the archives

dusted off in read-only

  •  

Battleground God posted 04 Sep 2004, 12:09 by Replay, Auditor

Have a go at [url=http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm:yxqendkz]this[/url:yxqendkz] Bit the bullet twice myself (and would happily do so again). view post


posted 04 Sep 2004, 16:09 by Grantaire, Moderator

Heh, that was interesting. I took two direct hits, and didn't bite the bullet at all. I got tangled between the loch ness monster and athiesm ones, and my other contradiction was evolutionary theory being correct vs higher proof for existance of god. Meh. I did well enough :wink: view post


posted 04 Sep 2004, 18:09 by legatus, Auditor

Neat. I hadn't seen this test before, so I took the Do-It-Yourself Deity test as well. The type of God I'm most comfortable with is a simple creator God which garnered a Plausibility Quotient of 1.0, so my notion of God is certainly rationally consistent, but they questioned whether my conception of God can really be considered a God at all. On the next test, Battleground God, I ended up taking no direct hits and biting a single bullet. Honestly though, it's a bullet I have no qualms with, and would bite again were I to retake the test. I'm going to go over the questions involved with that bullet below, so anyone that hasn't taken the test yet might want to do so now before reading further. Anyway, they questioned my assertion that atheism is a matter of faith when there's a lack of evidence to support the notion that God doesn't exist, but conceded that I was at least logically consistent, since I also rejected the assertion that it's justifiable to say that the Lock Ness monster doesn't exist simply due to a lack of evidence that it does. In my view, a lack of evidence is a reason for doubt certainly, but not a reason for outright disbelief. A lack of evidence for or against something simply makes it an unknown. Evidence to the contrary is required before I'll ever completely reject an idea, even if that means I have to consider the possibility that many outlandish thing may in fact be true. Absence of evidence does [i:3vg7qkca]not[/i:3vg7qkca] equal evidence of absence. At least I don't believe it does. view post


posted 04 Sep 2004, 21:09 by Grantaire, Moderator

Ah Legatus, that's exactly the one I made. But I only took a direct hit because I acknowledged that it was a contradiction. view post


posted 04 Sep 2004, 21:09 by Replay, Auditor

Yeah i was caught out by the Loch Ness one as well, because the problem is with how they worded the questions. Also, there have been extensive tests to find the Loch Ness monster, such as sweeping the lake, and nothing has been found. No such test can be done with something such as God (well not scientifically anyway). Was a few other things in the test that I did not really agree with either, but still, it was a fun way to spend 5-10mins. view post


posted 05 Sep 2004, 06:09 by AjDeath, Didact

You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground. The fact that you progressed through this activity being hit only once and biting no bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are well thought out and almost entirely internally consistent. The direct hit you suffered occurred because one set of your answers implied a logical contradiction. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analysis of your direct hit. You would have bitten bullets had you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, this did not occur which means that despite the direct hit you qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement! Direct Hit 1 You answered "True" to Question 7 and "False" to Question 15. These answers generated the following response: You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you said 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 of this conviction. But now you do not accept that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in doing just that. The example of the rapist has exposed that you do not in fact agree that any 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! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- They got me here /\ I am not going to say a rapist was right (at least in his "world")Because he Thought that God wanted him to do these things. My world is based on perceptions, but definitely not this much relativity. view post


posted 06 Sep 2004, 21:09 by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

Yeah, this thing has been around for quite some time now. I hope everyone realizes that it's unconscionably deceptive in that it literally depends on several false dilemmas (and if I remember correctly, one or two equivocations) in order to generate what it calls 'hits.' In other words, it literally uses fallacies to force you into 'contradictions' - as it has to in order to stuff a debate as sophisticated and nuanced as the 'existence of God' into an algorthm. view post


posted 07 Sep 2004, 02:09 by Grantaire, Moderator

Well, clearly Scott. The very concept of "god" is subjective in what it means. My idea of god and yours are almost certainly not the same. Even if everyone in the world had an exactly identical view of what exactly god is, there is still no way we could turn god into an algorithm- simply because we rely on words for description. Can abstract concepts be described by mathematics? I don't think someone could come up with an algorithm to describe "justice" or "peace" or "love". So clearly, "god" isn't any different. Also, by the very transient nature of language, description of god is quickly warped. Language simply can't equate onto the plain of mathematics. If we [i:2l3aip6g]could[/i:2l3aip6g] have a mathematical description of God, that would be excellent, because mathematics is the only unarguable thing there is. Though science is a close second. Eh. More I wanted to say, but I must get some sleep. Cheers :) view post


posted 07 Sep 2004, 02:09 by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

You make it sound like they own up to the deception on the site. Did I miss something? view post


posted 07 Sep 2004, 10:09 by Replay, Auditor

There is a part on that site where they say if that you do not talk rationally/logically or contradict yourself, there can be no real discussion. But could not the same be said for them? There can be no real discussion if you define some narrow boundaries and refuse to step outside of them. And besides, what is wrong with contradictions? For instance if I hold up a stick and say this is the top of it, then flip it over and now say that the other end is the top, where's the problem? A contradiction is often nothing more than looking at a truth from multiple angles, each as valid as the other. [quote:2voeso2z]If we could have a mathematical description of God, that would be excellent, because mathematics is the only unarguable thing there is.[/quote:2voeso2z] Interesting. But let's try a little experiment. One hundred multiplied by zero equals zero right? And thirty three multiplied by zero also equals zero? If that is so that, then are not one hundred and thirty three equal? view post


posted 07 Sep 2004, 13:09 by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

I think you write off contradiction a little too quickly, Replay, but I certainly agree with the spirit of what you're saying. Contradiction is a useful tool, not the foundation. And as I say, they knowingly use false dilemmas to generate contradictions, which is why I think the primary point of the site is manipulation rather than provocation or education. They would have owned up to their own bullets otherwise. The philosophy of mathematics is as controversial and divisive as any other philosophical field. And lately, with the sophistication of proofs going through the roof, it's starting to seem more and more interpretative. view post


posted 07 Sep 2004, 13:09 by Aldarion, Sorcerer-of-Rank

I made it through largely "unscathed" because I read into it and replied False to almost every single question. What I [i:xjfoep3x]believe[/i:xjfoep3x] and what I [i:xjfoep3x]know[/i:xjfoep3x] can sometimes be two separate things and I'm almost always mindful of that. As to what this says about my religious beliefs is up to others to decide ;) view post


posted 07 Sep 2004, 21:09 by Grantaire, Moderator

[quote:281khbtp]You make it sound like they own up to the deception on the site. Did I miss something?[/quote:281khbtp] What makes you say that? My point wasn't necessarily to defend their contradictions or errors, but rather to point out that not too many people could do better, as there is no way to make a universally identically comprehended description of something as clearly subjective as god. [quote:281khbtp]I made it through largely "unscathed" because I read into it and replied False to almost every single question. What I believe and what I know can sometimes be two separate things and I'm almost always mindful of that. As to what this says about my religious beliefs is up to others to decide[/quote:281khbtp] It was interesting actually today..a couple days ago in my history class, we were supposed to write a short essay about the beliefs of one of the key people in the Protestant Reformation, and whether or not we agreed with them. I wrote about John Calvin, and went on the attack about the fundamentally flawed basic assumption of religion- assuming the existence of god. It was interesting to see what my teacher wrote back (he basically wrote "good job" or the typical teacher fare on everyone elses papers), he was attacking back my ideas. Man I wanted to get into a class argument over that! I didn't really develop my ideas as far as I wanted (I would have put in the anthromorphizing comment that someone else here said). I was just rather interesting, teachers don't often attack back (he also took a shot at my quotation of Nietzsche :D ). Yeah. My random story for the day :wink: view post


posted 08 Sep 2004, 01:09 by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

[quote:2wnp97h1]What makes you say that? My point wasn't necessarily to defend their contradictions or errors, but rather to point out that not too many people could do better, as there is no way to make a universally identically comprehended description of something as clearly subjective as god.[/quote:2wnp97h1] Communicative misfire. My point had to do with the deceptiveness of the site, and your response (that it was obviously so) made me think I'd overlooked something. I actually don't think the deceptiveness is obvious at all. If anything, they seem at pains to conceal it with a patina of 'Hey, it's just [i:2wnp97h1]rational[/i:2wnp97h1] man.' view post


posted 08 Sep 2004, 07:09 by Aldarion, Sorcerer-of-Rank

[quote="Cu'jara Cinmoi":1tudlu8o][quote:1tudlu8o]What makes you say that? My point wasn't necessarily to defend their contradictions or errors, but rather to point out that not too many people could do better, as there is no way to make a universally identically comprehended description of something as clearly subjective as god.[/quote:1tudlu8o] Communicative misfire. My point had to do with the deceptiveness of the site, and your response (that it was obviously so) made me think I'd overlooked something. I actually don't think the deceptiveness is obvious at all. If anything, they seem at pains to conceal it with a patina of 'Hey, it's just [i:1tudlu8o]rational[/i:1tudlu8o] man.'[/quote:1tudlu8o] Which brings up one of the bigger fallacies out there: saying "rational" as if it were an entity or something clearly delineated rather than as a tool or process for evaluating the world around. Some of the best fun I've ever had was in trying to get others who took that stance to define what is and what isn't "rational." :twisted: I'm just of the belief that "reason," when carried far enough along the path, usually just leads to "I don't know further" or "I can't explain this." Sometimes, it just seems that the hardest thing for people to do is to accept that there are just things that are and will be unknowable and/or nonunderstandable. For making [i:1tudlu8o]meanings[/i:1tudlu8o] out of this, Reason and Science (as entities of perception) probably should take a back seat to Tradition and Myth and Religion. Otherwise, it'd be like using a hammer to drive a screw in - not a pretty result. view post


posted 08 Sep 2004, 11:09 by Grantaire, Moderator

Larry, who says that those are the sole things that can create meaning? Who says that things even [i:i87yhsl8]need[/i:i87yhsl8] meaning? Sure, we desire for it, but is it crucial enough that we would put religion ahead of science? view post


posted 08 Sep 2004, 11:09 by Aldarion, Sorcerer-of-Rank

[quote="Grantaire":2dlym1ag]Larry, who says that those are the sole things that can create meaning? Who says that things even [i:2dlym1ag]need[/i:2dlym1ag] meaning? Sure, we desire for it, but is it crucial enough that we would put religion ahead of science?[/quote:2dlym1ag] Re-read what I said. I didn't say that those were the [i:2dlym1ag]sole[/i:2dlym1ag] things that create meaning, but in terms of creating interpretations and applications, those just happen to be better suited than scientific/rational discourses. Why? I'd suspect it'd have to do with the different rĂ´les each has. I don't need a yes/no dichotomy to utilize something like the tooth fairy for a situation. If a ritual is created and embedded with a meaning that distracts, that deflects, that even sometimes comforts, in a situation of loss, then that is an effective ritual. Whether or not it is "rational" or not is beside the point. It is outside the scope of what the scientific method should be applied toward. In terms of religion, I would argue that it is crucial, in precisely the manner I mention above. The Marxist labelling of religion as "the opiate of the masses" is very telling, but for differing reasons than what they would have concluded. Humans like patterns, they seek for patterns, they [b:2dlym1ag][i:2dlym1ag]create[/i:2dlym1ag][/b:2dlym1ag] patterns. Patterns from as simple as how one walks around others to as complex as how humans interpret the world around them. It might be that I'm "contaminated" by almost four years of dialogue with an anthropology grad student who is my closest friend/confidant, but all too often people do rush in and dismiss Ritual in the debate of how to view the world. A truth of the matter is that all too often, the disruption of Ritual by a whole new faith-value system leads not just to the expected short-term chaos of readjustment, but also to increased feelings of helplessness and searching for understanding. Science is a very valuable tool. The application of this toward questions of How, When, and Where is the best out there. There is much that it explains. But in terms of providing comfort in one's life, it often is worse than useless. Worse because for some, it strips away built-up Meaning and leaves nothing behind. I'd say more, but I better leave it for the essay on Fantasy that I'm about to (finally) write ;) view post


posted 08 Sep 2004, 14:09 by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

Something has 'meaning' when it has a 'point,' which is to say, when it's [i:tkp2t38j]purposive[/i:tkp2t38j]. My question to you, Larry, would be, What, in this day and age, is the point of traditional ritual? If it's simply 'comfort' or 'social bonding' why not take ecstasy and go to a rave? If the point is to [i:tkp2t38j]give life a point[/i:tkp2t38j], why should we look to [i:tkp2t38j]tradition[/i:tkp2t38j], when it all it offers is a plethora of unsubstantiated and incompatible options? My question to you, Grantaire, would be, Given that you see yourself living a pointless life in a world where value and meaning are illusory, how do you reconcile this with your own arguments, which continually appeal to epistemic values, and presumably have the point of providing the best conclusions? view post


posted 08 Sep 2004, 14:09 by Aldarion, Sorcerer-of-Rank

[quote="Cu'jara Cinmoi":bbt9giwv]Something has 'meaning' when it has a 'point,' which is to say, when it's [i:bbt9giwv]purposive[/i:bbt9giwv]. My question to you, Larry, would be, What, in this day and age, is the point of traditional ritual? If it's simply 'comfort' or 'social bonding' why not take ecstasy and go to a rave? If the point is to [i:bbt9giwv]give life a point[/i:bbt9giwv], why should we look to [i:bbt9giwv]tradition[/i:bbt9giwv], when it all it offers is a plethora of unsubstantiated and incompatible options? My question to you, Grantaire, would be, Given that you see yourself living a pointless life in a world where value and meaning are illusory, how do you reconcile this with your own arguments, which continually appeal to epistemic values, and presumably have the point of providing the best conclusions?[/quote:bbt9giwv] In this day and age? Tough to say, other than the alterations done to earlier shapings. I see in my reply that I failed to state that there's much more to Ritual than just comfort or social bonding, so I guess I better elaborate a bit more here (even if it opens me up to more probings ;)): We humans process a helluva lot of information. In order to make sense of it, we tend to construct (or Shape, which might be a better word for this) structures that help us make sense of these situations. Now, a great many of these structures are based on simple survival - superiority in numbers, specialization of tasks, focus on coping strategies that ensure the least resentment and the most happiness for various situations. This is, I know, a simplistic model, but I think the basics are mostly true. From this, I believe Traditions arose, belief-patterns that became embedded in the cultures in which we grew up. It is something that goes beyond mere language, into a larger [i:bbt9giwv]Historia[/i:bbt9giwv] that shapes the ways that we come to view the world. Now Traditions can be broken, can be altered somewhat, but in breaking or transgressing them, there is some implicit acknowledgement that Tradition is something substansive, if not exactly known or understood. Of course, Tradition is largely negative in the eyes of many, defining what should not be as much as what is. But yet Tradition, as multifaceted and as illogical as it might appear, offers something that goes much beyond the present. Taking drugs for their own sake would not fit into a Ritual, because there is an implied statement that the drug usage is not for the connection into a set of beliefs and Weltanschauungen, but more for an individual's attempt to create his/her own statement, her/his own organization of meaning. Rituals and Traditions are much, much more than just people bonding (and this is where I depart from certain anthropological views). They are the foundation upon which our very own identities are built. While I'm not going to embrace Freud's Ego/Id/Superego model, there is indeed some conflict and cohesion to the Individual/Society. In a world in which we want to stand apart and have difficulties differentiating between "I" and "you," between "we" and "they," there are going to be some interesting clashes. In certain cultures, take the Quechua-language descendents of the Incas, there are two forms for "we" - "you and me" and "the others around me, but not you". It is a distinct contrast to Anglo-based concepts of societies, which tend to be more "me, but you can be included in the we" than group-based identities. But this is getting afield from what you were stating in your question, yes? Why should we look toward Tradition if it's going to be fraught with conflicts? Because, despite of (or maybe even because of) its seeming incompatibilities, it's the very foundation and origin for "us." For example, how would you describe yourself in non-physical terms? What do you [b:bbt9giwv]do[/b:bbt9giwv]? Why do you do [b:bbt9giwv]it[/b:bbt9giwv]? How do you greet a stranger and is it the same as greeting a friend? Why do we not kill the old ones when they become chronically infirm? How do we nurture children and educate them? Why is education considered (on the surface at least) to be so important? Why kneel at certain times and stand at others? Why do we elect/place others in front of (or behind) ourselves in perceived importance? Why do we name children the ways we name them? Those are just a few of the myriad questions we confront and answer, almost without thinking, each and every day. Tradition might not be logical or free from internal conflicts, but it's the way we confront the world and no better solution has been developed yet of helping our progeny deal with the difficulties of the universe around them. So that's why I tend to sidestep the question of whether or not one can "prove" the existence of a God (or Gods) and look instead to how these beliefs (or non-beliefs) have helped shaped the moralities and the codes of conduct that various societies have developed over the millenia. view post


posted 08 Sep 2004, 15:09 by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

I think you might be trading off two different senses of tradition to make your point, Larry: tradition as the collection of social [i:3hoaiprd]habits[/i:3hoaiprd] that makes societies possible, and tradition as something that gives life meaning. It seems to me that you're using the inevitability of the former to anchor the latter. I'm not sure the social neccessity of custom warrants any inference to the adequacy of traditional accounts of meaningfulness (religion), which is the very question at issue. What warrants a return to tradition in the attempt to comprehend the 'point of it all'? view post


posted 08 Sep 2004, 15:09 by Aldarion, Sorcerer-of-Rank

[quote="Cu'jara Cinmoi":vu08cckh]I think you might be trading off two different senses of tradition to make your point, Larry: tradition as the collection of social [i:vu08cckh]habits[/i:vu08cckh] that makes societies possible, and tradition as something that gives life meaning. It seems to me that you're using the inevitability of the former to anchor the latter. I'm not sure the social neccessity of custom warrants any inference to the adequacy of traditional accounts of meaningfulness (religion), which is the very question at issue. What warrants a return to tradition in the attempt to comprehend the 'point of it all'?[/quote:vu08cckh] Only two? ;) Yeah, I know I was doing that, in part just to illustrate the problems of the word. Or something like that ;) No, to be more serious, I see what you're saying here, Scott, but there's a problem that I see that I'm not sure can be addressed without utilizing these various senses of tradition. It's that of "Can Religion exist without a Tradition?" Or must the two be instrangible? But I believe I can make a case for having to take Tradition into account when attempting to comprehend the "point of it all" just by noting that the very presumption of the idea (discredited or not) of "a point to it all" would ipso facto have to be related to that person's relationship to his/her culture and that culture's sense of Tradition. I just don't know if we could separate the "individual" from the "tradition." In fact, I'd be afraid if we could in fact do that, because it seems to me that there is a strong correlation between an individual's mental well-being and his/her perception of her/his place in society, or at least the solidity of that placing. But that's just idle speculation, right? ;) view post


posted 08 Sep 2004, 17:09 by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

If I were a positivist I'd accuse you of succumbing to the genetic fallacy, Larry! :wink: Instead, I'm inclined to accuse you of obfuscation, of throwing up a semantic smoke screen to avoid answering my question! But that wouldn't be charitable, so let me rephrase your point to make sure I understand what you're saying. Any attempt to answer the question of meaningfulness will depend in some respect on past socio-cultural attempts to answer that same question, and in this respect, tradition is an ineliminable part of the debate. I agree with this, if this is what you're saying, but now I think you're succumbing to the process/product ambiguity: just because the process of determining 'the point of it all' inevitably engages tradition, doesn't mean that the [i:yq1o87f2]product[/i:yq1o87f2] - namely, the conclusion - will be 'traditional.' My original question - 'Why should we trust tradition to give us an answer considering its dismal track record?' - still stands, I think. view post


posted 08 Sep 2004, 17:09 by Aldarion, Sorcerer-of-Rank

[quote="Cu'jara Cinmoi":888mzgbi]If I were a positivist I'd accuse you of succumbing to the genetic fallacy, Larry! :wink: Instead, I'm inclined to accuse you of obfuscation, of throwing up a semantic smoke screen to avoid answering my question! But that wouldn't be charitable, so let me rephrase your point to make sure I understand what you're saying. Any attempt to answer the question of meaningfulness will depend in some respect on past socio-cultural attempts to answer that same question, and in this respect, tradition is an ineliminable part of the debate. I agree with this, if this is what you're saying, but now I think you're succumbing to the process/product ambiguity: just because the process of determining 'the point of it all' inevitably engages tradition, doesn't mean that the [i:888mzgbi]product[/i:888mzgbi] - namely, the conclusion - will be 'traditional.' My original question - 'Why should we trust tradition to give us an answer considering its dismal track record?' - still stands, I think.[/quote:888mzgbi] Damn, I knew I should have used more smoke! :P You're basically correct in restating what I was implying. I do realize that the end result is not going to be "traditional," but instead a dialogue with that tradition, whether it be one of continuity or a discontinuity that also falls back upon having a tradition from which to trangress and/or depart. Now why should we trust it? That's very difficult to answer, because my own answer is bound to be chock full of ambiguity. But if I had to take a stab at it, tradition doesn't so much as provide an answer as it does provide a framing for the natures of the questions being asked. How's that for a non-commital answer? :P view post


posted 08 Sep 2004, 19:09 by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

Now that's what I call slipping the bullet into a bag of Fritos. You bite it, but with all that crunching going on no one's the wiser! I actually think you and I pretty much agree on this point, save that I'm more pessimistic about our ability to press our point against those foul and despicable Nihilites, like Jack and Grantaire. :wink: view post


posted 08 Sep 2004, 21:09 by Grantaire, Moderator

[quote:2my1bynb]My question to you, Grantaire, would be, Given that you see yourself living a pointless life in a world where value and meaning are illusory, how do you reconcile this with your own arguments, which continually appeal to epistemic values, and presumably have the point of providing the best conclusions?[/quote:2my1bynb] Because we do not choose to exist. I didn't choose to be here, but I am, and I must live. And it seems to me that science and the other things we've discussed show that value and meaning are illusions. I simply want people to accept that, rather than further delude themselves. Sure, I'm making an argument based on the value of realizing there are no values. But as a human, that is the way things [i:2my1bynb]must[/i:2my1bynb] be argued, in terms of value and meaning. view post


posted 08 Sep 2004, 22:09 by Aldarion, Sorcerer-of-Rank

[quote="Cu'jara Cinmoi":1m7wzsro]Now that's what I call slipping the bullet into a bag of Fritos. You bite it, but with all that crunching going on no one's the wiser! I actually think you and I pretty much agree on this point, save that I'm more pessimistic about our ability to press our point against those foul and despicable Nihilites, like Jack and Grantaire. :wink:[/quote:1m7wzsro] Yep, based on quite a few comments we've made in other posts in the past, I'd have to agree. And you certainly have the most apt description of my approach toward things I've ever read :D view post


posted 09 Sep 2004, 14:09 by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

[quote:8zyyba6a] Sure, I'm making an argument based on the value of realizing there are no values. But as a human, that is the way things must be argued, in terms of value and meaning.[/quote:8zyyba6a] But you're contradicting yourself, aren't you? You're assuming value in the course of arguing against it. Since contradiction is an indicator of incoherence ([i:8zyyba6a]the[/i:8zyyba6a] indicator, in fact), why shouldn't I just dismiss your position as nonsense? view post


posted 09 Sep 2004, 14:09 by Aldarion, Sorcerer-of-Rank

Somehow, I suspect a discussion on Value and Meaning will be next up on the agenda ;) view post


posted 09 Sep 2004, 19:09 by Grantaire, Moderator

Did I ever claim to be a total nihilist, Scott? I'm arguing it on a more simply basis, more like the premise that nothing is inherently "good" or "bad" from an objective viewpoint, and that things don't automatically have meaning, it must be created by us. But I'm saying that as humans, we [i:24pap2v1]need[/i:24pap2v1] to create and evaluate value around us. And thus, we argue things in terms of value, there is no other way that I know to do it. Of course, if you care to enlighten me, go for it. view post


posted 09 Sep 2004, 22:09 by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

[quote:21v7b5ep]Did I ever claim to be a total nihilist, Scott?[/quote:21v7b5ep] No. You just claimed to be a [i:21v7b5ep]nihilist[/i:21v7b5ep]! :wink: [quote:21v7b5ep]Of course, if you care to enlighten me, go for it.[/quote:21v7b5ep] No need for tetchiness, Grantaire - I'm just asking questions! If I could 'enlighten' you I would, but that would suggest I actually [i:21v7b5ep]knew[/i:21v7b5ep] the answers to most of the questions I ask, which is most definitely NOT the case. (This is why I consider hardnosed examination to be my friend. I don't feel safe unless everyone I know is as confused as I am! :wink: ) So do you think value is simply a [i:21v7b5ep]mistake[/i:21v7b5ep] we humans foist on the world, or that it actually exists as a property of our neurophysiology or some such? view post


posted 09 Sep 2004, 22:09 by Grantaire, Moderator

[quote:2txlovg0]No. You just claimed to be a nihilist![/quote:2txlovg0] I claimed to have [i:2txlovg0]some[/i:2txlovg0] nihilist views :wink: [quote:2txlovg0]No need for tetchiness, Grantaire - I'm just asking questions! If I could 'enlighten' you I would, but that would suggest I actually knew the answers to most of the questions I ask, which is most definitely NOT the case. (This is why I consider hardnosed examination to be my friend. I don't feel safe unless everyone I know is as confused as I am! Wink ) So do you think value is simply a mistake we humans foist on the world, or that it actually exists as a property of our neurophysiology or some such?[/quote:2txlovg0] I was actually quite serious when I asked that- as I see it, pretty much the only way we can regard things is in terms of value, because we [i:2txlovg0]cannot[/i:2txlovg0] be totally objective. I was just thinking that perhaps you knew of a contrasting way of argument :wink: (yes, confusing people is always quite fun, as is playing devil's advocate :D ) I don't know the answer to your question. By considering whether or not it's a "mistake", I would be examining the value of value, because aren't "right" and "wrong" simply evaluations of value? Of course, "correctness" may not be a matter of value, but rather of relative "truth"... If I had to throw in a haphazard guess, I would go with the idea that "value" is something our minds create to try to perpetuate the species. Something is "good" if it will aid our survival and eventual reproduction. So for example, simply doing well on a test, we consider that to be good perhaps because subconciously we know that doing well will advance our future positions. Whereas death has a bad connotation, because well, when it comes, we're gone, can't reproduce, can't perpetuate our species any further? Do you understand where I'm coming from with that? (sorry if I sounded sarcastic in my previous post, it was a real question :wink: ) view post


posted 10 Sep 2004, 12:09 by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

[quote:34b2xyx5]If I had to throw in a haphazard guess, I would go with the idea that "value" is something our minds create to try to perpetuate the species.[/quote:34b2xyx5] From an evolutionary standpoint, morality, for instance, seems to be little more than a 'subreption' - a kind of functional deception - selected for because it facilitated the social cohesion necessary for successful reproduction. Much the same might be said of 'love,' or even of 'sexual pleasure.' We think we do these things for their own sake, when in fact they're behavioural mechanisms that, given existing environmental pressures, simply happened to lead to successful reproduction (in the case of sexual pleasure) and to the successful rearing of children to the age of reproduction (in the case of pair-bonding or love) in our hominid past. That Jennifer Anniston movie, [i:34b2xyx5]The Good Girl[/i:34b2xyx5], is all about this, I think. We behave like animals all the time, then paper things over with a false veneer of love, meaning, and moral virtue. This is the kind of nihilism I find absolutely terrifying because I know of no non-tendentious way of arguing against it. All I'm left with is foot-stomping... :shock: view post


posted 10 Sep 2004, 12:09 by Aldarion, Sorcerer-of-Rank

That's why I prefer to just go beyond the mundanity of it all and just appreciate what I appreciate and not worry overmuch about whether or not it's a "false veneer" or not. Whether it's a stimulation of the senses for a greater Purpose (and Behaviorists do seem to imply in their arguments that there is Purpose, but with evolutionary pressure replacing a God-like force/being) or if it's a delusion, I'd still rather just go, "damn! That's one very attractive woman walking down the street." Sometimes, I just gotta let Little Head think for Big Head just to maintain whatever semblence of sanity I may or may not have, regardless of any evolutionary pressures ;) view post


posted 11 Sep 2004, 03:09 by Grantaire, Moderator

[quote:124rfjgq]From an evolutionary standpoint, morality, for instance, seems to be little more than a 'subreption' - a kind of functional deception - selected for because it facilitated the social cohesion necessary for successful reproduction. Much the same might be said of 'love,' or even of 'sexual pleasure.' We think we do these things for their own sake, when in fact they're behavioural mechanisms that, given existing environmental pressures, simply happened to lead to successful reproduction (in the case of sexual pleasure) and to the successful rearing of children to the age of reproduction (in the case of pair-bonding or love) in our hominid past. This is the kind of nihilism I find absolutely terrifying because I know of no non-tendentious way of arguing against it. All I'm left with is foot-stomping... Shocked[/quote:124rfjgq] That's pretty much what I'm saying. If you want to find a purpose in life, quite simply, it would be to successfully reproduce and protect those offspring. Maybe in a way, all of our creations, such as morality, science, governments, all of them at the most fundamental level are to serve that basic purpose, even if we don't often think about it. [quote:124rfjgq]That's why I prefer to just go beyond the mundanity of it all and just appreciate what I appreciate and not worry overmuch about whether or not it's a "false veneer" or not. Whether it's a stimulation of the senses for a greater Purpose (and Behaviorists do seem to imply in their arguments that there is Purpose, but with evolutionary pressure replacing a God-like force/being) or if it's a delusion, I'd still rather just go, "damn! That's one very attractive woman walking down the street." Sometimes, I just gotta let Little Head think for Big Head just to maintain whatever semblence of sanity I may or may not have, regardless of any evolutionary pressures[/quote:124rfjgq] Aye Larry. Sometimes it's nice to just go with the flow and not think about things. Over times, I find it quite enjoyable to analyze such mundane things, take it from level to level of abstraction, until I literally can't understand my own thoughts. Rather scary, sometimes :wink: view post


posted 11 Sep 2004, 11:09 by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

[quote:tf3v0m6g]That's pretty much what I'm saying. If you want to find a purpose in life, quite simply, it would be to successfully reproduce and protect those offspring.[/quote:tf3v0m6g] But that's the rub: there is no such thing as 'evolutionary purpose.' We never evolved these things 'for the [i:tf3v0m6g]sake[/i:tf3v0m6g] of reproduction,' it was just that given a certain a environment, a certain accumulation of genetic mutations just happened to effect successful reproduction. Our purpose isn't to be fruitful and multiply. We have no purpose whatsoever, even as we're condemned to look at the world in purposive terms. This is what [i:tf3v0m6g]science[/i:tf3v0m6g] - the most powerful instrument of discovery in the history of humankind - implies. If you ask me that is totally, utterly, absolutely fucked up! :shock: I agree with you, Larry, 'You gotta live,' but once you really internalize the implications of this dilemma, it starts sounding a lot like 'You gotta [i:tf3v0m6g]pretend[/i:tf3v0m6g],' doesn't it? That and do a lotta foot-stomping! view post


posted 11 Sep 2004, 12:09 by Aldarion, Sorcerer-of-Rank

Not just pretend, but obfuscate! And yes, some foot-stomping ;) And somehow, I think this all ties in to the Meaning of Life. Speaking of which, I suspect the Monty Python troupe was onto something there with their conclusion, yes? :P view post


posted 11 Sep 2004, 14:09 by Anonymous, Subdidact

[quote="Cu'jara Cinmoi":2qx33e22] Our purpose isn't to be fruitful and multiply. We have no purpose whatsoever, even as we're condemned to look at the world in purposive terms. This is what [i:2qx33e22]science[/i:2qx33e22] - the most powerful instrument of discovery in the history of humankind - implies. [/quote:2qx33e22] I agree with most of what you said, but not this supposed implication. Atleast if "what is the purpose of mankind" is to be (roughly) the same question as "what is the meaning of life". Science does not answer these questions at all since they are meaningless withing that system. It's like asking what the density of impressionism is. It seems to me that asking for a purpose, in science, has no answear since it really cannot be asked. view post


posted 12 Sep 2004, 16:09 by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

Welcome to the discussion, Hatper. [quote:1ecgl43a]It seems to me that asking for a purpose, in science, has no answear since it really cannot be asked.[/quote:1ecgl43a] But the question being asked of science here isn't 'What is our purpose?' As you point out, asking that question of science seems to be a category mistake. The implication actually takes two forms. First, there's the pessemistic induction one can make regarding truth-claims of purposiveness: on the one hand, no institution seems capable of posing answers that even remotely possess the theoretical virtues of scientific truth-claims, and on the other hand, we have no reason to suppose that the 'scientific disenchantment of the world,' which basically consists of the substitution of intentional explanations with functional explanations, will stop anytime soon. Take neuroscience for example. Second, there is the thoroughgoing scientific question, [i:1ecgl43a]What is purpose?[/i:1ecgl43a]. Here it [i:1ecgl43a]seems[/i:1ecgl43a] to be the case that 'functional deception' account is gaining credence, rather than otherwise. view post


posted 13 Sep 2004, 01:09 by hattper, Commoner

Alright, after reading the previous posts a bit more carefully I think I understand what you're saying. Something like this: The scientific answers to questions about morality and values are that they are "functional deceptions". This means that there really are no values and that all moral "oughts" are empty. (I'm not sure what the word I'm looking for here is, that they aren't prescriptive maybe?) Further, if all oughts are empty in this sense we have no reason to see them as action guiding, that is, we might aswell all become amoralists, it would make no difference. (Is this anywhere near what you mean by nihilism?). Then you say that [quote:7r542y0c] no institution seems capable of posing answers that even remotely possess the theoretical virtues of scientific truth-claims [/quote:7r542y0c] and, if I understand you correctly, take this to imply that we are more or less forced to accept science nihilistic conclusion. The reason I don't agree with this is that science, as a purely descriptive dicipline, cannot make the move from 'is' to 'ought' without some explanation which, I think, cannot be developed by a/the scientific method. It will be a philosophical explanaition and thus we are no longer dealing with science but philosophy. Once this move is made, the priviliged position this theory had since it was science is weakend, if not lost, and it is open to the same criticism like any other naturalistic theory. There are some other points I'd make about your argument, as I've reconstructed it, but since I'm a bit unsure how accurate it is I'll just post this and hold my thumbs that I make any sense at all :-). view post


posted 15 Sep 2004, 12:09 by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

I take nihilism to be the position that there is no such thing as value - like the evil porn stars in [i:1vxbkxt3]The Big Lebowski[/i:1vxbkxt3]. :P [quote:1vxbkxt3]The reason I don't agree with this is that science, as a purely descriptive dicipline, cannot make the move from 'is' to 'ought' without some explanation which, I think, cannot be developed by a/the scientific method.[/quote:1vxbkxt3] I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. If you're saying that you think 'ought' does not allow functional explanations that do not 'explain it away,' then I agree - [i:1vxbkxt3]that's[/i:1vxbkxt3] the problem. If you're saying this means there has to be 'something else,' something science can't sink it's teeth into, then I also agree. We can stomp our feet together! But we can't do much more, which once again, [i:1vxbkxt3]is the problem![/i:1vxbkxt3] view post


posted 15 Sep 2004, 12:09 by Aldarion, Sorcerer-of-Rank

[quote="Cu'jara Cinmoi":1ex3fppd]I take nihilism to be the position that there is no such thing as value - like the evil porn stars in [i:1ex3fppd]The Big Lebowski[/i:1ex3fppd]. :P [/quote:1ex3fppd] This had me chuckling, probably because I slept way too early and woke way too early as a result. I just started to imagine porn star arguing about the relative and objective values of their profession and how important of a role they play in a society. Think this is a sign of advanced dementia? ;) [quote:1ex3fppd]The reason I don't agree with this is that science, as a purely descriptive dicipline, cannot make the move from 'is' to 'ought' without some explanation which, I think, cannot be developed by a/the scientific method.[/quote:1ex3fppd] [quote:1ex3fppd]I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. If you're saying that you think 'ought' does not allow functional explanations that do not 'explain it away,' then I agree - [i:1ex3fppd]that's[/i:1ex3fppd] the problem. If you're saying this means there has to be 'something else,' something science can't sink it's teeth into, then I also agree. We can stomp our feet together! But we can't do much more, which once again, [i:1ex3fppd]is the problem![/i:1ex3fppd][/quote:1ex3fppd] And if we can't do much more besides stomp our feet in mud puddles, can we at least have some fun and create "meaning" out of that stompage? ;) view post


posted 17 Sep 2004, 13:09 by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

Have you not all seen [i:lbnk79ae]The Big Lebowski[/i:lbnk79ae]? If not, I suggest you go out and [i:lbnk79ae]buy[/i:lbnk79ae] it (skip the whole rental deal). You'll find it mildly amusing the first time you see it. By the twentieth time, you'll be calling in sick because of laughing-cramps. Here's a little sample of dialogue (imagine a German accent a la Arnie)... "Yeah... We're gonna fuck you up, Lebowski!" "We're nihilists. We don't believe in anything!" "We're going to fuck you up!" Kills me every time. view post


posted 17 Sep 2004, 14:09 by Aldarion, Sorcerer-of-Rank

No, I haven't yet seen it (mostly because I hate visual media like TV and movies), but that bit of dialogue has certainly persuaded me to buy it on DVD. Now finding the time to watch it might be a problem though, considering I tend to work and sleep and little else most days... But thanks for the tip and for a means of answering those pesky nihilists around here! :twisted: view post


posted 20 Sep 2004, 00:09 by saintjon, Auditor

"Are these the nazis, Walter?" "These men are nihilists Donnie, you have nothing to fear from them." that's my favourite line from that part, really walter cracks me up through the whole show. Another good line from him about the german porn stars: "Say what you want about the tenets of national fascism, at least it's an ETHOS!" Jesus is my favourite though. view post


posted 27 Jul 2005, 19:07 by Lucimay, Subdidact

i know this thread is deader than a doornail but i'm excited because i got the medal of honor. no direct hits, no biting bullets!!!! i'm consistantly insane. view post


posted 27 Jul 2005, 23:07 by target, Auditor

The medal of honour? For what? Resurecting dead threads? Hardly seems worthy to me ;) I wont argue with the self admitted insanity though. view post


posted 09 Aug 2005, 12:08 by WhiteLineRacer, Candidate

[quote:2ld3mua8]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: Bite a bullet and claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution. [/quote:2ld3mua8] Dang :D One bullet bitten, no hits. Good test. view post


posted 09 Aug 2005, 16:08 by target, Auditor

The test annoys me, mainly because i can't argue with a computer programme. Yes i can protest all i want, but it isn't going to engage in an argument with me. The problem i have is that my perception of God necessitates contradictions with my perception of reality. I can never be truly logical because my answers will not agree. Also, i got a little annoyed when it told me that if God was logical (or something similar) then he could not make 2+2=5. Which he could if he was omnipotent, because he could just say "2+2=5, from now on thou shalt count 1,2,3,5,4..." and that would be that. It doesn't need to be logical because He could make it so. Any meaning that we have attatched to words or numbers is, in actuality, meaningless. Attach a different meaning to the word and it no loner means wha it did before. It's all perception. Otherwise, good fun. It's still wrong though. view post


posted 09 Aug 2005, 20:08 by Randal, Auditor

That's not what they mean by that assertion. Of course (a hypothetical, omnipotent) God could change earthly language so that 4 means 5 and 5 means 4. What they mean by that question is, would a God be able to change the laws of [i:2gbsebfp]logic[/i:2gbsebfp], not of language. So, could he state that 2 and 2 make 4, but 4 minus 2 makes 1? (no matter how you change the definition of numbers, that remains illogical.) view post


posted 09 Aug 2005, 23:08 by target, Auditor

Granted, but i'm not sure that that was the circumstance that the argument arose from. I was using logic as an example because i couldnt quite remember. Of course i could be wrong, it has been a while since i took the test, but i'm fairly sure it wasnt in that circumstance. view post


posted 10 Aug 2005, 09:08 by Randal, Auditor

Yes, the test is a bit annoying with that question. Basically, if you answer that a god ought to be able to do anything, you're screwed when this question comes along, iirc. If you answer he can't change the laws of logic, you take a hit, because then he can't do [i:2pbadzq8]everything.[/i:2pbadzq8] But if you say he [i:2pbadzq8]can[/i:2pbadzq8] change the laws of logic, you bite a bullet, because that means logical, rational discussion about this god is basically impossible. view post


posted 10 Aug 2005, 18:08 by Lucimay, Subdidact

but tagetman, you STILL haven't said how many bullets you bit or how many hits you took!! :lol: view post


posted 10 Aug 2005, 19:08 by target, Auditor

2 & 2. Stupid questions, with their stupid computer programme that isnt right. Grrr. I'm not annoyed, honest. view post


posted 10 Aug 2005, 19:08 by Lucimay, Subdidact

:lol: hahahahaha! now you see why i was so excited that i had no hits no bitten bullets!!!!! hahahahaha!!! like i said, i'm consistant in my insanity!!! view post


posted 10 Aug 2005, 20:08 by target, Auditor

Well i didn't expect to get through the quiz unscathed because i know my beliefs are riddled with inconsistencies. My form of God is created by my Roman Catholic upbringing and with me being an agnostic, my beliefs and my version of God do cannot reconcile themsleves. I have never pertained to have a bullet-proof conception of the world and religion, because i love to discuss and argue about it so much. view post


posted 10 Aug 2005, 20:08 by Lucimay, Subdidact

well i DO have a few years on you!!! :) meaning more time to get it straight in my head. also i think language becomes a problem in, for instance, tests like the one we're referring to, or even in conversation with one another. i once had a discussion with a friend regarding God and the Universe and what we both thought about it all. he was (and still is) a truly devout catholic (to the point he nearly became a priest and i mean VERY nearly, but decided he'd rather have a wife instead) and what we got to at the end of the discussion which was several hours long and very heated in spots, was that we both believed the same thing, we just had different ways of talking about it or verbalizing it. if you're not christian and have never had any christian indoctrination, you don't use that language to speak about life after death, even if you believe in it,...my point being that when you take a test like this one, language is an issue in the way the questions are asked. dig? or am i once more displaying my insanity? view post


posted 10 Aug 2005, 20:08 by target, Auditor

I do kind of get what you are saying, but i dont believe that was an issue for me. I dont think you having the years on me is much of a factor really because i do not want to get things straightened in my head.My agnosticism is down to the fact that i cannot reconcile my religious upbringing ith my own perceptions and interpretations of God and the world. I cannot believe in the God i was taught to believe in because my experiences do not justify such a God. Were i to reconcile my beliefs one way or another, i would either accept God or reject him: become Christian or atheist; neither of which i like. I do not wish to reject the idea of a God, i merely seek to oppose it. I love theological debate, and as i stand, i can accept elements from all different faiths and teachings and reach my own conclusions (something which i hope to do just before i die) and decide. Until then, i like to stand in the middle gound debating the subject and listening to other's viewpoints. I do know, however, that i will never become a Christian again if i can avoid it, i am far too opposed to the Church (although i love its history: it is so hyocrytical its unbelievable) and their religious doctrine. Far better, and far more interesting, to argue it out in the meantime. view post


posted 10 Aug 2005, 21:08 by Lucimay, Subdidact

[quote:ty77scz9]I dont think you having the years on me is much of a factor really because i do not want to get things straightened in my head.[/quote:ty77scz9] well perhaps i'm having a problem understanding your english, but, a) tell me time and life experience are not a factor when you are 26 years older than you are now (trying very hard NOT to be pedantic :) ) and b) [quote:ty77scz9] i cannot reconcile my religious upbringing ith my own perceptions and interpretations of God and the world[/quote:ty77scz9] in other words (my point exactly), get it straight in your head. sooner or later you [i:ty77scz9]will decide[/i:ty77scz9] what you think, or believe and then you will have "gotten it straight" in your head (and probably your heart as well) see how language and how we use language gets in the way of how we understand each other? of course, once again, i'm not what anyone would consider "normal" by any stretch of the imagination, and can only state my opinion, based on my own experience. i think that language IS a factor in how anyone actually scores on this little quiz. view post


posted 10 Aug 2005, 21:08 by target, Auditor

Ok, i'm not going to argue that years dont count because they obviously do. My ;perceptions of God and whatnot are all straight in my head, i know exactly what i believe, its just that they dont reconcile themselves, my conception of God does not reconcile with my conception of reality. What i mean to say is, i understand everything that i believe, but they do not add up straight and i accept that. I'm happy with that, that's how i want things to be. My perception of God is a Christian one. He must be omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent etc. If (s)he were that, however, then the world wouldn't be how it is. This is why i do not follow the faith and do not believe in God. I will not deny that there may be a God, i just do not believe that there is, therefore, being Agnostic. view post


posted 10 Aug 2005, 22:08 by Lucimay, Subdidact

what is the whatnot part of god? [quote:2fkhshea]my conception of God does not reconcile with my conception of reality[/quote:2fkhshea] so, (and here again, language is the difficulty, further proving my point) you believe in something (your conception of god) that you cannot reconcile (is not compatable with) YOUR conception of REALITY (a truly overused word and misunderstood concept). have i got it? i'm not attempting a debate point here, i'm trying to clarify exactly what it is you're trying to tell me. what do you believe? what is your conception of reality. is my conception of reality the same as yours? is one of us right and one of us wrong? see where i'm going here. language. my point still holds. i had no hits and no bullets bitten because i am older and have had more time to figure out how to answer the questions so as not to contradict myself!!!!! i've taken more of these kind of tests that you have!!!! hahahahahahahaaha!!!! it's not really a test of anything but your language skills, targ!!! :lol: right? view post


posted 10 Aug 2005, 23:08 by target, Auditor

Maybe it isn't a test of anything but your language skills, but i wasn't taking the test in order to attempt to outwit it and get through unscathed. I took the test to see what it was like and what it made of my beliefs. They may contradict themselves, but i knew that before i took the test, so i wasn't expecting anything less. What i mean by 'reality' is how this life is. What it is like on earth. For me at any rate. My conception of reality. I wouldn't really know how to express that myself, but i will give it a go. I'm a sceptic. I do not believe that what we experience is necessarily reality because there is no way of knowing that we are not in a sort of 'matrix'. It's something like Plato's (i think, very well could be Aristotle, i cant quite remember) alegory of the Cave. I'm guessing that you have seen the Matrix (one of my favourite films, but sod the other two, it should have been left as a stand alone), the bit where Mouse talks about the 'taste' of his food? Well this is similar to what i think of reality. What we experience is not necessarily what things really are. However there is no way to prove this wrong (unless you are unplugged of cuorse :D ) and therefore i am a sceptic. I think. I should probably take that test again. I don't think this is a case of right or wrong, as usual i think it is a difference of opinion. I know my thoughts (see what i did there :wink: ) do not agree sometimes, but most of the time they do, it is only when it comes down to contesting God that things take a few hits, because if there is a Christian God, (S)He cannot be what a Christian believes Him/Her to be with the world in the state that it is in. Unless of course you bring up Free Will, but that is another argument. Any better? Or still just as confusing? I know what i'm trying to say, i just dont think its getting across. I think its this difference of opinion thing again. It could, however, be that its getting late and i am very VERY tired at the moment. I think i'll go sleep.... view post


posted 11 Aug 2005, 15:08 by Lucimay, Subdidact

[quote:14m7780c]Well i didn't expect to get through the quiz unscathed because i know my beliefs are riddled with inconsistencies.[/quote:14m7780c] okay...here's the deal with me...I didn't expect to get through the quiz unscathed either. the fact that I DID, even tho' my own beliefs are ALSO riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions, makes me think it's NOT a very good test of the things it's trying to measure! (either that or i'm underestimating the strength of my own convictions, which is what my mate thinks, he would say that i'm more ontologically secure than i think i am!! :lol: ) so i figured if there IS something wrong with the test, it would be the language of the test, knowing, from my own experience that two people can be saying the same thing in the same (english) language but use different words to do so. i therefore assumed that if [b:14m7780c]I [/b:14m7780c]could take the test and have no hits and no bullets bitten, there MUST be something wrong with the test!! i looked at it, not as an actual test of my belief system but as an obstacle course that could be negotiated, and i didn't take the results seriously! further, you RANKED me for resurrecting the dead thread anyway and so i thought i'd give YOU a little ranking back! just razz you a bit. not serious debate or argument or anything. (plus...now that i've passed a certain chronological AGE, i feel entitled to pull out "the age and life experience" card in ANY argument with anyone who is 20 years younger than me!!! :lol: , hell, my dad has been using this on me all my life so i figured it was MY turn!!! :lol: ) having said all that, i now wish i HADN'T razzed you into getting into this serious conversation about your beliefs and concept of reality because this (posting on a forum) is a difficult place to try to explain such things. altho' this forum is a better place than most for attempting because the people here are so very kind and tolerant!! so...in closing...i would just say that i still think the test is not really a true measure of your belief system, just a good way to generate interesting conversation. :) view post


posted 13 Aug 2005, 22:08 by target, Auditor

Were you just trying to argue that all the time? 'Cause if you were then there really is a problem with language. Anyway, it doesn't matter, you're right in the fundamentals, and anything you're wrong in i don' t know and don't really care because it's all immaterial :D 'Ranked', now that is a new word for me, i'm guessing it means the same as 'jibe' or 'joke' or 'friendly piss-take' and i'm fine with that, i mean, i am English, many people laugh at me. Including the English themselves (i'm northern, something to do with everyone living north of Watford being a barbarian....southerners! :) ) Well played with the age card, although i'm getting frustrated with that, my friend is 26 and he keeps playing it, its currently the bane of my life. I'm not sure that i wish you hadn't got me into this because i have enjoyed the debate, at least i have when my mind has been working, its bee nall over the place recently with the large(ish) amounts of concerted effort im putting into my work - i'm not used to it quite yet :D Anyway, i think that's enough of that interesting convo, and i'm sure you have come to a similar conclusion. Question is, can you take it anywhere else? 8) view post


posted 15 Aug 2005, 03:08 by Lucimay, Subdidact

piss taking, exactly. rank. hmmmm. i don't know where i got it. sounds kind of world war twoish doesn't it. i don't think its a regional thing but it could be. i sometimes lapse into what my san francisco friends call southernisms. we all had to be born somewhere, didn't we. dry cuticles are the bane of my existance. yeah...i'm done with that. :) view post


posted 04 Dec 2006, 01:12 by Sorcerous-Words, Auditor

honestly im not sure what the topic starter is talking about biting the bullet and so forth view post


posted 04 Dec 2006, 01:12 by Warrior-Poet, Moderator

Theres a link in his post its test to see if you contradict yourself about your beliefs in God I think heres the link [url:4wj7pv1v]http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm[/url:4wj7pv1v] view post


posted 04 Dec 2006, 01:12 by Sorcerous-Words, Auditor

thank you i couldnt see the link for some reason view post


posted 04 Dec 2006, 01:12 by Warrior-Poet, Moderator

The link was contained in the word "this". view post


posted 04 Dec 2006, 02:12 by Sorcerous-Words, Auditor

i bit the bullet once view post


posted 04 Dec 2006, 02:12 by Warrior-Poet, Moderator

Its built to make you bite the bullet it plays on your feelings and emotions to challenge your beliefs. view post


posted 04 Dec 2006, 02:12 by Sorcerous-Words, Auditor

based on your feelings of importance i agree view post


  •  

The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown.