I don't know what the creators of the test did, but I dumped it early. I could go back and help you in your survey to avoid repulsion, but, I don't want to. Somewhere around question three or four.
the things gets repeatedly frozen on question 17 for me. I never got to the end. I don't know if I'd get a medal.
Is this because my father was publicly damned and excommunicated and because I was never even baptized??!!
Sure, plus my family matters, we can plug up the whole thing...
lostnsearching wrote:dlowan...
should we be happy about it???????????
Why not?
Take every chance for happiness life gives you is my motto!
I knew when it was gonna zap me, because I knew I was entering a contradictory response.
I just didn't care.
Heehee....
dagmaraka wrote:the things gets repeatedly frozen on question 17 for me. I never got to the end. I don't know if I'd get a medal.
Is this because my father was publicly damned and excommunicated and because I was never even baptized??!!
Looks that way.
Bummer, eh?
We'll miss you in paradise.
Do you have other plans for the afterlife?
Can we visit?
I'll admit it was frustrating.
I didn't get anything out of it.
I don't think it was the shiz.
Er...
Pretty slanted questioning. Big difference between believing in the Loch Ness monster and believing in God. Typical attempt to reduce complex issues to simple quiz questions, I suppose.
I agree, littlek. I kept getting in trouble for saying variations of "I don't believe in God but that doesn't mean I think everybody else shouldn't, too."
I agree with patiodog's objection, too.
The "test" is a crock of ****. I stopped after taking several "bullets." One was that "god" could make what is morally correct sinful, and vice-versa, and these jokers claimed that i had contradicted myself. But they contradict themselves, because they accepted my contention that if there were a god, that god would be omnipotent--ipso facto, that god could reverser the terms of "morality." It also said that i had contradicted myself because i had said that the theory of evolution was essentially correct. But they claimed that the contradiction arose because i had claimed that we cannot believe in god without proof. But the question about evolution was ambiguous and asked if it were not essentially correct, despite some faults of detail. The subsequent question about the existence of god was unambiguous, and unequivocal, and therefore was not a corollary to the evolution question.
Finally, it asked if a rapist who believed that he was ordered to rape by god was correct in claiming that as a basis for his actions. It did not ask if i thought he was correct in his delusion; and in terms of his delusion, he was correct in his actions, whether or not i agree that he was deluded.
That's a loaded "test."
I think it's designed to trap believers rather than unbelievers.
But I do think it's intended to be a trap.
sozobe wrote:I think it's designed to trap believers rather than unbelievers.
But I do think it's intended to be a trap.
What?
You saying it's not believers' season or something?
Trap the smeggers with abandon, I say.
I don't know about the value of pelts. Unless there's been self-flagellation, they are indistinguishable from the pelts of nonbelievers. Is one supposed to be worth more than the other?
I considered the questioning slanted also, but completed it anyway.
In the interests of scientific research which, unlike farmerman, I am always willing to set my teeth into I took it.
I emerged bloody and bleeding of course, not being like Edgar, and my conclusion is that that the guy is all mixed up and is a lower middle class bourgeoise twit, possibly with a degree from an iffy university, and who probably allows his wife to display tart's knickers curtains on his windows and has a performance index congruent with the average of 7.0 minutes if he's American and 7.5 minutes if he is British, not counting the Western Isles and certain parts of Liverpool, and never farts in a lift in which lady executives are going about their business.
I would bet money he cleans his car in a carwash or one of those pathetic Sunday morning soap-sud jobs rather than leaving it to the rain.
It goes without saying that he needs his partner to take the top off his boiled egg and eschews salt.
Glad so many of you took the quiz.
patiodog wrote:I don't know about the value of pelts. Unless there's been self-flagellation, they are indistinguishable from the pelts of nonbelievers. Is one supposed to be worth more than the other?
Huh?
You CAN'T trap unbelievers.
Thay don't believe in the bait.
You can't, like, put out a vintage issue of Rolling Stone? (with apologies to Berke Breathed)
patiodog wrote:You can't, like, put out a vintage issue of Rolling Stone? (with apologies to Berke Breathed)
They'd hook it with a long lever. or cut the connection to the trap mechanism with Occam's Razor.
Then I'd have a net trap underneath them. They think they've foiled the plan and - voila! - caught like a fishie!
