How consistent are your beliefs?

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.

harmless_little_f***

Collin wrote:

I seriously doubt it.

I was sort of being sarcastic. Oh well. Just trying to say this quiz wasn't all that intelligent, that's all.

InstantKarma

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.

Yeah, I pretty much quit at that point. There are a lot of questions that need to have the "I don't know" option.

angelica

OutOfBreath wrote:

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:



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

Well now that I know that I basically share a brain with both you and farfromglorified since I got the same "flagrant contradiction" as you, it doesn't surprise me the times I've gotten tangled in debates with you two. It doesn't surprise me, but it DOES scare me.

I agree with you about that "flagrant contradiction" as not being a contradiction. I found the misses and contradiction I got were based on the framework THEY used in assessing my logic, rather than based on my logic, itself. Or that's what I tell myself, anyway.

angelica

baraka wrote:

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!

Your husband sounds like a cool guy.

I'd have loved to be a fly on the wall for that debate!

Collin

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

I was sort of being sarcastic. Oh well. Just trying to say this quiz wasn't all that intelligent, that's all.

I know but don't call the designer of the quiz less intelligent because you didn't like the quiz. I have to admit I didn't like the quiz either.

farfromglorified

OutOfBreath wrote:

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.

That actually would be contradictive. I can't think of a single conceivable definition of God that would not include an external assumption.

Carlos D

I got a tpm medal of honor,should I be proud of that?

OutOfBreath

farfromglorified wrote:

That actually would be contradictive. I can't think of a single conceivable definition of God that would not include an external assumption.

That god is in everything, that we all are a piece of god for instance. As I said, the test assumes our common christian interpretation and concept of "god". God doesnt have to be an entity, god may not act at all, god may not be distinguishable from the universe itself, god is the sum of all living things, etc. Not all of these needs an external concept of god. It is the judeo-christian tradition that has god as the king over kings talking to us, acting and showing emotions like anger etc. The judeo-christian god is indeed external in any conceivable sense, but it isn't the only concept possible.

But with the common concept of god, it would be contradictive. I just dont have a common concept of god.

(edit) on a sidenote, i took another test there which measured my judgemental attitudes on taboos. I scored 0,04, 0 and 0 on different aspects of it, where 0 was totally permissive of common taboos that concerned the private person, and 1 was fully restrictive. I balked a little at sibling sex, or I would have a perfect 0 all round.

Peace
Dan

Abuskedti

interesting, but I disagree with this:

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. 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!


Having a belief is one thing - but hurting someone is taking that belief beyond what is acceptable to me - and I see no contradiction.

farfromglorified

Abuskedti wrote:

Having a belief is one thing - but hurting someone is taking that belief beyond what is acceptable to me - and I see no contradiction.

But you already said that what is acceptable to you doesn't matter when you said this: "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"

That is an undeniable contradiction.