Pretty boring stuff. This whole using logic with morals and dieties is dubious at best, being that everyone has their own ideas. My two contradictions were both of the splitting hairs variety.
Direct Hit 1
You answered "True" to questions 10 and 14.
These answers generated the following response:
You've just taken a direct hit! 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.
[/quote]
The Loch Ness monster is a creature of unknown species living in a specific lake. We know exactly where it is provided it exists at all. If we look there and see no such monster, then we have nowhere else to look, so the monster doesn't exist. God is a different matter... We need to look everywhere to disprove God's existence, and we just can't do that.
In fact, it's even more difficult than that: The Loch Ness monster is a rather specific concept, whereas there are many different concepts of God. Whose concept do we choose?
I said it was justifiable to base one's beliefs on a firm inner conviction. It does not necessarily follow that acting on said beliefs is justifiable.
Put another way, I might have a "firm inner conviction" that everyone deserves to die. However, I would not be justified in shooting everyone I see.
