Gayle Madwin (queerbychoice) wrote,
Gayle Madwin
queerbychoice

  • Mood:
  • Music:

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:

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.

</td>

atheism

92%

Buddhism

54%

Satanism

50%

paganism

46%

Islam

33%

agnosticism

33%

Judaism

17%

Hinduism

8%

Christianity

4%

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.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 10 comments