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

[Vanguard_Ex]

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.

But in an actual, factual sense, it is genocide. It doesn't matter what you call it.

 

[k-ossuburb]

I got 0%

Spoiler: Long, boring explanation of my philosophical viewpoint.

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.

 

[Raven's Nest]

snip

Do you have some personal investment in the success of this horrid test? I can think of no other reason for you to stare at logic and then look the other way. Must you be so determined to be wrong? It's annoying to explain it to people like you.

Genocide = bad (because I don't want to be in it).

Morals = subjective.

Pretty simple, huh.

OK? You're welcome.

No shit sherlock.

You contradict your opinion about the subjectivity and objective moral standards when you refuse to accept that other cultures have different moral standards to your own by believing that genocide is objectively bad.

 

[k-ossuburb]

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.

But in an actual, factual sense, it is genocide. It doesn't matter what you call it.

But even if it is genocide you cannot say it is wrong if you do not believe in concepts are ever completely black and white such as "right", "wrong", "good", "evil" and so on.

Therefore genocide isn't "evil" since "evil" doesn't exist; to say so would be to confirm objectivity, which conflicts with the idea that morality in itself is a subjective concept.

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

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.

But in an actual, factual sense, it is genocide. It doesn't matter what you call it.

But even if it is genocide you cannot say it is wrong if you do not believe in concepts are ever completely black and white such as "right", "wrong", "good", "evil" and so on.

Therefore genocide isn't "evil" since "evil" doesn't exist; to say so would be to confirm objectivity, which conflicts with the idea that morality in itself is a subjective concept.

Ah! A commendable point to make...nicely done.

I think I need to redefine my point: what I was saying was that I am fairly certain that any culture on the planet would overall agree that genocide is wrong, whereas that site suggests that there may be a culture which sees it as alright.

By the way, really hoping this thread isn't locked. We've got some fantastic discussion going on here, great mental exercise

 

[Vitor Goncalves]

le snip

Funny, I found a tension between their justifications on my tensions. So all the videos and millions of testemonies, and documents seem not to be anough to make the holocaust a truth.

Yet a few studies done by a few scientists that few know seem to be enough to make theside effects of a certain herb based medicine a truth?

There is incoherence here.

Other thing is, if I believe moral depends on culture, obviously my moral depends on my culture. Yet if I consider a genocide good or evil will always be in conflict as long as I say moral is cultural to the authors of the site. And the authors themselves have the tension. So genocide is cultural, but not moral?!

So as conclusion, the test is very interesting but is as subjective as one could expect it to be. Unlike they say about concealing the answers, I wouldnt change any of the answers, would justify them, but not change.

 

[Raven's Nest]

snip

Do you have some personal investment in the success of this horrid test? I can think of no other reason for you to stare at logic and then look the other way. Must you be so determined to be wrong? It's annoying to explain it to people like you.

Genocide = bad (because I don't want to be in it).

Morals = subjective.

Pretty simple, huh.

OK? You're welcome.

No shit sherlock.

You contradict your opinion about the subjectivity and objective moral standards when you refuse to accept that other cultures have different moral standards to your own by believing that genocide is objectively bad.

Quick! Look up!

Too late. Never mind. It went right over your head.

What stupid test.

"You agreed that:
There are no objective moral standards; moral judgements are merely an expression of the values of particular cultures

"I believe morals are subjective".

And also that:
Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to do great evil

"I believe that genocide is an evil act"

When you agree that moral judgements arise from culture, you are also accepting that other cultures may not see genocide as an evil act.

Therefore when you agree that "Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability do do great evil". You are making an objective statement about the evilness of genocide because you agreed to the first statement.

Therefore... YOUR BELIEFS CONTRADICT EACH OTHER

Logic stings doesn't it?

 

[Verlander]

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.

I'm UK based as well, and while I'd like to say I had a degree in Theology, I don't, just the diploma.

Personally, I see atheists as having a belief system, if not structure. I suppose what it boils down to is whether or not you consider a refusal to believe in God is the same as believing that there is no God. Maybe the term Atheist is too lightly used? Maybe it is down to personal definition?

Either way, I don't think you are wrong, just that we have a different opinion. I see those who reject "God", as having a belief in a world without "God". I see those who don't have a religion as apathetic, or, if they care, agnostic.

I'll read that thread on agnosticism

 

[WOPR]

0%...

Is that good?

That's fantastic. It means all your philosophies work harmoniously.

Sooo...

People can worship me now? My logic is undeniable?

No, it just means you aren't a hypocrite.

The only one it said I messed up was

I said god didn't exist in one
and in the other I said Atheism is as much of a religion as any other (according to the test saying Atheism is a religion is contradicting my saying there is no God... I never said a religion had to be about a supreme being did I? I thought I said it was about my belief [and that I believe a lot of people are probably wrong and just need to get the balls to say "I'm scared of dieing so I need something to believe in!"])

 

[k-ossuburb]

Some go one step further and claim to be Anti-theist, which is a more accurate label for the Strong Atheist position.

I may be just fiddling with semantics here, but atheism, agnosticism and anti-theism are three completely separate viewpoints and it is entirely possible to be all three yet still have no faith attached to them like you described.

Agnosticism are more concerned with the "knowing" aspect of religion. Agnostics posit that it is incredibly unlikely that we will ever have conclusive proof one way or the other for the existence of any deity or the mythologies attached to them, therefore they accept the position that it is simply unknowable.

Atheism is the position that someone takes when the likelihood of a deity(s) existing or any of the mythologies attached to them is/are so unlikely that they are unconvinced by the claims made by theists since they have either found evidence to the contrary or flaws/contradictions in the mythology altogether which further erode the likelihood of the mythology to be true, therefore they do not believe in that particular mythology. "Strong" or "weak" atheism most likely refers to <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability>The Scale Of Theistic Probability, anyone at number 7 on the scale would most likely need some form of faith in order to propose such a statement, but most atheists are pretty firmly on number 6.

Anti-theism is more about rejecting the dogma, rituals and practices of religious institutions in general. Anti-theism refers to people who take issue with how any/all given religion(s) function(s) and find most religious practices, dogma and rituals to conflict with their personal morality like: the stoning of women, the mistreatment of homosexual or the retardation of scientific growth. Anti-theists have issue with the believers not the belief itself as they will have a problem with how their religion will cause them to do things that the anti-theist would perceive as immoral acts.

So, it is possible for someone to not believe in a deity because they find it unlikely, they don't think it's ever really possible for the concept of a deity to be proven and they take issue with the practices of any given religion. This would make them an anti-theistic agnostic atheist.

Hope that clears things up a little more.

 

[Raven's Nest]

snip because I feel like it

I subjectively believe genocide is an evil act.

I didn't think it would take this much explaining to get across something so simple.

Please, if you need any further tips, don't hesitate to message me. I'd be happy to teach you. It's a hobby of mine

We get that part...

Go back through our whole conversation, actually read what I have said, then you can come back and stop embarrassing yourself.

If you don't want to do that, I'm done talking to you.



PS I'm logging off now folks, I'll be back to respond later.

 

[manaman]

Ladies and Gentlemen, step right up and get your free philosophical health check...


Ever wondered if your ideas about the world are actually consistent with each other?

Ever feel like you might be a raging hypocritical moron? Ever thought someone else was?


Truth is, most of us spend our lives attached to little ideas we have about the way life should be but it turns out few of us actually agree with the principles we think we do. A lot of the time, our ideas come into conflict with each other which is why working out the morality of things can be tricky...

For example;

Do you believe that people should be free to make their own decisions and live out their lives doing what they want so long as they don't hurt anyone else?

Do you believe a person should be arrested if they sat next to you on a park bench and injected themselves with heroin in front of you and your kids?

Well, you can't actually have one without the other.

I found this great website a little while back and there is a bunch of tests on it that evaluate your ideas, ethics and morals, just to let you know that you probably spend most nights arguing with yourself and why...

Take a look! http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/check.php

(no I'm not advertising btw, just sharing something cool)


Aaaand for the discussion, Share your findings with us and lets find out who can walk the walk, talk the talk and erm... Think.... the think.... There is bound to be some surprises in store for everyone. Certainly made me think twice.

I find your example to be poor.

Just because you can't quantify how an action hurts one other person doesn't mean the collective actions of all the individuals that peruse that action does not negatively impact the rest of society.

Rampant drug use leads to all manner of other crime both directly and indirectly. Sure some might not fall into the cycle, but enough do. I have lived in some bad neighbourhoods and seen the effects for myself.

It was deliberately ambiguous. And I personally agree with you regarding the specifics of the question but the real point of the question was this...

Should people live freely so long as they do not harm others?

Should something be made illegal if it can harm oneself?

If we believe the first statement we should also accept the potential consequences of the second. There is at least some conflict in one's attitudes toward personal freedom if both statements are agreed with in this case.

Phrased that way I have no conflict. I agree that people should be free to live their lives provided they do not cause undue physical, mental, or financial harm. I specifically used mental in place of emotional, as hurting someone's feelings is temporary and someone should not need protection from harsh words, but subjecting someone constantly to torment and abuse is harm someone should be protected from.

I don't agree that people should need protection from themselves. The only problem with that is as a society we cannot strictly think of people as individuals

They ARE individuals though, so we should see them that way.

We punish them as individuals too. The judge doesn't go "well we need to figure out what would happen if 2 million other people did the same thing". They arrest them as individuals, they try them as individuals and they punish them as individuals.

Yes. Because that applies exactly to what I was saying. Uh, huh. For reals yo, ain't no sarcasm here playa!

Look the crack head stealing your neighbours tools isn't bothering you, and even if nobody has ever stolen from you to feed their drug habit doesn't mean it's not hurting anyone. Just because a drunk driver never mower down your family doesn't make it alright to get behind the wheel. Those are obvious. Less obvious is the junkie that doesn't work and ties up thousands upon thousands of dollars in social aid and care doesn't mean it's not hurting anyone either, even if the total cost is less then pennies per person.

In a society you have to balance personal freedoms with the harm those actions cause overall to society. Not every druggie steals, not everyone that is at the legal limit has such a loss of motor control that they cannot remain in control of a vehicle. The majority do and when you are making laws for a society you have to draw a line somewhere. Your argument of treating everyone as individuals under law makes no sense either.

Unless of course you actually think lawmakers have each individual in the country, state, province, county, town, municipality, city or whatever they are applying the law to in mind overtime they draft up a law. Of course not. They are thinking about the community or society they are drafting the law for (corruption and personal politics aside).

That's it? Those are your examples. Some druggies rob places, drunk driving is dangerous and some druggies don't work? Well robbing places and driving drunk is all ready illegal, we don't need to ban alcohol just because someone might abuse it. Nor is it exactly fair to punish everyone because some people can't handle something.

I am just going to assume now that you are intentionally coming up in left field when my point was driven off far to the right. It really is like you are early skimming the post and replying on whatever happens to stick in your head.

Regardless, this was about a persons core beliefs and how agreeing with the two statements was supposedly contradictory. Right or wrong I believe I quite handedly explained how I can agree with both statements and it not be a conflict in my basic beliefs.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Does anyone know what the tension one was for the child suffering needlessly?

The one that contradicted that if that was what you were looking for was a Loving God.

Aw, I see thanks.

Yeah that one got me with my particular view on how God interacts with the world and free will so while I may not agree with the contradiction I got it anyway.

 

[Kopikatsu]

No tensions!

15503 of the 175450 people who have completed this activity also have no tensions in their belief system.

There are a number of possible explanations for the fact that you have no tensions in your beliefs:

1. You have a very consistent set of beliefs;
2. You have very few beliefs - and consequently answered none or only a few of the questions!
3. You've done this test before!

Yup. I'm solid as a rock, baby.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

Okay, most trains here in germany run on electricity.
The moral question is NOT about genocides...
You said morality is subjective, so why make a moraly objective statement afterwards?

No, the second statement is still morally subjective, even if it does use the word "testament." It is my opinion that genocide is evil. My education and life has taught me that and I believe it. If I wasn't taught that, I might not hold the conviction as strongly, say for example if I grew up in Serbia or Turkey or America (a couple hundred years ago). I can believe morality is subjective, while certain things are wrong. Otherwise I'd be a sociopath.

 

[Wise_Smiling_Panda]

0%...

Nice. No idea what it means though.