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

21 hours ago, Skans said:

I took the test.  I read the results and the argumentative explanations.  The test is faulty and is engineered to incorrectly judge those who hold Conservative beliefs as having poor philosophical health.  Now, here is my basis and proof for saying this:

 

The test analyzed two of my answers pertaining to religion as follows:

 

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

 

The test makes false presumptions in claiming that my answers are inconsistent. 

1.  False Assumption.   I answered that it is unreasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence.  So, the test assumes that believing is God is unreasonable because I disagreed with that statement.  Yet, there is evidence of the existence of God.  There are many personal accounts of people who claim to have died, having gone to another realm and have met with and conversed with God.  These personal accounts tend to have commonalities.  And, because they are personal accounts, they are in fact evidence of God's existence.  There are other forms of evidence as to God's existence, but I don't need to go there - at least this one form of evidence does exist.

 

2.  Why the Author's False Assumption negates the test.   It is true that I think Atheism is a faith.  Notice, one question deals with the existence of evidence.  The other question deals with proof.  Evidence and proof are two different terms, with two very different meanings.  There is no "proof" that God does not exist.  Had the questioner asked whether I believe there is evidence that God does not exist, I would have said "yes", there is such evidence.  The mere fact that God does not appear to many people in their daily lives could be labeled as such evidence that God does not exist.

 

There were many more problems based on the wording of the questions.  I could go through each and point out those problems.  But, this one particularly stood out to me, so I decided to use it as an example of why it is a poorly engineered test.  Proof and Evidence are not the same thing, yet the author of the test uses these terms interchangeably to attempt to trap the test taker and claim he is "philosophically inconsistent".

 

 

 

 

these tests remind me of an old Elvis Presley movie; about a family in Florida.

 

Social workers took them to court for some reason(saw it a looooong time ago), started asking psychological questions to trap them, only Elvis, the poor old dumb boy, asked the judge to write down his own answers.

 

When the answers were read back, supposedly Elvis character, the Psychiatrist put his own twist on things.

Bad part was, it was the judges answers he was demeaning.

 

In other words, they're all biased in one direction or another.

What's wrong with conflicting thoughts:  just means you'll probably look for the right answer instead of blindly believing what you want.

 

 

 

  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, solarcell said:

these tests remind me of an old Elvis Presley movie; about a family in Florida.

 

Social workers took them to court for some reason(saw it a looooong time ago), started asking psychological questions to trap them, only Elvis, the poor old dumb boy, asked the judge to write down his own answers.

 

When the answers were read back, supposedly Elvis character, the Psychiatrist put his own twist on things.

Bad part was, it was the judges answers he was demeaning.

 

In other words, they're all biased in one direction or another.

What's wrong with conflicting thoughts:  just means you'll probably look for the right answer instead of blindly believing what you want.

 

 

 

Well, atheism is NOT a religion. If you agree that it is, then that is a philosophical contradiction.

 

Philosophy in an ill-remembered ELVIS movie? Really?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, solarcell said:

these tests remind me of an old Elvis Presley movie; about a family in Florida.

 

Social workers took them to court for some reason(saw it a looooong time ago), started asking psychological questions to trap them, only Elvis, the poor old dumb boy, asked the judge to write down his own answers.

 

When the answers were read back, supposedly Elvis character, the Psychiatrist put his own twist on things.

Bad part was, it was the judges answers he was demeaning.

 

In other words, they're all biased in one direction or another.

What's wrong with conflicting thoughts:  just means you'll probably look for the right answer instead of blindly believing what you want.

I can see where taking contradictory positions on things can make one appear hypocritical and inconsistent.    If that's what the test was aiming for, it failed.  Too bad, had it been better constructed, I might have found its conclusions interesting rather than smarmy and deceitful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, XavierOnassis said:

Well, atheism is NOT a religion. If you agree that it is, then that is a philosophical contradiction.

 

Philosophy in an ill-remembered ELVIS movie? Really?

 

 

 

I said it "reminds" me.

 

My own opinion of psych tests is they can be interpreted anyway you lean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Skans said:

There are many things in our Universe for which there is evidence and no proof. 

 

The question wasn't about unproven things, it was about unproveable things. It can one day become possible can go into space and prove that exoplanets and black holes exist... but it will never be possible to know if something is or isn't God.

 

The atheists in the question don't reject God because there isn't evidence or proof... it's because there cannot be evidence or proof.

 

3 hours ago, Skans said:

Presenting even one false analysis used in the test is enough for the entire test to be invalidated. 

 

Well, you have gone to some pretty great lengths here, but I don't think you've made your case. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Toldya said:

 

The question wasn't about unproven things, it was about unproveable things. It can one day become possible can go into space and prove that exoplanets and black holes exist...

That's actually a preposterous claim.  There is no possible ways for a space craft to get to the nearest black hole in anything close to a human lifetime.  There is no possible way to power such a space craft.  And, beyond-light-speed-travel or warp drive is as much fantasy as is human teleportation and talking rabbits.  Further, even if a human could ever make it to a black hole they still would not know its nature without traveling inside of the event horizon.  Not only would this likely kill such an explorer, but no information could ever be sent back outside of the event horizon for others to digest.

 

47 minutes ago, Toldya said:

The atheists in the question don't reject God because there isn't evidence or proof... it's because there cannot be evidence or proof.

But, there is evidence.  There are near death experience personal accounts of those who claim to have met God in another realm.  These are eye-witness accounts, therefore there is evidence.  And, in some cases, verifiable evidence (withholding details so as not to get bogged down in NDE's).

 

Whether you find that evidence to be credible or not - well that is up to everyone's own independent conclusions.  Further, there are no explanations as to why these experiences would be so similar and so real to those who experienced them.   Rationalizations that these are nothing more than chemical reactions that take place at the end of everyone's life or during trauma - there's actually no evidence for such claims.   So, it remains evidence.  Evidence which may someday be explained away or even refuted, but evidence nonetheless.

47 minutes ago, Toldya said:

Well, you have gone to some pretty great lengths here, but I don't think you've made your case. 

I didn't expect that I would be able to convince you.  However, at least we've had a good discussion on this matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Skans said:

I can see where taking contradictory positions on things can make one appear hypocritical and inconsistent.    If that's what the test was aiming for, it failed.  Too bad, had it been better constructed, I might have found its conclusions interesting rather than smarmy and deceitful.

You flunked

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have dreams every night. Some are so vivid it takes me a few minutes to convince myself that the events I dreamed did not happen and some of the people in  them I have never met.

I can forget about having to do what I promised to do in my dreams, I can forget about paying bills I have racked up, I can acknowledge that things I have won I do not own.

So tales of dying people are for me just dreams and not proof of anything.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/6/2021 at 11:48 AM, nuckin futz said:

I talked to Gawd this morning, and we both agree, you're a bloomimg IDIOT!

to Good Gawd or Gawd Awful?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/6/2021 at 11:57 AM, EltonJohnson said:

Look at this  garbage

 

"In certain circumstances, it might be desirable to discriminate positively in favour of a person as recompense for harms done to him/her in the past."

 

 

leftists  believe in what they term as  POSITIVE  discrimination   and they  support it

Reparations is a perfect example...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/6/2021 at 1:58 AM, Toldya said:

http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/health/

 

Everyone should take this. 

Seriously.

Apparently I'm better than average. But I disagree with the 2 areas they pretend I have tension. 

 

Firstly...I said we should protect the environment but I also did not say the government should prevent the use of cars when walking is possible. 

 

I said this because I do not view cars to be as damaging to the environment as pretended. The real problem is agriculture and overpopulation. So there is no contradiction here. 

 

Second...I said homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural...but I approve of sanitation...and theybpretend this is a contradiction. 

 

First of all I am going to accuse THEM of being contradictory. The value of purity and disgust response of the profane is very natural...and I obviously have a disgust response to homosexuality as I woukd for any disease. And homosexuality does nothing to improve survival of the species. 

 

Sanitation is totally natural. Ask a fucking cat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PhilipIV said:

Apparently I'm better than average. But I disagree with the 2 areas they pretend I have tension. 

 

Firstly...I said we should protect the environment but I also did not say the government should prevent the use of cars when walking is possible. 

 

I said this because I do not view cars to be as damaging to the environment as pretended. The real problem is agriculture and overpopulation. So there is no contradiction here. 

 

Second...I said homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural...but I approve of sanitation...and theybpretend this is a contradiction. 

 

First of all I am going to accuse THEM of being contradictory. The value of purity and disgust response of the profane is very natural...and I obviously have a disgust response to homosexuality as I woukd for any disease. And homosexuality does nothing to improve survival of the species. 

 

Sanitation is totally natural. Ask a fucking cat. 

 

You're just remembering Father Ralph

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...