Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Conversation >

Battleground God

08:54 / 29.10.03

How consistent is your philosophical world view? I took no hits, and 'bit the bullet' (I made two statements which might be considered to contradict one another) once, altohugh I stand by both those statements.

How does your philosophy hold up?

09:39 / 29.10.03

No hits, no bullets. But then, being an atheist is quite easily consistent.

10:04 / 29.10.03

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 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!

That's genius, I'm going to send it to everyone I know. I don't agree with the hit I took though, I said it was rational to disbelieve the Loch Ness monster due to lack of evidence and that atheism was a matter of faith- to say that's inconsistent assumes that I think it's irrational to believe in the monster due to lack of evidence, when my view is that it is rational to believe either, due to lack of evidence.

Still a way cool test though, we should apply it as an entrance exam before you can post in the Headshop

10:12 / 29.10.03

The test is clearly written by an atheist, so I think that "rational" is being used in opposition to "faith", Quantum. So I think your answer for atheism was interpreted as saying that there *isn't* a rational reason for holding an atheist position, only a faith position.

10:18 / 29.10.03

Oh gee, maybe I can post there too now...

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!

Oh boy, I am sure that was entirely accurate. Indeed, I am sure I have blown the whole deal for the truly intelligent and intellectual. What a sham. Look, if it makes you feel any better, I cheated..okay?

Our Lady of The Two Towers

10:31 / 29.10.03

Hmmm, I did this a year or so back. From what I remember I got hit three times, one was due to my misreading the question but two were extremely dodgy, philosophically speaking. And I ended the test with it telling me that I was a god-botherer, despite being an atheist.

10:36 / 29.10.03

I don't agree with the hit I took though, I said it was rational to disbelieve the Loch Ness monster due to lack of evidence and that atheism was a matter of faith- to say that's inconsistent assumes that I think it's irrational to believe in the monster due to lack of evidence, when my view is that it is rational to believe either, due to lack of evidence.

But the default position implied is different; atheism is a lack of belief in god, so saying that a lack of evidence for atheism would cause one to disbelieve it would imply that the default position isto believe in god, until evidence either way is given. Like saying that until evidence is given against it, you'll believe in invisible pink unicorns (was that the example on the Religion thread?). In order to be consistent with the view that one needs evidence against the existence of god in order not to believe in him, one would also have to say that one needs evidence against the monster's existence in order not to believe in it.

No?

Tryphena Absent

10:41 / 29.10.03

The usual philosophical trick of wording things incredibly badly in order to catch someone out... I had the same problem as Quantum basically. I don't believe that it's a contradiction to say that you can essentially believe in evolution yet believe it's foolish to essentially believe in God. Who's to say you don't recognise you're also foolish. I took a direct hit for that anyway.

Then It is justifiable to believe in God if one has a firm, inner conviction that God exists, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of the conviction that God exists.

It is justifiable to yourself to believe it but not to the external world. The parameters on these questions are too wide to get through without running in to trouble. The test falls in to precisely the same philosophical trap that's been around for centuries, in other words the test itself is a bad example of philosophical theory but as they say in the FAQ you're in a position to judge whether the hits and bullets are fair given the way that you interpreted [the question]. Sometimes you'll conclude that they are - sometimes you'll conclude that they aren't.

I conclude- fun nonsense.

10:41 / 29.10.03

(I'd assume the inclusion of those two statements is in order to point out the ridiculousness of theists' arguments saying, "You can't prove that god doesn't exist, therefore he must!"

Equivalent, of course, to, "Well, you can't prove invisible pink unicorns don't exist, and I *know* they do because of my belief, therefore I'm right!")

unheimlich manoeuvre

11:00 / 29.10.03

I took "hits" for the same reasons as Quantum.

what a bunch of arse analytical philosophy really is!
aristotle was wrong, why can't we include the middle?

Tryphena Absent

11:52 / 29.10.03

Well it's bad analytic philosophy because an argument like that has to keep it tight instead of obesifying everywhere but then I hate all analytic philosophy with a passion.

13:33 / 29.10.03

atheism is a lack of belief in god
Nope, Atheism is a positive belief in No God. Not having a belief in God makes you an agnostic or a buddhist or an ancestor worshipper or a pagan or... you get my point.

I love analytical philosophy with a passion, and I too hate the excluded middle- in these times of social inclusion the middle is unfairly discriminated against and should be reclaimed.

I naively didn't realise the test was by atheists for atheists, I'm gonna do it again as a Believer and see if I can beat it..

13:42 / 29.10.03

You have to bite three bullets and get called irrational if you're a theist, or else contradict yourself. The implication is that atheism is the only rational choice, and that the problem of Omniscience, problem of Omnipotence and problem of Evil are insoluble.
How ironic that a pro-rationalist test should be so heavily weighted in favour of a particular view for (presumably) emotive reasons.

13:47 / 29.10.03

I've noticed that the author of the website also appears to believe that 'sin' and 'evil' are the same thing, which they clearly aren't. Sin is behaviour against God, evil is behaviour against morality, so some of the questions are a little loaded methinks.

13:48 / 29.10.03

Actually, thats not quite right, Quantum. There are different flavours of atheism, some of which are precisely a lack of belief in god. You can call them agnostics, but they don't call themselves that.

Moreover, most strong atheism - a belief in no god - is ultimately a provisional position based on evidence and (what would be in other contexts) a fairly unremarkable standard of proof. "I don't believe in things without a reason".

Weak atheism prefers that terminology over agnosticism on the grounds that people generally are not "agnostic" on any baseless proposition. I am not "agnostic" on the existence of invisible pink unicorns, for instance, despite the fact that you could describe my position as a lack of belief in them.

Goodness Gracious Meme

13:50 / 29.10.03

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!

hmmmm. the questions are very pointedly worded, and I don't actually think i'm that 'rationally consistent'.

Though I answered most of the god questions consistenly vaugely, I guess. *g*

My bitten bullet was the Peter Sutcliffe question wherein, from my mental health point of view, he's justified in believing whatever he wants to believe... but proceeding from a point of psychosis. there's no room for subtlety...

16:24 / 29.10.03

I took the Loch Ness hit too, but that was the only one. I also have to disagree with that one. I interpreted the Loch Ness statement as having demonstrated through extensive searching that there was evidence that the creature did not exist, rather than a lack of evidence for its existence, as the test interpreted. This combined with treating Atheism as a belief.

Notably, I did it as a believer, with the assumption that I do have tangible inarguable evidence for the existence of God, and so held that requirement up to others as well. Of course, my evidence is along the lines of "look in the mirror" and a catalog of supporting syncronicites. It also helps that my immanent and animistic view of God is not omnipotent or omniscient, but is free and benevelont. So I actually got through all that intact. It was the poor presentation of the loch ness bit that tripped me up.

16:39 / 29.10.03

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!

pshaw.
stuff and nonsense anyway.

17:41 / 29.10.03

Jamie Oliver got an MBE today but I got the TPM medal of distinction! I am almost as rational and consistent as toksik.

I bit only one bullet and that only because, apparently, I differ on the matter of whether God must be restrained by mathematics. Seemed logical, in view of the answers I gave earlier about this hypothetical God's hypothetical abilities.

"Hey, I'm God, I'm omnipotent, I don't like sums. I'm going to do them my way from now on, just to frustrate those brainy people chewing on their pencils."