Religion? That ol' chestnut...

[robinbloke]

Religion thingy



How did I do compared to other people?

~

108620 people have completed this activity to date.
You suffered 1 direct hit and bit 1 bullet.
This compares with the average player of this activity to date who takes 1.37 hits and bites 1.10 bullets.
46.68% of the people who have completed this activity, like you, took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.
7.47% of the people who have completed this activity emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.

~



My views and stuff



I am, essentially, an open minded cynic. I'm pretty accepting of other peoples views and don't try to tred on anyones toes when it comes to their beliefs; I am perfectly willing to accept that I'm wrong, but in the face of the evidence and my life I'm sticking with the evolutionary theory and a godless world.
One of my fundamental sticking points with several relgions is having both the concept of free will and and having a god who is all knowing. If god knows all then my actions are essentially predefined, therefore my free will does not exist and I am just going through predetermined actions, blah blah.
I flicker occasionally at the edge of belief in karma, but more the emotional exchanges between beings (via pheromones etc) than emotional backlash and the basic ideal of 'look good, feel good.'
Natch.

Comments

[vyvyan.livejournal.com]

So, which were the points on which you took the hit and bit the bullet? I took no direct hits and bit two bullets, on the question about the rapist feeling justified and the one about God being able to make square circles, leaving me with (in their terms) consistent views, but ones which most people would find strange or unpalatable. Since both sticking points were about the nature of God, I'm not particularly troubled by this - as an atheist, I don't need to worry about the palatability of my views about what some hypothetical God would be like. If I believed, I suppose it would seem more important!

[robinbloke.livejournal.com]

I took hits and bullets...

Direct Hit 1

You answered "True" to questions 10 and 14.

These answers generated the following response:

You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you agreed that it is rational to believe that 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 ocassion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.

~
A question of wording really
~

You answered "True" to questions 7, and 15.

These answers generated the following response:

You've just bitten a bullet! 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.

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.

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.

~
I don't really have a problem with this, if God does exist, who says they're a nice person? Certainly a lot of supreme beings from mythology and history and indeed, many modern religions are complete gits
~

[blackmetalbaz.livejournal.com]

Hmm... zero hits and zero bitten bullets. That's faintly reassuring, in as much as internet quizzes can be. On the other hand, two of my lab mates have just taken it and not made it to the end...

[robinbloke.livejournal.com]

Thats an indication that a) You can read the sometimes badly worded questions (my excuse for one and I'm sticking to it ;) ) and two you're pretty damn sound in your beliefs/whatevers

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

Maybe the all-knowing god simply knows that peoples futures are their own to make? As it is undecided there is nothing to know?

[robinbloke.livejournal.com]

Beats me I guess, I just live here ;)