|
Post by amanda on Jun 30, 2005 16:20:17 GMT -5
No, no, no, no, no.. see, the way it works now is we nag you about posting more since you've finally put in an appearance.
|
|
|
Post by Guest Justin on Jun 30, 2005 17:16:57 GMT -5
I bit a bullet on the battleground, but I managed to avoid a direct hit. My problem is that I'm not smart enough to really understand the difference between an argument for the non-existence of something and an argument against the existence of something. Furthermore, I'm not sure how evidence figures into this, and what the lack of evidence really means. I'm still, for instance, not convinced that there's no life on Mars, despite a serious lack of evidence that there could be. See what I mean here? Is this a case of the lack of evidence for, or a case of evidence against life on Mars? I can't really be sure. And who exactly bears the burden of proof here? Is it me for thinking life does (or maybe just could) exist on Mars? Or is it the scientist who says life does not (or maybe just could not) exist there? Something tells me that the scientist has to proove that, and that's a case of an argument for non-existence. But maybe it's all just in the wording. Maybe I'm the one who's really advancing a claim by saying what I said.
I realize this has all been settled and forgotten about in the logical world, but it's still confusing to me. It's so basic that I feel like Dr. Cook was ulimately correct in flunking me out of his Intro to Logic course, despite the number of logic classes I took (and passed with high marks) after his class. I'm stoopid.
|
|
|
Post by tammy on Jul 1, 2005 10:05:04 GMT -5
I like this quiz. For a short quiz I think it was fairly accurate. It really made me laugh, like a dictator. HAHAHAHA
Wackiness: 34/100 Rationality: 28/100 Constructiveness: 36/100 Leadership: 54/100
You are a SEDL--Sober Emotional Destructive Leader. This makes you a Dictator.
You prefer to control situations, and lack of control makes you physically sick. You feel have responsibility for everyone's welfare, and that you will be blamed when things go wrong. Things do go wrong, and you take it harder than you should.
You rely on the validation and support of others, but you have a secret distrust for people and distaste for their habits and weaknesses that make you keep your distance from them. This makes you very difficult to be with romantically. Still, a level-headed peacemaker can keep you balanced.
Despite your fierce temper and general hot-bloodedness, you have a soft spot for animals and a surprising passion for the arts. Sometimes you would almost rather live by your wits in the wilderness somewhere, if you could bring your books and your sketchbook.
You also have a strange, undeniable sexiness to you. You may go insane.
Of the 133308 people who have taken this quiz since tracking began (8/17/2004), 5.5 % are this type.
|
|
|
Post by tammy on Jul 1, 2005 10:07:58 GMT -5
I told Tyler that he must be my level-headed peacemaker. He said, "That's the damn truth."
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Jul 1, 2005 13:05:57 GMT -5
I thought that I’d share my Battleground God answers with you. This is not the only path through the questions, and I doubt that all of you will find my path attractive. Here some of the implications of my views:
1. Our belief in God and the truth of any holy book is revisable in light of new evidence, especially scientific evidence. 2. Divine Command Theory is not the only, or even the best, basis for morality. 3. God is not necessarily absolutely free, powerful, or knowledgeable. 4. God may use our suffering for ends we do not understand OR She may not. We don’t know. She may even do so in some cases and not in others. 5. Evolution is generally true. 6. A firm internal conviction is not a reliable guide to truth for everyone. (I think we could defend easily the idea that for certain people it works pretty well. My own view is that this is almost never true of religious dogmatists.) 7. Atheism is not necessarily a faith-claim, i.e., it may result from a sober appraisal of the evidence in favor of God’s existence.
My path through the questions: Question 1: God exists. True
Question 2: If God does not exist then there is no basis for morality. False
Question 3: Any being which it is right to call God must be free to do anything. False
Question 4: Any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the word as is possible. False
Question 5: Any being which it is right to call God must have the power to do anything. False
Question 6: Evolutionary theory maybe false in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true. True
Question 7: It is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of these convictions. False
Question 8: Any being that it is right to call God must know everything that there is to know. False
Question 9: Torturing innocent people is morally wrong. True
Question 10: If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been presented to show that there is a Loch Ness monster, it is rational to believe that such a monster does not exist. True
Question 11: People who die of horrible, painful diseases need to die in such a way for some higher purpose. False
Question 12: If God exists she could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful. False
Question 13: It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists. False
Question 14: 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. False
Question 15: The serial rapist Peter Sutcliffe had a firm, inner conviction that God wanted him to rape and murder prostitutes. He was, therefore, justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will in undertaking these actions. False
Question 16: If God exists she would have the freedom and power to create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72. False
Question 17: It is justifiable to believe in God if one has a firm, inner conviction that God exists, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of the conviction that God exists. False
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Jul 1, 2005 20:42:29 GMT -5
Justin,
I am sure that you’ll remember all this after the first line or two, but I am going to write it anyway to make sure that I am clear.
I don’t see a difference between an argument for the non-existence of x and an argument against the existence of x. But there are plenty of philosophers who split hairs more finely than I do.
I can tell you the difference between (a) a lack of evidence for x and (b) an argument against the existence of x. It is sort of natural to think that (a) implies (b). And in a few cases it does. When scientists engage in a protracted study to find x, and cannot do so, then we have some reason to believe that x does not exist. Similarly, when in a court of law the prosecution endeavors to prove guilt but fails to do so, then we have some reason to believe that the defendant is not guilty—though this is not the same as innocent, of course.
On the other hand, sometimes (a) does not imply (b). There is an informal fallacy called appeal to ignorance (Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam). It involves one of the following: either (i) the claim that the lack of evidence that x is true (or exists) is a sufficient reason to believe that x is false (or does not exist) or (ii) the claim that the lack of evidence that x is false (or does not exist) is a sufficient reason to belief x is true (or exists). In either case, the lack of evidence really implies nothing definite.
Here are the two examples relevant to Battleground God:
1. After centuries of trying, no one has been able to prove that God exists. So, at this point, we can safely conclude that God does not exist.
2. After centuries of trying, no one has been able to show that God does not exist. Therefore, God does exist.
Put starkly, the claim that a statement is false because it hasn’t been proven true is usually erroneous. By such logic, scientists would have to conclude that their unproven hypotheses are false. And surely it is wiser for scientists to suspend judgment. After all, we do not have to believe or disbelieve every statement we consider. We can remain neutral. Similarly, the claim that a statement is true (or may reasonably be believed true) simply because it hasn’t been disproven is illogical. By this principle, every new scientific hypothesis is true (or at least it can reasonably be believed to be true) unless it has been disproven—no matter how flimsy the evidence for it is.
The point is this: There is no way to keep from sifting through the evidence. We can put the task off on others like scientists or juries, but someone has to take a real look at the evidence and evaluate the arguments for and against a conclusion. In the case of God's existence, the evidence looks so different to different observers and the implications may be so personal and so important that there really is no way to keep from looking at the evidence oneself.
|
|
|
Post by amanda mcbride on Jul 4, 2005 11:40:43 GMT -5
A personal quiz for the 4th of July -- How American are You? www.blogthings.com/howamericanareyouquiz/My results: I am 41% American America: You don't love it or want to leave it. But you wouldn't mind giving it an extreme make over. On the 4th of July, you'll fly a freak flag instead... And give Uncle Sam a sucker punch!
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Jul 4, 2005 13:12:20 GMT -5
I am 44% American. And I got the same message as you.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Jul 5, 2005 6:46:09 GMT -5
Hey, mister white-collar-conservative pointing that plastic finger at me. I'm gonnna wave my freak-flag! 35%
|
|
|
Post by rickus on Jul 5, 2005 7:18:14 GMT -5
I don't know whether to be embarrassed by this or not: 53%
I think that I answered "Nascar and wrestling" scored me more points than I really deserved. Truth is I don't choose to watch any sports, I just happen to see Nascar a good bit of the time I'm at my in-laws. I feel like I'm apologizing for getting a higher score.
Here's the blurb I got: Most times you are proud to be an American. Though sometimes the good ole US of A makes you cringe Still, you know there's no place better suited to be your home. You love your freedom and no one's going to take it away from you!
|
|
|
Post by katie on Jul 5, 2005 13:06:05 GMT -5
I got 44%, too. But I can't tell you how jealous I am of that 35% score, Tyler!
|
|
|
Post by luceph on Jul 6, 2005 18:57:06 GMT -5
I got a 55% although many of the questions were terribley written and had options that I would not choose from so I would say the quiz is pretty shitty.
|
|
|
Post by tammy on Jul 7, 2005 5:50:18 GMT -5
Yikes I'm 53% american. I don't believe it.
|
|
|
Post by amanda on Jul 12, 2005 9:00:05 GMT -5
And, here's another quiz... just in case you're unsure what your worldview is (or if you're bored and don't want to work): quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=23320I scored as Cultural Creative. Other scores were as follows -- Idealist 69% Existentialist 56% Postmodernist 56% Romanticist 56% Materialist 44% Modernist 31% Fundamentalist 19% (is there a little fundie in all of us? say it ain't so!)
|
|
|
Post by rickus on Jul 12, 2005 10:09:59 GMT -5
I have plenty of work to do but I feel the need make a post every now and then. Plus I think these quizzes are funny. Here's what I got.
You scored as Cultural Creative. Cultural Creatives are probably the newest group to enter this realm. You are a modern thinker who tends to shy away from organized religion but still feels as if there is something greater than ourselves. You are very spiritual, even if you are not religious. Life has a meaning outside of the rational.
Cultural Creative 88% Existentialist 81% Materialist 63% Modernist 56% Postmodernist 56% Idealist 50% Romanticist 38% Fundamentalist 25%
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Jul 12, 2005 21:47:57 GMT -5
You scored as Cultural Creative.
Cultural Creative 81% Postmodernist 50% Idealist 44% Romanticist 44% Fundamentalist 31% Materialist 31% Existentialist 31% Modernist 13%
I don't think this is a very good quiz. There is no explanation of what these categories even mean. (Or I am too stupid to find it. Always a possibility.)
|
|
|
Post by Betterout on Jul 12, 2005 22:20:48 GMT -5
Wow, Cultural Creative... I guess this is the standard result for our group. Or maybe this test is just not very predictive.
Postmodernist 75% Cultural Creative 75% Existentialist 50% Idealist 38% Romanticist 38% Modernist 25% Materialist 25% Fundamentalist 13%
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Jul 13, 2005 8:01:59 GMT -5
No shock here... Materialist 100% Modernist 75% Existentialist 75% Cultural Creative 50% Fundamentalist 25% Postmodernist 25% Idealist 0% Romanticist 0%
|
|
|
Post by amanda on Jul 29, 2005 9:35:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by amanda on Jul 29, 2005 9:57:46 GMT -5
Hmm. My quiz may be a bit harder than I intended it to be... I still expect my husband to get a very high if not perfect score, though. So, pressure's on, Justin.
|
|