philosophising about God?Check your logic!

[taranaki]

http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm

[NSX]

I"ve taken slight damage
hehe
I think I had a broken arm or something

[sugarcaddy]

I was awarded the TPM Service Metal, whatever that is.....

Scott

[Pizzle00]

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 without being hit and biting very few bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and well thought out.

A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that 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. However, because you bit only two bullets and avoided direct hits completely you still qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!







I dont think thats too bad, but I an honestly say I was confused on one, I just didnt understand the question, but the one that really got me was the dude who raped in the name of God or something like that, I was trying to be rational without contradicting myself but I guess I was still wrong...lol..
Thats cool though !! Good one Taranaki !!!

[YogsVR4]

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!

The test is flawed for telling me that this was an intellectual hit. The act of being "justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will" is not contradicted by having ones belief system based on internal convictions regardless of external evidence (or lack thereof). Mental disorders which Peter Sutcliffe had are not a belief system.

Whoever put this test together overlayed beliefs and morality in a bizzare way. Ones beliefs are tied to but not driven by ones morality.

[sugarcaddy]

Originally posted by YogsVR4


The test is flawed for telling me that this was an intellectual hit. The act of being "justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will" is not contradicted by having ones belief system based on internal convictions regardless of external evidence (or lack thereof). Mental disorders which Peter Sutcliffe had are not a belief system.

Whoever put this test together overlayed beliefs and morality in a bizzare way. Ones beliefs are tied to but not driven by ones morality.

I dont think you are geting the point about Peter Sutcliffe. Even though he had a mental disorder(?) he had believed that god had spoke to him. Now in any religion is based the belief in a "god". So even though he was mental-he did have a valid belief system in his own mind.
Im not supporting his act of murder, but his right to freedom of religion.

Scott

[YogsVR4]

I'm sorry but there is a big difference between a belief system and performing a task instructed to you by god - or anyone else.

[sugarcaddy]

Originally posted by YogsVR4
I'm sorry but there is a big difference between a belief system and performing a task instructed to you by god - or anyone else.

Well you have to believe in god in the first place to do an act that was asked of you by god in the first place, right??

Scott

[YogsVR4]

Originally posted by sugarcaddy


Well you have to believe in god in the first place to do an act that was asked of you by god in the first place, right??

Scott

No. Don't confuse belief in god with a belief system. I believe in god. However, if I suddenly heard a command in my head to slaughter people, the first thing I'd do is go get checked by several physicians. If nothing else ¡V just because you hear a voice, doesn¡¦t mean that its god (regardless of what it calls itself).

[sugarcaddy]

Originally posted by YogsVR4


No. Don't confuse belief in god with a belief system. I believe in god. However, if I suddenly heard a command in my head to slaughter people, the first thing I'd do is go get checked by several physicians. If nothing else ¡V just because you hear a voice, doesn¡¦t mean that its god (regardless of what it calls itself).

Where does believing in god not a belief system? Is not beliving in a god the basis for all religion? Be it right or wrong everyone has their own opinion on what god is and what they believe in. This is why there are wars in the mideast, IMO. No one can agree on who's version of their god is best for the region. They believe in what they think is right--therefore they have their own belief sytem in place and their own belief system for their god.
I dont think Im confused at all....
Point being a sane person (ie. me, you etc) sure if we heard voices may not act apon them and seek guidence, but what about the mentally imapred? These individuals would most likely take it to heart as god and believe it was god that spoke to them. Most likely these people have a religion of sorts also in which they believe in a god. So if god spoke to them, their beliefs are true to them in their religious rights. They believe and act apon such belief, be it right or wrong from an outsiders point of view. Its up to the moral standard to judge whether or not the indvidual in question did an act of good or evil for his god. In his mind all he did was good for his religious beliefs and the voice of his god.

Scott

[whttrshpunk]

In certain parts of this test it told I "bit a bullet" whatever the crap that means. It would go on to say there were no logical inconsistencies in my beliefs, but that some might find them "incredible". What the crap? And no one finds it even remotely incredible that over a few million years one organism magically morhped into hundreds of thousands of completely different and distinct species? I find this test to be entirely subjective and one sided. It's not a test but an attempt to poke holes in disagreeable arguments whenever and whereever it can create such a hole. Open mindedness is apparently a lost art.

[YogsVR4]

Scott

We're drifting this conversation way off the topic.

The point I was making is that the tests logic was flawed. Because of its shortness, it demanded black and white answers. We all know that is not the case especially when dealing with moral issues. There are more shades of gray in there then a TV set. If you’d like to debate if a mentally ill person is capable of committing an immoral act, then we should have another thread.

[sugarcaddy]

Originally posted by YogsVR4
Scott

We're drifting this conversation way off the topic.

The point I was making is that the tests logic was flawed. Because of its shortness, it demanded black and white answers. We all know that is not the case especially when dealing with moral issues. There are more shades of gray in there then a TV set. If you’d like to debate if a mentally ill person is capable of committing an immoral act, then we should have another thread.

Well I can agree on this. The test is flawed. There are to many differnet answers to the questions to be black and white like the test wants it to be.

Scott