|
Post by Ruby2 on Jun 4, 2003 1:57:37 GMT -5
OK, give this test a go, and see how many direct hits you take! www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htmI did great till the final section, then i took 2 direct hits, and bit one bullet! Results as follows: 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.
|
|
|
Post by Danny Boy on Jun 4, 2003 2:32:15 GMT -5
No problems for Danny Boy in the 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! 109187 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 1.37 hits and bites 1.09 bullets. 7.54% of the people who have completed this activity, like you, emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour. 46.82% of the people who have completed this activity took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.
|
|
|
Post by El Sid on Jun 4, 2003 3:05:18 GMT -5
Well, it seems ElSid is not squeaky clean after all. While I think about it I'll do what I do best, viz.
|
|
|
Post by JWK on Jun 4, 2003 4:09:52 GMT -5
Right, i got the second highest award, taking no hits and biting one bullet. I contest that what i bit the bullet for was contradictory though... gimme a sec to find it again...
|
|
|
Post by JWK on Jun 4, 2003 4:17:25 GMT -5
Question 6 Evolutionary theory maybe false in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true. I answered false, in accordance to the fact that i fail to see where evolutionary theory is false. I guess i diddn't read the question clearly enough, or rather the question was spiked. in the next question: Question 7 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. I answered false. 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. I did not reject evolutionary theory, indeed i championed it... Oh well
|
|
|
Post by Danny Boy on Jun 4, 2003 4:53:37 GMT -5
My 5 penny's worth;
Evolutionary theory maybe false in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true.
I answered false, in accordance to the fact that i fail to see where evolutionary theory is false. I guess i diddn't read the question clearly enough, or rather the question was spiked.
Danny Boy: it said "May be false" the real question being asked was "is essentially true"
in the next question:
Question 7
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.
I answered false.
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.
I did not reject evolutionary theory, indeed i championed it...
Oh well
Danny Boy. What you are rejecting; is a persons freedom of choice
|
|
|
Post by JWK on Jun 4, 2003 5:23:11 GMT -5
What i was rejecting is the idea that any action is justified, so long as that person believes in what they do, regardless of its consequences.
"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."
Example: Say i were to decide that you, Danny, were Satan regardless of all the evidence in the world to show otherwise. I decided to travel to Bahrain to kill you, and hence vanquish Satan from the face of the earth.
You are not Satan and i would have just committed murder. However my actions were justified because of my belief.
To have answered true to question 7 says my belief was justified, and i cannot even be critisized, let alone convicted in any manner for committing cold blooded murder.
I agree to respecting a persons freedom of choice, but to justify a persons belief is to absolve instantly all sin that goes along with it, after all, who are we to say that somebody is absolutely 100% right to believe in what they want, yet say the actions resulting from their belief are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Wycco on Jun 4, 2003 8:28:03 GMT -5
I had to bite one bullet over the Evolutionary theory too...
I can't recall exactly the web-sites problem... I think becuase I said its OK to believe in Evolution but not something else that hadn't been prooved...
Although I disagreed with its reasoning.
Evolution, at least to a degree, HAS BEEN PROOVED! I PERSONALLY was involved in such a project regarding fruit flies.
Evolution, is just as scientifically secure as gravity exists- to anyone who has extensively studied it.
|
|
|
Post by Ruby2 on Jun 4, 2003 8:32:49 GMT -5
Same here Wycco! So far as I'm concerned, evolution is a fact, not a theory, we have been digging up enough evidence to support it over the years!!!
I said that if there were no proof to support a belief in the Loch Ness monster after many years, that it was then justifiable to assume it does not exist, and then they hit me with evolution!
|
|
|
Post by Danny Boy on Jun 4, 2003 8:42:22 GMT -5
What i was rejecting is the idea that any action is justified, so long as that person believes in what they do, regardless of its consequences. "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." Example: Say i were to decide that you, Danny, were Satan regardless of all the evidence in the world to show otherwise. I decided to travel to Bahrain to kill you, and hence vanquish Satan from the face of the earth. You are not Satan and i would have just committed murder. However my actions were justified because of my belief. To have answered true to question 7 says my belief was justified, and i cannot even be critisized, let alone convicted in any manner for committing cold blooded murder. I agree to respecting a persons freedom of choice, but to justify a persons belief is to absolve instantly all sin that goes along with it, after all, who are we to say that somebody is absolutely 100% right to believe in what they want, yet say the actions resulting from their belief are wrong. That question of guilt was covered with Peter Sutcliff and I assume we all answered that the same way? the question above was only, in my view, about a persons right to have a view and belief that they feel is correct irrespective of conflicting evidence and nothing to do with any action they may carry out.
|
|
|
Post by Danny Boy on Jun 4, 2003 8:45:46 GMT -5
Same here Wycco! So far as I'm concerned, evolution is a fact, not a theory, we have been digging up enough evidence to support it over the years!!! I said that if there were no proof to support a belief in the Loch Ness monster after many years, that it was then justifiable to assume it does not exist, and then they hit me with evolution! But there is no proof to say it does not exist. Anyway, good fun posting Ruby.
|
|
|
Post by Ruby2 on Jun 4, 2003 9:11:42 GMT -5
LOl Danny! I need proof to show me that it does exist! If there is no proof, then I don't believe it! but I know what you are saying!
|
|
|
Post by alexmd on Jun 4, 2003 13:19:41 GMT -5
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!
I think i should have gotten the highest award and will contest the results with the comitee. here's the bullet
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?
it seems perfectly valid to me. i mean to say that something doesn't exist or whatever you must show concrete evidence that it doesn't. the mere absence of evidence is not proof, it's inconclusive. or should i brush up on my math skills?
|
|
|
Post by Mo on Jun 4, 2003 15:17:56 GMT -5
I got a direct hit and bit a bullet, too. It's been ages since I was told about something called the 'epistemologic obstacle', regarding dogma in science and got hit there. Glad my language isn't as thick as some questions in the quiz!
|
|
|
Post by JWK on Jun 5, 2003 5:25:48 GMT -5
The only problem was that some of the questions had vague ideas behind them.
|
|