| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Dancing Blasphemer" |
| Date: |
16 Sep 2003 12:40:49 AM |
| Object: |
Battlefield God |
Just played the Battlefield God game.
http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm
My result:
"You took zero direct hits and you bit 1 bullets. The average player
of this activity to date takes 1.37 hits and bites 1.10 bullet. 103413
people have so far undertaken this activity.
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 without being hit
and biting only one bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are
internally consistent and well thought out.
A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that
implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullet occurred because
you responded in a way that required that you held a view that most
people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However,
because you bit only one bullet and avoided direct hits completely you
still qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!"
My bitten bullet:
"Question 13
It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof
that God exists."
I answered true and got the following reply:
"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.
I do require a higher standard of proof for belief in God than belief
in evolution. I'll bite the bullet! [I chose this one.]"
Must admit, I don't see anything inconsistent with my answer and I
don't see anything wrong in requiring a higher standard of proof for
God than for science.
After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Before
I recognise the existence of something as extraordinary as an
omnipotent, omnibenevolent being, I need to get some extraordinary
evidence of its existence.
Watching the disasters unfolding on the evening news is evidence
enough that there is no omnibenevolent omnipotent being watching over
us.
Religion claims to have ‘all the answers', which creates a bias
against it when it's claims are demonstratively wrong (e.g. the Earth
is not flat). On the other hand, science does not claim to have all
the answers, it merely advances theories and tries to falsify them.
Science has built in ‘***** filters' such as peer review and
repeatability, while religion does not, which makes scientific
evidence a lot more reliable.
So there is nothing logically inconsistent with requiring absolute
proof about God, while not requiring it from science. Heck, if God
existed, we'd already have absolute proof.
Dancing "How come when I hear 'Battlefield God' I get the image of a
little plastic action figure? ;-)" Blasphemer
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can
change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
-- Margaret Mead.
.
|
|
| User: "ArWeGod" |
|
| Title: Re: Battlefield God |
16 Sep 2003 03:07:54 PM |
|
|
"Dancing Blasphemer" <Dancing_Blasphemer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f83d8e4f.0309152140.1908e132@posting.google.com...
Just played the Battlefield God game.
http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm
My result:
"You took zero direct hits and you bit 1 bullets. The average player
of this activity to date takes 1.37 hits and bites 1.10 bullet. 103413
people have so far undertaken this activity.
....snip...
"Question 13
It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof
that God exists."
I answered true
"How did you do compared to other people?
a.. 103832 people have completed this activity to date.
b.. You suffered 1 direct hit and bit zero bullets.
c.. This compares with the average player of this activity to date who
takes 1.37 hits and bites 1.10 bullets.
d.. 46.74% of the people who have completed this activity, like you, took
very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.
e.. 7.47% of the people who have completed this activity emerged unscathed
with the TPM Medal of Honour.
Direct Hit 1
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. 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: (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."
It seems a lot of people get tripped up by this one. They don't offer an
opportunity to say that Evolution must have certain proof, and they don't
allow God theory to be "essentially true". It seems like a no-win scenario.
--
ArWeGod
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Keenan Clay Wilkie" |
|
| Title: Re: Battlefield God |
17 Sep 2003 02:19:33 PM |
|
|
(Dancing Blasphemer) writes:
Just played the Battlefield God game.
http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm
My result:
My result:
0 direct hits, 0 bitten bullets. I was awarded the TPM medal of honour!
w00t.
--
See the documented lies of Pastor Frank: http://tinyurl.com/6009
Who said that SPEWS was dead? http://spews.org/
Back To The Future DVD Warning: http://tinyurl.com/6007
d a r k s t a r @ i g l o u . c o m | atheist #29
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "spakka" |
|
| Title: Re: Battlefield God |
17 Sep 2003 05:20:22 PM |
|
|
Dancing Blasphemer wrote:
Just played the Battlefield God game.
http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm
Zero hits and zero bullets.
Anyone tried to see if there is a theistic way across unscathed?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Battlefield God |
18 Sep 2003 10:12:27 AM |
|
|
On 17 Sep 2003, spakka <usenet_spam@m16.demon.co.uk> screwed up his
face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:G65ab.529$1y1.4422860@news-text.cableinet.net:
Dancing Blasphemer wrote:
Just played the Battlefield God game.
http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm
Zero hits and zero bullets.
Anyone tried to see if there is a theistic way across unscathed?
Yes. I tried it with the answers I would have given before I was
atheist, and came through unscathed.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Battlefield God |
16 Sep 2003 09:50:08 AM |
|
|
On 15 Sep 2003 22:40:49 -0700, several witnesses claim to have seen
Dancing_Blasphemer@hotmail.com (Dancing Blasphemer) scrawl a message
on the wall:
Just played the Battlefield God game.
http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm
103636 people have completed this activity to date.
You suffered 1 direct hit and bit 2 bullets.
This compares with the average player of this activity to date who
takes 1.37 hits and bites 1.10 bullets.
46.75% of the people who have completed this activity, like you, took
very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.
7.48% of the people who have completed this activity emerged unscathed
with the TPM Medal of Honour.
Very interesting...
--
Douglas Berry
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Battlefield God |
16 Sep 2003 10:30:26 AM |
|
|
On 16 Sep 2003, (Dancing Blasphemer)
screwed up his face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following
message in news:f83d8e4f.0309152140.1908e132@posting.google.com:
http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm
"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.
A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied
a logical contradiction. 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, you avoided both
these fates - and in doing so qualify for our highest award. A fine
achievement!"
And yes, I answered all the questions honestly.
The question that tripped you up ("It is foolish to believe in God
without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists") I answered False
to, because if there were solid evidence for God's existence, say as
much evidence as we now have for the Theory of Evolution, I would most
likely believe.
This would, of course, depend on how incredible the god in question is
-- if the god in question is logically contradictory, it would take
absolute, irrevocable proof that he/she/it exists before I would
believe, and even then I'm not sure, as I would seriously doubt the
validity of any evidence that "proved" a logically contradictory
proposition. However, by the most broad definition of a "god", it is
possible for there to be a non-contradictory being correctly defined as
a "god". Belief in such a being would be rational to me if I were shown
evidence as solid as what we have for the Theory of Evolution, for
example.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Battlefield God |
16 Sep 2003 12:52:02 PM |
|
|
Mekkala wrote:
The question that tripped you up ("It is foolish to believe in God
without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists") I answered False
to, because if there were solid evidence for God's existence, say as
much evidence as we now have for the Theory of Evolution, I would most
likely believe.
Yup.
This would, of course, depend on how incredible the god in question is
-- if the god in question is logically contradictory, it would take
absolute, irrevocable proof that he/she/it exists before I would
believe, and even then I'm not sure, as I would seriously doubt the
validity of any evidence that "proved" a logically contradictory
proposition. However, by the most broad definition of a "god", it is
possible for there to be a non-contradictory being correctly defined as
a "god". Belief in such a being would be rational to me if I were shown
evidence as solid as what we have for the Theory of Evolution, for
example.
Here it seems to me that you are jumping to the conclusion that *some*
evidence for *a* god would somehow imply the nature of this god as being
as described by certain religions (ie. the logically contradictory god
of the bible).
That's a really long leap, imho.
--
Jim
Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.mindspring.com/~jforbes2
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Battlefield God |
16 Sep 2003 01:10:21 PM |
|
|
On 16 Sep 2003, J Forbes <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:65I9b.5953$BS5.2894@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net:
Mekkala wrote:
The question that tripped you up ("It is foolish to believe in God
without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists") I answered False
to, because if there were solid evidence for God's existence, say as
much evidence as we now have for the Theory of Evolution, I would
most likely believe.
Yup.
This would, of course, depend on how incredible the god in question
is -- if the god in question is logically contradictory, it would
take absolute, irrevocable proof that he/she/it exists before I would
believe, and even then I'm not sure, as I would seriously doubt the
validity of any evidence that "proved" a logically contradictory
proposition. However, by the most broad definition of a "god", it is
possible for there to be a non-contradictory being correctly defined
as a "god". Belief in such a being would be rational to me if I were
shown evidence as solid as what we have for the Theory of Evolution,
for example.
Here it seems to me that you are jumping to the conclusion that *some*
evidence for *a* god would somehow imply the nature of this god as
being as described by certain religions (ie. the logically
contradictory god of the bible).
I am jumping to no such conclusion. I am assuming that the evidence for
a deity would describe its nature to some extent. If the evidence
appeared to describe a logically contradictory god similar to YHWH, I
would seriously doubt that conclusion and would search for an
explanation of that evidence that is *not* logically contradictory.
Were I shown proof that appears incontrovertible for a logically
contradictory god, I would perhaps consider the possibility that I am
misunderstanding the logic in question, but I would harbor very strong
suspicions that the evidence is being misinterpreted. If the evidence
were for a deity that is *not* logically contradictory, I would take a
reasonable amount of objective, repeatable, scientific evidence as proof
of that deity. I don't assume that such a deity would correspond to any
religion's concept of God, and I would not under any circumstances
consult a religion for a description of the deity in question. I would
form my opinions regarding said deity based on the evidence available.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Battlefield God |
16 Sep 2003 03:53:38 PM |
|
|
Mekkala wrote:
On 16 Sep 2003, J Forbes <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:65I9b.5953$BS5.2894@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net:
Here it seems to me that you are jumping to the conclusion that *some*
evidence for *a* god would somehow imply the nature of this god as
being as described by certain religions (ie. the logically
contradictory god of the bible).
I am jumping to no such conclusion. I am assuming that the evidence for
a deity would describe its nature to some extent. If the evidence
appeared to describe a logically contradictory god similar to YHWH, I
would seriously doubt that conclusion and would search for an
explanation of that evidence that is *not* logically contradictory.
Were I shown proof that appears incontrovertible for a logically
contradictory god, I would perhaps consider the possibility that I am
misunderstanding the logic in question, but I would harbor very strong
suspicions that the evidence is being misinterpreted. If the evidence
were for a deity that is *not* logically contradictory, I would take a
reasonable amount of objective, repeatable, scientific evidence as proof
of that deity. I don't assume that such a deity would correspond to any
religion's concept of God, and I would not under any circumstances
consult a religion for a description of the deity in question. I would
form my opinions regarding said deity based on the evidence available.
Maybe it's just that I cannot concieve of evidence that would
demonstrate the existence of a god, and that would also somehow
demonstrate that the god is logically contradictory.
It is your bringing up the possibility that the hypothetical god would
be logically contradictory, that led to my comment. The only reason I
can think of to presume that a god might be logically contradictory, is
taking the teachings of some of the religions seriously.
Then again, it might just be that the concept of a god, as you have read
others define a god, is self-contradictory....
Whatever, it seems to be just a mind game, so let's not get too worried
about it :)
--
Jim
Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.mindspring.com/~jforbes2
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Battlefield God |
16 Sep 2003 07:37:47 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 22:40:49 -0700, Dancing Blasphemer wrote:
Must admit, I don't see anything inconsistent with my answer and I don't
see anything wrong in requiring a higher standard of proof for God than
for science.
I have quibbles with that one also. Ended up with the same score as you
did as I just can't buy their little "point."
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Battlefield God |
16 Sep 2003 08:36:18 AM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 22:40:49 -0700, Dancing Blasphemer wrote:
Must admit, I don't see anything inconsistent with my answer and I don't
see anything wrong in requiring a higher standard of proof for God than
for science.
I have quibbles with that one also. Ended up with the same score as you
did as I just can't buy their little "point."
I don't have quibbles with it (last time I played, I got thru without
any hits or bullets).
I think y'all are failing to consider that in real life, there is *no*
evidence for god, and that *some* verifiable evidence for god would
drastically change the way things are. Believers have a very low
standard of proof for god--"none". Having just a medium standard of
proof for god would still lead to atheism, and you can also accept the
theory of evolution with just a tiny provisional "unless something
better comes along".
--
Jim
Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.mindspring.com/~jforbes2
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Battlefield God |
16 Sep 2003 10:32:38 AM |
|
|
On 16 Sep 2003, "Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> screwed up his
face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:pan.2003.09.16.12.37.47.212992@eac.org:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 22:40:49 -0700, Dancing Blasphemer wrote:
Must admit, I don't see anything inconsistent with my answer and I
don't
see anything wrong in requiring a higher standard of proof for God
than
for science.
I have quibbles with that one also. Ended up with the same score as
you
did as I just can't buy their little "point."
The problem is that it *is* possible for a god that is not logically
contradictory to exist. They did not say "the Judeochristian deity".
YHWH would require absolute, incontrovertible evidence for me to even
*consider* the possibility of his existence, and even then I would doubt
the evidence, since it "proves" the existence of a logically
contradictory being. However, I could imagine a god that is not
logically contradictory. Such a god could be proven to me as easily as
any scientific theory.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harry Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: Battlefield God |
16 Sep 2003 04:49:14 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 0:40:49 -0500, Dancing Blasphemer wrote
(in message <f83d8e4f.0309152140.1908e132@posting.google.com>):
From: (Dancing Blasphemer)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Just played the Battlefield God game.
http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm
My result:
"You took zero direct hits and you bit 1 bullets. The average player
I got not hits and bit two bullets. One was the same one you bit.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
"Your God wears fuzzy, pink, bunny slippers."
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
