I wish scientists would just make up their mind.

[CaTaClYsM]

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


Just wanted to share. Take the test, see how well you do.

[Savia]

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


Just wanted to share. Take the test, see how well you do.

Very interesting site and test, bookmarked.

First time through I got hit twice because I wasn't concentrating clearly on the test; with a bit more rational thought I retook it and got no hits but one thing they define as a bite-the-bullet.

[nailz]

people who are athiestic because of the bible are funny.

[jonmartensen]

"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 these convictions." != "It is justifiable to believe in God if one has a firm, inner conviction that God exists, even if there is no external evidence that God exists."

The first one implies that one is also taking into consideration contradictory evidence. The second only states that no evidence exists.

evidence against a belief != lack of evidence

[azulmagia]

You may have just taken a direct hit!

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 above statement is nonsense. For one thing, what is "certain proof"? The two assertions differ, but not in the same respect, so there is no contradiction. Modern evolutionary theory is, by and, large, the theory of natural selection. Natural selection is a theory designed to account for the fact of evolution. It is by no means coterminous and identical to evolution itself, and the history of science suggests one day it will be modified or superseded. Besides, the quiz arbitrarily attached, "certain, irrevocable" proof is a bid to trick the people taking it. There isn't any proof, let alone conclusive. All evidence or fact is provisonal to a greater or lesser extent. Only in the field of human action can we can the least provisional knowledge, "certain". It could well be a higher standard of proof is required in regards to God, but there isn't any besides the existence of adherents, and no-one would argue the existence of flat-earthers would constitute proof in favour of the flat earth hypothesis. The only reason I could think of to ask for higher standards of proof would have to do with the post-mortem fate of the human soul. After all, you can't ask for your money back from religion if they lied about what happens to you after you die.

[SSJVegita0609]

This entire subject proves only one thing:

Ignorance = shitiness.

Too many people argue one side of the debate without exploring the other enough. I personally have opted to leave all organized religion, but I have no problem with people believing what they want to as long as:

A: They don't hurt anybody
B: They don't force thier views on others, and instead let them decide for themselves.

Unfortunatly, these two things occur far too often in todays world. All religions are guilty of this because most of the time it occurs on an indivdual or small group basis, usually executed by the extremists. I'm not saying that benevolent religion doesn't exist, but there's way too much out there that ISN'T benevolent.

Regardless, the point is simple. Religion exists to make the world a better place, its the extremists who fuck it up. If science disproves a detail of scripture, who gives a fuck? The main point remains the same, and, in the case of christianity, to love thy neighbor as thyself.

[azulmagia]

I personally have opted to leave all organized religion, but I have no problem with people believing what they want to as long as:

A: They don't hurt anybody
B: They don't force thier views on others, and instead let them decide for themselves.

Unorganized religion = no such animal, a contradiction in terms. The fact that it depends on the sincere commitment of the individual at first gives rise to the illusion that this is not so, but religion is a social phenomenon, the point being to "put the individual in accord with the environment" as Joseph Campbell put it. Persecution of heretics has to do with the fact that part of that environment is the established religion itself, and the general impulse is to conserve, not to reform or revolutionize the society in which the religion exists. Moments of reform are exceptions, and are most certainly not the rule. In fact, from the history of Christianity, I estimate that Jesus is six times more likely to hijacked for conservative purposes than radical or heretical purposes. Besides, between a religion that forcefully advances their views versus one that doesn't, caeteris paribus, which is more likely to prevail and prosper?

Religion exists to make the world a better place, its the extremists who fuck it up.

Religion exists to provide a consolation for a fucked-up world without changing it, which is the function of ideology in general. Real-world contradictions cannot be abolished in thought, real-world contradictions can only be abolished by revolutionizing the real world. Don't confuse "should" statements with "are" statements.

[SSJVegita0609]

I personally have opted to leave all organized religion, but I have no problem with people believing what they want to as long as:

A: They don't hurt anybody
B: They don't force thier views on others, and instead let them decide for themselves.

Unorganized religion = no such animal, a contradiction in terms.

Exactly, I have no religion. That's all I was saying, I wasn't proclaiming myself to have my own religion, I simply have none.

Religion exists to make the world a better place, its the extremists who fuck it up.

Religion exists to provide a consolation for a fucked-up world without changing it, which is the function of ideology in general. Real-world contradictions cannot be abolished in thought, real-world contradictions can only be abolished by revolutionizing the real world. Don't confuse "should" statements with "are" statements.

I think you're disagring with me, but I'm not quite sure how...

[CaTaClYsM]

Look at it this way, either a higher power exists or it doesn't. Flip a coin and pick a side. The thought of the universe being made doesn't make any more sense than believing it was 'just there'.

[CaTaClYsM]

Oh, and I would just like to add, that using a stereotype of people in a religion as an excuse not to have one is pretty stupid. Just because certain people you've met in certain religions are that way, doesn't mean YOU have to be.