Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"You navigated the battlefield suffering 0 hits and biting 0 bullets, which represents an overall performance at the 100th percentile (i.e., 100% of scores are worse than yours). The tables on the right show how your performance compares to the other 57718 people who have completed Battleground God."
Having posted that, I really feel the test was sort of biased. I would have answered some of the questions differently if they included asking about "a" god instead of "God". The image of "God" that I got from the makers of the test was not of a benevolent spirit, but if a vengeful and powerful being that doesn't like people too much. So I answered accordingly.
The test is fake, it's rigged by an atheist. Question 17 or 18 indicated a serial killer believed god wanted him to torture and kill. His killing was justified due to his belief, true or false.
Picking false, gets someone who believes in god a hit.
Not really. I retook the test starting with the "true" (God exists) in question #1, but did not get a hit on the question about the serial killer. (It was actually question #16.) I suspect that you went wrong at question #8 ("It is justified to base one's belief about the external world - i.e., the world outside one's head - on a firm inner conviction, even in the absence of any independent evidence for the truth of this conviction.") I suspect you said "true" for #8, which led to your hit on #16.
Quote:
It's a waste of time.
If I am right about the source of your "direct hit" then, instead of "a waste of time" the test might be showing you a flaw in your thinking.
I don't see any reason to believe that the test is "rigged by an atheist". I would say, however, that logic itself does force a somewhat more liberal conception of God than many theists are comfortable with. This is not a flaw in the test. The traditional "Bible God" concept is, flat-out, based on some logical contradictions. Some theists accept this and say, simply, that "God is incomprehensible to the human mind". What's fragrantly silly in trying to defend the traditional concept of Bible God on purely logical grounds. At some point the Traditional Bible-God believer has to simply accept, on faith, that somehow God's infinite mind makes sense in a way that seems illogical to humans.
I only got to the second question before realizing that was written by someone working very hard to debunk the existence of God. (although I only got to the second question, so I may be jumping to conclusions).
So let's look at it this way, an analogy.
If the first question were:
Your car is in the garage (true or false)
There is a possibility your car is not in the garage (true or false)
I think my car is in the garage, and in fact I'm darn sure of it. But maybe someone came and stole it overnight? Both statements are true.
I think you misunderstood the second question. Here are questions 1 and 2:
Question 1
God exists.
Question 2
God is a logical possibility (i.e., there is nothing contradictory about the very idea of God).
If #1 is true, the #2 certainly has to be true. For any X, if X exists, then it must be logically possible for X to exist.
As I said in my previous post, the test does not debunk the concept of God, in general, but it does debunk certain traditional conceptions of God that, as a matter of fact, do contain logical contradictions.
I was atheist for 45 yrs.
It finally dawned on me that I was insane,
Trying to prove the nonexistence of what I claimed did not exist. Thats nuts.
It depends on your definition of "God". If you think that God is all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing, and drowned nearly all human and animal life in a great flood, and inspired "His people" to slaughter whole villages (including infants suckling at their mother's nipples), and inspired Paul to say that women should be silent in church, and condoned the stoning to death of adulterers, etc. - then I would say that you would be rationally justified to claim that such a God does not exist.
I would say that more liberal conceptions of God - i.e., something more along the lines of Spinoza's "Totality of Existence" or God = a "Cosmic Mind" etc., cannot be disproven. But we can be justifiably atheist in relation to any conception of God that leads to logical contradictions. Atheism, in such cases, would not be insane; it would be perfectly reasonable.
There were some things that put me off in this quiz and others on the site, too, as I do happen to believe in God. I just came to the conclusion that Gaylenwoof eloquently stated here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
The traditional "Bible God" concept is, flat-out, based on some logical contradictions. Some theists accept this and say, simply, that "God is incomprehensible to the human mind". What's fragrantly silly in trying to defend the traditional concept of Bible God on purely logical grounds. At some point the Traditional Bible-God believer has to simply accept, on faith, that somehow God's infinite mind makes sense in a way that seems illogical to humans.
And after that, like another poster said, I just went along in the spirit; but still, enjoyed the thinking exercises. I've also enjoyed reading everyone's posts thus far and appreciate you all for contributing and raising some excellent points to ponder.
I found myself wanting to answer "it depends" for a lot of the statements. A great deal of deeper discussion would be needed for all of them. But, overall, I think the test is useful for exposing potential contradictions.
One statement, in particular, was a problem for me: Question 8 - "It is justified to base one's belief about the external world - i.e., the world outside one's head - on a firm inner conviction, even in the absence of any independent evidence for the truth of this conviction." This is because I cannot fully resolve the classic "problem of the external world." It seems to me that, ultimately, there is an epistemological puzzle that forces us to admit that we cannot be 100% certain about anything in the external world. We believe in external objects based on faith in our own judgments about the meaning of our qualitative experiences. I am virtually certain that the external world exists (I am a realist, not an idealist), and I feel confident that I know at least some significant truths about the properties of some external objects (I judge scientific data worthy of great respect, etc.), but if forced to confront the absolute logical limits of epistemology, I have to admit that I could be wrong about these judgments.
I ultimately have to have faith in myself - faith in my ability to think logically, etc. - as a prerequisite for making any judgments about the external world. So if I were to feel a deep certainty about something that I could not confirm by any other empirical means, and if this feeling seemed logically possible to me, then I would have a dilemma. I am inclined to believe that there could be ways of knowing that are not reducible to objectively verifiable facts. The problem is that this leaves me in a bad situation relative to the guy who feels certain that God has told him to kill prostitutes (statement #16). I feel certain that the serial killer's judgment is wrong, but I also feel certain that I cannot fully justify my own feeling of certainty about this. This dilemma becomes extremely important on a global scale. Suicide bombers/terrorists are driven by their own sense of certainty, and I want to condemn their judgments as being obviously flawed based on my own sense of certainty and my high confidence in my ability to think logically, and yet - based on logic alone - I cannot logically claim with absolute certainty that they are wrong, even though I feel with absolute certainty that they are wrong.
Most religious bickering seems to boil down to these differences in intuitive feelings of certainty. I find myself wanting to claim that logic is the only guide to fixing these disagreements, but I don't feel logically justified in absolutely asserting that logic is the only means to truth because, ultimately, my faith in logic is, after all, faith in logic and faith in my own ability to think logically. Logic itself shows that logic cannot be fully self-justifying (per Godel, no formal system can be both logically consistent and complete at the same time).
Bottom line: I have full faith in logic, but I realize that my faith in logic is ultimately grounded on an some logical "givens" - i.e., grounding assumptions that cannot, themselves, be logically proven to be true. So when someone says they have faith that Bible God has perfectly good reasons for acting like a 2-year-old with temper tantrums, but these reasons are beyond my ability to comprehend, I know they are full of baloney, but I also know that I cannot logically prove this, even to myself. Conclusion: Reality is an annoying bi*tch.
Wheresoever anyone places their ultimate reliance in life, that is their God.
Atheists tend to have a God they can control, and which fails them in the end.
I would put the word "some" in there. Some atheists have been wounded by religion and are out for blood. Others have a belief system they must adhere too. like any theist fundy would.
But others, list all that we know. "GOD", as the three biggies teach would not be a reasonable conclusion if we started over with what we know today. "being part of nothing more complex" is not reasonable either.
I found myself wanting to answer "it depends" for a lot of the statements. A great deal of deeper discussion would be needed for all of them. But, overall, I think the test is useful for exposing potential contradictions.
One statement, in particular, was a problem for me: Question 8 - "It is justified to base one's belief about the external world - i.e., the world outside one's head - on a firm inner conviction, even in the absence of any independent evidence for the truth of this conviction." This is because I cannot fully resolve the classic "problem of the external world." It seems to me that, ultimately, there is an epistemological puzzle that forces us to admit that we cannot be 100% certain about anything in the external world. We believe in external objects based on faith in our own judgments about the meaning of our qualitative experiences. I am virtually certain that the external world exists (I am a realist, not an idealist), and I feel confident that I know at least some significant truths about the properties of some external objects (I judge scientific data worthy of great respect, etc.), but if forced to confront the absolute logical limits of epistemology, I have to admit that I could be wrong about these judgments.
I ultimately have to have faith in myself - faith in my ability to think logically, etc. - as a prerequisite for making any judgments about the external world. So if I were to feel a deep certainty about something that I could not confirm by any other empirical means, and if this feeling seemed logically possible to me, then I would have a dilemma. I am inclined to believe that there could be ways of knowing that are not reducible to objectively verifiable facts. The problem is that this leaves me in a bad situation relative to the guy who feels certain that God has told him to kill prostitutes (statement #16). I feel certain that the serial killer's judgment is wrong, but I also feel certain that I cannot fully justify my own feeling of certainty about this. This dilemma becomes extremely important on a global scale. Suicide bombers/terrorists are driven by their own sense of certainty, and I want to condemn their judgments as being obviously flawed based on my own sense of certainty and my high confidence in my ability to think logically, and yet - based on logic alone - I cannot logically claim with absolute certainty that they are wrong, even though I feel with absolute certainty that they are wrong.
Most religious bickering seems to boil down to these differences in intuitive feelings of certainty. I find myself wanting to claim that logic is the only guide to fixing these disagreements, but I don't feel logically justified in absolutely asserting that logic is the only means to truth because, ultimately, my faith in logic is, after all, faith in logic and faith in my own ability to think logically. Logic itself shows that logic cannot be fully self-justifying (per Godel, no formal system can be both logically consistent and complete at the same time).
Bottom line: I have full faith in logic, but I realize that my faith in logic is ultimately grounded on an some logical "givens" - i.e., grounding assumptions that cannot, themselves, be logically proven to be true. So when someone says they have faith that Bible God has perfectly good reasons for acting like a 2-year-old with temper tantrums, but these reasons are beyond my ability to comprehend, I know they are full of baloney, but I also know that I cannot logically prove this, even to myself. Conclusion: Reality is an annoying bi*tch.
I would say your "givens" are my "If's". We can have some base axioms that may not be factually "known with certainty" but are reasonable enough for most of us to call them "healthy" for a species like ourselves.
It depends on your definition of "God". If you think that God is all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing, and drowned nearly all human and animal life in a great flood, and inspired "His people" to slaughter whole villages (including infants suckling at their mother's nipples), and inspired Paul to say that women should be silent in church, and condoned the stoning to death of adulterers, etc. - then I would say that you would be rationally justified to claim that such a God does not exist.
I would say that more liberal conceptions of God - i.e., something more along the lines of Spinoza's "Totality of Existence" or God = a "Cosmic Mind" etc., cannot be disproven. But we can be justifiably atheist in relation to any conception of God that leads to logical contradictions. Atheism, in such cases, would not be insane; it would be perfectly reasonable.
Apparently your concept of God is my definition of religion , religion isn't God.
And with that confused concept you will continue to get mixed up.
There is no logical contradiction of God but your confusion as to what the bible is ,will and has, confused you to believe there is.
Shall I explain, are you sitting comfortably?
The bible isn't a book, its a library, it was written over the course of several thousand yrs.
It contains many different subjects, a poor mans attempt to explain the creation of the universe, the beginning of mankind, concepts of good vs evil, the story of a people who made a covenant , their lineage, poems, songs , geneology etc etc. Rules and moral laws.
The arrival of the expected one and His story.
If God condoned the stoning to death of adulterers, why do we have the commandment which forbids killing. Which one is from God and which is religion? The fact they contradict reinforces my point that religion is wrong but again, religion isn't God, its just about God. Its opinion.
The great flood, to me, is about the end of the ice age, the world to those people at that time was where they were in the fertile crescent which is now under the Arabian gulf, the area is clearly described between the Tigris, Euphrates , mihon and Gishon rivers. So its obviously not talking about the whole world.
The vengeful angry God is in the Old Testament, I ask what part of the word OLD don't you get?
The flood story is an account of a geological reshaping of the world through the filter of their concept of God. The old concept is the fire and brimstone, the new concept is God is Love.
Atheists always cling to the old concept but fail to notice they are doing that, so they qualify as fundamentalists.
Spinozas God, well if God is everything then His attributes include the totality, we are all inside God, as is the universe. What Spinoza gets wrong is God doesn't care about individuals.
Einstein held the same concept, not surprising because he never needed to appeal to God for help.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
