Battleground God
Posted on: March 12, 2007 - 11:05pm
Offline
Battleground God
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.htm
Anyone else played this before? See how consistent and thought out your philosophical beliefs are.
I got the medal of honour on this game, meaning no bullets and no hits. I would not be suprised if fellow atheists also obtained the MOH.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
- Login to post comments
I received the MOH as well.
The site is interesting, and has a number of pretty good games to play (if you are a geek like I am).
Thanks for the link!
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
I had 1 hit and bit 1 bullet and got the TPM medal of distinction.
I bit 1 bullet and got the TPM medal of distinction.
Did you bite the bullet on question 16?
No. This is how I did it.
1. Don't Know (This site takes things very literally, and it is impossible to state with 100% certianty that god does not exist, so you have to put Dont Know)
2. False. Obvious
3. False. There is no basis for this.
4. False. There is DEFINITELY no basis for this.
5. False. Pretty much a rewording of #3
6. True. Need I say more?
7. False. Obvious
8. False. There is no basis for this.
9. True. Obvious
10. True
11. False, obvious
12. False. Obviously if you put false for #3 and #5, this is false.
13. False. This is unreasonable an unreasonable demand. This is why you put "dont know" for question 1
14. false. If you answered true to the Loch Ness Monster question, this must be false.
15. False. If you answered #7 False, this is also false.
16. False. If you bit the bullet here, this is strange. If you answer false to 3 and 5, this must be false.
17. false. Rewording of 15
And that will get you the MOH
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
The 2 I got wrong were the one about requiring absolute proof to believe in God and I said if there was a god he/she/it could NOT make square circles or change the rules of math.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
I retook the test. I think I just misread the question.
I'm an idiot some of the time...
...most of the time.
I disagree with how they say there isn't absolute proof for evolution. The do-it-yourself deity one is pretty good, too.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
I see no way to comment privately, but I just needed to say: I feel kind of badly because he is sticking up for me, and also taking the heat off me by seeming even more crazy than I am. But I don't want to even engage in the conversation, because he seems so completely out of his mind. I'd kind of rather not come to be associated with people like that on here. I know my ideas are a bit uncommon, but I certainly hope I don't come off like THAT. LOL
He seems like a good guy, so I didn't want to risk insulting him, but wow. And is English his second language?
R
Wait, what? Are you talking about the other thread?
This isn't private. Everyone can see this thread. But it's so old. Why raise from the dead a really old thread to talk about the other thread? It won't make it any less visible.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism