# Philosophical health check **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [November 13, 2005, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philosophical-health-check/330790 "2005-11-13T00:20:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![JustAnotherGeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/58f4c7/32.png) [@JustAnotherGeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JustAnotherGeek)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philosophical-health-check/330790/41 "2005-11-14T23:03:52Z")
I call bullshit on this test, on the order of bias and poor wording. (13%, in case anyone is curious) > [@](#): > > You disagreed that: > It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence > But agreed that: > Atheism is a faith just like any other, because it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God > > In disagreeing with the first statement, you are acting consistently with the general principle which states that in the absence of good grounds for believing something, it is not rational to believe it. For example, it is not possible to disprove the possibility that there are invisible pink fairies at this moment circling the planet Pluto, but we don’t countenance it as a real possibility because there is no evidence for their planetary activities. **This is not to be thought of as a matter of faith, but of sound reasoning.** But asserting that atheism is a faith just like any other, because it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God contradicts this principle. It replaces the principle ‘in the absence of good grounds for believing something, it is not rational to believe it’ with the principle, ‘in the absence of good grounds for believing something, it requires faith not to believe it’. For this reason, atheism is not a matter of faith in the same way as belief in God. In short, belief without evidence (a form of faith) is not the same as non-belief due to lack of evidence (rational refusal to assent). (both layers of emphasis mine) Bias. Trust me, I understand the invisible pink unicorn argument (or, here, the invisible pink fairie argument). However, Atheism goes beyond disbelieving in something with no evidence (particular deities) to actively arguing against something for which we have no evidence one way or the other (a non-specific deity). The inclusion of the pink fairies is only being used to make the conclusion (of a God) look absurd. Then, in order to further make the tester feel how absurd you are, they tell you that disbelieving a God is just “sound reasoning.” I am quite sure there are some people who frequent this board who could argue otherwise. > [@](#): > > You agreed that: > The environment should not be damaged unnecessarily in the pursuit of human ends > But disagreed that: > People should not journey by car if they can walk, cycle or take a train instead > > \ > > The problem here is the word ‘unnecessary’. Poor wording/drawing too many conclusions from a simple question. They discredit their own “tension” in their explanation. Overall, the test was interesting, but I feel that it could still use some further revision. B+ 😃 (P.S. At least they are consistant. If you [goto the games page](http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/) and play “BattleGround God,” they make the same “No Evidence must = Atheist” argument.) ---
**Author:** ![Strinka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/strinka/32/512_2.png) [@Strinka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strinka)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philosophical-health-check/330790/42 "2005-11-14T23:27:38Z")
> [@JustAnotherGeek](#): > > (P.S. At least they are consistant. If you [goto the games page](http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/) and play “BattleGround God,” they make the same “No Evidence must = Atheist” argument.) I just played that. I said that evolution is true, but it’s foolish to believe in god without proof. This is a contradiction because > [@](#): > > You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. So it seems that you require certain, irrevocable proof for God’s existence, but accept evolutionary theory without certain proof. :mad: ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2005, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philosophical-health-check/330790/43 "2005-11-15T03:19:31Z")
13%. Sometimes I like to believe in two contradictory things at the same time just for the workout. I agree that the questions were not flexible enough to encompass my actual belief systems. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/philosophical-health-check/330790.md?page=2)