Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bracer · 04-01-2002, 02:29 PM

I apologize if this has been posted before, but I came across it today and found it thought provoking. For the record, I had to bite one bullet.

<a href="http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm" target="_blank">Battleground God</a>

James AD · 04-01-2002, 03:44 PM

Quote:

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!

That was fun.

JL · 04-01-2002, 04:08 PM

Quote:

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.

Errr... I was playing the fucking devil's advocate in the first place saying that God was capable of anything considering I SAID HE DIDN'T EXIST IN THE FIRST QUESTION DAMMIT!

I hate to lose if you couldn't tell. I got hit on a couple others for similar reasons. Still got second place though.

JL · 04-01-2002, 04:13 PM

Also I was hung up on the use of 'justifiable'.
By what measure? Pure logic? Morally justifiable? Justifiable to one who believes in God?

ManM · 04-02-2002, 06:20 AM

Well that was rather silly. I took a hit because the quiz equivocated internal belief in God and justifying an action based on belief. It also didn't like my skepticism of Occam's principle of limited imagination. Phooey on them.

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: ManM ]</p>

frostymama · 04-02-2002, 06:28 AM

Quote:

You may have just taken a direct hit!

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:

Bite a bullet and claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution.

Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: frostymama ]</p>

Scotty · 04-02-2002, 07:01 AM

I stopped, it made no sense to me at all. The first question doesn't indicate which God is the correct one, it just states "God exists".
Sorry, can't take a test when you don't lay out the groundwork properly.
Simple true/false answers especially when on shaky groundwork are internally inconsistent when dealing with "God", whatever that is supposed to mean.

Anyway, hate those types of things, they try to force you into something that doesn't exist.

-Scott

Gurdur · 04-02-2002, 07:12 AM

Quote:

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!

------------------------------

How did you do compared to other people?

23809 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 1.31 hits and bites 1.06 bullets.
8.09% of the people who have completed this activity, like you, emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.
48.91% of the people who have completed this activity took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.

butswana · 04-02-2002, 10:11 AM

I found it to be internally inconsistent. They force you to make assumptions then ding you for it. It's too rigid.

David Bowden · 04-02-2002, 12:18 PM

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

You took zero direct hits and you bit zero bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.31 hits and bites 1.07 bullets. 23893 people have so far undertaken this activity.
[---]

The first question, "God exists. T/F?" irritated me. What sort of God? From there on out it was just a silly game, I thought.

-Wanderer

04-01-2002, 02:29 PM	#1
Bracer Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Now in North Carolina Posts: 184	Battleground God I apologize if this has been posted before, but I came across it today and found it thought provoking. For the record, I had to bite one bullet. <a href="http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm" target="_blank">Battleground God</a>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-01-2002, 04:13 PM	#4
JL Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Mawkish Virtue, NC Posts: 151	Also I was hung up on the use of 'justifiable'. By what measure? Pure logic? Morally justifiable? Justifiable to one who believes in God?

04-02-2002, 06:20 AM	#5
ManM Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: NW Florida, USA Posts: 1,279	Well that was rather silly. I took a hit because the quiz equivocated internal belief in God and justifying an action based on belief. It also didn't like my skepticism of Occam's principle of limited imagination. Phooey on them. [ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: ManM ]</p>

04-02-2002, 07:01 AM	#7
Scotty Senior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: OutBound Posts: 804	I stopped, it made no sense to me at all. The first question doesn't indicate which God is the correct one, it just states "God exists". Sorry, can't take a test when you don't lay out the groundwork properly. Simple true/false answers especially when on shaky groundwork are internally inconsistent when dealing with "God", whatever that is supposed to mean. Anyway, hate those types of things, they try to force you into something that doesn't exist. -Scott

04-02-2002, 10:11 AM	#9
butswana Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Indianapolis, IN Posts: 1,804	I found it to be internally inconsistent. They force you to make assumptions then ding you for it. It's too rigid.

04-02-2002, 12:18 PM	#10
David Bowden Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Everywhere I go. Yes, even there. Posts: 607	[---] Congratulations! You have made it to the end of this activity. You took zero direct hits and you bit zero bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.31 hits and bites 1.07 bullets. 23893 people have so far undertaken this activity. [---] The first question, "God exists. T/F?" irritated me. What sort of God? From there on out it was just a silly game, I thought. -Wanderer

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.