Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Socialist

16 (32%)

Green

8 (16%)

Peace and Freedom

2 (4%)

Democratic

1 (2%)

Transhumanist

11 (22%)

Libertarian

8 (16%)

Republican

2 (4%)

Constitution

2 (4%)

Total Members Voted: 49

[Frelock]

So apparently I'm a cleric, but a terrible one:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Ability Scores:
Strength- 11
Dexterity- 12
Constitution- 12
Intelligence- 16
Wisdom- 10
Charisma- 12

Alignment:
Neutral Good- A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them. Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order. However, neutral good can be a dangerous alignment because it advances mediocrity by limiting the actions of the truly capable.

Race:
Humans are the most adaptable of the common races. Short generations and a penchant for migration and conquest have made them physically diverse as well. Humans are often unorthodox in their dress, sporting unusual hairstyles, fanciful clothes, tattoos, and the like.

Class:
Clerics- Clerics act as intermediaries between the earthly and the divine (or infernal) worlds. A good cleric helps those in need, while an evil cleric seeks to spread his patron's vision of evil across the world. All clerics can heal wounds and bring people back from the brink of death, and powerful clerics can even raise the dead. Likewise, all clerics have authority over undead creatures, and they can turn away or even destroy these creatures. Clerics are trained in the use of simple weapons, and can use all forms of armor and shields without penalty, since armor does not interfere with the casting of divine spells. In addition to his normal complement of spells, every cleric chooses to focus on two of his deity's domains. These domains grants the cleric special powers, and give him access to spells that he might otherwise never learn. A cleric's Wisdom score should be high, since this determines the maximum spell level that he can cast.

Alignment:
Lawful Good ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (22)
Neutral Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (22)
Chaotic Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (17)
Lawful Neutral -- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (20)
True Neutral ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (20)
Chaotic Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (15)
Lawful Evil ----- XXXXXXXXX (9)
Neutral Evil ---- XXXXXXXXX (9)
Chaotic Evil ---- XXXX (4)

Law & Chaos:
Law ----- XXXXXXXXX (9)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXX (9)
Chaos --- XXXX (4)

Good & Evil:
Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXX (11)
Evil ---- (0)

Race:
Human ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13)
Dwarf ---- XXXX (4)
Elf ------ XXXXXXXXXX (10)
Gnome ---- XXXXXXXXXX (10)
Halfling - XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Half-Elf - XXXXXXXXXXX (11)
Half-Orc - XX (2)

Class:
Barbarian - (-6)
Bard ------ (-2)
Cleric ---- XXXXXX (6)
Druid ----- (-6)
Fighter --- (0)
Monk ------ (-21)
Paladin --- (-17)
Ranger ---- XX (2)
Rogue ----- (-4)
Sorcerer -- XX (2)
Wizard ---- XXXX (4)

Seriously, what cleric could possibly get by with 10 wisdom?

[Max White]

Battleground God

I for one got the medal of honor.  No direct hits, no bitten bullets.

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.[/b]

Objection! They asked for beleifs, not knoledge! Somebody can beleive in something reasonably without knowing it exists! It is reasonable for me to beleive what ever I want, as long as I do not let that convolute accepted fact. There is no proof for or against a god, therefor it isn't unreasonable to beleive he/she/it exists, but it is unreasonable to know for sure. This is opposed to the earlyer example, with Nessy. That was asking it is reasonable to assume knoledge of this monsters existance.

You've just bitten a bullet!

In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like creating square circles), you are saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality. This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.

Rationality is found by a measure of the natrual world, but god exists in a super natural world, thus why science can not measure of quantify any existance or lack of existance of a god. As such god, by bible definitions, and the definitions I got away with earlyer in the test, can do things that can not rationaly be done. But that isn't even needed for that question to be true, because god could just redefine what a squair, or 72 are in the human mind, keeping logic and reason intact, but changing human knoledge.

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!

Well it feels good for winning an award for filling out a quiz on morals and reason when these things tend to be a little subjective, and I was never given a chance to explain myself. If I can't give my point, evidence and reasoning, it isn't a very fair test. I als object to this question.

People who die of horrible, painful diseases need to die in such a way for some higher purpose.

Our immune system is our reward for billions upon billions of deaths by disease. Thank you evolution. So this question is a very, very grey topic. A natural system such as evolution could be seen as a higher purpose then human kind.

[Realmfighter]

Explain?

The one about God being able to Impossible Things, and the Serial Rapist with Inner Conviction.

[Max White]

Explain?

The one about God being able to Impossible Things, and the Serial Rapist with Inner Conviction.

Yea, I spent a while on that one too. They are saying morals are absolute, and that this man was wrong despite the fact that he was only doing what he thought was right.

Forgot that one, thank you.

[ToonyMan]

On question 6 guessing randomly with no contradictions yet.  I have a feeling I'm about to get chaingun'd though.

EDIT:
Question 11 with the same health and feeling.

[Cthulhu]

The impossible things one is a little funky because some people class "Can do everything that is logically possible" as omnipotent.

Max White:  Your explanation doesn't change anything.  Saying God can create a burrito so hot even He can't eat it (Or square a circle, etc) still puts Him outside of human comprehension and renders any speculation equally futile.  You can still think He can, it's not telling you it's wrong to think that, it's just saying that by allowing God that power you're leaving the realm of rational discourse.

[Vertigon]

So I finally got around to taking the first test, and apparently I'm an ENFP. A Champion, if you will. Champions apparently make up ~3-4% of the population, not that it specified what population exactly. For all I know, it could be talking about the state, kindergarten, or potato farmer population, but I still feel pretty cool.

[Leafsnail]

I tried to be as inconsistent as possible.  I've got a total of 7 sortof hits/ bitings here, if anyone's interested.  Yeah, I don't think anyone's this twisted up in their thinking.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Direct Hit 1

You answered False to Question 1, and True to questions 2 and 9.

These answers generated the following response:

You've taken a direct hit! You said earlier that God doesn't exist and you claimed that if she does not exist there is no basis for morality. Therefore, you are committed to the view that there is no basis for morality. But now you say that torturing innocent people is morally wrong. But if there is no basis for morality, then you cannot rationally say of any act that it is morally wrong.

Direct Hit 2

You answered True to questions 7 and 13.

These answers generated the following response:

You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you claimed that 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 this conviction. But now you say that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists. A firm, inner conviction can never be certain proof, since we know that people have firm inner convictions about things which are false.

Direct Hit 3

You answered True to Question 7 and False to Question 17.

These answers generated the following response:

You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you said that 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 this convictions, but now you say it is not justifiable to believe in God on just these grounds. That's a flagrant contradiction!
Analysis of your Bitten Bullets

List of questions

Bitten Bullet 1

You answered True to questions 4 and 12.

These answers generated the following response:

You claimed earlier that any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the world as possible. But you say that God could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful. What this means is that God could make the reduction of suffering a sin... yet You've said that God must want to reduce suffering. There is a way out of this, but it means biting a bullet. So You've got to make a choice: (a) Bite the bullet and say that it is possible that God wants what is sinful (to reiterate the argument here - she must want to reduce suffering; she could make the reduction of suffering a sin; but if she did so, what she wanted (reducing suffering) would be sinful). (b) Take a direct hit and say that this is an area where your beliefs are just in contradiction.

You chose to bite the bullet.

Bitten Bullet 2

You answered False to Questions 10 and True to Question 14.

These answers generated the following response:

You've just bitten a bullet! You say that if there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, then atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality. Therefore, it seems that you do not think that the mere absence of evidence for the existence of God is enough to justify believing that she does not exist. This view is also suggested by your earlier claim that it is not rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist even if, despite years of trying, no evidence has been presented to suggest that it does exist.

There is no logical inconsistency in your answers. But by denying that the absence of evidence, even where it has been sought, is enough to justify belief in the non-existence of things, you are required to countenance possibilities that most people would find bizarre. For example, do you really want to claim that it is not rationally justified to believe that intelligent aliens do not live on Mars?

Bitten Bullet 3

You answered True to questions 7, 12 and 15.

These answers generated the following response:

You've just bitten a bullet! You are consistent in applying the principle that 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 this conviction. The problem is that it seems you have to accept that people might be justified in their belief that terrible things are right. You have agreed that the rapist is justified in believing that he carries out the will of God, and in an earlier answer you indicated that you think that God defines what is good and what is evil. Therefore, to be consistent, you must think the rapist is justified in believing that he acts morally when he acts on his inner conviction. Hence, you bite the bullet and justify the rapist.

Bitten Bullet 4

You answered True to Question 16.

This answer generated the following response:

You've just bitten a bullet! In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like creating square circles), you are saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality. This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.

Objection! They asked for beleifs, not knoledge! Somebody can beleive in something reasonably without knowing it exists! It is reasonable for me to beleive what ever I want, as long as I do not let that convolute accepted fact. There is no proof for or against a god, therefor it isn't unreasonable to beleive he/she/it exists, but it is unreasonable to know for sure. This is opposed to the earlyer example, with Nessy. That was asking it is reasonable to assume knoledge of this monsters existance.

I'm not sure what you mean.  It says belief both times.

[Max White]

The impossible things one is a little funky because some people class "Can do everything that is logically possible" as omnipotent.

Max White:  Your explanation doesn't change anything.  Saying God can create a burrito so hot even He can't eat it (Or square a circle, etc) still puts Him outside of human comprehension and renders any speculation equally futile.  You can still think He can, it's not telling you it's wrong to think that, it's just saying that by allowing God that power you're leaving the realm of rational discourse.

But the realm of rational discourse lies very much within our own observations. If there was no gravity, and gravity was never observed, it wouldn't be rational to assume I would fall if I were to jump. Any god, however, would exist outside our realm of obsevation, and outside our realm of reason.

[Retro]

I got through perfectly up until question 13, which I had to bite a bullet for, but only because my choices were bullshit. Spoilered for those who didn't take it.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The one about whether it was rational to believe in God without certain irrevocable proof. I said False, but got called out for saying that evolution was rational to believe in with only probable proof. Thing is though, I don't feel that they should be held to the same standards at all - it's totally rational (to me) to think that minor differences between parent and child over eons can produce absurdly different evolved creatures and species, especially since we know that minor mutations happen. It makes sense. Absolutely nothing (again, just to me, not trying to start a religious debate) makes sense about believing in a higher power, so I would need absolute proof to find it rational to believe in, despite finding it rational to believe in evolution w/o conclusive proof immediately handy.

Thus my answer is internally consistent to me. :\ The quiz shouldn't have tried to hold the two things to the same standard. I find one concept absurd and entirely nonsensical and the other logical and fairly rational with a current lack of a better explanation.

Anyhow I hit Back and picked the other option because I felt screwed over by the game and wanted to see what I would have won. Though I really think the quiz must be harder for people who have any sort of faith or encourage the idea of faith. I'm one of those "religion is irrational, faith in religion is irrational, religion is no justification for anything" kind of guys so I think I hit False for like every question without even thinking twice. Would be harder to be consistent if I had more complex beliefs.

[The Doctor]

Besides, Evolution needs proof just as everything else does.

Just not AS much, at least in the whole Gawd thing.

[Leafsnail]

I think that is actually almost a direct contradiction, though.  If there were, say, very very strong evidence for God (as strong as the evidence for evolution, say - let's imagine that God wrote messages to us every night in the sky or something) then you should say that it's equally valid to believe in it as evolution.  You have to bite a bullet because to maintain logical consistency you're saying that there is certain, irrevocable proof for evolution, I guess.

[Max White]

Torturing innocent people is morally wrong.

You know what? For me, it is morally wrong. This is fact. For somebody else, who thinks it is right to torture people, it is morally right. This is fact. However for just about everybody on earth by now, it is ethicaly wrong to torture people, me you and the guy who thinks it is ok.

You know those internet quizes set up by creationist websties that just about always end with you going to hell if you try to be honest? This feels like one of those.

[ToonyMan]

On question 14 with perfect hp.  I can remember what I said previously!
_{Actually I just say what I think isn't true.}

[Cthulhu]

It's talking about morality as an absolute standard, not morality as a personal preference.

When it says "Torturing people is morally wrong" it means globally, regardless of what you think, torture is wrong.

It's not asking your opinion.