Do-It Yourself Deity: The "metaphysicists" simply regurgitate shallow strawman arguments that have been employed by smart-aleck 13-year-olds and shot down by former smart-aleck 13-year-olds for decades. (Also, I was amused that their picture of "God" was a man even though only female pronouns were used in the analysis.)
Taboo: Certain questions were too general for yes/no responses. By the by, on part 2 of the pet question, no
method of death is specified, so I assumed it meant ANY method, including murder.
Battleground God:
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.
The contradiction is that on the first ocassion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.
Wrong, you idiots. Nessie is a physical thing confined to a specific space. If exhaustively searching that specific space fails to turn up that physical thing, then the physical thing isn't there. God is neither physical nor confined, thus the same criteria is not applicable.
Bitten Bullet 2
You answered "True" to Question 16.
Wait a tic, there's no other question tied to that decision, and I went back and checked: Answering False for 16 is a direct hit. My conclusion: 16 is a rigged question designed so that no one who believes in God is allowed to finish unscathed, hence the game is invalid.
Shakespeare vs. Britney: My finalists were Miles Davis & the Bard, and Miles ended up higher-ranked. But when they asked the desert island question, THEY NEVER SAID I WOULD GET A MUSIC PLAYER. That, I think, is why Shakespeare has the most desert island votes; his stuff is in print and does not require electricity to enjoy.
Morality Play: 10 pounds will cure blindness? Am I cancelling on the 100 to work on the 1000, or is the operation on the 100 the
cause of the issues of the 1000? (Then they have the nerve to ask that same ambiguous question AGAIN later!?) And, of course, the trite superhero vs. parent dilemma.
Strange New World: I answered "correctly" on all but one part, because the writers don't understand the difference between dreams and illusions. (For those who care, I went Heroic at the end.)
PHC:
You agreed that:
The right to life is so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives
But disagreed that:
Governments should be allowed to increase taxes sharply to save lives in the developing world
As I've said about many issues, just because something's wrong doesn't mean we should have a law against it. Similarly, just because something's right doesn't mean we should have a law forcing it.
And, of course, this thing has some of the same strawmen from "DIY Deity."
You agreed that:
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
And disagreed that:
It is not always right to judge individuals solely on their merits
Yeah, because judging a person is not the same thing as judging a situation. There's no tension there. Idiots.
You agreed that:
Severe brain-damage can rob a person of all consciousness and selfhood
And also that:
On bodily death, a person continues to exist in a non-physical form
I never said their consciouness ceases to exist upon brain damage, just that it's been robbed from them. If someone steals my stereo, my stereo still exists; it's just not in my room anymore.
You agreed that:
Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste
And also that:
Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists
I don't see the tension here. Weren't you asking for my personal taste with the Michaelangelo question?
You agreed that:
The government should not permit the sale of treatments which have not been tested for efficacy and safety
And also that:
Alternative and complementary medicine is as valuable as mainstream medicine
--The question that needs answering here is, why do you believe alternative medicines and treatments need not be as extensively tested as conventional ones?
WHOA! Jump to conclusions much? What if I think alternative treatments
DO need to be as extensively tested as conventional ones? You're trying to fix the part that ain't broke.
Staying alive: That is NOT teletransportation. You immediately lose. Good day, sir.
Logical: All simple implication. Cakewalk.
Induction: Pattern recognition over time =/= Induction. You immediately lose. Good day, sir.
And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"