[OT] I bit a bullet

[mmu1]

Got taken in by the stupid "Loch Ness" / atheism pair too. In my case because I answered that the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster and God are both matters of faith. I'm supposed to bite a bullet for that? The questions wasn't whether there very good reasons to believe the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist, it was whether, logically, it's a matter of faith or fact... Doesn't mean I believe in little green men on Mars... Pseudo-intellectual claptrap...

 

[Jezrael]

Bit one bullet

You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. So it seems that you require certain, irrevocable proof for God's existence, but accept evolutionary theory without certain proof. So you've got a choice:

Bite a bullet and claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution.

Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses.

The question I answered that makes this a bite the bullet/direct hit was...

"Evolutionary theory may be false in some matters of detail but it is essentially true"

Quite the loaded question, as it didn't ask me which parts of evolutionary theory I thought were true (microevolution vs. macroevolution). The matters of detail in which I think evolution is true is of great importance. By answering this question, I could be saying, yes I think things evolve on the small scale; for example adaptation, which I believe is the first evolutionary step...ah screw it let me just say this is stupid and get it over with.

Ok, now that I've said the quiz was stupid (and I feel so much better, mmm catharsis) let me explain.

Basically it all boils down to the fact that until someone can show more concrete proof than the fact that we're related to monkeys (which there may be and I'd be happy to see) that macroevolution is crap but microevolution, such as adaptation is OK as it can be seen if not every day then quite often (like those moths that changed color so they could blend in with all the smog better).

Of course some people could argue that adaptation and evolution aren't the same but hey, we're all entitled to our perceptions and opinions.

Edit: Edited for some really gruesome grammar

 

[rounser]

One bite, one hit on believing that god is the lochness monster or something.

It essentially tries to trick you into saying that you need proof to believe in one thing, but not another. When this fails, it tries to catch you out on whether you dismiss belief in something due to lack of evidence and not another thing.

I think the sleight of hand it pulls is that it phrases some questions as absolutes and others as vagaries, and then draws an absolute conclusion out of an answer to a vague question and compares it to an answer to an you made to an absolute question.

It reminds me of a psychology quiz I took once which was supposed to detect whether you were lying or not by asking essentially the same set of questions in different ways. What it ignored was that if you had no great conviction either way, the way the question was put could determine how you thought about the answer.

 

[Harlequin]

...

1 direct hit

But i made it thru alive

But my brain really hurts...


Harlequin

 

[Tom Cashel]

I'm with the naysayers on this one. True/False are not the only possible answers...there's Maybe. Answer this: "Is the thought of a unicorn a true thought?"

The only answer is Maybe, because in some ways it is, and in some ways it isn't.

Besides, the whole Universe is contradiction--from quantum physics, to the laws of our government, to evolution vs. creationism vs. evolutionary creationism, right down to human personality. It seems to me pure folly to claim strong, unswerving belief in anything at all.

Another view not supported by that railroad of a "game." I'm happy with contradiction...it's all over the place.