I got 0 points and am normal.

Nice quiz.I'd love to give it to some theists

never felt so good to get a zero on an exam

I got a 5.

Question # 5"Do you believe that a deeply comtemplative act such as prayer or meditation can result in knowledge or understanding not attainable through ordinary thought"

 I meditate quite often to relax....My "ordinary" thoughts during a busy week can be scattered and unfocused...meditating brings my mind to a calmer state, one that I am able to reflect on my day to obtain understanding and learn from mistakes/actions etc. 

-Renee 

Anyone know if there's somewhere you can take this that's an actual quiz and not a video?

Anyone know if there's somewhere you can take this that's an actual quiz and not a video?

My score was 190, the majority of that score came from answering Yes to questions 4 and 6 on the basis that the question of there being an intelligent entity observing the universe and having the power to alter its course (Q4) applies to humans and our social constructs, and the question of the origin of thoughts and personal insights originating from an intelligent being involved in the creation of the universe (Q6) technically applies to humans also.

I'm told this makes me moderately deluded, that I believe in the possibility of personal relationships with the creator of the universe and life beyond death, that is fairly accurate, but it goes on to state fear of death as the cause which I don't accept, I'm rather curious than afraid in any sense.

I said no in answer to question 11, although I  actually plead agnostic in regard to evolution being the 'origin of diversity' I have no problem accepting that it is observably related to diversity but anything more presupposes a knowledge of the nature of time which we don't actually have, so I don't put stock in evolution as a causal origin. I just scraped out of the 8,000 points associated with answering yes to that question because I don't believe life was 'placed here less than 1,000,000 years ago' the wording there was detailed enough for it not to apply to my beliefs.  Still I think the result in conclusion of getting 8,000pt for questioning one salient point on the theory of evolution ie: 'you're not fit to teach children' is a little bit biased, though. My doubt of whether evolution is the origin of diversity are based on fact not delusion, it's not wrong to tell kids where the gaps are in our knowledge and what those gaps effect in our understanding IMO.

It's an interesting and entertaining test, but it makes a point of addressing specific theistic ideas very narrowly. I can't take it too literally.

Who the hell came up with that scoring system?

195 - moderately deluded.

That guy is hilarious, by the way. 

I got 690! The author is biased and has a lot of prejudice towards believers... but it's a fun test nontheless.

On Q7 I answered yes because I believe that with our will and our force from wanting something can influence results and events. So the Q7 is not technically incorrect but one can pray to anything, it doesn't have to be a God. You just have to want it.

I must confess... I found this post because I'm reading Eloise... I think she is the most educated theist on this forum. 

It was Arthur C Clarke, another famous Sci Fi author from around the same era. BTW, from the first book of his I read, back in high school, I was totally addicted to his writings. I think I have read virtually everything he wrote. That book was "The City and the Stars". Thinking about it still gives me a tingle down my spine...

the point system was hilarious

"give yourself 100 million points" LMAO

btw, i scored negative 37

Believe it or not, I scored mere 90 points. I find most of the questions at best too much simplistic and hard to agree with.

How far am I willing to go, to perceive the world in terms of supernatural, rather than the plainly evident? Not very far, if I consider certain supernatural phenomena as real, then I of course must have respect for common reality as well.

3) Do you believe that an intelligent being may have created the universe with intent, actually knew what it was doing and had a plan to carry out a creation?
Yes  +25 points

4) Do you believe that an intelligent being continues to watch over the universe and has the ability to alter the course of any set of events at will?
Well, if "watching over" means to be involved in all known and unknown processes of the universe, then yes... But what does the altering of course of events mean? Uhm, there are certain esoteric implications of the Logos concept so the possibility is maybe there, although it probably won't happen because of subsidiarity... Hell, I'll just say yes, FFS. +50 points.

5) Do you believe that a deeply contemplative act, such as prayer or meditation can result in knowledge or understanding not attainable through ordinary thought?
Well, it may happen, but only very rarely, because meditation or prayer is not the direct cause behind it. It is rather about setting up the alignment if done correctly, not channeling the information. So I'll say no, it's just 5 points...

6) Do you believe that personal insights from prayer or a similarly contemplative act originate from an intelligent being that also created the universe?
Hell, no way, no chance of that! Although the mediums' messages often claim that and the fools believe them. Haven't they ever heard of subsidiarity?
________________________
So basically, it's 90 points. All questions after that are also less or more definite no.
 

positing any god things, higher intelligences and all the rest of the stuff that's meant to be guiding the universe is all rank assertion. P'raps there should be an I'm-buggered-if-I-know option.

I'm not sure how anyone can say they think there's any power in charge when they've never seen it, met it, felt it, except in their own imaginations. That fundamental really covers it for me.  The god people are just making stuff up.

As for abiogenesis and universal ignition and whatnot, well. Not knowing how this stuff happened while accepting that everything else we know is naturally driven increases the probability these other hard things have natural causes.

Just one point that hit me, Luminon.

Nothing really "makes colors" in the way you seem to be saying. Color is a sensory perception in response to different relative amounts of light received in different wavelength ranges within the visible range.

It can vary among individuals within a given species, sometimes dramatically, in the case of various forms of color-blindness. It also varies dramatically among species.

The color response to any specific mix of wavelengths will vary quite significantly even in one individual, since our processing of visual input continually adapts to intensity and overall color balance of what reaches our eyes - we are not normally aware of the very different absolute color of a scene when lit by sunlight, fluorescent lamps, or incandescent bulbs. 'Objective' color will be as recorded by photography, and measurable by color metersIt really is not a good parameter to base any objective theory of reality not directly connected with a study of visual perception and responses of living organisms to their environment.

"Color" is NOT a primary property of objects.

Objects reflect or radiate a particular distribution of intensity vs wavelength of electromagnetic radiation under particular conditions. Various individual organisms sensitive to that radiation will have different perceptions of the appearance of such objects depending on that distribution, some of which may correspond to what we perceive as different colors.

In a scientific/technical context, we have estimated, by testing a large sample of people with 'normal' vision (ie no indication of any of the identified color deficits or 'color-blindness' ), the typical sensitivity at each wavelength within the visible spectrum of each of the three types of receptor in the human eye which each respond differently to different wavelengths. The different relative outputs from each region on the retinal image are what determine the particular perceived color from that part of the image.

Wavelength is still traditionally used in this field rather than frequency, but that is just a holdover from earlier times when wavelength was the basic way of identifying different spectral colors, since that is what could be measured directly.

Colors are labels attached to a specific 'tri-stimulus' value, a set of three numbers, X,Y and Z un the most long-established system, representing the output of a standardized eye corresponding to something like the average of those original tests. They don't quite correspond to red, green, and blue primaries, but a set of primary color sources can be selected which will each mainly stimulate one class of receptor, and so produce a reasonably predictable color sensation.

This is used all the time in printing color images, to get the best subjective match between the final output and, typically, the image on some computer screen that has been visually adjusted for a desired effect. 

Each perceived color, even for a standard eye, can be generated by an infinite number of different energy vs. wavelength mixes, so there is no one unique spectral distribution that corresponds to a standard Red, for example.

If you have light of just one frequency, that can be mapped to a standard color, but only a small sub-set of perceivable colors can be mapped to a single frequency or wavelength of light.

Hope this clarifies things. Color is not a precise property of any object or light source, the definition of color incorporates the properties of some 'standardized' human retina.

Spectral response is the physical parameter, reflectivity vs frequency, for passive objects, intensity vs frequency for light sources.

I have worked in this area, and I still have a couple of 'spectro-phometers' designed for measuring the intensity/frequency characteristic of various objects, inks, and light sources.