Tough Game

[XtianChris]

http://www.philosophyquotes.net/cgi-bin/god_game1.cgi

 

I took 2 direct hits and bit 2 bullets.

[Garnet]

I bit one bullet. I require more evidence to believe in God than I do to believe evolution is true.

[XtianChris]

I bit one bullet. I require more evidence to believe in God than I do to believe evolution is true.

 

That was one of my bullets too. I'm not ashamed to say it either.

[Japedo]

I took 2 direct hits and bit 2 bullets.

 

 

 

My bitten bullet was about evolution. I don't feel I have a contradictory stance on that as it's not a black and white issue. Things evolve that it is a fact. Even a person evolves from and egg and sperm to an adult.

 

Battleground 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 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!

[-Demona-]

I took no hits and bit no bullets.

[Asimov]

I bit one bullet, Science doesn't operate on irrevocable proof, the search for God is not a scientific endeavour.

[XtianChris]

I took no hits and bit no bullets.

 

Gratz! [\ (that's a bow, if it doesn't happen to automatically convert)

 

I'll have to play again after a few months and see if I can match ya!

[Dark Helmet]

took one hit and bit two bullets, but belief is usually not rational so I'm not surprised about the two bullets I bit. Got a medal, woo!

[Grandpa Harley]

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!

 

woot-woot!

[Ex-COG]

I'm surprised. I took zero direct hits and bit zero bullets, and received the TPM Medal of Honour. I really thought I'd goof somewhere as I don't see myself as a philosophical heavyweight.

 

Just for fun, I took it again from the viewpoint of my former Christian self. I took 5 direct hits and bit zero bullets. No awards, but an honourable discharge. The hits that show my former inconsistancy are:

 

 

Direct Hit 1

 

You answered "True" to questions 1, 3, 4, 5 & 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 2 and 3, and "False" to Question 12.

 

These answers generated the following response:

 

You've just taken a direct hit! You claimed earlier that there is no basis for morality if God does not exist. But now you say that if God does exist, she cannot make what is sinful good and vice-versa. But if this is true, it means that God cannot be the basis of morality. If God were the basis of morality, then she could decide what is good and what is bad. The fact that you think that God cannot do this shows that things must be right or wrong independently of what God decides. In other words, God chooses what is right because it is right; things are not right just because God chooses them.

 

 

****************

 

Direct Hit 3

 

You answered "True" to questions 10 and 14.

 

These answers generated the following response:

 

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.

 

 

****************

 

Direct Hit 4

 

You answered "True" to Question 7 and "False" to Question 15.

 

These answers generated the following response:

 

You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you said that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction. But now you do not accept that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in doing just that. The example of the rapist has exposed that you do not in fact agree that any belief is justified just because one is convinced of its truth. So you need to revise your opinion here. The intellectual sniper has scored a bull's-eye!

 

 

****************

 

Direct Hit 5

 

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.

 

 

****************

[-Demona-]

Just for shits and giggles, I retook the test using the perspective of my old Christian beliefs, and this is what I got:

 

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?

 

****************

 

You're under fire!

 

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:

 

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).

 

Take a direct hit and say that this is an area where your beliefs are just in contradiction.

 

I bit the bullet on this one.

 

****************

 

You've just bitten a bullet!

 

You say that if there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, then atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality. Therefore, it seems that you do not think that the mere absence of evidence for the existence of God is enough to justify believing that she does not exist. This view is also suggested by your earlier claim that it is not rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist even if, despite years of trying, no evidence has been presented to suggest that it does exist.

 

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?

 

*******************

 

You've just taken a direct hit!

 

Earlier you said that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction. But now you do not accept that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in doing just that. The example of the rapist has exposed that you do not in fact agree that any belief is justified just because one is convinced of its truth. So you need to revise your opinion here. The intellectual sniper has scored a bull's-eye!

 

*******************

 

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.

 

*******************

 

You've just had a near miss!

 

You claim that it is justifiable to believe in God based only on inner-convictions. But earlier you stated that the serial rapist, Peter Sutcliffe, was not justified in believing, purely on the basis of inner-convictions, that he correctly discerned God's intentions in his raping and murdering of prostitutes. In order to reconcile these claims you need to show what makes the same form of justification acceptable in one circumstance and unacceptable in another. Perhaps you can do this. But until you can show where the difference lies, you are in danger of taking a direct hit!

 

*******************

 

You have reached the end!

 

Congratulations! You have made it to the end of this activity.

 

You took 1 direct hit and you have bitten 4 bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullets. 376389 people have so far undertaken this activity.

 

*******************

 

You have been awarded the TPM service medal! This is our third highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

 

The fact that you progressed through this activity suffering only one direct hit indicates that your beliefs about God are, on the whole, consistent.

 

However, you have bitten a number of bullets, which suggests that some of your beliefs will be considered strange, incredible or unpalatable by many people.

[Valgeir]

I recall seeing this before...

 

I got through unscathed, but the way they worded some of this stuff is CLEARLY designed to trip you up.

[Onyx]

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!

 

My award.

[NotBlinded]

I took one hit.

 

I didn't think it was justifiable to act with firm inner convictions when it came to killing by hearing the voice of God, but yet I thought it was justifiable for a person to believe in God with only inner convictions to go on.

 

There is a difference between what one believes and what one does I would think.

[UnholyBlackDeath]

I bit one bullet. I require more evidence to believe in God than I do to believe evolution is true.

 

Same here.

[Grandpa Harley]

By 'true' do you mean 'likely' or 'True'?

[Garnet]

By 'true' do you mean 'likely' or 'True'™?

 

*chuckle* You've been debating with fundies again, haven't you?

 

true /tru/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[troo] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, tru·er, tru·est, noun, adverb, verb, trued, tru·ing or true·ing.

–adjective 1. being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false: a true story.

[Robbobrob]

I took the test and got a "bitten bullet", but, when I backed up and took the other answer, I got a "direct hit". So, because of my choices, I had no choice but to take damage. The game does not respect those who admit to not knowing for certain.

[Grandpa Harley]

It does respect logical consistency... chances are you'd have had to go back and change a few answers to not take the hit...

[Rhia]

Bit 1 bullet, no direct hits, mainly because I refused to say that it takes just as much faith to find truth in evolution as it does to believe in God.

[Jubilant]

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!

 

I bit the evolution bullet.

[BCRoyWatson]

I took the test and got a "bitten bullet", but, when I backed up and took the other answer, I got a "direct hit". So, because of my choices, I had no choice but to take damage. The game does not respect those who admit to not knowing for certain.

 

Same here -- I even wrote down my answers to be sure I was doing all the questions the same way (except the weird one). Bit a bullet when I answered it honestly, direct hit when I changed that answer.

 

But, note what they say about biting bullets ...

 

"You have to bite a bullet if your choices have an implication that most would find strange, incredible or unpalatable. There is more room for disagreement here, since what strikes many people as extraordinary or bizarre can strike others as normal. So, again, please do not get too upset if we judge you have bitten a bullet. Maybe it is our world-view which is warped!"

 

In other words, biting a bullet really only means that your answer would be unpopular; not that it's logically inconsistent, incorrect, etc.

 

I'm curious -- was your "trick question" number 16; the one about square circles, and "1+1=72"?

 

- Roy

[smellincoffee]

I made it through with no hits and no bitten bullets; I think the language of some of the questions makes it difficult to make it through.

[kellyb]

I bit one bullet.

I said it was not justifiable to believe things without evidence, but said the rapist was justified for believing he was doing god's work if he really believed god wanted him to be a rapist.

 

I was thinking he was insane, though, and was giving a moral "out" for the mentally ill.