Skip to main content

tell me something i don't know...

You scored as agnosticism. You are an agnostic. Though it is generally taken that agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve in God, it is possible to be a theist or atheist in addition to an agnostic. Agnostics don't believe it is possible to prove the existence of God (nor lack thereof).

Agnosticism is a philosophy that God's existence cannot be proven. Some say it is possible to be agnostic and follow a religion; however, one cannot be a devout believer if he or she does not truly believe.

agnosticism

79%
Satanism

63%
Buddhism

58%
Islam

58%
Judaism

50%
Hinduism

46%
Paganism

46%
atheism

42%
Christianity

25%

Which religion is the right one for you? (new version)
created with QuizFarm.com

Comments

qed said…
The questions were in some cases impossible to answer accurately - there were cases where both agreeing and disagreeing summed up my point of view inaccurately.

"Your beliefs most closely resemble those of Satanism! Before you scream, do a bit of research on it. To be a Satanist, you don't actually have to believe in Satan. Satanism generally focuses upon the spiritual advancement of the self, rather than upon submission to a deity or a set of moral codes. Do some research if you immediately think of the satanic cult stereotype. Your beliefs may also resemble those of earth-based religions such as paganism.

Satanism 96%

atheism 83%

Paganism 71%

agnosticism 67%

Buddhism 63%

Judaism 42%

Islam 33%

Hinduism 17%

Christianity 8%"
flora_mundi said…
indeed. i don't think the quiz authors are going to be doing studies for m.i.t. any time soon. i also found it difficult because of the way the questions were worded... i have confidence in my ability to set my own moral compass, but i'm not so sure about other people...
I got satanism too, with strong paganism and budhism following. Not too bad, and as you know me, its actually fairly accurate given the questions that were asked.

as long as you're here, why not read more?

eat the cup, part six :: francophonie

well, friends, i can hold back no more. i've ducked out of featuring either france or belgium thus far in eat the cup 2018 because i had a feeling that i would have plenty of time to get around to them. now, i have to admit that i was a little hesitant when i saw that belgium were facing tournament favourites brazil in the quarterfinals, but even then, i had a feeling that we hadn't seen the last of the kingdom of waffles. last time around, i felt that they failed to gel as a team, despite their pirate's chest of talent. this time, i think that they've had the time to get used to each other.

as far as france is concerned, i can't imagine that anyone thought that they weren't going to get to at least this stage. their roster reads like a manager's wet dream: pogba, varane, kante, lemar, griezman and, of course, mbappe. part of me feels like calling kylian mbappe [assuming i had his phone number, which i don't and never will] and telling him he might want…

eat the cup 2018, part seven :: oh, lionheart

it all seemed so magical: england's fresh-faced youngsters marching all the way through to a semi-final for the first time since 1990. everywhere, the delirious chants of "it's coming home". and then, deep into added time, the sad realization: it's not coming home. oh england, my lionheart.

now, if we're being really strict about things, my scottish ancestors would probably disown me for supporting England, because those are the bastards who drove them off their land and sent them packing to this country that's too hot in the summer and too cold in the winter. and indeed, shops in scotland have sold through their entire stock of croatian jerseys, as the natives rallied behind england's opponents in the semi-final. however, a few generations before they were starved and hounded from the lands they'd occupied for centuries, my particular brand of scottish ancestors would have encouraged me to support england [assuming that national football had even…

friday favourites 20.07.12

i was almost going to skip it this week. not out of any disinterest, but i always feel weird posting something flip and cheeky on days when the news is choked with stories of some location filled with people going about their lives suddenly getting shot up by a lone maniac with some sort of personal gripe or agenda.

awful things happen every single day. people who lead otherwise normal lives are suddenly transformed through violence every single day. by the harsh standards of the world, what happened last night in aurora, colorado isn't even close to the worst. i'm sure families in syria would consider a day where ten people died to be better than average. but there is something about these completely random mass shootings in otherwise fairly peaceful places that haunts us all here in the western world. it happened today with aurora. it happened a year ago sunday in norway. it happened in another colorado town, now synonymous with the terror of such a massacre in 1999.

what h…