THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016). |
---|
|
On the same site, i like THIS test better. I got 0 hits and 2 bullets. (Although some of the questions are poorly worded.) apparently my atheism has no contradictions. |
"You've just bitten a bullet! In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like creating square circles), you are saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality. This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion." what? that's EXACTLY what i'm saying. I'm not biting shit. damn T&F only answers. |
************** Congratulations!****************** I had to bite the bullet when I said that the rapist was justified in thinking God wanted him to rape people, or whatever the exact scenario was. |
********** You've just bitten a bullet!*********** |
But, duh. Like, that doesn't mean Peter and I are both right, or that there's no difference between us otherwise, or that if you look at all other evidence, we are *equally* justified believing in our own image of God. I'm not a philosopher, and I don't have the vocabulary to explain this properly, I'm sorry. |
I meant that it's justifiable for HIM, not for me. Ah, well. All their games are fun. On "Morality Play" I got 96%, although i'm still not totaly sure if that's bad or good. In "Taboo" i got shockingly low numbers compared to the average. Mine were 0.04 0.00 0.00 Compared to the average of 0.29 0.20 0.43 I'm saddened to think that so many people give a crap about some guy fucking a frozen chicken before he eats it. |
|
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. 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?" This is silly shit. Discounting a belief in intelligent aliens on Mars based on a lack of evidence is easy. It's a belief that's verifiable. Belief in a god is not verifiable, thus saying that the possibility exists without hard evidence is consistent, given that the consistency of the belief is untestable. Stoopid fuckers. |
Duh. That's the core of my belief system, specifically this: "you are saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality." Rationality is necessarily a subset of the modes of thought capable of describing the universe. Heck, it's not even proven that rational thought is even a member of that set. (And, in the spirit of Goedel's Incompleteness theorem, is unprovable by rational means.) So to think that discussion of god and ultimate reality must be constrained by rational thought is...irrational! Stoopid fuckers. |
And I agree wisper that they need to rise above the boolean. That's my usual beef with people who claim to be "rationally consistent." (Including myself, btw.) |
I can see how a family eating their dead pets is gross, but wrong? Who thought it was morally wrong? why???? *sob* |
|
|
|