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

[Polyg0n]

I got 20%, but I didn't agree with all the conflicts. Under some conditions the statements were both fulfilled in all of the conflicts it said I had.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

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.

But Atheism is belief there is no God if they are ambiguous about it and are unsure then they are agnostics. To be atheist you must be against theism ie belief in no God/s or Goddess/es.

No. What you, and many other people, don't understand is the difference between atheism and antitheism. Atheism is a lack of belief in any of the thousands of gods in all the religions (and simply put, every religious person is an atheist too, except for a single god/set of gods which then becomes their focus), but anthitheism is the one which is 'there is almost certainly not a god, to the point where it's fucking stupid to believe in one, and religion does more harm than good to society so it should be gone'.

One is a lack of stance, one is a strong negative stance.

Yes but lack of believe includes Agnostics. If you look it up in the dictionary which mine says Atheism is belief in no God.

Definitions of atheism on the Web:

* the doctrine or belief that there is no God
* a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

* atheist - related to or characterized by or given to atheism; "atheist leanings"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* atheistic - rejecting any belief in gods
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* Atheist is a technical death metal band from Florida, founded in 1984, whose music combined metal riffs with subtle latin music arrangements and jazz fusion. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist_(band)

* The Atheist is written by Irish born playwright, Ronan Noone. His previous plays include The Lepers of Baile Baiste (Critics Pick, Boston Globe) and The Blowin of Baile Gall which had its Off-Broadway debut, produced by Gabriel Byrne, at the Irish arts Center in New York in 2005. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Atheist_(play)

* The Atheist is a horror comic book originally released in April 2005 and is published by Image Comics. Phil Hester, of "The Wretch" and "Green Arrow," writes "The Atheist," while British John McCrea of "Hitman" does the black and white artwork.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Atheist_(comics)

* atheist - A person without a belief in, or one who lacks belief in the existence of a god or gods; A person who believes that no gods or deities exist
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/atheist

* A belief that there are no gods. Greek "a-theos": without-god. [see the 'Atheism' page for complete information]
www.reasoned.org/glossary.htm

* Denies the existence of any God, thought it is traditionally focused on the rejection of the Biblical God.
www.crossroad.to/glossary/religious.htm

* According to a study by Barna Research, "roughly 7% of the adult population ? approximately 14 million people ? describe themselves as atheistic or agnostic. Atheism is not a religion or a complete ethical system. ...
www.biashelp.org/gloss.php

* This word comes from two Greek words, a the negator, and theos, God. Atheism teaches that there is no God of any kind, anywhere, anytime. Some atheists claim to "Excercise no belief in a god" the same way they would exercise no belief in pink unicorns. ...
www.spiritrestoration.org/Theological_Terms/A_Prior_%20to_Born_Again.htm

* a (?without?) the (?deity?, or ?god?). Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods.
www.strongatheism.net/intro/lexicon/

* From Greek a- meaning without and theos, meaning God, atheists are those without a belief in God.
www.thezenofsouthpark.com/Glossary_of_Terms.html

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

There are some definitions wiki one I took cite links out. Anyway Atheism is the opposite of theism which is belief in a deity or deities so no people who follow religion are not atheists they are theists. They may be mono or poly theists but are not atheists.

Anti-theism is the active opposition to theism while atheism I suppose is more passive opposition. To put in a religious perspective Anti-theists are like Religious Zealots and Atheists are more like the ordinary Layperson of a religion. I do not think the lack of belief is a suitable definition as it can umbrella atheism with agnosticism. As agnostics don't really belief strongly either way so they do truly lack belief. This is my main problem with Atheists don't not believe in God they just lack belief which goes against the base meaning of the word that they are against theism. I think the first big definition includes the proper root of the word with A against or not and theism belief in deities.

 

[iamthe1]

As anyone who has actually studied philosophy will recognize, the following "questions" are totally fucking retarded:

"The right to life is so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives."

"It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence."

"To allow an innocent child to suffer needlessly when one could easily prevent it is morally reprehensible."

I have an idea: let's completely bypass the notion of precision and coherence when asking questions and just let anyone say whatever the hell they want to! 'Cause THAT's philosophy!

I'm sorry, I really don't want to be mean, but it pisses me off when shit like this passes for philosophy. Philosophy is the quest for answers, but as any good philosopher will immediately ask: What is the question? And it's not supposed to be a deep, meaningful reflection on what is a question and what is an answer--they are literally asking "What is the fucking question?" 'Cause that's kind of important!

This quiz is asking: Are the assumptions that you make about the world at large coherent? Which is fine, but don't call it philosophy. Please, please, please, DON'T call it philosophy. Use another word like "dontbeatwatophy."

This has been the rant of a "professional" philosopher. Do not anger him, or he will do absolutely nothing for no pay!

 

[tibieryo]

Use critical thinking skills and read my original argument (and the one I was responding to). I'm not arguing that 2 + 2 = 5. No one was arguing the logic of the presented world.

Other posters and I were pointing out that this exercise presents false dilemma (and a Binary world), ethics was just an example of why there is a false dilemma. This false dilemma means that any underlying logic is not representative of the real world.

For the record I'm reading this:
http://www.amazon.com/Critical-Thinking-Concise-Tracy-Bowell/dp/0415471834/ref=dp_ob_title_bk?ie=UTF8&qid=1300282203&sr=8-1

What are you reading?

I'm reading the back of a cereal box. I'm reading dialogue strings in Pokemon White. I'm reading a forum topic on the Escapist about philosophy. And I'm reading my Twitter feed. And even I think that trying to insist your philosophy is any more or less valid based on the book you're reading is a hack move.

No, not all of us are "first-year undergraduate students", as the Amazon page you linked to says the target audience for that book is. We're all different people with all different thoughts and ideas and for some of us--even those of us reading philosophy texts--this is challenging our beliefs. Someone is coming along with a flashlight, sticking it in our eyes and asking us how much we've had to drink tonight. Some of us are getting off scot-free and loving it, and some of us feel that because we're dizzy from multiple sclerosis, we shouldn't be mistaken for drunks.

When you're arguing philosophy, you never appeal to what you're reading. Because that's just saying that because the person you're arguing against hasn't read a book on "critical thinking" meant for "first-year undergraduate students", their philosophy is invalid. The validity of your philosophical argument lies not in how many posts you have on a forum, what you're reading or what some test online said about your philosophy. It lies in how long you've spent thinking about and arguing your philosophy against yourself and others, no matter whether that's with other "first-year undergraduate students" or with the guys who work at the Ford factory at the bar.

As for your argument, I couldn't care less about your argument. Because you asked me what I'm reading, knowing full-well that not every poster on this thread would be reading a book for "first-year undergraduate students", and using that to say our opinions are invalid instead of arguing them. By the way, in before you say I'm appealing to stupidity. I'm appealing to not using what you're reading to embarrass people you're trying to have a debate with.

 

[Raven's Nest]

As anyone who has actually studied philosophy will recognize, the following "questions" are totally fucking retarded:

"The right to life is so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives."

"It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence."

"To allow an innocent child to suffer needlessly when one could easily prevent it is morally reprehensible."

I have an idea: let's completely bypass the notion of precision and coherence when asking questions and just let anyone say whatever the hell they want to! 'Cause THAT's philosophy!

Those aren't questions though, they are statements. They are statements designed to test the conviction of your beliefs when compared with similar statements you have either agreed or disagreed with. The content of the question was never particularly important, only the consistency of your beliefs.

How is this not a philosophical pursuit?

 

[carpathic]

I've gotta go with I am fully capable of agreeing with a principle, but disagreeing with a particular implementation of that. It is not a question of philosophical tension, but rather, an agile mind.

It is not incoherent to think that morality is relative, and that the tutsis and hutus were wrong. I can only judge them by my beliefs. I can also think that in the minds of the hutus, they were doing something correct - as that is what their culture says. I can judge what they say, and do as long as I remember that I am holding them accountable to my system of beliefs. Which are obviously the right ones

 

[zen5887]

Half way though and this quiz is annoying me..

Its far to black and white, a lot of these questions I can't answer with a "agree" or "disagree." Most of them come with a "but" at the end.

However I will continue.

I ended up getting 13%, with two questions conflicting.

I've played around on this site for a bit and have come to realise that it expects ones beliefs to be rigid, not flexible. Now, I'm no Philosopher, but I am a big fan of flexibility in life. Can someone more comfortable in this subject explain this to me?

 

[spwatkins]

I got the same thing for Michaelangelo vs objective standards for art. I don't agree because although I said that he was one of the ten greatest artists of all time, that could just be my subjective opinion.

 

[ramboondiea]

i got 0%, that literally tells me nothing

 

[spwatkins]

I got 7%.

Only conflict, apparently, was this:

Spoiler

I can kind of understand, but I don't think I know anyone nor know of anyone who believes genocide isn't a bad thing.

If everyone believes that genocide is a bad thing then clearly that would count as an "objective moral standard".

 

[Zorg Machine]

27%. not bad for someone who has a philosophy that I want to believe and one I actually believe in.

 

[ryai458]

20% thats fine by me all of the things that where is contradiction I can explain so I'm good.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

7% here too.

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

In retrospect, my agreement with the first one was kind of silly.

"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

As walking, cycling and taking the train are all less environmentally damaging than driving a car for the same journey, if you choose to drive when you could have used another mode of transport, you are guilty of unnecessarily damaging the environment."

Exactly the same. I don't have that many strong views on the environment, so I guess this is natural enough. I'd prefer environmental arguments to be economic, rather than moral, ones - what's the damage of a course of action weighed up against its benefits?

 

[zen5887]

I got 7%.

Only conflict, apparently, was this:

Spoiler

I can kind of understand, but I don't think I know anyone nor know of anyone who believes genocide isn't a bad thing.

If everyone believes that genocide is a bad thing then clearly that would count as an "objective moral standard".

This is my beef with the quiz. All the answers are all or nothing, there is no room for buts.

Are buts a bad thing in Philosophy? I honestly don't know...

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

I got 7%.

Only conflict, apparently, was this:

Spoiler

I can kind of understand, but I don't think I know anyone nor know of anyone who believes genocide isn't a bad thing.

I got that one as well, it leads me to think that this thing is trying too hard to be clever.

There isn't a culture on the planet that wouldn't agree with a huge majority that wiping out an entire race for your own ideals is wrong.

Hitler didn't believe he was committing genocide because to him the Jewish weren't "people". When you think of extermination, the term the Nazis use, you don't think of genocide, you think of pest control.

 

[Bobbovski]

Got 7%. I contradicted myself with the "everyone should be free to do what they want" and the "Drug possesion for personal use should be decriminalized". I was aware about this conflict when I filled in the answers though. And I'm trying to figure out how to motivate it.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

"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"

Well... You've kinda got me. But I would argue that practicality should come first to an extent.

"You agreed that:
It is always wrong to take another person's life
And also that:
The second world war was a just war"

I see that there's a conflict there, but I still stand by both statements. Whilst it was wrong to kill someone, it was still the lesser of two evils, and so I think WW2 as about as 'just' as war is ever likely to get.

 

[Bloodstain]

7%, one single contradiction:

Spoiler

Questions 17-28: Are there any absolute truths?

60071 of the 174800 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.

Sounds reasonable. I'll abandon the latter belief and instead just say "I don't know and I can't know."

 

[Raven's Nest]

I've played around on this site for a bit and have come to realise that it expects ones beliefs to be rigid, not flexible. Now, I'm no Philosopher, but I am a big fan of flexibility in life. Can someone more comfortable in this subject explain this to me?

Essentially, the more rigid your belief structure is, the more logical you are being in our approach to ideas like morality and ethics which means you are more likely to make good judgements (or are better able to justify your actions)...

Lets say you agreed that in order to save 90 people out of a group of 100, you'd kill 10 of them based on the moral concept of "The needs of the many before the needs of the few."

If your reasoning was that it is worth killing 10% of a group of people because you are saving so many people, you would supposedly have no problems killing 1,000,000 to save 9,000,000 people or killing 1 in a group of 10 of your best friends to save their lives.

They might have been your best friends, but you if you agreed that sacrificing 10% is worth it but refused to kill them, then your conviction for making moral judgements based on "The needs of the many before the needs of the few." is in dispute. Therefore your logic sucks...

But like most humans, with their backs against the wall, they'll ignore logic in favour of finding a solution no matter how dire the situation. So flexibility in your life is both good and bad, but it's always best to understand your decision making process as it'll help you make better judgements. You dig?

 

[iamthe1]

As anyone who has actually studied philosophy will recognize, the following "questions" are totally fucking retarded:

"The right to life is so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives."

"It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence."

"To allow an innocent child to suffer needlessly when one could easily prevent it is morally reprehensible."

I have an idea: let's completely bypass the notion of precision and coherence when asking questions and just let anyone say whatever the hell they want to! 'Cause THAT's philosophy!

Those aren't questions though, they are statements. They are statements designed to test the conviction of your beliefs when compared with similar statements you have either agreed or disagreed with. The content of the question was never particularly important, only the consistency of your beliefs.

How is this not a philosophical pursuit?

Thanks for noticing the quotations marks around the word "questions." (Oh, I did it again!) The content of the "statements" is of SUPREME importance! If I'm forced to say if I "agree" or "disagree" with each "statement," then I had better understand what the "statement" is "asking" me. Oh, that pesky gray area (created by the fact that the questions are vague and stoopud)!

These is not a philosophical pursuit because its akin to me showing someone a rubix cube, with a belief of theirs written on each square, and I say: "Solve it! Otherwise I will fucking spank you! And if you get a blue square adjacent with a red square, then I will call you a retard while I do it!"

It's like the worst self-help book you've ever seen. It contributes nothing, and IT IS NOT PHILOSOPHY. Unless you think that Deleuze is the shit, then say whatever the hell you want, 'cause it won't mean anything.