User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 39

  1. #11
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    Bitten Bullet

    You answered True to Question 16.

    This answer generated the following response:

    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. This is to bite a bullet.

    WEEEEE!

    (Ironically, the passage of my signature addresses the same basic principle, I intentionally answered this way to see what would happen).
    That was exactly the one bullet I bit (and otherwise, I took no damage).

    EDIT: Off-topic posts moved to Graveyard off-topic thread.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  2. #12
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    You've just bitten a bullet!
    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?
    I only bit one bullet, and this one I will gladly bite. The test assumes that if no evidence is found then the problem is with the subject of study. Logically the problem could also be with the method of inquiry. The test failed to take this into account and therefore it is less logical than I.

    I have judged this test and found it to be wanting.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  3. #13
    Nips away your dignity Fluffywolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,422

    Default

    Crap test.

    You've just bitten a bullet!

    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?
    In order to make scientific discoveries, one much never exclude possibilities. I can't see how anyone would find that bizarre.

    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. This is to bite a bullet.
    What a stupid ass question. Just because we happened to name the numerical system 1 and onwards, doesn't mean God is incapable of swapping around the logical value of numbers and names of bodies. I did not answer this question with in mind that God would create a world that isn't logical. I wrote it in mind that God would have the ability to rename that which we have named.

    The test should have clarified if it intended to state that God was to make the world without logicality.

    You have reached the end!

    Congratulations! You have made it to the end of this activity.

    You took zero direct hits and you bit 2 bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.38 hits and bites 1.10 bullets. 490577 people have so far undertaken this activity.

    Click the link below for further analysis of your performance and to see if you've won an award.
    I suppose this test doesn't test your logical consistency as much as how your view on things stand in contrast to other peoples opinions. How subjective. :P
    ~Self-depricating Megalomaniacal Superwolf

  4. #14
    What is, is. Arthur Schopenhauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    1,158

    Default

    Congratulations!

    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 very few 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. The bitten bullets occurred because you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hit and bitten bullets.

    Because you only suffered one direct hit and bit very few bullets, you qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!
    I am not satisfied with this... I feel cheated and my logic was sound. Whoever wrote this deserves to be roasted alive and then fed to gnomes and gremlins.

    Analysis of your Direct Hit:

    You answered True to questions 6 and 13.

    These answers generated the following response:

    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.
    What the fuck? Look at how this question is worded:

    Evolutionary theory maybe false in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true.
    If I select TRUE then evolutionary theory is then MOSTLY TRUE but if I select FALSE then evolutionary theory is then MOSTLY FALSE; this question was worded so that one WOULD FAIL no MATTER WHAT. I think evolution is COMPLETELY TRUE but I couldn't select it! Also, look at this shit, I will repost it:

    The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true.
    What the fuck kind of contradiction is this? This test was designed to fail you!

    So it seems that you require certain, irrevocable proof for God's existence, but accept evolutionary theory without certain proof.
    LIES!

    So You've got a choice: (a) Bite a bullet and claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution. (b) Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses.

    You chose to take the direct hit.
    I HAD to take a hit because I couldn't defend my logic, you stupid moron test. I've taken shits smarter than you... Imbecile.

    Analysis of your Bitten Bullet

    Bitten Bullet 1

    You answered True to Question 16.

    This answer generated the following response:

    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. This is to bite a bullet.
    God is omnipotent, you stupid fuck. He has unlimited power but that does NOT MEAN THAT HE USES IT. FUCK!

    :steam: :steam: :steam: :steam:
    INTJ | 5w4 - Sp/Sx/So | 5-4-(9/1) | RLoEI | Melancholic-Choleric | Johari & Nohari

    This will not end well...
    But it will at least be poetic, I suppose...

    Hmm... But what if it does end well?
    Then I suppose it will be a different sort of poetry, a preferable sort...
    A sort I could become accustomed to...



  5. #15
    Nips away your dignity Fluffywolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,422

    Default

    I agree MM, I stated evolution theory is essentially true and that it isn't foolish for people to have religion.

    But neither of my answers had anything to do with each other. Those two questions simply doesn't match.

    Evolution theory is essentially true because there is evidence suggesting it. Nothing however is absolute, neither in the question or reality.

    My reason for stating that it isn't foolish to have faith was because faith and religion helps people develop morals and values that ultimately can benefit society and the world. If the question was "Is it foolish to interpret religion with absolute extremecy" then my answer would have been yes.

    The test has a subjective perspective based on its own subjective view.. 1=1 sure, but an apple isn't equal to a pear, even though both have only 1 of them.
    ~Self-depricating Megalomaniacal Superwolf

  6. #16
    What is, is. Arthur Schopenhauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    1,158

    Default

    All I know is that I won the test and I also beat it.

    The end. I'm god. And king of everything. Suck these.
    INTJ | 5w4 - Sp/Sx/So | 5-4-(9/1) | RLoEI | Melancholic-Choleric | Johari & Nohari

    This will not end well...
    But it will at least be poetic, I suppose...

    Hmm... But what if it does end well?
    Then I suppose it will be a different sort of poetry, a preferable sort...
    A sort I could become accustomed to...



  7. #17
    Writing... Tamske's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,764

    Default

    Nice, but the statements and choices are inaccurate. I'm an atheist.
    Now:

    "Belief in a God is foolish without direct evidence" - I chose True and got a bullet, because before I said I believed in evolution. But isn't it a bit of a catch-22?
    False then? I wouldn't say it with those words ("foolish" - I hate to call people foolish en masse) , but I believe in observation. Evolution has been observed. God hasn't been observed (yet?). Of course, observation is not a mathemathical proof. You can let an apple fall a thousand times, but there is no proof that the apple will not float in the air the 1001th time. Same for God. If any God (with which I mean: some spiritual power that is more powerful than a human) shows himself or some effects, I'll believe. I've seen the effects of gravity.

    Then this one:
    "The serial rapist Peter Sutcliffe had a firm, inner conviction that God wanted him to rape and murder prostitutes. He was, therefore, justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will in undertaking these actions."
    What do you mean by "justified", oh automated sniper? His beliefs don't justify his actions. No way. But I don't condemn him on his beliefs. To me, anybody can believe what he or she wants. I condemn him because of his actions. Should I take true or false, then?
    I took the direct hit there... probably because of a misunderstanding... If not, please hit me again.
    Got questions? Ask an ENTP!
    I'm female. I just can't draw women

  8. #18
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    This quiz reminds me of uber-rational INTP perscriptivism.

  9. #19
    Writing... Tamske's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,764

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MagnificentMind View Post
    God is omnipotent, you stupid fuck. He has unlimited power but that does NOT MEAN THAT HE USES IT. FUCK!
    Then he is not all good, nor all bad; otherwise we would live either in a paradise or in a hell. Why would you care about an indifferent god?

    Moreover: do you *need* to be omnipotent in order to be called a god?

    (Argh. Belief is becoming my new ENTP peak interest)
    Got questions? Ask an ENTP!
    I'm female. I just can't draw women

  10. #20
    Senior Member Stevo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Oh wow. I didn't think that this test would piss people off so much. I'd reply to Magnificent Mind's rant against evolution and scientific philosophy but it's way too early in the morning for me to do any serious posting.

Similar Threads

  1. [SJ] SJs, what is your attitude toward authority?
    By DreamBeliever in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 06-08-2017, 09:01 AM
  2. What are your feelings towards your MBTI opposite?
    By jixmixfix in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 09-10-2012, 12:29 PM
  3. Ni Doms: What are your thoughts on God?
    By Zarathustra in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 139
    Last Post: 08-22-2012, 08:44 AM
  4. Si doms, what are your thoughts on God?
    By Snuggletron in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-01-2010, 01:45 PM
  5. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 04-28-2007, 06:40 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO