Which Religion Is For You?

[nemorathwald]

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. </td> atheism 96% Satanism 75% agnosticism 54% Buddhism 46% Judaism 38% paganism 38% Islam 33% Christianity 13% Hinduism 0% Which religion is the right one for you? (new version) created with QuizFarm.com

Comments

[netmouse.livejournal.com]

I wasn't surprized by my results (agnosticism, with eastern religions and atheism scoring higher than any of the bible or koran-based ones. With Christianity scoring lowest I think maybe because they asked so many questions about Jesus personally). But I was disappointed that the description for Agnosticism said "you don't believe it is possible to prove the existence of god."

I mean, sure I do. I could imagine thousands of ways I could be convinced that a conscious higher power exists. But they all involve something I would experience myself, and they're dramatic and, well, highly unlikely. But I wouldn't mind being able to fly and having all women given the power to decide whether or not we got pregnant, no sir. that would be nice. And getting to travel with the consiousness of god to someplace light years away? that would be cool too.

hmm.. interesting to see that part of my concept of "a god" is "someone who can break the rules" (of physics). Sometimes, when the sun hits the world right or I'm being very philosophical, I feel like I can see the theory, like superstring theory or something, of conscious life and the energy of it and the spaces between spaces where god exists without breaking the rules. Those are neat moments. There was nowhere on the quiz to check off "thou art god." limited quiz...

:P

[sothisislife.livejournal.com]

I scored Satanism (followed by Atheist, Agnostic, and Christianity last). I think a lot of the questions were tricky. Either I agreed with part of the statement and not the other, or the agreement with the statement depended on agreeing with a previously mentioned concept and if I didn't agree with that it still seemed like I did agree somehow if I answered "disagree". Strange.

[netmouse.livejournal.com]

Either I agreed with part of the statement and not the other, or the agreement with the statement depended on agreeing with a previously mentioned concept and if I didn't agree with that it still seemed like I did agree somehow if I answered "disagree". Strange.

I find this is the way with most polls. Especially personality ones. Either you accept it and move forward anyway or you don't get to finish the poll.

Like "Jesus is God" - if I was convinced there was a god, and I kind of am, then I would agree with this statement. Jesus isn't *more* God than other people though, and I think the question is suggesting that. And I also think it's talking about a more Judeo-Christian God than the one I see dancing between my subatomic particles and yours. So I disagreed with that statement. Like you say, tricky. And there was a question about rules or laws or something that I partially agreed with, though I don't think such rules should come from religion, I think they should come from the institutions created by an enlightened society for its own preservation.

(religion is one of those types of institutions, but I think its supposed basis is a sham in most cases. I'm not totally sure. Thus I earn the label of agnostic)

[matt-arnold.livejournal.com]

Another thought struck me about your vision of a godlike being. I just finished reading Aristoi by Walter Jon Williams. Transhuman or Posthuman science fiction tends to have these beings that become so awesome they can terraform entire planets and do other amazing feats. As in your vision, there is almost nothing too difficult for them. 2001 a Space Oddessey and Dune also depicted similar characters. But such creatures are still just very, very, very large super heroes and super villians. Such beings certainly could exist. There's a difference with the kind of being I deny... the "ground of all being" as Tillich put it. A personality on whom logical reality itself relies and always has relied. A being which is above the law of non-contradiction, for whom A can simultaneously be not-A. A mind for whom "wishing will make it so," not sharing this power with any other being in existence. There's a difference between this concept of god and a science-fiction god.

[matt-arnold.livejournal.com]

Livejournal quizzes tend to be seriously flawed. There's a much better one on this topic at: http://www.beliefnet.com/section/quiz/index.asp?sectionID=&surveyID=27

You're a soft agnostic, and they gave a definition of strong agnosticism. I agree with what you said about the ways that the existence of a deity could be proven. We have a more scientific belief, in that if it were not true, there would be some way for us to find out. Whereas the god-concept of a strong agnostic (one who believes in an unprovable god, such as the Jewish scholar Maimonedes or certain varieties of Catholics called Fideists) has a problem in that it is unfalsifiable even if it were not true. That's a vacuous and empty world view. There's not much point in a world view if its truth is identical to its falsity.

Where one falls on these issues depends entirely on how one defines the word "god." From a certain point of view, a monotheist is an atheist about all god concepts other than their own. I'm an atheist when it comes to the very personalized gods of the three main monotheisms because I use their definition of "god": "a supernatural person infinite in all perfections." It's easy to prove that such a being cannot possibly exist. But I am agnostic toward non-interventionist definitions of god such as the First Cause of the deists. Nevertheless, I dismiss that being as well since it's a pointless academic abstraction, much more irrelevant than the type of being that issues commandments and can send fire down from the sky.

[marahsk.livejournal.com]

But back in Biblical times, anything that couldn't be understood by the knowledge of that time was attributed to God. So I wouldn't necessarily assume that a being who could break the rules of physics as we understand them today is necessarily a God, rather than a more advanced being with better technology. Any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic, after all.

Ha!

[cosette-valjean.livejournal.com]

This quiz told me I was Buddhist. I laughed out loud. I guess that it chose this because there was no option for deist. How funny.