HA!! Not a scratch!!

I took the quiz.  Ditto SJ's result.  Same problems with same questions being compared.  SJ did an excellent job showing why the questions are apples and oranges, so no need to explain.  

I bit a couple bullets, of course.  (Obviously, that was going to happen because I do believe macroevolution is bull-manure.)  Also, they didn't like it that I said God could operate outside the laws of physics/mathematics/etc if He wants.  They don't like my logic, but it is consistent.

Here goes nothing!

1) God exists.
[ ] True
[ ] False
[X] Don't know.
DT's Note: Naturally my answer, as I'm an agnostic fence-sitter.

2) If God does not exist then there is no basis for morality.
[ ] True
[X] False
DT's Note: I've already been involved in one or two discussions on this matter. The basis is hazy at best--however, even God is not without his moral haziness, so I'll not accept that as reason to dispute godless moral basis.

3) Any being which it is right to call God must be free to do anything.
[ ] True
[X] False
DT's Note: I don't believe it's prudent to say "God would be able to do this or that" for anything, but this also relates to the logical impossibilities Cogito was nice enough to warn us about.

4) Any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the word as is possible.
[ ] True
[X] False
DT's Note: Maybe a benevolent God, but we're just talking generics here, so...

5) Any being which it is right to call God must have the power to do anything.
[ ] True
[X] False
DT's Note: Don't power and freedom tend to mean the same thing, really? How can I not answer this identically to #3?

6) Evolutionary theory maybe false in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true.
[X] True
[ ] False
DT's Note: I only answer "true" because this question lacks a "don't know" answer. If a gun were put to my head and I were forced to decide WITHOUT further investigation whether or not to believe the scientists' popular consensus on the essential truth of evolution, I'd dang well answer true. But really, this I judged to be a matter of evidence in the minds of the test-makers. I'll check to see if that's the case later.

No injuries so far, but watch out! Danger ahead! - No hits, no bitten bullets! SHORTS!

7) 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.
[ ] True
[X] False
DT's Note: Bah! That smells too much like a certain Nameless Knight I used to know...

8) Any being that it is right to call God must know everything that there is to know.
[ ] True
[X] False
DT's Note: Again, I don't believe we ought to say "God should do this or that." Although if it's a certain God claiming omniscience, like the Christian God...

9) Torturing innocent people is morally wrong.
[ ] True
[X] False
DT's Note: Why? I don't have a Bible telling me so. If there's a moral basis other than God, I don't think it necessitates this leap of judgment. Although it DOES leave a very sour taste on my tongue...

10) If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been presented to show that there is a Loch Ness monster, it is rational to believe that such a monster does not exist.
[X] True
[ ] False
DT's Note: Key words: "after years of trying." I intend to try with God and his many different variations as well, and the same standard applieth to him.

11) People who die of horrible, painful diseases need to die in such a way for some higher purpose.
[ ] True
[X] False
DT's Note: How can an agnostic possibly answer "true" to this statement?!

12) If God exists she could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful.
[X] True
[ ] False
DT's Note: I don't remember God being a "she..." But we are talking generics, so there's no reason for anyone to be picky about the pronoun mistake/typo/deliberate deviance. And since God WOULD be the maker of pretty much everything, I s'ppose he COULD flip his moral basis around in a full 180 if he saw fit...

You're doing brilliantly!

Only five more questions to go and not so much as a scratch so far! Well done! - Still goin' strong! DOUBLE SHORTS!!  

13) It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists.
[ ] True
[X] False
DT's Note: Well, if we can believe evolution without certain, irrevocable proof that it's true, then...

14) As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality.
[ ] True
[X] False
DT's Note: That there's no evidence for nonexistence (which is an oxymoron, do ya not see it?) has no impact on whether or not there's evidence for existence, so it's a non-issue.

15) 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.
[ ] True
[X] False
DT's Note: BAH! Like Sir Somebody Something's evil alter ego...

16) If God exists she would have the freedom and power to create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72.
[ ] True
[X] False
DT's Note: Not unless the meanings of "square" and "circle" and the numerical values of the numerals "1" and "72" were changed. But I have a feeling that wasn't the point of the question.

17) It is justifiable to believe in God if one has a firm, inner conviction that God exists, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of the conviction that God exists.
[ ] True
[X] False
DT's Note: If you answer this as "true" while answering the "external world" twin as "false," you DESERVE to be shot!

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!

How did you do compared to other people?

- 324275 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.
- 7.66% 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.

 

In retrospect, its clear that this is the assumption that they were making, but when you're first walking into it, unless you're looking for traps (I only had my eye out for one on Q5, per your advice), I don't think you'll make that assumption.  I didn't, anyway, and it doesn't seem like Maj did.  

Its ok, I sent an email to them.  I expect a change forthwith!  heh

Hi, Maj.

I wanted to answer that it was rational, but not necessarily true.

Since to be rational does not mean to be necessarily true, there's really no need to state that explicitly.

[Question 14] does not specify a lack of evidence FOR God, therefore the evidence might exist and be being intentionally ignored by the person, thus it might not be a rational conclusion ... so, by lack of information I answered how I did.

But since you answered the question "true," why would the knowledge that there WAS evidence for the existence of God but that it was being ignored, change your answer? If anything, it seems to me that it would make you MORE likely to answer "true," not less likely.

If the question had stated that there was strong evidence or compelling argument FOR God's existence, but that it was being ignored, then that would be a reason for me to change MY answer from "false" to "true."

However, I simply do not see how the inclusion of that additional information would have had any affect on your answer except to reinforce your belief that it was correct.

I just took that question at its word and nothing else, and answered "False." Without anything else, the fact that there's no evidence for God's nonexistence does not constitute atheism being a matter of faith.

Without anything else, that is...

I took it twice for a little experiment...both times starting with an answer of true to the first question about whether God exists.  The only difference between the two times that I took the quiz was my answer to #6.  When I answer true to number 6, then I get TPM medal of honour.  If I change my answer for number 6 to false, then I get the TPM medal of distinction.  

The message when choosing false to evolution is:
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.

But since you answered the question "true," why would the knowledge that there WAS evidence for the existence of God but that it was being ignored, change your answer? If anything, it seems to me that it would make you MORE likely to answer "true," not less likely.

If the question had stated that there was strong evidence or compelling argument FOR God's existence, but that it was being ignored, then that would be a reason for me to change MY answer from "false" to "true."

However, I simply do not see how the inclusion of that additional information would have had any affect on your answer except to reinforce your belief that it was correct.

14) As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality.

Hi Cogito (or should I say, Cognito, hee hee)

If they had stated that there was neither strong evidence for nor against the existence of God, then I would have called it rational.

If they had stated that there was evidence for, but not against, I would have called it irrational.

If they had stated that there was no strong evidence for, I would have called it rational.

If they had stated that there was strong evidence for, I would have called it irrational.

If they had stated there was strong evidence against, I would have called it rational (because strong evidence against is basically saying there is no evidence for).

If they (and they did) had stated there was no evidence against (leaving open the possibility that there was strong evidence for), then I would have (and I did) called it irrational.  You see, the question was, in my mind "Based solely on a lack of evidence against the nonexistence of God, is it rational to be atheist?"  The answer is no.  The only evidence against the nonexistence of something is positive evidence for its existence (redundant, I know, but I'm being emphatic). Read next post before replying please...

10) If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been presented to show that there is a Loch Ness monster, it is rational to believe that such a monster does not exist.

The Lock ness question translates in my mind to this "Based solely on the strong lack of evidence for the existence of Nessy, is it rational to dismiss Nessy's existence?"  The answer is yes, conditionally.

Quote from: Deep Thought

I just took that question at its word and nothing else, and answered "False." Without anything else, the fact that there's no evidence for God's nonexistence does not constitute atheism being a matter of faith.

Without anything else, that is...

"Without anything else"?

What else, for instance?

Nothing specific. I do think atheism requires some amount of faith (positive atheism more so), just not 'cause of that. *shrug* Whether or not it requires more faith or whether or not this faith is better-placed than theist faith isn't really an issue at the moment.

Bdean, I thought that the use of the word 'orthodoxy' was telling.  You?