I am a Scientific Atheist

24 05 2007
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
Apathetic Atheist
Spiritual Atheist
Angry Atheist
Militant Atheist

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




18 responses

26 05 2007
Leo Simons

that was a really bad quiz.

26 05 2007

Just like 99.9% of online quizzes 😉

29 05 2007
Bruno Schirch

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? 😉


6 06 2007
Massimiliano Dessì

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 ?

7 06 2007

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.

7 06 2007
Massimiliano Dessì

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 ?

7 06 2007


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?

7 06 2007
Massimiliano Dessì

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 ?

7 06 2007

What makes you think thoughts and feelings cannot arise from matter? Are they supernatural? Do animals have thoughts and feelings?

7 06 2007
Massimiliano Dessì

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 ?

8 06 2007

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?

8 06 2007
Massimiliano Dessì

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

8 06 2007

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.

11 06 2007
Massimiliano Dessì

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”.

11 06 2007

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.

17 06 2007
Massimiliano Dessì

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.

30 09 2007
Session.it » What kind of atheist are you?

[…] Similar to the previous post, I read an interesting post on Ugo’s blog, so I decided to reveal the nature of my atheism. […]

13 11 2010
Himangsu Sekhar Pal

Earlier it was impossible for us to give any satisfactory answer to this question. But modern science, rather we should say that Einstein, has made it an easy task for us. And Stephen Hawking has provided us with the clue necessary for solving this riddle. Actually scientists in their infinite wisdom have already kept the ground well-prepared for us believers so that one day we can give a most plausible and logically consistent answer to this age-old question. Let me first quote from the book “A Brief History of Time” by Stephen Hawking:
“The idea of inflation could also explain why there is so much matter in the universe. There is something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero.”
Here the question stops. So the clue is this: if we can ultimately arrive at zero, then no further question will be raised, and there will be no infinite regression. What I intend to do here is something similar to that. I want to show that our God is a bunch of several zeroes, and that therefore no further question need be raised about His origin. And here comes Einstein with his special theory of relativity for giving us the necessary empirical support for our project.
God is a Being. Therefore God will have existence as well as essence. So I will have to show that both from the point of view of existence as well as from the point of view of essence God is zero. It is almost a common parlance that God is spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, and all-pervading. Here we are getting three zeroes; space is zero, time is zero, change is zero. But how to prove that if there is a God, then that God will be spaceless, timeless, and changeless? From special theory of relativity we come to know that for light both distance and time become unreal. For light even an infinite distance is infinitely contracted to zero. The volume of an infinite universe full of light only will be simply zero due to this property of light. A universe with zero volume is a spaceless universe. Again at the speed of light time totally stops. So a universe full of light only is a spaceless, timeless universe. But these are the properties of light only! How do we come to know that God is also having the same properties of light so that God can also be spaceless, timeless? Scientists have shown that if there is a God, then that God can only be light, and nothing else, and that therefore He will have all the properties of light. Here is the proof.
Scientists have shown that total energy of the universe is always zero. If total energy is zero, then total mass will also be zero due to energy-mass equivalence. Now if there is a God, then scientists have calculated the total energy and mass of the universe by taking into consideration that there is also a God. In other words, if God is there, then this total energy-mass calculation by the scientists is God-inclusive, not God-exclusive. This is due to two reasons. First of all, even if there is a God, they do not know that there is a God. Secondly, they do not admit that there is a God. So, if there is a God, then they have not been able to keep that God aside before making the calculation, because they do not know that there is a God. They cannot say that they have kept Him aside and then made the calculation, because by saying that they will admit that there is a God. At most they can say that there is no God. But we are not going to accept that statement as the final verdict on God-issue, because we are disputing that statement. So the matter of the fact is this: if God is really there, then scientists have shown that both the total mass and energy of the universe including God are zero. Therefore mass and energy of God will also be zero. God is without any mass, without any energy. And Einstein has already shown that anything having zero rest-mass will have the speed of light. In other words, it will be light. So, if God is there, then God is also light, and therefore He is spaceless, timeless. So from the point of view of existence God is zero, because he is spaceless, timeless, without any mass, without any energy.
Now we will have to show that from the point of view of essence also God is zero. If there is only one being in the universe, and if there is no second being other than that being, then that being cannot have any such property as love, hate, cruelty, compassion, benevolence, etc. Let us say that God is cruel. Now to whom can He be cruel if there is no other being other than God Himself? So, if God is cruel, then is He cruel to Himself? Therefore if we say that God is all-loving, merciful, benevolent, etc., then we are also admitting that God is not alone, that there is another being co-eternal with God to whom He can show His love, benevolence, goodness, mercy, compassion, etc. If we say that God is all-loving, then we are also saying that this “all” is co-eternal with God. Thus we are admitting that God has not created the universe at all, and that therefore we need not have to revere Him, for the simple reason that He is not our creator!
It is usually said that God is good. But Bertrand Russell has shown that God cannot be good for the simple reason that if God is good, then there is a standard of goodness which is independent of God’s will. Therefore, if God is the ultimate Being, then that God cannot be good. But neither can He be evil. God is beyond good and evil. Like Hindu’s Brahma, a real God can only be nirguna, nirupadhik; without any name, without any quality. From the point of view of essence also, a real God is a zero.
So, why should there be any need for creation here, if God is existentially, as well as essentially, zero?
But if there is someone who is intelligent and clever enough, then he will not stop arguing here. He will point out to another infinite regression. If God is light, then He will no doubt be spaceless, timeless, etc. Therefore one infinite regression is thus arrested. But what about the second regression? How, and from whom, does light get its own peculiar properties by means of which we have successfully arrested the first regression? So, here is another infinite regression. But we need not have to worry much about this regression, because this problem has already been solved. A whole thing, by virtue of its being the whole thing, will have all the properties of spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness. It need not have to depend on any other external source for getting these properties. Thus no further infinite regression will be there.
H. S. Pal

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: