What kind of atheist are you?

  You scored as Scientific Atheist. These guys rule. I’m not one of them myself, although I play one online. They know the rules of debate, the Laws of Thermodynamics, and can explain evolution in fifty words or less. More concerned with how things ARE than how they should be, these are the people who will bring us into the future.

Scientific Atheist
 
58%
Agnostic
 
50%
Apathetic Atheist
 
42%
Spiritual Atheist
 
33%
Theist
 
25%
Angry Atheist
 
17%
Militant Atheist
 
17%

What kind of atheist are you?
created with QuizFarm.com

Advertisements

12 comments so far

  1. C. L. Hanson on

    I got “Scientific Atheist” too.

  2. blc303 on

    I wonder what Richard Dawkins would get?

  3. Vance Esler on

    I took the quiz, too. It was smart enough to detect that I am an idiot for taking a quiz intended for atheists and called me a deluded theist. I thought that was rather clever of the programmer!

  4. blc303 on

    Well,
    If you take an athiest test and answer straight from the Word, you might have issues that need looking into.
    On the other hand, I wouldn’t consider you deluded. You have an advanced religious evolutionary adaptation. 😉

  5. Vance Esler on

    I have never doubted the existence of God in my heart, but I have questioned why I believe what I believe. So I thought, What the heck?

    Clearly my religious views over the years have evolved. I have mutated from my original upbringing, which was Presbyterian. I can “converse” in multiple religious dialects, including “Christian fundamental,” but one shouldn’t be too quick to pigeon-hole me. I really resist that…

    When I was younger, I was pushy with my beliefs. Now I am more interested in learning what others think. Thus the most recent post on my blog (thanks for your comment, BTW).

  6. blc303 on

    I have never doubted the existence of God in my heart,…

    Aye, there’s the rub. For me, it is exactly the opposite. Even while attending a Catholic parochial school, I only understood God as an intellectual exercise, much like learning vocabulary or math problems. That’s why I can wax poetic about what a God could be. But the emotional echos are hollow.

    I’m the guy Pascal had in mind when he offered his wager and said,

    “I confess it, I admit it. But, still, is there no means of seeing the faces of the cards?” Yes, Scripture and the rest, etc. “Yes, but I have my hands tied and my mouth closed; I am forced to wager, and am not free. I am not released, and am so made that I cannot believe. What, then, would you have me do?”

    Pascal, someone we would now consider ‘born again,’ felt it was better to pretend and hope. I choose to try to understand without pretence.

  7. Vance Esler on

    I choose to try to understand without pretence.

    I’m not sure I follow…

  8. blc303 on

    I suspect I’m not wired for belief; I’m missing the genetic factor necessary for what brain researcher Vilayanur Ramachandran (University of California, San Diego) calls the ‘God Antenna.’ Thus it would merely be a deception for me to pretend to believe.

    That was what Pascal suggested though. Even if you don’t ‘get it.’ He felt going along with the motions was better then nothing. Maybe religion will rub off. I doubt that will happen. Thus I try to understand, but the leap of faith eludes me. (And, if studies are correct, about 10% of the population.)

  9. Vance Esler on

    Oh, okay.

    Maybe I am wired just the opposite. Maybe I have some genetic predisposition that compels me to believe.

    But then, if each of us is simply giving in to our biochemistry, then why do we sometimes judge people as if anyone really has free will?

    I have mixed feelings about “going through the motions.” It seems to help some. For them, belief follows action. Understanding comes with experience. For others, it does not.

    There is much I do not understand.

  10. blc303 on

    Compel is probably not quite the right word. It is more predisposition. It is like having the genes to become an athlete. Everyone can work out but there are those who will achieve far more with less work; there are those who will always be hopelessly inept.

    I agree that “going through the motions” helps many people, especially on a social level. Even if religion is absolute bunk, churches as a local social unit are very important; especially in rural settings.

    But going from motions to belief is like saying every 90 pound weakling can make it to Arnold Schwarzenegger without using steroids. I don’t think the world works that way.

    On the other hand, none of this is inconsistent with the existence of a God. She might have known that some will never believe. She might not even choose to care at that level; judging not beliefs but actions. Who can say?

  11. Teresa on

    I’m like Ben on this. While I have a deep feeling that there IS a God, I have a deep feeling it isn’t the God of the church, and experience and reason bear this out.

    I remember doing the “Jesus come into my heart” prayer desperatly, waiting for the transformation I was assured would happen as soon as I was saved. The peace, warmth, light, etc.

    It didn’t take. My soul-transplant was a failure every time.

    *shrug* I felt so much better when I decided it was BS and walked away to try and do something more effective and satisfying.

    Which is not to say that I doubt that people really experience those things. If they tell me that they experianced it, I believe them.

    it’s just obviously not for me.

  12. Vance Esler on

    It seems apparent that many Christians have become “so heavenly-minded that they are no earthly good.”

    There is a heavy emphasis on what God can do for us, rather than on how faith should cause us to behave towards others.

    In the end, it will be interesting to see which approach mattered more to God.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: