I saw this in another forum, and it reminded me this hasn't been done in a while:

quote:Can your beliefs about religion make it across our intellectual battleground?

In this activity you’ll be asked a series of 17 questions about God and religion. In each case, apart from Question 1, you need to answer True or False. The aim of the activity is not to judge whether these answers are correct or not. Our battleground is that of rational consistency. This means to get across without taking any hits, you’ll need to answer in a way which is rationally consistent. What this means is you need to avoid choosing answers which contradict each other. If you answer in a way which is rationally consistent but which has strange or unpalatable implications, you’ll be forced to bite a bullet.

Click Me! (http://www.philosophyquotes.net/cgi-bin/god_game1.cgi?num=0&hits=0&bullets=0&bulletcount=0&hitcount=0)

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-08-2004).]

The person who created this is obviously anti-Christian..

Also, he/she referes to God as a "woman", which is false. He is called "He" in the Bible, though it is also referenced that He is asexual.

"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 a very slighted understanding...my perception is that God can do ALL things, because He created everything. This logic represents a god that has human characteristics.

God created everything with balances...and everything is logically proportioned. This question is based on hypothesis, and should therefor allow for hypothetical answers. Expecting logical, scientific answers for a hypothetical question (posing something impossible) is not exactly fair.

God COULD create a formula of 1+1=72, but why would He ? He is CAPABLE of doing it, but it's not logical, so He wouldn't.



"You have reached the end!

Congratulations! You have made it to the end of this activity.

You took zero direct hits and you bit 4 bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullets. 227473 people have so far undertaken this activity.

Click the link below for further analysis of your performance and to see if you've won an award."

"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 progressed through this activity without suffering any direct hits indicates that your beliefs about God are very consistent.

However, you have bitten a number of bullets, which suggests that some of your beliefs will be considered strange, incredible or unpalatable by many people. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of the bitten bullets.

Despite the bullets that you bit, the fact that you did not suffer any hits means that you qualify for our third highest award. Well done!"

Bitten Bullet 1

You answered "False" to questions 6 and 7.

These answers generated the following response:

You're under fire! You don't think that it is 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 in the previous question you rejected evolutionary theory when the vast majority of scientists think both that the evidence points to its truth and that there is no evidence which falsifies it. Of course, many creationists claim that the evidential case for evolution is by no means conclusive. But in doing so, they go against scientific orthodoxy. So you've got to make a choice: (a) Bite the bullet and say there is evidence that evolution is not true, despite what the scientists say. (b) Take a direct hit and say that this is an area where your beliefs are just in contradiction.

You chose to bite the bullet.

I answered this way because I believe that there is more than inner conviction proving the existence of God. I believe that there IS physical proof.

I was not contradicting myself.

Bitten Bullet 2

You answered "True" to questions 4 and 12.

These answers generated the following response:

You claimed earlier that any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the world as possible. But you say that God could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful. What this means is that God could make the reduction of suffering a sin... yet you've said that God must want to reduce suffering. There is a way out of this, but it means biting a bullet. So you've got to make a choice: (a) Bite the bullet and say that it is possible that God wants what is sinful (to reiterate the argument here - she must want to reduce suffering; she could make the reduction of suffering a sin; but if she did so, what she wanted (reducing suffering) would be sinful). (b) Take a direct hit and say that this is an area where your beliefs are just in contradiction.

You chose to bite the bullet.

The premise for my answer here is, again, that God can do whatever He wants. I still believe, however, that He wishes us to suffer as little as possible. He loves us, as His creation, and offers us every opportunity to avoid pain and suffering (both here on earth, and in the afterlife.)

The author of this little questionaire has again thwarted the angle of the typical Christian, in my opinion.

Bitten Bullet 3

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?

The evidence that would be required in order for an athiest to believe is not physical. Certain physical proofs have been rejected, based on personal feelings, and not facts. So, the only evidence left would be spiritual, in which case an athiest would be unable to experience it, based on preference, and lack of desire. One must be willing, or they cannot receive.

This is also an assumption on the author's part, based on their belief that there is no evidence, and therefor there must be no God.

I was saying (through my True False answering) that simply because it is believed that there is no PHYSICAL proof, does not mean that God does not exist, because the "facts" are slighted towards the Evolutionist way of thinking. Objectivity is not often a factor, since these scientists don't believe in God to begin with. There IS physical proof, but the knowledge of it is not allowed to be distributed.

The difference between the Loch Ness Monster and God is that even if you tried to believe in the Monster, you wouldn't feel anything spiritual. Whether it exists or not cannot be proven either way, but physical evidence is not required to feel a spiritual connection with God, whereas it is required to prove that the Loch Ness Monster exists.

I hope this better explains my "bizarre" line of thinking.

I don't disbelieve that there are aliens...the Bible doesn't mention it, so I have no reason to concern myself with it. I wouldn't be surprised if there were, but I don't just "believe" it, because it's not important to me, and my Christian walk.

Bitten Bullet 4

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.

Based on HUMAN logic. Logically, God can do whatever He wants, as I said earlier. But He is a God of logic and order, which is why our mathematical systems work as well as they do.

Based on whose rationality ? Ours (limited)? Or His (all-knowing) ?

Rational discourse about God IS virtually impossible...which is why so many don't believe in Him. Some things cannot be explained with "human" logic.

Spirit is not explainable, conventionally.



CHEERS ! http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 09-08-2004).]

That was fun (a.k.a entertaining) though. Thanks !

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

The person who created this is obviously anti-Christian..



It is not anti-christian. It is anti-religion in general.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Also, he/she referes to God as a "woman", which is false. He is called "He" in the Bible, though it is also referenced that He is asexual.

The author of the quiz is most likely an atheist/agnostic, hence he would not give any importance to the Bible and whether it used "He" or "She", or to mainstream belief of a god's gender.

quote:

I answered this way because I believe that there is more than inner conviction proving the existence of God. I believe that there IS physical proof.

I was not contradicting myself.



"Biting the bullet" is not a contradiction. It is a strange/uncommon/absurd group of beliefs that may appear to be a contradiction when quickly glansed over, but in reality are not a contradiction, but just strange..

You bit the bullet here, because you claimed that it was justifiable to believe in god, even if there is no proof, but then reject evolutionary theory, even if there is no proof of it. You accept somethings without proof, but not others? That's why you 'bit the bullet'.



quote:

The premise for my answer here is, again, that God can do whatever He wants. I still believe, however, that He wishes us to suffer as little as possible. He loves us, as His creation, and offers us every opportunity to avoid pain and suffering (both here on earth, and in the afterlife.)

The author of this little questionaire has again thwarted the angle of the typical Christian, in my opinion.

You bit the bullet here, because you left the possibility open for a god to sin. This appears as biting the bullet, because people generally believe that a god cannot sin and/or is perfect.



quote:

The evidence that would be required in order for an athiest to believe is not physical. Certain physical proofs have been rejected, based on personal feelings, and not facts. So, the only evidence left would be spiritual, in which case an athiest would be unable to experience it, based on preference, and lack of desire. One must be willing, or they cannot receive.

Well that is your opinion. I consider myself an atheist and I have the desire for proof. I have received none. Moreover, could you please show us what physical proof there is of the existence of god?

quote:

This is also an assumption on the author's part, based on their belief that there is no evidence, and therefor there must be no God.

That's not what he said. The author said "absence of evidence for the existence of God is enough to justify believing that she does not exist". There's a difference in having no evidence, and deciding not to believe a god exists, and having no evidence and knowing a god doesn't exist (or it being impossible for it to exist). The argument is, that if there is no evidence for his existence, then it is reasonable to believe he doesn't exist.

If you answered that that is not reasonable, then like the author said, you must believe in magical pink unicorns that live in the sky, since they lack evidence as well.

quote:

I was saying (through my True False answering) that simply because it is believed that there is no PHYSICAL proof, does not mean that God does not exist,

Then you interpreted what he said, incorrectly.





[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-08-2004).]

Here are my results from that test..I was bored.



You have reached the end!

Congratulations! You have made it to the end of this activity.

You took zero direct hits and you bit 1 bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullet. 227501 people have so far undertaken this activity.

Click the link below for further analysis of your performance and to see if you've won an award.

Bitten Bullet 1

You answered "True" to questions 7, and 15.

These answers generated the following response:

You've just bitten a bullet! You are consistent in applying the principle 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 this conviction. The problem is that it seems you have to accept that people might be justified in their belief that God could demand something terrible.

This is something many religious people are willing to accept. For example, Kierkegaard believed that it is precisely because Abraham had to contravene established morality to follow God's will and attempt to sacrifice his son which made his act the supreme act of faith.

But as Kierkegaard also stressed, this makes the act incomprehensible from a rational point of view. The rational alternative - that people should require more than such an inner conviction to justify such a belief - is more attractive to most people, but you reject this alternative and bite the bullet.

I guess the guy who came up with this test was agnostic.



Battleground Analysis

Congratulations!

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!

Knowing the format, as well as the questions, I could take the test again, and get the same results you did, TRUCKFIXR. How many times did you take it ? *grins*

quote:The author of the quiz is most likely an atheist/agnostic, hence he would not give any importance to the Bible and whether it used "He" or "She", or to mainstream belief of a god's gender.

No, it sounds more like the author is a Wiccan.

quote:"Biting the bullet" is not a contradiction. It is strange group of beliefs that may appear to be a contradiction when quickly glansed over.

A contradiction, or only appearing to be a contradiction...hmm...well, since this is mostly a "perception" based community here on Totse, I would venture to say that there is VERY little difference. What's your point ?

"You have to bite a bullet if your choices have an implication that most would find strange, incredible or unpalatable. There is more room for disagreement here, since what strikes many people as extraordinary or bizarre can strike others as normal. So, again, please do not get too upset if we judge you have bitten a bullet. Maybe it is our world-view which is warped!

You might find that you have taken a direct hit because the statement closest to your own conviction leads into a contradiction. However, had you phrased the statement yourself, you may have been able to avoid the contradiction while expressing a very similar belief.

Such possibilities are unavoidable given the constraints on the game. We merely ask that you do not take it personally if you suffer a direct hit and don't get too frustrated if the choices we offer you sometimes seem to force you into a choice you'd rather not make." Rules of the Game

I think that says it best.

quote:You bit the bullet here, because you claimed that it was justifiable to believe in god, even if there is no proof, but then reject evolutionary theory, even if there is no proof of it. You accept somethings without proof, but not others? That's why you 'bit the bullet'.

No. I say that it is feasible to believe in God, even if there is no PHYSICAL proof. This questionaire did not allow for "factors" or "exceptions". The only two measurements used were physical proofs, and inner convictions. Not exactly covering all angles, thus a contradiction, or a bizarre appearance, is unavoidable, from a Christian perspective.

I accept God, even without physical proof (which there is), because I have spiritual proof...as well as life changing proof. These cannot be measured by any devices of man, and can therefor not be reproduced. To the scientific mind, this does not constitute as proof.

quote:You bit the bullet here, because you left the possibility open for a god to sin. This appears as biting the bullet, because people generally believe that a god cannot sin and/or is perfect.

It is not POSSIBLE for God to sin, because God is the direct opposite of sin...unless He wanted to. He can do ANYTHING, but He wouldn't go against His nature by choice. You can't force God into a box...it's just not possible.

quote:Well that is your opinion. I consider myself an atheist and I have the desire for proof. I have received none. Moreover, could you please show us what physical proof there is of the existence of god?

No, that's God's word, and I happen to believe it. If you had the desire for the proof that God exists, then you would take the steps necessary to allow Him to come into your heart. But that's not logical to you, and probably overly-romantic in notion.

And no, I won't give you the proof you are asking for...for MANY reasons that you will only argue with. Believe me, it's not because I can't. Wait around...lurk in some other threads (which you are famous for). The evidence will be presented, just not to YOU.

quote:That's not what he said. The author said "absence of evidence for the existence of God is enough to justify believing that she does not exist". There's a difference in having no evidence, and deciding not to believe a god exists, and having no evidence and knowing a god exists (or it being impossible for it to exist). The argument is, that if there is no evidence for his existence, then it is reasonable to believe he doesn't exist.

If you answered that that is not reasonable, then like the author said, you must believe in magical pink unicorns that live in the sky, since they lack evidence as well.

It WOULD BE reasonable to assume that there is no God, if there were NO evidence. But there is...simply because you refuse to understand it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

So, pink unicorns or not, my logic is not based on insanity, or fabrications. (as much as you'd like to believe that, it's simply not true.)

quote:Then you interpreted what he said, incorrectly.

Hmmm...you are awfully intimate with that flaw. More often than not, this can be said about YOU.

You posted something, I participated, and then gave the reasoning behind the choices that I made.

What's your major malfunction with that ?

You just CAN'T be civil, can you ?

I'll bet you order your pizza the same way...

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

No, it sounds more like the author is a Wiccan.



Whatever. The point still stands.

quote:A contradiction, or only appearing to be a contradiction...hmm...well, since this is mostly a "perception" based community here on Totse, I would venture to say that there is VERY little difference. What's your point ?

My point was to tell you that "biting the bullet" is not a contradiction, like you implied it was in your post when you said "I was not contradicting myself"

quote:No. I say that it is feasible to believe in God, even if there is no PHYSICAL proof. This questionaire did not allow for "factors" or "exceptions". The only two measurements used were physical proofs, and inner convictions. Not exactly covering all angles, thus a contradiction, or a bizarre appearance, is unavoidable, from a Christian perspective.

I accept God, even without physical proof (which there is), because I have spiritual proof...as well as life changing proof. These cannot be measured by any devices of man, and can therefor not be reproduced. To the scientific mind, this does not constitute as proof.

The point is, you're believing in X even when there is no physical proof, but not in Y, when there is no proof either.

That is not a contradiction, but it is "biting the bullet".

quote:It is not POSSIBLE for God to sin, because God is the direct opposite of sin...unless He wanted to. He can do ANYTHING, but He wouldn't go against His nature by choice. You can't force God into a box...it's just not possible.

He'd be forcing himself in a box, since in the hypothetical scenario posted by the question, the god would be interchanging everything that is "moral" with everything that is "sin". Therefore, allowing for god to sin.



quote:No, that's God's word, and I happen to believe it. If you had the desire for the proof that God exists, then you would take the steps necessary to allow Him to come into your heart. But that's not logical to you, and probably overly-romantic in notion.

And no, I won't give you the proof you are asking for...for MANY reasons that you will only argue with. Believe me, it's not because I can't. Wait around...lurk in some other threads (which you are famous for). The evidence will be presented, just not to YOU

But then you expect me to conduct myself in a serious manner? After this?

It is your burden to back up your claims with evidence or proof. If not, I could argue that God is really a pink gnome from the planet GAROTHAK-5, and when asked for proof I could say, "The evidence will be presented, just not to YOU". Moreover, the argument itself is an ad-hominem attack!

Sorry, but that is not only childish, but absurd.

quote:It WOULD BE reasonable to assume that there is no God, if there were NO evidence. But there is...simply because you refuse to understand it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

How in the world could you possibly know what I refuse or don't refuse to understand, when you haven't shown it to me? That isn't even logical.

quote:

So, pink unicorns or not, my logic is not based on insanity, or fabrications. (as much as you'd like to believe that, it's simply not true.)

It is, if you say that it is reasonable to believe things without evidence, which was your answer to the question.

quote:

Hmmm...you are awfully intimate with that flaw. More often than not, this can be said about YOU.

You posted something, I participated, and then gave the reasoning behind the choices that I made.

What's your major malfunction with that ?

You just CAN'T be civil, can you ?

I'll bet you order your pizza the same way...

Once again, apparently I, and others, must take criticism, but you cannot.

I was merely stating a fact: You did not interpret what the author said, correctly.

I don't see how me stating a fact, moves this from a civil discourse to something else.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-08-2004).]

PHYSICAL EVIDENCE...key words, hon. You keep missing KEY points, as always.

Can you comprehend the difference between PHYSICAL proof, and SPIRITUAL proof ?

I don't believe in God with NO proof...that's my point, which you have missed TWICE now.

I won't present the physical proof, because you wouldn't listen objectively if I did. I won't subject myself to your asshole-ishness any more than I have to. (which is quickly reaching it's limit as I speak)

So, it IS logical. I'm not going to waste my time on you, because you don't give a crap anyway. Kinda moot.

Once again, I can take criticism just fine, when it is warranted. I don't see anyone else dissecting my post. Just you. As usual. "Hey, kids ! It's 'Personal Vendetta' time, for the Rustmeister !"

I interpretted what he said just fine, and have explained it as such. You interpretted him differently, which doesn't make you right or wrong, which seems to be the misconception you are operating under.

So, once again, I didn't say that it was reasonable to believe in things without evidence. I said that it is reasonable to believe in something without PHYSICAL evidence, because there is much more to existence than what is "physical".

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

PHYSICAL EVIDENCE...key words, hon. You keep missing KEY points, as always.

Can you comprehend the difference between PHYSICAL proof, and SPIRITUAL proof ?

I don't believe in God with NO proof...that's my point, which you have missed TWICE now.

I know the difference. The point is, the question asked whether or not you would believe in a god without physical proof, you answered yes. You then answered that you would not believe in evolution without proof.

Yes, it is not a contradiction and it is not technically wrong. But that's exactly what "biting the bullet" is!

The point being, that technically, the quiz is not wrong.

<See Bottom>

quote:

I won't present the physical proof, because you wouldn't listen objectively if I did. I won't subject myself to your asshole-ishness any more than I have to. (which is quickly reaching it's limit as I speak)

And you know I wouldn't listen to it objectively, how? You can't. That's impossible.

Moreover, could you please tell me how I've been a "asshole"? I would really like to know, because in all honesty, I've been trying to be civil.

quote:

So, it IS logical. I'm not going to waste my time on you, because you don't give a crap anyway. Kinda moot.

What exactly is logical? Would you mind quoting what you're responding to? It would help the discussion out.

quote:

Once again, I can take criticism just fine, when it is warranted. I don't see anyone else dissecting my post. Just you. As usual. "Hey, kids ! It's 'Personal Vendetta' time, for the Rustmeister !"

I interpreted what he said just fine, and have explained it as such. You interpreted him differently, which doesn't make you right or wrong, which seems to be the misconception you are operating under.



How could you have interpreted it correctly when you said:

"

This is also an assumption on the author's part, based on their belief that there is no evidence, and therefor there must be no God."

The author IS NOT saying that because there is no Physical proof, god doesn't exist. So just how could you have interpreted it correctly?

quote:

So, once again, I didn't say that it was reasonable to believe in things without evidence. I said that it is reasonable to believe in something without PHYSICAL evidence, because there is much more to existence than what is "physical".

I know you said that. I never said otherwise.

The point is, the quiz was technically correct when telling you that you bit the bullet. Which is why I replied in the first place, especially since it appeared you believed "biting the bullet" meant it was a contradiction. The point of my very first reply was to show you what biting the bullet was, ( since I believed you were mistaken) and showing you just why the quiz labeled it as such.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 09-08-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Knowing the format, as well as the questions, I could take the test again, and get the same results you did, TRUCKFIXR. How many times did you take it ? *grins*



Actually, I only took it once. There were a couple of questions that I would have preferred to answer differently due to their wording, but given the available choices, I gave the answer most consistant with my beliefs.

quote:I know the difference. The point is, the question asked whether or not you would believe in a god without physical proof, you answered yes. You then answered that you would not believe in evolution without proof.

I answered yes, because there is a stipulation not provided for in the line of questioning. SPIRITUAL proof was not accounted for, and therefor I was forced to answer the question with constraints, thus forcing me to answer dishonestly, or without full representation.

I cannot believe in evolution, because there is no SOLID proof; physical, or otherwise.

quote:Yes, it is not a contradiction, it is not technically wrong. But that's exactly what "biting the bullet" is!

Okay...

quote:The point being, that Technically, the quiz is not wrong.

I didn't say the quiz was wrong...I was indicating that the quiz was flawed, which they admit to in their "Game Rules" section.

quote:And you know I wouldn't listen to it objectively, how? You can't. That's impossible.[/b

History is doomed to repeat itself.

quote:[b]Moreover, could you please tell me how I've been a "asshole"? I would really like to know, because in all honesty, I've been trying to be civil.

I seem to remember you calling me a pretentious WHORE. Perhaps everyone else forgets your uncalled-for verbal abuse, but I do not.

You have been pretty civil, for YOU.

I guess I am just defensive, based on your past transgressions.

quote:What exactly is logical? Would you mind quoting what you're responding to? It would help the discussion out.

I have figured out that one of your tactics in debate here is running your "opponent" around in circles, until all points are meaningless.

This is what you seem to be doing here, and I won't participate.

quote:How could you have interpreted it correctly when you said:

"This is also an assumption on the author's part, based on their belief that there is no evidence, and therefor there must be no God."

The line of questioning was very pointedly indicating this. At least that's what I perceived. *shrugs*

I know you said that. I never said otherwise.

quote:The point is, the quiz was technically correct when telling you to bit the bullet.Which is why I replied in the first place, especially since it appeared you believed "biting the bullet" meant it was a contradiction. The point of my very first reply was to show you what biting the bullet was, ( since I believed you were mistaken) and showing you just why the quiz labeled it as such.

It WAS correct, under the pretenses of the opinions of the author. It was not correct in the aspect that I was forced to answer according to my beliefs, but not in their entirety.

The contradiction I was referring to was not in the actual line of questioning, but in the way my answers were mutilated into being contradictions.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:



Actually, I only took it once. There were a couple of questions that I would have preferred to answer differently due to their wording, but given the available choices, I gave the answer most consistant with my beliefs.

I know...*winks* Just trying to lighten the "load".

quote:You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you claimed 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 say that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists. A firm, inner conviction can never be certain proof, since we know that people have firm inner convictions about things which are false.

quote:You've just taken a direct hit! You claimed earlier that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists, but now you say it is justifiable to believe in God if one has a firm, inner conviction that God exists, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of the conviction that God exists. However, a firm inner conviction can never be certain proof, since many people have firm inner convictions about things about which they are wrong (such as the guilt or innocence of suspects, for example). So, by your own lights, your last answer was a foolish one!

Just because I acknowledge inner convictions as a justifiable reason for one's beliefs, does not mean that I don't think it's foolish to do so.

Those were my 'direct hits'. I deem the test's rationale unsound for the above reasons.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I answered yes, because there is a stipulation not provided for in the line of questioning. SPIRITUAL proof was not accounted for, and therefor I was forced to answer the question with constraints, thus forcing me to answer dishonestly, or without full representation.

I cannot believe in evolution, because there is no SOLID proof; physical, or otherwise

...

Okay...



Fine, my point was to tell show why you had bitten the bullet. Nothing else.

quote:History is doomed to repeat itself.

In other words, I am correct. You have no possible way of know what I will refuse or will not refuse.

quote:I seem to remember you calling me a pretentious WHORE. Perhaps everyone else forgets your uncalled-for verbal abuse, but I do not.

You have been pretty civil, for YOU.

I guess I am just defensive, based on your past transgressions.



I'm asking how I've been an asshole, here.

Since you said, "I won't subject myself to your asshole-ishness any more than I have to. (which is quickly reaching it's limit as I speak)"

quote:I have figured out that one of your tactics in debate here is running your "opponent" around in circles, until all points are meaningless.

This is what you seem to be doing here, and I won't participate.

Geez. I can't ask a simple question. Look at your post:

"I won't subject myself to your asshole-ishness any more than I have to. (which is quickly reaching it's limit as I speak)

So, it IS logical. I'm not going to waste my time on you, because you don't give a crap anyway. Kinda moot.

Once again, I can take criticism just fine,"

To me, the "So, it IS logical" doesn't even fit it there. What exactly is logical?

If you don't answer, then fine. I was merely trying not to miss any of your points.

quote:The line of questioning was very pointedly indicating this. At least that's what I perceived. *shrugs*

I know you said that. I never said otherwise.

This is not about an opinion. This is interpreting exactly what the author said. The author never said what you said.

Therefore, you WERE misinterpreting the author. Therefore, the criticism WAS warranted.



quote:

It WAS correct, under the pretenses of the opinions of the author. It was not correct in the aspect that I was forced to answer according to my beliefs, but not in their entirety.

The contradiction I was referring to was not in the actual line of questioning, but in the way my answers were mutilated into being contradictions.

1. My point was only to show why the quiz labeled them as "biting the bullet".

2. They never were contradictions.

Congratulations!

You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity being hit only once and biting very few bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are well thought out and almost entirely internally consistent.



The direct hit you suffered occurred because one set of your answers implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullets occurred because you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hit and bitten bullets.



Because you only suffered one direct hit and bit very few bullets, you qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

WOOOH go me !!

quote:Originally posted by Durell:

Just because I acknowledge inner convictions as a justifiable reason for one's beliefs, does not mean that I don't think it's foolish to do so.

Those were my 'direct hits'. I deem the test's rationale unsound for the above reasons.



How can you say something is foolish and justifiable at the same time? Do you mean that it's justifiable for others but not for you? How does that work?

[This message has been edited by manjiBoy (edited 09-08-2004).]

I acknowledge that inner beliefs, whether they be founded from personal epiphany or inclination, can be a means of justifying morals, convictions, faith, etcetera. However, regarding the existence of something that you cannot empirically assess, I believe it's foolish to do so (This in no way excludes inner conviction from being a means of justification).

I was doing fine until the questions got tricky.

^sarcasm