Print

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

Socialist

16 (32%)

Green

8 (16%)

Peace and Freedom

2 (4%)

Democratic

1 (2%)

Transhumanist

11 (22%)

Libertarian

8 (16%)

Republican

2 (4%)

Constitution

2 (4%)

Total Members Voted: 49

[Realmfighter]

This is just so much fun

[Korbac]

3 direct hits, and 1 bullet. Yes, my beliefs are in contradiction. This is probably a subconcious mental restraint because I don't fancy pissing off society / living a life where I disobey my beliefs at every turn.

[fqllve]

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

That's because I wasn't saying you were wrong. I was just pointing out it isn't necessary to believe that any god exists outside our experience. It's hard to be wrong about a concept such as god. Very few people's definitions agree.

[Leafsnail]

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.

The problem isn't "You believe in evolution but don't believe in god".  It has nothing to do with the relative likeliness of either of them in the real world.

The problem is "You're prepared to believe evolution if there's very, very good evidence for it (for the sake of argument, let's say that it's almost perfect) but you would say it's irrational to believe in God if there was very, very good evidence for it (again, almost perfect)".

It's occured to me that there's actually a second way of resolving this - saying that your own belief in evolution is irrational.  I don't think that's a very good solution though .

[Cthulhu]

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.

It's inconsistent, because the question is asking if God must want a reduction of suffering.  Key word being "must".  If an effectively omnipotent (Effectively meaning constrained by logic) being wants x==true, then there is no logical reason for x!=true.  In other words, it is impossible for a god who must want the reduction of suffering to make the reduction of suffering a bad thing.

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.

Then you don't require proof to justify belief in a deity any more than you require proof to justify belief in evolution.  Your answer to the "Is it justifiable to believe in God without proof" question didn't actually represent what you believe.  You're internally consistent.  Gratz bro

[sonerohi]

Taboo quiz is pretty interesting. I got the very bottom left corner of the grid.

[Max White]

Well after doing the quiz again, taking careful note of the wording, and use of double negitives, I got through without being hit and biting three bulelts, with my beleifs firmly intact... Sounds about right.

[Lysabild]

I don't discuss religion normally for the very simple reason that while it is more or less 50/50 wether a god or higher spiritual creature might exist, all of the written down religions have almost zero statistically potential of being true.

If you take a disk, and draw a line through it and say one half is atheist, one if theist, then take the atheit and split into atheist and agnostic again, your done. Then you take the theistic side and split into all religions that exist, then you split all those religions into their brances and last their cults, now, what exactly is the chance left that your way of reading this book that can be proven written by roman men for power grapples, is right?

Needless to say, faith is fine, religion is bullshit. Imho. I don't hate religious people, in most cases they're fluffy.

[ToonyMan]

"9. A man goes to his local grocery store once a week and buys a frozen chicken. But before cooking and eating the chicken, he has sexual intercourse with it. Then he cooks it and eats it. He never tells anyone about what he does, never regrets it and never shows any ill effects from behaving this way. He remains an upstanding member of his community."
Pfffff hahahahahaaaaaa

[Retro]

This is just so much fun

Wow, yeah. This might be the rest of my night right here.

Leafsnail, sorry man, but I'm just going to drop the debate. I don't think either of us are going to get anywhere and I didn't really think I'd be getting into a debate about logical consistency in religious belief tonight :\

[GlyphGryph]

As far as the battlefield goes... my beliefs appear pretty consistant.

0 hits, 0 bullets on the god test. ^_^

[Realmfighter]

Taboo quiz is pretty interesting. I got the very bottom left corner of the grid.

I got 0.04 On universalizing because I said it was Kinda wrong for the Dude to break his promise to his mother, which it is said he feels guilty about and therefore isn't my opinion but his.

Sigh

[ToonyMan]

I was a complete pushover as well.  All my ratings were 0.

[Cheeetar]

Spoiler: Class/Alignment Results (click to show/hide)

You Are A:

True Neutral Elf Wizard (1st Level)


Ability Scores:
Strength- 8
Dexterity- 11
Constitution- 9
Intelligence- 14
Wisdom- 13
Charisma- 9

Alignment:
True Neutral- A true neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. He doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most true neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil after all, he would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, he's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way. Some true neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run. True neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion. However, true neutral can be a dangerous alignment because it represents apathy, indifference, and a lack of conviction.

Race:
Elves are known for their poetry, song, and magical arts, but when danger threatens they show great skill with weapons and strategy. Elves can live to be over 700 years old and, by human standards, are slow to make friends and enemies, and even slower to forget them. Elves are slim and stand 4.5 to 5.5 feet tall. They have no facial or body hair, prefer comfortable clothes, and possess unearthly grace. Many others races find them hauntingly beautiful.

Class:
Wizards- Wizards are arcane spellcasters who depend on intensive study to create their magic. To wizards, magic is not a talent but a difficult, rewarding art. When they are prepared for battle, wizards can use their spells to devastating effect. When caught by surprise, they are vulnerable. The wizard's strength is her spells, everything else is secondary. She learns new spells as she experiments and grows in experience, and she can also learn them from other wizards. In addition, over time a wizard learns to manipulate her spells so they go farther, work better, or are improved in some other way. A wizard can call a familiar- a small, magical, animal companion that serves her. With a high Intelligence, wizards are capable of casting very high levels of spells.

Detailed Results:

Alignment:
Lawful Good ----- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (17)
Neutral Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (21)
Chaotic Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (14)
Lawful Neutral -- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (25)
True Neutral ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (29)
Chaotic Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (22)
Lawful Evil ----- XXXXXXXXX (9)
Neutral Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13)
Chaotic Evil ---- XXXXXX (6)

Law & Chaos:
Law ----- XXXXXXXX (
Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Chaos --- XXXXX (5)

Good & Evil:
Good ---- XXXXXXXXX (9)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (17)
Evil ---- X (1)

Race:
Human ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13)
Dwarf ---- XXXXXX (6)
Elf ------ XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (14)
Gnome ---- XXXXXXXX (
Halfling - XXXXXXXXXX (10)
Half-Elf - XXXXXXXXXXX (11)
Half-Orc - XX (2)

Class:
Barbarian - (-4)
Bard ------ XXXX (4)
Cleric ---- (-4)
Druid ----- (-6)
Fighter --- (0)
Monk ------ (-21)
Paladin --- (-19)
Ranger ---- (0)
Rogue ----- (-2)
Sorcerer -- XXXX (4)
Wizard ---- XXXXXX (6)

I didn't expect this.

Spoiler: Taboo results (click to show/hide)

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: -1.

Spoiler: Battleground God (click to show/hide)

You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you said that it is not 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 now you say it's justifiable to believe in God on just these grounds. That's a flagrant contradiction!

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.

[Dragooble]

I don't like the battleground god quiz because sometimes I don't get the wording of the questions. Like the proof for evolution and god one. I thought both were just asking for proof, not different measures of truth. I think I'd also like a definition for "standard" in terms of proof. Is it saying how much proof is needed for how extraordinary something is, or if everything needs the same amount of proof?