Battleground God

Aced this the first time around ... I will not tempt the fates.

HAHA! Tempted them!

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!

I made it through the first 17 unscathed and then burnt up on reentry.

No hits, sucked on one live bullet.

God wanted me to have the Medal of Distinction, as perfection is only for God.

I clicked randomly, god was with me

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

The fact that you progressed through this activity being hit only once and biting no bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are well thought out and almost entirely internally consistent.

Zero hits for me. TPM Medal of Honor. God must have been with me when I took that tricky heathen test.

Zero hits for me and the boy only missed one. He contradicted himself on whether it's foolish to believe in god. Proud to say I've raised a godless heathen.

The problem with the series of questions are the underlying assumptions.

The question on the theory of evolution assumes that there is only one, for instance. Then hits you if you personally accept that there is contradictorevidencece (there is) then goes on to hit you later if you do (as they did) and 'fail' to accept contrary evidence. (I ran the questions thru 6 differenscenariosos)
Under the God questions they use amateurishish logic trap. First they set up the premise that God is a being, then personify the being, then proceed to ask if God could do things that would make God no longer God, then give one hits if they do not fall for the illogic.
The end result is that you fail unless you adhere to their interpretation of both evolution and God.
Were I their philosophy professor, I would grade this D-

You are lolfritters.

Keep posting!

@tesco

Thank you for the editing of my post.
People might have gotten the wrong impression if left as origional.

Oh? Your post was edited was it?

What a treat is is to have an actually paranoid delusional retard posting for a change (you know, as opposed to the usual posers that frequent this place).

You remain lolfritters!

Keep posting!

@tesco

@tesco

Thank you for the editing of my post. People might have gotten the wrong impression if left as origional.

Do you mean folks might see your level of illiteracy?

"farts"

"considers who's the biggest meepbag"

"epiphany sets in"

"It's you"

Jebus loves all of you

This logic doesn't follow:

You're under fire!

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).

Take a direct hit and say that this is an area where your beliefs are just in contradiction.

***FALSE. Simply claiming God is capable of making it so everything considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything considered morally good becomes sinful is not the same as saying God wants to increase sin. Where's the connection?

Oops...I meant to say "increase suffering" not "increase sin"

> 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.

I present certain proof.
Your text to link here...

I gots de:

TPM medal of honour!!!

RESPEK MOTHERFUKERS

@Cryogeneric

This logic doesn't follow: You're under fire! 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). Take a direct hit and say that this is an area where your beliefs are just in contradiction. ***FALSE. Simply claiming God is capable of making it so everything considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything considered morally good becomes sinful is not the same as saying God wants to increase sin. Where's the connection?

Whatever gave you the notion that any God would want there to be as little suffering in the world as possible?

Wouldn't they?

@MrJingles

I agree. The USA is virtually the only place in the western world where evolution is still open for debate, not accepted as fact, by the vast majority of the population.

I got tripped up by this the same way, and decided that the whole thing had too much tilt to it to be worth it.

The real problem with 'evolution' in the populous is that evolutionary theory is not one set dogma that explains the current complex life on earth.
There are currently no workable theories that meet the minimum scientific requirement that they be able to make testable predictions. In truth, they are little more than an attempt to describe what happened.
One subset, evolutionary adaptation, does meet this requirement.
For far too many these scientific efforts become pseudo religion with people discussing such things as how many people 'believe' this or that theory.
Science is not a cult, consensus has no place in it. That is what they build churches for.

Also, I figured out that my post was not edited. This text box contains some interesting quirks.

Scientific definitions of hypothesis/theory/law

Seriously. Not that defining the terms for these retards hasa hope of bearing fruit. Some folks are just obtusely dumb as all meep.

Example: "There are currently no workable theories that meet the minimum scientific requirement that they be able to make testable predictions."

@spankerchief

@spankerchief

Thank you for making my point.
The very end of the article actually lays out the process, even though it contradicts some items in the main text.
Most evolutionary 'theory' cannot make any testable predictions, and as such, can only marginally be called science.
I am well aware that any experiments made to test a true theory of evolution would be very time consuming and difficult. That, however, is not justification to bring it up to the level of a theory.
Neither is consensus, also brought up in the article. The consensus that the sun revolved around the earth did not make it so. The scientific method laid waste to that, and if evolutionary science wants to become more than dogma it needs to apply the same rigors to itself.
My personal opinion is that Darwin was on track until he wrote 'Descent of man'.
Adaptation can yield great changes, given enough time, but the evidence that e-coli could 'evolve' into a fungus, or visa versa, is nonexistant.

^ Jesus H Christ...Only in meeping America...You don't need 'testable predictions' when you can see it in the fossil record, meep...Or did Dog put the fossils there 6000 years ago just to confuse us or test our faith?

Evolution is fact, idiot, and there is plenty of proof if you want to actually think for yourself, instead of letting Xtian nut=jobs do your thinking for you.

Wake the meep up.

See what I mean?
@spankerchief

Common misconceptions about evolutionary theory.

Hey, if anyone with more than two years of high school science or "home schooling" via reading scientific texts wants to actually discuss scientific principles and practice, please step up to the microphone.

Until then, please stay within your areas of expertise.

I think we could all benefit from venturing out of our normal interests and seeing what other folks get excited about.
It's the people who parrot misinformation from poor sources, belittle, condescend and angrily attack different ideas without proper consideration who hurt the learning process.
Ask yourself:
Are you here to fight and stroke your ego... or to gift others with useful, life-enhancing knowledge?

-and opening your mind to even greater(and continually tested and retested scientific) truths than the often touted so-called truth of the bible?

Nothing wrong with discussing and debating, but get some sound education and experience in the field before spouting off. That is the thing about Americans: some think they meeping know everything and usually they are so, so wrong. It must be genetic or something. Reading something doesn't count, although its a good start... like kindergarten math does not make you qualified to discuss the finer points of quantum mechanics. Y

So, a quick show of hands if you actually have a hard science degree and have actually spent several years (> 5) post graduate studies, designing, conducting, and defending your work amongst your peers with equal or greater pedigree and experience? Papers to your name published in a serious scientific journal?

Not me.
No advanced degrees, no published papers.
Couldn't tell you eactly what chromosome set was fused that initiated our split from other simians off the top of my head.

But what I do have are a very particular set of skills, skills I have aquired over a very long career.
Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you.
If you and tesco quit being pompous meep that will be the end of it.
I will not look for you, I will not pursue you.
But if you don't; I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you.

@BigDinWaunakee

I don't have any advanced degrees either, I just had the good fortune to grow up in a country where Creationism is NOT taught in school as a legitimate alternative to SCIENCE. I also have a reasonable amount of common meeping sense, a commodity that seems to be in very short supply in the good ol' USA.

It's just sad that states like Kentucky, Alabama, Tenessee, Ohio and Texas are making all the news with this meep.
It makes all of 'murica look like idiots. (And yeah, we DO have isolated spots where people actually are like that)
But it's like the middle east coverage, where the majority of secularists are ignored in favor of the ratings-worthy fundie clowns.
But the coverage they get DOES serve to bring the subject to light.
Hopefully as it gets more attention it'll motivate people to start thinking about what happens when we let this sort of close-minded ignorance fester and grow.

@spankerchief

We know what happens- You get the Tea-party Congress you have now.

Wow. Comments thread on a philosophy game link ends in a death threat. New low for this place. Sad, really.

middle_age_man,I believe spankerchief was being funny,quoting/ad-libbing the movie,"Taken".

Also,spankerchief...You shut your meep mouth,talking about Ohio,mmkay?Don't think that everything you see in the news about OH,speaks for everyone.

Also,dragonstaff...You shut your meep mouth,talking about the US,mmkay?I'd shove so many beers/shots down your throat,you'd be rendered the inability to speak,except to the glorious porcelain god.

Yall come back now,ya hear

@Senor_Smoke

You are right; I was grossly generalizing for everyone in those states and that was wrong
I apologize.