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

[Raven's Nest]

I don't care about a culture other than my own. Why would I? The question as aimed at me, not someone else. Morals are defined by the world around us. The world around me says genocide is bad. Pretty simple shit.

The world around you has different cultures with different standards. Perhaps you'll sit there and not give a shit when some douchebag comes to wipe out your culture.

The world and it's culture has included people who though genocide was cool... Adolf was his name... He didn't think wiping out Jews was evil. Therefore genocide isn't always considered evil...

If someone murdered you and your family (sorry I forgot, you wouldn't give a shit) to save 1,000,000 people does that mean every single one of those people would consider the murder as evil?

Listen, I have a disorder for which I am seeing a shrink, I have zero empathy and see morals as the subjective mess they are. If a test tells me I am conflicted, it's nonsense. Do I care of someone kills a million people? Not at all. Is it 'evil'? Yup.

The test is stupid.

I don't care if you're a raging sociopathic narcissist. You are blatantly conflicted.

 

[Sgt. Dante]

I don't care about a culture other than my own. Why would I? The question as aimed at me, not someone else. Morals are defined by the world around us. The world around me says genocide is bad. Pretty simple shit.

Listen, I have a disorder for which I am seeing a shrink, I have zero empathy and see morals as the subjective mess they are. If a test tells me I am conflicted, it's nonsense. Do I care of someone kills a million people? Not at all. Is it 'evil'? Yup.

The test is stupid.

If killing 1,000,000 people could make life incalculably better for 6,909,000,000 is it still evil?

Saying "it isn't perfect" is being extremely kind...

Apparently if you have a differing opinion on a single question, "the entire test is bullshit!"

Me lol and sigh at the same time.

xD I understand the feeling, I take it you're s psych major? or at least were. While the test could be a little more clear on a few questions it is basically alright, it's pretty crude to balance things against each other as a black and white thing but i suppose a scale of 1-5 of strongly disagree - strongly agree would make this kind of analysis infinitely more complex.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I got 7%. I think the questions asked are too important to be generalised in one sentence. For example it complained that i agreed that Alternative and complementary medicine is as valuable as mainstream medicine. It brought up the issue of St John's Wort which is a valuable anti depressant for people who don't want to be a zombie. It said then it can have evil side effects when taken along side other medicines. That's not relevant as if you were taking mainstream medicine it would warn you to be careful not to take certain things alongside it.
This test is nonsensical and innacurate becuase it doesn't take factors into consideration. The answers also smack of someone who is full of thier own opinions and not distanced from the test. They could for example be paid by a drug company and are extolling the evils of medicine that has been used extensively for generations without ill effect.

The Michealangelo one for example is pointless you can only answer that question with your opinion in mind so saying that the question doesn't ask that is irrelevant.

 

[8bitlove2a03]

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.

I have no clue what is going on in this conversation any more, so Adolf Hitler. Godwin's Law. We can call it quits now. Nice chat.

 

[HerbertTheHamster]

0%

yay, i suppose

 

[EternityTransfer]

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.

OK, to dig up an old post.

Basically what you're saying is that unnecessary environmental damage is alright?
I.e: pumping tonnes and tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is OK so long as you can watch TV and use the Internet? Or am I misunderstanding?

(Not meaning to attack you, just to further understand your stance on the matter.)

 

[Raven's Nest]

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.

I have no clue what is going on in this conversation any more, so Adolf Hitler. Godwin's Law. We can call it quits now. Nice chat.

Derp somebody mentioned hitler that means everything they say is invalid... Derp.

I'm saying that not all Atheists claim that God does not exist. The same way that most Christians would claim that the Westboro Baptist Church does not accurately represent the entire Christian theology and positions.

xD I understand the feeling, I take it you're s psych major? or at least were. While the test could be a little more clear on a few questions it is basically alright, it's pretty crude to balance things against each other as a black and white thing but i suppose a scale of 1-5 of strongly disagree - strongly agree would make this kind of analysis infinitely more complex.

Actually no, I've never taken a psychology or philosophy class in my life, haven't even gone to Uni yet... I shovel elephant shit for a living... I'm a zoo keeper.

And whilst a numerical scale would have made for a more intricate assessment, in reality, there are way too many factors to accurately chart one's philosophical position on nearly all of these issues. I think the test is actually designed to measure the consistency of beliefs as they relate to each other, not the beliefs themselves.

 

[ddon]

I got 7%. I agreed that the government shouldn't allow the sale of health treatments that have not being tested for safety, as well as agreeing that alternative medicine is as important as mainstream medicine. That was the only contradiction I made.

 

[Verlander]

Please read the definition of 'Religion' before you insult your brother and sister Atheists any further.

On topic: I got 0%

Link didn't work for me. I have a diploma in Theology.

Nope Atheism isn't always a belief. If a person grew up without the idea of God forced upon them, chances are they would not hold such a belief or claim to believe that there was no God/s. Agnosticism is a statement about the potential of acquiring knowledge so not a belief either. Apathetic must be your relevant term here seeing as you clearly don't know anything about atheism or agnosticism.

You're not wrong that I don't know what this test is about. It seems to be about "straight thinking", but if that's what it's truly about, then many of the questions are inherently flawed.

Like I said above, I have a diploma in theology, I studied Philosophy and Ethics, and have submitted essays to professional institutions. I know exactly what atheism/agnosticism actually is, and I also know that most people make the mistake of confusing atheism, agnosticism and apathy. They are all beliefs, even if they are not active, apart from apathy which can be, but isn't always, a lack of belief. It's simple really.

Or to put it in real black and white:

Atheism is a belief that there is no deity that is responsible for, or active in reality. There is no standard structure to this belief (although there are many websites, literature and community groups based on this belief, ironically similar to many smaller religions).

Agnosticism is the belief that there is no conclusive proof about there being deities or not. They may choose to practice this belief by living their life to religious teachings anyway (like a large majority of people), or not.

An apathetic person doesn't care, or think it's relevant. Some apathetic people have made up their minds, such as apathetic atheists or apathetic agnostics, but the very act of being apathetic is the refusal to consider this as relevant to their lives

snip

Thank you for clarifying that for me. I still think that it's flawed though- your beliefs may conflict in the black and white sense, but the questions themselves don't leave for detailed enough answers.

 

[Danny Ocean]

Spoiler

Tension Quotient = 7%

Questions 17-28: Are there any absolute truths?

60187 of the 175158 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.

I mean to disagree with the first one, so I'm calling it a zero.

 

[iamthe1]

My friend, there're reasons why I started studying math: 'Cause the only philosophy that's worth doing is the kind that doesn't matter to anyone but those who do philosophy for a living, and because in mathematics NOBODY FUCKING ARGUES WITH YOU. EVER. You are right, or you are wrong. That's it. Game over.

Hooray!

But I agree that it is important for people to recognize and attempt to reconcile the tensions in what they believe. I just don't think that this quiz is going to do anything even close to that unless your psyche was so monumentally fractured in the first place that you somehow think that "Killing puppies is always good" and "Eating whole grains is always healthy" are dichotomous propositions. I'm just not at all inclined to call it philosophy. It's really not that hard to discover for yourself if your beliefs are consistent...

as long as you're not a Republican. ZING!

It's much, much harder--but also more rewarding--to attempt to discover if your beliefs are also true.

Granted the Escapist is generally more intelligent than the average corner of the internet but it matters not how intelligent you are if you have simply never considered these concepts...

The test might have made for a good introduction to a high school philosophy class, then they would have moved on to analyse why the test is flawed.

Better than a "What's your favourite nasal hair configuration?" thread or some such crap.

"Braided like a Dwarf's beard!" At least I can answer that definitively.

And God forbid that teenagers be introduced to philosophy BEFORE they go to college. There'd be too many dead-from-suicide baby-boomers/gen-Xers for that to be a good ide.....

Actually, nevermind, let's do that.

 

[Xaio30]

You agreed that:
So long as they do not harm others, individuals should be free to pursue their own ends.
But disagreed that:
The possession of drugs for personal use should be decriminalised.

7% here as well.

I automaticly assumed that your use of drugs would influence others anyway. Silly me.

 

[themeteor]

The test only deals in absolutes when there are none, it assumes that (for example) drug use only affects the user when it will affect society as a whole.

Then it has questions that try to ignore the society, yes I can see that morals are made by society doesn't mean I don't agree with them

not to mention ignoring that euthanasia has the potential to be abused

so yeah I think the test has its own tension to work on it is grounded in some moral ideals whilst pretending it isn't which is a bad idea

 

[Raven's Nest]

Nope Atheism isn't always a belief. If a person grew up without the idea of God forced upon them, chances are they would not hold such a belief or claim to believe that there was no God/s. Agnosticism is a statement about the potential of acquiring knowledge so not a belief either. Apathetic must be your relevant term here seeing as you clearly don't know anything about atheism or agnosticism.

You're not wrong that I don't know what this test is about. It seems to be about "straight thinking", but if that's what it's truly about, then many of the questions are inherently flawed.

Like I said above, I have a diploma in theology, I studied Philosophy and Ethics, and have submitted essays to professional institutions. I know exactly what atheism/agnosticism actually is, and I also know that most people make the mistake of confusing atheism, agnosticism and apathy. They are all beliefs, even if they are not active, apart from apathy which can be, but isn't always, a lack of belief. It's simple really.

Whilst I can't claim to hold a theology degree or indeed any formal teaching on philosophy or ethics I can profess a good understanding of the topics listed and including something which maybe of particular relevance here: Linguistic implication.

Simply put. Our difference in opinion comes down to the definition of belief. I don't know if this is a cultural difference or an educational difference but I'm from the UK just so you know, I'm genuinely interested in an explanation.

Atheism is a belief that there is no deity that is responsible for, or active in reality. There is no standard structure to this belief (although there are many websites, literature and community groups based on this belief, ironically similar to many smaller religions).

To take the literal meaning of the phrase, the term Atheist implies "Without faith in God".

Lack of Faith =/= Opposing belief

At least here in the UK, Atheist is commonly understood to mean "I don't believe in God". This does not automatically imply an opposing view of "There is no God". Why this attitude is so prevalent in theological discussions I don't know... In any-case to address the issue, one may be referred to as a Strong Atheist or a Weak Atheist. Strong believes there is no God - Which is obviously a faith based position. A weak atheist just says "I don't believe in God - Lack of faith. Some go one step further and claim to be Anti-theist, which is a more accurate label for the Strong Atheist position.

Yes, some atheists believe and have faith that God does not exist. Some do not, and whilst there is an issue of semantics involved, for the purposes of fair representation, Atheism should not be broadly painted as a faith.

Agnosticism is the belief that there is no conclusive proof about there being deities or not. They may choose to practice this belief by living their life to religious teachings anyway (like a large majority of people), or not.

I already had a huge debate on this so I'll direct you to the relevant thread if you don't mind.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.270326-You-are-not-agnostic?page=1

An apathetic person doesn't care, or think it's relevant. Some apathetic people have made up their minds, such as apathetic atheists or apathetic agnostics, but the very act of being apathetic is the refusal to consider this as relevant to their lives

I have no problem with this description.

 

[Eternal_Lament]

I got 20%, which is apparently low so I guess I'm not hypocritical

The question of art was odd. While I said art was subject to personal taste, I also said that I though Michealangelo was one of the greatest artists. I can see where the logic that its contradictory comes in, but if I actually think he is a good artist then how is that an issue?

The one I probably did have a legitimate contradictory moment was "govenrment shouldn't sell or supply untested medicines" yet I also said "I had no problem with alternative medicines". Part of this is because I forgot that these questions were asked, but also because while I think government run things such as hospitals and pharmacies should never sell untested products, people who already sell the alternativs and holistic medicines I find aren't hurting anyone.

There was of course the "Problem of Evil" one, since I said I believed in God and that I thought that not doing anything about hurting a child was wrong. I get that since this test isn't specific that this could seem hypocritical, but I already have my own answer to "The Problem of Evil" that I think another question in the test actually adressed, so I'm not going to count this one towards my actual tension.

So I guess mine may be a 7%, since the art one is still a subjective answer while the Evil one already asked a question that should've dispelled it. The medicine one is the only problem then, but again the test isn't specific enough in certain cases where it would warrent it.

 

[PatrickXD]

According to this I got caught out on the Genocide tension. However, I was looking at it from a personal perspective, havin grown up in my culture. Therefore, (and it does explain it) I didn;t really get caught out at all, I merely proved my previous statement.