The Enemy of the Good (eideteker) wrote,
The Enemy of the Good

  • Mood:
  • Music:

From akihikio:

Religion test:
Theravada Buddhist to learn more (score=100)
Unitarian Universalist to learn more (score=98)
Atheist/ to learn more (score=81)
Humanist to learn more (score=81)
Liberal Quaker to learn more (score=66)
Neo-Pagan to learn more (score=62)
Hindu to learn more (score=42)
Jainism to learn more (score=42)
Mahayana Buddhist to learn more (score=42)
Sikhism to learn more (score=42)
Mainline to Liberal to learn more (score=40)
New Age to learn more (score=36)
Baháí to learn more (score=30)
Christian Science to learn more (score=30)
Islam to learn more (score=30)
Jehovahs Witness to learn more (score=30)
Latter Day to learn more (score=30)
New Thought to learn more (score=30)
Orthodox Judaism to learn more (score=30)
Orthodox Quaker to learn more (score=30)
Reform Judaism to learn more (score=30)
Scientology to learn more (score=30)
Seventh Day Adventist to learn more (score=22)
Eastern Orthodox to learn more (score=15)
Mainline to Conservative to learn more (score=15)
Roman Catholic to learn more (score=15)

Funny, I was baptized R.C., and there it is on the bottom. I avoid classifying my "beliefs" normally, mostly because I fear misspeaking and being grouped with a category that doesn't fit me. Then again, I don't believe that categories fit much at all, beyond what we in psychology call "schema," which are used to heuristically make tentative judgements. And to give psychologists big words to use.
Buddhism is placed interestingly at the top, above Atheism (apart from God, not antitheist; the existence of God is irrelevant to me. Think of asexual microorganisms... they don't go around killing sexual organims for having sex. That's just silly. Nevertheless, Christians continually feel threatened by those who don't need a god to survive and act 'morally' -i.e. in the best interests of their fellow man). I think that it's pretty odd, according to this test, wanting to good makes me 'better' than an atheist or agnostic, and suggests that I believe in karma, even though I said in one question that I definitely did not believe in karma.
I am sooooo not a Unitarian. They're nothing but sniveling "Why can't we all get along?" coward-types. Just admit that you don't need God, already. Or if you do, accept that fact and don't feel you need to push others' beliefs upon yourself. That's almost worse than how fanatics push their own beliefs on others. At least they admit that religious documents are more symbolic and act as guidelines, rather than being historical documents.
Secular Humanism makes me go "hmm..." I quote the page when I say: "Atheists' beliefs are similar to those of the Humanists (see), but do not necessarily include the emphasis on humanity's ability to improve the human condition." Well, gee. That's almost an insignificant difference to me. I don't address the issues of the world, I can't follow politics, and the only way that I'm working to improve life on earth is by making one or two people smile a day. Does that make me a Secular Humanist? No, because I hate labels. Secular Humanists are often too proud of their detachment from religion to live without labelling themselves. And maybe it's arrogant of me to say that, but it's not religiously arrogant.

And the other religions aren't even worth my time so :P

Tee hee.

Post script: I changed ONE answer; the question about doing good being necessary for "Enlightenment" to 'not necessary' rearranges me to an Athiest/Humanist/Buddhist/Unitarian, in that order. Hmm. So I'm a nice person. I still say that "Religion is a crutch for the morally weak." That's not an indemnification. Some people need religion, just as long as it's not an 'opiate' that people use to make themselves feel better whenever they need it. A 'religion' should be your personal philosophy and your own motivations for doing what you do. The only dogmatic belief I really have is that you should be willing to do good things because they benefit other people, not because some spooky eternal punishment is looming over your head. The only problem with selflessness (i.e. Asimov's three laws of robotics) is the loss of the self, which is why I suppose, he added the zeroth law as an extension of the first law.

1. A robot shall do anything to save the life of a human and shall not, by inaction, let a human come to harm.
2. A robot shall follow any command given to him by a human, unless that command violates the first law.
3. A robot shall not do anything to bring itself harm, unless compelled to by the first or second law.

And law 0. A robot shall do anything for the preservation of the human species. This law overrides all three other laws. Yes, robots can kill. Yes, I can kill. I don't want to do it, though.

I always feel at the end of these long treatise-esque entries the need to ask, "Is anyone following this?" I mean, it makes sense to me, but are you, the reader, getting anything out of it?

  • Gender, what a concept!

    This is an essay I wrote but never shared after *last* year's #ComingOutDay. I touched it up a little, but it's still very rough (I've learned a…

  • Where ya from? :)

    The following piece is a monologue I performed for "The Griot Show" last weekend: I get asked this question a lot: "Where are you from?"…

  • Coming to rest.

    Copied from facebook (sorry, but it's something). One of the topics I was researching yesterday was sundive trajectories. It may be surprising, but…

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

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