Take this quiz to test the strength of your beliefs.

In fact the only thing I know for sure is that I exist.

0 Replies

That's what you think.

0 Replies

Sorry for bumping this thread, but after coming back to it, it appears that this quiz is impossible to win, and also based on twisted logic.

Woops!

0 Replies

Yep it's bull.

Quote:

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.

The difference between evolution and God is, well, a lot. There has to be a reason for life, and evolution, while not proven, is the most likely and rational theory, therefore it is logical to believe it is true.

God, on the other hand, is an unneccessary theory. God isn't filling a hole of truth, whereas evolution is. God isn't required, while evolution is. In simple words: evolution is a neccessity; God is an add-on.

There you have it. This quiz twists logic to the point of breaking. Sorry for recommending it!

Feel free to dispute my logic.

0 Replies

The test is rather fatally flawed. It is biased it two ways; 1) that god inherently exists, and 2) that there is a universal moral code irrespective of god.

I believe that there is no universal moral code at all... regardless of the existence of god. That test bases responses on extrinsic beliefs. It draws conclusions that aren't necessarily true of those who believe in god outside of accepted human morality.

It told me I contradicted myself when I did not. It assumed that because I disbelieve the loch ness monster due to lack of evidence, that I must disPROVE god based on lack of evidence. Proof and belief are two different entities entirely. Just because I don't believe in the loch ness monster doesn't mean I have to not believe in god. One is a tangible flesh and blood earthly organic creature. The other is a being so complicated that its tough to imagine.

That's like saying I don't believe in god simply because i've never seen a kangaroo. Just because i can't tangibly prove that kangaroos exist doesn't mean they don't. It also doesn't mean I don't believe in them.

The test was obviously written by a very intellectual philosopher who uses absolutes as law in an abstract concept. Flawed from the beginning.

Having said that, I scored a 1 hit/1 bite.

0 Replies

Hmmm... Took no hits, bit no bullets. Got a medal of honor, but I've taken the test before, so maybe it's cheating.

Anyway, the test is bollocks. It assumes a great deal based on our answers.

0 Replies

Yeah,i took it and got the 3rd highest medal....I bit two bullets but only because i had no ******* clue as to what this stupid test was even saying half the time......

this thing just made little to no sense to me at all....And what was with the question "If god exists He could make 1+1=72" and then i answer true cause im like "sure,Why not"

and there like "Nuh UH!!!!! God cant make a circle out of a square Dummy!"

Like,Wtf....If i actually DID beleive in a God Then id probally beleive he could just do whatever the hell he wanted And like change math and Make my hair pink by snapping his fingers or whatever.....

Well,Nevermind.

0 Replies

hehe.. it's quite silly.

the makers of this test do not seem to have any regard for the difference between existence and the concepts we dress it up in to fit it through our perception. the whole thing is meaningless..

0 Replies

mrhunt,

The test (one good) point on that question was that noone, no matter how omnipotent, can do things that are logically impossible. A square circle is impossible. Period. Same with a married bachelor. A stupid genius. There's a big difference between these things and making one's hair pink.

0 Replies

shewolfnm wrote:

Im giving up at this question -

If God does not exist then there is no basis for morality

Because, in my mind the answer is true.
Morals are taught by the church.
Humanity and basic human respect is part instinct , and part lessons from our families. ( example- dont kill, and respect your parents)

Sadly, the church has taken basic humanity( we dont kill unless we are deeply threatened. It is part of survival ) and human respect ( I respect my parents when they are respectful people. I would never deliberately hurt my mother, because she has never done so to me. Basic humanity)and tried to carve it into 2 stone tablets saying we wouldn't know them without those big rocks to show us the way.

coughcough(bullshit)coughcough

So when your two pillars of 'basic humanity' and 'respect' collide, which must give way?

If my survival depends on my lack of respect for your right to life, is it OK for me to set my own course (i.e. deny any objective morality exists) and proceed?

0 Replies

curtis73 wrote:

I believe that there is no universal moral code at all......

So then, EVERY action imaginable is just as moral as ANY other?

0 Replies

The only universal moral code is the one carved into your brain. That does it for me. I don't know why anyone needs the Church to give them morals when they have a perfectly good set already.

0 Replies

That test is very limited. it assumes we don't have an answer for why we took the "hit"

0 Replies

Take this quiz to test the strength of your beliefs.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know