Test Your Beliefs Game

Goat · **Posted:** Sun Mar 26, 2006 4:30 pm

Yes, I found another one.

I did badly, wasn't paying enough attention.

rio · **Posted:** Sun Mar 26, 2006 5:40 pm

This is the only one I got wrong, and it's easily refuted:

Quote:

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.

Methinks this isn't exactly the same thing...

Goat · **Posted:** Sun Mar 26, 2006 5:42 pm

rio wrote:

This is the only one I got wrong, and it's easily refuted:

Quote:

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.

Methinks this isn't exactly the same thing...

True, but in principle, it's got you.

rio · **Posted:** Sun Mar 26, 2006 5:51 pm

Zad wrote:

rio wrote:

This is the only one I got wrong, and it's easily refuted:

Quote:

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.

Methinks this isn't exactly the same thing...

True, but in principle, it's got you.

The principle is: We've explored Loch Ness to death, but we hardly know anything about outer space. Therefore discounting the Loch Ness monster based on lack of evidence is not comparable to discounting God for the same reason.

Take that, inanimate object.

Goat · **Posted:** Sun Mar 26, 2006 5:55 pm

rio wrote:

Zad wrote:

rio wrote:

This is the only one I got wrong, and it's easily refuted:

Quote:

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.

Methinks this isn't exactly the same thing...

True, but in principle, it's got you.

The principle is: We've explored Loch Ness to death, but we hardly know anything about outer space. Therefore discounting the Loch Ness monster based on lack of evidence is not comparable to discounting God for the same reason.

Take that, inanimate object.

Did you see the story saying the origional photo(s) might have been circus elephants washing in there? Funny...

rio · **Posted:** Sun Mar 26, 2006 6:01 pm

Zad wrote:

rio wrote:

Zad wrote:

rio wrote:

This is the only one I got wrong, and it's easily refuted:

Quote:

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.

Methinks this isn't exactly the same thing...

True, but in principle, it's got you.

The principle is: We've explored Loch Ness to death, but we hardly know anything about outer space. Therefore discounting the Loch Ness monster based on lack of evidence is not comparable to discounting God for the same reason.

Take that, inanimate object.

Did you see the story saying the origional photo(s) might have been circus elephants washing in there? Funny...

Hehe, I didn't know that. I wish Nessie existed though... that would be so awesome.

Goat · **Posted:** Sun Mar 26, 2006 6:03 pm

rio wrote:

Hehe, I didn't know that. I wish Nessie existed though... that would be so awesome.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4779248.stm

Oh, and what happened to Boris or whatever his name was? Your avatar-zombie?

rio · **Posted:** Sun Mar 26, 2006 6:14 pm

Zad wrote:

rio wrote:

Hehe, I didn't know that. I wish Nessie existed though... that would be so awesome.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4779248.stm

Oh, and what happened to Boris or whatever his name was? Your avatar-zombie?

Bub is still there... :?

Goat · **Posted:** Sun Mar 26, 2006 6:15 pm

rio wrote:

Zad wrote:

rio wrote:

Hehe, I didn't know that. I wish Nessie existed though... that would be so awesome.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4779248.stm

Oh, and what happened to Boris or whatever his name was? Your avatar-zombie?

Bub is still there... :?

Ah, yes. It's taking a long time to load, for some reason.

JÃ¼rgen · **Posted:** Sun Mar 26, 2006 6:30 pm

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 very few bullets 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 bullets occurred because you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, because you bit only two bullets and avoided direct hits completely you still qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

Metalhead_Bastard · **Posted:** Sun Mar 26, 2006 7:08 pm

I went without a hit up until the last few questions...then it just became a killing ground.

Cú Chulainn · **Posted:** Sun Mar 26, 2006 7:11 pm

I got the same as Jürgen... but I didn't think the contradiction they said I made was really true..

JÃ¼rgen · **Posted:** Sun Mar 26, 2006 7:58 pm

FrigidSymphony wrote:

I got the same as Jürgen... but I didn't think the contradiction they said I made was really true..

Same here. The test made some valid points, but it was really a case of different perspectives with each bullet i bit.

Arthur · **Posted:** Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:32 pm

Quote:

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

I got the same thing as well, but evidently half of everyone gets that far. I tried taking it several different ways and the best I could do was getting out with 1 single hit. Anyone manage to get through perfectly?? I agree with you guys, I'm not so sure the contraditcions they point out are necessarily contradictions. It doesn't help either that the explanations sound like some stuck up philosophy major.

Arthur · **Posted:** Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:57 pm

Ok check this out.

Quote:

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.

Now read this.

Quote:

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.

Basically to break this down the test is saying that I contradicted myself for believing in evoltuion but not god, because there is no conclusive evidence that evolutionary theory is true.

But then the test also says that I contradict myself for saying that all beliefs need to be based on evidence and then saying that evolution is false, because most scientists agree that evolution is true.

So on one hand they say that evolution does not have conclusive evidence, but on the other they say that it does.

Bottom Line: The test contradicts itself.

lizardtail · **Posted:** Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:06 am

Ah, I messed up on peter sutcliffe and bit no bullets.. agnosticism or deism right from the start makes most of those questions easy but I suppose I did stumble like an inconsistent being,

EisenFaust · **Posted:** Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:05 pm

I got this:

Weeee.. I'm super-consistent :roll:

Rhys · **Posted:** Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:59 pm

Battleground Analysis
Congratulations!
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 have progressed through this activity without suffering many hits and biting only one bullet suggests that whilst there are inconsistencies in your beliefs about God, on the whole they are well thought-out.

The direct hits you suffered occurred because some of your answers implied logical contradictions. 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. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hits and bitten bullet.

The fact that you did not suffer many hits and only bit one bullet means that you qualify for our third highest award. Well done!

I fucked up on nessie and the evidence for evolution/evidence for god bit

Arthur · **Posted:** Wed Mar 29, 2006 10:12 am

Quote:

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.

Bwahaha this test is retarded. I found a way to cheat, well sort of cheat I guess.

Eternal Idol · **Posted:** Thu Mar 30, 2006 5:09 pm

Quote:

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!

Metal Reviews

Test Your Beliefs Game

Who is online