quote:

---

Battleground Analysis
Congratulations!
You have been awarded the TPM medal of honour! This is our highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity neither being hit nor biting a bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and very well thought out.

---

w00t.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by BYuCnslr (Member # 1857) on :
 
This has been posted before, about a year ago, though it's fun to go back and see whether or not we still stand up the way we did before.

Squee! I still have the TPM Medal!
Satyagraha

[ December 30, 2003, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: BYuCnslr ]
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Two hits and two bullets -- and I still get the same award as Hobbes, with neither? Interesting.

The biases and assumptions of the test-writers are showing rather blatantly, I must say.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Agreed. A lot of the "slip-ups" you make are just interpretting what they mean differently. I managed to catch them, but one of those questions almost got me.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
Two hits, three bullets. I object to one of them, though. There was a third explanation for my stance, which was not represented in the test. I didn't deserve one of my hits. One of the bullets I bit, I concede the point.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
I object to both my "hits" and one of the bullets. And the FAQ just makes me roll my eyes -- I've rarely read such tortuous tautologies before.
 

---

Posted by Tonatiuh (Member # 6052) on :
 
You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.
yep
 

---

Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
 
One hit, two bites.
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
Hmph. Service medal.

I took two hits--one based on the idea that believing in God is the same as always acting according to those beliefs, and moreover having correct beliefs that actually come from God. That seems to me to be an important distinction, but the game didn't make it.

The other hit was about rationality and faith. I disagree that the only way to actual knowledge or proof is through scientific evidence. The game and I differed on our definitions of rationality.

IMO, I was very consistent all the way through. The game was a bit biased against belief in God, so what can I say?


 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
Actually, one of the bullets I bit was objectionable too... there is a body of scientists that were not represented in the test as having credibility, though their credentials are entirely credible and their theories not possibly tied to religious conviction as some are atheists.

One bullet I'll accept gladly, as the authors of the test obviously have a bias. My belief may be unpalatable to some -- especially with the phrasing they used, but it is consistent.

The second hit I took I accept...it was a logical inconsistency which I'd never thought about. Though on reflection, I'd change my answer about the Loch Ness Monster rather than the answer I took the hit for. Because no one has proven it doesn't exist, doesn't prove conclusively that it doesn't. Thus it is a matter of faith that I believe it doesn't exist, though it is certainly rational to think so, having no direct personal evidence to persuade me to believe.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
My objection to the Nessie question is that I believe there's a whole lot more evidence for God's existence than for Nessie's. And refusing to accept that evidence is the illogic that makes me consider atheism as faith-based as any theism.
 

---

Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
 
Hmm, I took one hit, and I'm pretty sure it was the same I took last year. On question 10:

quote:

---

If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been presented to show that there is a Loch Ness monster, it is rational to believe that such a monster does not exist.

---

quote:

---

As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality.

---

quote:

---

You suffered zero direct hits and bit 1 bullet.

---

Well, at least I've thought about it. And it doesn't seem to be biased towards non-athiests as well!

Thanks for the link!
 

---

Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
 
One hit, two bullets.

Jeni, I think we bit a bullet on the same one. There is a body of scientists out there who disagree with macroevolution.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Zan, that was one of my bullets as well. And it's an issue on which I'm fairly knowledgeable, so I was annoyed to see it treated so dismissively.
 

---

Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
 
I think part of the problem with dealing with something like this is that it feels like it comes from a pro-atheism slant.

The question about atheism being a matter of faith is a regular problem in the debate and rest heavily on semantics. To a non-atheist, an atheist can't know for sure until they die, so therefore they are living on faith that they are correct while having no direct evidence. To an atheist, they start from a solid position that there is and could be no God, so they take it as fact rather than faith.

It's an unbreakable stalemate, I'm afraid.
 

---

Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
 
I also think the Loch Ness monster/atheist trap is easy to fall into because it is a matter of relative importance. As an agnostic, I'm not really sure of anything. However, I'm prepared to accept things provisionally, and the amount of evidence required for this is proportional to its importance. If you look for the Loch Ness monster and does not find it, it is easy to assume that it is all a myth because even if I'm wrong it would have no impact except as a curiousity. With God, however, it might potentially lead to an eternity in hell if I fail to divine the truth of the matter. Thus I'm considerably more reluctant to take only the absence of evidence for his existence as the basis of my (provisional) belief.

[ December 30, 2003, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: Tristan ]
 

---

Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
 
Actually, that was my hit as well....

Many shades of grey. Fun, but to be taken with a spoonful of salt....
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
I took one hit because they split hairs, IMHO about it being justifiable to hold an opinion regardless of external evidence. They took it to a rediculous extreme and asked if I thought serial rapists who were convinced that God told them to do so were justified. Um...big difference there, guys.

Oh, and they neglected to note that I also said that there are external sources of morality whether or not God exists. And that was the basis (quite consistently, I assure you) for my answer about the rapist.

Anyway, I have "earned" a Medal of Distinction, rather than a Medal of Honor.
 

---

Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
 
Actually, I found it very humourous that they were all concerned with rationality, but if you say that innocent pain and suffering serves some greater purpose, their only rebuttal is an emotional appeal: "Can you look someone in the eye and tell them that their suffering is part of some greater good?"

I quit at that point.
 

---

Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
 
Question 14: "As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality."

Question 10: "If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been presented to show that there is a Loch Ness monster, it is rational to believe that such a monster does not exist."

Well, I do think that there is probably a Loch Ness monster somewhere in the universe, but not neccessarily as others who think there is one on earth do, and I do think there is a God everywhere in the Universe and that the physical evidence of some sort of universal power is overwhelming, and blah blah blah blah blah. The test's stated contradiction between a true answer to both is a logical mess!
For starters, rational and logical do not mean the same thing. What is rational for one person might easily not be rational for the next, but what is logical is logical for everyone. Aetheism is both a matter of faith and rationality. It is alogical(not illogical) to believe that God does not exist, therefore it is a matter of faith. For most aetheists, it is convenient, effective, efficient and non-destructive(in this life at least, beyond that, nothing's rational) to believe that God does not exist, and therefore it seems rational.

[ December 30, 2003, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: suntranafs ]
 

---

Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
 
Furthermore, Loch Ness Monsters and Gods are really not at all on the same level. Obviously. No one ever said the Loch Ness monster couldn't be killed and all reports are that it is tangible.

Saying they can be taken the same in this way is the logical equivalent of the following: The year is 800 A.D.- the dark ages and you hold the opinions: A. That magic and witchcraft are, in fact, not within the capabilities of your resident pet pond frog, because you have seen no evidence to show that they are.
B. that there could be designed, using science, a machine human beings can fly in and that critics of this idea are acting on faith because you have seen no convincing evidence.
 

---

Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
 
Even if the idea of God was on par with the idea of the Loch Ness monster, and even if they had the same level of tangiblility, their conclusion that 'true' to #14 logically contradicts 'true' to #10 is incorrect. If, hypothetically, the Loch Ness monster and God were both coconuts, and therefore similar, the we could logically call both of them "P", and the evidence of their existence "Q". In that case, if you say 'true' to #10, you are saying:
"If notQ -> notP." This is the contrapositive(and therefore logical equivalent) of the statement: "If P -> Q."(i.e. if god/monster exists then there is evidence) and the logical contradiction of the statements: P>notQ......
WAIT a Sec, I gotta go think this over...

[ December 30, 2003, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: suntranafs ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I'm curious as to what evidence we have for God's existence that's better than the evidence for the Loch Ness monster's existence.
 

---

Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
The Loch Ness monster doesn't answer retroactive prayers?

[ December 30, 2003, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
 

---

Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
 
lol
 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
Zan, we did bite the same bullet. I figured that I could hack that bullet since the writers of the test obviously weren't specific in what they meant by evolution....macro or micro. I believe in micro. Macro is the one up for debate.

TAK, I had a problem with that one too. The way they put that was awful. For one, I'd never *say* that to a person dying of a horrible disease, unless I felt it was something that might bring them comfort -- for some people, it would. For another, is it not just as terrible to believe that someone's suffering has no meaning, and serves no greater purpose at all?
 

---

Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
I think there is strong evidence for the existence of God, and that there is not strong evidence for the existence of the loch ness monster.

I think I took one hit and bit one bullet because I think there is strong evidence for the existence of God.

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

You've just taken a direct hit! You claimed earlier that there is no basis for morality if God does not exist. But now you say that if God does exist, she cannot make what is sinful good and vice-versa. But if this is true, it means that God cannot be the basis of morality. If God were the basis of morality, then she could decide what is good and what is bad. The fact that you think that God cannot do this shows that things must be right or wrong independently of what God decides. In other words, God chooses what is right because it is right; things are not right just because God chooses them.

---

Except I answered false to the question "Any being which it is right to call God must have the power to do anything." And I believe one of the things God is incapable of doing is changing, if He is incapable of changing, and morality is what pleases of displeases God, then it is impossible for God to change morality.

I reapeat, how can I, an eighteen year old girl, judge whether anyone else is justified in their beliefs?! I'm arrogant, but I'm not that arrogant!
 

---

Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
 
IMnotsoHO this thing is a bunch of shit.

It's DESIGNED to make a person with firm religious beliefs feel guilty about them, while a person with atheistic tendencies can feel vindicated and even superior because of them.

It's nothing but a large, complex, loaded question. For a religious person to go through that test would be like humping a live land mine.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Perhaps this is because many religious beliefs cannot in fact be logical or rational, and that people feel hurt and upset when this is revealed to them?
 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
Or perhaps it is because no question can ever be asked without some bias. And that by nature, any question that is limited to True or False answers fails to address the entire scope of its subject. The larger the scope, the greater the failure.

Had it been biased toward a belief in God, it would still have been biased and limited in its ability to make its point effectively.
 

---

Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
 
This is horrible, I've spent hours searching, and no logic source could answer my question.
Tom, I don't know whether this is by pure accident or design, but you hit on exactly what I was talking about with
"I'm curious as to what evidence we have for God's existence that's better than the evidence for the Loch Ness monster's existence."

let me re-quote questions 10 and 14:
Question 10: "If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been presented to show that there is a Loch Ness monster, it is rational to believe that such a monster does not exist."

Question 14: "As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality."

Now what I was getting at with all that logic garbage was that a 'true' answer to question 10 is not negated by a 'true' answer to 14, as stated. But in fact, 'true' to 14 should only negate 'true' to 10 if you restate 14 so as to pre-assume that there is, (as Tom thinks) no evidence for the existence of God. (It'd have to read something like this:"As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality.", and actually, this way you'd have the 'good' answer be "false")
Its fine, as you do Tom, to assume there isn't any evidence, but if you tried to base an argument off of that with somebody of conflicting views, that'd be a logical fallacy, begging the question, that's all I was saying. After all, you can just go back and replace "God" with "Joe" and Aetheism with aeJoe-ism, and it should be obvious that the testmakers themselves are being illogical.
To be redundant, The theoretical fact that the Loch Ness monster does not exist does not neccessarily imply the theoretical fact that nothing else exists.

[ December 30, 2003, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: suntranafs ]
 

---

Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
 
AH, what A wonderfull feeling, I've spent about 5 hours on this topic today and I think I've finally got my point across? maybe.
The heck of it is, that 'contradiction' wasn't even the one I had the biggest logic beef with!
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
(pokes head in)

(shakes head) I'm not wonderful at logic puzzles... I'll sit this one out...

The bullet I bit was saying that if God existed (I played as an agnostic, which I am), then he could make circles into squares and 2 + 2 equal 4. I figure, if a God's omnipotent then he's _omnipotent_.
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 
Big problem with the evolutionary question.

Essentially, it asks you if evolutionary theory is accurate with possibly minor details being off. True or false?

Evolutionary theory is probably accurate, with an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting it. But I can't put that answer. So I answer "true," since both true and false are extreme certainties, and true lies closer to my own belief.

Then they "trap" me, the silly little gooses.

quote:

---

You may have just taken a direct hit!

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.

Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses.

---

quote:

---

As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

then he could make circles into squares and 2 + 2 equal 4 (emphasis mine)

---

Oh, so that was the miracle du jour, hmm? Cool -- I was wondering.
 

---

Posted by deerpark27 (Member # 2787) on :
 
Dear Friend,

I am a former genral in the Canadian Armed forces, eh, who has escaped the recent conflicts with two hundreds million dollars (Cdn) and twelve Skyhawk helicopters--I am at present sitting in one, the other eleven have been stored in Newfundland--the bombs are falling now. I need a secured bank account in a developed nation in which to deposit this money (and some safety-deposit boxes for the Skyhawks). If you will only--wjhat is that smoke coming out of the turret?--if you will, dear friend, only respond with your persoanl account number I will condider sharing 1% (Cdn) of this koney with you. That is.......200 dollars (Cdn), for only your secured bank account number (and the safety-deposit boxes)--is that oil pressure gauge correct?--then fix it you fool!, eh. I eagerly await your prompt response--Mayday!
Genral Lance "Contiki" Bay
 

---

Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
 
Yeah, Lalo, I took a direct hit on that, and on my belief that faith is intensely personal, but morality is beyond God altogether. The murderer thing got me.
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
rivka: heeheee hee... err... oops =)
 

---

Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
Sorry, but the tester seems to be either functionally illiterate, or a jerk who just wants to pick a fight.

quote:

---

You claimed earlier that any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the world as possible. But you say that God could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful. What this means is that God could make the reduction of suffering a sin... yet you've said that God must want to reduce suffering. There is a way out of this, but it means biting a bullet. So you've got to make a choice:

Bite the bullet and say that it is possible that God wants what is sinful (to reiterate the argument here - she must want to reduce suffering; she could make the reduction of suffering a sin; but if she did so, what she wanted (reducing suffering) would be sinful).

---

quote:

---

the tester ain't none too bright.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

Translated to English, it's illogical to say God can make circles square. I'm an agnostic, so I use logic in not believing for certain of God's existence. I have to choose: either logic can't be used and I can't be agnostic, or logic can be used and I can't accept circular squares.

Anyways, as I hit "True" for 16 I was thinking-this is EXACTLY what I was thinking, in so many words-"It's all arbitrary anyway." Meaning:
Our whole system of numbers, letters, and geometric shapes are really just a bunch of random symbols and points that we piece together for uniformity and convenience. 2+2 could equal Aragorn...if "Aragorn" was synonymous with what we call "Four". Likewise, if "a set of all points in a plane equidistant from the center" was synonymous with "square", that would be fine. All God would have to do is make a very minor change in our nomenclature. Sooo that's what would probably be found unpalatable or unusual or whatever.

ANYWAYS...

I find the whole atheism and Noche Lesse stuff to be lunacy. HELLO?? You can't prove a negative. Except by eliminating all positives. That's some prettty tough logistics, if not an exercise in futility.

They're essentially saying that not believing in God is an act of faith because we haven't completely eliminated the possibility. "You can't prove it's not true." As I've said, proving a negative in such broad cases would lead to TERRIFYING logistics.

Personal anecdote:

When I first joined Hatrack, I was a prolific conspiracy theorist. Under heavy X-Files influence, I started a thread titled "EVIL GOVERNMENT". It said, essentially, that governments throughout the world may have dark plans-like starving their populace, wiping out minorities, etc.-and we wouldn't know about it and would be unable to stop it.

Rakeesh and I discussed the thread on AIM, and in the end he convinced me that "You can't prove it's not true" is neither conclusive nor remotely substantial as evidence.

Which is essentially the atheism-as-faith argument. That "You can't prove it's not true" is substantial evidence, and therefore it's an act of faith to ignore the substantial evidence.

To go beyond whatever vindication I just provided for atheism, how is belief in God different from belief in an X-Files type of government conspiracy? Why does "You can't prove it's not true" work toward proving God's existence?

And, I find it interesting that they refer to God as "She." Not that there's anything particularly wrong with it, but I'm wondering why it was done.

And, I don't think the test is biased. I think it is imprecise at best, and that the testmakers acknowledge this imperfection proves they are approximately neutral in making it.

Annnnd now my head hurts and I need sleep.
 

---

Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
 
The game is a perfect example of fetid worthless bullshit. Please try to keep that in mind.

Dave out.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Dave, you sound bitter.
 

---

Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
 
No bitter has more of a "Well she was ugly anyway" sound to it.

I'm not bitter. Im being honest about my opinion concerning garbage like this.

It operates from the original assumption that people with religious beliefs are illogical, irrational people, teetering on the edge of delusional, who must shoulder the burden of proof of their beliefs.
I personally think people who believe asparagus is tasty are irrational people teetering on the verge of insanity, but i certainly am not producing biased tests to corner them into feeling stupid or logically inept for their belief.
"People who believe in God are inherently stupid and must therefore prove their logical and intellectual prowess" is NOT a given in life. It is an assumption made by assholes. There's a conditional for ya: If an asshole produced this quiz, then the quiz must be shit.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"It operates from the original assumption that people with religious beliefs are illogical, irrational people, teetering on the edge of delusional..."

Can you give a question in this quiz that substantiates this claim?
 

---

Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
 
I dont have to Tom. The entire tone of the quiz/game/pile of crap substantiates my statement. And you know it, just as everyone else here knows it.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
See, that strikes me as strange to say as a number of people have taken the opposite stance.

The "I don't have to because its true" argument is one of the more ludicrous out there. If its so ridiculously obvious, you'll have no problem finding supporting examples.
 

---

Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
 
Dont have to. It's obviously true.
 

---

Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
 
I wish I could remember when I played this, and at whose instigation. I bit two or three bullets but avoided being hit by any. Problem was, I couldn't duplicate the feat. Because my answers depended on very precise interpretation of the questions and answers, and I didn't necessarily remember how I interpreted them the first time, when I played again I was shot dead about halfway through.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
*rolls eyes*

Then perhaps you have a reason people disagree with you? We seem to be operating under different definitions of the word "obviously".
 

---

Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
 
Fugu, here's a question, which you may have an answer for that I haven't thought of.

What motive would go into the construction of a test like this, through which religious people find it very difficult to pass "unwounded"?

I have been able to come up with only two possible answers: either it was constructed to denigrate religious faith as irrational, or it was constructed to force people to examine their belief systems in minute detail (probably with the intent of constraining them to choose the beliefs of the constructor, but perhaps not).

I lean toward the former, but only because I have encountered more people who would do that than people who would engage in the latter. My experience might not be representative.
 

---

Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
 

quote:

---

You claimed earlier that any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the world as possible. But you say that God could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful. What this means is that God could make the reduction of suffering a sin... yet you've said that God must want to reduce suffering.

---

quote:

---

You have been awarded the TPM service medal! This is our third highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity suffering only one direct hit indicates that your beliefs about God are, on the whole, consistent.

However, you have bitten a number of bullets, which suggests that some of your beliefs will be considered strange, incredible or unpalatable by many people. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of the bitten bullets.

Despite the bullets that you bit, the fact that you did not suffer any hits means that you qualify for our third highest award. Well done!

---

but I would've done better if I could've rationalized with this computer, using a Bible and an encyclopedia.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
*muses*

I'd say I've met about the same of both types of people. People of the you should follow only my belief type are more common on the web, in my experience.

In this case, given the manner and devices the test uses to "argue" about evolution, I rather suspect the author is more likely of the "you should follow only my belief" type than the "you shouldn't believe in anything" type.

However, I don't think he's either type. I think the guy who created the quiz is a guy who's more than a bit self absorbed with the perfection of his own "logic", sort of like odouls here, or like odouls might characterize me. That he isn't rabidly anti-religion is trivially easy to defeat -- Hobbes believes in God, but he "made it across the battleground". If the guy was rabidly anti religion, that wouldn't be possible. That he's just trying to persuade people to his particular beliefs could be defeated by demonstrating it was possible to make it across the battleground in more than one way -- using mutually exclusive belief sets.

That the guy is likely religious himself is evident in his attempts to discredit the factualism of evolution -- not that religious people all, or most, or even close, do this, but that non-religious people almost never do this. That evolution happens is a fact. It has been observed in the wild. The mechanisms of evolution are described by theory.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Well Fugu, I made it but only because instead of figuring out the real answer to the question, I spent my whole time trying to figure out what they actually meant. And the best way to do that is to link it up with a previous question and see what logical trap they're trying to make you fall into. Not to say I was lying on the test, I was telling the truth to the questions they were trying to ask (or were asking but trying to pretend they weren't) but if it was a real person asking me these questions I would've debated their answers instead of deciphering their questions.

My opinion, it's biased against religion, but not out of spite or really by all that much. It's just that the people who made it see the world one way and it's hard to leave a logical path for those whose opinions you don't understand.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
 
Like humping a live land mine.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I think if anything that supports the idea that its someone self absorbed with the importance of their own logic, rather than someone with a particular agenda either way.
 

---

Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
 
This was my direct hit:

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!

So even though I said morality comes from God, I'm supposed to believe it's ok to ignore His word as long as I really believe it? There's an illogical statement for ya.
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 

quote:

---

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
You've have to elaborate. You're sure that your your opinion here. The intellectual sniper has scored a bull's-eye!

So even though I said morality comes from God, I'm supposed to believe it's ok to ignore His word as long as I really believe it? There's an illogical statement for ya.

---

quote:

---

Lalo, many religious people believe that all people are subject to the same exact interaction with God that they are subject to, and that people who behave differently clearly are doing so of their own choice, stubbornness, etc.

So, if this person believes that God forbids rape, then anyone committing a rape is doing so against the will of God, and at some level, they KNOW IT, and are just lying to themselves or others to justify their crime.

I know this opens a can of worms intellectually (which is why I don't subscribe to it), but it is internally consistent, expecially considering the fact that no individual can read another's mind, so it is impossible to disprove this worldview to an individual who believes it.

---

quote:

---

Why is why my question is still open to Rivka: given that she, Belle, and Hobbes all claim to have had personal experiences with God, and all three are belong to different and mutually-exclusive religions, which one is right?

---

Mine.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
 

quote:

---

Though I suppose all religions subscribe to that worldview in one form or another -- the we're-right-they're-not belief -- I'm not sure he escapes the bullet. Avidreader is, presumably, sure he knows the mind of God -- so was Sutcliffe. Both of them were willing to allow their beliefs to become convictions despite a lack of physical proof or rational logic. If AR's willing to keep his beliefs and discard Sutcliffe's, isn't he necessarily both practicing and condemning religious conviction?

---

My main problem was the wording of the question about external proof. I was pretty sure if I said I needed external proof that the game would respond I can't see God so I'm illogical for believing in Him. For the non-religious, that "still, small voice" doesn't usually count as proof. What I'm saying is that I don't need to have physical proof God exists because I have emotional proof. I'm firmly convinced I've felt His presence. But I can't measure that in a lab.

At the same time, I answered that God can't change right and wrong on a whim. So how can He say it's ok for one guy to commit rape ("Do not commit adultry," 6th commandment. Adultry in this sense is usually considered impure thoughts or actions.) but for everyone else it's wrong? Their logic wants a very gray area to be black and white. Don't you think that ignores reality and is therefor irrational itself?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Clearly, the god Sutcliffe heard with his "inner voice" didn't mind rape, or else didn't consider it to be adultery.

That's why EXTERNAL proof is so useful.
 

---

Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
 
I got hit once and no bullets. I got nailed for saying the belief that the lack of positive proof nullified the existence of the Loch Ness monster but didn't work for Athiests. I misinterpreted it. The negative evidence for the existence of the Loch Ness monster is so overwhelming. I shouldn't have taken that into account.
 

---

Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
 
Tom, I don't mean to nitpick, but if rape is really ok, why do so many people end up repenting after they've been in jail awhile? Why do murderers confess to fifty year old crimes and talk about the sense of peace they've gotten from it? If it were really ok because they believe it, they should be touting the virtues of rape and murder til the day they die. Timothy McVeigh comes to mind, but he's one of the few I can think of.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Umm, AvidReader, TomD was pointint out how Sutcliffe saw rape as OK in the eyes of God, not that rape was OK.

Also, I hardly think repentance under a system where repentance gets you a lesser sentence, where the constant message is "what you did is wrong," where there is very little to make you feel good and you are grasping for things that might make you feel good, counts as proof of acknowledgement of a universal truth.

If anything, its closer to brainwashing. I'd expect the rate of repentance in prison to be extremely high.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Tom, I rather thought I had already answered your question here.

But to put it more plainly, I have no problem with anyone of any religion (or none) claiming to have felt the presence of and/or seen evidence of God -- which is what I claim.

Do I sometimes find disturbing some people's spin on having felt His presence -- sure. But that doesn't invalidate their having felt His presence, or having seen His handiwork.

[Edit: The problem with trying to catch up with all the threads simultaneously is that I can't. I hadn't seen Tom's reaction in that thread -- but I stand by my response anyway.]

[ January 04, 2004, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"But that doesn't invalidate their having felt His presence, or having seen His handiwork."

Why doesn't it? If three people all claim to have received exclusionary messages from God, why DOESN'T that invalidate at least two of them?
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
I don't claim to have received any "messages" --unless you consider His existence, love, and involvement in this world and in my life -- to be a message. So unless someone else has received word from Him that He does not exist, does not love us, or is not involved in this world . . . I don't see the conflict.

And I wonder why you are so convinced there MUST be one?
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
There certainly is a conflict between a typical Mormon revelation as I have had it described to me and a typical protestant revelation as I have had them described to me. The nature of the discrepancy usually involves either different churches being the only correct church or different natures of Christ.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Rivka, can you understand the distinction between a "feeling that God exists" and the kind of communication that some of the people on this board claim to have experienced? Your "feeling that God exists" is mostly incompatible with these other feelings.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
You say it's incompatible. I say I don't see it that way, for the most part. I also have no wish to insult anyone else's beliefs -- nor do I see any point in my doing so here.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Oh, and I'm not talking about a "feeling." It is so much more than a mere feeling.
 

---

Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 
For a test supposedly designed by a philosopher, it certainly has a lot of logical flaws.

I agree that the motivation for the test is to show that theism is "irrational," but the test plays games with the definition of "rational."

While it's rational to disbelieve in the loch ness monster if there is no objective evidence, the test didn't allow me to explain that it's also rational to believe in the loch ness monster if you believe the subjective evidence. If the question had been worded "the only rational position is to disbelieve in the loch ness monster" I would have answered "false" for that question. The fallacy here is false dichotomy.

BTW, I'm an atheist, and I got hit for saying that without evidence that there is no god, atheism is a matter of faith. Based on their wording, that's true, but the question leaves out many other possibilities.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"I also have no wish to insult anyone else's beliefs -- nor do I see any point in my doing so here."

While I understand and respect this view, and didn't actually expect you to say anything differently, I hope you get my point: that personal experiences like these, especially ones that are (as in the above example) incompatible, are roughly equivalent to deciding that God wants you to rape somebody. While American society has evolved a secular framework within which we expect our religions to operate, the reliance upon a "personal experience of God" to determine personal morality can be overwhelmingly dangerous.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Oh goody! I'm predictable.

quote:

---

the reliance upon a "personal experience of God" to determine personal morality can be overwhelmingly dangerous

---

I agree.

My personal morality is not based on my personal experience of God. That's just a nice bonus.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
But that brings us back to the really hard question, which this test sort of addresses: if your morality is not derived from God, from whence IS it derived? Is it possible to be God-fearing while simultaneously believing that your sense of morality is superior to God's, should the two ever conflict?
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 
Rivka, I think you're confusing the questions.

Isn't Tom asking you that if you, Hobbes, and Belle have all experienced God, and you have all sure you're in close personal contact with Him, and you're all sure you're in the exclusive religion that God supports -- don't at least two of you need to be wrong?

While it's generous of you to provide an opinion on a different question, I'm rather interested to know what your answer is to the above.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Hmm. I didn't say that my morality isn't derived from God -- it is. It's simply not derived from my personal experience of God.



Lalo, I have never claimed to be "in close personal contact with Him." And I happen to try very hard not to judge other people or their beliefs, unless they choose to infringe upon mine. I leave judgement up to Him.
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 
So you don't believe Judaism is the only religion God endorses?
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Define "endorses."
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 
Is Judaism the one true religion of God or not?
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
I hope to get a definitive answer to that in 90 or so years.

I'll let you know.
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 
Oh, so you don't believe Judaism is the one true religion of God now?
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Sorry, that was unnecessarily flippant.

As I've stated before, Jews do not believe that everyone need follow Judaism -- nor that the whole world being Jewish is even an ideal.
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
Perhaps she thinks it's the best path at the moment, and after she dies, she'll get the definitive answer.
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 

quote:

---

Oh, so you don't believe Judaism is the one true religion of God now?

Sorry, that was unnecessarily flippant.

As I've stated before, Jews do not believe that everyone need follow Judaism -- nor that the whole world being Jewish is even an ideal.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps she thinks it's the best path at the moment, and after she dies, she'll get the definitive answer.

---

Except that's not quite what I'm asking, either. She either believes Judaism is the exclusive religion of God, or she doesn't -- does she hold Hobbes' and Belle's religions as equally accurate to her own, or doesn't she? And if she doesn't believe that Protestantism or Mormonism are all as correct as Judaism, don't at least two of the three need be wrong?
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
I get what you're getting at, Eddie.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Eddie, since you think we're all wrong, why do you care?
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
He wants to know which Hell he's going to.
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 

quote:

---

Eddie, since you think we're all wrong, why do you care?

---

quote:

---

*raises eyebrow* Actually, it's not a simple answer. And I see no reason to invest my time and energy into ANY answer, when as far as I can tell, your primary (if not sole) motivation for asking is to "stir things up."

You want to argue for the sake of argument, find someone else.

---

quote:

---

"stir[ing] things up" (where did you get that quote from, out of interest?

---

quote:

---

My primary motivation is to discover the truth behind religion

---

quote:

---

questions about religion that any and every person who studies or follows a religion should be able and willing to answer

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"stir[ing] things up" (where did you get that quote from, out of interest?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It wasn't a quote. It was using an expression. Would you prefer single quote-marks? That's not how I was taught to punctuate, but if it adds clarity, I'll try to remember.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My primary motivation is to discover the truth behind religion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have great difficulty believing your claim. I have greater difficulty believing that any answer I give you will be used by you to do anything positive.

---

quote:

---

Your responses in this thread alone are sufficient proof to me of that; and I've seen you do this in other threads before. You may disagree. That is your privilege. I choose not to argue religious issues with you any longer. That is my privilege.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not asking solely for the sake of "stir[ing] things up" (where did you get that quote from, out of interest?), but rather asking healthy and reasonable questions about religion that any and every person who studies or follows a religion should be able and willing to answer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for informing me of my duties. I happen to disagree.

---

You disagree that your religion's meant to discover (or be) the truth about God? You disagree that asking questions is a necessary and important step in finding the truth about anything? Or is it that you believe Judaism doesn't mean for you to know truths about God?

I'll stop questioning you if your religious faith is too shaky to withstand even the slightest, easiest questioning, but I fear I've lost a great deal of respect for Judaism if its members aren't sure enough of their religion to answer the most basic of questions about it.
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
I dunno, Lalo. I've been watching this ongoing tirade for the last few hours, and I thought you were pushing it about a dozen posts ago.

Some people just don't enjoy discussing religion, and specifically their own beliefs, at any time of the day for the pure academic enjoyment of someone else. It's tiring, and it's annoying, and on hatrack it can be quite blood-pressure-rising.

You're starting to be a bit hostile with the whole, 'you're defeating yourself quite handily' train of thought.
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
It seems that the directness and implied hostility of Eddie's questioning would put anyone on the defensive and very reluctant to put on the table their most sacred thoughts and beliefs to be ripped apart.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 


I have discussed -- and will continue to discuss -- my beliefs with those I view as seriously interested in my answers.

You can be as insulted as you like. (I suspect that you are not actually insulted, but that's not really relevant.) But your response seems to me deliberately insulting and inflammatory. I am doing my best to be neither.

[Edit: I was responding to Lalo.]

[ January 04, 2004, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
Now that I got the quick response out of the way, here are a few comments.

1. Plenty of people use quotation marks for 'euphemism' or exaggeration. I don't think most people read it as rivka quoting you. She was using a common phrase and labelling it with quotation marks. Perhaps not the absolutely correct method, but reasonable.

2. You insinuate (or you say explicitly) that you doubt rivka's ever allowed someone to question her faith. That's a pretty brash statement. What you really mean is that right now, she refuses to answer your question. In fact, she refused to answer it many times and you kept repeating it. It's not like she missed it the first couple times. It isn't wrong to back out of a fight when you're not in the mood.
 

---

Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
 
Rivka has said:
"...we don't believe you have to be of our faith to be a good person and have a good afterlife."

Rivka put, on this very thread:
"I didn't say that my morality isn't derived from God -- it is."
and "Jews do not believe that everyone need follow Judaism -- nor that the whole world being Jewish is even an ideal."
and "I happen to try very hard not to judge other people or their beliefs, unless they choose to infringe upon mine."

I think these are noble views, and I think they're pretty good justification for not giving a "yes" answer to the question at hand, because in a certain way, in light of these views, to do so would be to judge not only the religion of others but also their morality.
On the other hand, to give a "no" answer would actually be a bit strange, if not lying or hypocritical. Since, after all, who does not believe that their religion is the true religion, or at least the true religion for him/her(I also don't know of very many individuals that can enter the mind and thus understand the exact viewpoint of another individual;), so how is it right to say definitely that 'you are right to'). Tell me one person who does not think they are right about the things they think they're right about!
Does that pretty well estimate your standpoint, Rivka? If so, and with the guarantees that my question is based only on an infinite curiousity that's bubbled up, and that I'm not looking for a "yes" or a "no", would you please tell me, if you think you have an answer, whether you think Judaism the one true religion of God?
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Just because I'm a grammar geek:

Link
Link2
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
I suspect (although I could be wrong) that the question “Is Judaism the One True Religion of God,” doesn’t actually make much sense in the world view of Judaism. Y’all might be better off asking Rivka to explain that, rather than demanding yes-no answers to a mu question.
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 

quote:

---

1. Plenty of people use quotation marks for 'euphemism' or exaggeration. I don't think most people read it as rivka quoting you. She was using a common phrase and labelling it with quotation marks. Perhaps not the absolutely correct method, but reasonable.

---

quote:

---

2. You insinuate (or you say explicitly) that you doubt rivka's ever allowed someone to question her faith.

---

quote:

---

That's a pretty brash statement. What you really mean is that right now, she refuses to answer your question. In fact, she refused to answer it many times and you kept repeating it. It's not like she missed it the first couple times. It isn't wrong to back out of a fight when you're not in the mood.

---

No, though it is obnoxious to keep misanswering a question she understands. If she's unwilling or incapable of answering the question, why not tell Tom that the first time he asked her? Backing out of a fight implies actual declaration that one won't or can't answer a question -- an exercise Rivka finally got around to practicing when this page began. I can't say I'm not disappointed that she's so unwilling or unable to, as Mac said, put her sacred beliefs on the table to be ripped apart -- perhaps I'm alone in this, but a thought isn't sacred to me unless it's able to withstand being ripped apart. How can one both hold a belief she believes to be accurate and refuse to question it?

I don't mean to imply all religious people do this -- several, if not most religious people I know love nothing better than to question and argue the merits and truths of religion. It's rather disconcerting to see someone -- let alone someone who holds to an orthodox faith -- refuse to answer whether or not they believe in their religion in fear of a future logical trap that might conceivably show their faith to be inconsistent or incorrect (or vice versa).

I'm genuinely interested, despite Rivka's constant allegations of negative sadistic desire to rip apart people's beliefs, to find out the truths behind gods. If there is one out there willing to grant me Paradise or seventy-two virgins, you won't find anyone happier about it than me. Unfortunately, I have yet to see any religion which comes at all close to making reasonable judgments about gods (or their accessories, be they paradise, angel armies, human mates) -- or, to be fair, any reasonable judgements I'm capable of understanding, having never been communicated to by God or Satan or angels or flaming shrubs.

I engage in religious debate precisely because I'm interested in finding out if there's any truth behind religion -- thus far, especially with Rivka's apparent fear of even answering whether she believes her religion or not, I've been let down.
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
I think that the belief could withstand the tearing, but the emotions surrounding that belief in the PERSON may not be.
 

---

Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
 
wow, I can tell that copious amounts of attention are being paid to my last post. I just love it when people do that

No offense intended, Lalo, I'm sure you don't mean to, but to me anyway, you are coming across as an asshole. You could try toning it down a tad.
In reference to:

quote:

---

how is it not a positive deed to discover which aspects of religion are falsehoods?

---

quote:

---

wow, I can tell that copious amounts of attention are being paid to my last post. I just love it when people do that

---

See, I did read your post. But it's verbosity and circular logic made my head spin, so I didn't retain any of it.

I guess I just need to get smarter.
 

---

Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
 
And in the middle of a random thread, out of sheer boredom, Nathan released a bag of monkeys with a promise to delete this post in the morning.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"perhaps I'm alone in this, but a thought isn't sacred to me unless it's able to withstand being ripped apart."

Eddie, you and I feel roughly the same way about sacred things -- that they should only be sacred if they're true and inviolate.

To other people, though, many of whom are religious, "sacred" doesn't mean "inviolate;" it means that the object must not be violated, which is something altogether different.

Rivka's uncomfortable with this line of questioning for two reasons: because she doesn't want to insult other people by being forced to admit she doesn't share their beliefs, which is rather noble of her; and because her beliefs are sacred to her in the second sense -- as something that should not be violated.

I stopped harping on this topic (a page ago) once that became clear to me, and once I realized that she was avoiding my question rather than misunderstanding it. I don't think you're going to achieve anything worthwhile by continuing to press her for a clearer statement, and you're only going to come off as increasingly hostile and inflammatory if you try.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
*WARNING! THIS POST WILL BE LONG AND RAMBLING!*

One of the things I love about Hatrack is that there are so many people here who make me really think about what I thought I knew. I'm a proponent of living an 'examined life,' and I strongly believe that the alternative to growth and change is stagnation.

One of the things I dislike intensely about Hatrack is the tendency toward polarization. So many things -- in politics, religion, etc, etc -- are better represented as a spectrum, not a choice between two extremes.

IMO, sometimes meeting a challenge is the way to grow; but sometimes choosing not to argue in circles is the better exercise. The difficult part is figuring out which applies at any given time.



A little personal history might be helpful. When I was about 16, I had an 'email buddy.' We corresponded about all kinds of things, and disagreed at least as often as we agreed -- usually fairly courteously. He is Mormon, and we had discussed religious and cultural differences repeatedly. I was intrigued to learn about both differences and similarities that I had been unaware of. And I know he was surprised when I declared that learning to live without coffee was be something I could never do, although I find living without cheeseburgers no big deal.

I was 16, even more opinionated than I am now (I know, scary, isn't it?), and not particularly tactful. I also had a tendency to argue as though my life depended on it, even over very minor issues.

At some point, one religious discussion got out of hand. I remember being hurt and furious; but mostly very sad that the friendship was clearly over. Fortunately, he was older and wiser, and calmly suggested that that specific topic be allowed to die with no hard feelings. I gladly agreed, but the friendship was really never the same.



I come from a religious tradition where there are often two (or more) contradictory opinions on a text -- and yet both are considered completely valid! Sometimes there exists an insight that allows us to see that the two are merely facets of a larger picture, and not really incompatible at all. Often, it's not possible (for me, at least) to see how the different views are compatible -- yet I believe that they are, in some way I do not yet understand. Cognitive dissonance is sort of fun.

Orthodox Judaism is not a single institution -- and in some ways it never was, nor was it intended to be. There are some aspects that are common to all (Maimonides 13 statements of belief is a good summary); but details of custom and methodology vary greatly. IMO, this is a GOOD thing, if not taken to extremes.


I am well aware of what makes my beliefs different from those of Christians (in general terms, at least), and I strongly suspect that Tom and Lalo are as well. I honestly don't see the point in dwelling on the differences. I am so much more intrigued by the unexpected similarities! Additionally, dkw was right on target when she said

quote:

---

I suspect (although I could be wrong) that the question “Is Judaism the One True Religion of God,” doesn’t actually make much sense in the world view of Judaism.

---

If you asked me if it were the MOST true, I would say absolutely (and naturally, I would be defining "Judaism" as the particular flavor that I practice )! And for Jews, I believe that Orthodox Judaism is the correct path -- but that it is NOT my job to shove it down anyone's throat, and that any attempts by me to do so would be highly counterproductive.

For non-Jews, it gets more complicated. As I've explained, we discourage conversion. The degree to which other religions (primarily Christianity and Islam) contain Truth has been debated by Jewish scholars for hundreds of years. My personal opinion (based on Maimonides' and the Abarbanel's views on the subject, among others) is that while there are aspects of those religions that I personally believe are false, there are many more that are true, and that these religious fill an important role in God's plan for the world.



So I really wasn't trying to dodge Tom's question. I just didn't feel like going into the whole gantze megillah!

quote:

---

Rivka's uncomfortable with this line of questioning for two reasons: because she doesn't want to insult other people by being forced to admit she doesn't share their beliefs, which is rather noble of her; and because her beliefs are sacred to her in the second sense -- as something that should not be violated.

---

I don't think I was being 'noble' so much as practical. I saw -- and still see -- no POINT to dwelling on the beliefs of others with which I disagree. I think the commonalities are usually both far more interesting and far more important.

As far as whether my beliefs are "inviolate," I question and reassess them all the time. I think that's very important. However, I think the attitude one brings to the reassessment process is of crucial importance. I don't believe that attacking beliefs is useful. Not, God forbid, because a true belief will be diminished. I agree that is an impossibility. Rather, because we are all flawed, limited mortals, and starting out with a negative "I don't believe anything and you can't make me!" attitude (or something along those lines) will always lead us to negative conclusions. The fault lies not in the beliefs, but in the attitude -- IMO, YMMV.



I warned you it was going to be a long-winded post! But since I decided to post this in lieu of a 4000 landmark, and it sums up several days of thought and intense conversations with RL friends, I think I'm entitled.
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
Rivka -- that was just an absolutely excellent post, all around.

I, too, have had many of my thought processes challenged by participating in Hatrack, and I consider that a great blessing.

I have a dear friend from my church, who I consider more "learned" than me in the scriptures, and sometimes things come up here on Hatrack that really throw me, and make me examine WHY I believe what I do. When that happens, I can post off an e-mail to my church friend, and we end up in a lively discussion back and forth to further clarify my understanding or the perspective.

I find it extremely stimulating -- because being a "comfortable" Christian is not a good way to grow spiritually. Debate here helps me think, grow and defend. I will never agree with Lalo or Tom, probably, spiritually, but they have certainly caused me to step back and examine my beliefs.

As you said, there are times it isn't necessary to "get into it" in a religious debate here that is not going to change anyone's mind. Yet it is a good exchange, usually, when we all respect each other.

Farmgirl
 

---

Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 

quote:

---

One of the things I love about Hatrack is that there are so many people here who make me really think about what I thought I knew.

---

Amen. It makes me uncomfortable often, and I like that.
 

---

Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
 
I took the test, and took no hits, and bit no bullets.

I had to, or Tresopax and Dagonee would have ganged up and beaten the crap out of me!

I did back up once, though.

--Steve
 

---

Posted by Shlomo (Member # 1912) on :
 
I don't understand my religion at all. I'm pretty aware of the customs, history, laws, etc, but...
My judaic studies teachers (the ones that aren't Taliban, that is) like to encourage questioning of beliefs. But they seem to focus on relatively minor details. Instead of "Why should I believe in God? Why should I believe in the Torah? Why should I practice any Jewish customs at all??" they focus on "Why did Jacob build a monument if idolatry is forbidden?". And if they do focus on relevant questions like "Is the Torah sexist?" the answer ends up being no. They use the Torah as a source in proving the Torah!

OK I'm done.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Shlomo, I had some similar issues in high school. I did a lot of 'independent study' -- i.e., read lots of books on my own.

Now it's so much easier! There are SO many sites online, representing a good chunk of the spectrum. My favorite is Aish.com -- mostly because they deal with so many issues (not that I agree with them on everything, but that's part of the fun ) -- but there are TONS of others. I find new sites every time I research a topic!
 

---