Philosophical Battleground
Note: LJ Ultimate Obsession / Purity Tests, by theferrett.
Philosophical Battleground
Battleground Analysis
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 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!
How did you do compared to other people?
* 446660 people have completed this activity to date.
* You suffered 1 direct hit and bit 3 bullets.
* This compares with the average player of this activity to date who takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullets.
* 38.33% of the people who have completed this activity have, like you, been awarded the TPM Service Medal.
* 7.76% of the people who have completed this activity emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.
* 45.73% of the people who have completed this activity took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.
Direct Hit 1
You answered "False" to Question 7 and "True" to Question 17.
These answers generated the following response:
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!
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.
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.
****************
Bitten Bullet 3
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.
Philosophical Battleground
Battleground Analysis
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 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!
How did you do compared to other people?
* 446660 people have completed this activity to date.
* You suffered 1 direct hit and bit 3 bullets.
* This compares with the average player of this activity to date who takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullets.
* 38.33% of the people who have completed this activity have, like you, been awarded the TPM Service Medal.
* 7.76% of the people who have completed this activity emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.
* 45.73% of the people who have completed this activity took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.
Direct Hit 1
You answered "False" to Question 7 and "True" to Question 17.
These answers generated the following response:
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!
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.
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.
****************
Bitten Bullet 3
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.
posted by Flami at 4:51:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home