Der Religionstest

[Hasenfus]

1. Eastern Orthodox (100%)

2. Roman Catholic (100%)

3. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (85%)

4. Seventh Day Adventist (80%)

5. Orthodox Quaker (77%)

6. Orthodox Judaism (60%)

7. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (58%)

8. Hinduism (57%)

9. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (54%)

10. Islam (53%)

11. Jehovah's Witness (52%)

12. Sikhism (44%)

13. Liberal Quakers (37%)

14. Bahá'í Faith (35%)

15. Jainism (32%)

16. Reform Judaism (29%)

17. Unitarian Universalism (26%)

18. Mahayana Buddhism (23%)

19. Theravada Buddhism (23%)

20. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (16%)

21. Nontheist (13%)

22. New Thought (13%)

23. Taoism (13%)

24. Scientology (11%)

25. Neo-Pagan (11%)

26. New Age (8%)

27. Secular Humanism (6%)

[Sion]

Was mir mehr Streß macht, ist, daß hier einige nette Leute 100% mit den katholischen Positionen übereinstimmen... etwa hier:

 

--->Divorce and/or remarriage should be restricted or punished or condemned.

 

--->Homosexual behavior should be regarded as immoral or out of harmony.

 

---> Elective abortion should be accepted (not proclaimed or treated as immoral).

 

Ich bin schockiert...

Mich schockiert eher ein solches Statement, aber ich bin ja auch eine 100%ige...

 

Im übrigen ziehst Du falsche Schlüsse. Hast Du das hier nicht gelesen?

 

1.  Eastern Orthodox (100%) 

2.  Roman Catholic (100%) 

 

und das, obwohl ich bei der entsprechenden frage (sfg - welche wohl?) angegeben habe, dass es wichtig sei und definitiv NICHT den katholischen standpunkt habe.....

 

mein gott, was bin ich doch katholisch - *freu*

 

Mit anderen Worten: man muß nicht "100% mit den katholischen Positionen übereinstimmen" oder das behaupten, um ein 100%-katholisch-Ergebnis zu bekommen. Jedenfalls nicht in den von Dir angeführten Punkten. Die werden offensichtlich als eher nebensächlich betrachtet.

[Ketzer]

16. Jehovah's Witness (31%)

31% Jehovah's Zeugen ? Aber Volker, da scheint noch viel dogmatisches Denken vorhanden zu sein.

 

So siehts bei mir aus:

 

 

1. Unitarian Universalism (100%)

2. Liberal Quakers (96%)

3. Mahayana Buddhism (94%)

4. Neo-Pagan (89%)

5. Bahá'í Faith (88%)

6. New Age (86%)

7. Hinduism (84%)

8. Reform Judaism (83%)

9. Taoism (82%)

10. New Thought (77%)

11. Sikhism (74%)

12. Scientology (73%)

13. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (72%)

14. Jainism (71%)

15. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (65%)

16. Theravada Buddhism (64%)

17. Orthodox Quaker (60%)

18. Secular Humanism (57%)

19. Orthodox Judaism (53%)

20. Islam (47%)

21. Nontheist (34%)

22. Seventh Day Adventist (24%)

23. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (23%)

24. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (20%)

25. Eastern Orthodox (10%)

26. Roman Catholic (10%)

27. Jehovah's Witness (0%)

[Volker]

Es gibt noch zwei weitere Tests, hinter denen ein bischen mehr steckt, und die beide sehr gut sind:

 

Do-It-Yourself Deity

 

Mein Ergebnis: Plausibility Quotient = 1.0 - allerdings handelt es sich nicht um den abrahamitischen Gott (also weder den Gott der Juden, der Christen noch der Moslems)..

 

Noch interessanter ist Battleground God (aber man sollte den obigen Test unbedingt zuerst machen!). Den Text in dem grauen Kasten sollte man sich unbedingt durchlesen, der Link auf den Start findet sich ganz unten.

 

Mein Ergebnis hier:

 

Congratulations! You have made it to the end of this activity.

 

You took zero direct hits and you bit zero bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.12 bullets. 212420 people have so far undertaken this activity.

 

Click the link below for further analysis of your performance and to see if you've won an award.

 

 

Weiter heißt es:

 

Battleground Analysis

Congratulations!

 

You have been awarded the TPM medal of honour! This is our highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

 

The fact that you progressed through this activity neither being hit nor biting a bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and very well thought out.

 

A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. You would have bitten bullets had you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, you avoided both these fates - and in doing so qualify for our highest award. A fine achievement!

 

How did you do compared to other people?

 

    * 212420 people have completed this activity to date.

    * You suffered zero direct hits and bit zero bullets.

    * This compares with the average player of this activity to date who takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.12 bullets.

    * 7.38% of the people who have completed this activity, like you, emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.

    * 45.96% of the people who have completed this activity took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.

 

Und das im ersten Durchgang ...

 

Es ist auch interessant, zu sehen, was dabei herauskommt, wenn man sich anders entscheidet. So habe ich im ersten Durchgang meine eigene Auffassung verwendet als Atheist. Im nächsten Durchgang habe ich mich dann als Theist versucht ... allerdings war das Ergebnis nicht so berauschend, als Theist bin ich wohl ganz klar ein Versager, außerdem bin ich schlecht beim Schummeln.

[Gast Claudia]

Im übrigen ziehst Du falsche Schlüsse. Hast Du das hier nicht gelesen?

1.  Eastern Orthodox (100%) 

2.  Roman Catholic (100%) 

und das, obwohl ich bei der entsprechenden frage (sfg - welche wohl?) angegeben habe, dass es wichtig sei und definitiv NICHT den katholischen standpunkt habe.....

mein gott, was bin ich doch katholisch - *freu*

Mit anderen Worten: man muß nicht "100% mit den katholischen Positionen übereinstimmen" oder das behaupten, um ein 100%-katholisch-Ergebnis zu bekommen. Jedenfalls nicht in den von Dir angeführten Punkten. Die werden offensichtlich als eher nebensächlich betrachtet.

Das hat mich auch gewundert... ich kann das schwer einordnen... irgendwas scheint da nicht zu stimmen...

[Gast Claudia]

Meine Güte, was bin ich froh... viel scheint sich ja nicht verändert zu haben bei mir (ich hab den Test schon vor Jahren mal gemacht, mit wohl gleichem Ergebnis...)

Und darüber bist Du froh?

Wieso nicht?

 

Ich habe in moralischen Fragen mehr mit *important* abgestimmt, in Fragen zu Gott usw eher dahingehend, daß es mir weniger wichtig erscheint.

[Raffael F]

Mein Ergebnis:

 

1. Unitarian Universalism (100%)

2. Secular Humanism (97%)

3. Liberal Quakers (88%)

4. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (81%)

5. Neo-Pagan (74%)

6. Theravada Buddhism (73%)

7. Nontheist (67%)

8. New Age (61%)

9. Bahá'í Faith (49%)

10. Mahayana Buddhism (49%)

11. Reform Judaism (46%)

12. Taoism (45%)

13. New Thought (43%)

14. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (42%)

15. Orthodox Quaker (41%)

16. Jainism (39%)

17. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (36%)

18. Sikhism (33%)

19. Scientology (33%)

20. Jehovah's Witness (31%)

21. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (27%)

22. Hinduism (23%)

23. Orthodox Judaism (18%)

24. Seventh Day Adventist (16%)

25. Islam (15%)

26. Eastern Orthodox (11%)

27. Roman Catholic (11%)

 

Nun ja, weltbewegende neue Erkenntnisse hat der Test für mich nicht gebracht.

 

Vielleicht abgesehen davon, dass ich jetzt weiß dass ich fast 3x so sehr Zeuge Jehovas wie Katholik bin

[Volker_Biallass]

1. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (100%)

2. Liberal Quakers (82%)

3. Orthodox Quaker (76%)

4. Bahá'í Faith (76%)

5. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (75%)

6. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (72%)

7. Unitarian Universalism (70%)

8. Hinduism (66%)

9. Jehovah's Witness (65%)

10. Jainism (64%)

11. Sikhism (62%)

12. Mahayana Buddhism (60%)

13. Seventh Day Adventist (60%)

14. Eastern Orthodox (55%)

15. Roman Catholic (55%)

16. Neo-Pagan (55%)

17. Theravada Buddhism (53%)

18. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (53%)

19. Reform Judaism (49%)

20. Orthodox Judaism (48%)

21. Taoism (42%)

22. Islam (40%)

23. New Thought (40%)

24. New Age (36%)

25. Secular Humanism (32%)

26. Scientology (26%)

27. Nontheist (18%)

 

 

Insgesamt (und vor allem in den Details ) halte ich den Test für ziemlich dümmlich-dogmatisch, aber doch für eine vergleichsweise nette Variante des Weltethos.

 

Spannend wäre so ein Ding, ob ich mir morgend lieber Konfitüre, Honig, Wurst oder Käse auf die Semmel schaffen soll, ob Krawatte oder B-Cap, Flipflop mit/ohne Socken ...

[Volker]

Hat denn schonmal jemand den Battleground God betreten?

[Lissie]

Gerade eben.

 

 

Hier mein Ergebnis:

 

Battleground Analysis

Congratulations!

You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

 

The fact that you progressed through this activity being hit only once and biting no bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are well thought out and almost entirely internally consistent.

 

 

The direct hit you suffered occurred because one set of your answers implied a logical contradiction. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analysis of your direct hit. You would have bitten bullets had you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, this did not occur which means that despite the direct hit you qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

 

 

 

Mit meinem Hit bin ich allerdings nicht einverstanden. Ich habe Frage 17 mit "true" beantwortet, da es vertretbar ist, an die Existenz eines Gottes zu glauben, wenn es werder für noch gegen seine Existenz innerweltliche Evidenzen gibt. Begründung: In dem Fall, daß es keine solchen Evidenzen oder Beweise gibt, würde ich eine starke, innere Überzeugung (und davon war ja die Rede) für gewichtig genug halten, um sie als (wenn auch nur minimalste) "Evidenz" anzurechnen.

 

Die Frage, die ich hingegen verneint hatte, ging darum, ob man seine Überzeugungen unabhängig von äußeren Evidenzen an einer inneren Überzeugung festmachen könne. Das wäre ein Widerspruch, denn sobald ich externe Evidenzen habe, die im Widerspruch zur inneren Überzeugung stehen, ändert sich meine innere Überzeugung. In Frage 17 war aber nicht die Rede davon, daß es solche Evidenzen gibt, sondern daß die alleinige Evidenz die innere ÜBerzeugung sei.

 

ODer habe ich das jetzt falsch in Erinnerung?

bearbeitet 18. Juli 2004 von lissie

[Stefan]

Battleground Analysis

Congratulations!

 

You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

 

The fact that you progressed through this activity without being hit and biting only one bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and well thought out.

 

A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. 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. However, because you bit only one bullet and avoided direct hits completely you still qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

[Explorer]

Juhu,

ich bin auch TPM medal of distinction-Träger

[Raffael F]

Battleground Analysis:

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!

 

 

Eines sei jedoch angemerkt:

 

Der einzige Grund, warum ich nur die dritthöchste und nicht die höchste Auszeichnung bekommen habe, liegt darin, dass ich mit dem Englischen nicht hundertprozentig klarkomme!

Nicht, dass jetzt jemand auf die Idee kommt zu behaupten, mein Weltbild sei auf irgendeine Art und Weise inkonsistent...

[Lissie]

Also, Ihr könntet uns jetzt schon auch daran teilhaben lassen, welche hits oder bullets Euch von der Goldmedaille abgehalten haben.

[Stefan]

Also, Ihr könntet uns jetzt schon auch daran teilhaben lassen, welche hits oder bullets Euch von der Goldmedaille abgehalten haben.

Frage 13 "It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists." habe ich mit "True" beantwortet. Daraufhin kam:

 

"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."

 

Ich hab in die Bullette gebissen.

[Explorer]

Bei mir passt Nessie und Frage 14 nicht zusammen...

 

"You answered "True" to questions 10 and 14.

 

These answers generated the following response:

 

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."

[Volker]

Über Nessie stolpern vermutlich die meisten ...

[Eifellady]

Über Nessie stolpern vermutlich die meisten ...

Hmm, fragt sich eher wer über wen stolpert...

 

[Clown]

Frage 13 "It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists." habe ich mit "True" beantwortet. Daraufhin kam:

 

"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."

 

Ich hab in die Bullette gebissen.

 

 

Das war auch mein direct hit.

[Volker]

Wobei ich es nicht unbedingt für falsch halte, für Gott einen höheren Standard, was die Beweise angeht, einzufordern, siehe Warum ich Atheist bin.

[Flo77]

Battleground Analysis

Congratulations!

You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

 

The fact that you progressed through this activity being hit only once and biting very few bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are well thought out and almost entirely internally consistent.

 

 

The direct hit you suffered occurred because one set of your answers implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullets occurred because you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hit and bitten bullets.

 

 

Because you only suffered one direct hit and bit very few bullets, you qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

 

Click here if you want to review the criteria by which hits and bullets are determined.

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

How did you do compared to other people?

 

212559 people have completed this activity to date.

You suffered 1 direct hit and bit 1 bullet.

This compares with the average player of this activity to date who takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.12 bullets.

45.96% of the people who have completed this activity, like you, took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.

7.39% of the people who have completed this activity emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.

Gestolpert bin ich über:

Direct Hit 1

 

You answered "True" to Question 7 and "False" to Question 15.

 

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 of this conviction. But now you do not accept that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in doing just that. The example of the rapist has exposed that you do not in fact agree that any belief is justified just because one is convinced of its truth. So you need to revise your opinion here. The intellectual sniper has scored a bull's-eye!

und

Bitten Bullet 1

 

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?

 

Wobei ich dazu sagen muss, daß mir teilweise Vokabeln fehlten.

[Mat]

Was mir mehr Streß macht, ist, daß hier einige nette Leute 100% mit den katholischen Positionen übereinstimmen... etwa hier:

 

--->Divorce and/or remarriage should be restricted or punished or condemned.

 

--->Homosexual behavior should be regarded as immoral or out of harmony.

 

---> Elective abortion should be accepted (not proclaimed or treated as immoral).

 

Ich bin schockiert...

Hallo Claudia,

 

in der Beschreibung selbst steht, dass man 100% bekommt, auch wenn man nicht in allen Fragen übereinstimmt. Ich hatte die 3 von Dir genannten Punkten als nicht übereinstimmend gekennzeichnet und trotzdem 100% katholisch bzw. orrthodox erhalten. Urteile hier nicht zu schnell...

[Werner001]

Interessant ist auch, daß die Prozentzahlen für Eastern-Orthodox und Roman-Catholic immer die gleichen sind. Da müsste unbedingt noch nach dem filioque gefragt werden (oder zumindest nach dem Papst...)

 

Werner

[Inge]

Hmmm mein Ergebnis:

1.  Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (100%) 

Aber das freut mich jetzt doch ganz außerordentlich

[Gast Claudia]

in der Beschreibung selbst steht, dass man 100% bekommt, auch wenn man nicht in allen Fragen übereinstimmt. Ich hatte die 3 von Dir genannten Punkten als nicht übereinstimmend gekennzeichnet und trotzdem 100% katholisch bzw. orrthodox erhalten. Urteile hier nicht zu schnell...

Stimmt, Matthias, Du hast Recht.

 

Dann stimmt irgendwas mit der Auswertung nicht...