I was sort of being sarcastic. Oh well. Just trying to say this quiz wasn't all that intelligent, that's all.
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
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.
"and he still gives his love, he just gives it away and the love he receives is the love that is saved,..."
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.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
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!
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
"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.
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
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
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.
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 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.
One can certainly believe that God is in everything (including ourselves), but that still requires a belief in the external then (God outside of Self).
Even outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition, God still remains a "ruler" or a "creator" or a force external from the body. Certainly the Gods of civilization are more human in their qualities, but I've never heard of an example of a God that, even when not human-ish, is not primarily defined as more external than internal.
But with the common concept of god, it would be contradictive. I just dont have a common concept of god.
What is that concept?
(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.
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.
disagree.. i said it is acceptable for you to base your beleifs.. nothing about action.
I don't take action on all my beliefs - I must comprimise everyday.. I believe there are people that should be slapped, but I don't slap them for example.
It is perfectly acceptable that someone base their beliefs on anything they like - however, if they choose to live amongst us, they either obey our laws of suffer the consequences - and well, our law says don't rape.
there are laws I don't believe in, but I obey them.
I am ok with your beliefs.. and don't question them, but I may find it necessary to question your actions
Yeah, I pretty much quit at that point. There are a lot of questions that need to have the "I don't know" option.
Actually, most of the questions could (and probably should) be answered essay style. Instead what you are forced to do is give a simple, absolute, true or false response to a series of very baited questions. The "quiz" is ridiculous.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
disagree.. i said it is acceptable for you to base your beleifs.. nothing about action.
I hate to break it to you, but a belief is an action.
I don't take action on all my beliefs - I must comprimise everyday.. I believe there are people that should be slapped, but I don't slap them for example.
You don't slap them because you believe in compromise.
It is perfectly acceptable that someone base their beliefs on anything they like - however, if they choose to live amongst us, they either obey our laws of suffer the consequences - and well, our law says don't rape.
But you said that it is not perfectly acceptable for Peter Sutcliffe to believe "that he was carrying out God's will in undertaking these actions".
Furthermore, a law is based on a belief. If you suggest 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 these convictions" you say that law extends only from belief, rather than beliefs based on an objective truth. If Peter Sutcliffe then suggests that his beliefs negate your laws, you have no ability to challenge him without contradicting yourself.
there are laws I don't believe in, but I obey them.
That's fine.
I am ok with your beliefs.. and don't question them, but I may find it necessary to question your actions
One can certainly believe that God is in everything (including ourselves), but that still requires a belief in the external then (God outside of Self).
Perhaps. But the contradiction stated was based on whether I found it justified to base a belief in god (which is presumed external) on a strong inner conviction. As I understand it, that is precisely what most religious people do. So for those individuals, I would say the belief is justified, even if not correct. In any case, that is supposed to make me contradict myself, because I dont think that inner conviction in itself represents external truth. But god is not as clearcut external as my computer. So I dont completely agree with that asessment
Even outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition, God still remains a "ruler" or a "creator" or a force external from the body. Certainly the Gods of civilization are more human in their qualities, but I've never heard of an example of a God that, even when not human-ish, is not primarily defined as more external than internal.
Just because you havent heard of it, doesnt make it impossible. And the divide between external and internal quickly becomes irrelevant when discussing religion and spirituality.
What is that concept?
That god is not at all like the christian one, indeed there may be no god entity, but rather an aspect of divinity in all living things. Which would make a deep inner focus and conviction make one very justified in believing in "something bigger than themselves", which in itself need not be external per se. In that sense, one cannot "find God" or whatever without going deep into one's internal self. As I said, the test here assumes the god-as-an-entity which it is meaningful to describe as an actor aka the judeo-christian (and others) concept.
btw, it is possible to score perfectly, by answering blank on all questions of the original test here.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I know but don't call the designer of the quiz less intelligent because you didn't like the quiz.
Why? Am I personally offending you by expressing that opinion? If so, I am sorry. But every reason this quiz gives against God's existence is a well-worn cliche. I don't mean to personally attack anyone.
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
Perhaps. But the contradiction stated was based on whether I found it justified to base a belief in god (which is presumed external) on a strong inner conviction. As I understand it, that is precisely what most religious people do. So for those individuals, I would say the belief is justified, even if not correct. In any case, that is supposed to make me contradict myself, because I dont think that inner conviction in itself represents external truth. But god is not as clearcut external as my computer. So I dont completely agree with that asessment
Ok. But just because most people do it, that doesn't make it right.
Certainly god is not as clearcut and external your computer. That's kind of the whole point about this quiz though....it demonstrates the fundamental differences between faith and logic and the contradictions that arise from it. I showed this to a religious friend and I liked his response:
"So what? Faith requires contradiction, and I'm fine with that."
Just because you havent heard of it, doesnt make it impossible. And the divide between external and internal quickly becomes irrelevant when discussing religion and spirituality.
I'm not sure how "irrelevant" it becomes. I think it's pretty fundamental since faith in God is typically meant to bring understanding to the external unknown, regardless of implementation.
That god is not at all like the christian one, indeed there may be no god entity, but rather an aspect of divinity in all living things. Which would make a deep inner focus and conviction make one very justified in believing in "something bigger than themselves", which in itself need not be external per se. In that sense, one cannot "find God" or whatever without going deep into one's internal self. As I said, the test here assumes the god-as-an-entity which it is meaningful to describe as an actor aka the judeo-christian (and others) concept.
I agree with this, but I don't think it changes the contradictions.
Cool. I'll do these now.
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.04.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.
There was no inconsistency in the way that you responded to the questions in this activity. You see very little wrong in the actions depicted in these scenarios. And anyway you indicated that an act can be wrong even if it is entirely private and no one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it. So, in fact, had you thought that the acts described here were entirely wrong there would still be no inconsistency in your moral outlook.
Moral Parsimony: 71%
Geographical Distance: 100%
Family Relatedness: 67%
Acts and Omissions: 18%
Scale: 100%
Ok. But just because most people do it, that doesn't make it right.
Certainly god is not as clearcut and external your computer. That's kind of the whole point about this quiz though....it demonstrates the fundamental differences between faith and logic and the contradictions that arise from it. I showed this to a religious friend and I liked his response:
"So what? Faith requires contradiction, and I'm fine with that."
Well yea, the quiz is out to prove a point, obviously. but the key word in my contradiction was the word "justified". I think people that claim to have experienced "god", being filled with joy etc etc is certainly justified in believeing in "god". Is it logically correct, perhaps not. Justified is not the same as correct, hence my contradiction.
I'm not sure how "irrelevant" it becomes. I think it's pretty undamental since faith in God is typically meant to bring understanding to the external unknown, regardless of implementation.
Didn't you just say that just becuase many do it, doesn't make it right? "typically meant to believe"....
I agree with this, but I don't think it changes the contradictions.
But it makes it a lot less glaring and clearcut. If the premise is that internal does not portray external, and that is the basis of the contradiction, then me proposing a view of god and divinity based on that internal, the contradiction becomes less obvious and perhaps goes away entirely.
Cool. I'll do these now.
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.04.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.
There was no inconsistency in the way that you responded to the questions in this activity. You see very little wrong in the actions depicted in these scenarios. And anyway you indicated that an act can be wrong even if it is entirely private and no one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it. So, in fact, had you thought that the acts described here were entirely wrong there would still be no inconsistency in your moral outlook.
Balked a little on siblings having sex you too, huh? Identical to mine.
(edit) my moral parsimony was 47%, cant remember the others. It meant that I am much more inclined to use multiple principles of morality, thus taking the individual situations more into account, than generalising a moral principle onto them. That is something worth thinking of in our bickerings, but we already knew that didnt we?
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Well yea, the quiz is out to prove a point, obviously. but the key word in my contradiction was the word "justified". I think people that claim to have experienced "god", being filled with joy etc etc is certainly justified in believeing in "god". Is it logically correct, perhaps not. Justified is not the same as correct, hence my contradiction.
Yeah, that's cool.
Didn't you just say that just becuase many do it, doesn't make it right? "typically meant to believe"....
I'm not advocating their position, I'm just describing it. An external view, to some extent, seems pretty inherent to a belief in God, regardless of God's form or lackthereof.
But it makes it a lot less glaring and clearcut. If the premise is that internal does not portray external, and that is the basis of the contradiction, then me proposing a view of god and divinity based on that internal, the contradiction becomes less obvious and perhaps goes away entirely.
Not until God as a concept becomes so superfluous as to become irrelevant or without meaning. God is never just mirror-Self without the mirror, so to speak.
Balked a little on siblings having sex you too, huh? Identical to mine.
No. I was "cool" with sibliing sex and frozen chicken sex, at least from a moral standpoint. Not sure where my .04 came from.
(edit) my moral parsimony was 47%, cant remember the others. It meant that I am much more inclined to use multiple principles of morality, thus taking the individual situations more into account, than generalising a moral principle onto them. That is something worth thinking of in our bickerings, but we already knew that didnt we?
My score seems to be the result of a single moral definition that holds an act and an omission as two seperate things (which I'll defend to the death BTW). Furthermore, cultural norms don't really have much bearing on my views of morality. The vast majority of norms simply do not apply.
Unfortunately, these kind of tests don't always apply well to my morality. Morality to me is a motivator, so if the motivation is consistent with that morality the particulars of the behavior really never bother me. Furthermore, my morality can never create an obligation to another, only an obligation to self. So the "should bob save this life" type is not really a moral question to me without accounting for Bob's ability and desire to save that life.
Not until God as a concept becomes so superfluous as to become irrelevant or without meaning. God is never just mirror-Self without the mirror, so to speak.
Which is why I find debates on god and all that often to be too little grounded. A preface would have to contain the precise definition of what makes "god", and what not. This test assumes christian god.
No. I was "cool" with sibliing sex and frozen chicken sex, at least from a moral standpoint. Not sure where my .04 came from.
You must have answered "a little wrong" or whatever on one of the questions. I had "a little" problem with the sibling scenario, although I didn't oppose it on the whole.
My score seems to be the result of a single moral definition that holds an act and an omission as two seperate things (which I'll defend to the death BTW). Furthermore, cultural norms don't really have much bearing on my views of morality. The vast majority of norms simply do not apply.
I know, and do not agree with, your view. Which puts you at 71% above the average of 65%, and me below it at 47%.
Unfortunately, these kind of tests don't always apply well to my morality. Morality to me is a motivator, so if the motivation is consistent with that morality the particulars of the behavior really never bother me. Furthermore, my morality can never create an obligation to another, only an obligation to self. So the "should bob save this life" type is not really a moral question to me without accounting for Bob's ability and desire to save that life.
Ever the individualist. I'd say morality is precisely about the "should bob" aspect, and the ability to be secondary. As in, yes, he should, but alas he was prevented/unable because of (fill in here). Morality is something of the individual, but a large portion of what goes for morality (in other words not your definition) also concerns generally for all people and how we all should act in order to get a good society.
Anyways. just saying. We dont see eye to eye on this.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Which is why I find debates on god and all that often to be too little grounded. A preface would have to contain the precise definition of what makes "god", and what not. This test assumes christian god.
I think the test would work equally well if the test assumed a tribal God. But the rest of your comment I completely agree with.
You must have answered "a little wrong" or whatever on one of the questions. I had "a little" problem with the sibling scenario, although I didn't oppose it on the whole.
On those things, I was fine. I did answer some of the "is it possible for something to be morally wrong if...." questions with a yes.
I know, and do not agree with, your view. Which puts you at 71% above the average of 65%, and me below it at 47%.
Sure.
Ever the individualist. I'd say morality is precisely about the "should bob" aspect, and the ability to be secondary. As in, yes, he should, but alas he was prevented/unable because of (fill in here). Morality is something of the individual, but a large portion of what goes for morality (in other words not your definition) also concerns generally for all people and how we all should act in order to get a good society.
Understood, just disagree. Morality doesn't end when society ends. But certainly in the current moral climate, I'm very much outside the norm.
hm i got injured because i said that aetheism is a metter of faith, not fact, if there is no proof that God does not exist, when before I said it is rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist b/c of lack of evidence. I don't see this as a contradiction, becuase I did not say that it was irrational to be an aetheist, just that it is a matter of faith, because in no way can science prove a God or not.
Also, a couple questions weren't worded clearly. Another thing, I said that God can't be constrained by rational belief. I believe this. It does, in a way, make rational discourse on God impossible. It said I bit a bullet for it. It would probably help if I knew what that phrase means.
hm i got injured because i said that aetheism is a metter of faith, not fact, if there is no proof that God does not exist, when before I said it is rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist b/c of lack of evidence. I don't see this as a contradiction, becuase I did not say that it was irrational to be an aetheist, just that it is a matter of faith, because in no way can science prove a God or not.
You said that it is a matter of faith to disbelieve in God, but that it is a matter of rationality to disbelieve in the Loch Ness monster, even though the evidence supporting both disbeliefs is simply the lack of evidence. Hence the conflicting standard.
I guess I thought that saying it was not rational to not believe in the loch ness monster meant that it was irrational to not believe in it. I don't believe that non-belief in the loch ness monster is the only rational belief, but I do see how you could come to that conclusion. I believe aetheism is a rational belief, as is believing in God. They are also, in my opinion, based in faith.
I think you're saying this just to antagonize and you actually understood me, but ill indulge you
the original poster referred to 'basing ones beliefs' which is very much an action. to hold a belief is not to act, but to form a belief is to act.
the operative question in the survey was not asking if the rapist's actions were right or wrong but rather justified by his convictions. the original poster now claims that it is ok to believe anything as long as you act in a manner consistent with his opinion on actions. but that would require ingrained beliefs that, considering the context of the question, do not exist.
I think you're saying this just to antagonize and you actually understood me, but ill indulge you
the original poster referred to 'basing ones beliefs' which is very much an action. to hold a belief is not to act, but to form a belief is to act.
the operative question in the survey was not asking if the rapist's actions were right or wrong but rather justified by his convictions. the original poster now claims that it is ok to believe anything as long as you act in a manner consistent with his opinion on actions. but that would require ingrained beliefs that, considering the context of the question, do not exist.
sorry for any typos, I'm on a pda right now
you badly misquoted the original poster.. purely innocent accident i presume.
act in a manner consistent with his opinion on actions
the original poster never said any such things...
you said that anyone can believe anything they want but that a person may only act justly in a manner consistent with your beliefs or societys beliefs, did you not?
The original poster made a distinction between beliefs and actions. Because there is a clear difference.. the original poster gave an example.
first, the survey is not asking about the action, it is asking about the validity of the belief of the rapist. and since you've indicated that anyone may justly believe anything for any personal reason, you say that your beliefs hold no more inherent validity than the rapists.
secondly. the clear distinction you see between a belief and an action does exist, but it exists in a matter different than you define it. the contents of one's mind is not an action, the use of one's mind is an action.
The original poster never required or implied that his opinions had a bearing on others actions.
then what is your system of justice based on? a whim? a feeling?
Comments
I was sort of being sarcastic. Oh well. Just trying to say this quiz wasn't all that intelligent, that's all.
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
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.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I'd have loved to be a fly on the wall for that debate!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
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.
naděje umírá poslední
That actually would be contradictive. I can't think of a single conceivable definition of God that would not include an external assumption.
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.
www.bebo.com/pearljam06
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
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
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.
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.
One can certainly believe that God is in everything (including ourselves), but that still requires a belief in the external then (God outside of Self).
Even outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition, God still remains a "ruler" or a "creator" or a force external from the body. Certainly the Gods of civilization are more human in their qualities, but I've never heard of an example of a God that, even when not human-ish, is not primarily defined as more external than internal.
What is that concept?
That sounds pretty cool. Got a link?
disagree.. i said it is acceptable for you to base your beleifs.. nothing about action.
I don't take action on all my beliefs - I must comprimise everyday.. I believe there are people that should be slapped, but I don't slap them for example.
It is perfectly acceptable that someone base their beliefs on anything they like - however, if they choose to live amongst us, they either obey our laws of suffer the consequences - and well, our law says don't rape.
there are laws I don't believe in, but I obey them.
I am ok with your beliefs.. and don't question them, but I may find it necessary to question your actions
Actually, most of the questions could (and probably should) be answered essay style. Instead what you are forced to do is give a simple, absolute, true or false response to a series of very baited questions. The "quiz" is ridiculous.
I hate to break it to you, but a belief is an action.
You don't slap them because you believe in compromise.
But you said that it is not perfectly acceptable for Peter Sutcliffe to believe "that he was carrying out God's will in undertaking these actions".
Furthermore, a law is based on a belief. If you suggest 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 these convictions" you say that law extends only from belief, rather than beliefs based on an objective truth. If Peter Sutcliffe then suggests that his beliefs negate your laws, you have no ability to challenge him without contradicting yourself.
That's fine.
That's fine as well.
Just because you havent heard of it, doesnt make it impossible.
That god is not at all like the christian one, indeed there may be no god entity, but rather an aspect of divinity in all living things. Which would make a deep inner focus and conviction make one very justified in believing in "something bigger than themselves", which in itself need not be external per se. In that sense, one cannot "find God" or whatever without going deep into one's internal self. As I said, the test here assumes the god-as-an-entity which it is meaningful to describe as an actor aka the judeo-christian (and others) concept.
The taboo thingy:
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/taboo.htm
And also, a morality test:
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/morality_play.htm
btw, it is possible to score perfectly, by answering blank on all questions of the original test here.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
Ok. But just because most people do it, that doesn't make it right.
Certainly god is not as clearcut and external your computer. That's kind of the whole point about this quiz though....it demonstrates the fundamental differences between faith and logic and the contradictions that arise from it. I showed this to a religious friend and I liked his response:
"So what? Faith requires contradiction, and I'm fine with that."
I'm not sure how "irrelevant" it becomes. I think it's pretty fundamental since faith in God is typically meant to bring understanding to the external unknown, regardless of implementation.
I agree with this, but I don't think it changes the contradictions.
Cool. I'll do these now.
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.04.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.
There was no inconsistency in the way that you responded to the questions in this activity. You see very little wrong in the actions depicted in these scenarios. And anyway you indicated that an act can be wrong even if it is entirely private and no one, not even the person doing the act, is harmed by it. So, in fact, had you thought that the acts described here were entirely wrong there would still be no inconsistency in your moral outlook.
Moral Parsimony: 71%
Geographical Distance: 100%
Family Relatedness: 67%
Acts and Omissions: 18%
Scale: 100%
Didn't you just say that just becuase many do it, doesn't make it right?
But it makes it a lot less glaring and clearcut. If the premise is that internal does not portray external, and that is the basis of the contradiction, then me proposing a view of god and divinity based on that internal, the contradiction becomes less obvious and perhaps goes away entirely.
Balked a little on siblings having sex you too, huh?
(edit) my moral parsimony was 47%, cant remember the others. It meant that I am much more inclined to use multiple principles of morality, thus taking the individual situations more into account, than generalising a moral principle onto them. That is something worth thinking of in our bickerings, but we already knew that didnt we?
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Yeah, that's cool.
I'm not advocating their position, I'm just describing it. An external view, to some extent, seems pretty inherent to a belief in God, regardless of God's form or lackthereof.
Not until God as a concept becomes so superfluous as to become irrelevant or without meaning. God is never just mirror-Self without the mirror, so to speak.
No. I was "cool" with sibliing sex and frozen chicken sex, at least from a moral standpoint. Not sure where my .04 came from.
My score seems to be the result of a single moral definition that holds an act and an omission as two seperate things (which I'll defend to the death BTW). Furthermore, cultural norms don't really have much bearing on my views of morality. The vast majority of norms simply do not apply.
Unfortunately, these kind of tests don't always apply well to my morality. Morality to me is a motivator, so if the motivation is consistent with that morality the particulars of the behavior really never bother me. Furthermore, my morality can never create an obligation to another, only an obligation to self. So the "should bob save this life" type is not really a moral question to me without accounting for Bob's ability and desire to save that life.
You must have answered "a little wrong" or whatever on one of the questions. I had "a little" problem with the sibling scenario, although I didn't oppose it on the whole.
I know, and do not agree with, your view.
Ever the individualist. I'd say morality is precisely about the "should bob" aspect, and the ability to be secondary. As in, yes, he should, but alas he was prevented/unable because of (fill in here). Morality is something of the individual, but a large portion of what goes for morality (in other words not your definition) also concerns generally for all people and how we all should act in order to get a good society.
Anyways. just saying. We dont see eye to eye on this.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I think the test would work equally well if the test assumed a tribal God. But the rest of your comment I completely agree with.
On those things, I was fine. I did answer some of the "is it possible for something to be morally wrong if...." questions with a yes.
Sure.
Understood, just disagree. Morality doesn't end when society ends. But certainly in the current moral climate, I'm very much outside the norm.
Also, a couple questions weren't worded clearly. Another thing, I said that God can't be constrained by rational belief. I believe this. It does, in a way, make rational discourse on God impossible. It said I bit a bullet for it. It would probably help if I knew what that phrase means.
You said that it is a matter of faith to disbelieve in God, but that it is a matter of rationality to disbelieve in the Loch Ness monster, even though the evidence supporting both disbeliefs is simply the lack of evidence. Hence the conflicting standard.
A != B !!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I think you're saying this just to antagonize and you actually understood me, but ill indulge you
the original poster referred to 'basing ones beliefs' which is very much an action. to hold a belief is not to act, but to form a belief is to act.
the operative question in the survey was not asking if the rapist's actions were right or wrong but rather justified by his convictions. the original poster now claims that it is ok to believe anything as long as you act in a manner consistent with his opinion on actions. but that would require ingrained beliefs that, considering the context of the question, do not exist.
sorry for any typos, I'm on a pda right now
you badly misquoted the original poster.. purely innocent accident i presume.
how so?
act in a manner consistent with his opinion on actions
the original poster never said any such things...
The original poster made a distinction between beliefs and actions. Because there is a clear difference.. the original poster gave an example.
The original poster never required or implied that his opinions had a bearing on others actions.
you said that anyone can believe anything they want but that a person may only act justly in a manner consistent with your beliefs or societys beliefs, did you not?
first, the survey is not asking about the action, it is asking about the validity of the belief of the rapist. and since you've indicated that anyone may justly believe anything for any personal reason, you say that your beliefs hold no more inherent validity than the rapists.
secondly. the clear distinction you see between a belief and an action does exist, but it exists in a matter different than you define it. the contents of one's mind is not an action, the use of one's mind is an action.
then what is your system of justice based on? a whim? a feeling?