Ahh but it's been a fun learning curve for some /sarcasmconflictofinterests said:
Sure thing, I didn't realise so many people don't understand the difference...
Poll: Think you think straight? Think again...
- Thread starter Raven's Nest
- Start date
Sure thing, I didn't realise so many people don't understand the difference...
i got 7%
You agreed that:
Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste
And also that:
Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists
However i would like to point out that it is merely in my own personal taste i find Michaelangelo to be a great artist.
You agreed that:
Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste
And also that:
Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists
However i would like to point out that it is merely in my own personal taste i find Michaelangelo to be a great artist.
I got 20% Let's see if I can bullshit my way out of these.
"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."
I agreed that the second act is morally reprehensible in the case of human morality. You can't ascribe human morality to God. He's got bigger things going on in His head. Let's say hypothetically that He could alleviate that innocent child's suffering, but doing so would put that child in a position where he would likely go to Hell. In that sense, alleviating that child's suffering is immoral. One could argue semantics day and night, but my basic response to this is that God is above human morality because our Earthly suffering is minute compared to the kinds of things He has to worry about.
"You agreed that:
The environment should not be damaged unnecessarily in the pursuit of human ends
But disagreed that:
People should not journey by car if they can walk, cycle or take a train instead"
For me this was an issue of semantics. In general, the second one is a good rule, but it's not an absolute rule. One has to, within the context of their own situation, decide if it's important to take the train or whatever or not. There are cases where one simply needs to drive, even if it is not, within a certain context, "necessary". For example, perhaps the subway is available to someone for transportation, but the station is in a bad part of the neighborhood and one's safety is in danger when they use it. The option is available, but no one would call it immoral for the person to value their safety enough to take the car.
"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
These two beliefs are not strictly contradictory, but they do present an awkward mix of world-views. On the one hand, there is an acceptance that our consciousness and sense of self is in some way dependent on brain activity, and this is why brain damage can in a real sense damage 'the self'. Yet there is also the belief that the self is somehow independent of the body, that it can live on after the death of the brain. So it seems consciousness and selfhood both is and is not dependent on having a healthy brain. One could argue that the dependency of the self on brain only occurs before bodily death. The deeper problem is not that it is impossible to reconcile the two beliefs, but rather that they seem to presume wider, contradictory world-views: one where consciousness is caused by brains and one where it is caused by something non-physical."
I view consciousness and self as non-physical aspects of the person, tied to their soul, not their mind or body. That said, we inhabit a body, and so long as we do we use our mind to understand that consciousness and self. Without it, we can no longer possess them in a full sense. Once we no longer have a body and exist as pure spirit, we will no longer require a brain to act as a filter between body and soul.
take that test!
"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."
I agreed that the second act is morally reprehensible in the case of human morality. You can't ascribe human morality to God. He's got bigger things going on in His head. Let's say hypothetically that He could alleviate that innocent child's suffering, but doing so would put that child in a position where he would likely go to Hell. In that sense, alleviating that child's suffering is immoral. One could argue semantics day and night, but my basic response to this is that God is above human morality because our Earthly suffering is minute compared to the kinds of things He has to worry about.
"You agreed that:
The environment should not be damaged unnecessarily in the pursuit of human ends
But disagreed that:
People should not journey by car if they can walk, cycle or take a train instead"
For me this was an issue of semantics. In general, the second one is a good rule, but it's not an absolute rule. One has to, within the context of their own situation, decide if it's important to take the train or whatever or not. There are cases where one simply needs to drive, even if it is not, within a certain context, "necessary". For example, perhaps the subway is available to someone for transportation, but the station is in a bad part of the neighborhood and one's safety is in danger when they use it. The option is available, but no one would call it immoral for the person to value their safety enough to take the car.
"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
These two beliefs are not strictly contradictory, but they do present an awkward mix of world-views. On the one hand, there is an acceptance that our consciousness and sense of self is in some way dependent on brain activity, and this is why brain damage can in a real sense damage 'the self'. Yet there is also the belief that the self is somehow independent of the body, that it can live on after the death of the brain. So it seems consciousness and selfhood both is and is not dependent on having a healthy brain. One could argue that the dependency of the self on brain only occurs before bodily death. The deeper problem is not that it is impossible to reconcile the two beliefs, but rather that they seem to presume wider, contradictory world-views: one where consciousness is caused by brains and one where it is caused by something non-physical."
I view consciousness and self as non-physical aspects of the person, tied to their soul, not their mind or body. That said, we inhabit a body, and so long as we do we use our mind to understand that consciousness and self. Without it, we can no longer possess them in a full sense. Once we no longer have a body and exist as pure spirit, we will no longer require a brain to act as a filter between body and soul.
take that test!
You know, I had the same problem. If I said no to Michelangelo, couldn't the same crisis of placing quality to art? The only way to justify the way it responds is if you presuppose that the questioner already thought that Michelangelo was one of the greatest artists.THEJORRRG said:
There shouldn't be ANY atheists that say there can be no God. It isn't possible to disprove the existence of God, but that doesn't mean He cannot exist, merely that He most likely does not. In a case where there can be no proof for either option, it is always a matter of faith.Raven said:
I don't pick Chaotic Neutral: I am chaotic neutral, though I do occasionally lean towards the side of 'good'.
That said, I scored 'low', the tension being in my views on what should be done with Nature, the objective / subjective view of art, and the proper testing of medicine.
That said, I scored 'low', the tension being in my views on what should be done with Nature, the objective / subjective view of art, and the proper testing of medicine.
33%
I blame the fact that the test used big words in ways that made my brain hurt.
I'm saying that I'm stupid. Although I did understand a few in order to form some sort of rebuttle.
The holocaust did happen. There are multiple reports from soldiers, survivors, and the Nazi's themselves that show it did happen. Its, well, a fact. Of course the name could be debatable, but saying that 12 million or so people weren't killed by the Nazi's during WW2 is just wrong.
Had I known that most alternative and complementary medicines have not been tested in trials as rigorously as 'conventional' medicine, I would have answered differently.
I blame the fact that the test used big words in ways that made my brain hurt.
I'm saying that I'm stupid. Although I did understand a few in order to form some sort of rebuttle.
Questions 17-28: Are there any absolute truths?
59392 of the 172790 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.
You agreed that:
There are no objective truths about matters of fact; 'truth' is always relative to particular cultures and individuals
And also that:
The holocaust is an historical reality, taking place more or less as the history books report
If truth is relative then nothing is straightforwardly 'true' or 'factual'. Everything is 'true for someone' or 'a fact for them'. What then, of the holocaust? Is it true that millions of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and other 'enemies' of the Third Reich were systematically executed by the Nazis? If you believe that there are no objective truths, you have to say that there is no straight answer to this question. For some people, the holocaust is a fact, for others, it is not. So what can you say to those who deny it is a fact? Are they not as entitled to their view as you are to yours? How can one both assert the reality of the holocaust and deny that there is a single truth about it? Resolving this intellectual tension is a real challenge.
59392 of the 172790 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.
You agreed that:
There are no objective truths about matters of fact; 'truth' is always relative to particular cultures and individuals
And also that:
The holocaust is an historical reality, taking place more or less as the history books report
If truth is relative then nothing is straightforwardly 'true' or 'factual'. Everything is 'true for someone' or 'a fact for them'. What then, of the holocaust? Is it true that millions of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and other 'enemies' of the Third Reich were systematically executed by the Nazis? If you believe that there are no objective truths, you have to say that there is no straight answer to this question. For some people, the holocaust is a fact, for others, it is not. So what can you say to those who deny it is a fact? Are they not as entitled to their view as you are to yours? How can one both assert the reality of the holocaust and deny that there is a single truth about it? Resolving this intellectual tension is a real challenge.
The holocaust did happen. There are multiple reports from soldiers, survivors, and the Nazi's themselves that show it did happen. Its, well, a fact. Of course the name could be debatable, but saying that 12 million or so people weren't killed by the Nazi's during WW2 is just wrong.
Questions 16 and 21: What should be legal?
70670 of the 172790 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
But most alternative and complementary medicines have not been tested in trials as rigorously as 'conventional' medicine. For example, the popular herbal anti-depressant, St John's Wort, has recently been found to cause complications when taken alongside any of five other common medicines. This has only come to light because of extensive testing. Yet the product is freely available without medical advice. The question that needs answering here is, why do you believe alternative medicines and treatments need not be as extensively tested as conventional ones? The fact that they use natural ingredients is not in itself good reason, as there are plenty of naturally occurring toxins. Even if one argues that their long history shows them to be safe, that is not the same as showing them to be effective. This is not to criticise alternative therapies, but to question the different standards which are used to judge them compared to mainstream medicines.
70670 of the 172790 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
But most alternative and complementary medicines have not been tested in trials as rigorously as 'conventional' medicine. For example, the popular herbal anti-depressant, St John's Wort, has recently been found to cause complications when taken alongside any of five other common medicines. This has only come to light because of extensive testing. Yet the product is freely available without medical advice. The question that needs answering here is, why do you believe alternative medicines and treatments need not be as extensively tested as conventional ones? The fact that they use natural ingredients is not in itself good reason, as there are plenty of naturally occurring toxins. Even if one argues that their long history shows them to be safe, that is not the same as showing them to be effective. This is not to criticise alternative therapies, but to question the different standards which are used to judge them compared to mainstream medicines.
Had I known that most alternative and complementary medicines have not been tested in trials as rigorously as 'conventional' medicine, I would have answered differently.
Can't help but laugh at everyone feeling targeted and mocked because the test gave them a few possible contradictions in their answers. Stop taking it so personal, the site itself says that it doesn't necessarily means a contradiction when it highlights two statements. It says that either you are hypocritical, or your view on the subject is more complex. Complexity, in itself, is a form of tension, which makes it accurate. This is just an exercise to single out people like these stupid religious fundamentalists and/or relativists who can't think straight for a second.
Example:Jackpot524 said:
"Its always wrong to take a life?"
this is where it should have "depends" button
no one should kill, but then again sometime bitches got to die (im looking at you al-quadaffi)
so why it may not be RIGHT it may also be NECESSARY at the same time.
"It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence"
but what if there is evidence to support it, but its not recognized as valid evidence by some?
"Having made a choice, it is always possible that one might have chosen otherwise"
what the hell does that even mean? isnt that the point of 'a choice' the fact i could have chosen other wise? maby i'm missing the point, but im not exactly sure what these have to do with thinking straight.
and what if i don't "think straight" and i know i dont?
example: im against abortion, but pro death penalty. some people call that a contrition, i call it 'fair'.
maby part of my belief has a double stadard, maby its supposed to be contradictory.
this just reminds me on those "political test" even though it doesnt take every possible option, it goes by its own set standards.
To your first contradiction, I bolded and italicized the relevant information. Basically, you're citing an example where it is not possible due to safety concerns.Superhyperactiveman said:
In the second one, those two beliefs are very hard to reconcile, as most people view one's soul as one's personhood, and in your response you indicated that this isn't entirely so. So, what you're saying to me indicates that brain death and bodily death have different implications on "self", each taking a bit out of the equation. Is that correct? If so, it's the first time I've heard of such a view, and I find it intriguing.
There shouldn't also be anyone who claims that God does exist without proving that he exists. Yet many do... People are weird.Spleenboy said:
