Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Socialist

17 (33.3%)

Green

8 (15.7%)

Peace and Freedom

2 (3.9%)

Democratic

1 (2%)

Transhumanist

11 (21.6%)

Libertarian

8 (15.7%)

Republican

2 (3.9%)

Constitution

2 (3.9%)

Total Members Voted: 50

[AntiAntiMatter]

2 hits, 1 bullet bitten.

[Retro]

Hence, you bite the bullet and justify the rapist.

Hah, this is a weird sentence. Jeez, this quiz really needs the context.

I think that is actually almost a direct contradiction, though.  If there were, say, very very strong evidence for God (as strong as the evidence for evolution, say - let's imagine that God wrote messages to us every night in the sky or something) then you should say that it's equally valid to believe in it as evolution.  You have to bite a bullet because to maintain logical consistency you're saying that there is certain, irrevocable proof for evolution, I guess.

Not really, no. If we got messages in the sky, allegedly from God any without any other hypothetical explanation, I would say that belief in God and belief in evolution is equally valid. And of course, we don't. But that doesn't mean that I'm currently saying the proof for evolution is irrevocable. It's the best we've got, and certainly a lot more sensible than believing in a God to me. I just think it's unfair of the quiz to hold the two options to the same standards when the evidence supporting one is a lot more solid and rational than the 'evidence' supporting the other, despite neither being concrete or yet entirely disprovable.

e- blugh typo

[Max White]

Anybody want to necro the old religen thread, what ever that was?

[Cthulhu]

Not really, no. If we got messages in the sky, allegedly from God any without any other hypothetical explanation, I would say that belief in God and belief in evolution is equally valid.

So then you don't require incontrovertible proof, just a significant body of evidence, to justify belief in a deity.

Anybody want to necro the old religen thread, what ever that was?

Hell no.

[ToonyMan]

Got to the end, got the 2nd highest medal thing.

Time to

do

horrible

nOw

[fqllve]

But the realm of rational discourse lies very much within our own observations. If there was no gravity, and gravity was never observed, it wouldn't be rational to assume I would fall if I were to jump. Any god, however, would exist outside our realm of obsevation, and outside our realm of reason.

Not everyone believes that. For example, I believe that a god would have to exist solely within the realm of our experience to be meaningful, because otherwise we're speculating about things we could never possibly know. I understand that's part of the allure, but that just doesn't interest me.

And at the very least, any effect a god had on the universe would theoretically be measurable, even if steps were taken to prevent us from measuring it.

[Derekristow]

Continuing on the God-Evolution gotcha, the existence of a god and the theory of evolution are two entirely different things.  A god's existence would be a statement of fact, he's either there or he isn't.  Evolution is a theory, and thus is almost expected to be at least somewhat imperfect.  It best fits what we know, so we think it's true.

[Max White]

Not everyone believes that. For example, I believe that a god would have to exist solely within the realm of our experience to be meaningful, because otherwise we're speculating about things we could never possibly know. I understand that's part of the allure, but that just doesn't interest me.

And at the very least, any effect a god had on the universe would theoretically be measurable, even if steps were taken to prevent us from measuring it.

"Not everybody believes" isn't a very good standard for telling somebody they are wrong.

[Tarran]

I took 1 direct hit and bit 3 bullets. Reason for them is:

Spoiler: I did NOT see that coming. (click to show/hide)

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.

Wow... sneaky one they pulled on me. Decided to pick the bite the bullet option.

Spoiler: I didn't see this one coming either (click to show/hide)

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.

...Thing is, I would've gotten the question wrong either way, according to my answers earlier. Damn. Got me again. Took the direct hit.

Spoiler: Ehhhh? Oh... Wait... Wait... (click to show/hide)

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?

Well, think of it, aliens could live on mars, just be in underground bunkers. But I guess they're right. Had to bite the bullet.

Spoiler: What...? If this gave me a bullet, I should've gotten a bullet a long freaking time ago! (click to show/hide)

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.

I mean, I said for a thing to be called god, it has to have the ability to do anything. If I was wrong here, I should've gotten a bullet back at that question.

[sonerohi]

I wish the site let us argue for our option choice. I had to bite a bullet with that "God cannot be constrained" thing, which isn't sticking with what I thought the answer meant. If God has the power to do anything, which was one of my criteria earlier, he has the power to change our perceptions. 72 is not a scientific fact. It is a word we invented to name a quantity. If God is all powerful, he can change the names of things, which is what I was thinking when I bit the bullet.

[Derekristow]

I took 1 direct hit and bit 3 bullets. Reason for them is:

Spoiler: I did NOT see that coming. (click to show/hide)

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.

Wow... sneaky one they pulled on me. Decided to pick the bite the bullet option.

What?  This doesn't make sense at all.  Sure, he could make reduction of suffering a sin, but he wants to reduce suffering so he probably won't.  If anyone was inconsistent there it was God.

Spoiler: I didn't see this one coming either (click to show/hide)

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.

...Thing is, I would've gotten the question wrong either way, according to my answers earlier. Damn. Got me again. Took the direct hit.

Spoiler: What...? If this gave me a bullet, I should've gotten a bullet a long freaking time ago! (click to show/hide)

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.

I mean, I said for a thing to be called god, it has to have the ability to do anything. If I was wrong here, I should've gotten a bullet back at that question.

These two seem a bit off and are easily argued.  See above conversation.

[Max White]

I realy do not see the point of this test, we all know that god is real. He just isn't online right now to defend himself, but I'm sure Ochita has a good reason for being away.

[Leafsnail]

Remember: Biting the bullet does not mean you're inconsistent.  It means you've led yourself into a position which the people running the website think is strange.  As they say, if you do believe that, you shouldn't worry about biting the bullet.

Not really, no. If we got messages in the sky, allegedly from God any without any other hypothetical explanation, I would say that belief in God and belief in evolution is equally valid. And of course, we don't. But that doesn't mean that I'm currently saying the proof for evolution is irrevocable. It's the best we've got, and certainly a lot more sensible than believing in a God to me. I just think it's unfair of the quiz to hold the two options to the same standards when the evidence supporting one is a lot more solid and rational than the 'evidence' supporting the other, despite neither being concrete or yet entirely disprovable.

Reread the question.  It's saying "without irrevocable proof".  Therefore, if you say "true", then you're saying "if there's anything less than absolute proof, you should not believe in God" but that "it's ok to believe in evolution without absolute proof".  It's completely irrelevant what things are like in the real world - unintentionally or not, answering those 2 questions that way is an inconsistency.  The only way to resolve it is to say that there's absolute proof for evolution, which is seen as biting the bullet.

[Retro]

Not really, no. If we got messages in the sky, allegedly from God any without any other hypothetical explanation, I would say that belief in God and belief in evolution is equally valid.

So then you don't require incontrovertible proof, just a significant body of evidence, to justify belief in a deity.

If there was pretty-solid-but-not-totally-concrete evidence that a God existed, yeah, I'd think it justifiable. I wouldn't find it valid myself, but I'd think other people would be justified in saying so. Right now I just see it as this weird useless old tradition with a million different branches that all retroactively change themselves to accommodate new scientific findings without actually having any leg to stand on proof-wise, and I can understand why people believe in it, but I don't think it's really justifiable at all through a rational perspective.

Reread the question.  It's saying "without irrevocable proof".  Therefore, if you say "true", then you're saying "if there's anything less than absolute proof, you should not believe in God" but that "it's ok to believe in evolution without absolute proof".  It's completely irrelevant what things are like in the real world - unintentionally or not, answering those 2 questions that way is an inconsistency.  The only way to resolve it is to say that there's absolute proof for evolution, which is seen as biting the bullet.

I don't think they're two things that can be held to the same standards. I'm going to direct you to what Derekristow said because I think his phrasing is pretty spot-on:

Continuing on the God-Evolution gotcha, the existence of a god and the theory of evolution are two entirely different things.  A god's existence would be a statement of fact, he's either there or he isn't.  Evolution is a theory, and thus is almost expected to be at least somewhat imperfect.  It best fits what we know, so we think it's true.

[Aqizzar]

God damn, how did I overlook this thread?  Look at all this high-velocity rhetoric and evidentialism flyin' around.

Looks like a buncha personality tests too.  I'll have to check this out, I always love hearing a website talk about myself.