posted
I dont have to Tom. The entire tone of the quiz/game/pile of crap substantiates my statement. And you know it, just as everyone else here knows it.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, that strikes me as strange to say as a number of people have taken the opposite stance.
The "I don't have to because its true" argument is one of the more ludicrous out there. If its so ridiculously obvious, you'll have no problem finding supporting examples.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wish I could remember when I played this, and at whose instigation. I bit two or three bullets but avoided being hit by any. Problem was, I couldn't duplicate the feat. Because my answers depended on very precise interpretation of the questions and answers, and I didn't necessarily remember how I interpreted them the first time, when I played again I was shot dead about halfway through.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Then perhaps you have a reason people disagree with you? We seem to be operating under different definitions of the word "obviously".
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, here's a question, which you may have an answer for that I haven't thought of.
What motive would go into the construction of a test like this, through which religious people find it very difficult to pass "unwounded"?
I have been able to come up with only two possible answers: either it was constructed to denigrate religious faith as irrational, or it was constructed to force people to examine their belief systems in minute detail (probably with the intent of constraining them to choose the beliefs of the constructor, but perhaps not).
I lean toward the former, but only because I have encountered more people who would do that than people who would engage in the latter. My experience might not be representative.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
Don't could and must imply two different ideas, or did I read it wrong? I took the hit, but it wasn't a true hit. That should've been a backfire..
Anyway,
quote: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 progressed through this activity suffering only one direct hit indicates that your beliefs about God are, on the whole, consistent.
However, you have bitten a number of bullets, which suggests that some of your beliefs will be considered strange, incredible or unpalatable by many people. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of the bitten bullets.
Despite the bullets that you bit, the fact that you did not suffer any hits means that you qualify for our third highest award. Well done!
but I would've done better if I could've rationalized with this computer, using a Bible and an encyclopedia. Posts: 2292 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'd say I've met about the same of both types of people. People of the you should follow only my belief type are more common on the web, in my experience.
In this case, given the manner and devices the test uses to "argue" about evolution, I rather suspect the author is more likely of the "you should follow only my belief" type than the "you shouldn't believe in anything" type.
However, I don't think he's either type. I think the guy who created the quiz is a guy who's more than a bit self absorbed with the perfection of his own "logic", sort of like odouls here, or like odouls might characterize me. That he isn't rabidly anti-religion is trivially easy to defeat -- Hobbes believes in God, but he "made it across the battleground". If the guy was rabidly anti religion, that wouldn't be possible. That he's just trying to persuade people to his particular beliefs could be defeated by demonstrating it was possible to make it across the battleground in more than one way -- using mutually exclusive belief sets.
That the guy is likely religious himself is evident in his attempts to discredit the factualism of evolution -- not that religious people all, or most, or even close, do this, but that non-religious people almost never do this. That evolution happens is a fact. It has been observed in the wild. The mechanisms of evolution are described by theory.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well Fugu, I made it but only because instead of figuring out the real answer to the question, I spent my whole time trying to figure out what they actually meant. And the best way to do that is to link it up with a previous question and see what logical trap they're trying to make you fall into. Not to say I was lying on the test, I was telling the truth to the questions they were trying to ask (or were asking but trying to pretend they weren't) but if it was a real person asking me these questions I would've debated their answers instead of deciphering their questions.
My opinion, it's biased against religion, but not out of spite or really by all that much. It's just that the people who made it see the world one way and it's hard to leave a logical path for those whose opinions you don't understand.
posted
I think if anything that supports the idea that its someone self absorbed with the importance of their own logic, rather than someone with a particular agenda either way.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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!
So even though I said morality comes from God, I'm supposed to believe it's ok to ignore His word as long as I really believe it? There's an illogical statement for ya.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: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 You've have to elaborate. You're sure that your your opinion here. The intellectual sniper has scored a bull's-eye!
So even though I said morality comes from God, I'm supposed to believe it's ok to ignore His word as long as I really believe it? There's an illogical statement for ya.
You'll have to elaborate. You believe morality comes from God, from what I can tell -- so did the rapist Peter Sutcliffe. Yet you don't agree that Sutcliffe's religious beliefs are justifiable given their lack of external validation -- the same external validation you waved aside when you decided on your own religious beliefs.
At least, that's as far as I can tell without further elaboration. What the quote does not say, however, is that Sutcliffe is ignoring God's Word -- he believes he's obeying it, just as (presumably) you believe you obey God's Word. If anything, Sutcliffe was more devout than you are.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo, many religious people believe that all people are subject to the same exact interaction with God that they are subject to, and that people who behave differently clearly are doing so of their own choice, stubbornness, etc.
So, if this person believes that God forbids rape, then anyone committing a rape is doing so against the will of God, and at some level, they KNOW IT, and are just lying to themselves or others to justify their crime.
I know this opens a can of worms intellectually (which is why I don't subscribe to it), but it is internally consistent, expecially considering the fact that no individual can read another's mind, so it is impossible to disprove this worldview to an individual who believes it.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is why my question is still open to Rivka: given that she, Belle, and Hobbes all claim to have had personal experiences with God, and all three are belong to different and mutually-exclusive religions, which one is right?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lalo, many religious people believe that all people are subject to the same exact interaction with God that they are subject to, and that people who behave differently clearly are doing so of their own choice, stubbornness, etc.
So, if this person believes that God forbids rape, then anyone committing a rape is doing so against the will of God, and at some level, they KNOW IT, and are just lying to themselves or others to justify their crime.
I know this opens a can of worms intellectually (which is why I don't subscribe to it), but it is internally consistent, expecially considering the fact that no individual can read another's mind, so it is impossible to disprove this worldview to an individual who believes it.
That's rather disturbing, actually. If you don't believe what I do, you're lying to yourself -- devoutness in others is self-deception? Isn't that idea also dubbed fanaticism?
Though I suppose all religions subscribe to that worldview in one form or another -- the we're-right-they're-not belief -- I'm not sure he escapes the bullet. Avidreader is, presumably, sure he knows the mind of God -- so was Sutcliffe. Both of them were willing to allow their beliefs to become convictions despite a lack of physical proof or rational logic. If AR's willing to keep his beliefs and discard Sutcliffe's, isn't he necessarily both practicing and condemning religious conviction?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why is why my question is still open to Rivka: given that she, Belle, and Hobbes all claim to have had personal experiences with God, and all three are belong to different and mutually-exclusive religions, which one is right?
quote:Though I suppose all religions subscribe to that worldview in one form or another -- the we're-right-they're-not belief -- I'm not sure he escapes the bullet. Avidreader is, presumably, sure he knows the mind of God -- so was Sutcliffe. Both of them were willing to allow their beliefs to become convictions despite a lack of physical proof or rational logic. If AR's willing to keep his beliefs and discard Sutcliffe's, isn't he necessarily both practicing and condemning religious conviction?
My main problem was the wording of the question about external proof. I was pretty sure if I said I needed external proof that the game would respond I can't see God so I'm illogical for believing in Him. For the non-religious, that "still, small voice" doesn't usually count as proof. What I'm saying is that I don't need to have physical proof God exists because I have emotional proof. I'm firmly convinced I've felt His presence. But I can't measure that in a lab.
At the same time, I answered that God can't change right and wrong on a whim. So how can He say it's ok for one guy to commit rape ("Do not commit adultry," 6th commandment. Adultry in this sense is usually considered impure thoughts or actions.) but for everyone else it's wrong? Their logic wants a very gray area to be black and white. Don't you think that ignores reality and is therefor irrational itself?
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I got hit once and no bullets. I got nailed for saying the belief that the lack of positive proof nullified the existence of the Loch Ness monster but didn't work for Athiests. I misinterpreted it. The negative evidence for the existence of the Loch Ness monster is so overwhelming. I shouldn't have taken that into account.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I don't mean to nitpick, but if rape is really ok, why do so many people end up repenting after they've been in jail awhile? Why do murderers confess to fifty year old crimes and talk about the sense of peace they've gotten from it? If it were really ok because they believe it, they should be touting the virtues of rape and murder til the day they die. Timothy McVeigh comes to mind, but he's one of the few I can think of.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Umm, AvidReader, TomD was pointint out how Sutcliffe saw rape as OK in the eyes of God, not that rape was OK.
Also, I hardly think repentance under a system where repentance gets you a lesser sentence, where the constant message is "what you did is wrong," where there is very little to make you feel good and you are grasping for things that might make you feel good, counts as proof of acknowledgement of a universal truth.
If anything, its closer to brainwashing. I'd expect the rate of repentance in prison to be extremely high.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I rather thought I had already answered your question here.
But to put it more plainly, I have no problem with anyone of any religion (or none) claiming to have felt the presence of and/or seen evidence of God -- which is what I claim.
Do I sometimes find disturbing some people's spin on having felt His presence -- sure. But that doesn't invalidate their having felt His presence, or having seen His handiwork.
[Edit: The problem with trying to catch up with all the threads simultaneously is that I can't. I hadn't seen Tom's reaction in that thread -- but I stand by my response anyway.]
posted
"But that doesn't invalidate their having felt His presence, or having seen His handiwork."
Why doesn't it? If three people all claim to have received exclusionary messages from God, why DOESN'T that invalidate at least two of them?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't claim to have received any "messages" --unless you consider His existence, love, and involvement in this world and in my life -- to be a message. So unless someone else has received word from Him that He does not exist, does not love us, or is not involved in this world . . . I don't see the conflict.
And I wonder why you are so convinced there MUST be one?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There certainly is a conflict between a typical Mormon revelation as I have had it described to me and a typical protestant revelation as I have had them described to me. The nature of the discrepancy usually involves either different churches being the only correct church or different natures of Christ.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka, can you understand the distinction between a "feeling that God exists" and the kind of communication that some of the people on this board claim to have experienced? Your "feeling that God exists" is mostly incompatible with these other feelings.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You say it's incompatible. I say I don't see it that way, for the most part. I also have no wish to insult anyone else's beliefs -- nor do I see any point in my doing so here.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For a test supposedly designed by a philosopher, it certainly has a lot of logical flaws.
I agree that the motivation for the test is to show that theism is "irrational," but the test plays games with the definition of "rational."
While it's rational to disbelieve in the loch ness monster if there is no objective evidence, the test didn't allow me to explain that it's also rational to believe in the loch ness monster if you believe the subjective evidence. If the question had been worded "the only rational position is to disbelieve in the loch ness monster" I would have answered "false" for that question. The fallacy here is false dichotomy.
BTW, I'm an atheist, and I got hit for saying that without evidence that there is no god, atheism is a matter of faith. Based on their wording, that's true, but the question leaves out many other possibilities.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I also have no wish to insult anyone else's beliefs -- nor do I see any point in my doing so here."
While I understand and respect this view, and didn't actually expect you to say anything differently, I hope you get my point: that personal experiences like these, especially ones that are (as in the above example) incompatible, are roughly equivalent to deciding that God wants you to rape somebody. While American society has evolved a secular framework within which we expect our religions to operate, the reliance upon a "personal experience of God" to determine personal morality can be overwhelmingly dangerous.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
But that brings us back to the really hard question, which this test sort of addresses: if your morality is not derived from God, from whence IS it derived? Is it possible to be God-fearing while simultaneously believing that your sense of morality is superior to God's, should the two ever conflict?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka, I think you're confusing the questions.
Isn't Tom asking you that if you, Hobbes, and Belle have all experienced God, and you have all sure you're in close personal contact with Him, and you're all sure you're in the exclusive religion that God supports -- don't at least two of you need to be wrong?
While it's generous of you to provide an opinion on a different question, I'm rather interested to know what your answer is to the above.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm. I didn't say that my morality isn't derived from God -- it is. It's simply not derived from my personal experience of God.
Lalo, I have never claimed to be "in close personal contact with Him." And I happen to try very hard not to judge other people or their beliefs, unless they choose to infringe upon mine. I leave judgement up to Him.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
As I've stated before, Jews do not believe that everyone need follow Judaism -- nor that the whole world being Jewish is even an ideal.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps she thinks it's the best path at the moment, and after she dies, she'll get the definitive answer. Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh, so you don't believe Judaism is the one true religion of God now?
Sorry, that was unnecessarily flippant.
As I've stated before, Jews do not believe that everyone need follow Judaism -- nor that the whole world being Jewish is even an ideal.
While I thank you for your politeness, you're not quite answering the question I asked. While I'm sure you don't want everyone to be Jewish -- do you believe Judaism is the one true religion of God or not?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Perhaps she thinks it's the best path at the moment, and after she dies, she'll get the definitive answer.
Except that's not quite what I'm asking, either. She either believes Judaism is the exclusive religion of God, or she doesn't -- does she hold Hobbes' and Belle's religions as equally accurate to her own, or doesn't she? And if she doesn't believe that Protestantism or Mormonism are all as correct as Judaism, don't at least two of the three need be wrong?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Eddie, since you think we're all wrong, why do you care?
Rivka, not to nitpick, but I think you're trying to avoid answering my question. Do you believe Judaism is the one true religion of God or not? Surely this can't be a difficult question to answer.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And Mac, ha! Like that was ever in question. I'm going to pull whatever strings I have to in order to get admitted to the Hell female sexual deviants are sent to.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
*raises eyebrow* Actually, it's not a simple answer. And I see no reason to invest my time and energy into ANY answer, when as far as I can tell, your primary (if not sole) motivation for asking is to "stir things up."
You want to argue for the sake of argument, find someone else.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
You say it's incompatible. I say I don't see it that way, for the most part. I also have no wish to insult anyone else's beliefs -- nor do I see any point in my doing so here.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
