25 replies to this topic

[KramitDaToad]

Agnostics, Theists, Atheists, Deists et al.

We all like to share our opinions in this forum on 'the big picture', but just how rational is your point of view? Do your opinions contradict each other?

Here is a quick (< 5 min) questionaire called Battleground God that sets out to test the consistency of your views. It is a philosophical test and doesn't 'favour' any particular set of opinions, so there is no right or wrong answers. Give it a whirl and see how many hits you take, you may even learn something

http://www.philosophyquotes.net/cgi-bin/go...&hitcount=0


My answers:

1 F
2 F
3 T
4 F
5 F
6 T
7 F
8 T
9 F
10 T
11 F
12 T
13 F
14 F
15 F
16 F
17 F

0 hits, 0 bullets bitten

[BigDMcGee]

I had to bite two bullets and had no direct hits

[LongLiveYorke]

Meh, I didn't really like it. I got annoyed when I had to put my philosophy into yes or no questions and somehow got tricked into making contradictory statements. For instance, the evolution question stated:

"Evolutionary theory maybe false in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true."

I disagreed with the statement because, from a scientific point of view, if a part of the theory were deemed false it would no longer be an accepted part of the theory. A better statement would be:

Evolutionary theory may not be complete and is somewhat lacking in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true.

That's something I could get behind. But of course, when I thought the first one was false, it thought that I didn't believe in evolution at all (which I do) and that caused problems.

[KramitDaToad]

Meh, I didn't really like it. I got annoyed when I had to put my philosophy into yes or no questions and somehow got tricked into making contradictory statements. For instance, the evolution question stated:

"Evolutionary theory maybe false in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true."

I disagreed with the statement because, from a scientific point of view, if a part of the theory were deemed false it would no longer be an accepted part of the theory. A better statement would be:

Evolutionary theory may not be complete and is somewhat lacking in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true.

That's something I could get behind. But of course, when I thought the first one was false, it thought that I didn't believe in evolution at all (which I do) and that caused problems.

I think the original question is coming from the point of view that there will be some minor parts of Evolutionary theory that are currently assumed to be true but future research/refining will require that to change, however the broad span of Evoloution (Inherited traits, natural selection, random mutations etc) is true.

Try it again, you're clearer on what the question is asking and your philosophy hasn't changed in any way, so it's not like your cheating.

[bobbywithani]

It was pretty dumb. Esecially the second one which was asking about a base for morality. You can't really put that in a true/false type way.

[LongLiveYorke]

Try it again, you're clearer on what the question is asking and your philosophy hasn't changed in any way, so it's not like your cheating.

I tried it again and went all the way through this time. I still felt difficulty conveying the subtle semantics of exactly what I believe. Here's what I said:

Does God exist? I don't know.

If God does not exist then there is no basis for morality. False, I believe that morality can exist without a god to say what is right and what is wrong. This is not to say that it for sure does or is meaningful or will result in consequence, but rather that one is able to construct a self consistent system of "morals" through the use of which one can better humanity by bringing it closer toward some ultimate goal (happiness, scientific progress, economy, or whatever your goal of choice may be).

Any being which it is right to call God must be free to do anything. False. I don't believe that a god could bend definitions or make 1=3. That just makes no sense, is illogical, and is impossible because if 1=3 then in some way they lose their original meaning and therefore the statement is negated.

Any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the word as is possible. Not necessarily. One would hope so, though, right? But it is certainly conceivable that we are under the power of a malicious god.

Any being which it is right to call God must have the power to do anything. False. See the question two above this one. I'm not exactly sure what the difference between the two is.

Evolutionary theory maybe false in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true. True. I believe in evolution. See my first post.

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 these convictions. False. As a scientist, this was an easy one.

Any being that it is right to call God must know everything that there is to know. Hmmm, this was a hard one. I'm going to go with true, but I'm not super convinced. I would guess that for a god to be a god, it would have to be in some way outside of the universe and therefore have some sort of knowledge of all the goings on of the universe. I'm not 100% on this one, but I'll just say true.

Torturing innocent people is morally wrong. True. Under my set of morals, torture of innocents is wrong.

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. True. It is certainly rational to believe this, and one should live their day to day life under this assumption. One should not fear swimming in the lake because a monster could eat you.

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

If God exists she could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful. False. I believe that certain things will always be immoral. The needless torture of innocents is almost by definition immoral (for if that isn't, then what is?).

It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists. True. One should not live their day to day life under the assumption that god exists and live in fear of that god with good reason to do so. Same with the Loch Ness.

I was threatened a direct hit for the above. I'm not sure why, though. I guess I could reword my above answer as to being, "It is foolish to believe in God without a lot of good evidence." I personally don't think that there's irrevocable proof of anything (except maybe stuff in number theory or whatever). I can believe in evolution without having 100% proof, and no one ever will get 100% proof. I bit the bullet.

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. True. Again, this depends on where one rests the burden of proof and is more or less a matter of semantics. I can't say with 100% certainty that no god exists without having 100% evidence, and there will never really be 100% evidence, so therefore I will never say for certain that god doesn't exist. However, I may live my day to day life under that assumption, and I do. It really depends on the exact definition of atheism.

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. Obv False.

If God exists she would have the freedom and power to create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72. False (see above).

It is justifiable to believe in God if one has a firm, inner conviction that God exists, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of the conviction that God exists. False. Scientist. Evidence. Theory is great and beautiful, but meaningless without evidence. Though, it is quite possible to be extremely confident of a theory.

[simo_8ball]

Much of what is asked in that questionnaire is riddled with semantic complications.

Any being which it is right to call God must be free to do anything. False. I don't believe that a god could bend definitions or make 1=3. That just makes no sense, is illogical, and is impossible because if 1=3 then in some way they lose their original meaning and therefore the statement is negated.

This is my favourite argument/line of logic against the existence of God. All powerful/all good/all whatever leads to fundamental contradictions in many ways.

Any being that it is right to call God must know everything that there is to know. Hmmm, this was a hard one. I'm going to go with true, but I'm not super convinced. I would guess that for a god to be a god, it would have to be in some way outside of the universe and therefore have some sort of knowledge of all the goings on of the universe. I'm not 100% on this one, but I'll just say true.

I think you are wrong in saying true to this. Again, it's semantics as to how you define a God, but suppose a being without perfect knowledge created this earth. Would that being not be classified as a God? If not, what would you classify it as?

Also, if God is all-knowing, what is the point of prayer, but to satisfy His insecure lust for worship? (Ok, I'm being a little sarcastic, but the point stands)

It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists. True. One should not live their day to day life under the assumption that god exists and live in fear of that god with good reason to do so. Same with the Loch Ness.

I was threatened a direct hit for the above. I'm not sure why, though. I guess I could reword my above answer as to being, "It is foolish to believe in God without a lot of good evidence." I personally don't think that there's irrevocable proof of anything (except maybe stuff in number theory or whatever). I can believe in evolution without having 100% proof, and no one ever will get 100% proof. I bit the bullet.

I got caught out with this as well. I didn't read the question closely enough. I agree with your phrasing of "it is foolish to believe in God without a lot of good evidence."

In fact, it's a stupid question really. Proof denies belief by definition. If something is completely proven, there is no point in believing in it.

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. True. Again, this depends on where one rests the burden of proof and is more or less a matter of semantics. I can't say with 100% certainty that no god exists without having 100% evidence, and there will never really be 100% evidence, so therefore I will never say for certain that god doesn't exist. However, I may live my day to day life under that assumption, and I do. It really depends on the exact definition of atheism.

Change God to Russell's Teapot in the question. I think atheism is rational on that basis. I guess it depends on how compelling the arguments are though.

[Loismustdie]

Scored well, with a minor logical flaw. No suprise there.

Basically, that test to me put a whole lot of faith in our system for logic, which is all about that box I have been ranting.

Seriously.... join me outside the box. It's sunny, and we play Poisons greatest hits all day. It's a good time.

[Dirtydutch]

If God exists she would have the freedom and power to create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72. False (see above).

I answer that one that, but it was the only tough one on there, for me, and y/n systems really don't work for this (though I will brag that I bit 0 bullets). If there's an all-powerful God, couldn't he change logic and the rules of existence as we understand them, all together? A lot of these are a bit more than "y/n," and it's pretty frustrating.

[crowTrobot]

Seriously.... join me outside the box.

if i go "outside the box" (throw away all human logic) why do i need christianity? obviously if nothing i believe in is required to make logical sense, i can believe any nonsense i want and it's all the same.

[hblask]

Eh, bad quiz. I agreed that anything called God could do anything. Then it asked if God could make square circles, and I said no, it said direct hit.

BS.

"Square" and "circle" are matters of definitions. If they are asking if god could've created a universe where the word "square" means what the word "round" means to us now, I would've said yes. But a circle is a circle, a square is a square, they are words that describe specific shapes. Changing the words doesn't change the object.

It also got mad at me for saying a serial rapist was justified in his belief. It's a dumb question. Justified to whom? To himself? Absolutely. To the truth of his world view? Absolutely. To me? No. They gave me two hits for that one, one in each direction.

Overall, a poorly written exercise. I'll give it a thumbs down for asking for discrete answers to questions that don't deserve discrete answers.

[Balloon guy]

Wow was this lame.


If this line of thinking was the only thing that kept people from God's Love, then they are really going to have a tough final exam.

[Vick07]

It wasn't that bad.. I bit one bullet... the rest of the time I was fine.... Here's my bullet.

You're under fire! You don't think that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction. But in the previous question you rejected evolutionary theory when the vast majority of scientists think both that the evidence points to its truth and that there is no evidence which falsifies it. Of course, many creationists claim that the evidential case for evolution is by no means conclusive. But in doing so, they go against scientific orthodoxy. So you've got to make a choice: (a) Bite the bullet and say there is evidence that evolution is not true, despite what the scientists say. (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.

I'm 17.. so I haven't really made my mind up completely on everything.. My beliefs aren't as blunt as they make them seem.

[Mattnxtc]

lol at philosophy having yes and no questions.

[rog]

I thought it was pretty lame. What's with the asking me what a being called "God" could or couldn't do? Hypothesizing an omnipotent omniscient being of course leads to contradictions in my belief system since I don't really believe an entity consistent with our culture's notion of God actually exists. The inconsistency is part of my agnosticism.

[pele_br]

Interesting, but as most of you have posted there are flaws in this "philosophical" exercise.

My results:

"Congratulations!

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

My direct hit:

"Direct Hit 1

You answered "True" to questions 3 and 5, and "False" to Question 16.

These answers generated the following response:

You've just taken a direct hit! You say that God does not have the freedom and power to do impossible things such as create square circles, but in an earlier answer you said that any being which it is right to call God must be free and have the power to do anything. So, on your view, God is not free and does not have the power to do what is impossible. This requires that you accept - in common with most theologians, but contrary to your earlier answer - that God's freedom and power are not unbounded. He does not have the freedom and power to do literally anything."

I knew that if I stated that God could not make 1+1=72 or create square circles, I would be contradicting myself since I stated earlier that God must have the freedom and power to do anything. This is a problem of semantics really, I'm curious to see how to get a perfect score when faced with this situation.

My bitten bullet:

"Bitten Bullet 1

You answered "True" to questions 6 and 13.

These answers generated the following response:

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: (a) 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.

You chose to bite the bullet."

This for me is a worst problem than when I took my hit. Had they phrased the question " If there is overwhelming evidence that God exists, would his existence be essentially true?" Then most of us would have no problem in clicking True; the problem is, there is not the slightest amount of evidence for God's existence, which forces us to make an "incorrect" response.

Again, I would be curious to see what one should answer in order to get a perfect score in this case.


My 0.02 cents

[brvheart]

Torturing innocent people is morally wrong. [/b] True. Under my set of morals, torture of innocents is wrong.

What if you don't know that the person is innocent until after you torture them?

[pele_br]

What if you don't know that the person is innocent until after you torture them?

LOL at this comment. I'm pretty sure you are joking here, but considering some of your posts there is a slight chance you are being serious.

I'll ask you a question:

Do you agree with capital punishment? Because this leads to very similar situations. Just curious.

[Loismustdie]

LOL at this comment. I'm pretty sure you are joking here, but considering some of your posts there is a slight chance you are being serious.

I'll ask you a question:

Do you agree with capital punishment? Because this leads to very similar situations. Just curious.

When did it become o.k. to talk down to Braveheart? That's twice I have seen somebody make disparaging comments about him in the past day and it's uncalled for. A little word of advice- if you want respect from anybody in this part of the woods, show some first. Nobody is going to give you the time of day when you come in guns blazing with your stupid christian t shirt on.

[pele_br]

When did it become o.k. to talk down to Braveheart? That's twice I have seen somebody make disparaging comments about him in the past day and it's uncalled for. A little word of advice- if you want respect from anybody in this part of the woods, show some first. Nobody is going to give you the time of day when you come in guns blazing with your stupid christian t shirt on.

I honestly don't know what you are referring to that shows that I do not respect Brvheart. I don't even think I came in "guns blazing" as you said. All I said is that I found his comment funny, especially considering his posts on other threads. I apologise if you interpreted what I said this way, but I assure you it was not my intention.

I even asked a question, in other to continue this discussion. I also think it is a bit ridiculous that you come in his defense, when he is more than capable to reply himself, and express his own opinions regarding what I said. And by the way, you imply that I came in wearing my "stupid christian shirt". That is another frequent misconception that christians think we are criticizing their religions or whatever, when in reality most of the atheists/agnostics in these forums feel the same way about ALL religions.