Via In Xin Xiang, the Battleground God quiz. I screwed up:

Analysis of your Direct Hits

You answered "True" to questions 10 and 14.

#10. If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been presented to show that there is a Loch Ness monster, it is rational to believe that such a monster does not exist.
#14. As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality.

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.

That's just my wishy-washy tendency to give religious believers the benefit of the doubt.

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

#7. It is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, even in the absence of any external evidence for the truth of these convictions.
#15. The serial rapist Peter Sutcliffe had a firm, inner conviction that God wanted him to rape and murder prostitutes. He was, therefore, justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will in undertaking these actions.

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!

Is my face red. That certainly is cognitive dissonance. I guess that's how I try to justify my moral views. On the other hand:

Analysis of your Bitten Bullet

You answered "True" to Question 16.

#16. If God exists she could create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72.

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.

Well, that sounds right to me. I mean, any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality. Rational discourse about God is impossible. Since 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. The site also says,

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.

But it's not illogical, is it?