Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
danydandan

Logical issues with belief.

118 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

danydandan

Interested in participating in an experiment regarding the logic of your beliefs?

https://www.philosophyexperiments.com/god/Default.aspx

It's interesting. Apparently being an Agnostic Theist doesn't get you any points.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

Can't help but feel that survey/questionnaire was loaded. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanjo
37 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Interested in participating in an experiment regarding the logic of your beliefs?

https://www.philosophyexperiments.com/god/Default.aspx

It's interesting. Apparently being an Agnostic Theist doesn't get you any points.

There is no logic to belief...it's faith...you don't need logic to have faith.

 

Edited by seanjo
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
23 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Can't help but feel that survey/questionnaire was loaded. 

Very.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

@rodentraiser posted the link recently in the "10 Questions" thread over in the sheltered workshop board here at UM:

What I discovered is that if you answer question 8 in a normative way (yes, some a priori beliefs can be "justified," e.g. ordinary  logic is a reliable guide to truth), then you cannot answer question 16 without an exception notice.

So, yes, i think the poll was "loaded" as the previous poster suggests.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
7 minutes ago, eight bits said:

@rodentraiser posted the link recently in the "10 Questions" thread over in the sheltered workshop board here at UM:

What I discovered is that if you answer question 8 in a normative way (yes, some a priori beliefs can be "justified," e.g. ordinary  logic is a reliable guide to truth), then you cannot answer question 16 without an exception notice.

So, yes, i think the poll was "loaded" as the previous poster suggests.

 

It told me that I was a bold boy for saying I don't know in the first question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanjo

Battleground God - Analysis
 
You navigated the battlefield suffering 2 hits and biting 0 bullets, which represents an overall performance at the 54th percentile (i.e., 54% of scores are worse than yours). The tables on the right show how your performance compares to the other 76492 people who have completed Battleground God.

You can find a list of questions here (page will open in a new tab).

Recap of your Direct Hits
Direct Hit 1

You answered "True" to questions 11 and 15, which generated the following response:

Earlier you responded that it is rational to believe the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.

The contradiction is that on the first occasion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.

 

(God Isn't an imaginary beast that has been proven by constant searches to not exist)

Direct Hit 2

You answered "True" to Question 8 and "False" to Question 16, which generated the following response:

Earlier you said that even in the absence of independent evidence, it is justified to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner-conviction. But now you do not accept that the serial murderer Peter Sutcliffe was justified in doing just that. The example of the killer has exposed that you do not, in fact, think that a belief is justified just because one is convinced of its truth. So you need to revise your opinion here. The intellectual sniper has scored a bull's-eye!

(Having the faith that a God exists, is not the same as murder because of your mental instability giving you a conviction)

 

Battleground god.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
20 minutes ago, seanjo said:

There is no logic to belief...it's faith...you don't need logic to have faith.

My mother's family were "Non-Theistic Quakers and I base my beliefs on the limited science I know. If it can be disproven. It is no longer part of my belief. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
2 minutes ago, danydandan said:

It told me that I was a bold boy for saying I don't know in the first question.

Hmm, I too was a "don't know" for that (Huxleyan agnostic), and it didn't flinch :) .

@seanjo

That's interesting that you got an exception for Loch Ness versus Question of God. The Loch Ness problem (the subject of one of the questions) features a lack of results after (arguably at the very least) an adequately extensive program of searches including an evidentiary foundation for what was being sought. Who the hell knows how to look for God? What are you even supposed to be looking for? Although I personally didn't hold atheists to a "high" evidence-or-argument standard, I also don't see that the two problems are all that parallel.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan

You've taken a direct hit!

Earlier you responded that it is rational to believe the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.

The contradiction is that on the first occasion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.

That's what I got.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
5 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Hmm, I too was a "don't know" for that (Huxleyan agnostic), and it didn't flinch :) .

@seanjo

That's interesting that you got an exception for Loch Ness versus Question of God. The Loch Ness problem (the subject of one of the questions) features a lack of results after (arguably at the very least) an adequately extensive program of searches including an evidentiary foundation for what was being sought. Who the hell knows how to look for God? What are you even supposed to be looking for? Although I personally didn't hold atheists to a "high" evidence-or-argument standard, I also don't see that the two problems are all that parallel.

I said I don't know and said it was ok to belief in God without evidence. So I got a slap on the wrist.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

Hmm. As my lawyer friends like to say, "circumstances alter cases." Nessie is a physical being residing in a defined place with some specified detectable features, and after extensive effort, nothing of her shows up unless you've volunteered to serve as a quality control inspector for the local Scotch. In the search for God, everything's wild and the sky's the limit. Meh, I've heard Scotch helps with that, too.

Anyway, you've been singled out. I was "don't know" about God and "OK for (either side) to believe without evidence (a priori)." Not a peep. Maybe I intimidated the poor thing :) .

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

I was just listening to a podcast about big data and how its shared, sold, and applied.  I will no longer participate in these types of surveys because your answers may have unintended results that affect things like your ability to get a job find a place to live and your credit rating.  Big data companies uses what seems to be random harmless information about you to build a profile on you that can be used by many different entities.  Things like if you're  a single male and you drive a minivan they will determine that you are likely overweight and out of shape and this could affect your rates when applying for life insurance and you would never even know they used that info. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew
2 hours ago, seanjo said:

There is no logic to belief...it's faith...you don't need logic to have faith.

 

And this nonsense is what keeps these awful institutions alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
1 hour ago, OverSword said:

I was just listening to a podcast about big data and how its shared, sold, and applied.  I will no longer participate in these types of surveys because your answers may have unintended results that affect things like your ability to get a job find a place to live and your credit rating.  Big data companies uses what seems to be random harmless information about you to build a profile on you that can be used by many different entities.  Things like if you're  a single male and you drive a minivan they will determine that you are likely overweight and out of shape and this could affect your rates when applying for life insurance and you would never even know they used that info. 

They can't do that if you don't share information. Which I don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
23 minutes ago, danydandan said:

They can't do that if you don't share information. Which I don't.

Did they read your IP address when you answered their questions?  Yes you did.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
Just now, OverSword said:

Did they read your IP address when you answered their questions?  Yes you did.

Nope. Old school hacker here friend. Proxy is my middle name. Although they could well have gotten some useful stuff, via cookies.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

Battleground God - Analysis

You navigated the battlefield suffering 1 hit and biting 0 bullets, which represents an overall performance at the 86th percentile (i.e., 86% of scores are worse than yours). The tables on the right show how your performance compares to the other 76509 people who have completed Battleground God.
You can find a list of questions here (page will open in a new tab).
Recap of your Direct Hit
Direct Hit 1

You answered "True" to questions 7 and 14, which generated the following response:
You claimed earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now stated 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.

 

battleground.png

battleground2.png

Edited by Rlyeh
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

There actually is an incredible amount of 'proof' to confirm evolution.  There is however zero proof ...zero...proof...of Entities of Omnipotence.

Therefore...the premise of the entire test is false and obviously has an agenda...its a ...gotcha question...

If you believe in evolution and not in God then you are choosing one belief without proof over another belief without proof.  The premise however is mistaken because there is a plethora of proofs to support evolution theories.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
3 hours ago, joc said:

There actually is an incredible amount of 'proof' to confirm evolution.  There is however zero proof ...zero...proof...of Entities of Omnipotence.

Therefore...the premise of the entire test is false and obviously has an agenda...its a ...gotcha question...

If you believe in evolution and not in God then you are choosing one belief without proof over another belief without proof.  The premise however is mistaken because there is a plethora of proofs to support evolution theories.

A lot of people use proof to mean solid evidence, and that's how I took the question regarding proof of God. Obviously the site is using much stricter meanings and I should've paid more attention.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo
46 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

A lot of people use proof to mean solid evidence, and that's how I took the question regarding proof of God. Obviously the site is using much stricter meanings and I should've paid more attention.

I got "caught" on the same trap you did. The questions aren't specific enough to justify turning around and immediately being super pedantic. It's clearly written by theists trying super hard to make atheists question stuff.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

Just took the test.  Scored 70% the first time..took it again..scored 100%

The catch is whether you are consistent with your answers.  

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
19 hours ago, joc said:

Just took the test.  Scored 70% the first time..took it again..scored 100%

The catch is whether you are consistent with your answers.  

 

I wonder how much people redoing the questions are screwing up their metrics?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8

When I opened it and went to the first question the page froze and had to reboot my phone. I took it as a sign not to continue.:lol::whistle:

jmccr8 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
3 hours ago, danydandan said:

I wonder how much people redoing the questions are screwing up their metrics?

I don't know...what screwed me up was I said that God could do Anything...early on and I stayed with that because...of course if he is an omnipotent entity he can do anything...but at the end I had a question could God change the square root of a certain number to be something it wasn't and I said no.  

So...I think it is a consistency test....it really didn't matter I don't think what you answered about God...as long as you were consistent about it.  Maybe I should take it a few more times...nah...I don't care that much honestly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   1 member

    • Phaeton80