http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/ god.htm I took three hits and bite one bullet, and earned an medal of service for being generally rational. I'm extremely interested to see how you guys do. (regardless of the strength of your religious convictions)

Crimson helped me get thru this one. And here is how I scored. I took 1 direct hit and bite 2 bullets.

I bit one bullet (regarding the serial rapist). I took no hits. ********** 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! *************

3 bullets, no hits. I'm a moron.

since when does religion have anything at all to do with rational thought or logic?

It should have something to do with rationality. It's good when your framework of beliefs is cohesive and makes intuitive sense. Faith, though, like love, is non-rational. You don't love because.... You just love.

The link didn't work for me. I will just openly state that when it comes to my choice of religion, I don't use much logic. I study different kinds of religion and other things and know about them some, but I choose mine on faith and not knowledge about it. Does that make sense? I mean, I know that Christianity is a man-made religion and many other religions have a much broader history and a less hipocritical one. Many don't contradict themselves as much as the bible does, but I simply choose to believe in it. That doesn't mean that I discredit or condemn other religions, though. Many of them make more sense than mine. I also don't just jump of bridges saying that all other forms of religion are satanic. I think that is a bunch of crap based on lack of knowledge. OK I have flapped my gums and said my peace.

any emotion, by definition, is not rational.

No, but it's not irrational. It's non-rational. Still, that doesn't mean there aren't rational components to it. And love and faith aren't emotions.

I do not think logic has got a damn thing to do with religion it is base on faith. I do not care if science says there is no God I will still have faith. Science is just a religion its self.

damn...i too took one hit, about the rapist, like you spider. Earned that same medal too. my belief that god/morality can be derived from an inner conviction, yet the rapist was not justified by the voices of god he heard to rape and kill. my problem though with that dilemma or "hit" is that what your inner conviction compells you to do may, or may not be justified, depending on the actions. An inner conviction to god does not exclude or exempt you from the rest of society. As far as Im concerned, thats a flaw in the logic of the game. As far as Im concerned, you as well spider, we scored a perfect score.

damn that rapist question. two hits.

No, Patrick, I bit the bullet. I didn't get hit -- I said he *was* justified.

I got hit on the rapist question too. eri, you can just cut and paste the whole link, for some reason it gets transferred weird as link when you paste it into text like above. I agree with spider that religion should be rational. And I am not surprised that she scored very high. And science is not a religion any more than creationism is a science.

Hee hee. No hits. "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." Frankly, I don't agree, but whatever.

hits bullets hits bullets.....more coffee MORE COFFEE that hooka knocked me out

im actually surprised i did as well as i did. i still think the rapist matter is flawed. but then again i was thinking about what was right, and it seems what is right isnt always bulletproof logic.

I agree with you, Patrick, about this: just because the rapist was rationally justified in thinking that it was okay to rape and murder, does not make those actions moral. I felt, too, that they were making some kind of logical error in setting up the rapist story as an example to support one of their earlier questions that they had framed in the abstract. Reductio ad absurdam? Or something? I should give this test to my roommate. She is an ardent Catholic and a PhD candidate in Philosophy with strong training in logic.

"And love and faith aren't emotions." that's true. nonetheless, love nor religous beliefs (faith) are still not rational.

Anybody want a timewaster? I found a poker game I programmed in 93 -- DOS based, 5 card draw. Computer players have different "bluff" and betting levels. Kind of fun. Let me know.

i haven't taken the test yet, but my beliefs have many contradictions in logic if it was logical, engineers would be priests and all poets would go to hell maybe that's how it is, but it's not my belief

i took one hit for a contradiction that is at the very core of my being. and the rapist question bit my bullet.

I took one hit, but it was a bullshit hit. To wit: "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." But, assertions about the Loch Ness monster involve a limited, testable domain, i.e. Loch Ness. You could, concievably, observe the whole of Loch Ness, analyze the results, and detect the existence of some monster. Assertions about the existence/nonexistence of god involve the whole universe, hardly a testable domain, and speculations about a beast of a completely different nature than Nessie. Thus I judge such assertions to be in the realm of faith. So there, you Battleground of God fuckwits!

I don't think anyone is saying reason gets you faith, or faith is reason, or faith is rational. (Well, maybe the website is, but they're no authority.) What I'm saying is reason is involved in faith, just as is emotion, and just as emotion and reason are involved and love. But love/faith can't be reduced to emotion/reason. Look, even Dante had Virgil as a guide only up to the gates of Heaven, because Virgil was a symbol for Reason, and this was to show that Reason can only take you so far. Then Beatrice, or Faith, has to carry you the rest of the way. Yep. 's all I'm saying.

but the question asked by these particular people use the same spheres of logic for different circumstances, as antigone pointed out reason tells me that the 'christian' belief of having the only truth in spiritual matters [as was taught to me as a child] is not logical, but it is very arrogant.

I have not taken this test. But, since each creates his/her own existance I must therefore be my own god. Therefore, you may all worship me any way you wish. Since it really won't matter since you are all creations of my mind. And, when I cease to exist you too will all cease to exist. At least until I decide to recreate my self. Then I might decide to bring some of you back. Or, maybe not.

I took 3 direct hits and bit one bullet.I made it through and earned the medal for rational thinking,coming from me that's downright scarey.

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 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 where your answers implied logical contradictions. You did bite a number of bullets. These 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 hits and bitten bullets. The fact that you did not suffer many hits means that you qualify for our third highest award. Well done!

try this one baby

tpm medal of honor. highest award. no hits. because i said it is basically irrational to believe in god as an all-powerful being, irrational to use god as justification for violation of cultural law. i feel smug.

i have a feeling that no matter how you answer all the previous questions, there is no "right" answer for the rape question. it's a trick question; everyone gets it one wrong, so to speak, which is why the average amount of hits or bullet bites or whatever is 1.6xx.

I had one hit and bit three bullets (one because I read the earlier question wrong, I am an airhead). My views about God are consistent and whole. People think my views are strange, incredible, blah, blah, blah. Very similar to yours honey. :) we are so married.

Hey Cat! We're debating!

i almost want to get into this debate, but i'll refrain for now. although the rape question is really starting to intrigue me. it think it's a pretty important question, not just a trick one. this is kinda fun.

Hey Sem! I'm watching!

I bit two bullets and I think they are both bunk. but then I read what it means-- 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! there are no right or wrong answers, only answers that contradict yourself or contracdict what 'most would find strange..'etc. Spider's claim that Faith is not rational is my #1 arguement against the catholic church. it is the fly in the ointment of so called 'free choice'. if god doesn't give everyone faith, yet faith is a prerequisite to heaven, is this a good god?

good doesn't mean nice

i didn't like being tricked into knowing i had to answer "false" to the "cruelly torturing innocent people is morally wrong" question in order not to take a hit. because i really do think it is morally wrong, and i don't think that is incongruent with any of my previous answers.

this may sound silly (the rock isn't the real issue) God is all powerful? yes? no? if god is all powerful, then God can make a rock that he cannot lift? yes? no? if God cannot lift the rock then he is not all powerful. if God cannot make a rock that is impossible for him to lift then he is not all powerful. can someone find away out of this catch-22? i was raised Catholic. the church taught that God is: all knowing. (he knows the past and the future) all perfect. and that he gives us a free will. my point. so God knows what i'll do today. i must do what he knows. i cannot change because that would make him wrong, and he is all knowing and all perfect. i cannot have a free will.

Two very good catch 22's there. I never saw that aspect. It really puts a question mark on what we were taught in Catholic School. I have always had questions about the whole free will thing with God anyways.

fb, human minds cannot comprehend all powerful. it doesn't mean that god isn't.

OK, how about the free will -vs- all knowing?

same thing easier if you think of time as a human measurement

In the book Ship of Fools, there's a good argument as to why free will is not compatible with an all knowing god. The argument in fact states that god sacrificed his all knowing when he gave us free will, because of his love for us. or something like that, i don't have the book in front of me.

Bear with me now,I'm tanked,but I do think about God,I believe you reap what you sow,I don't hurt you,,you don't hurt me,as you sow,so shall you reap.I have always tried to throw some good karma out there,my mother is what you would call a toxic person,but I still try to look out for her.I appreciate everything you all do for her.I see how she operates,and I would like to sincerely apolojize to her nurses,I am just stressed out.I am sorry and thank you,Jeannette Carter

Bear with me now,I'm tanked,but I do think about God,I believe you reap what you sow,I don't hurt you,,you don't hurt me,as you sow,so shall you reap.I have always tried to throw some good karma out there,my mother is what you would call a toxic person,but I still try to look out for her.I appreciate everything you all do for her.I see how she operates,and I would like to sincerely apolojize to her nurses,I am just stressed out.I am sorry and thank you,Jeannette Carter

Good should mean nice. To go along with the "God" concept, would be like saying we were merely chess pieces,on God's little chess board. I don't like manipulation,unless I'm the manipulator.

I just finished reading the Divine Invasion by Philip K. Dick before going to sleep last night. Some really interesting ideas about the nature of god, good and evil. Of all the stuff I've read on religion it's the science fiction authors that have had some of the more interesting ideas on god.

I read a book, whose title escaped me, that explored the question of "what if God *is* dead?" So in the book, God died, and His body fell into the ocean, and a boatload of scientists, clergymen, and others, sent out to tow it (somewhere). That's all I really remember about it. It wasn't that well-written, if I recall correctly.

was that the third book of the valis trilogy? the little creepy talking baby messiah story? maybe i'm confusing it with another story.

http://www.philipkdick.com/audio/breakdown.ram

i'm not sure when i read this story, but i must've been very young. and i'm almost positive that the author was italian. all i remember was that it was about tapeworms who would write poems and prayers to their god - the host whose body they happened to be in. now that i think about it, it seems like a jorge luis borges (who's not italian) story. it had the feel that it was being related to you by a scholar as a statement of fact. it would go into detail about the poetry and the changes and innovations over time.

Trying to figure out some way to strap myself in bed at night,my head hurts.

J, I love you. It is so good of you to take care of your mother like that...you really are very strong.

http://www.philipkdick.com/audio/pkdarena.ram just finished listening to this. pretty interesting. elvis costello does a commercial.

i attend the church once or twice a week. some refer to it as yoga class. i believe very strongly in the idea of god.

i only took one hit. the rapist question. it felt kind of good to be called rational... it just doesn't happen that often.

i took zero hits. but i did cheat on the rapist question... left the pull-down on "please select" :P

How dare you doubt my son.

Rumor has is that his daddy's broke.

damnit, the link got shut because of too much traffic....you bastards! Whenever i'm watching christian television(which is almost always) the thing i like to ask the tv screen is this: If everything that happens, and everything we do, is all part of "gods plan", then how can anything possibly be *wrong*?