Poll: Think you think straight? Think again...

[Diligent]

I call shenanigans!
You agreed that:
There are no objective moral standards; moral judgements are merely an expression of the values of particular cultures
And also that:
Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to do great evil

It called that out as a contradiction, but its not really, because I am from a culture that finds genocide morally reprehensible.
I am quite content understanding that others might not see genocide as a morally bad thing, but that doesnt mean that I dont have to.

 

[MrTub]

It's a bit contrived, to be honest. It called me out on this-

You disagreed that:
It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence
But agreed that:
Atheism is a faith just like any other, because it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God

I never said that Atheism was any more reasonable than other kinds of faith, I just said that it was one.

Subjectivity does not a good philosophical test make.

Atheism generally isn't a faith though... it's the lack of faith.

There aren't many atheists that will say they are for sure 100% there is and can be no god. Without a way to prove it, that idea becomes a faith. Such people are severely lacking in the logic department.

They're agnostic, not atheist. Atheists say there is no God and to assume that there is a God without strong evidence is ridiculous. However, to assume that there is no God without strong evidence is equally ridiculous as assuming there is one. That is a genuine contradiction.

However, the original contradiction is not one. He did simply say that Atheism is a faith and that it isn't reasonable to believe something without evidence, saying that he is not atheism isn't reasonable.

I got similar results, which can be read in my post. The test is weak in the way each question is worded and then evaluated.

"to assume that there is no God without strong evidence is equally ridiculous as assuming there is one."

Imo that is quite flawed statement since I could say that a invisible hippo(that only I can see) just ate my computer and made a invisible fire in the middle of the room, you wouldn't believe me but you have actually no proof that almight hippo doesnt exist. I would call myself an atheist but since we do not know everything and if "god" suddenly teleported himself into my room and proved he/she/it do exist I would perhaps change my "stance" if he/she/it proved worthy to be followed, so In my opinion if you say that X exist you should be the one to provide real proof that he/she/it does exist and is worthy being followed.

 

[KILGAZOR]

"The second world war was a just war." For the Axis or the Allies?

"Having made a choice, it is always possible that one might have chosen otherwise." What the fuck does that mean? Is it asking me if time travel is possible? Or that some person might make a different choice than someone?

"On bodily death, a person continues to exist in a non-physical form." Okay, that's just not a fair question for an Agnostic like me.

I'm sorry but this is a poorly-made quiz.

 

[oldskoolandi]

It's a bit contrived, to be honest. It called me out on this-

You disagreed that:
It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence
But agreed that:
Atheism is a faith just like any other, because it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God

I never said that Atheism was any more reasonable than other kinds of faith, I just said that it was one.

Subjectivity does not a good philosophical test make.

Atheism generally isn't a faith though... it's the lack of faith.

There aren't many atheists that will say they are for sure 100% there is and can be no god. Without a way to prove it, that idea becomes a faith. Such people are severely lacking in the logic department.

Sorry to be pedantic, but if atheists aren't sure of the lack of God, doesn't that make them agnostics instead? I think Atheists are pretty firm on the whole non-existence deal.

I think this thread sums it up quite good imo

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.270326-You-are-not-agnostic

Actually it just muddied the water even more, but an interesting read nonetheless, thanks for that

 

[Raven's Nest]

Mine was fairly high, but in all of the cases there were other matters to take into consideration. They were too complicated to be answered by a 'yes' or 'no.'

Spoiler: Example

Questions 16 and 21: What should be legal?

70506 of the 172162 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
The government should not permit the sale of treatments which have not been tested for efficacy and safety
And also that:
Alternative and complementary medicine is as valuable as mainstream medicine

If alternative medicines are tested, I don't see a problem.

"You know what they call alternative medicines that actually work?... Medicine" - Tim Minchin

True, but drugs are...drugs...

Well, I guess I'm a hypocrite. But then again pretty much all of this ideological conflict falls back on our own personal opinions, so one cannot be right or wrong in such a issue...

Philosophy in a nutshell...

 

[hem dazon 90]

Bias FTW

Seriously, That whole thing is subjective

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

I got that one too, though looking back I suppose its the wording.. 'Do acts of genocide stand as a testament to evil' I suppose could be taken to imply that cultural values etc change over time - IMO you're right to say it would be viewed as evil in the current day and age, the only conflict is whether it would 'stand as a testament' over time. I can kinda see their point, though it is still somewhat spurious.

I think we're both assuming that by genocide they mean genocide from discrimination, like the 'Final Solution' thought up by the Nazis (Godwin's law does not apply). However, from a point of view that Race 1 is threatened by Race 2 then it doesn't seem so bad that they would want to destroy that threat, even if it was genocide.

But then I'm brought back to the Nazis and Third Reich Germany. They genuinely thought that the Jews were a threat, taking jobs, ruining the economy and spreading communism throughout Europe. Isn't it just as fair to say that they were merely protecting themselves to something they saw as a threat?

I suppose it all depends on genuine circumstance and perspective. From the point of view of Nazi Germany and Race 1, genocide may not seem evil. However, when we look at both situations from the outside then we deduce that Nazi Germany was evil because there was no genuine threat (and many knew so) yet Race 1 is not evil, or rather a necessary evil, because there was a genuine threat. I may have looped round in a circle there, but I think we can safely say that only those from the outside can truly determine what is evil and what is a necessary evil.

Yes, I think it does stand as a testament to the evil mankind can do. From the outside, we see that genocide is always evil, as is killing a man. However, in some cases it may be a necessary evil to commit genocide, rather than simple pure evil.

 

[MrTub]

It's a bit contrived, to be honest. It called me out on this-

You disagreed that:
It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence
But agreed that:
Atheism is a faith just like any other, because it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God

I never said that Atheism was any more reasonable than other kinds of faith, I just said that it was one.

Subjectivity does not a good philosophical test make.

Atheism generally isn't a faith though... it's the lack of faith.

There aren't many atheists that will say they are for sure 100% there is and can be no god. Without a way to prove it, that idea becomes a faith. Such people are severely lacking in the logic department.

Sorry to be pedantic, but if atheists aren't sure of the lack of God, doesn't that make them agnostics instead? I think Atheists are pretty firm on the whole non-existence deal.

I think this thread sums it up quite good imo

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.270326-You-are-not-agnostic

Actually it just muddied the water even more, but an interesting read nonetheless, thanks for that

Well he argues that either you believe in "god" or you don't. So either you are an atheist or you are a theist?(aren't sure if that is the right word)

 

[Dango]

I got a 20%, but it kind of annoys me when the only choices are "agree" and "disagree", especially when you're being examined on questions that are much deeper than that. But I guess a "sometimes agree" button might screw up test results or something.

 

[conflictofinterests]

I love how they put up complex, multiple-point statements and then ask you to agree or disagree with the whole thing. Lovely questionnaire, I could only answer a few of 'em, so... no score.

You are supposed to read them as literally as possible, I know there's a lot to consider in each point, but it's really hard to come down in the middle if you examine the statements that way.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

No tension at all. Surprisingly.

Equally surprisingly I almost always pick Chaotic Neutral.

One of the big problems in the test is that you have to subscribe to a Dualism though; where most arguments can be defeated under certain circumstances.

For instance; Art is decided by the individual, and Michaelangleo is one of the great artists. I can still think Michaelangelo is a rubbish artist and still believe that Art is decided by the majority - or any of the other three remaining answers without being in conflict.

 

[Raven's Nest]

For example;

Do you believe that people should be free to make their own decisions and live out their lives doing what they want so long as they don't hurt anyone else?

Do you believe a person should be arrested if they sat next to you on a park bench and injected themselves with heroin in front of you and your kids?

Well, you can't actually have one without the other.

Actually that's such a bad example I didn't bother going to the site. Heroin use effects more than the individual.

I apologise for the wording, that would be my bad (my wording and deliberately ambiguous)... The test is worth checking out though.

 

[Jordi]

Do you believe that people should be free to make their own decisions and live out their lives doing what they want so long as they don't hurt anyone else?

Do you believe a person should be arrested if they sat next to you on a park bench and injected themselves with heroin in front of you and your kids?

Well, you can't actually have one without the other.

That is not completely true, because it hinges on the assumption that I believe that that junkie is not harming anyone else. Maybe he is harming my kids by giving a bad example. Maybe he is harming me and others by grossing us out. Maybe he is harming society by contributing to the drugs problem.

Also, the statement doesn't say he's arrested for injecting heroin in front of me and my kids, although it kind of implies it (or at least people can be forgiven for interpreting it that way). So maybe I just think he should be arrested for breaking the law (having heroin on his person) and he just happens to be on the same park bench as me.

I don't want to nitpick, but this is exactly what is wrong with this test.

I shall copy and pasta my previous answer to this particular question...

You would have to make the same justification for banning anything that could harm others such as driving a car or playing a sport...

The philosophy behind these questions are more important than the specific examples given...

The my wording was meant to be pretty ambiguous, I didn't want to lay out a specific dilemma, rather I wanted to encourage the thought process behind making such judgements. I meant to imply that the heroin user should be arrested for possession rather than being a nuisance to others. The level of potential harm is also subjective in this case...

The test isn't perfect, but I think it gives a good general indication of what it's trying to achieve. At the end of the day we wouldn't have so many branches of philosophy if one was deemed to be the most correct.

I agree that it is interesting (I'm still on their website), but I often find it annoying when tests like these 1) don't allow me to state my real opinion and 2) make judgments that are simply not consistent with what I wanted to say. Of course, this isn't entirely fair to these tests, because they are after all simple tests and the writers can't account for every situation, but it does get exacerbated when it takes a judgmental tone ("you're inconsistent").

As for your answer to my question: sorry for not replying to it immediately. I think you posted it while I was posting/taking the test. Anyway, I disagree that you would have to make the same justification for banning anything that could harm others such as driving a car or playing a sport. The reason is that other participants in sports and traffic are consenting to participate. But of course, like you say, it isn't just about this one example. The fact that we are debating over this example now however, shows that there are apparently nuances, or at least ways of thinking about it, that are not captured by the test (that claims to be able to make judgments about it).

 

[Ham_authority95]

That test was bullshit because people take their moral on a case-by-case basis and it just had a "disagree" and "agree" button when those situations are much deeper than that.

I'd that that my philosophical health is pretty good since I refused to answer those questions in such a shallow manner...

 

[Drexlor]

I got a 33%. I'm surprised it wasn't 50% because it seems like everything I do contradicts something else I've already done.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

I kept asking questions. "The second world war was a just war...." for whom? It does matter.

#8: If it exists in the mind, does it not exist somewhere, at least in idea? The question is a fallacy on it's own.

#28: Which history books? I've read many that were horrible, both on their factual accuracy, and their opinions. Some don't think that the holocaust existed... should completely contradictory opinions be included?

I have a 47% but it puts BS problems that I've already come to grips with as being a "tension." Like the existence of Evil... I'm sorry, haven't you read any philosophy younger than 400AD? Evil exists because it is damaged, or corrupted good. Augustine wrote extensively on this, and this is way behind.

My driving. I'm sorry, biking isn't an acceptable mode of transport for my job. Sure, I guess anyone can ride a bike to go cross country towing a trailer, instead of using a truck... I guess...

Euthanasia can hurt other people too. Sorry, I doubt many people would be able to easily pull a plug and not be effected by it. That's just idiocy written down on a paper because they've never had to do it. I euthanized my dog, and it wasn't something I could walk away from unscarred. If they say they can, they're liars.

Just too much bullshit thrown together by people with a few philosophy lessons, because they really haven't looked into the matters they're grading.

 

[oldskoolandi]

It's a bit contrived, to be honest. It called me out on this-

You disagreed that:
It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence
But agreed that:
Atheism is a faith just like any other, because it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God

I never said that Atheism was any more reasonable than other kinds of faith, I just said that it was one.

Subjectivity does not a good philosophical test make.

Atheism generally isn't a faith though... it's the lack of faith.

There aren't many atheists that will say they are for sure 100% there is and can be no god. Without a way to prove it, that idea becomes a faith. Such people are severely lacking in the logic department.

Sorry to be pedantic, but if atheists aren't sure of the lack of God, doesn't that make them agnostics instead? I think Atheists are pretty firm on the whole non-existence deal.

I think this thread sums it up quite good imo

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.270326-You-are-not-agnostic

Actually it just muddied the water even more, but an interesting read nonetheless, thanks for that

Well he argues that either you believe in "god" or you don't. So either you are an atheist or you are a theist?(aren't sure if that is the right word)

Yeah, but several people disagreed with his view, and there's some valid points on both sides of the argument.

And Theist is the right word.

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

Lol, I got a 7%, with only one answer in conflict, and in that case it was a case of misunderstanding the implication of the wording of one of the statements, so yeah.

I'm calling that a 0% tension quotient.

-m

I got a 20%, but I'd argue that my own definitions of the terms the site was using do not correspond with theirs, so I feel like my tension quotient would be closer to 0% too. For example:
"You agreed that:
There exists an all-powerful, loving and good God
And also that:
To allow an innocent child to suffer needlessly when one could easily prevent it is morally reprehensible

These two beliefs together generate what is known as 'The Problem of Evil'. The problem is simple: if God is all-powerful, loving and good, that means he can do what he wants and will do what is morally right. But surely this means that he would not allow an innocent child to suffer needlessly, as he could easily prevent it. Yet he does. Much infant suffering is the result of human action, but much is also due to natural causes, such as disease, flood or famine. In both cases, God could stop it, yet he does not.

Attempts to explain this apparent contradiction are known as 'theodicies' and many have been produced. Most conclude that God allows suffering to help us grow spiritually and/or to allow the greater good of human freedom. Whether these theodicies are adequate is the subject of continuing debate."

I guess that last point sort of shows they're at least recognizing the fact that Epicurus isn't as infallible an argument as many like to think. Also,

"You agreed that:
Severe brain-damage can rob a person of all consciousness and selfhood
And also that:
On bodily death, a person continues to exist in a non-physical form"

They called this a conflict because it seems to say the brain is the seat of "self" but I then said that I believe in some type of existence beyond this one. For me, the body is an expression of the soul, and if the body is damaged enough, to the point that we cannot detect any semblance of self awareness, then the person has been robbed of their "self".

 

[Quinadin]

33%

Got me with the "right to pursue their own ends as long as it's not harmful to others, but don't legalize drugs?"
Which I don't care if marijuana is legalized but I don't think the more dangerous ones should be.
and the "Art is subject" but "Michelangelo is a good artist."
Come on, he's widely regarded as a good artist. Yeah it's still opinion but most people share the opinion.
The rest were mostly Religious things. I'm happy enough with my results and rebuttals.