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

[Tarran]

Spoiler: My Morality Play result (click to show/hide)

Geographical Distance: 100% compared to the average of 73%
"The suggestion then is that geographical distance plays little, if any, role in your moral thinking."

Family Relatedness: 18% compared to the average of 58%
"It seems then that family relatedness is an important factor in your moral thinking. Normally, this will mean feeling a greater moral obligation towards people who are related to you than towards those who are not. To the extent that issues of family relatedness form part of your moral thinking, the parsimoniousness of your moral framework is reduced."

Acts and Omissions: 35% compared to the average of 60%
"This suggests that the difference between acting and omitting to act is a relevant factor in your moral framework. Usually, this will mean thinking that those who act have greater moral culpability than those who simply omit to act. To insist on a moral distinction between acting and omitting to act is to decrease the parsimoniousness of your moral framework."

Scale: 100% compared to the average of 75%.
"It seems that scale, as it is described above, is not an important consideration in your moral worldview. But if, contrary to our findings, it is important, then it decreases the parsimoniousness of your moral framework."

Overall Moral Parsimony Score: 63% compared to an average of 67%.

I'm interested in what you guys will get.

[Cthulhu]

There aren't varying amounts of proof.  If it isn't 100% it's not proof.  There is no proof for evolution and there is no proof for God.  If you say that evolution is true you are justifying that belief on evidence, not proof.  The other question is, in effect, saying "It is only justifiable to believe in God if there is no room for doubt, and it is 100% confirmed that God exists"  If you say that's true then you're being logically inconsistent.

[fqllve]

In the DIY Deity quiz

Your God is the sustainer of all that is. This means that if God ceased to exist so would everything else.

The metaphysical engineers are finding it hard to model this God in our universe. The laws of physics do not seem to require that the universe has anything outside of itself to continue to exist. Therefore, they can't quite see what kind of evidence it would be possible to point to in order to come to the belief that God is required for the universe to continue.

Well duh! That's because my definition of god is the universe. I think I deserve 1.0 and not 0.9 plausibility, thank you.

[Dragooble]

There aren't varying amounts of proof.  If it isn't 100% it's not proof.  There is no proof for evolution and there is no proof for God.  If you say that evolution is true you are justifying that belief on evidence, not proof.  The other question is, in effect, saying "It is only justifiable to believe in God if there is no room for doubt, and it is 100% confirmed that God exists"  If you say that's true then you're being logically inconsistent.

I meant evidence, not proof sorry. And I realize where the rational inconsistency comes in here. I was just not reading it carefully enough, because it's a quick internet quiz.

[Max White]

The Report

Plausibility Quotient = 1.0

The metaphysical engineers have determined that your conception of God has a plausibility quotient (PQ) of 1.0. A PQ of 1.0 means that as far as the metaphysical engineers can determine your conception of God is internally consistent and consistent with the universe that we live in. A PQ of 0.0 means that it is neither internally consistent nor consistent with our universe. More than likely, your PQ score will be somewhere between these two figures. But remember that this is your PQ score as determined by the metaphysical engineers. The editors of TPM have no control over their deliberations, so don't blame us!

What kind of God is that!?

The metaphysical engineers are happy to report that, to the best of their knowledge, the God you conceive is internally consistent and could exist in our universe. But they are less sure that what you have described deserves the name of God. She is not, for example, all-powerful. A God which knows everything or is totally benign may be a wonderful ideal, but is she really a God unless she has ultimate power?

We suspect that your God is not the traditional God of the Christian, Jewish or Muslim faiths.

That is the end of the metaphysical engineers' report. As we said at the beginning, we are not sure that the problems they identify are insuperable. But we do hope that by thinking about them you may come to understand what you mean by God more deeply, and perhaps even revise your former beliefs.

My gawd got it going on.

[AntiAntiMatter]

Spoiler: Taboo (click to show/hide)

Results

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.13.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.25.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

Spoiler: DIY Deity (click to show/hide)

Plausibility Quotient = 1.0

The metaphysical engineers have determined that your conception of God has a plausibility quotient (PQ) of 1.0. A PQ of 1.0 means that as far as the metaphysical engineers can determine your conception of God is internally consistent and consistent with the universe that we live in. A PQ of 0.0 means that it is neither internally consistent nor consistent with our universe. More than likely, your PQ score will be somewhere between these two figures. But remember that this is your PQ score as determined by the metaphysical engineers. The editors of TPM have no control over their deliberations, so don't blame us!

What kind of God is that!?

The metaphysical engineers are happy to report that, to the best of their knowledge, the God you conceive is internally consistent and could exist in our universe. But they are less sure that what you have described deserves the name of God. She is not, for example, all-powerful. A God which knows everything or is totally benign may be a wonderful ideal, but is she really a God unless she has ultimate power?

We suspect that your God is not the traditional God of the Christian, Jewish or Muslim faiths.

[MaximumZero]

Spoiler: Taboo (click to show/hide)

Results

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.33.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.25.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.50.

This is because I'm not into sister-brother lovin'.

[Dragooble]

Spoiler: Taboo (click to show/hide)

Results

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.38.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.50.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.50.

What do these results mean?

Are you thinking straight about morality?

There was no inconsistency in the way that you responded to the questions in this activity. You did not evaluate the actions depicted in these scenarios to be across the board wrong. And anyway you indicated that an action can be wrong even if it is entirely private and no one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it. So, in fact, had you thought that the acts described here were entirely wrong there would still be no inconsistency in your moral outlook.

Spoiler: AW MAH GAWD (click to show/hide)

The Report

Plausibility Quotient = 0.8

The metaphysical engineers have determined that your conception of God has a plausibility quotient (PQ) of 0.8. A PQ of 1.0 means that as far as the metaphysical engineers can determine your conception of God is internally consistent and consistent with the universe that we live in. A PQ of 0.0 means that it is neither internally consistent nor consistent with our universe. More than likely, your PQ score will be somewhere between these two figures. But remember that this is your PQ score as determined by the metaphysical engineers. The editors of TPM have no control over their deliberations, so don't blame us!

Can God do the illogical?

The metaphysical engineers request clarification of what you mean when you say God is able to do anything.

In the model, God was asked to make 2 + 2 = 5 (where all the terms hold their common meanings). She could not do so and the model broke down. It seems that no being can ever do what is logically impossible. It is not just beyond the wit of humanity to make 2 + 2 = 5, such a thing is a contradiction in terms.

So the metaphysical engineers seek your permission to understand by all-powerful that God can do anything which is logically possible. Before accepting this, however, you should understand that by accepting the limits of logical possibility on God, you are leaving open the possibility that, if some characteristics you attribute to God turn out to entail logical contradictions, you must give these up. It means, in effect, accepting that rationality is a constraint on God (though it is a moot point exactly what the word constraint means in this regard).

For eternity?

The metaphysical engineers request clarification of what you mean when you say God exists eternally.

You may mean that God exists through all space and time. But according to our best physics, space and time exist only within the confines of a universe. This would seem to constrain God's existence to within a universe.

You could mean that God exists "outside" space and time. But the metaphysical engineers find it hard to understand what you mean by "eternally", if that's the case. Doesn't the concept "eternally" require some notion of time to make sense? The metaphysical engineers are still puzzling over these issues.

That is the end of the metaphysical engineers' report. As we said at the beginning, we are not sure that the problems they identify are insuperable. But we do hope that by thinking about them you may come to understand what you mean by God more deeply, and perhaps even revise your former beliefs.

[Tarran]

Spoiler: Tabooze (click to show/hide)

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.33.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.33.

[Max White]

Oh taboo, freeking chickens. Sunk my morals into the bottem left hand corner.

[Tarran]

Seriously... Sex with frozen dead chickens? That's literally the only one I thought was wrong to be morally normal in a country since... seriously. Sex with a dead frozen Chicken. What the hell. I would be alright with almost everything else, but that's just... wrong, on so, so many other levels compared to the other questions.

[Max White]

Seriously... Sex with frozen dead chickens? That's literally the only one I thought was wrong to be morally normal in a country since... seriously. Sex with a dead frozen Chicken. What the hell. I would be alright with almost everything else, but that's just... wrong, on so, so many other levels compared to the other questions.

Oh, so we eat things not normaly eatern, we can have sexual intercorse not normaly sextern (Ha awesome word!) and we can disrespect the dead, but we can't do all three at once? Is there a limit to the number of bizaar acts we can pull before it gets immoral?

[Realmfighter]

Seriously... Sex with frozen dead chickens? That's literally the only one I thought was wrong to be morally normal in a country since... seriously. Sex with a dead frozen Chicken. What the hell. I would be alright with almost everything else, but that's just... wrong, on so, so many other levels compared to the other questions.

[Retro]

There's a great chicken breasts joke in here somewhere but I'm feeling waaay too uncomfortable to go searching for it so let's leave it at that.

[Tarran]

Seriously... Sex with frozen dead chickens? That's literally the only one I thought was wrong to be morally normal in a country since... seriously. Sex with a dead frozen Chicken. What the hell. I would be alright with almost everything else, but that's just... wrong, on so, so many other levels compared to the other questions.

Oh, so we eat things not normaly eatern(1), we can have sexual intercorse not normaly sextern (Ha awesome word!)(2) and we can disrespect the dead(3), but we can't do all three at once? Is there a limit to the number of bizaar acts we can pull before it gets immoral?

(1) I think that's okay, since everyone is different and I wouldn't mind if it was normal to have people eating fried scorpions. Human flesh, I would think is slightly immorally wrong if with the consent of the person being eaten, seriously wrong if without.
(2) I think that it's okay if both members give their consent. I also think it's okay for it to be normal under those conditions. Also, this is sex with other, live humans, not dead chickens. Big difference.
(3) I think it's wrong for the individual at the individual level if they made a promise and break it, but I don't think it's wrong for a country to have it as a norm.