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

[iblis666]

47% but then again i have a reason for everything and everything within reason

for example:
You agreed that:
The right to life is so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives
But disagreed that:
Governments should be allowed to increase taxes sharply to save lives in the developing world

the problem:
the right to life is fundamental but it must be balanced so as to not endanger the lives of others and not everything can be solved with money, a good example of this is the developing world where enough cash is being sent but isnt being used effectively for a variety of reasons

 

[SenorNemo]

I got 0%.

You wanna know why?

I didn't select any answers. None of the questions they ask are simple enough to answer with a simple agree/disagree. Furthermore, I don't claim to have good answers for all but a few of the questions, and even the ones I have good answers for may or may not be fallacious in some way I haven't thought of. The very idea that a test like this can tell you your "philosophical tension" is in itself an indication that you have philosophical tensions. IMHO, at least.

They also need to fix it so you have to select an answer

 

[oldskoolandi]

The other it assumed there was tension between was moral relativity and genocide is evil. Again, I state that genocide is evil from my cultural background and that from the outside looking in it is violent, however when you are the one committing genocide it may not be the case. However to want to kill an entire race for little reason is evil, to want to kill an entire race because they all pose a threat is not.

I maintain that I do think straight, the test used a yes or no answer setting to create tension, rather than evaluate it. It's fair game, seeing that there are a near infinite number of answers to give and to make a test with them all would be impossible, but I do heavily encourage that the results be taken with a pinch of salt.

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.

 

[Eldarion]

I got 0%.

You wanna know why?

I didn't select any answers. None of the questions they ask are simple enough to answer with a simple agree/disagree. Furthermore, I don't claim to have good answers for all but a few of the questions, and even the ones I have good answers for may or may not be fallacious in some way I haven't thought of. The very idea that a test like this can tell you your "philosophical tension" is in itself an indication that you have philosophical tensions. IMHO, at least.

They also need to fix it so you have to select an answer

I agree, this was just an interesting waste of time.

 

[sniddy_v1legacy]

40%....

And I can see some of them as reasonable, but it is what you deem reasonable for that situation.

There are rarely black and white, yes no calls.

And these can further compound on themselves

...the environmental one, over the freedom of choice one. They clash in themselves.

 

[DuctTapeJedi]

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.

 

[Raven's Nest]

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.

The literal definition of Atheist means without belief in God. It doesn't mean that the opposing view is present.

Most intelligent atheists (who have actually considered their position) if you speak to them won't fall into the category of atheists who believe that god doesn't exist. if you ask me that category should have a different label (Richard Dawkins calls them Strong Atheists). And yeah most atheists will also identify as slightly agnostic, although the true definition of agnostic states that the answer is unknowable, the vast majority of atheists will not rule out the possibility of God.

The question relies on the fact that you understood the definition properly... Which is a bit underhanded yes, as I can agree with your sentiment...

 

[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

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

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.

 

[MagicMouse]

13% however it said that with sophisticated reasoning I can weasel out of a contradiction. Well it gave me the contradiction of

Spoiler

Questions 22 and 15: What is the seat of the self?

53834 of the 172161 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

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 can reason this that upon death the consciousness exists in a different form on a different plane. In OUR plain we need our brains to be conscious, on the NEXT plane, we don't.

So that takes care of 1 of my 2 contradictions. My second one was the environmental issue; of which I admit to having mixed feelings about.

This test is VERY interesting I must say. Especially following the standards of internet quizzes.

 

[magicmonkeybars]

Not bad, I have a tension of 7%, which as I understand it is pretty consistent. Though the one they caught me out on was kind of bullshit because it asked was Michaelangelo one of history's greatest artists, which is a matter of opinion, but they said that because I said yes it contradicted what I said earlier about Art always being subjective.

This was my result as well and I agree with you, the fact that I think Michaelangelo is one of the world's greatest artists is purely subjective.

Thus I am (in my opinion) at a perfect 0%

 

[kasperbbs]

20%, but some of the arguments the test made were ridiculous.

 

[Raven's Nest]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Have a good read...

I agree, claiming that there is no God without presenting evidence to prove so is ridiculous. You won't find many atheists who don't deny the possibility. See my above post for further clarity.

 

[The Maddest March Hare]

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.

I got the same conflict, and I reasoned that it states "unnecessarily". Necessity is subjective, and taking the car may be the most necessary choice in transport..

This test is majorly flawed in that some of the questions use subjective words that reflect the author's own beliefs.

OT: 20%, even though normally I'd be Chaotic Neutral..huh.

 

[Lord Devius]

Well Hitler didn't think it was a bad idea :/

Fair enough.

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.

kind of indicative of an objective, universal moral rule on that one, ne?

-m

Not really. My morality is based on helping as many people as I can with the least people being negatively affected as possible, or it would be if I had any power to help people with.

There are people (like Hitler, thanks for reminding me Tubez) who would place the comfort of a few over all else in the world. Hitler had the power to put this into action, and thus, Holocaust.

An objective universal morality? Ha. If that were true, then the Holocaust wouldn't have happened.

 

[anthony87]

I got 27%.....that's good........right?

 

[Dogstile]

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

That was my problem too. The way they worded a lot of those questions confused me.

20% here, i'm going to put what was in conflict below and attempt to let you guys explain.

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

I agreed to the first one because yeah, evil is subjective. But I still have an opinion of what I think evil is, so I don't see how thats contradicting myself.

ou 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

That was a misclick, I should have disagreed with the second

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

This one, I agree we shouldn't hurt the enviroment, but I don't expect people to walk or cycle/take a train. Many people have drivers licenses round here originally because they needed some form of ID and they learned to drive so they would have one, and I don't think they should pay to use something else when they have a car. GAH. I see how i'm a hypocrite here, but its a situational thing.

RAWR TEST

 

[OtherSideofSky]

33%, except everything it declared a contradiction is actually its failure to express itself properly or to understand my responses.

[quote/]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[/quote]

It didn't ask if it represented objective evil, which of course does not exist. I naturally answered from my own viewpoint.

[quote/]You agreed that:
The right to life is so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives
But disagreed that:
Governments should be allowed to increase taxes sharply to save lives in the developing world[/quote]

Governments are entrusted with the task of ensuring the safety and prosperity of their people first and foremost. Historically, sharp tax increases have been known to put large segments of the population dire straights. I never agreed that it was automatically right to sacrifice some people to save others.

[quote/]You agreed that:
Individuals have sole rights over their own bodies
And also that:
Voluntary euthanasia should remain illegal[/quote]

Euthanasia is not the same as suicide. People have the right to their own lives, not to force someone else to kill them. Their tattoo argument is spurious, because while a person may decide to get a tattoo, a tattoo artist may also refuse them service.

[quote/]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[/quote]

I never claimed that belief needed to be rational. They argue that because Atheism represents a refusal to believe without proofs it is inherently different from other faiths, put this more accurately applies to agnosticism, as Atheism is a complete refusal without evidence and is therefore equally irrational.

[quote/]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[/quote]

I believe that alternative medicine should be studied and screened in the same way as mainstream medicine, it just didn't ask me my views on the matter and assumed I was referring to largely unregulated alternative medicine.

This test could use some improvement in the specificity of its wording.

 

[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.