Topic: What's Philosophy Do You Follow? (Quiz)

[Inkling]

Inkling, I can cite whichever of those you like.

Anyway, if God's so (infinitely) smart, why didn't he make a book that's impossible to misunderstand and straight to the point? And you're not allowed respond with something like "the bible is the word of god filtered through man," because God should have been smart enough to ensure man didn't screw it up.

It's mainly the one about people who are lame, blind, hunchbacked, etc that I don't recognize.

As for your question,  I think the basic message is simple.  One probably unsatisfactory answer would be that some people don't want to believe it.  But I guess what you're getting at is more along the lines of "if Christianity (or insert faith here) is true, why doesn't everyone follow it?"  Which would probably lead to questions about free will or why there is evil in the world.  And I don't have a satisfactory answer for you on those, definitely not off the top of my head.  Big questions like those are tough.  I wish being a Christian meant you knew all the answers, but it doesn't work that way.  I don't know all the answers, just like someone studying biology couldn't answer every question a professor threw at him off the top of their head.

It might be a good idea to move this to the religion thread or pm's.

[Didero]

the religion thread

Ooh, fun, that thing's been buried for too long.

[munchkin5]

Also i'd like to be able to read what goes on, so yeah, the religon thread.

[Luminar]

More evidence that Richard Dawkins is doing more harm than good. It's certainly something now that anti-religious arguments irregardless of actual content always come across as mind-numbingly smug and self-superior to the point where if it keeps up atheism is going to turn into a gigantic joke.
True you get the "Well you're going to hell because X and because Y" types among others, but they never seem anywhere near as ruinously smug as Dawkins-brand atheism.

[Brandonazz]

irregardless

NOPE.

[Luminar]

Not sure what you mean. Would have picked out "always" myself, kind of fell into the generalisation trap there.

[munchkin5]

Dawkins-brand atheism.

Oh geez, its this guy.

[emmet]

It's unfair to call it Dawkins' brand of atheism.

It's mine too. >_>

[Didero]

Hedonism    
   70%
Existentialism    
   70%
Kantianism    
   60%
Utilitarianism    
   55%
Strong Egoism    
   55%
Justice (Fairness)    
   50%
Nihilism    
   45%
Apathy    
   40%
Divine Command    
   0%


A tie, that's interesting.
I didn't post my results the previous time this thread was around, so I can't compare results. They probably did change though.

Also, the grammar error in the topic title is getting a bit annoying.

[Great Distance]

What's, what's, what's philosophy?

Whose philosophy?

What's philosophy.

Who's philosophy?

What is philosophy.

[Luminar]

Plato don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more.

[Brandonazz]

Guys.

This is super duper cool.

If you're anything like me, these scenarios have already crossed your mind too.

[Krakow Sam]

Oh, that is pretty whizz-neato.

What result did you get brandon? (Put it in spoiler tags)

[Brandonazz]

Psychological Reductionism

Your choices are consistent with the theory known as psychological reductionism. On this view, all that is required for the continued existence of the self is psychological continuity. Your three choices show that this is what you see as central to your sense of self, not any attachment to a particular substance, be it your body, brain or soul.

[Krakow Sam]

Thats what I got too.

According to the writeup I apparently should have taken the teleporter instead of the spaceship at the start, but that seems to be ignoring the idea that continuity is important. With the teleporter there is a very high chance that the 'me' which goes in one end instantly dies, that is to say, that I personally am not the fortunate transporter clone which wakes up brand new with a lifetime of memories.