When it comes to religion, are you a hypocrite?

Stefu · June 30, 2003, 04:21

http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm

I took two direct hits. Ouch! But then again, I didn't bite any bullets.

Ted Striker · June 30, 2003, 04:27

God is great
Baked me a chocolate cake

yavoon · June 30, 2003, 04:38

the subjects to the threads in this forum are worse than the puns on the evening news.

well ok not worse.

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.

for one thing, I don't have religious convictions. for another I had already answered that god could do anything, and I think this includes the logically impossible. and thirdly I do believe rational arguments about faith are doomed to fail. so I say the game got gay on me.

that was all I got tho.

Az · June 30, 2003, 04:40

I bit one bullet,

Spoiler:

Az · June 30, 2003, 04:41

out of curiosity, the other answer would've made me get a direct hit.

yavoon · June 30, 2003, 04:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
out of curiosity, the other answer would've made me get a direct hit.

evil trap. we should protest.

yavoon · June 30, 2003, 04:44

"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"

thats what biting a bullet is. pretty weak appeal to democracy in a philosophical battlefield. oh well.

Urban Ranger · June 30, 2003, 04:54

Ho ho ho!

Quote:

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!

yavoon · June 30, 2003, 04:55

its easy to get the medal of honour if u say god does exist. I went back n did it that way.

FrustratedPoet · June 30, 2003, 04:57

Quote:

"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"

Source?

Hurray for unfounded and unsubstantiated declarations of what is right and normal!!

Az · June 30, 2003, 05:00

Bollocks, UR.

That's just because I believe god could do things which are logically impossible.

Why do I have only the medal of distinction?

yavoon · June 30, 2003, 05:02

Quote:

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet

Quote:

"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"

Source?

Hurray for unfounded and unsubstantiated declarations of what is right and normal!!

link on main page describing what the two offenses are.

FrustratedPoet · June 30, 2003, 05:07

No that wasn't directed at you - I was quoting from the site myself. I meant that I didn't understand how they could dictate what "most people" would find as strange or unpalatable.
They provide no proof ... they provide NOTHING .. and yet they want to declare my views as unpalatable ... those criminals!

Az · June 30, 2003, 05:10

What a great Fez quote.

Seriously, though, I could see it be valid, but my view about God being able to warp logic is completely correct. the Biblical God warps logic all the time. It's a mainstream view.

Urban Ranger · June 30, 2003, 05:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
Bollocks, UR.

That's just because I believe god could do things which are logically impossible.

Why do I have only the medal of distinction?

Not bad

I agree with their analysis, though. If the Judeo-Christianity god is not bound by logic, it will become pointless to discuss about the issue.

Az · June 30, 2003, 05:25

Maybe it would, but the fact is that biblical god IS NOT bound by logic, therefore, this definition is not unaccepted. He does that all the time in the bible, like combining pre-determination and "free will" (whatever THAT is.

).

This COULD render the discussion void, If I actually thought that god exists.

yavoon · June 30, 2003, 05:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Not bad

I agree with their analysis, though. If the Judeo-Christianity god is not bound by logic, it will become pointless to discuss about the issue.

I don't see how believing that god created and has control over logic just like he has control over everything else to be inconsistent at all. why put logic out of god's reach?

Dis · June 30, 2003, 05:28

Boy they really try to get you with the wording on those questions.

It can become difficult in the last 5 questions.

I took a bullet.

It is very late, and I wasn't reading the questions carefully enough. Yes, that is my excuse

Eli · June 30, 2003, 05:33

Quote:

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!

Whoo. I got a medal.

Quote:

Direct Hit 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. (b) Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses.

You chose to take the direct hit.

Quote:

Bitten Bullet 1

You answered "True" to Question 16.

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.

Skanky Burns · June 30, 2003, 05:35

I bit a bullet with the "Don't not think that negative proof rationally leads, in the negative sense, to not..."

Too many bloody double-negatives in that sentence! I am not sure if my answer reflected what I wanted to say, or not.

Urban Ranger · June 30, 2003, 05:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
Maybe it would, but the fact is that biblical god IS NOT bound by logic, therefore, this definition is not unaccepted. He does that all the time in the bible, like combining pre-determination and "free will" (whatever THAT is.

).

You are right about the orthodox view, though that is not the approach taken by philosophers and theologicians. Theologicans such as Richard Swinburne have been trying to establish God via logical means. They rightfully reckon that this is the only way to win over the rational thinkers.

Cruddy · June 30, 2003, 05:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Ho ho ho!

I don't see what you are chuffed about. A chimpanzee could have randomly done this.

I also think this test is heavily skewed towards Judeo Christian teachings and makes a lot of assumptions about what "religion" is.

Az · June 30, 2003, 05:53

Since the idea of divinity/god is traced back to various religious writings, all of them including some sort of warping of logic or another, the whole point of God without them is void. Besides, Omnipotence is full of logical "singularities", like that self destruction paradox.

Urban Ranger · June 30, 2003, 05:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Cruddy
I don't see what you are chuffed about. A chimpanzee could have randomly done this.

Yup. The chance is merely 2¹⁷. Have fun

Quote:

Originally posted by Cruddy
I also think this test is heavily skewed towards Judeo Christian teachings and would makes a lot of assumptions about what "religion" is.

Actually, you could believe in a finite god. It should work out the same.

Az · June 30, 2003, 05:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Cruddy

I don't see what you are chuffed about. A chimpanzee could have randomly done this.

I also think this test is heavily skewed towards Judeo Christian teachings and makes a lot of assumptions about what "religion" is.

you've failed miserably, didn't you?

Ecthy · June 30, 2003, 06:06

the question are somewhat illogical when it comes to hits

I can say there is no god and therefore no moralty basis and still say that torturing innoents is morally wrong. If I are for that moral wrongfulness or not, (because I think morals are bullshit), doesn't actually matter.

Edan · June 30, 2003, 06:09

I got several direct hits, but I've spotted, IMO, a flaw in their line of reasoning.

First off, with regards to the Loch Ness Monster/Belief in Atheism questions: When asking about the Loch Ness Monster, they ask if years of attempts to prove it have failed, is it rational to not believe in the loch ness monster. Yet, in regards to athism, they simply say if there hasn't been a proof that god does not exist, is atheism a belief. These are not analogous. In the first example, there have been "years" of attempts to disprove the LNS, whereas in the second example, there is simply no proof that god doesn't exist. In order to make it analogous, the first question would have to be - if we have no proof that the loch ness monster does not exist, is it rational, or a belief, that he doesn't exist.

(Hmm. If the question was, instead, "If, after years of trying to find alien life in outer space, we did not find any, is it rational to assume that there isn't life?", I think some people would probably change their answers... I know I would)

Add to that that the existance (or lack thereof) of the Loch Ness Monster is something verifiable and proveable, whereas the existance of god, IMO, is not something that can be proven or disproven (in our plane of existance).

Take, for example, a box that you cannot open or see in to in any way (or shake or x-ray or whatever). Is it rational to think that there is something inside that box, or is it rational to think that the box has nothing inside it? IMO, it is not rational to assume either one because you simply do not have enough facts for your premise to build a logical ("rational") conclusion.

But then, belief isn't about making a strict logical argument - it's a leap of faith. I don't think god's existance can be proven (or disproven). Then again, I also said god could make square circles.

Cruddy · June 30, 2003, 06:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

you've failed miserably, didn't you?

That depends how you define "failure"

The bit which stuffed me was a) saying there were faults in Genesis and b) saying there were faults in science. It seems the test wants you to be a zealot either way.

How's about no human knowledge is perfect? Such an attitude fits in well with progress but makes the test barf.

Still got a medal though.

Ecthy · June 30, 2003, 06:11

and atheism isn't not believing in god but being hostile to believing in god. so the question 14 evaluation is stupid, too. cancelled there, it seems widely flawed. also the bullet I did bite was because they generalized too much.

Cruddy · June 30, 2003, 06:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Yup. The chance is merely 2¹⁷. Have fun

That chipamzee could still do it in much less than 3 months, assuming reasonable breaks, at random.

With training - oh, half a day?