[OT] I bit a bullet
MythandLore
First Post
The should have called it the LAME GAME.
Sorry bubba, this game was lame.
I kept track of what happend to me with note pad so you caould see what happend.
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!
_______________________
No injuries so far, but watch out! Danger ahead!
You are in good health!
You're doing brilliantly!
You are in good health!
Only five more questions to go and not so much as a scratch so far! Well done!
You are in good health!
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 even when there is no external evidence for the truth 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!
You've just taken a direct hit!
You say that God does not have the freedom and power to do impossible things such as create square circles, but in an earlier answer you said that any being which it is right to call God must be free and have the power to do anything. So, on your view, God is not free and does not have the power to do what is impossible. This requires that you accept - in common with most theologians, but contrary to your earlier answer - that God's freedom and power are not unbounded. He does not have the freedom and power to do literally anything.
You've just had a near miss!
You claim that it is justifiable to believe in God based only on inner-convictions. But earlier you stated that the serial rapist, Peter Sutcliffe, was not justified in believing, purely on the basis of inner-convictions, that he correctly discerned God's intentions in his raping and murdering of prostitutes. In order to reconcile these claims you need to show what makes the same form of justification acceptable in one circumstance and unacceptable in another. Perhaps you can do this. But until you can show where the difference lies, you are in danger of taking a direct hit!
Oh dear! You're taking rather too much damage!
You have reached the end!
Congratulations! You have made it to the end of this activity.
You took 2 direct hits and you have bitten 0 bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.28 hits and bites 1.06 bullets. 10212 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.
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 without suffering many hits and biting no bullets suggests that whilst there are inconsistencies in your beliefs about God, on the whole they are well thought-out.
The direct hits you suffered occurred because some of your answers implied logical contradictions. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hits. 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, and consequently, you qualify for our third highest award. Well done!
How did you do compared to other people?
10212 people have completed this activity to date.
You suffered 2 direct hits and bit 0 bullets.
This compares with the average player of this activity to date who takes 1.28 hits and bites 1.06 bullets.
36.10% of the people who have completed this activity have, like you, been awarded the TPM Service Medal.
7.56% of the people who have completed this activity emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.
50.61% of the people who have completed this activity took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.
Sorry bubba, this game was lame.
I kept track of what happend to me with note pad so you caould see what happend.
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!
_______________________
No injuries so far, but watch out! Danger ahead!
You are in good health!
You're doing brilliantly!
You are in good health!
Only five more questions to go and not so much as a scratch so far! Well done!
You are in good health!
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 even when there is no external evidence for the truth 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!
You've just taken a direct hit!
You say that God does not have the freedom and power to do impossible things such as create square circles, but in an earlier answer you said that any being which it is right to call God must be free and have the power to do anything. So, on your view, God is not free and does not have the power to do what is impossible. This requires that you accept - in common with most theologians, but contrary to your earlier answer - that God's freedom and power are not unbounded. He does not have the freedom and power to do literally anything.
You've just had a near miss!
You claim that it is justifiable to believe in God based only on inner-convictions. But earlier you stated that the serial rapist, Peter Sutcliffe, was not justified in believing, purely on the basis of inner-convictions, that he correctly discerned God's intentions in his raping and murdering of prostitutes. In order to reconcile these claims you need to show what makes the same form of justification acceptable in one circumstance and unacceptable in another. Perhaps you can do this. But until you can show where the difference lies, you are in danger of taking a direct hit!
Oh dear! You're taking rather too much damage!
You have reached the end!
Congratulations! You have made it to the end of this activity.
You took 2 direct hits and you have bitten 0 bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.28 hits and bites 1.06 bullets. 10212 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.
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 without suffering many hits and biting no bullets suggests that whilst there are inconsistencies in your beliefs about God, on the whole they are well thought-out.
The direct hits you suffered occurred because some of your answers implied logical contradictions. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hits. 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, and consequently, you qualify for our third highest award. Well done!
How did you do compared to other people?
10212 people have completed this activity to date.
You suffered 2 direct hits and bit 0 bullets.
This compares with the average player of this activity to date who takes 1.28 hits and bites 1.06 bullets.
36.10% of the people who have completed this activity have, like you, been awarded the TPM Service Medal.
7.56% of the people who have completed this activity emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.
50.61% of the people who have completed this activity took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.
Tanager
Registered User
interesting MythandLore, because two bullets I bit where from the same questions, but answered slightly differently.
ie. if you posit that god, by definition, must be omnipotent early on in the game you cannot get through to the end without biting a bullet.
and:
so the game assumes a priori that certain positions, that god can be omnipotent and that rational belief can come from internal/intuitive processes, are untenable.
for the record..bit three bullets, no direct hits.
ie. if you posit that god, by definition, must be omnipotent early on in the game you cannot get through to the end without biting a bullet.
and:
so the game assumes a priori that certain positions, that god can be omnipotent and that rational belief can come from internal/intuitive processes, are untenable.
for the record..bit three bullets, no direct hits.
Axiomatic Unicorn
First Post
Re: The should have called it the LAME GAME.
I agree with you.
I took two hits:
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.
****************
Direct Hit 2
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 even when there is no external evidence for the truth 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!
Hit 1 may be a result of me reading to much into the question. I answered that it is reasonable to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist because not only is the a lack of supportign evidence, but there is rational evidence against it, (lack of food supply for one). Like I said, maybe I read to much into the question, but I think it was a bad exaple at least.
Hit 2 asks if it is ok to base your beliefs on moral conviction and if you answer yes jumps to the conclusion that it must therefore be ok to impose those beliefs on others. Really absurd.
MythandLore said:
I agree with you.
I took two hits:
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.
****************
Direct Hit 2
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 even when there is no external evidence for the truth 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!
Hit 1 may be a result of me reading to much into the question. I answered that it is reasonable to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist because not only is the a lack of supportign evidence, but there is rational evidence against it, (lack of food supply for one). Like I said, maybe I read to much into the question, but I think it was a bad exaple at least.
Hit 2 asks if it is ok to base your beliefs on moral conviction and if you answer yes jumps to the conclusion that it must therefore be ok to impose those beliefs on others. Really absurd.
Frostmarrow
First Post
I took a hit because I thought it was irrational to believe in the Loch Ness monster but it was rational to believe in God. I mean, there is a slight difference between the monster and God... Well, the test fails to accomdate my belief that the world itself is God. Silly.
Tsyr
Explorer
The test has three problems, as I see it. I've went through it a few more times, varing answers a touch to account for different ways of taking the question...
One: The questions are deliberatly designed to be extreamly vauge. In fact in some cases I found that the line between "true" and "false" was a so thin that I would probably never vote exactly the same away again.
Two: The fact that there is only ever two possible answers for a question. Not enough.
Three, and the biggest one: It asumes an absolute equality in the weight of answers. For example, the lochness monster/proof of god pair. Proof or disproof of the loch ness monster is a scientific possibility. In fact, it's a very REAL possibility, given the level of technology we have today. So continuing to believe it when it has been disproved (it hasn't, to my knowlede, but that's not the question) is stupid. However, by the very nature of the thing, it's impossible to disprove god. Proof is hard, but theoreticly possible (If, for example, God chose to show himself). But since you cannot prove god does not exist (Cannot prove a negative in this case...), it is not "stupid" to believe in God. But the questions don't take that into account.
One: The questions are deliberatly designed to be extreamly vauge. In fact in some cases I found that the line between "true" and "false" was a so thin that I would probably never vote exactly the same away again.
Two: The fact that there is only ever two possible answers for a question. Not enough.
Three, and the biggest one: It asumes an absolute equality in the weight of answers. For example, the lochness monster/proof of god pair. Proof or disproof of the loch ness monster is a scientific possibility. In fact, it's a very REAL possibility, given the level of technology we have today. So continuing to believe it when it has been disproved (it hasn't, to my knowlede, but that's not the question) is stupid. However, by the very nature of the thing, it's impossible to disprove god. Proof is hard, but theoreticly possible (If, for example, God chose to show himself). But since you cannot prove god does not exist (Cannot prove a negative in this case...), it is not "stupid" to believe in God. But the questions don't take that into account.
Similar Threads
