Categories: uncategorized
Date: 29 June 2004 12:56:04
"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.
The direct hit you suffered occurred because one set of your answers implied a logical contradiction. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analysis of your direct hit. 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, this did not occur which means that despite the direct hit you qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!"
so said the battleground god game on the philospoher's magazine. brilliant. http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm
I got the hit because "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"
Well, that's not what I think I said at all. I think that matters of faith and rationality are not neccessarily opposed. So there. I didn't claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence - I just said their position is a matter of faith. It can though be a rational faith, just like it is rational to believe that the loch ness monster doesn't exist (but that's still a matter of faith). OK. Now I'm confused.