When it comes to religion, are you a hypocrite?

[Edan]

nm

[Maniac]

I took one direct hit and bit one bullet. But of course I disagree with their opinion. After all I wouldn't want to admit I'm illogical, right?

Anyway:

Direct Hit 1

You answered "True" to questions 10 and 14.

These answers generated the following response:

You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you agreed that it is rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.

The contradiction is that on the first ocassion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.

I agree with Edan as to why I am still logically consistent here.

Bitten Bullet 1

You answered "True" to Question 16.

This answer generated the following response:

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.

I agree with yavoon as to why I am still logically consistent here. In my previous answers I defined a possible "God" being as omnipotent, omniscient etcetera, so that includes changing or defining logic. Also "square" and "circle" are only words for concepts, conventions in other words. There's nothing logical or rational about that. A God could just redefine the meaning of those words to make her statements consistent.

[BeBMan]

Two hits, the second out of pure stupidity

Do I get a purple heart now?

[Ecthy]

make that silver star at least. :patriot:

[Dauphin]

No bullets or hits.. I'm consistent in my beliefs. Glad that they could confrim that for me.

[DinoDoc]

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!

[Rogan Josh]

Unfortuately this test is riddled with logical errors. For example, it claims that non-belief in the Loch Ness monster (since there is no evidence) should lead to non-belief in God (even if there were no evidence).

Duh!

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Unfortuately this test is riddled with logical errors. For example, it claims that non-belief in the Loch Ness monster (since there is no evidence) should lead to non-belief in God (even if there were no evidence).

Duh!

That is logically consistent. To counter their point I would say that the final bracketted caveat is an error - i.e say that you believe there is more evidence for God than for the Loch Ness Monster.

[Ecthy]

RJ, in fact I see no logical flaw there, since they're finding out if you actually hold God to higher standards, proo-wise. But then maybe you should, given the existence of god would mean a little more impact on our lives than that of the Loch Ness monster

[Rogan Josh]

OK - let me explain. The LNM is not omnipotent, so lack of evidence should provide skepticism. God, however, is omnipotent, so one has a mechanism to explain the lack of evidence (He doesn't want any). So we have:

Lack of evidence in LNM -> skepticism
Lack of evidence in God !-> skepticism

Think of this in terms of science. In physics we have seen no evidence of supersymmetry so does that imply that there is none? Our swedish friend would claim so. But this is wrong, because there is a mechanism (soft supersymmetry breaking) to explain why we have no yet seen it. One must first rile out the mechanism.

[Ecthy]

I don't know what supersymmetry is. our swedish friend = MLS?

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
I don't know what supersymmetry is. our swedish friend = MLS?

LNM=Loch Ness Monster

[Sirotnikov]

I agree with Rogan, Edan and Azazel.


I myself suffered 1 direct hit and bit two bullets.

Direct Hit 1

You answered "False" to Question 7 and "True" to Question 17.

These answers generated the following response:

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!

As said before, God is assumed to have omnipotence thus making imperical research of his nature pretty meaningless.

Bitten Bullet 1

You answered "False" to Questions 10 and "True" to Question 14.

These answers generated the following response:

You've just bitten a bullet! 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?

As said before, god's assumed omnipotence makes this irrelevant.

Furthermore, I'm willing to bet 100$ that when NASA finds remains of intelligent life on Mars in the next 20 years, no one will have remembered this test

Bitten Bullet 2

You answered "True" to Question 16.

This answer generated the following response:

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.

This is again not directly linked to rational but much more to empirical evidence.

You can discuss god using apriori notions but empirical evidence are false.

Just as no empirical evidence can say if the color orange is prettier than blue. It's a matter of personal conviction. Empirical methods do not apply.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
OK - let me explain. The LNM is not omnipotent, so lack of evidence should provide skepticism. God, however, is omnipotent, so one has a mechanism to explain the lack of evidence (He doesn't want any). So we have:

Lack of evidence in LNM -> skepticism
Lack of evidence in God !-> skepticism

Think of this in terms of science. In physics we have seen no evidence of supersymmetry so does that imply that there is none? Our swedish friend would claim so. But this is wrong, because there is a mechanism (soft supersymmetry breaking) to explain why we have no yet seen it. One must first rile out the mechanism.

If there is a mechanism that explains why we have not seen it, be it God, supersymmetry or the Loch Ness Monster, then that is indirect evidence.

What you are saying is that you believe there is implicit or indirect evidence for a God, but there is no evidence at all for the LNM. That is what sets apart the beliefs in one and not the other.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
If there is a mechanism that explains why we have not seen it, be it God, supersymmetry or the Loch Ness Monster, then that is indirect evidence.

What you are saying is that you believe there is implicit or indirect evidence for a God, but there is no evidence at all for the LNM. That is what sets apart the beliefs in one and not the other.

I suppose that depends on your definitions of 'indirect evidence' but I guess you could say that. I am a little uncomfortable calling aesthetic arguments (like the supersymmetry argument) 'indirect evidence' though. At very best, if we give them the benefit of the doubt, it was a very poorly worded and ambiguous question. When one says 'evidence' it is normal to assume direct evidence (like in a courtroom).