Jump to content
Guests feel free to register and post ×
WELCOME NEW MEMBERS AND GUESTS FEEL FREE TO REGISTER AND POST ×
WELCOME NEW MEMBERS AND GUESTS ×

Philosophical Health Test


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, ClownCrusher said:

That insulting answer tells me you can't answer logically.

You claim that you can judge a test without taking it, which might take you ten minutes, tops.

You will never crush a single clown.  your purpose in this forum seems to be trollery,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Skans said:

disagreed that:
It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence
But agreed that:
Atheism is a faith just like any other, because it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God

 

Evidence and proof are often used interchangably. And the fact that you seem to think atheists believe they have proven or have evidence that God doesn't exist is telling as to what the real issue is.

 

Getting hung up on pedantic bs like this hardly proves that the test is biased against conservatives. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, slideman said:

Depends on your concept of God.

 

 

If you say that God is actually Mt. Rushmore because that is what you call Mt. Rushmore, then yes, God exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Skans said:

Eye witness testimony.  That is evidence.  There have been many independent accounts of near-death experiences describing discussions with God, sometimes Jesus and sometimes Angels, accounts which I find genuine (as in the person recounting the experience truly believes it happened) and somewhat similar.  Based upon this, this is at least evidence to be considered.  You may consider that evidence and conclude "hog wash".   Like I've said, it's not proof of anything, just some evidence.  But, to turn a blind eye to this, refusing to even listen to some of these accounts, is an indication that Atheists have dogmatic beliefs on this subject, beliefs which they cannot prove either.

 

It's not dogmatic to dismiss those accounts because it is impossible to know if those people witnessed God or had a dream or were abducted by aliens. There is no such thing as a God detector. 

 

And all that matters is that on the test you disagreed that believing in something without the possibility of evidence was reasonable, but now you're saying atheists are unreasonable because they refuse to believe in things without the possibility of evidence. So yes, that is a contradiction.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ClownCrusher said:

No, it doesn't prove that, but there is evidence.  

 

So you're saying liberals get that evidence and proof are used interchangably in contexts like this and conservatives don't? That's why it's biased?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Toldya said:

 

So you're saying liberals get that evidence and proof are used interchangably in contexts like this and conservatives don't? That's why it's biased?

No, I said "...it doesn't prove that, but there is evidence." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Toldya said:

 

Evidence and proof are often used interchangably.

Evidence and Proof are terms which are often used interchangeably, but wrongly so.  The premise of the Philosophical Health Test was intriguing, so I took it.  My first clue to look out for "gotchas" was one word in its name - "Health".  That was a tip-off to me that the test had an agenda behind it more so than simply a test for gathering data.  So, as I took the test, I kept a keen eye out for illogical or "trick" questions.  There were actually a fair amount of them, but this is the one I chose to make an example of. 

 

If this were a test designed to actually collect raw data to make some type of conclusion or prediction, or as part of someone's doctoral thesis, it would have been far better vetted and those types of trick questions would have been quickly shitcanned with a faceplant.  The test creator would never have gotten away with substituting "proof" for "evidence", and a lot more.  The creator of the test would have been told "you need a lot of work on your dissertation - resubmit at the end of spring, and we'll get back with you then". 

 

Clearly, it was a faux-test designed to attempt to make political inroads into Conservative issues.   I suspected this and made mental notes while I took it, still attempting to answer the questions according to my own philosophy.   The test creator was not too bright.  He left a number of questions easily exposed to scrutiny.

20 minutes ago, Toldya said:

And the fact that you seem to think atheists believe they have proven or have evidence that God doesn't exist is telling as to what the real issue is.

Start a new topic about this, and I may choose to address that separate matter with you.

20 minutes ago, Toldya said:

Getting hung up on pedantic bs like this hardly proves that the test is biased aainst conservatives. 

If this were just a debate with someone here, I'd make my point and be done.  But, this was a trick-test. I decided to expose one of the "tricks" here. I could have exposed more, but I don't have time for that, and there's no need.  My one example is good enough to prove to others that this test is bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Skans said:

Evidence and Proof are terms which are often used interchangeably, but wrongly so.  The premise of the Philosophical Health Test was intriguing, so I took it.  My first clue to look out for "gotchas" was one word in its name - "Health".  That was a tip-off to me that the test had an agenda behind it more so than simply a test for gathering data.  So, as I took the test, I kept a keen eye out for illogical or "trick" questions.  There were actually a fair amount of them, but this is the one I chose to make an example of. 

 

If this were a test designed to actually collect raw data to make some type of conclusion or prediction, or as part of someone's doctoral thesis, it would have been far better vetted and those types of trick questions would have been quickly shitcanned with a faceplant.  The test creator would never have gotten away with substituting "proof" for "evidence", and a lot more.  The creator of the test would have been told "you need a lot of work on your dissertation - resubmit at the end of spring, and we'll get back with you then". 

 

Clearly, it was a faux-test designed to attempt to make political inroads into Conservative issues.   I suspected this and made mental notes while I took it, still attempting to answer the questions according to my own philosophy.   The test creator was not too bright.  He left a number of questions easily exposed to scrutiny.

Start a new topic about this, and I may choose to address that separate matter with you.

If this were just a debate with someone here, I'd make my point and be done.  But, this was a trick-test. I decided to expose one of the "tricks" here. I could have exposed more, but I don't have time for that, and there's no need.  My one example is good enough to prove to others that this test is bullshit.

 

You are wrong.

I have only three points of contradiction. Now say something about how well grounded I am

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Zaro said:

 

You are wrong.

I have only three points of contradiction. Now say something about how well grounded I am

The fact that you are a leftist-liberal and I am a conservative only serves to validate my suspicion of agenda-based bias of the test.

 

If you were a Conservative saying this, I might have to take another look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Skans said:

The fact that you are a leftist-liberal and I am a conservative only serves to validate my suspicion of agenda-based bias of the test.

 

If you were a Conservative saying this, I might have to take another look.

Just shut up. There were thirty questions and you flunked twenty-seven

 

Next

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, king of the county said:

What’s  the highest score one can attain?

The best score would be to have NO contradictions, and therefore would be ZERO.

The highest score would be the greatest number of contradictions, and would belong to the moist illogical person possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, XavierOnassis said:

The best score would be to have NO contradictions, and therefore would be ZERO.

The highest score would be the greatest number of contradictions, and would belong to the moist illogical person possible.

And what number is the highest you can attain?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, ClownCrusher said:

You first disagreed about evidence for God's existence.  You now use the phrase "valid evidence."  What does that mean?

 

I mean people can make up stupid bullshit and pretend it's evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Skans said:

If this were just a debate with someone here, I'd make my point and be done.  But, this was a trick-test. I decided to expose one of the "tricks" here. I could have exposed more, but I don't have time for that, and there's no need.  My one example is good enough to prove to others that this test is bullshit.

 

Actually, no you didn't.

Look at the wording again: 

 

You disagreed that:
It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence
But agreed that:
Atheism is a faith just like any other, because it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God

 

You wouldn't have contradicted yourself if you had said it is reasonable to believe without the possibility of evidence (therefore believe in what will forever remain unproven), or said that atheism is NOT a faith because they accept that the impossibility of proof means something should NOT be reasonably believed.

 

It has nothing to do with politics, FFS... except that you saw the word 'atheism', thought 'atheists are leftists, and all leftists are stupid so I must choose the option that suggests they are irrational'.

 

Or I guess you can explain how it's possible to prove something without evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Toldya said:

 

Actually, no you didn't.

Look at the wording again: 

 

You disagreed that:
It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence
But agreed that:
Atheism is a faith just like any other, because it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God

 

You wouldn't have contradicted yourself if you had said it is reasonable to believe without the possibility of evidence (therefore believe in what will forever remain unproven), or said that atheism is NOT a faith because they accept that the impossibility of proof means something should NOT be reasonably believed.

The problem with what you are saying here is that you are reciting the Agnostic position on God: "I don't believe there is a God because I've never seen convincing evidence of his existence."

 

Atheists take a more dogmatic position:  "God does not exist because there is no proof that God exists."  There are many things in our Universe for which there is evidence and no proof.  There is no proof that black holes exist.  There is no proof that exoplanets exist, or what conditions might be like on exoplanets.  Yet, physicists and astronomers don't take the position "exoplanets and black holes do not exist until someone provides me with proof".  If they did, that would be a faith-based belief, because there is some indirect evidence that these things may exist.

 

7 hours ago, Toldya said:

 

It has nothing to do with politics, FFS... except that you saw the word 'atheism', thought 'atheists are leftists, and all leftists are stupid so I must choose the option that suggests they are irrational'.

 

Or I guess you can explain how it's possible to prove something without evidence.

There are mathematical proofs which do not require evidence.   Just another example of why "proof" and "evidence" are not synonymous. Actually, the word "proof" in and of itself is a bit nebulous - proof to what extent? 

 

There are differing defined levels of proof, depending within which discipline the term is being used.  Usually, evidence is used to bolster a proof, or to validate it.  Evidence is (but not always) part of a proof.  Stephen Hawking, for a long time, refused to believe that Black Holes exist, despite physical models which claimed they must exist.  Later in his career, Hawking capitulated and acknowledged that Black Holes exist.  This was at a time where he could no longer logically deny it based on physical models and evidence.  There still is no proof that black holes exist, just enough evidence to finally convince Hawking and others.

 

Here's my bottom line - when a test claims that its results are deterministic of various conclusions, I am completely justified in applying this level of scrutiny to it.  Presenting even one false analysis used in the test is enough for the entire test to be invalidated.  This is a higher level of scrutiny than I typically hold anyone to in a casual discussion here in the NHB forum. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...