The god test

[Anders]

Take this test and see how it flies.

What I want to know is an analysis of the arguments the test gives for your results. Do feel free to "test the test" but try to be as honset as possible in the first run and lets hear the result BEFORE you read otehrs replies.

I had one bullet and one hit. I think the test has a screwed up idea of what reationality is. It doesn´t distinguish between different forms of rationality. I won´t say more now because it would ruin the test for the rest of you.

[Anders]

Ahem. a link (http://www.philosophyquotes.net/cgi-bin/god_game1.cgi?num=0&hits=0&bullets=0&bulletcount=0&hitcount=0) ;)

[segovius]

TPM service medal, no direct hits, bit 3 bullets.

I take issue with this bit:

The fact that you progressed through this activity without suffering any direct hits indicates that your beliefs about God are very 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.

The beliefs are consistent within the framework of the mind-set of the test setter. Fair enough but that is not an absolute.

Likewise 'many people will find them strange or unpalatable' - one could say that about any religious belief or even non-religious beliefs. In fact, this statement is so devalued as to be worthless - I see unpalatable beliefs every day (especially on here), it's nothing unusual - there is no consensus, all there is is belief. It is approaching circular reasoning.

Also some of the questions are skewed. One about the Yorkshire Ripper asked if he was justified in believing he was doing God's will in killing prostitutes because he heard a voice he believed to be God's telling him to do it.

I answered that he was justified in believing he was doing God's will (and no, this doesn't mean I actually agree he was) but this was claimed to be inconsistent. Imo this is nonsensical - if one hears a voice claiming they are God and one believes it really is then of course one is justified in believing one is doing God's will if they carry out the instructions.

Sutcliffe was just being consistent and I was acknowledging his consistency - it doesn't make my answer inconsistent. They didn't ask my opinion, they asked about Sutcliffe's.

It's trying to be a wee bit too clever imo. Fun waste of five minutes though.

[Anders]

;)

[Outsider]

My results: TPM Medal of Distinction

How did you do compared to other people?

291643 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 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullets.
45.79% of the people who have completed this activity, like you, took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.
7.63% of the people who have completed this activity emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour

[e1618978]

TPM medal of distinction

But I call BS on my single bitten bullet - the consequences on our behaviour should there be a god will be pretty severe (more severe than the consequences of evolution being true). I require a higher degree of proof of gods existance due to the higher impact on society, and I think that is right.

Also, there are a million pieces of evidence that evolution is correct, with a few holes in the evidence. There are also many pieces of evidence that god was a concept made up by old men.

Analysis of your Bitten Bullet

Click here if you want to see a complete listing of the questions that you answered.

Bitten Bullet 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 bite the bullet.

[segovius]

Originally posted by e1618978


But I call BS on my single bitten bullet - the consequences on our behaviour should there be a god will be pretty severe (more severe than the consequences of evolution being true). I require a higher degree of proof of gods existance due to the higher impact on society, and I think that is right.

Also, there are a million pieces of evidence that evolution is correct, with a few holes in the evidence. There are also many pieces of evidence that god was a concept made up by old men.

Why can't God be a psychopathic thug who actually desires immoral and extreme behaviour and attaches no consequences to such actions. It's a possibility.

Re the second point: all it means is that the concept(s) of God you are familiar with are (perhaps) made up by old men. It does not mean that the ideas made up by the old men are the only ideas pertaining to god there could ever be.

[curiousuburb]

http://www.philosophersnet.com/images/god_medal1.jpg


291648 people have completed this activity to date.
You suffered zero direct hits and bit zero bullets.
This compares with the average player of this activity to date who takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullets.
7.63% of the people who have completed this activity, like you, emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.
45.79% of the people who have completed this activity took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.

Of course, the noodly appendage may have helped guide me. ;)

If you're in the mood for "Breaking News on God and Other Higher Beings in this World and the World to Come" you might be interested in the Godlorica Blog (http://godlorica.blogspot.com/)

Includes links to gems such as:

"God & the Simpsons" (http://www.snpp.com/other/papers/gb.paper.html) <-- more of an academic catalogue of references, but still...
"Design your own God" (http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/whatisgod.htm) <-- also from the folks at TPM
Was Jehovah a Praying Mantis? (http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v07/n05/graying-mantis.html) Seriously. The guy has a theory on this.


Be sure to check out the "Hot books" in the left panel... all by the blogger. </backs away slowly>

[shetline]

When I answered the following question, I figured it was a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't question, and I was right:

"If God exists she would have the freedom and power to create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72."

The only choices you can make here are True and False. I said True, but my thoughts behind that answer had to do with the idea of a God powerful enough to play around with the most basic fundamentals of reality -- or at the very least the meanings of words and symbolic forms such as "circle" and "72".

For that answer of True, I "bit a bullet". I already knew full well that such a God can't really be discussed rationally, but as someone who makes no claim as to the existence of God, I apply a poetic conception of God which I deliberately do not restrain to the bounds of rational analysis.

That's not at all a contradiction of any sort in my mind -- it's one of the reasons for my agnosticism. I seems to me that any entity worthy of the term "God", if such an entity exists (and if the word "exists" even applies very well), would likely be far beyond my feeble human comprehension. I choose not to believe in the God I imagine simply because that belief couldn't lead anywhere, it wouldn't suggest any particular attitudes to adopt or actions to take, making the belief a moot point. Any God I can imagine isn't much of a God at all.

At any rate, I decided to go back and try False as my answer -- that answer results in a deadlier "direct hit" on the basis of being a contradiction to my earlier answer that God (for me only an abstract hypothetical construct) would be all powerful. It would appear that answering that God is all powerful is a "wrong" answer in this test no matter what you do.

I still came through in the end (using my first honest answers) with a shiny TPM Medal, but all along the way I felt like I didn't have the freedom to answer with the nuances and qualifications I'd provide in a real conversation, nuances which I feel are critical to properly expressing my philosophy. With nearly all of the questions being black-and-white binary choices, the closest thing to nuance I ever was allowed was the occasional third choice along the lines of "don't know" or "not sure".

[BRussell]

I had zero hits and zero bullets!

It never explains anything, but it seems like they're going more for consistency than anything. If I had just said something about the Loch Ness monster, and then they asked a God question, I had to say "Oh shit, how did I answer that last question."

If you believe that it's OK to believe in Nessie even if you've never had proof, then I presume that it would be OK to say the same thing about God.

I'm not sure about the questions on whether God was all-powerful. What was that about?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by shetline
When I answered the following question, I figured it was a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't question, and I was right:

"If God exists she would have the freedom and power to create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72." Huh, it must depend on something else you answered. I put 'no' on that one, but didn't get either a hit or a bit bullet.

[bergz]

I did this while watching GoldenEye.

You took zero direct hits and you bit zero bullets.

My question is: why does the GoldenEye make computers explode?

Another question: What does the Dane mean by "different forms of rationality"?

--B

[e1618978]

Originally posted by shetline
It would appear that answering that God is all powerful is a "wrong" answer in this test no matter what you do.

Which is how it should be. All-powerful is impossible, as an all-powerful being cannot create an immovable object (because he is all-powerful, and would be able to move it anyway).

[trumptman]

I bit no bullets but took two direct hits.

Direct Hit 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 take the direct hit.

I have no problem going against scientific orthdoxy here because the evidence has some large logical leaps and in the past such leaps have often meant that a better theory comes along to replace the prior theory.

I think it strange that scientific skepticism has become code for religious freak in our modern society.

Direct Hit 2

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.

I don't consider these analogous. No one is arguing that the Loch Ness Monster is the creator and thus creation is the proof. While we have had people search that entire lake dozens of times, we have not even scoured our entire universal grain of sand we call this planet let alone the entire cosmos. Now the strong arguments do not point to a particular creator so you cannot say it is a Christian God or Jesus, or whatever. However I do believe it a strong argument to say that if the universe has a beginning it probably had a beginner.

Nick

[Anders]

Originally posted by e1618978
Which is how it should be. All-powerful is impossible, as an all-powerful being cannot create an immovable object (because he is all-powerful, and would be able to move it anyway).

When was beliefs about logic? I see nothing wrong about having such contradictions in religion.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by trumptman
However I do believe it a strong argument to say that if the universe has a beginning it probably had a beginner.

And does the beginner have a beginning? If so, who was the Beginner's Beginner. If not, isn't it simpler to say that the universe always existed?

[hardeeharhar]

Did the universe actually have a beginning?

An affirmative/negative answer is a matter of faith.

I have always argued that we don't know, nor are we likely to know. Even if the universe had a beginning, this does not imply a creator...

In any event, I am internally consistent...

I do tend to want god to be proven on a more rigorous standard than ole nessy... but i decided that that isn't consistent with the idea of rationality laid out in the test...

[Anders]

Originally posted by trumptman

I don't consider these analogous. No one is arguing that the Loch Ness Monster is the creator and thus creation is the proof. While we have had people search that entire lake dozens of times, we have not even scoured our entire universal grain of sand we call this planet let alone the entire cosmos.

I (kind of) agree with this. Lock Ness monster believers doesn´t claim that the Lock Ness monster exist in a parallel univers not reachable by us. They claim it exist like the trees next to its shores. So its meaningful to treath the existence of the Lock Ness monster as did we any other object in this world.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

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 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!

I bit a frigging bullet.

I declared that the existence of god demands a higher standard proof than evolutionary theory.

I'm sorry, but I'm consistent and the test ain't.

There is no Hindu fundamentalist movement insisting that evolutionary theory is impossible. This God vs Evolution thing is nonsense since at heart it only applies from a fundamentalist Christian perspective. Most fundamentalist Muslims, for example, count it a point of pride that their scripture accounts for all the discoveries in the last two centuries of research into the natural sciences.

Evolutionary theory is supported by an impossible weight of inter-penetrating evidence from a million different avenues of research, without whose assumptions none of us would be able to drive a car or make tea.

Ideas of 'god'/ 'gods' depend on who you ask, where you ask, and your own prejudices (no matter how benign) and there isn't a single piece of physical evidence to count in.

I don't just want to know if there's a god or not, or if there is whether that flavour of god's responsible for evolution or sudden creation, I want to know why we need to ask the question at all.

The only need for a 'deity' we have seems to be explicable by looking at our survival needs, the anatomy of our brains and the deep history of our species.

[DanMacMan]

TPM service medal

2 hits, 1 bitten bullet

[trumptman]

Originally posted by e1618978
And does the beginner have a beginning? If so, who was the Beginner's Beginner. If not, isn't it simpler to say that the universe always existed?

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Did the universe actually have a beginning?

An affirmative/negative answer is a matter of faith.

I have always argued that we don't know, nor are we likely to know. Even if the universe had a beginning, this does not imply a creator...

In any event, I am internally consistent...

I do tend to want god to be proven on a more rigorous standard than ole nessy... but i decided that that isn't consistent with the idea of rationality laid out in the test...

You two sound like you want to start a thread about this.;)

Nick

[Immanuel Goldstein]

While I don't intend to distract from the subject of that online test, a detail has caught my eyes here.

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Most fundamentalist Muslims, for example, count it a point of pride that their scripture accounts for all the discoveries in the last two centuries of research into the natural sciences.

While I haven't researched the matter by polling fundamnetalist Muslims, I do recall Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi describing the theory of evolution as contrary to Islam, in the context of opposing the cartoon series “Pokémon“ which according to the sheikh, insidiously promoted evolution.

Then again, Qaradawi is fairly mainstream and is considered a “moderate“ rather than a “fundamenetalist”.

As for the test, I received one bullet and one hit, and was awarded their medal of distinction thingie, whatever that means. It seems to me the authors of that test would wish to make any omnipotent deity comply with their notions of consistency and rationality, if such a deity exists she is very clement with them indeed.

[BR]

I only had to bite two bullets and I call bullshit on them. If god can do anything then surely it can make 1 + 1 = 72. By responding False to that question you should have to take a direct hit if you responded True to the god can do anything bit.

[SpcMs]

Originally posted by segovius
Also some of the questions are skewed. One about the Yorkshire Ripper asked if he was justified in believing he was doing God's will in killing prostitutes because he heard a voice he believed to be God's telling him to do it.

I answered that he was justified in believing he was doing God's will (and no, this doesn't mean I actually agree he was) but this was claimed to be inconsistent. Imo this is nonsensical - if one hears a voice claiming they are God and one believes it really is then of course one is justified in believing one is doing God's will if they carry out the instructions.

Sutcliffe was just being consistent and I was acknowledging his consistency - it doesn't make my answer inconsistent. They didn't ask my opinion, they asked about Sutcliffe's.
I took two hits on this issue also (there are three questions about it). And I agree with you, the two answers are not mutually exclusive or inconsistent imho.

[BRussell]

But the question there about Sutcliffe (I'd never heard of him) was presumably compared to your response about whether simply having inner convictions is enough to believe something.

[Moe_in_Texas]

I bullet. Got me on the rapist.

[SpcMs]

Originally posted by BRussell
But the question there about Sutcliffe (I'd never heard of him) was presumably compared to your response about whether simply having inner convictions is enough to believe something.
Actually it is compared to the question if a person's actions are justified because one has an inner conviction. The difference between the two questions seems to be that the first one asks if I think the action of the other person is justified because of his inner beliefs, while the other question asks whether a person can justify an actions for himself because of his inner beliefs.

[Anders]

That what I meant with different kinds of rationales. For someone who strongly beliefes in god and that he is instructed to carry out Gods will, then that is rational for him to do so. From the viewpoint of society it is NOT rational to do so.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SpcMs
Actually it is compared to the question if a person's actions are justified because one has an inner conviction. The difference between the two questions seems to be that the first one asks if I think the action of the other person is justified because of his inner beliefs, while the other question asks whether a person can justify an actions for himself because of his inner beliefs. I don't agree with your characterization of the questions. I think it's fair to call it a contradiction. Here they are:

1. 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 these convictions.

2. The serial rapist Peter Sutcliffe had a firm, inner conviction that God wanted him to rape and murder prostitutes. He was, therefore, justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will in undertaking these actions.

I don't think you can say yes to one and no to the other and remain consistent. The trick is that the first seems innocuous and the second is obviously bad. But the second is, I think, a logical consequence of the first.

[segovius]

Originally posted by BRussell
I don't agree with your characterization of the questions. I think it's fair to call it a contradiction. Here they are:

1. 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 these convictions.

2. The serial rapist Peter Sutcliffe had a firm, inner conviction that God wanted him to rape and murder prostitutes. He was, therefore, justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will in undertaking these actions.

I don't think you can say yes to one and no to the other and remain consistent. The trick is that the first seems innocuous and the second is obviously bad. But the second is, I think, a logical consequence of the first.

It's a classic double-bind: only a fundamentalist (in the correct usage) would apply the same rules to others as to themselves in this area.

The 'reasonable' position would surely be to say: 'I believe X and even though I disbelieve Y i will support Sutcliffe's right to believe Y as he may be right even though I'm sure he is not.'

It seems that the test is penalising those that take this reasonable view and exposing itself as perhaps the creation of a rather literalist mindset.

[SpcMs]

Originally posted by BRussell
I don't agree with your characterization of the questions. I think it's fair to call it a contradiction. Here they are:

1. 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 these convictions.

2. The serial rapist Peter Sutcliffe had a firm, inner conviction that God wanted him to rape and murder prostitutes. He was, therefore, justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will in undertaking these actions.

I don't think you can say yes to one and no to the other and remain consistent. The trick is that the first seems innocuous and the second is obviously bad. But the second is, I think, a logical consequence of the first.

I guess you are right, but (maybe only for a non-english speaker or the not-very-attentive reader) the difference between 'it is justifiable' and 'he is justified' leaves some room for interpretation or difference of perspective. Either way, even if I contradicted myself in sensu stricto, the reasoning behind my answers still seems pretty logical to me.

[thuh Freak]

Originally posted by segovius
It's a classic double-bind: only a fundamentalist (in the correct usage) would apply the same rules to others as to themselves in this area.

The 'reasonable' position would surely be to say: 'I believe X and even though I disbelieve Y i will support Sutcliffe's right to believe Y as he may be right even though I'm sure he is not.'

It seems that the test is penalising those that take this reasonable view and exposing itself as perhaps the creation of a rather literalist mindset.

the test is only trying to measure potential contradictions of a person's internal beliefs. that a contradiction therein exists, therefore theres some factor the test didn't check that affects your position on the issue. as it noticed a 'contradiction' it implies that your answer on either question was not as absolute as they thought it'd be.

medal of honour here.

[Outsider]

Originally posted by BR
I only had to bite two bullets and I call bullshit on them. If god can do anything then surely it can make 1 + 1 = 72. By responding False to that question you should have to take a direct hit if you responded True to the god can do anything bit. Exactly! I bit it on that one too.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by curiousuburb
http://www.philosophersnet.com/images/god_medal1.jpg


Same here.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by e1618978
Which is how it should be. All-powerful is impossible, as an all-powerful being cannot create an immovable object (because he is all-powerful, and would be able to move it anyway).

Bah. God is immune to paradox. That's how Milton got out of it.

[shetline]

Originally posted by BR
I only had to bite two bullets and I call bullshit on them. If god can do anything then surely it can make 1 + 1 = 72. By responding False to that question you should have to take a direct hit if you responded True to the god can do anything bit.
You do have to take a direct hit if you answer False on that question, and True on the God-can-do-anything question. That's what I was bitching about before... If you say True to a God which can do anything, you're either going to bite the bullet or take a hit on that question. When I bit the bullet like you apparently did, answering True the way you did, I backed up in the test just to try out what False would do.

The test is going to cause you damage no matter what once you've agreed to an all-powerful God. Once you've done that (even if, like me, you don't actually believe in that God, but are merely considering a best meaning for the word God in a poetic or theoretical sense) the best you can do is reduce your damage by saying True to the 1 + 1 = 72 bit. Although True will hurt you there, False will hurt you more.

[Carson O'Genic]

No injuries so far, but watch out! Danger ahead!


Ooh, I'm so scared.

[thuh Freak]

Originally posted by shetline
You do have to take a direct hit if you answer False on that question, and True on the God-can-do-anything question. That's what I was bitching about before... If you say True to a God which can do anything, you're either going to bite the bullet or take a hit on that question. When I bit the bullet like you apparently did, answering True the way you did, I backed up in the test just to try out what False would do.

The test is going to cause you damage no matter what once you've agreed to an all-powerful God. Once you've done that (even if, like me, you don't actually believe in that God, but are merely considering a best meaning for the word God in a poetic or theoretical sense) the best you can do is reduce your damage by saying True to the 1 + 1 = 72 bit. Although True will hurt you there, False will hurt you more.
i think of math as an entirely human idea. being that, if the Lord wanted to communicate to us on a mathematical level, he would come across as gobbletygook if he didn't follow the accepted rules of math. math doesn't directly relate to the world without some translation; he can mod that translation all he wants (i'll keep ignoring him).

[e1618978]

Originally posted by thuh Freak
i think of math as an entirely human idea. being that, if the Lord wanted to communicate to us on a mathematical level, he would come across as gobbletygook if he didn't follow the accepted rules of math. math doesn't directly relate to the world without some translation; he can mod that translation all he wants (i'll keep ignoring him).

But he could modify your brain to accept changes - the problem with 1 + 1 = 72 is that counting 1, 72, 3, 4, ... would seem kind of dumb.

[Mike0919]

Originally posted by Anders
Take this test and see how it flies.

What I want to know is an analysis of the arguments the test gives for your results.
No hits. Bullet for saying T to 14 and F to 10.

Logic is flawed.

For 14 test says
If there is no evidence for not-P, then belief in not-P is faith (where P is God's existence).

But for 10, test says
If there is no evidence for P, then belief in not-P is rational (where P is Nessie's existence).

No evidence for P does not mean not P. No evidence that I committed a crime doesn't mean I didn't. That's why we don't have "innocent" verdicts.
Not guilty simply means there wasn't enough evidence to convict. It says nothing rational about whether or not I did it.

These are not contradictory.

[Placebo]

"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."

Not true. I said that people can believe in God if they want to, not rape and kill people because God supposedly told them to.

[groverat]

Medal of Distinction.
0 direct hits. 2 bullets.

Bullet 1:
True to 7, 12, 15

You've just bitten a bullet! You are consistent in applying the principle 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 this conviction. The problem is that it seems you have to accept that people might be justified in their belief that terrible things are right. You have agreed that the rapist is justified in believing that he carries out the will of God, and in an earlier answer you indicated that you think that God defines what is good and what is evil. Therefore, to be consistent, you must think the rapist is justified in believing that he acts morally when he acts on his inner conviction. Hence, you bite the bullet and justify the rapist.


Bullet 2:
True to 16

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.

Whateva... I do what I want!

[Mike0919]

[i] Therefore, to be consistent, you must think the rapist is justified in believing that he acts morally when he acts on his inner conviction. [/B]
Don't ding me for not looking up all of the law on this, but if you have to bite a bullet, I think the Judicial System does also.

The fact that the rapist "is justified in believing" doesn't make it true or justified.

However, I think a rapist who could prove that God "told him to" and he/she believed he had to would actually be found not guilty on grounds of insanity. That means, basically that he can't be found guilty because he really believed it was true. On the other hand, it is outside of society's definition of rational or justified to rape someone because you personally believe that God told you to.

Justified by the rapist. Not justified by society.

If the rapist wasn't found to be insane, he would be convicted. No one would have to prove he didn't find it rational. Being justified to him/her doesn't make it within the definition of acceptable.

Some of the logic in this test is really, really tortured. Non sequiturs abound.

[AquaMac]

One direct hit, one bullet according to the survey.
I dissagree with the logic of the 'direct hit'.

[talksense101]

293967 people have completed this activity to date.
You suffered 2 direct hits and bit 1 bullet.
This compares with the average player of this activity to date who takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullets.
38.44% of the people who have completed this activity have, like you, been awarded the TPM Service Medal.
7.62% of the people who have completed this activity emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.
45.77% of the people who have completed this activity took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.

:\

[Res]

I disagree with the logic of this test.

Direct Hit 1

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.

I don't see the contradiction here: Loch Ness is a small finite body of water that has been searched extensively, and if the Loch Ness Monster really existed there would be a ton of physical evidence, so with the absence of evidence the logical conclusion is that Nessy does not exist. The universe (or possibly multi-verse) is so large to as to be for all practical purposes infinite. That leaves plenty of room for gods to hang out in without us ever seeing one, so an absence of strong evidence that they exist or do not exist proves nothing, and the Atheists certainty that gods cannot exist, and the Believers certainty that they do, both come down to faith.