|
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 |
|
92% |
| Apathetic Atheist |
|
58% |
| Spiritual Atheist |
|
58% |
| Angry Atheist |
|
50% |
| Agnostic |
|
42% |
| Militant Atheist |
|
33% |
| Theist |
|
8% |
|
What kind of atheist are you?
created with QuizFarm.com
that was a really bad quiz.
Just like 99.9% of online quizzes
I’m a spiritual atheist according to the bas quizz. I;m fine with the result so whether is a bad quizz or not, who cares?
Cheers
For a question number three,
I’m a theist.
When I see Monica Bellucci I can say that God exist.
It’s a little bit hard to demonstrate that if you shake particles for a very long time you can obtain Monica Bellucci.
The author of the quiz knows Monica Bellucci ?
Nobody ever said that if you shake particles for a very long time you can obtain Monica Bellucci. That’s a very poor depiction of evolution. Hint: it’s not random at all.
Refer to the question:
“You cannot create something from nothing, there must be a God!”
Where is the start of the humans if start all with a Big Bang ?
Massimiliano,
that one is question #28, not #3.
The answer is obviously “false”. You CAN create something out of nothing, witness subatomic particles, and, even if it turned out that you can’t, this still begs the question: who created God in the first place?
Now, what has it all to do with Monica Bellucci or humans in general, who, quite obviously, weren’t created but were born?
Or am I misunderstanding what you meant to say?
The quiz it’s dinamic, the question now it’s a different number
My doubt born when i compare unanimate things with humans.
If both are made from subatomic particles when and why the human have earned the thought and the feelings ?
What makes you think thoughts and feelings cannot arise from matter? Are they supernatural? Do animals have thoughts and feelings?
There is a misunderstanding due to my exposure in English tongue.
I mean say, if all starts with a Big Bang with only atomic subparticles without life, when and like appear organisms with life ?
Which are the rules in this evolution, the chaos ?
The problem of abiogenesis (i.e. how life arose from non-life) is still very much unsettled, unfortunately. However, there is no reason to think that a “god” played some role in this process or that living things have some supernatural quality that non-living things don’t have.
Now, what was your point, again?
Sounds strange that all rules in the universe are spontaneous without creator or architect. However until I don’t have a test that excludes whichever author, I don’t excludes all hypothesis, include a Creator-Architect-God , otherwise I must exclude all future discoveries, for the reason that now I don’t have a test that proven their existence.
The humans are too much small in order to understand the universe and its rules
This is a classical argument from ignorance: “since we don’t know everything, we can believe anything.” Sorry but that’s not a convincing argument.
I don’t have to convince nobody, but
I can make hypothesis and
I can’t exclude nothing,
without contrary demonstration.
It’s a like famous phrase of Igor Sikorsky:
“According to the laws of physics, hornets wouldn’t be able to fly. Hornets, however, don’t know this and fly anyway”.
The fact that you cannot rule out something being real does not mean that you should believe it. It’s not possible to provide negative proof of most things, and lack of negative proof is not positive proof. It’s not even a strong hint.
As for Sikorsky’s phrase, I find it quite silly: hornets do fly and do so well within the boundary of physics, unless you want to argue that god performs a miracle every time a hornet flies.
Sorry for delay
The Sikorsky’s phrase about hornet, it’s a metaphor, about “absolute” terms of truth of knowledge of nature of the scientific community.
When it’s not possible provide a positive o negative proof, it’s more correct not speak about a thing in absolute term, but it’s more correct add a term “it could exist”, otherwise a objective speech, it becomes a pub speech.