are really the authors lack of understanding of what faith leads to as possible answers. ""
-
Some of the questions were worded in such a way for you to have no out...it's pretty anti-religion, so if you're an atheist, you'll do just fine. However, if you're religious, it's kinda unbalanced. In my opinion at least.
Hawaian shirts and shorts work too in Summer. People assume you're either a complete nut (in which case not a worthy target) or so damn good you don't need to worry about camouflage... -Anna-Jayne Metcalfe on Paintballing
David Stone wrote: so if you're an atheist, you'll do just fine nope. i'm livin non-believing proof that that statement is false. :) i got nailed on the definition of "anything": "a god can do anything": true. but i don't think a god could change the truth of "1+1=72". the "god" that i hypothesized about in the first question existed in the same universe as everything else, and as such cannot change a basic fact of that universe. i suppose i put the laws of math/logic out of reach of any god. oh well. -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
-
2 bullets in my face :) I took one I don't understand in their conclusion: "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." Why? My faith is beyond any debate or rational discussion because it is a faith. The concept of faith by itself is opposite to a rational discussion, where the concept would rather be "I know or I don't, but I don't believe". I could speak about it with others (generally I don't), but it won't change my position. My faith is related to feelings, not logical deductions. It is possible to demonstrate someone is in love or not? "You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction" :cool:
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
-
You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! One hit. whoopee However I have to agree with those that feel this is highly anti religious. The logic they use does not consider what a perfect entity would limit itself to do, so as to not contradict itself with a change of mind. For example my question missed was: Question 16 If God exists she would have the freedom and power to create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72. My answer was false not because God could not have done so originally, but because to alter this now would have forced God to change God's mind about the laws of physics and since God did not make an error, God would not choose to do so now. To many questions have these issues of belief tied to them, so what they take as inconsistencies are really the authors lack of understanding of what faith leads to as possible answers. ""
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: My answer was false not because God could not have done so originally, but because to alter this now would have forced God to change God's mind about the laws of physics and since God did not make an error, God would not choose to do so now. Why does a change of mind (from your point of view) imply an error? Maybe it was all part of the Master Plan!
-
"You've taken a direct hit! You have said that you don't know whether God exists and also that there is no basis for morality if God does not exist. But now you say that torturing innocent people is morally wrong. But if you do not know whether God exists, on your view you do not know whether there is a basis for morality either. This means you are not rationally entitled to say of any act that it is morally wrong: you should be as agnostic about your moral judgements as you are about your belief in God, since you think that the two go together." I guess maybe "If God does not exist then there is no basis for morality." is false:confused: confused Roman Catholic and American... "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."-The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies :-D Later,
JoeSox
www.joeswammi.com "Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men." General George S. Patton, JrJoeSox wrote: You have said that you don't know whether God exists and also that there is no basis for morality if God does not exist. My personal take on the morality question. If God does not exist there is not a fixed basis for morality. I.E. Morality is then a general will of the people and that morality may change over time. With God it is fixed and does not change. However: JoeSox wrote: But now you say that torturing innocent people is morally wrong. I believe the Inquisition used torture a fair amount. So even with God's basis man has done what he feels like all too often. :rose: ""
-
(at least for me): Morality Play[^] OK, OK, I accept that my strong distinction between "acting knowingly" and "not preventing" is sub-average....
Italian is a beautiful language. amare means to love, and amara bitter.
sighist | Agile Programming | doxygenThat was much more interesting. I answered them on my belief that love for an individual allows you infinite understanding, forgiveness, and moral exclusions, compared to those of a stranger. (Bare in mind I have no allusions of a higher being or greater purpose, but see things as a constant struggle with the priorities that affect and better your own life). As to the rest, I only view someone as responsible for the actions that have been made as a result of a conscious descision or deliberate negligence. I did not like question four however - it forced me to answer yes to 'either or' which I did not want to do. :( Final scrore: 59%. The interesting parts of the blurb I have repeated below: General The higher your percentage score the more parsimonious your moral framework. In other words, a high score is suggestive of a moral framework that comprises a minimal number of moral principles that apply across a range of circumstances and acts. What is a high score? As a rule of thumb, any score above 75% should be considered indicative of a parsimonious moral framework. However, perhaps a better way to think about this is to see how your score compares to other people's scores. In fact, your score of 59% is slightly lower than the average score of 66%. This suggests that you have utilised a somewhat wider range of moral principles than average in order to make judgements about the scenarios presented in this test, and that you have, at least on occasion, judged aspects of the acts and circumstances depicted here to be morally relevant that other people consider to be morally irrelevant. Family Relatedness In this category, we look at the impact of family loyalty and ties on the way in which moral principles are applied. The idea here is to determine whether moral principles are applied without modification or qualification when you're dealing with sets of circumstances and acts that differ only in whether the participants are related through family ties to the person making the judgement. Your score of 2% is a lot lower than the average score of 57% in this category. It seems then that family relatedness is an important factor in your moral thinking. Normally, this will mean feeling a greater moral obligation towards people who are related to you than towards those who are not. To the extent that issues of family relatedness form part of your moral thinking, the parsimoniousness of your moral framework is reduced. (My addition: I would not limit the above
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: My answer was false not because God could not have done so originally, but because to alter this now would have forced God to change God's mind about the laws of physics and since God did not make an error, God would not choose to do so now. Why does a change of mind (from your point of view) imply an error? Maybe it was all part of the Master Plan!
yaname wrote: Why does a change of mind (from your point of view) imply an error? Maybe it was all part of the Master Plan! In the case you present yes it would happen. Just my reasoning that was not a factor on the evaulation of the questions consistency with my other answers. ""
-
just how internally consistent are you? http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm[^] i took a couple of direct hits on what i consider to be bad questions / internal inconsistencies in the test itself. :) -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
I have to agree with you, as a couple of the questions were couched in phrases that were ambiguous in meaning, but interpreted with a deliberate bias. On the whole, though, it is a thought provoking test, and I have no complaints about the illogical questions that I got hit by due to the scoring mechanism's penchant for changing the phrasing of the answer to mean something different from what the question asked. Such things are matters of opinion, it seems...:-D "Please don't put cigarette butts in the urinal. It makes them soggy and hard to light" - Sign in a Bullhead City, AZ Restroom