 | | The God Game!
|
|
This one's for you, Dave! (URL) it counted me as being contradictory several times, though I'll maintain that either I wasn't contradictory or (in at least one case) the questions are rather flawed. But cute, nonetheless. DaveE (19 years ago, 25-Apr-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The God Game!
|
|
I agree, the reasoning behind "contradictions" I ran into was from a flawed basis for the questions. (...) (19 years ago, 25-Apr-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The God Game!
|
|
(...) Somewhat fun, but I agree that some questions were flawed. The used certain words like "rational" or "justified" to put you in forced choice dilemas. About halfway through I stopped trying to give my own beliefs and started trying to just make (...) (19 years ago, 25-Apr-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The God Game!
|
|
(...) Hmmm. Their is one notable flaws of logic in this test. They compare the burden of proof for the Loch Ness monster with that for the existence of God which, given that the LNM exists or does not within our sphere of discovery and God may not (...) (19 years ago, 25-Apr-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The God Game!
|
|
(...) Cute! I "bit one bullet," but otherwise my worldview is pretty consistent, according to this test. Sure it's somewhat flawed, but (presumably) it's not as though St. Peter's standing at the Pearly Gates with this test in hand, waiting to snag (...) (19 years ago, 25-Apr-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The God Game!
|
|
(...) I agree-- I had the same thoughts when I took the Loch Ness "hit". BTW, when you say you are a "devout atheist", what exactly does that mean? Are you asserting that there definitely ISN'T a God somehow? Just wondering, JOHN (19 years ago, 25-Apr-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The God Game!
|
|
(...) Thanks for the parenthetical presumably, Dave! ;-) Fellow 1 bullet biter, JOHN (19 years ago, 25-Apr-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The God Game!
|
|
(...) Yeah. It's a massively flawed argument IMO. (...) I'm making the point that atheism is as much of a leap of (not)faith as religion is a leap of faith. Thus although I know that agnosticism is logical (as there is nor proof for or against) I (...) (19 years ago, 25-Apr-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The God Game!
|
|
(...) Tricky. I had to go back to that class I took back in my Catholic HS days to think through those questions. In the end I scored zero hits and bit twice. Adr. (19 years ago, 25-Apr-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The God Game!
|
|
(...) I don't want to start a whole big thing here, but I'd take issue with that statement as being too broad and non-specific. One form of atheism--the belief that God does not exist--may require a leap of faith, but that's not the only form. I, (...) (19 years ago, 25-Apr-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The God Game!
|
|
(...) Would you also argue that the statement "people who believe in God must make a leap of faith" is too broad and non-specific? (...) I would have to say that you are either an agnostic or you have made a leap of faith. It is my opinion that an (...) (19 years ago, 25-Apr-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The God Game!
|
|
(...) I got struck with a hit on that one as well: "As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality." "If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or (...) (19 years ago, 25-Apr-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The God Game!
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote: <snip> Their is one notable flaws of logic in this test. They compare the burden (...) That's the question that hung me up. Dave K (19 years ago, 25-Apr-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The God Game!
|
|
(...) To sum earlier discussion-- Dave! does not believe that the following equations are equal-- 1 + (-1) = 0 (-1) + 1 = 0 ;) Dave K (19 years ago, 25-Apr-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The God Game!
|
|
(...) Depending on how you define your operators they may not be. If I define the operator +(a,b) to be what we would conventionally term +(a,2b) and define (-1) as that number which ensures that +(1,(-1))=0 (ie (-1)=-1/2) then the two equations are (...) (19 years ago, 25-Apr-06, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: The God Game!
|
|
(...) Trickily worded! I have a lack of belief in Hoojidangs. I bet you do too, because you don't even know what they are. Neither do I. It's some unknown. Hence, I have a lack of belief in them which requires no faith. I'm not sure I'd even call (...) (19 years ago, 25-Apr-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The God Game!
|
|
(...) No, that sounds right on the money to me. Here are the statements that we need to consider: A. I believe that God exists. B. I do not believe that God does not exist. C. I believe that God does not exist D. I do not believe that God exists. A (...) (19 years ago, 25-Apr-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
