I got 0%
The only one that got me was "The Second World War was only a war."
This question might raise a few eyebrows as to why I agreed that WW2 was only a war. I'm a subjectivist, so this question was exactly the same as the question asking me if Michelangelo was the one of histories greatest artists. The Second World War, to me, is a war like any other war, it brought in technological advances and decimated vast swathes of the global population, but in the end it was simply a war.
There were never any "good" or "bad" sides to WW2, as with any conflict, which is why I disagreed that genocide is "evil" since I do not believe that there is such a thing as "good" or "evil" since, naturally, reality is never that black and white and, in the case of WW2, Adolf Hitler believed he was doing the right thing in accordance with his Catholic beliefs; for there to be a "good" side and a "bad" side would mean I'd have to acknowledge that such a thing is possible, and in the nature of reality, it just isn't, which is why I remain in the gray areas of subjectivist neutrality.
The one thing that surprised me, however, is that it didn't pick up on the fact that I'm an atheist with no "belief" (I never liked the word "belief" since it's a fairly loaded word, I prefer "find the concept favourably probable", or something to that effect) in anything that cannot be backed up by evidence. Which evidently runs contrary to my subjectivist viewpoint, my reasoning behind this is because even though there seems to be certain facets of the universe that are undeniably objective I find that in the realms of probability nothing is ever 100% true since there is nothing that can ever be totally fixed, even physical laws.
When any deity or religion is taken into account I cannot entirely disagree with the concept because it is entirely possible but not very probable. To clarify; it's possible that there is/are a deity/deities and that any of the mythologies attached to them are true, however it is extremely unlikely in my personal reality, so it's better to simply write it off as false until some evidence can be found. Only then will I be convinced that the concept of a deity has become probable enough for me to consider as viable.
However, I cannot disagree that you have a deity in your reality. I can't know that, I am not you, so as far as your reality goes a deity of any kind could be more probable than it is in mine, however, I only have my personal reality to go with, so, since it is unlikely in my reality then I have no reason to dedicate my life to such a concept.
Take an idea like string theory, where it's possible to have multiple universes, both open and closed, which can have drastically different laws of physics to our own and still function. Out of the infinite spectrum of universes there may be, it is unwise to label ours as the "right" one simply because it's the only one we know as it would be the same as marking a point on an infinite scale and say that is where the center lies. Therefore, simply because something is "true" in our universe doesn't mean it's "true" in another.
Secondly, no physicist will say that every law will remain completely fixed, it is entirely possible that the laws of entropy could reverse and a pile of sand could be blown by the wind into the shape of a sand castle, it is simply not very probable that it will ever happen. Knowing the difference between probability and possibility are fundamental to me when attempting to understand anything.
Extending that to reality itself, I can only say something is "true" and believe it to be "true" by my own terms as I have no idea what your reality looks like. The old philosophical question of "is my red your green?" is probably the clearest way I can illustrate this point. I have no idea what your reality looks like, or even if you exist at all; everything in "my" reality could be a computer program or a hallucination, I might not even be living in a continuous reality and instead be randomly "jumping" from one reality/time to another with no memory of either the transition nor the previous reality/time, since all the information I have about who I am and what I am doing is contextual in accordance with the reality and time I inhabit at that moment, however brief it may be.
If any of this is worded badly or isn't entirely clear, please let me know and I'll try to explain it better.
I suppose the simplest way I could put it is that I'm an agnostic atheist with everything, even in regards to reality itself.
This question might raise a few eyebrows as to why I agreed that WW2 was only a war. I'm a subjectivist, so this question was exactly the same as the question asking me if Michelangelo was the one of histories greatest artists. The Second World War, to me, is a war like any other war, it brought in technological advances and decimated vast swathes of the global population, but in the end it was simply a war.
There were never any "good" or "bad" sides to WW2, as with any conflict, which is why I disagreed that genocide is "evil" since I do not believe that there is such a thing as "good" or "evil" since, naturally, reality is never that black and white and, in the case of WW2, Adolf Hitler believed he was doing the right thing in accordance with his Catholic beliefs; for there to be a "good" side and a "bad" side would mean I'd have to acknowledge that such a thing is possible, and in the nature of reality, it just isn't, which is why I remain in the gray areas of subjectivist neutrality.
The one thing that surprised me, however, is that it didn't pick up on the fact that I'm an atheist with no "belief" (I never liked the word "belief" since it's a fairly loaded word, I prefer "find the concept favourably probable", or something to that effect) in anything that cannot be backed up by evidence. Which evidently runs contrary to my subjectivist viewpoint, my reasoning behind this is because even though there seems to be certain facets of the universe that are undeniably objective I find that in the realms of probability nothing is ever 100% true since there is nothing that can ever be totally fixed, even physical laws.
When any deity or religion is taken into account I cannot entirely disagree with the concept because it is entirely possible but not very probable. To clarify; it's possible that there is/are a deity/deities and that any of the mythologies attached to them are true, however it is extremely unlikely in my personal reality, so it's better to simply write it off as false until some evidence can be found. Only then will I be convinced that the concept of a deity has become probable enough for me to consider as viable.
However, I cannot disagree that you have a deity in your reality. I can't know that, I am not you, so as far as your reality goes a deity of any kind could be more probable than it is in mine, however, I only have my personal reality to go with, so, since it is unlikely in my reality then I have no reason to dedicate my life to such a concept.
Take an idea like string theory, where it's possible to have multiple universes, both open and closed, which can have drastically different laws of physics to our own and still function. Out of the infinite spectrum of universes there may be, it is unwise to label ours as the "right" one simply because it's the only one we know as it would be the same as marking a point on an infinite scale and say that is where the center lies. Therefore, simply because something is "true" in our universe doesn't mean it's "true" in another.
Secondly, no physicist will say that every law will remain completely fixed, it is entirely possible that the laws of entropy could reverse and a pile of sand could be blown by the wind into the shape of a sand castle, it is simply not very probable that it will ever happen. Knowing the difference between probability and possibility are fundamental to me when attempting to understand anything.
Extending that to reality itself, I can only say something is "true" and believe it to be "true" by my own terms as I have no idea what your reality looks like. The old philosophical question of "is my red your green?" is probably the clearest way I can illustrate this point. I have no idea what your reality looks like, or even if you exist at all; everything in "my" reality could be a computer program or a hallucination, I might not even be living in a continuous reality and instead be randomly "jumping" from one reality/time to another with no memory of either the transition nor the previous reality/time, since all the information I have about who I am and what I am doing is contextual in accordance with the reality and time I inhabit at that moment, however brief it may be.
If any of this is worded badly or isn't entirely clear, please let me know and I'll try to explain it better.
I suppose the simplest way I could put it is that I'm an agnostic atheist with everything, even in regards to reality itself.
