queerbychoice (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
queerbychoice) wrote2005-03-12 03:41 pm
queerbychoice) wrote2005-03-12 03:41 pm
Atheism = Disbelief in the Existence of Genetically Modified Food?
I know I should have better things to do with my life than complain about the unscientificness of online quizzes, but I'm just that bad at tolerating having my atheism insulted. Here is my score on the latest religion quiz going around:
I object to being considered only 92% atheist, because the reasons I scored this way were actually instances of my being 100% atheist. First, the test asks how much you agree with the statement, "All life organisms alive today were created through random processes." I answered that I mostly but not entirely agree with this statement. The reason I do not entirely agree with it is that humans have genetically modified many foods, intentionally bred different breeds of dogs and cats and other animals, altered habitats in such a way as to cause many species to evolve differently, and generally interfered with nature in a wide variety of ways. Although on some level one might consider all of these to be "random processes" since humans ourselves evolved through "random processes," such an interpretation would be severely stretching the definition of the word "random," because humans' interference was in many cases quite intentional, and the word "random" does not normally refer to any process which could in any way be described as "intentional" on the part of anyone.
Second, the test asks how much you agree with the statement, "I am certain that no being higher than humans exists." I answered that I mostly but not entirely agree with this statement. The reason I do not entirely agree with it is that although I consider myself (at least for all intents and purposes) certain that no deity exists, because a deity's existence would by definition break all the laws of nature and is therefore the absolute unlikeliest and most impossible thing imaginable, I know of no scientific basis for ruling out the possibility that more intelligent life might exist on some other planet, or even that humans might eventually discover that whales or dolphins are smarter than us (they just don't have as much ability to make tools using their flippers as we have with our fingers). I think current human understanding of how brains work is sufficiently advanced that it would be fairly surprising if the latter discovery occurred, but I don't think we're yet at a point where we can fully 100% rule out all possibility of it. I also think, from what I've read to date, that although the odds are very much in favor of (bacterial) life existing on other planets, the odds are slightly against any equally or more intelligent life existing on other planets. But I certainly do not know anywhere near enough to rule out the possibility of it.
Anyway, all of the above is a 100% atheistic response. There's nothing un-atheistic about being willing to consider the possibility of non-deity life more intelligent than humans existing somewhere, and there's certainly nothing un-atheistic about acknowledging the rather indisputable fact that humans have intentionally bred dogs and genetically modified foods and otherwise interfered with the randomness of evolution. I'm rather insulted by the idea that atheism is a disbelief in the existence of genetically modified foods.
 | You scored as atheism. You are... an atheist, though you probably already knew this. Also, you probably have several people praying daily for your soul. Instead of simply being "nonreligious," atheists strongly believe in the lack of existence of a higher being, or God.
Which religion is the right one for you? (new version) created with QuizFarm.com |
I object to being considered only 92% atheist, because the reasons I scored this way were actually instances of my being 100% atheist. First, the test asks how much you agree with the statement, "All life organisms alive today were created through random processes." I answered that I mostly but not entirely agree with this statement. The reason I do not entirely agree with it is that humans have genetically modified many foods, intentionally bred different breeds of dogs and cats and other animals, altered habitats in such a way as to cause many species to evolve differently, and generally interfered with nature in a wide variety of ways. Although on some level one might consider all of these to be "random processes" since humans ourselves evolved through "random processes," such an interpretation would be severely stretching the definition of the word "random," because humans' interference was in many cases quite intentional, and the word "random" does not normally refer to any process which could in any way be described as "intentional" on the part of anyone.
Second, the test asks how much you agree with the statement, "I am certain that no being higher than humans exists." I answered that I mostly but not entirely agree with this statement. The reason I do not entirely agree with it is that although I consider myself (at least for all intents and purposes) certain that no deity exists, because a deity's existence would by definition break all the laws of nature and is therefore the absolute unlikeliest and most impossible thing imaginable, I know of no scientific basis for ruling out the possibility that more intelligent life might exist on some other planet, or even that humans might eventually discover that whales or dolphins are smarter than us (they just don't have as much ability to make tools using their flippers as we have with our fingers). I think current human understanding of how brains work is sufficiently advanced that it would be fairly surprising if the latter discovery occurred, but I don't think we're yet at a point where we can fully 100% rule out all possibility of it. I also think, from what I've read to date, that although the odds are very much in favor of (bacterial) life existing on other planets, the odds are slightly against any equally or more intelligent life existing on other planets. But I certainly do not know anywhere near enough to rule out the possibility of it.
Anyway, all of the above is a 100% atheistic response. There's nothing un-atheistic about being willing to consider the possibility of non-deity life more intelligent than humans existing somewhere, and there's certainly nothing un-atheistic about acknowledging the rather indisputable fact that humans have intentionally bred dogs and genetically modified foods and otherwise interfered with the randomness of evolution. I'm rather insulted by the idea that atheism is a disbelief in the existence of genetically modified foods.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Which religion is the right one for you? (new version) (http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=10907)
With or without cultish stereotypes, the above is incorrect in so many ways.
no subject
no subject
Possibly the score can be taken to mean they're only 92% sure that you're 100% atheist, because of the flaws in the test -
no subject
Agnosticism is a philosophy that God's existence cannot be proven. Some say it is possible to be agnostic and follow a religion; however, one cannot be a devout believer if he or she does not truly believe.
agnosticism
Christianity
Islam
Buddhism
atheism
Judaism
paganism
Satanism
Hinduism
Which religion is the right one for you? (new version)
created with QuizFarm.com
At least they were accurate....
But really and truly they were not too far on me (Christianity was the same as this too.)
Really, I am an agnostic theist. I do not believe that there is a way to truly prove if there is a God or not, I just believe in God anyway.
no subject
Satanism = No belief in Satan?
Huh? What's this? Is anybody going to tell me that I don't have to believe in Allah to be a Muslim? Or that believing in Zeus is optional for Zeus worshippers?
And this bit about focusing "upon the spiritual advancement of the self" seems like nonsense to me. I don't have any spiritual beliefs about myself, and the phrase "spiritual advancement" seems to vague to be useful.
This whole test seems useless.
For the record, my scores are:
satanism = 92%
athiesm = 83%
agnosticism = 75%
paganism = 71%
...
Somehow I am scored higher as an athiest than an agnostic even though I answered the questions as best I could. Maybe I am a closet athiest - my spouse seems to think so.
no subject