Reply
Tue 20 Mar, 2007 05:19 pm
hmmm....I won a medal of distinction for having carefully thought out beliefs, having taken one bullet and one direct hit.
What about YOU aperson?
I started taking it, but was frustrated by the number of questions with the formula, "If God exists, then she would be able..."
Because, well, that would depend on the nature of God and the universe, wouldn't it? How could I possibly answer these questions?
Medal of Distinction
No Direct hits, bit one bullet
Dont give enough of a rats ass to even take it.
Battleground Analysis
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!
It was fun.
It says I hold views that most people would find strange and unpalatable too. I kind of like that.
Im giving up at this question -
If God does not exist then there is no basis for morality
Because, in my mind the answer is true.
Morals are taught by the church.
Humanity and basic human respect is part instinct , and part lessons from our families. ( example- dont kill, and respect your parents)
Sadly, the church has taken basic humanity( we dont kill unless we are deeply threatened. It is part of survival ) and human respect ( I respect my parents when they are respectful people. I would never deliberately hurt my mother, because she has never done so to me. Basic humanity)and tried to carve it into 2 stone tablets saying we wouldn't know them without those big rocks to show us the way.
coughcough(bullshit)coughcough
ok
so i lied.
I finished the damn test..
Quote:Battleground Analysis
Congratulations!
You have been awarded the TPM service medal! This is our third highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.
The fact that you have progressed through this activity without suffering many hits and biting only one bullet suggests that whilst there are inconsistencies in your beliefs about God, on the whole they are well thought-out.
The direct hits you suffered occurred because some of your answers implied logical contradictions. 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. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hits and bitten bullet.
The fact that you did not suffer many hits and only bit one bullet means that you qualify for our third highest award. Well done!
dlowan...
should we be happy about it???????????
I found the response to my first hit rather amusing.
The first line said "While there are no logical inconsistencies in your conclusion...."
considering the fact that i had a lot of logical contradictions and bullets...
very amusing :wink:
Oh, good grief, what a piece of work is this?
Questions too stupid, sorry, have a nice day...
ou've just taken a direct hit!
Earlier you said that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction.
If you want to believe in a god thats fine. You're wrong, but I accept your need to believe
But now you do not accept that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in doing just that. The example of the rapist has exposed that you do not in fact agree that any belief is justified just because one is convinced of its truth. So you need to revise your opinion here. The intellectual sniper has scored a bull's-eye!
No I dont, I did not say ANY belief I said a belief in a god. It would be moraly wrong to accept that causing pain and suffering is what a god figure might want.
You've just had a near miss!
You claim that it is justifiable to believe in God based only on inner-convictions. But earlier you stated that the serial rapist, Peter Sutcliffe, was not justified in believing, purely on the basis of inner-convictions, that he correctly discerned God's intentions in his raping and murdering of prostitutes.
Because I don't believe he discerned gods intentions correctly.
In order to reconcile these claims you need to show what makes the same form of justification acceptable in one circumstance and unacceptable in another. Perhaps you can do this. But until you can show where the difference lies, you are in danger of taking a direct hit!
<mutters to self> What am i doing arguing with a damned computer progam. Get a life you idiot
Well, that was frustrating.
I got screwed because I believe that other people have the right to believe what they want to. Even if it's different than what I believe.
The creators of the test have made certain assumptions about the nature of God and his purpose which indicate only their ignorance. For example, the assertion that
"You say that God does not have the freedom and power to do impossible things such as create square circles, but in an earlier answer you said that any being which it is right to call God must be free and have the power to do anything. So, on your view, God is not free and does not have the power to do what is impossible. This requires that you accept - in common with most theologians, but contrary to your earlier answer - that God's freedom and power are not unbounded. He does not have the freedom and power to do literally anything." is ludicrous.
And the assertion that
"You have claimed that God exists, that she knows about suffering, wants to reduce it and can reduce it. But now you say you don't think that there is any higher purpose which explains why people die horribly of painful diseases. Why then does God allow it? Surely, a God which knows about, wants to stop and can stop suffering would put an end to pointless suffering." shows a lack of understanding of the consequences of the Edenic rebellion.
But, heck, that makes them not unlike many I know.
Pretty good exercise for a sophomore philosophy course, though. I'll have to admit.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace