Define Cynical Fan Forums

<a href='http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/go ... ><br><br>I bit two bullets:<br><br>You've just bitten a bullet!<br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> You say that if there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, then atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality. Therefore, it seems that you do not think that the mere absence of evidence for the existence of God is enough to justify believing that she does not exist. This view is also suggested by your earlier claim that it is not rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist even if, despite years of trying, no evidence has been presented to suggest that it does exist.<br><br>There is no logical inconsistency in your answers. But by denying that the absence of evidence, even where it has been sought, is enough to justify belief in the non-existence of things, you are required to countenance possibilities that most people would find bizarre. For example, do you really want to claim that it is not rationally justified to believe that intelligent aliens do not live on Mars?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> You've just bitten a bullet!<br><br>You are consistent in applying the principle that 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 this conviction. The problem is that it seems you have to accept that people might be justified in their belief that God could demand something terrible.<br><br>This is something many religious people are willing to accept. For example, Kierkegaard believed that it is precisely because Abraham had to contravene established morality to follow God's will and attempt to sacrifice his son which made his act the supreme act of faith.<br><br>But as Kierkegaard also stressed, this makes the act incomprehensible from a rational point of view. The rational alternative - that people should require more than such an inner conviction to justify such a belief - is more attractive to most people, but you reject this alternative and bite the bullet.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br><br>I believe that reality is what you choose to believe. I don't think you can make the choice consciously, but who knows? Right and wrong are not absolutes. The only absolute is mathematics. One plus one always makes two, regardless of what you might call it. However, if you believe that you are doing what is right, then you are a righteous person, even if no one agrees with you.

I'm almost certain we had a link to this a long while ago.

The only absolute in Mathematics is <i>modus ponens</i>.

yeah, I remember this game.<br><br>It'd be a lot more accurate if we were allowed to explain our answers.<br><br>I've long wanted to start a good/evil debate amongst us, but feared it would tear us apart.

I remember that, I would have had a perfect if it wasn't for one strangely worded answer.

Yarr, that thing has some confuzzling sentences in it.

<!--QuoteBegin-Henohenomoheji+Nov 4 2004, 02:21 AM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Henohenomoheji @ Nov 4 2004, 02:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> I've long wanted to start a good/evil debate amongst us, but feared it would tear us apart. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> That happened on my last board. We started off with evolution and it all came crashing down from there. If you remember, there was a religion topic a while back and I didn't get involved at all.<br><br>Having said that, I suppose the religion topic didn't do too much lasting harm, if any, lasting or not.

I did this on a politics board. It seems a little bit biased against religious folk.

It does suggest that you cannot be perfectly rational and be religious at the same time. I'm not sure if that's a bad thing.

<!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.<br><br>The fact that you progressed through this activity without being hit and biting only one bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and well thought out.<br><br>A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullet occurred because you responded in a way that required that you held a view that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, because you bit only one bullet and avoided direct hits completely you still qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> <br>    * 236557 people have completed this activity to date.<br>    * You suffered zero direct hits and bit 1 bullet.<br>    * This compares with the average player of this activity to date who takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.12 bullets.<br>    * 45.89% of the people who have completed this activity, like you, took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.<br>    * 7.46% of the people who have completed this activity emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.<br><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd-->

I remember the first time I played that...<br><br><br>I was insulted.<br><br>They didn't give me enough direct hits <!--emo&:P--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo--><br><br><br>Although if they had given me the chance to explain my answers, I would have gotten through with nary a scratch. even with harder questions.<br><br>I'd bet money on that, but I still think I could be wrong...<br><br>...anyone want some free money?

I just got this:<br><br>You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. So it seems that you require certain, irrevocable proof for God's existence, but accept evolutionary theory without certain proof. So you've got a choice:<br><br>Bite a bullet and claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution.<br><br>Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses.<br><br>Now that's not true; both arguments have not, in my mind, been shown to have an equal standing. I have seen more logical evidence for evolution than for god and so I do not believe that there is either a higher standard that for evolution, I merely believe that that standard has not yet been reached by religion.

If God existed, what would happen if He took a dump?

Republicans <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... s/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->

lol