Are you religious beliefs logically consistent?

[Kansas Bear]

Battleground Analysis
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 very few bullets 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 bullets occurred because you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, because you bit only two bullets and avoided direct hits completely you still qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!


This being besides the MAJOR fact that I'm agnostic!!

[ArmchairGeneral]

It doesn't work very well for agnostics. It works even less well for theistic agnostics like myself.

[Gun Grape]

No hits. Bit one bullet. Poorly worded questions

[Kansas Bear]

Have any Muslim WAB members tried this site?? I'm curious as to their results.

[Tronic]

Poorly worded questions

I agree, like this one:

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 or False

That can be true or false depending on what outcome you want there to be. If for some people, it is only the fear of god which makes them do moral good, then that above statement is justifiable! But generally used, I would say no.

And.. then,

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.

Hey, thats not really fair though, as for me, The Evolution Theory is just that, another theory, like the existance of god. But the only choices that were given are Evolution theory is true or false; they should have made another option, "Don't Know".

Ouch, again..

You've just taken a direct hit!

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.

The contradiction is that on the first ocassion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.

And I totally agree here.


Basically, I got owned:

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 and biting only one bullet 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 because some of your answers implied logical contradictions. 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. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hits and bitten bullet.

The fact that you did not suffer many hits and only bit one bullet means that you qualify for our third highest award. Well done!

Just not enough options for agnostics. I had to choose between Yes or No; I needed a "Don't Know" option in there.

[bolo121]

Battleground Analysis
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 being hit only once and biting very few bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are well thought out and almost entirely internally consistent.


The direct hit you suffered occurred because one set of your answers implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullets 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 hit and bitten bullets.


Because you only suffered one direct hit and bit very few bullets, you qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!