Are you religous beliefs consistant?

[simonm]

Here's a link where you can test the consistancy of your beliefs about God:
Battleground God

Quite interesting. I got all the way to the last question and received a direct hit (you'll understand once you've done it).

[rjlohan]

I was gonna blather on about how stupid it is to answer questions regarding God when I stated from the beginning God does not exist, then I noticed this...

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.

That explains it...

[plenderj]

I couldn't even understand the questions after like question 3 or 4.
They didn't make grammatical sense, so I didn't know what the hell I was choosing ...

... oh and the questions are too vague and leave too much out to have just a True/False answer

[rjlohan]

Anyways, yes, yes they are:

7.82% of the people who have completed this activity, like you, emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.

[simonm]

That's the thing about the quiz, it doesn't matter whether you're religous or athiestic, the point of the quiz is to see whether you're beliefs are self-consistant.

It might be interesting to compare the scores of athiests to the religous and see if one side or the other gets higher consistancy scores. However, I imagine that someone who scores really badly might be a little reluctant to admit it...

[Wally Pipp]

I consistently believe in inconsistence so there

[Tygur]

I didn't like the questions. There were too many questions that I could've answered either way on, depending on what the exact meaning of the question was..

I got the TPM Service Medal, but I'm not sure if I should've answered certain questions differently..

[simonm]

Tygur

I didn't like the questions. There were too many questions that I could've answered either way on, depending on what the exact meaning of the question was..

Which questions, may I ask, did you find difficult to answer?

[Jethro]

That site rocks, fell over on the second to last question. They got me on a don't believe god, but yeah if she existed then that would.....doh!

Thanks dude that rocked, going bakc for another go, it makes about as much sense as kedaman Sorry kd one complement is surely enough a decade

simonm

So when do we start debating the inconsistencies of the answers given on that sign, l feel they are viewing an intrinsic path, without necessarily viewing the extrinsic holelistic truth of the statement.

Let us go back to Decartes "I think therefore, l drink"

[Tygur]

Question 3

Any being which it is right to call God must be free to do anything.

Question 5

Any being which it is right to call God must have the power to do anything.

I believe God does have limitations, but they are basically self-imposed. I ended up choosing True for those.

Question 8

Any being that it is right to call God must know everything that there is to know.

I believe God does have the capability of knowing everything, but doesn't actually know everything until he bothers to find out. I ended up choosing True.

Question 11

People who die of horrible, painful diseases need to die in such a way for some higher purpose.

This one really bothered me. What exactly is a "higher purpose"? It's not good that they're dying. I believe all this sickness and dying will eventually stop, but it's here for now. They're dying because of the sin passed down from Adam and Eve. The reason why it's still around (and not wiped out already) is to give more people a chance to side with God first. I chose False, but I wasn't sure which way to go.

Question 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.

This one bothered me for the same reason as questions 3 and 5. I chose False and got a direct hit.

Question 16

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

This one also bothered me for the same reason as 3 and 5. I chose True.



I think that's it. I had to dig up the results page out of my Browser history to try and figure out what answers I gave.

[simonm]

Tygur

I believe God does have limitations, but they are basically self-imposed. I ended up choosing True for those.

I think you were right to choose 'true'. Self-imposed limitations do not indicate a lack of freedom. The point is that God could choose to do them if he wanted to.

I believe God does have the capability of knowing everything, but doesn't actually know everything until he bothers to find out. I ended up choosing True.

Again, I think you were right to pick 'true' (based on your belief system). A self-imposed restriction is not the same as an externally imposed restriction.

This one really bothered me. What exactly is a "higher purpose"? It's not good that they're dying. I believe all this sickness and dying will eventually stop, but it's here for now. They're dying because of the sin passed down from Adam and Eve. The reason why it's still around (and not wiped out already) is to give more people a chance to side with God first. I chose False, but I wasn't sure which way to go.

On this question, I think you have chosen (IMO) poorly. The fact that you believe that illness and suffering are, in effect, caused by our ancestors behaviour with God, surely that constitutes a "higher purpose". Most people believe that illness is caused by random infections by bacteria and viruses that have nothing to do with our ancesters.


If anyone's interested, here is another questionaire about morality: Morality Play

[Jethro]

Damn, the christians have become involved

Ok standarf arguements, why is god/Jesus presented as a Male, when clearly it's the female of the species that usually merits out punishment...blah blah blah

simonm

The site rocks, thanks dude...er....okay no thumbs up smilie

[Wally Pipp]

My religious beliefs are consistantly non-existing so I didn't really bother reading the questions.

Still got a medal though and no direct hits. I expected to get the hell belted out of me ...

[Guru]

I was a bit unfair that questions 3 and 4 don't make sense but I got picked up on my answers to them later on

[Guru]

Why is God refered to as she anyway?

[simonm]

Actually, this one's much better: Philosophy health check

It tells you, generally speaking how consistant you philisophical views are. In the results, it actually tells you in what ways you appear to be logically inconsistant based on the way you answered the questions.

I scored a "tension" rating of 20% which is, apparently, a relatively low contradictory rate.

[Tygur]

Originally posted by simonm
TygurI think you were right to choose 'true'. Self-imposed limitations do not indicate a lack of freedom. The point is that God could choose to do them if he wanted to.

Again, I think you were right to pick 'true' (based on your belief system). A self-imposed restriction is not the same as an externally imposed restriction.

It could be the same. Suppose you built a cage around yourself and then destroyed the tools you used. You would be restricted to the confines of the cage you built. This would technically be a self-imposed restriction, because you brought the restriction upon yourself. But you still can't reverse your decision and leave the cage.

I don't know for sure if that illustration applies for God or not.

Originally posted by simonm
Tygur
On this question, I think you have chosen (IMO) poorly. The fact that you believe that illness and suffering are, in effect, caused by our ancestors behaviour with God, surely that constitutes a "higher purpose". Most people believe that illness is caused by random infections by bacteria and viruses that have nothing to do with our ancesters.

Because of the sin of Adam and Eve, we have inherent imperfections that make us susceptible to the random infections by these bacteria and viruses.

[SjR]

I got the TPM Service Medal after suffering 2 direct hits - pretty poor really (I was a bit inconsistent over the loch ness thing)
I was doing "brilliantly" up to question 14....

[Guru]

Originally posted by simonm
Actually, this one's much better: Philosophy health check

It tells you, generally speaking how consistant you philisophical views are. In the results, it actually tells you in what ways you appear to be logically inconsistant based on the way you answered the questions.

I scored a "tension" rating of 20% which is, apparently, a relatively low contradictory rate.

It appears that I am full of bullshit!

37%
Why isn't there a "don't know" in the dropdown list ?!

This question is a joke!

Questions 14 and 25: How do we judge art?

You agreed that:
Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste
And also that:
Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists

The tension here is the result of the fact that you probably don't believe the status of Michaelangelo is seriously in doubt. One can disagree about who is the best artist of all time, but surely Michaelangelo is on the short list. Yet if this is true, how can judgements about works of art be purely matters of taste? If someone unskilled were to claim that they were as good an artist as Michaelangelo, you would probably think that they were wrong, and not just because your tastes differ. You would probably think Michaelangelo's superiority to be not just a matter of personal opinion. The tension here is between a belief that works of art can be judged, in certain respects, by some reasonably objective standards and the belief that, nonetheless, the final arbiter of taste is something subjective. This is not a contradiction, but a tension nonetheless.

I said "agree" to Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists.
If I'd chosen "disagree" it is stll expressing an opinion!!

[simonm]

I said "agree" to Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists.
If I'd chosen "disagree" it is stll expressing an opinion!!

Yeah, I know what you mean. I have absolutely no opinion about the works of Michaelangelo and can barely recall anything that hi did. I really didn't want to answer the question either way.

[Wally Pipp]

Since when is saying "Michaelangelo was one of the greatest artist of all time" not a personal opinion based on taste and arts preference ?

I can perfectly make that statement but it doesn't mean I can't recognise the fact that other people might think he's rubbish.
That's their opinion then

It just doesn't make sense

[simonm]

Try this one:
The Matrix

[SjR]

How do people get confused by this one?

[DerFarm]

You agreed that:

1.
There are no objective moral standards; moral judgements are
merely an expression of the values of particular cultures

And also that:

2.
Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to do
great evil

This is a potential conflict.

Interesting, and correct. Modify statement 2 to read:

Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to ignore
the humanity of others.

and the tension goes away.

[kedaman]

I couldn't answer on any of the questions, an instrumentalist would argue that there's lack of context

[simonm]

I couldn't answer on any of the questions, an instrumentalist would argue that there's lack of context

Ah, but an instrumentalist wouldn't care because he doesn't believe in an objective reality anyway, right?

[Tygur]

That Philosophy health check stunk, and not just because of the Michelangelo question..

I answered that I agreed that homosexuality was wrong because it was unnatural. They assumed it to mean that I was rejecting homosexuality because it wasn't cccuring in nature, and therefore was conflicting with my support of proper sanitation and medicines. True, they did bury the admission that "there is also the question of in what sense homosexuality is supposed to be unnatural" inside their explanation, but they should've made the question clearer instead of blindly adding tension points.

There were many other questions I disagreed with, but that one bothered me the most.

[chrisjk]

looks like the feminists got to that thing

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.

[simonm]

Tygur

Don't take it to heart. They admit that the questions are fairly simplistic and and that the answer options can be limiting so it shouldn't be taken too seriously.

However, I do think that it is innevitably going to get someone's back up when they are accused of moral or philisophical contradictary beliefs.

I got a tension rating of 20% but id did say that the areas of contension are not necessarilly implicating contradictory attitudes but simply mean that they require a delicate balancing act to reconcile the two (seemingly contrary) notions.

[kedaman]

Originally posted by simonm

Ah, but an instrumentalist wouldn't care because he doesn't believe in an objective reality anyway, right?

Yes, but, if there was a context, I would use it. Say if I assumed that my current situation would be determined by my actions, and that chosing not to believe in God would lead to a permanent feeling of safety, then I would do so. If belkieving in God would lead me to permanent restriction of information on the other hand, I would deny it. If believing in either wouldn't benefit or retrict me at all I would continue to explore for reasons to do either. Anyways, without set premisses i have no answers.

Note that Not believing in an objective reality doesn't mean believing that there is no such.

[Tygur]

Originally posted by simonm
Tygur

Don't take it to heart. They admit that the questions are fairly simplistic and and that the answer options can be limiting so it shouldn't be taken too seriously.

However, I do think that it is innevitably going to get someone's back up when they are accused of moral or philisophical contradictary beliefs.

I got a tension rating of 20% but id did say that the areas of contension are not necessarilly implicating contradictory attitudes but simply mean that they require a delicate balancing act to reconcile the two (seemingly contrary) notions.

I did take that a little too seriously, didn't I?