Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages  1 2 > 
Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

" width="8" height="8"/> Battleground God, The Philospher's Magazine
Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+
The Poster Formerly Known as Y2A
post Jan 8 2006, 09:29 PM
Post #1


Supporter of Fidel Castro
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 4,172
Joined: 14-June 03
From: The Great State of New Jersey
Member No.: 388



Took one hit and bit one bullet.

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.htm

Battleground God

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.

Rules of the game

The aim of the game is to get across the intellectual battleground unscathed. There are two types of injury you can suffer.

A direct hit occurs when you answer in a way which implies a logical contradiction. We have been very careful to make sure that only strict contradictions result in a direct hit. However, we do make two caveats.

First, because you only have choices between pre-selected and carefully worded statements, 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.

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!


QUOTE
Battleground Analysis
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!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How did you do compared to other people?

295668 people have completed this activity to date.
You suffered 1 direct hit and bit 1 bullet.
This compares with the average player of this activity to date who takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullets.
45.76% of the people who have completed this activity, like you, took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.
7.62% of the people who have completed this activity emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Hit 1

You answered "True" to questions 10 and 14.

These answers generated the following response:

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

The contradiction is that on the first ocassion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bitten Bullet 1

You answered "True" to Question 16.

This answer generated the following response:

You've just bitten a bullet! In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like creating square circles), you are saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality. This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.


This post has been edited by The Poster Formerly Known as Y2A: Jan 8 2006, 09:58 PM
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
gnuneo
post Jan 8 2006, 10:11 PM
Post #2


Nenemo Ari
********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 17-June 02
From: over..... there.
Member No.: 42



again?

you would imagine that on a network of probably approaching billions of sites, we wouldnt go round and round to the same sites again and again.

i seem to remember this test was flawed anyway - perhaps its improved.

Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
The Poster Formerly Known as Y2A
post Jan 8 2006, 10:15 PM
Post #3


Supporter of Fidel Castro
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 4,172
Joined: 14-June 03
From: The Great State of New Jersey
Member No.: 388



I just heard them talking about it on the BBC World Service and assumed it was new. I don't think this was ever posted up here before.
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
gnuneo
post Jan 8 2006, 10:52 PM
Post #4


Nenemo Ari
********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 17-June 02
From: over..... there.
Member No.: 42



yeah, its been done.

quite a long time ago though.


two bites on bullets, no hits. reading it again helped me to remember the many flaws in the assumptions the writers made themselves.

its good, but could be much better. <_<
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
necrolyte
post Jan 8 2006, 11:21 PM
Post #5


Spammer
********

Group: Members
Posts: 8,465
Joined: 21-February 03
Member No.: 271



QUOTE
Battleground Analysis
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 no 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. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analysis of your direct hit. 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, this did not occur which means that despite the direct hit you qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!


I got smacked for saying that Atheism was a matter of faith, where belief in the Loch Ness Monster was illogical.

I figured there was less reason to believe in the Loch Ness Monster than there was in God, but I was wrong :D
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
gnuneo
post Jan 9 2006, 12:02 AM
Post #6


Nenemo Ari
********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 17-June 02
From: over..... there.
Member No.: 42



perhaps once a few people have taken the test we should post and discuss the questions?

Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Greenplanet65
post Jan 9 2006, 01:14 AM
Post #7


U-P Regular
***

Group: Validating
Posts: 206
Joined: 24-May 05
Member No.: 857



QUOTE(necrolyte @ Jan 8 2006, 07:21 PM)
I got smacked for saying that Atheism was a matter of faith, where belief in the Loch Ness Monster was illogical.
I figured there was less reason to believe in the Loch Ness Monster than there was in God, but I was wrong :D
*


Necro and I did exactly the same thing. :) I ended up with one hit.


E
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
Molimo
post Jan 9 2006, 01:42 AM
Post #8


THE SKYLIGHT OF THE SITE
******

Group: Members
Posts: 1,932
Joined: 11-December 03
Member No.: 580



I bit two bullets- one for holding God to a higher standard of proof than evolution (extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, et cetera) and one for saying that God was above all rational discussion. While I think that's true, it doesn't mean that belief in God is above rational discussion.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
libvertaruan
post Jan 9 2006, 04:25 AM
Post #9


H.N.I.C.
********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 8,879
Joined: 18-August 02
From: Jawja
Member No.: 125



QUOTE
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 suffering only one direct hit indicates that your beliefs about God are, on the whole, 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!


My beliefs are definitely considered strange by a lot of people (and that includes the vast majority of the evangelical christians I know). I don't like it when people ask a lot of questions, though, so I don't directly advertise them. In fact, I haven't since I was a pantheist like gnuneo.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Stimulant
post Jan 9 2006, 09:04 AM
Post #10


QUALITY ENTERTAINMENT
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,161
Joined: 10-December 02
From: in your base killing your dudes
Member No.: 210



bit one bullet, nu 16. God, if he existed, could do the logically impossible.

Although nu 16 is impossible to get "right " if you go down the route of rationalism.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
MindsWideOpen
post Jan 9 2006, 04:45 PM
Post #11


taxacurum revolutionare


Group: Forum Donor
Posts: 8,487
Joined: 18-August 02
From: Slightly Pink
Member No.: 120



Got the same bullet bite, and I still object to it.

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.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
gnuneo
post Jan 9 2006, 07:06 PM
Post #12


Nenemo Ari
********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 17-June 02
From: over..... there.
Member No.: 42



yeah - the authors have written their own prejudices into it.

the base on is that they apparently can't concieve of a concpet of god that moves beyond the childish 'bloke on cloud' scenario.

we should definitely post the full questions and discuss it. Once everyone (who wants to) has tried the test blind.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Dakyron
post Jan 9 2006, 07:08 PM
Post #13


The Promised One
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 4,329
Joined: 2-July 04
From: Peoria, Arizona(Phoenix)
Member No.: 739



Battleground Analysis
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!



Direct Hit 1

You answered "True" to Question 7 and "False" to Question 15.

These answers generated the following response:

You've just taken a direct hit! 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!




I object very strongly to this completely assinine line of reasoning... Because I believe one can believe in God and is justified in doing so even if there is no evidence supporting that belief I must also accept that a rapist is justifed in raping and killing simply because he says God told him? What if I dont believe him? What if I think he is crazy? What if I think Satan told him and he confused Satan for God? There are innumerable different scenarios... yet it simply asks true or false and then dings you for not being completely insane...





Bitten Bullet 1

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

These answers generated the following response:

You've just bitten a bullet! You say that if there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, then atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality. Therefore, it seems that you do not think that the mere absence of evidence for the existence of God is enough to justify believing that she does not exist. This view is also suggested by your earlier claim that it is not rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist even if, despite years of trying, no evidence has been presented to suggest that it does exist.

There is no logical inconsistency in your answers. But by denying that the absence of evidence, even where it has been sought, is enough to justify belief in the non-existence of things, you are required to countenance possibilities that most people would find bizarre. For example, do you really want to claim that it is not rationally justified to believe that intelligent aliens do not live on Mars?




It is not rational to believe intelligent aliens do not live on Mars because, in my mind, there is more evidence showing that there are *not* aliens on mars, not simply that we havent found aliens there...

The Loch Ness monster, for instance, could exist theoretically because the conditions for its existence are there, unlike the aliens... There is also infinitely more evidence pointing to the existence of the Loch Ness monster than aliens on Mars... Such stupidity...
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Cerian
post Jan 9 2006, 10:29 PM
Post #14


Unique Forms of Continuity in Space
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 4,167
Joined: 18-August 02
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 112



QUOTE
You have reached the end!

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

You took zero direct hits and you bit 2 bullets.


Medal of Distinction. I deny biting any bullets. An omnipotent conception of God is beyond rational discussion. So fucking what. And if they knew anything about logic or probability, they'd realize that there's absolutely nothing wrong with not taking it as absolute fact that there are no sentient aliens on mars.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
JLord
post Jan 9 2006, 11:55 PM
Post #15


Listen.
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,683
Joined: 1-December 04
Member No.: 816



QUOTE(Dakyron @ Jan 9 2006, 12:08 PM)
I object very strongly to this completely assinine line of reasoning... Because I believe one can believe in God and is justified in doing so even if there is no evidence supporting that belief I must also accept that a rapist is justifed in raping and killing simply because he says God told him? What if I dont believe him? What if I think he is crazy? What if I think Satan told him and he confused Satan for God? There are innumerable different scenarios... yet it simply asks true or false and then dings you for not being completely insane...
Bitten Bullet 1
*



You won't believe the rapist "simply because he says God told him." Ok, but then why would you believe in anyone who says that God talks to them. You should be equally questioning of all religious people and even yourself. What if you are crazy? What if you are talking to Satan you are just confusing him with God? etc...

The point is that you seem to be saying "if I agree that it sounds like my personal conception of God, then it's OK to believe without any evidence, but if it sounds like something I don't believe in, then you are not justified in believing without evidence."
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
Dakyron
post Jan 10 2006, 12:02 AM
Post #16


The Promised One
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 4,329
Joined: 2-July 04
From: Peoria, Arizona(Phoenix)
Member No.: 739



A rapist does not have the moral character neccessary for me to believe him. Does that suffice? It disregards so many other factors and boils down to because I that a strong inner conviction is enough to believe in God , that I must take the word of every wacko who claims God told him to do (whatever)? Its so stupid... There is *no* logical inconsistency in my statements.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
JLord
post Jan 10 2006, 12:11 AM
Post #17


Listen.
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,683
Joined: 1-December 04
Member No.: 816



QUOTE(Dakyron @ Jan 9 2006, 05:02 PM)
A rapist does not have the moral character neccessary for me to believe him. Does that suffice? It disregards so many other factors and boils down to because I that a strong inner conviction is enough to believe in God , that I must take the word of every wacko who claims God told him to do (whatever)? Its so stupid... There is *no* logical inconsistency in my statements.
*



You are misinterpreting the questions that were asked. It didn't ask whether you should believe the rapist. It asked if a person is justified in basing his beliefs on an inner conviction, and then it asks whether a rapist is justified in basing his beliefs on an inner conviction. It doesn't ask whether we should believe the rapist.
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
Dakyron
post Jan 10 2006, 12:19 AM
Post #18


The Promised One
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 4,329
Joined: 2-July 04
From: Peoria, Arizona(Phoenix)
Member No.: 739



QUOTE(JLord @ Jan 9 2006, 05:11 PM)
You are misinterpreting the questions that were asked.  It didn't ask whether you should believe the rapist.  It asked if a person is justified in basing his beliefs on an inner conviction, and then it asks whether a rapist is justified in basing his beliefs on an inner conviction.  It doesn't ask whether we should believe the rapist.
*



It specifically asked whether I thought the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in raping and murdering because he believed God told him to kill and rape. The answer: No. Killing and raping the innocent is never justified. My own inner conviction knows God would never tell someone to kill and rape the innocent. Thus... I am forced to violate my own inner convictions in order to believe his.

A better question would be if God told you to kill and rape, would you do it?

Assuming that I am 100% sure it is God, no, I wouldnt, because at that point my inner convictions would be shattered(convictions that God is benevolent) and thus I would no longer uphold them. The same can be applied to Peter Sutcliffe. If he truly thought God was telling him to rape and kill then God is no longer something to worship, a being whose teaching should no longer be followed.

Its almost like the question is saying... if you truly believe you are right, should you not be allowed to do whatever you want? If you truly think its OK to kill people who cut you off in traffic, shouldnt we let you? After all I believe in God, so therefore if he believes in killing people who cut him in off in traffic, there is no difference and we should allow him his beliefs.

The concept is so.... FUCKING STUPID... that there is no other way to describe it.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
necrolyte
post Jan 10 2006, 01:33 AM
Post #19


Spammer
********

Group: Members
Posts: 8,465
Joined: 21-February 03
Member No.: 271



No Dakyron, its beleiving right and wrong is fact based on your personal conviction alone. If you have no reason to believe what you believe beyond your personal experience, then there's no rational reason to believe you over him.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Dakyron
post Jan 10 2006, 03:07 AM
Post #20


The Promised One
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 4,329
Joined: 2-July 04
From: Peoria, Arizona(Phoenix)
Member No.: 739



You missed the point... The rapist contradicts his own beliefs, thats why you cannot put the two together...

Nevermind... the concept is obviously far beyond your ability to comprehend...
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
necrolyte
post Jan 10 2006, 06:12 AM
Post #21


Spammer
********

Group: Members
Posts: 8,465
Joined: 21-February 03
Member No.: 271



QUOTE(Dakyron @ Jan 10 2006, 03:07 AM)
You missed the point... The rapist contradicts his own beliefs, thats why you cannot put the two together...

Nevermind... the concept is obviously far beyond your ability to comprehend...
*



Shut the fuck up retard, how does it contradict his own beliefs? The rapist is like Abraham, whose god is the ultimate source of morality, and there is no way to objectively prove to others what God's morality is. There is only your personal conviction.

You clearly believe that there are higher moral beliefs than God, but you probably have better arguments than personal conviction alone. So the only difference between you and him is where your personal faith has been laid. To the rational mind, that is not enough. You must have some other argument for the benevolence of God that enters the realm of reason for your views on his moral decision to make sense.

This post has been edited by necrolyte: Jan 10 2006, 06:13 AM
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Dakyron
post Jan 10 2006, 06:21 AM
Post #22


The Promised One
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 4,329
Joined: 2-July 04
From: Peoria, Arizona(Phoenix)
Member No.: 739



QUOTE(necrolyte @ Jan 9 2006, 11:12 PM)
Shut the fuck up retard, how does it contradict his own beliefs? The rapist is like Abraham, whose god is the ultimate source of morality, and there is no way to objectively prove to others what God's morality is. There is only your personal conviction.

You clearly believe that there are higher moral beliefs than God, but you probably have better arguments than personal conviction alone. So the only difference between you and him is where your personal faith has been laid. To the rational mind, that is not enough. You must have some other argument for the benevolence of God that enters the realm of reason for your views on his moral decision to make sense.
*



Edit: Probably shouldnt spam/flame... or at least do it well if I do...

This post has been edited by Dakyron: Jan 10 2006, 06:29 AM
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Deus Ex Machina
post Jan 10 2006, 12:06 PM
Post #23


The Unbearable Lightness of Being [a pirate]
******

Group: Members
Posts: 1,063
Joined: 24-November 03
From: Suburb of Denver
Member No.: 569



QUOTE
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 without being hit and biting only one bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and well thought out.

I also deny that I bit any bullets, as per Cerian.

Dakyron:
So do morals come from God, or somewhere else?
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Benevolent
post Jan 10 2006, 03:07 PM
Post #24


Slyly Slythering Slytherin
********

Group: Oversight
Posts: 5,338
Joined: 17-August 02
Member No.: 109



False Direct Hit

You've just taken a direct hit!

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

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


Actually, the problem here is that the absence of evidence argument IS an argument for athiesm. The central problem being that I technically didn't take a direct hit; just a minor scratch. If even the absence of evidence argument does not work, then belief in athiesm is not rationally justified.

Other than that, I did ok.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
JLord
post Jan 10 2006, 04:01 PM
Post #25


Listen.
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,683
Joined: 1-December 04
Member No.: 816



QUOTE(Dakyron @ Jan 9 2006, 05:19 PM)
Assuming that I am 100% sure it is God, no, I wouldnt, because at that point my inner convictions would be shattered(convictions that God is benevolent) and thus I would no longer uphold them. The same can be applied to Peter Sutcliffe. If he truly thought God was telling him to rape and kill then God is no longer something to worship, a being whose teaching should no longer be followed.
*



Don't you already know about all the evil that God has done? I would think that you should have already given up worship because God is clearly not (always) benevolent.

QUOTE
Its almost like the question is saying... if you truly believe you are right, should you not be allowed to do whatever you want?


No. You are not understanding the question. It doesn't ask whether he should be allowed to do what he wants. It asks whether he is morally justified. You have a strong conviction that God is benevolent. What if someone else has an equally strong conviction that he is not. You can't just say "I am right, therefore his strong conviction is is false." He could just as easily say the same thing about your strong conviction.
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
Dakyron
post Jan 10 2006, 04:47 PM
Post #26


The Promised One
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 4,329
Joined: 2-July 04
From: Peoria, Arizona(Phoenix)
Member No.: 739



QUOTE(Deus Ex Machina @ Jan 10 2006, 05:06 AM)
Dakyron:
So do morals come from God, or somewhere else?
*



They come from yourself. Let me explain why, though Ive tried explaining this before and I dont think I did a good job of it.

Essentially, people have to choose to believe in God in order for morals to come from God. If you believe in God and choose to follow His morals, then you are also believing that his morals are correct, either because you agree with Him, or because you believe that He is the ultimate authority and must be right, even if you would otherwise disagree. Either way, you make the choice to follow His rules. If you dont believe in God, then your morals must come from somewhere else, most notably yourself, because no matter what source you base your morals off of, consciously or subconsciously, you choose to follow that particular source over other rival sources(God vs laws for instance).

QUOTE(JLord @ Jan 10 2006, 09:01 AM)
Don't you already know about all the evil that God has done?  I would think that you should have already given up worship because God is clearly not (always) benevolent.


I choose not to further that discussion at this time. However, you are wrong. :D

QUOTE
No.  You are not understanding the question.  It doesn't ask whether he should be allowed to do what he wants.  It asks whether he is morally justified.  You have a strong conviction that God is benevolent.  What if someone else has an equally strong conviction that he is not.  You can't just say "I am right, therefore his strong conviction is is false."  He could just as easily say the same thing about your strong conviction.
*



Exactly, JLord, now you are starting to understand why I can justify something based on my own personal inner conviction, but I cannot justify the actions of another based on *that* person's own inner conviction if it contradicts my own. In his mind, yes, Peter Sutcliffe(assuming he tells the truth) was justified, but in my mind, he is clearly *not* justified for reasons I outlined above. Hence why you cannot use the same logic applied to belief in a supernatural being based on faith and inner conviction with the actions of a person that is *directly affecting other people*.

Peter Sutcliffe is *not* justified in his actions because his actions contradict the teachings of the being he is supposedly following. Thus, for his actions to be justified I would have to assume: 1) He is not speaking to God as I understand Him; 2) The God he is speaking to is unknown to me and thus all my current convictions are wrong; 3) It is ok to kill and rape if you believe it is what the new God wants you to do.

Now, assume that I have a strong inner conviction in my belief in God. There is no way for me to justify him following the will of an evil God. If the God was not evil, then it wouldnt ask for him to rape and kill people.

Sheesh... it is so obvious, that I cannot understand why you dont see it...
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
necrolyte
post Jan 10 2006, 04:54 PM
Post #27


Spammer
********

Group: Members
Posts: 8,465
Joined: 21-February 03
Member No.: 271



Now the problem Dakyron is that you're holding your own conviction over the conviction of others, without any rational reason to do so.
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
Dakyron
post Jan 10 2006, 04:57 PM
Post #28


The Promised One
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 4,329
Joined: 2-July 04
From: Peoria, Arizona(Phoenix)
Member No.: 739



QUOTE(necrolyte @ Jan 10 2006, 09:54 AM)
Now the problem Dakyron is that you're holding your own conviction over the conviction of others, without any rational reason to do so.
*



Its *my* conviction, why the hell wouldnt I?

That is what you really need to understand. There is no reason for me to put another's conviction on the same level as mine. Mine is always above, because it is mine. If I thought your conviction was more accurate/true/whatever, would I not then change my own conviction?

*sigh*

Nevermind again... I think Im losing you...
Top
User is offlinePMEmail Poster
Quote Post
zkajan
post Jan 10 2006, 05:04 PM
Post #29


Bosnian MOFO
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,574
Joined: 6-January 04
From: New England
Member No.: 603



297229 people have completed this activity to date.
You suffered 1 direct hit and bit 2 bullets.
This compares with the average player of this activity to date who takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullets.
45.76% of the people who have completed this activity, like you, took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.
7.62% of the people who have completed this activity emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.



I got hit on the rapist thing. Which is stupid since just because *the guy* thinks God wants him to do X, doesn't mean that *God* wants him to do X.
Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post
JLord
post Jan 10 2006, 06:57 PM
Post #30


Listen.
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,683
Joined: 1-December 04
Member No.: 816



QUOTE(Dakyron @ Jan 10 2006, 09:47 AM)
Peter Sutcliffe is *not* justified in his actions because his actions contradict the teachings of the being he is supposedly following.
*



No. He is obviously not following the same being that you are. But we have to assume that his actions do not contradict his inner conviction. The question makes it clear that he is following what his inner conviction tells him to do, so there can be no contradiction.

QUOTE
Exactly, JLord, now you are starting to understand why I can justify something based on my own personal inner conviction, but I cannot justify the actions of another based on *that* person's own inner conviction if it contradicts my own


That makes more sense. You and him are equal in that you both are following inner convictions without any outside evidence. But you personally think he is wrong due to your own inner convictions. Is this correct. I think I see your point now, the question should be reworded.

Top
User is offlinePM
Quote Post

2 Pages  1 2 >
Reply to this topicTopic OptionsStart new topic

 


Lo-Fi Version
Time is now: 6th March 2006 - 08:50 AM