How consistent are your beliefs?

baraka

Here's an interesting 'quiz'. I'm curious to know what you guys think about it. What do you think about what it tells you concerning the logic & consistency of your belief system?

http://www.philosophyquotes.net/cgi-bin/god_game1.cgi

Collin

I took the quiz out of boredom, I don't think the quiz means that much.

I also thought it was quite interesting they referred to god as 'she'.


I had;

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!

baraka

Collin wrote:

I took the quiz out of boredom, I don't think the quiz means that much.

Why? Did you note any logical flaws or did you just think that it doesn't point out anything new concerning consistency in one's belief system?

surferdude

What a bogus "test". It doesn't allow for w 'I don't know' answer and after I answered one question that asked if it was possible for God to do something it took my affirmative answer as if it's something God would do. But the question only asked if it was possible.

Pegasus

This has obviously been cooked up by Christians :rolleyes:
the questions are so phrased that anything to do with 'if god exist it..' will result on a contradiction for an atheist, as you don't answer those question for yourself but for people who do believe.
daft frankly. Theyy should understand that atheist are the one that have actually thought about the whole thing and are therefore capable of seing through their tricks... laughable.

baraka

surferdude wrote:

What a bogus "test". It doesn't allow for w 'I don't know' answer and after I answered one question that asked if it was possible for God to do something it took my affirmative answer as if it's something God would do. But the question only asked if it was possible.

Good point, surferdude.

Yeah, I figured this 'quiz' would generate some interesting feedback.

baraka

Pegasus wrote:

This has obviously been cooked up by Christians :rolleyes:

Hum, I don't know about that. A Christian I know who took it would say just the opposite. It seems the 'quiz' has irritated, religious, agnostics, & atheists alike.

Collin

baraka wrote:

Why? Did you note any logical flaws or did you just think that it doesn't point out anything new concerning consistency in one's belief system?

I agree with surferdude.

surferdude

baraka wrote:

Good point, surferdude.

Yeah, I figured this 'quiz' would generate some interesting feedback.

I'm sure my beliefs are some what inconsistent just like most peoples. I have faith but there are still things I have no understanding of. My lack of understanding does not impact these "truths" for me. Much like my lack of understanding of women doesn't lessen their affect on me.

cornnifer

baraka wrote:

Here's an interesting 'quiz'. I'm curious to know what you guys think about it. What do you think about what it tells you concerning the logic & consistency of your belief system?

http://www.philosophyquotes.net/cgi-bin/god_game1.cgi

Honestly, Baraka, I think the quiz is crap. I took about half of it, saw where it was leading, laughed at the ridiculousness of many of the questions and said to myself "this is a horrible waste of my time and not even a good attempt at a philosophical trap". The authors of the "quiz" expose themselves as completely biased by blatantly referring to God, throughout the quiz, as "she" (i have no real problem with this idea other than the fact that it is painfully obvious what the authors' intent was), comparing belief in God to belief in the Loch Ness Monster, a shameless exploitation of the crap "omnipotence paradox" (which is a crap philosophical concept to begin with), etc. The whole thing is pretty pathetic, really. The ideas they are tackling here are much to complex to be debated with simple true/false type questions obviously designed to paint a person of faith into a corner. I could just as easily author a "quiz" that accomplished the same thing against atheists, but, do you know what it would accurately demonstrate? Absolutely nothing.

Collin

cornnifer wrote:

Honestly, Baraka, I think the quiz is crap. I took about half of it, saw where it was leading, laughed at the ridiculousness of many of the questions and said to myself "this is a horrible waste of my time and not even a good attempt at a philosophical trap". The authors of the "quiz" expose themselves as completely biased by blatantly referring to God, throughout the quiz, as "she" (i have no real problem with this idea other than the fact that it is painfully obvious what the authors' intent was), comparing belief in God to belief in the Loch Ness Monster, a shameless exploitation of the crap "omnipotence paradox" (which is a crap philosophical concept to begin with), etc. The whole thing is pretty pathetic, really. The ideas they are tackling here are much to complex to be debated with simple true/false type questions obviously designed to paint a person of faith into a corner. I could just as easily author a "quiz" that accomplished the same thing against atheists, but, do you know what it would accurately demonstrate? Absolutely nothing.

Battleground God FAQ

FAQ written 30/04/02

[Note this is the first version, and it was written under considerable time pressure, so apologies if it is a bit rough around the edges or you find something silly]

Okay, this is where we try to deflect some of the email that we get sent about this game. I'm afraid that we will not be able to get involved in debates about the various issues here (because it'd involve way too much time), but if you spot any blindingly obvious or daft logical errors (we've made them before and no doubt will again!), please do let us know. [But really, I mean "very obvious, you must have been asleep when you wrote that", kind of stuff!]

1. What are you going on about the Loch Ness monster for, surely you're just confused?

The Loch Ness Monster/atheism comparison has to do with the oft heard claim of theists that atheism must be a faith because there isn't any evidence or compelling argument for the non-existence of God. It's the "you can't prove God doesn't exist, so believing that she doesn't is not rational" argument.

So question 14 is: As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality.

This amounts to the following claim: In the absence of argument or evidence to show that God doesn't exist, atheism is faith.

Or, more formally (but, before I'm jumped on, not formal in the "formal logic" sense):

If there is no evidence for not-P, then belief in not-P is faith (where P is God's existence).

So what's this got to do with the Loch Ness monster? Well, question 10 is:

If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been presented to show that there is a Loch Ness monster, it is rational to believe that such a monster does not exist.

At first sight, this is a different kind of question. It's asking about evidence for the existence of something, not the non-existence of something.

But, of course, that's the whole point.

If you answer "True" to question 10, then you're committed to the view that evidence for the non-existence of Nessie is not required in order to come to the conclusion that the monster does not exist; that is, evidence of absence is not required - rather, in certain circumstances, absence of evidence is enough to conclude that Nessie does not exist. In other words, the fact that there are no compelling arguments or evidence to show that Nessie does not exist (and now we have equivalence with question 14) is not, in and of itself, sufficient to rule out, in principle, a justified belief in Nessie's non-existence.

So returning to question 14 - if you answer "True" to question 10, to remain consistent you have to answer false to question 14. The point is that there are circumstances where it might be rational to believe in the non-existence of God, even in the absence of compelling arguments or evidence to show that God does not exist. These circumstances might include: where science uncovers all the secrets of the universe, understanding its origins and final destiny; where we find out (positively) that our existence and the universe's is the product of some entity that we wouldn't want to call God (which, of course, is not itself positive evidence for the non-existence of God).

2. That's all very well, you say, but the Loch Ness monster isn't the same kind of thing as God - and, in principle, God is the kind of entity that might forever be beyond our knowledge.

This response gets caught in a pincer movement. But the argument is quite involved - and it would be disingenuous to claim that our rejoinder is decisive!

The essence of the objection is this: Nessie is a physical entity, in a confined space, so the presence or absence of Nessie is verifiable in a way that God's is not.

At first sight, this seems reasonable, although some people will feel slightly uneasy at the idea that it is possible to make definitive claims about an entity which might not exist.

So what's the problem?

Well, imagine yourself confronted by a Nessie non-existence sceptic. They're part of some Nessie worshipping cult (and remember that many people do believe truly bizarre things, so this is not entirely gratuitous)! And they say to you: "Sure, Nessie is a physical entity, but it has the rather extraordinary (indeed unique - and possibily mystical) ability to remain forever beyond detection."

How does one respond? Well, it is extremely difficult - indeed it is probably impossible - to disprove this proposition. But equally, most people would consider it absurd to continue to believe in Nessie, if, for example, the whole of Loch Ness was drained of water, and at the bottom one found no Nessie, but a large Nessie shaped submersible.

If this is right (we're correctly reporting how most people would react), it means that most people don't require the absolute, beyond all possibility, refutation of a non-existence sceptic's challenge, even where this challenge involves a mystical, beyond human knowledge, component, in order to discount it, and to conclude that belief in the non-existence of an entity is rational.

What's this got to do with God? Well, it has to do with God, because the can't prove the non-existence of God move, in certain circumstances, is analogous to the Nessie non-existence sceptic move. It is so, in those circumstances mentioned above (whilst discussing objection 1): where science uncovers all the secrets of the universe, understanding its origins and final destiny; where we find out (positively) that our existence and the universe's is the product of some entity that we wouldn't want to call God, etc.

In other words, it is analogous to the Nessie non-existence sceptic move, in those circumstances where we don't require further explanations of the universe and our place in it.

Okay, so many of you are not going to be convinced. You'll say, but God is a different kind of thing from Nessie. Well, to that, the Nessie non-existence sceptic will reply - "No, she's not; not in the important sense that absence of evidence is never enough to justify belief in the monster's non-existence"; and the atheist will reply, "Hey, you didn't allow the Nessie non-existence sceptic to make that move, so how come you get to make it"? And this is the pincer movement. Sure, it is always possible to claim that God is, in principle, and in all circumstances, forever opaque to us - but you can't do this and deny the Nessie non-existence sceptic the same move. Or, to put it another way, you can claim that it is possible to make reasonable assumptions about Nessie's non-existence, but only if you concede that there might be circumstances where one can do the same about God's non-existence.

The final point to mention is that it is of no consequence that we might not yet be at the point where it is possible to make the reasonable assumption that lack of evidence for God's existence justifies atheism. The conditional in the question was not qualified (i.e., it didn't say something like: "Given the state of knowledge about the universe today, as long as there are no compelling...).

3. Evolutionary theory has been proved certainly and irrevocably.

This one catches the atheists, and boy, they don't like it. The problem emerges (it's a bullet) if one accepts that evolutionary theory is true, but want certain and irrevocable proof for God before accepting God's existence.

Well, sorry guys, you don't get certain and irrevocable proof in science - and if you think that you do, then it is you that doesn't understand how science works, not us! The point is, of course, that irrevocable certainty is not required before it is reasonable to accept scientific propositions as being true (i.e., as being facts). Here's Stephen Jay Gould on this matter:

"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

4. God is the basis of morality, but he doesn't choose morality.

This is an objection to the contradiction that arises when people claim that God is the basis of all morality, but that she can't make good bad, and bad good. The objection is simply that God has an immutable nature, morality is a reflection of her nature, but because she can't change her nature, she can't change morality.

This works! Except that there is a complicated interplay between notions of immutability and omnipotence. Where someone has also answered "True" to the proposition that God is omnipotent it is a lot less clear that this way of escaping the contradiction is open to them. There are a variety of problems, which we won't go into, but here's a flavour of two:

a) Can a being be said to be omnipotent if it doesn't have the power to change its own nature? [The answer is likely "yes" because omnipotence isn't normally felt to require the ability to do the logically impossible];

b) If an immutable God is not able to change her own nature isn't she less powerful than an entity that is de facto identical except in being able to change her own nature but choosing not to?

5. The test says I justify rape, but I didn't do any such thing!

This is a reference to the Peter Sutcliffe question. But if you read the question carefully, you'll see that it is not talking about justifying the act of rape at all. It is talking about whether or not Peter Sutcliffe was justified in believing that he was doing the will of God. Mind you, having said that, I think we may have been a bit provocative in the wording of one of our analyses! Sorry!

FAQ

baraka

surferdude wrote:

I'm sure my beliefs are some what inconsistent just like most peoples. I have faith but there are still things I have no understanding of. My lack of understanding does not impact these "truths" for me. Much like my lack of understanding of women doesn't lessen their affect on me.

I understand. I suppose the question would be, How important is it to be consistent in your beliefs and does lack of consistency show misunderstanding of the 'Truth'? I don't know the answer to this question, btw.

Collin

6. What a silly question about God being able to do contradictory things!

Okay, it's a fair cop. Many people will consider question 17, and the hit that results if you answer "No" (having previously claimed that God is omnipotent), to be a little unfair. Question 17 effectively asks whether God is able to do logically impossible things (that's the point of it, even if some people want to argue about whether there are such things as square circles, etc!). The criticism is that omnipotence doesn't require that we're able to do logically impossible things. We agree! But:

a) Many people do not (you should see the email I get!);

b) It isn't straightforwardly the case that propositions which are contradictory or absurd are meaningless. If that is your claim, then it needs to be grounded in a proper theory of meaning;

c) There is always the thought that God might somehow not be constrained by logic (which, of course, is a thought that theologians and philosophers of religion have been keen to distance themselves from!);

7. The bullet I've bitten isn't really a bullet.

See our disclaimer at the beginning of the game. You may well be right.

8. Religion isn't about the consistency of beliefs; religion embraces paradox; religion is not about rationality; religion is about faith; etc.

Yes, we know! See our disclaimer at the beginning of the game (about Kierkegaard). But it doesn't follow that there is no value in examining a set of beliefs.

9. How dare you call God "she".

Errr. Sorry!

10. There are a set of objections that have to do with things like Plantinga's reformed epistemology, Tillich's thoughts about the kind of existence God has, etc. Basically, it's the set of responses that have come from professional theologians and philosophers of religion.

To which we reply, yes, yes, you're right! It is complicated, but this is an online game!

11. Ridiculous - the questions are all open to various interpretations.

This is a bit of an odd objection. I mean, obviously, questions are open to interpretation - and, indeed, we try very hard in this activity not to force particular intepretations of God, omnipotence, etc., on people. [If there wasn't any room for interpretation, we'd get complaints about forcing people down fixed routes; actually, come to think of it, we do get complaints about this!]. It doesn't follow that as a consequence, the activity has no relevance in terms of finding out about the internal coherence of a set of beliefs. The point, of course, is that you know how you interpreted the question. Therefore, you're in a position to judge whether the hits and bullets are fair given the way that you interpreted it. Sometimes you'll conclude that they are - sometimes you'll conclude that they aren't.

12. This is just an exercise to trap theists.

Just not true. Only three out of the 25 or so hits and bullets require a "True" response to the proposition that "God exists".

13. It's silly having a test with just "true" and "false" answers.

This is the internet, guys, and Battleground God is a computer program, be reasonable! Also, did you know that a guy called Harold Garfinkel developed a whole new approach to counselling based on "Yes/No" answers. Kind of...

14. Will you develop one which uses Modal Logic?

No!

15. Is it possible that you've made obvious logical errors, missed get outs, etc., in this test?

Yes, of course it is. Part of the story here has to do with how it was developed. Before it went live, the activity was beta-tested via a variety of online forums (i.e., the link was posted, and discussion ensued). Urban75 was one of them, for example. As a result of the feedback we received, we made a number of changes (because some stuff was just wrong). The problem with making changes is that there can be unforeseen ramifications in terms of the logic of the thing. Just a slight alteration in wording - or even a typo [e.g., throwing in a not in a crucial place!] - can throw things out completely.

Most of the complaints that we get are not about obvious logical errors. Given that it has been played so many times, that suggests that there may not be any (if we're lucky!). But, of course, even obvious logical errors can be hard to spot (if that's not a contradiction in terms!) because human beings have a tendency to think habitually. So they may be lurking around in the game! If so - ooops!

..

cornnifer

You see, the test is crap, by the author's own admission.

Collin

cornnifer wrote:

You see, the test is crap, by the author's own admission.

No, I don't see.

baraka

cornnifer wrote:

Honestly, Baraka, I think the quiz is crap. I took about half of it, saw where it was leading, laughed at the ridiculousness of many of the questions and said to myself "this is a horrible waste of my time and not even a good attempt at a philosophical trap". The authors of the "quiz" expose themselves as completely biased by blatantly referring to God, throughout the quiz, as "she" (i have no real problem with this idea other than the fact that it is painfully obvious what the authors' intent was), comparing belief in God to belief in the Loch Ness Monster, a shameless exploitation of the crap "omnipotence paradox" (which is a crap philosophical concept to begin with), etc. The whole thing is pretty pathetic, really. The ideas they are tackling here are much to complex to be debated with simple true/false type questions obviously designed to paint a person of faith into a corner. I could just as easily author a "quiz" that accomplished the same thing against atheists, but, do you know what it would accurately demonstrate? Absolutely nothing.

Ha ha, you are obviously not in the minority in your opinion of it so far, cornifer. I love the feedback so far.

Skitch Patterson

its crap.

it asks if god has the power to make square circles...

a circle is a man's descriptive term, not anything divine- so regardless of what god calls it, a man is still gonna say something square is... square.

surferdude

baraka wrote:

I understand. I suppose the question would be, How important is it to be consistent in your beliefs and does lack of consistency show misunderstanding of the 'Truth'? I don't know the answer to this question, btw.

Considering the central tenets to the New Testament are; 1) love God and 2) love thy neighbour, I think consistency on these are something that must be strived for. God leaves the how up to us. The more consistent I am at 1) love God and 2) love thy neighbour, the less I fuck up in the how portion. Any shortcomings are mine and not God's.

cornnifer

Collin wrote:

No, I don't see.

Of course not.

Collin

cornnifer wrote:

Of course not.

care to help me find it?

edit: nevermind, I think I might have misunderstood you.

Anyway, the test was made by a logician, it's not crap when you talk about logic, it's actually very logical but I don't think that if there was a god, logic would be able to deterime wether or not your beliefs are consistent, certainly not based on a test like this one. So when you look at the 'goal' of this test, I think it is "crap", though it might be interesting if you took the entire test cornnifer.

angelica

baraka wrote:

I understand. I suppose the question would be, How important is it to be consistent in your beliefs and does lack of consistency show misunderstanding of the 'Truth'? I don't know the answer to this question, btw.

Great question! We've been taught/trained that logical consistency is some kind of be all to end all. Half of psychological healing/becoming whole or holistic, is in accepting, embracing and integrating our human inconsistencies. It's understandable that certain disciplines call upon our logical consistency and that's great in that type of compartment. Yet trying to stuff our humanity, our myriad traits, as well as our wonderful diversity into consistent or logical constraints leads to denial of our potential. Hence the fact that so many do not live up to their potential, and hence the fact that many people are bound by their ego, rather than able to live as the psychologically whole Self.

I well know that I use logic not as truth, but to portray Truth.

I found some interesting aspects to the quiz that I would question, myself.

For example, at one point they said I was not logically inconsistent, but that I would be required to countenance possibilities that most people would find bizarre....what a surprise that is!!! They called that a hit! Okay, I was logical, but because I don't fit within normal social convention, that makes me philosophically unhealthy?? Hmmmm.................

votegirl

... accidentally posted under my g/f's username - Kenny Olav

kenny olav

Well, I took no direct hits but did bite two bullets. I was then awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction, which is undoubtedly the greatest honor ever bestowed upon me by a computer program/philosophy book advertisement. I do not know what TPM stands for, but for my own amusment I am going to assume it stands for Terodactyl Poop Magnet. However, since the winged dinosaur's name is actually spelled with a 'p', I am going to correct myself and say 'Turd of Pterodactyl Magnet'. In any event, the Truth is God was a chicken nugget that your cousin ate, and now hell has frozen over. Enjoy a sinner popsicle.

soulsinging

i took 2 hits. one was bogus. i said it would be rational to say the loch ness monster doesn't exist based on lack of evidence then later said an atheist espousing no god is an act of faith. maybe i didnt read carefully enough, but i saw it as the loch ness thing being reasonable if not certain, while claiming certainty of no god is a matter of faith.

i dont remember m other contradiction.

CenterCity

i got a bitten bullet and a direct hit: ouch. i seriously thought i'd do better.
the reasoning that was brought up was a good point: making a distinction between rational and faith, and then finding some middle ground. cool. i liked the quiz.

farfromglorified

That was kind of fun. Here's my two "missteps":

"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?"

and this made me laugh:

"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."

What the survey forgot to consider was that I have nothing rational to say about God vis a vis my beliefs or disbeliefs because I have no belief or disbelief in a God!

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

That was kind of fun. Here's my two "missteps":

"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?"

and this made me laugh:

"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."

What the survey forgot to consider was that I have nothing rational to say about God vis a vis my beliefs or disbeliefs because I have no belief or disbelief in a God!

Do we share a brain??? I got both of those too! Maybe we hang out together altogether too much.....I might have had another one as well.

baraka

angelica wrote:

Great question! We've been taught/trained that logical consistency is some kind of be all to end all. Half of psychological healing/becoming whole or holistic, is in accepting, embracing and integrating our human inconsistencies. It's understandable that certain disciplines call upon our logical consistency and that's great in that type of compartment. Yet trying to stuff our humanity, our myriad traits, as well as our wonderful diversity into consistent or logical constraints leads to denial of our potential. Hence the fact that so many do not live up to their potential, and hence the fact that many people are bound by their ego, rather than able to live as the psychologically whole Self.

Good point, angelica. This is essentially what my husband said to me after I turned him on to the quiz (his response was much like that of cornnifer & surferdude's). He was pretty much R.I.P by the time he completed the quiz.
At they very least, the quiz sparked an interesting debate between my husband and I. We share slightly different philosophical perspectives. He even used my favorite Neils Bohr quote against me, 'You are not thinking, you're merely being logical'. Ugh!

OutOfBreath

Heh, I got the same bitten bullet as ffg and angelica
I would say that if god can do anything (to which I answered yes on earlier) he can also indeed be beyond logic, or able to bend it. . And yeah, maybe I think that no reasoned and justified debate is possible on the subject of god.

As for my hit:

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!

It assumes that I view god (to which i answered dont know to whether exists) as something of the external world. I do indeed think that a firm inner conviction is not enough for beliefs about the external world, but I dont think god necessarily is external. So I dont see it as contradictive.

But the test should specify that it's concept of god is firmly the christian one. I can think of myriad variations and alternatives that in that light might be contradictory to that.

Peace
Dan

harmless_little_f***

I think this quiz is written by a midly intelligent (with computers) 16 year-old atheist Emo kid. Here's what I got: I was 'hit!' for claiming that God is all powerful, knows all, etc. and yet there is loads of suffering in our world which is totally purposeless. I didn't deny that there is a higher 'meaning' for the suffering in the world; just that there was no higher 'purpose', and the word 'purpose' implies that it's Someone up there's plan to make people suffer, that it's someone's fault, and I don't believe that. How is that inconsistent?

'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?'

*yawn*

Collin

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

I think this quiz is written by a midly intelligent (with computers) 16 year-old atheist Emo kid.

I seriously doubt it.