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

[8bitlove2a03]

I don't understand why they claim that me saying atheism is a form a faith (which viewing it as a social institution, it is) and then saying that it's unreasonable to think something even though you don't even have the possibility of evidence is a conflict.

Social institution? What? Find me a church of Atheism (that proportionately represents all atheistic ideas)...

Why? Christian churches aren't like that. Or are the Christians not a faith too? What about Christians who don't go to church? Does that mean they don't adhere to a faith? Atheism is a social affiliation someone can have based on their religious (or anti-religious, if you want to view it that way) ideals. Religious people live their lives in accordance with the assumption that the single undeniable truth is that God exists. Atheists do the same thing, but with the absence of God. I just don't see how there's a difference.

 

[Raven's Nest]

By the way the question didn't ask if WW2 was a 'just' war. It asks if you agree that it was just a war. As in it was a war like any other, just as cold, callous and indiscriminate as the last.

I think my interpretation of it is right, because if that's true then it's been poorly worded; I copy&pasted that directly from the site.

My apologies, you are quite right.

Odd that I don't set off the contradiction when I read it as Just a war...

 

[Summerstorm]

Eh, This test won't do it for me. Got 33%, but the conflicts it states are shallow and only true of one perspective. Like everybody else i am not "just one unit" i can easily hold multiple viewpoints and still be in balance.

For example the the whole choice and destiny. I believe in a (mostly) determined universe. But it is impossible to predict it of course, and from my own viewpoint as a person i HAVE a choice. There really is no conflict in both be true, since the unknown can have no pattern.

 

[Raven's Nest]

Why? Christian churches aren't like that. Or are the Christians not a faith too? What about Christians who don't go to church? Does that mean they don't adhere to a faith? Atheism is a social affiliation someone can have based on their religious (or anti-religious, if you want to view it that way) ideals. Religious people live their lives in accordance with the assumption that the single undeniable truth is that God exists. Atheists do the same thing, but with the absence of God. I just don't see how there's a difference.

Except that they don't. The very phrase Atheism (without faith of existence of God), does not represent a unifying banner upon which all atheists sit and judge each other based on how much they think no-God would judge them. It doesn't mean they believe in the almighty power of science. It doesn't mean they all drive a Prius. It certainly doesn't mean that all they meet up in groups and discuss atheism. Some do yes, but these people would only have a conversation like this:

"So nice to see everyone, hows it going? So do you believe in God this week?

"No"

"No"

"No"

"No, no really no".

"Okay well it's been fun guys, I'll see you next week".

To say that all atheists believe that there is no God, is to say all Christians believe that God hates homosexuals and is killing US soldiers to prove it.

 

[Ajna]

But I did lose all conciousness.

I misphrased that. If it said "permanent" instead of "all", would you understand what I mean?

 

[iamthe1]

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.

"Yeah... Well... that's just your opinion man."

No I'm saying do you dispute that the process of discovering the conflict of ideas people have is not inherently philosophical?

Because I'd disagree. And you just come across like an elitist, why should your opinion be taken as fact?

Sorry, I admit I'm being a dick. I'm drunk and tired and I've had a shitty night. Here's my take on Socrates:

He knew that any given person's set of ideals were complete and utter shit because no one thought twice about this crazy thing called life, so he gave random people the opportunity to show that their ideals weren't complete and utter shit. But then he showed that they HAD to be complete and utter shit, simply because no one thought about them long enough. And that's fine. But it's POINTLESS! He even says as much in several dialogues: Gee, your POV is cool and all, and it even has an internal consistency, but my insane cousin believes that pegasi are determinedly trying to crown him king of the douchebags, and I can't prove him wrong! (I am obviously paraphrasing... or just making shit up--I've had a lot of vodka.)

I just got worked up about this nonsense because it's arbitrary and silly and does nothing to actually engage anyone in elenchus, which is an obnoxious greek word that means pretty much what I said in the above paragraph. A set of propositions is consistent or inconsistent no matter who believes them...

and I should have just said that this quiz is shite. It would have saved me a lot of typing.

 

[Raven's Nest]

Ooohhh. I'm meant to answer the question as if I was not living in my culture. Makes sense. /sarcasm

No you already affirmed that there are no objective morals and that every subjective moral idea is a result of a culturally accepted concept.

The next question posed was do you agree/disagree that acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to do great evil.

Well if you agree that all morals are subjective, you agree that evil is an equally subjective concept. That you failed to recognise that a culture other than your own may not consider genocide to be evil shows that you don't actually believe all morality is subjective.

 

[Sgt. Dante]

I don't understand why they claim that me saying atheism is a form a faith (which viewing it as a social institution, it is) and then saying that it's unreasonable to think something even though you don't even have the possibility of evidence is a conflict.

Social institution? What? Find me a church of Atheism (that proportionately represents all atheistic ideas)...

Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby...

People saying that atheisim is a religion really gets up my nose.

 

[Raven's Nest]

People saying that atheisim is a religion really gets up my nose.

Awesome avatar dude.

 

[Sgt. Dante]

People saying that atheisim is a religion really gets up my nose.

Awesome avatar dude.

ty, yours makes me laugh every time I see it xD

Funny to watch people get so bent outta shape over this test when the test itself says it's not perfect.

 

[XandNobody]

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

And 2: that a major concussion can't result in loss of conciousness? I had a motorcycle accident ... drilled a hole in my head to relieve pressure. I can tell you now I lost conciousness o.o

In other words ... what the fuck?

It said 'all consciousness and selfhood'. That you are able to type right now shows that you didn't lose all consciousness and selfhood.

But I did lose all conciousness. I was in a hospital bed for 15 days without a fucking clue where I was because of injury and medication. 'Selfhood'? ... all major injuries tinge upon us the bitter taste of death and the limitations of the flesh.

You can say your 'selfhood' is damaged when you get a pinprick and you lose blood because you are forever changed by the ackowledgement that you can be injured ... and these reminders colour our entire acceptance of existence.

Anyways, test seemed loaded to me.

That's because they are using the philosophical definition of consciousness, and you are using the medical. Let me get some bits from a dictionary quick, as it is an awkward double use of a word that English loves to do so very much...

Medical: The full activity of the mind and senses, as in waking life. Ex: To regain consciousness after fainting.

Philosophical: The mind or the mental faculties as characterized by thought, feelings, and volition. Ex: Your self-hood as a sentient being, what makes you exist as you.

So they were really being redundant in using both the words consciousness and self-hood in that sentence honestly now that I look at it...

 

[Yoshisummons]

For a philosophical quiz it sure is really black and white.

 

[Raven's Nest]

Except that they don't. The very phrase Atheism (without faith of existence of God), does not represent a unifying banner upon which all atheists sit and judge each other based on how much they think no-God would judge them. It doesn't mean they believe in the almighty power of science. It doesn't mean they all drive a Prius. It certainly doesn't mean that all they meet up in groups and discuss atheism. Some do yes, but these people would only have a conversation like this:

So paganism and Buddhism aren't faiths either? Also Atheism means "No God", not 'no faith in the existence of god'. A = lack of; Theus = god.

The word comes from theism which means "faith in god or god"... A - Thesim... not A - Theus.

And no Buddhism isn't strictly considered a faith. Some say they are considered atheistic faiths, but it's not an all-encompassing phrase and therefore not particularly useful.

 

[FightThePower]

13%, pretty low. Had two conflicts - made a fair point, but pretty minor tensions nonetheless.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

But I did lose all conciousness.

I misphrased that. If it said "permanent" instead of "all", would you understand what I mean?

I understand what you mean, but that's not what the question did ask. It asked whether 'brain damage can result in a lose of all conciousness and selfhood'? To wit I replied in the manner I did.

Injury colours a person, and it can result in a loss of all senses.

I don't see how this is anathema to the idea that there are spirits <.< I don't also see how is in direct opposition to the idea that when one dies they join with the ancestor spirit.

I could be equally facetious as the quiz by stating that it matters not the way in one lives but the spirit changes however it was in life regardless in death and spout proclivities of basic totemism.

As I said, the test was loaded.

 

[Raven's Nest]

I just got worked up about this nonsense because it's arbitrary and silly and does nothing to actually engage anyone in elenchus, which is an obnoxious greek word that means pretty much what I said in the above paragraph. A set of propositions is consistent or inconsistent no matter who believes them...

and I should have just said that this quiz is shite. It would have saved me a lot of typing.

It's cool, it might be psuedo-philosophy, but if it encourages people to think a little bit more about their ideas and perceptions, I think that can only be a good thing for them.

So not philosophical? Fine. But I believe it at least has some purpose and usefulness to those that don't have a philosophy major... Which is most of us

I wonder what Frankl would have made of it?

 

[AvsJoe]

Fecking AWESOME quiz! I got 27% with a handful of tensions in my beliefs.

Questions 10 and 23: Is there an all-good, all-powerful God?
Questions 2 and 9: Can we please ourselves?
Questions 22 and 15: What is the seat of the self?
Questions 14 and 25: How do we judge art?