“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.” Karl Marx, Eleventh Thesis on Feuerbach
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/
The link above is to an online philosophy magazine’s “game” section. Point and click word questions for your noodle…
Thanks! these games are pretty tough, and cool. They caught me on some contradictions and things I never really thought through.
Valuable!!!
Those are very interesting quizzes…good link, BluntRM.
I try to provide stimulating content except when I don’t.
It sais this:
"It is justifiable to base one’s beliefs about the external world on a
firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of
it, for the truth or falsity of these convictions.
You’ve taken a direct hit!
You have claimed that God exists, that she knows about suffering, wants
to reduce it and can reduce it. But now you say you don’t think that
there is any higher purpose which explains why people die horribly of
painful diseases. Why then does God allow it? Surely, a God which knows
about, wants to stop and can stop suffering would put an end to
pointless suffering.
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.
It is possible for God to want what is sinful. I’ll bite the bullet!
My beliefs are in contradiction. I’ll take a direct hit!
You’ve just bitten a bullet!
You say that if there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show
that God does not exist, then atheism is a matter of faith, not
rationality. Therefore, it seems that you do not think that the mere
absence of evidence for the existence of God is enough to justify
believing that she does not exist. This view is also suggested by your
earlier claim that it is not rational to believe that the Loch Ness
monster does not exist even if, despite years of trying, no evidence has
been presented to suggest that it does exist.
There is no logical inconsistency in your answers. But by denying that
the absence of evidence, even where it has been sought, is enough to
justify belief in the non-existence of things, you are required to
countenance possibilities that most people would find bizarre. For
example, do you really want to claim that it is not rationally justified
to believe that intelligent aliens do not live on Mars?
You’ve just taken a direct hit!
Earlier you said that it is justifiable to base one’s beliefs about the
external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external
evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction.
But now you do not accept that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified
in doing just that. The example of the rapist has exposed that you do
not in fact agree that any belief is justified just because one is
convinced of its truth. So you need to revise your opinion here. The
intellectual sniper has scored a bull’s-eye!"
Yay, I won!
What did you win?
Enlightenment.
Please allow 6-8 weeks for delivery.
Today.
Are you a Cypriot patriot?
The Cypriot patriot sipped a pate of pickled …
Arj Barker
Congratulations!
You have been awarded the TPM service medal! This is our third highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.
The fact that you have progressed through this activity without suffering many hits and biting only one bullet suggests that whilst there are inconsistencies in your beliefs about God, on the whole they are well thought-out.
The direct hits you suffered occurred because some of your answers implied logical contradictions. 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. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hits and bitten bullet.
The fact that you did not suffer many hits and only bit one bullet means that you qualify for our third highest award. Well done!