Poll: What is your religion?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1486594

by cmelbye • 16 years ago

137 349 16 years ago

news.ycombinator.com

mgkimsal2• 16 years ago

Some time ago I put together a survey on programming languages and religious affiliation. http://www.kimsal.com/reldevsurvey/results.php and the filtered data is at http://www.kimsal.com/reldevsurvey/filtereddata.txt if anyone would care to pull it down and play with it.

it0ny• 16 years ago

Roman Catholic, so I voted Christian.

semanticist3• 16 years ago

Missed Paganism (or 'Paganism/Newage', as I frequently see it, much to my annoyance).

Also, I bet there's at least 14 people here who would fill out 'Jedi' on their census form.

hugh34• 16 years ago

Is Paganism a religion, or a large collection of (now defunct and poorly-understood) religions?

What are the ontological claims of paganism? Precisely which supernatural beings does paganism assert the existence of?

philwelch12• 16 years ago

There's actual paganism, which is gone. If you ever hear someone say "nobody seriously thinks Thor exists anymore", they're talking about paganism.

In recent decades, people (for whatever reason) decided to try and restart paganism--if you meet a "pagan" today, they're actually following one of these reconstituted religions.

I personally have trouble taking neopaganism seriously, largely because I've never known any serious neopagans, only disaffected suburban teenage girls who wanted some excuse, however flimsy, to be nonconformists. I've known people who took religion seriously, and I've known neopagans, but I've never met anyone in the intersection set. So my perception of neopaganism is quite dismissive.

semanticist3• 16 years ago

Modern Paganism (or 'neopaganism', but that's a mouthful and unnecessary when it's obvious from context you don't mean ancient paganism) is really an umbrella term that covers a pretty wide range of religious beliefs and practices.

There's Wicca, who believe in most of the things you see in the 'Idiots Guide' books to Witchcraft, there's various different breeds of reconstructionists who take archeological information about the ancient Pagan religions, fill in the many blanks to make it more appropriate for modern life, and have a go at that. They might believe in anything from the Norse pantheon to the Greek one.

There's Druids, who are proper nature-worshippers and really do perform ceremonies at Stonehenge, when they get a chance in between all the hippies.

There's technopagans, who believe in the spirit in the machine.

LeVay Satanists tend to get included under 'Paganism', although they might object. Same with Discordians.

It's an eclectic group.

mkramlich5• 16 years ago

that's a precise number to bet

thanks now I'm picturing a stealthed YC startup with exactly 14 employees, and their business is making and selling light-sabres

josefresco• 16 years ago

His Jedi-sense told him it was 14.

frognibble• 16 years ago

Pastafarian, so I voted nonreligous.

chc4• 16 years ago

It's not hard to be atheist or agnostic and a Buddhist. It's fundamentally a very god-optional religion (though some traditions add them back in, like Jodo Shinshu).

jacoblyles2• 16 years ago

Statements about the nature of reality arrived at through a mystical methodology conflict with scientific materialism even if no god is involved.

chc4• 16 years ago

Perhaps so, but neither atheism nor agnosticism is equivalent to scientific materialism.

PostOnce3• 16 years ago

Many schools of buddhism revere different buddhas as gods, believe reincarnation, a buddhist hell, etc. All too familiar.

All religions have something useful to be gleaned, as do nearly all books, even if the useful content of that book amounts to a single sentence.

pavelludiq• 16 years ago

Those ideas are not the core of buddhism. Its like saying that christians believe in the easter bunny. They are just historical and cultural baggage that got along for the ride.

blhack2• 16 years ago

Ha! I actually just finished arguing with somebody about the possibility of an agnostic Christian.

(I think this is possible)

gojomo• 16 years ago

The Simulation Argument.

RK2• 16 years ago

I like to call it The Great Grad Student In The Sky scenario.

csomar4• 16 years ago

Interesting question. I have lot of theories regarding religion and I wonder if the HN community is interested discussing them.

Just one question now (for Atheists): Why don't you believe in God. Do you have a good reason? Is it because it doesn't interest you? Is it because of a scientific theory that proved to you that God don't exist?

SamReidHughes• 16 years ago

Why do you believe you understand what exist means? (Edit: Uh, or why don't you?)

petervandijck8• 16 years ago

Quite simply, there is very, very little reason to believe in any type of "god". Sure, there's stuff we don't know. But trying to explain that away with some type of "god" thing doesn't cut it.

I find it quite baffling that anyone can believe in a god, actually. I mean, surely the logical inconsistencies in pretty much all religions must bother you? And moving away from organized religion, why would you believe in a "god"?

csomar4• 16 years ago

Quite simply, there is very, very little reason to believe in any type of "god". Sure, there's stuff we don't know. But trying to explain that away with some type of "god" thing doesn't cut it.

Quite good. We have a brain, we should analyze things and not only accept them as they are.

I find it quite baffling that anyone can believe in a god, actually. I mean, surely the logical inconsistencies in pretty much all religions must bother you?

A very good reason. The inconsistencies in religions are huge and spawn lot of doubts.

petervandijck8• 16 years ago

ps: at some point this discussion will mention the difference between Europeans and US Americans :) The importance of "god" in US culture is quite astounding, really.

zephyrfalcon5• 16 years ago

Hmm, well. I am from the ungodly Netherlands and have been living in Florida for about 9 years now. From what I can tell, the European media sure like to paint the US as a very religious country (among other things); and certainly, many Americans feel like they are, or pretend to be. At the same time, many of those same Americans do everything their god forbids, and apparently seem to think this is perfectly OK, assuming they give it much thought at all.

I am not looking to criticize Americans here, but I think in everyday life, there isn't all that much of a difference with less religious European countries, in spite of the apparent emphasis on religion here in the US.

terryjsmith2• 16 years ago

I personally find existing religions I have looked at (mostly Christian religions) insatisfactory and haven't found the need to dig too deeply into what else is out there. I am fine with not knowing why certain things are the way they are without replacing it with faith.

As I find with many atheists, I believe there may be some higher power, but it does not affect my daily life (outside of the way in which religious beliefs have become societal norms or vice versa).

csomar4• 16 years ago

but I personally find existing religions I have looked at (mostly Christian religions) insatisfactory and haven't found the need to dig too deeply into what else is out there.

You should take into account that those religions appeared hundred, yet thousands of year before you. They are custom made for the population of that time and they should have basic ideas that their brains can understand. So those religions may not meet your expectation. But, this in itself, is not a reason to say "God doesn't exist". You should dig somewhere else.

As I find with many atheists, I believe there may be some higher power

Scientifically speaking, there are not sort of "higher power".

dannytatom• 16 years ago

There is no reason to believe in a god, and no evidence to support it. I'd like to know why people do believe in a god, as not believing in one is fairly easy.

So, a question to your question, is there a good reason you believe in it (assuming you do)?

Edit: petervandijck said it better above me.

juliend23• 16 years ago

I personally cannot imagine a creation made by pure hazard to be this beautiful. I know that beauty is subjective. But i find that nature is so wonderfully created that -- for me -- it's hard to believe that there is no artist behind it. Like, when i see a nice piece of code, i know that there is a really good programmer behind it. :-)

jswinghammer9• 16 years ago

Well there is evidence but it's not evidence that you're presently accepting. The Bible is a sort of evidence and people's testimony is as well.

For my part I believe in God because he speaks to me regularly and I'm the last person you'd expect that to happen to. I was minding my own business when I started hearing from God. Everyone I knew at the time was totally shocked and it took me over two years to accept what God was telling me (i.e. that the Bible is for real and I would do well to listen to what he's saying through it to me). I read Nietzsche and Russell in college and enjoyed them. I didn't really like Christianity as a religion much but I was nice to Christians I met and didn't really argue with them much. I didn't believe in anything but was respectful to everyone in other words.

My life now is defined by me trying to connect with God and make the most of my time here. I'm not trying to earn anything but I'm working because my God works all the time on my behalf. If God is my father then doing what he does is only the right thing to do if I'm actually his son. I split my time between serving adults (pastoring type stuff), children (Sunday school stuff), and the poor (I run a temporary food pantry). I also run a business to support my family, help my community, and build wealth. I keep busy and wouldn't change anything.

For me not believing in God is pretty hard even though I've seen some pretty bad things happen to people in my community that we prayed to turn around for over two years in one case. The only thing to do in the face of massive disappointment is to continue on. I've seen amazing responses to prayer and some big unanswered prayers too. Jesus prayer before he was arrested was unanswered as well. I take some comfort in that.

Life is pretty complicated and there are no easy answers especially when it comes to God and a life of faith. For me the stakes of life were raised considerably when I started following Jesus. It's not easy but it's not me to figure it all out either. The only faith I argue for is a living faith with a deep connection to a living God. I'd encourage to learn about that faith--not the faith that people say is found in books. No one in the Bible lived that way why should you or anyone else?

danielford2• 16 years ago

I'm a deist because I find several of the philosophical arguments for God's existence compelling. Specifically I think the arguments from fine-tuning and the intelligibility of the universe are strongly in favor of God's existence. The Leibnizian and Kalam cosmological arguments are moderately in favor, and the arguments from morality, desire, and religious experience are weakly in its favor. Between those seven arguments, I'm about 80 - 90% sure some sort of God exists.

Of course, there are plenty of reasonable people who don't find them compelling. There's a lot of room for individual judgment in this area, and the subject is so incredibly complex that I don't find it surprising that thoughtful people come to completely different conclusions.

YuriNiyazov4• 16 years ago

Occam's razor.

adamzap2• 16 years ago

Is your disbelief in God solely based upon Occam's Razor? If so, could you elaborate on it a bit?

timschwartz2• 16 years ago

Which god?

michael_nielsen• 16 years ago

I don't believe in God because I've never heard a good reason to believe in God. I find it odd that you presume a need for a good reason to not believe in something. If I did need such reasons, I'd need a good reason to not believe in invisible pink unicorns, teapots in orbit around Saturn, and many other things. (Apologies if I've misinterpreted you.)

csomar4• 16 years ago

Good answer. It means that you are ready to believe if there are a really convincing reason; which is what I'm looking for.

But my question was mainly to check if you are not believing for a specific reason. A simple reason is "If God exist, why doesn't him make his existence CLEAR, without ambiguity by some kind of magical power or miracle."

marcamillion3• 16 years ago

Let's assume that neither of us know if God REALLY exists...don't you think it might be safer to hedge your bet and believe in a god - for the afterlife?

What will it cost you to believe in God while you are alive? Nothing.

What will it cost you if there really is a god and you chose not to believe? Could cost you eternity. So why not believe? The upside is (in the worst case) the same as not believing, but the downside (in the worst case) could be eternal damnation.

This is ofcourse assuming that the person that does exist, believes in the right god.

calcnerd2562• 16 years ago

or quantum

thisduck• 16 years ago

Much for the same reason that I don't believe Gollum (Lord of the Rings) or Harry Potter exist. For the same reason that I don't believe that there is a Giant Invisible Teapot in outer space (Russell's teapot).

Just so you know, it wasn't always this way. I used to believe in Allah (as a Muslim).

petervandijck8• 16 years ago

Hang on, so The Teapot isn't real??

revolvingcur3• 16 years ago

From someone raised in the Christian church:

I was taught from a very young age certain things about God and man: that God was all-knowing and all-powerful; that God was the creator of everything; that man was irrevocably prone to sin and therefore needed a savior; that God chose certain people to save; that heaven was the ultimate destination for those who were saved; etc...

As I grew older, I began to realize that other people had substantially different beliefs from the ones with which I had been inculcated. This was a realization only because I had been intentionally isolated from people who thought differently from my parents and educators. I noticed that what these different belief systems had in common was their moral program. All Abrahamic religions, and many others, prescribe how people ought to behave. But this moral program is not much different from common sense under conditions of abundance. The ways in which they differ are more interesting and are mostly tuned to ensure their adherents perpetuate the system.

So, with this in hand, it became readily apparent that the bulk of organized religion was a historical artifact from the time when peoples of old were figuring out how to treat one another (back at the emergence of what we term "civilization"). It is possible (and in my opinion, now necessary) to separate moral education from religious indoctrination since, ironically, much of the unrest in civilization is now caused by the differences in religious prescription rather than differences in morality.

Either that, or religious thought reeks of delusion and lacks any evidence whatsoever for what it claims. Seriously, I don't know any religious person who can demonstrate any reason for their belief other than indoctrination. Prove me wrong.

albemuth• 16 years ago

Given the poll results, it seems like you're preaching to the choir ;)

aik4• 16 years ago

If you truly are interested in being proven wrong or at least have your beliefs tried, there are plenty of books out there on non-religious people becoming religious.

rubinelli4• 16 years ago

Faith is the belief in what you can't prove. From a strictly rational point of view, it's a kind of madness, and the gospels explicitly point it out.

To use a source I'm sure you know, in I Corinthians 13 there is an apparent contradiction: even if you act piously, you act in vain if if you don't feel love. The religious experience is emotional and visceral, not logical. It comes before codes and rules. From this perspective, Pascal's Wager is irrelevant: if you don't follow a moral code because you believe in it, then you won't fool anyone, much less an omniscient God.

loewenskind• 16 years ago

>much of the unrest in civilization is now caused by the differences in religious prescription rather than differences in morality.

[citation needed]

Most of the unrest in civilization has the same source it's always had: fighting over wealth and/or power. Often leaders of these fights will claim some religious reason but what you have to ask yourself is; if you took religion out of the equation would they stop fighting or would they come up with some other reason.

I presume what you had in mind was the US vs. Iraq/Afghanistan but given that we know there were no terrorists (nor WMDs) in Iraq what "religious" component was there exactly? There are some pretty obvious "power" components though.

etherael5• 16 years ago

For the same reason that theists only believe in their concept of god, all the other options failed to convince them for whatever reason. We just have a higher standard of evidence, and nothing in the entire pantheon of theistic mythology has managed to sway us. Frankly this is less a reflection of the diamond sharp analytical abilities of the atheistic and more a reflection of the woefully inadequate nature of the theistic epistemology.

That said, what I'd like to know is why other people actually believe this? If you were to find your holy text in a cereal box and read it in totality now, would you truly think it a divinely inspired text? Or is it simply an ancient perspective hangover that has not diverted enough attention to it's structure to warrant a full critical analysis?

I expected even more of a skew toward atheism than I saw here, actually.

thingie• 16 years ago

Well, this kind of question is usually asked when someone is trying to force me some specific moral rules or kind of behavior, based on an idea, that if I believe in God, I'm somehow obliged to accept some specific set of moral rules (not that there were just a single one) or respect authority of some church or so on. In that case, I say no, to avoid it.

Otherwise, it's just a personal feeling about an English word. Which doesn't have much meaning to me. I have some workable idea about what God should be for me, I can even believe in it, but I guess it wouldn't make any sense to you or anybody else -- and I still remain an atheist :-)

Tycho3• 16 years ago

Personally I think even if God exists, religious people are still wrong. They're 'sucking up to God' instead of getting on with their lives on their own terms (ie. not accepting anything for which they have no proof).

Most people value religion because of its moral lessons (see PG's essay on relgious 'package deals' - I think it was in Why Nerds Are Unpopular), and perhaps fear the 'moral vacuum' of a godless world. But personally I have no trouble deriving morality from logic/reason and empirical data, so I have no need for religion.

For the record I think most of the Ten Commandments are valuable lessons regardless of their divinity.

Gormo15• 16 years ago

What do you mean by "believe"?

Does it mean considering that an idea you hold in your mind is a valid conceptual representation of some aspect of external reality?

Or does it mean to value an idea in itself, irrespective of its relationship with any autonomous external reality?

mkramlich5• 16 years ago

your question is exactly the kind of thing I was afraid a religion poll on HN would devolve into. let the endless debate & flamefest involving religion/God begin.... (runs away)

caf2• 16 years ago

Well, from a purely philosophical standpoint, I tend to agree that I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. As such, I used to describe myself as an agnostic.

However, more recently I have recognised that underneath that, deep down I just don't believe that there is a God - while simultaneously acknowledging the unprovability of this belief. So I now self-describe as atheist, and the reason why seems to be a deep-seated feeling that the theory of the existence of God just doesn't sit right. A non-God Universe is just somehow more... elegant.

It's also worth pointing out that I don't see a good practical reason to believe in a God, either. Since the God-theory makes no testable predictions, it is of little value in explaining the world around us. Explaining the past in terms of miracles perpetrated by an ineffable being gives us no guide for what to expect in the future, and is thus not worthwhile, even if it is correct.

robryan2• 16 years ago

Not only does it have little value in explaining the world around us but it encourages people just to accept the world around them as is and not attempt to understand it better.

jsz0• 16 years ago

Religion interests me a lot I just don't feel any need to elevate it to a super natural level. Lots of stories have moral messages but we don't worship Obi Wan as a real person who existed a long time ago in a galaxy far away do we? I guess science probably replaces the super natural element for me completely. As a non-religious person I follow most or all of the ten commandments in my everyday life. (most of us probably do) I don't do it based on the fear/promise of the super natural.

philwelch12• 16 years ago

The short answer is "no proof".

But I'm always amused at how religious people always drop back to arguing the existence of God. The existence of God by itself is a useless metaphysical claim. There's the physical universe. I get that. We can use science to figure out the physical universe. I get that. If you attach a caption to the universe saying "by the way, an all-powerful deity made this", how exactly does that matter?

Religion gets the real work done when it says, "the all-powerful deity doesn't want you buggering other men or eating shellfish." OK, you started with an unproven metaphysical claim, and then used it to try and convince me to change my dietary and sexual habits. You've gone from vacuous to inventing unproven reasons not to bugger other men or eat shellfish! That's the thing about religion I question the most! It doesn't matter whether God exists. Once you start making actionable claims that rest on the idea of the Almighty approving or disapproving of my behavior, that's where I actually start to disagree with you.

c1sc04• 16 years ago

Believing in God as an all-powerful deity can be refuted with logic alone, but that's not what makes me an atheist: it's mostly out of disgust at what organized religion has done to humanity. Religion in itself can be a source of good or evil, but I am convinced the power structures inherent in organized religion can only trend towards evil.

In the specific case of the roman catholic church I believe the pope should be arrested & trialed for crimes against humanity, stripped of his powers; vatican city should be dissolved & any claims of diplomatic immunity should be rejected. Never gonna happen though.

tomjen3• 16 years ago

I don't believe in any kind of gods, as we have no scientific claim that it exists and people have been looking for millennia.

But even if I did believe that there would be something up there, I don't believe in a Christian God - in fact I know such a person couldn't exist - because the bible has so many contradictions in it.

alan-crowe• 16 years ago

cats have four legs, but Gods has four letters. Sometimes a word is only a word and when a word isn't a pointer it is futile to discuss whether it dangles.

agentultra• 16 years ago

I don't believe in God because there is enough evidence in the world to suggest that the universe is relational. In a relational universe, everything that exists does so within the boundaries and parameters of that universe -- not outside of it. We have a sufficient understanding of the universe to understand that a being so described as "God" doesn't exist. Such a being would have to exist outside of that universe which is beyond existence and therefore cannot be said to "exist" by any definition of existence.

People are afraid that they might have it wrong, so they allow themselves to assert that since they cannot disprove the existence of "God" or some other inexplicable thing, then it could exist (or as some will further conclude, does exist). This little bit of fallacious logic can allow one to conclude that anything could be possible. It's rooted in the fear of uncertainty.

Still others will believe in an ephemeral "God" which they attribute to the unquanitifiable or undetermined aspects of the universe. Many scientists who also claim to be religious hold this view of the unverse (as far as I know). They will find "God" in their pursuit of the prime numbers, unexplained quantum phenomena, or some other mysterious corner of existence. However, I also find this view fallacious as the relational model of the universe will keep these "believers" continously finding new "Gods" all the time. We will figure out the prime numbers eventually, and there are more and more quantum phenomena explained by very solid theories.

It's like people with ghost stories. I know lots of people with stories about their encounters with ghosts. I've never seen one. I've looked and never seen one. Every story about ghosts usually involve a single person and rarely have witnesses. Why is that? If ghosts exist and are part of the natural order of the universe, why haven't I seen one? Why aren't they as normal as birds, trees, and air?

Any charlatan will generally be able to fill in the blanks here. Ghosts only make themselves known. I can't see them because I don't believe. Without any evidence for the existence their nature cannot be known so a person could attribute any sort of story about the nature of ghosts. So really the only real attribute about ghosts is that they make for useful literary devices.

Similarily, if "God" is a natural part of the universe (and indeed created the whole thing) why are any of us debating whether "God" exists at all? It's precisely because "God" doesn't exist that we can debate endlessly about the nature of "God" and it's existence. Our fear and uncertainty will permit us to assert the possiblity of "God"'s existence.

I have no such fear.

What I do fear is the culmination of such uncertainty and fear organizing into legally-recognized institutions that brow-beat the public into tolerating their beliefs.

xaei• 16 years ago

I'd be interested in the breakdown between non/atheist/agnostic, as there are significant differences e.g. level, intensity, or existence of belief structures.

jk• 16 years ago

I am a Quaker. I voted other.

cookiecaper2• 16 years ago

Why did you vote "other"? Quakers are Christian, aren't they? All traditions called "Quaker" with which I am familiar are Christian.

joe-mccann• 16 years ago

Secular Humanist, so I filed under non/agnon/etc.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=what&secti...

My opinion is that the argument FOR the existence of God is just as philosophically bankrupt to argue AGAINST the existence of God. Best answer: I don't know.

Secular humanism covers the majority of my values without ascribing to any dogmatism. I have a feeling a lot more people are actually secular humanist, but may not know it.

philwelch12• 16 years ago

Secular humanism feels too much like a brand name for a set of ideologies I may or may not fully agree with. I don't really need anyone else to come up with a brand name for my ideology, especially since it changes every week or so when I meditate for two hours and do my Bayesian updates. (Joke).

timschwartz2• 16 years ago

Apatheist

Gormo15• 16 years ago

Same. An option always overlooked in these polls; apparently most people are more concerned about what's "true" than what's important.

cema8• 16 years ago

How is it different from "agnostic"?

klodolph5• 16 years ago

Agnostic is, "I don't know whether god exists."

Apatheistic starts with, "I don't care whether god exists." But it often continues from there, and apatheists can also include as their beliefs "Questions of theology should not motivate morality." Some apatheists are strongly atheistic and not agnostic, saying "God doesn't exist, but this fact is irrelevant to human affairs." I find apatheist theists not inconceivable, "God exists but who cares?"

Kind of like when you ask, "How many feet are there in a mile?" and I say, "The answer to your question is irrelevant because you should switch to metric. It is wrong to use imperial units for any purpose. And there are 5,280 feet in a mile." I can honestly say that I don't care how many feet there are in a mile, and yet I know the correct number.

cema8• 16 years ago

Looks like I have asked an unpopular question.

fizx• 16 years ago

Where's the vim option?

cmelbye• 16 years ago

I considered it, but then I would have to add Emacs, and then I'd have to add Lisp, and it would've just gotten messy. ;-)

mixmax• 16 years ago

Where's the Cowboy Neil option?

zephyrfalcon5• 16 years ago

Wrong website :-)

younata• 16 years ago

falls under paganism with emacs.

augustl• 16 years ago

Whenever I (atheist) meet religious people and start nerd raging, I remind myself of the following:

The world makes equally amounts of sense for a religious person as it does to an atheist.

It's easy to dismiss religion when you're an atheist, because science makes so much sense that it is a perfectly adequate explanation of the world around us (in the sense that it acknowledges that proving things are difficult). But for a religious person, religion makes just as much sense and adequately explains the world around them.

I think the two should be viewed as poles that have nothing in common and are complete opposites. And both should acknowledge that either may or may not be correct.

anthonyb8• 16 years ago

We have very different ideas of 'adequate' then. For example, I'll take modern medicine over faith healing any day.

kylemathews2• 16 years ago

That's a false dichotomy for the vast majority of religious people. There are very few people that believe exclusively in faith healing and don't accept modern medicine.

protomyth2• 16 years ago

I always wonder about the argument that since I believe in a higher power I am excluded from a belief in science and medicine. It is mostly an argument to diminish someone's position and make them defend territory that 90+% of religious people don't believe or want to defend.

On a personal level, I am a Christian and I believe in the Big Bang (let there be light). I don't have any problems with evolution (1). I believe in pursuing science and medicine is good and fits in fine with that whole dominion thing (Genesis 1:26). One's faith is awful fragile if using the mind we were given breaks our world. I personally can't prove a lot of things (love for example), but I have faith. I don't follow everything in the bible (for example: Deuteronomy 23:12-14 and Exodus 21:2-6), but it is an inspired work not literal and some practices just aren't acceptable these days. I really think it is also important to understand that there seems to be an unfortunate separation between people's belief and the earthly institutions that are supposed to embody them.

1) if you breed dogs for ability (e.g. hunting) and don't believe in evolution or Darwin's writings on the subject, then I am really confused how you explain the whole adaption thing.

mortenjorck2• 16 years ago

If more atheists thought that way about theists, and more theists thought that way about atheists, I think we'd all have a better time on this planet.

Message boards would be a dying business, though.

rbanffy7• 16 years ago

With the important difference science is repeatable and verifiable. Don't trust CERN's data? Build a particle accelerator and measure it yourself.

How do you test/compare different, mutually-excluding hypothesis on the existence and characteristics of god given by the various religions?

You know perfectly well an all-powerful god is a logical impossibility.

coryl2• 16 years ago

I think I'm willing to entertain the idea of God on a philosophical level, but not on a practical day to day life level.

philwelch12• 16 years ago

How could you? The idea of God by itself is just a weird metaphysical claim like "maybe we're all actually in the Matrix"--okay, I fully admit that possibility, but there's nothing I can do about it, by itself.

Which is why theistic religions don't stop with God. They say things like, "God exists, and he says don't eat pork. Seriously. DON'T EAT PORK." That's actionable.

protomyth2• 16 years ago

To be fair about the Biblical food and health mentions, it was more a health guide for the ancient world than anything else. Deuteronomy 23:9-14 are about cleanliness and Leviticus 11 covers the food.

techiferous3• 16 years ago

I find it strange to separate philosophy from practicality. If your philosophy does not have practical implications, you're doing it wrong.

coryl2• 16 years ago

I'm also not a pagan nor a Christian, but I celebrate their Christmas holiday.

jbm• 16 years ago

It seems disingenuous to mix Agnosicism with Atheism. Both are utterly different - one makes a knowledge claim (atheism) while the other is in a position of neutrality or indifference (agnosticism)

Tycho3• 16 years ago

as far as everyday life goes, would it make a difference? Being part of the religions usually means various changes to your routines

sliverstorm2• 16 years ago

Although, an agnostic who is aware of the implications of Pascal's Wager would probably still implement those changes.

zemaj• 16 years ago

I think the split is a fairly good indication of how rational someone is. People who consider themselves atheist tend to act more rationally in the bayesian sense.

I'd like to see a split between atheists and agnostics, particularly because the numbers are so high in that category in this community. I would guess that there would be many more agnostics than atheists. I don't think that being an entrepreneur is particularly bayesianly rational :)

anthonyb8• 16 years ago

Agnostics are just sissy Atheists.

anthonyb8• 16 years ago

What? They are so - they don't believe in God, but also don't want to bring down the hellfire and brimstone just in case they're wrong!

RK2• 16 years ago

Really comes down to a matter of definitions. For example, many would claim that atheism is simply the lack of a belief. Some would define agnosticism as the positive belief that the existence of God cannot be known. But these are just example definitions.

jeromec2• 16 years ago

I agree definitions vary, and that can cause confusion. For example, people unsure of what to believe can label themselves agnostic. Some call this "fence sitting". At the same time there is what's called weak atheism and strong atheism, the latter asserting there are no gods, which of course is a stupid assertion to make in an absolute sense. So weak atheism makes the most sense as it makes no assertion; it's just the absence of belief. So a weak atheist could technically be labeled agnostic, which is how I define myself, and appears the most rational definition for having no god belief.

electromagnetic• 16 years ago

Grouping atheists with agnostics is as catch-all as 'Christianity'. I was educated Anglican and to me it's as vastly different from Catholicism as you can tell, my youth minister was actually a methodist and the assistant was baptist. My shop teacher was actually a Quaker, who actively disbelieved in the hierarchical structure of church, who was the person who probably put me on a path to agnosticism.

My agnosticism is of the - God's existence cannot be proven or disproven (at least in my lifetime, or potentially within the human races existence as homo sapiens) so it's illogical to take the side of religion or anti-religion. The logical conclusion (to me) is that it is an unknowable variable, concerning myself with it is a wasted effort.

Besides Greek Mythology has all the cool stories, Heracles slaying Hyrdas and freeing Prometheus. If religion can't entertain me in the slightest then it truly holds no value to me.

mkramlich5• 16 years ago

bundling those together is approx equal to saying one is non-superstitious/non-makebelieve.

chc4• 16 years ago

I wouldn't agree with this assessment. Atheism is not a knowledge claim; it's just disbelief in God. Similarly, I don't believe in intelligent life on other worlds, but that isn't a knowledge claim — there's just no good reason to believe in it.

Agnosticism, however, is a knowledge claim: It's the claim that God is is unknowable.

nwomack• 16 years ago

I have to respectfully disagree. I think you have your definitions mixed up.

Agnosticism is 'There may be a god, but I don't care enough to claim one way or the other', I think the 'fence sitting' argument is good.

Atheism is: 'There is no god' ie, Richard Dawkins

Atheism is a stronger claim than Agnosticism.

jfr• 16 years ago

If Agnosticism and Atheism (and nonreligious) were different options I would have a problem choosing which one to vote (and I think many other people here too). There is a lot of overlap among these options, and the definitions vary.

There is more than one definition of Atheism (some classify them in weak and strong atheism, but even these two classes aren't enough for some), and there are different "levels" of Agnosticism depending on your country or culture. Some of these differences are because of communication issues. For example, there is controversy if "lack of belief" and "disbelief" are synonymous (compare with "not liking" and "disliking"). When books on such topics are translated to other languages, such nuances may get lost.

philwelch12• 16 years ago

Atheism and agnosticism are orthogonal:

1. If you believe in a god but don't claim to have knowledge, you are a theist agnostic. (This is not that silly. Many people believe things they do not claim to know. For instance, you can believe that P != NP while acknowledging the question as unproven and unknown.)

2. If you don't believe in a god but don't claim to have knowledge, you are an atheist agnostic.

3. If you claim to know, not just believe, that a god exists, you're a theist (but not an agnostic).

4. If you claim to know there are no gods, you're an atheist (but not an agnostic).

alanh4• 16 years ago

For strict definitions of these words, you are right. In practice I find the following equivalent list of terms more common:

1. Deism

2. Atheism

3. Theism

4. Strong atheism

klodolph5• 16 years ago

5. If you claim that the question, "does a god exist?" cannot be meaningfully answered due to flaws in the nature of the question, then you are a theological noncognitivist.

6. If you claim that the question, "does a god exist?" cannot be answered before defining "god", then you are an ignosticist. An ignosticist who claims that "god" cannot be defined is therefore also claiming that "does a god exist?" can never be answered.

7. If you claim that the question, "does a god exist?" is not worth answering, then you are apatheistic.

8. Alternatively, if you choose to assume that the answer to the question, "does a god exist?" is "no", but do not consider it worth the effort to attempt to answer the question conclusively, then you are apatheistic.

9. If you claim that the question, "does a god exist?" cannot be answered because the question cannot be correctly communicated due to differences in the definition of "god" and/or "exist" between the idiolects of the persons attempting to communicate the question to each other, then you are a philosophy major.

9b. If (9) above applies but you manage to work the word "qualia" into the discussion, then you are a philosophy major and I'm changing the subject.

Gormo15• 16 years ago

I think a lot of the arguments that conclude that believing in God is irrational are actually prevaricating on the word "believe".

You qualified definition '1' with "this is not silly" - on the contrary, I think it is in many cases the most reasonable option.

hugh34• 16 years ago

Except that I'm not sure that true atheists, as distinct from agnostics, actually exist. Challenge any atheist and they'll admit that the existence of one or more deities is possible, but very unlikely.

The real distinction is between "teapot agnostics", who think gods are incredibly unlikely, and "proper" agnostics, who actually think it's reasonably probable. Many teapot agnostics will call themselves atheists just for the sake of saving time.

alanh4• 16 years ago

I prefer "strong atheism" in lieu of the Scottsman-esque term "true atheism."

After all, atheism is commonly just a rejection ("a-") of theism. Adeism, if you will, would be the belief there is absolutely no god. Just like deism weakly claims there is a god but we aren't sure what it's like, but theism tells us everything about this god.

tzs2• 16 years ago

I'll also admit that the existence of Santa Claus, who lives at the North Pole in some kind of cloaked fortress and has some kind of time-warp technology that allows him to deliver toys to boys and girls world wide in one night is possible.

Nevertheless, I think it would be stupid to describe myself as a Santa Claus agnostic as opposed to a Santa Claus atheist. We have a very good explanation for the Santa Claus story, so there is zero reason to entertain the notion that it might be true.

Same for gods. We have good explanations for how the god stories arose. We can observe that all human societies have these stories, but that they are inconsistent from society to society. We can observe the the believes are convinced that there is something special about theirs--but we see that for the believers from each.

Given that, agnosticism seems a cop out to me.

klodolph5• 16 years ago

By this same logic I could argue that no scientist is Christian, and no Christian is a scientist.

Ask any scientist who is Christian, "does a good scientist believe claims that cannot be independently verified?" Then ask, "do you believe in god?" The questions "are you a good scientist?" and "can the existence of god be independently verified?" follow.

You'll force this poor scientist to admit they're not a good scientist, or perhaps as a compromise you can say that the existence of god is a hypothesis which they have not yet been able to test to their satisfaction (which doesn't sound like belief to me).

Okay, that's actually not the most common result (I might expect a lecture on politesse, or perhaps a simple request to shut my trap). But I find it detestable to go around and tell people that they label themselves wrong, e.g., "You are not a true atheist." It's almost as villainous to say things like "Strong atheists do not exist." when there are plenty of people who claim to be strong atheists. Say instead something like, "strong atheism is not a tenable position." Or, "strong atheism is logically inconsistent." Then, at least, I won't think of you quite so poorly, and we can argue logic instead of identity.

For the record, I'm positive that there are many good scientists who are also Christians. I'm also positive that there are many strong atheists.

P.S. It's bad enough that as a bisexual male I don't exist, but as a strong atheist too I doubly don't exist. Harsh.

c1sc04• 16 years ago

"Challenge any atheist and they'll admit that the existence of one or more deities is possible, but very unlikely."

To which I counter: "Needlepins & how many angels they can hold." It just doesn't matter.

"God lives in a place where reason can't go" is the kind of weak argument I hate most about theism. If you're arguing about the remote possibility of god existing, you're pulling at straws.

Is it so hard to accept that we are just animals with highly evolved, yet ultimately limited brains? Is it so hard to accept that we can't understand everything?

petercooper• 16 years ago

Both are utterly different - one makes a knowledge claim (atheism) while the other is in a position of neutrality or indifference (agnosticism)

Sure, but making a knowledge claim doesn't make it any less objective or wise than being neutral.

I can say that there is definitely not a red 1982 Chevy Silverado orbiting Jupiter and that's a "knowledge claim", yet someone who says they're not sure or are neutral about my claim don't hold a superior position in any sense and would, in fact, look a little silly given the lack of evidence against it.

chegra3• 16 years ago

Absence of evident is not the evident of absence.

SandB0x• 16 years ago

Hmm, mostly agnostic eh? Looks like a startup could shake things up here. Let's bootstrap a new religion! http://god.ly has a nice ring to it.

danicgross• 16 years ago

mix it up with some virtual currency and you're ready to rock the IPO

petervandijck8• 16 years ago

ok I clicked that link. http://god.ly

mortenjorck2• 16 years ago

Aha, here's why it hasn't been squatted:

Strings shorter than four symbols long are to be registered directly under .ly ONLY through Libya Telecom and Technology in the upcoming period to guarantee that registrants have Local presence.

http://www.nic.ly/lyregistrars.php

axod• 16 years ago

languages, frameworks, etc are the religions around here. Do you believe in node.js? jquery? git?

rdl• 16 years ago

I do not see Python listed here, I believe you should update your poll. :)

zephyrfalcon5• 16 years ago

Missed Taoism here... =(

rbanffy7• 16 years ago

Pastafari

_bfhp• 16 years ago

I recognize the fact that the theory of the existence of a deity or deities is logically, scientifically, factually, demonstrably, historically, and obviously devoid of any creditability. So yea, nonreligious.

Allow me to plug a speech by Douglas Adams before any discussion attempts to ensure: http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/

also, 3 scientologists? gosh.

AngryParsley• 16 years ago

I voted scientologist because I can't resist giving silly answers to polls. A couple others probably behaved similarly.

bg4• 16 years ago

Jedi

niekmaas• 16 years ago

I'm missing the Chuck Norris option. To me he is still the answer to everything.

Rhapso2• 16 years ago

Unitarian Universalist

thegyppo• 16 years ago

Jedi

Gormo15• 16 years ago

It's fairly common for people to respond to this sort of question by saying something along the lines of "I disapprove of organized religion, but have spiritual faith."

My own view is exactly the opposite. I see the value in the ritual, community, and psychological "anchor" that organized religion can provide. But spiritual faith seems absurd; why mix your emotional security and your sense of identity up with a bunch of conceptual abstractions, or delude yourself into thinking that the subjective and particular is really objective and universal?

I respect religion, per se, and hold no grudge against religions that use theology and mythology as part of their symbolic repertoire. So when I say "I do not believe in God", I'm not so much rejecting God as rejecting belief.

Whether or not God exists objectively isn't really something I think about or care about answering.

MikeCapone4• 16 years ago

> Whether or not God exists objectively isn't really something I think about or care about answering.

I think that you could fairly be described as an agnostic, then.

Gormo15• 16 years ago

Apathetist is a better description. An agnostic says he doesn't know the answer; I'm saying the question is meaningless.

indiefan• 16 years ago

This is actually a faith claim In and of itself. Your basically saying you don't believe there is a God who desires (or worse, requires) anything from you. Otherwise it would be in your best interest to care. You're completely entitled to your own beliefs, but passing it off as a position of "non-belief" is illogical. It's the same paradox as "there is no truth" being a truth claim. You sound like a person of great dedication to your belief, despite (and actually because of) your statements to the contrary.

Gormo15• 16 years ago

That's an excellent point. I'd agree that I have a somewhat Kantian conceptualist worldview, in that I consider that I have access only to my own experience of the world, not to the world itself, so all knowledge is inherently subjective and particular.

But thinking this way, "there is no truth" is only a synthetic claim of truth, not an analytic one; that is, it is "true" because the terms are logically consistent with each other given the rules that define their context (i.e. language), not because it expresses an objective representation of reality.

In other words, given the subjective and particular nature of my experience of the world, I have no basis on which to construct a universal understanding of the world, so I am therefore incapable of making any analytical claim of truth in any universal sense.

More practically, I'd say that ideas, including the idea of God, and including the processes of science, are useful tools that enhance our experience of the world, not objective and "true" representations of the world, and are best judged on how useful they are, not whether they are "true".

djacobs5• 16 years ago

"Not believing" is not the same as "believing against". The first involves no claim, positive or negative, about religion except in response to a question or prompt. The second is an active disbelief or truth claim.

Most atheists do not go around saying "I know there is no god" but, if asked "do you believe in a god/something supernatural/things you can't see", they would answer "no".

Not many atheists are strong atheists (those who "believe against god", who believe the existence of god is objectively disproven). Rather, they are not convinced by anything they experience that there is a god and so do not believe in one, just as they do not believe in unicorns or pots o' gold at the end of the rainbow. (Surely you wouldn't say they are making a faith claim about unicorns just because they don't happen to acknowledge their existence.)

However, they often actively push back against encroaching beliefs that they have not, themselves, claimed as their own.

This distinction between "nonbelief" versus "disbelief" is subtle but important.

EDIT: The only faith claim I could possibly agree atheists have is a general statement about the nature of faith as it relates to them. Namely, most say "I will not have faith. I will only accept as true that which can be demonstrated."

ErrantX3• 16 years ago

Do you like cola? Yes. Oh, so you are a colaist?

One thing I dislike about society is you have to have a religion - even if it is no religion. As someone else has pointed out it just doesn't matter to some of us - until asked outright.

Tichy• 16 years ago

"Otherwise it would be in your best interest to care"

That's still assuming anything matters. So maybe there is a god that hurts me if I don't do his bidding. What is hurt (just some electrons choosing other paths than for pleasure)? Why should I care? What does it matter, if all I can do is what a god wants me to do?

apinstein• 16 years ago

Mine, too. It's called secular humanism.

drlisp3• 16 years ago

ANTI-theism != atheist

tybris2• 16 years ago

A Dutch comedian once described this as the church of Aliquid, for people who believe there is "something". Despite most people calling themselves non-religious, Aliquid turned out to be the most popular faith in the Netherlands.

tybris2• 16 years ago

For those interested (Dutch speakers) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvcb5hJuEgU

cema8• 16 years ago

I am an atheistic Jew. A Jew can be defined as a member of the religion or as a member of the ethnic group; this often causes confusion.

calcnerd2562• 16 years ago

Especially when someone claims to be a member of an ethnic group because their parents were of the corresponding religion.

cema8• 16 years ago

Yes. I think there is also a confusion about what is an ethnic group (breed versus culture).

dmpayton• 16 years ago

Can we have an "It's complicated" option?

novon• 16 years ago

I prefer to live life with the cup half full, if you remove the "doubt" in your mind, there is a peaceful underlying unity that can be sensed. Doesn't benefit anyone to make it more complex than that.

lionhearted• 16 years ago

Hey, the three people who voted Shinto - care to share what your practice is like? I was always interested to have a chat with someone who practices modern Shinto...

po• 16 years ago

I didn't vote and I wouldn't identify myself as Shinto, but I did get married in a shinto shrine here in Tokyo. I typically describe shintoism as similar to native american religions and/or paganism. People here in Japan seem to practice shintoism more as a set of cultures and customs than what a westerner would describe as a religion.

There is a belief in good and bad fortune which can be altered by prayer to various spirits. The shrine sells lots of trinkets to help improve your luck in various aspects of your life. It reminds me a bit of Catholics who keep a St. Christopher trinket in their car for safe travels. At the shrine where I got married, it was discovered that there was a "power spot" on a path behind the shrine: a little puddle of water from a nearby spring. People would line up to take a turn standing in front of it and say a prayer.

We visit our local shrine on holidays, mostly because it is fun and peaceful. Sometimes there are festivals with good food, drink and music. People here will celebrate and visit a church, a temple (buddhist), or a shrine (shinto) without really seeing that there might be inconsistency. Christian weddings are very popular these days because the girls like to dress up in the princess-like "costume". I was recently told that you often don't know what religion someone is until they die: because then it comes down to what part of the cemetery do they put your ashes in.

rikthevik• 16 years ago

Nothing for us Deists, I guess. :)

MikeCapone4• 16 years ago

Interesting that at the moment "Nonreligious/Atheist/Agnostic/etc" has more votes than all the others combined.

ilamont• 16 years ago

Wait 'til the "Christian News" discussion forum finds out about the poll, and sends their members over en masse to vote.

On a serious note, I think many people who believe in science/technology, and/or practice its many disciplines, are more likely to logically consider questions/claims relating to religion in the same way they evaluate other aspects of society. In the absence of observable evidence, many will be undecided about the existence of God, or will conclude that there is no god, and choose "Nonreligious/Atheist/Agnostic" to describe their own beliefs.

MikeCapone4• 16 years ago

Agreed. As Dawkins says, we are all atheists about most of the gods that were ever claimed to exist (Zeus, Apollo, Thor, Vishnu, etc). Some of us just go one god further.

hakl2• 16 years ago

Emacsian. I don't believe in God, so atheist is technically correct, but probably misleading.

zephjc• 16 years ago

Taoist (in the classical sense) so I voted Atheist

PostOnce3• 16 years ago

I am not an adherent of any organized religion, but this question is puzzling:

Where did stuff come from? There are two possibilities, either 1] it was put there, or 2] it was just there to begin with.

God is an easy solution, but then where did he come from? Same problem.

Maybe there are other possibilities that our brains just aren't able to process at this stage in our evolution.

Anyway, before anyone says "the big bang", isn't that the explanation of how stuff got where it is, rather than how it came to be to begin with? It started with a singularity, where'd that come from?

tensor• 16 years ago

That is a classic philosophical question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_movens

rokhayakebe3• 16 years ago

Maybe there are other possibilities that our brains just aren't able to process at this stage in our evolution.

Voila. You nailed it.

bad_user7• 16 years ago

This can be turned around ... maybe our brains aren't able to process the existence of God.

Gormo15• 16 years ago

Who is to say that our concept of things "coming from" places even corresponds to anything real with respect to the origin of reality? Why must we presume that the universe has a definite point of origin in space and time?

ErrantX3• 16 years ago

What came before the singularity is a great question.

It's delicious to theorise for fun.

One day we may even figure it out.

blhack2• 16 years ago

>God is an easy solution, but then where did he come from? Same problem.

God isn't made of matter and does not experience linear time.

(We can't comprehend the answer to this question).

oscardelben2• 16 years ago

How do you know?

memetichazard3• 16 years ago

My belief in God is at the same level as my belief in a multiverse of which we are just one universe amongst infinite.

- It would be great if this were true (Yay afterlife/alternate worlds!)

- No one can provide any convincing evidence for existence.

- It is impossible to prove nonexistence.

- The truth of this matter has absolutely no influence on my life. i.e. focus on other things should take priority before focus on this, although it is always fun to read about and debate existence.

rokhayakebe3• 16 years ago

- It would be great if this were true (Yay afterlife/alternate worlds!)

Must there be a God for there to be an afterlife?

memetichazard3• 16 years ago

My thoughts are that religion and God is about, or at least originates from a desire for, the afterlife. Hence, deathbed conversions, the focus on heaven, hell, and eternal damnation. Thus God -> Afterlife, and the converse is not really focused on.

bad_user7• 16 years ago

I fluctuate constantly between being an agnostic and being a believer in God.

Truth of the matter is, when misfortune/tragedy strikes (like the loved ones having health problems) it really helps to believe in God.

My wife just gave birth to a premature child. He's a boy and he's in very good health, but he was born at 30 weeks (now he's at 32). Her water broke at 27 weeks.

We were on the cutting-edge with this pregnancy ever since the start ... she had 2 embryonic bags (most likely twins) and lost one, causing her an ugly hemorrhage and a detachment of the other bag. This detachment was nullified by the child growing, and her water breaking was totally unrelated to that (urinary infection).

After the water broke, the child stayed in her for another 3 weeks, because at 27 weeks children are not viable. This was a dangerous and highly unlikely outcome ... when water breaks most women go into labor immediately. And if not ... it is dangerous because the amniotic fluid was mostly gone and both mother and child could have suffered (even death) from a uterus infection.

And I could say that this was just our luck or that we had some kind of a divine intervention ... I prefer the later, and I would probably go mad if it was the former.

I also noticed another thing ... I have several friends that are now doctors, and I also made lots of friends in the hospital since my wife was hospitalized. People working in health-care have an easier time believing in God than in any other profession I know. Probably because they witness highly unlikely events a lot (miracles do happen).

djacobs5• 16 years ago

1. I'm not sure why forcing yourself to believe in god (if that is even possible—I don't think it is) helps in times of tragedy. One, you know you're just telling yourself stuff to make yourself feel better. This, in itself, can't feel good. Two, it is not comforting to know that there's this benevolent god up there who exists but is doing nothing to stop your tragic situation.

2. I know of no documented miracles. In fact, such a proposition is unproveable, as is the claim that "miracles do happen".

DaveChild5• 16 years ago

> People working in health-care have an easier time believing in God

I know a great many doctors, nurses and other health-care workers and I don't know a single one who believes in any gods. Maybe it's just a UK thing, but watching good people die painfully and slowly is fairly destructive to blind faith in an allegedly benevolent god.

> miracles do happen

[citation needed]

rjprins• 16 years ago

On the matter of proving nonexistence, this is possible. The problem lies with the definition of a god.

Whenever you try to proof anything, you assume the world is causal/deterministic. An omnipotent influence is therefore also deterministic. This makes any god equal to a law of nature. Define your 'law that is a god' and it can be proven to exist/not-exist in theory.

talonx• 16 years ago

>- It would be great if this were true (Yay afterlife/alternate worlds!)

Why can't you do enough in one life? Craving for an afterlife is the pastime of procrastinators.

samratjp• 16 years ago

Mine is python, so I selected other.

quan• 16 years ago

Here's the visualization of the current poll snapshot (as of 11:47pm EST): http://hackerpolls.heroku.com/polls/44

Disclosure: I created this awhile ago and almost forgot about it until I saw this poll

10ren3• 16 years ago

oblig. Einstein repeatedly argued that there must be simplified explanations of nature, because God is not capricious or arbitrary. No such faith comforts the software engineer. Fred Brooks, p. 184 The Mythical Man-Month 2nd ed.

It's interesting to me that several people I greatly admire in comp sci/technology are religious: Fred Brooks, Knuth, Larry Wall and Clayton Christensen (The Innovator's Dilemma).

To me, one aspect of the idea of God is as a workable label for all the things I don't know (especially those questions I know not of; the doors I have not suspected exist; the things my philosophy does not dream of; the unknown unknowns). Also helps me to seek questions (define problems) even if I can't imagine knowing the answer (finding solutions). It helps me to just let it be.

Another aspect is political: human beings, like other apes, tend to organize around a dominant male (and even chickens have a pecking order). When groups grew in size due to agriculture and civilization, this scaled to super-dominant males - gods embodied in persons (I'm thinking ancient Egypt). This was dangerous. The next innovation was to transfer that "super-dominance" to a person who doesn't actually exist. This is safer, and of course this imaginary personage can embody all those ideas an actual human can only move towards but never attain. Although wars were still fought in the name of a God, there was a separation. That's a theory of mine anyway. Feel free to poke holes, build it up, tear it down (esp with evidence).

sjwright3• 16 years ago

That's all fine as long as you don't make the leap from "my imaginary friend is useful" to "my imaginary friend is real".

I would however assert an unnecessary semantic overloading -- why use a word (God) that has so many assumptions built into it? Invent a new word, and confuse fewer people.

bad_user7• 16 years ago

> That's all fine as long as you don't make the leap from "my imaginary friend is useful" to "my imaginary friend is real".

You seem to assume that the later is a bad outcome. Also you can't really have a useful "imaginary friend" if don't believe he's real, or do you?

> why use a word (God) that has so many assumptions built into it? Invent a new word, and confuse fewer people.

Because God is word with a clearly defined semantic and definition ...

  the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and 
  omniscient originator and ruler of the universe

All unanswered questions about the Universe or God start with the most important question ...

  considering the law of Action-Reaction, how did it all started?

Which has the nice property that has the answer to all unanswered questions. And if you're going to answer that with "some superior, omnipotent being (whose existence we can't comprehend) did it all", then it's philosophy 101 ...

  there can't be two unsurpassable beings each of which is God

So why have another word with a watered-down meaning for it?

10ren3• 16 years ago

I realize you're speaking generally rather than addressing the comment you're replying to, but I did say "the idea of God".

Gormo15• 16 years ago

Not to get all solipsistic, but we can only validate our ideas against our experience of reality, not objective reality itself. If the imaginary friend is part of your experience of reality, and indeed something that you seek to experience because of its usefulness, what's the significance of the distinction you made above?

fleitz• 16 years ago

Most people are religious and that number is only decreasing recently, thus one should expect a certain number of luminaries in any domain to be religious.

Looking through history and trying to discern intent is a difficult thing to do. I don't think any of the development of God(s) as a concept was done with much long term intent but was likely as most things are done the result of mutually beneficial agreements made on the spot to secure wealth and power between the parties to the agreement.

Basically, stuff happens and then people talk their book, each gains a number of supporters and the interested parties create a consensus or official truth that best meshes with the official truth from the previous event. The magna carta wasn't signed because the King or Parliament had some love of freedom. The opportunity existed for a power grab and they took it. Even the Declaration of Independence was heavily watered down after it reached committee. Sure, Jefferson and Washington might have been true believers but most of the signatories were want to exclude things that would negatively impact their bottom line. (eg. abolishing slavery). Look at the list of grievances it's mostly about money.

bad_user7• 16 years ago

> the result of mutually beneficial agreements made on the spot to secure wealth and power between the parties to the agreement ... Look at the list of grievances it's mostly about money.

This is a very superficial perspective, born of a bad recollection of history.

Christianity gained dominance and power during the fall of Rome, a movement born on the streets of a decaying society, with the Christians prosecution having the negative effect of drawing the attention of the public ... a public which was hungry for a saner sense of moral values.

The power grabbing taking place was only to secure their freedom of religion, at least initially.

Of course, as with all religions ... Christianity was used to control the masses and did ended being used for power grabbing. But that's mostly because uneducated masses are stupid as cows ... and you can credit the translated Bibles for people's willingness to learn how to read.

10ren3• 16 years ago

I didn't mean it to be with long-term intent, but similar to the adoption of a technology: groups that use it prosper, and others join them, or copy them, or are out-traded, outnumbered or conquered by them. There might not be any conscious thought at all, except - they look cool, let's copy.

oscardelben2• 16 years ago

Honestly I think it's a cultural thing. It's easier to just leave what you don't know to an unknown thing called "god". That's just laziness imo and fear, and probably hope that we are somehow immortal.

joubert2• 16 years ago

So the more we know, the fewer thing remain to be labeled 'god'...

known• 16 years ago

"Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool." --Mark Twain

drlisp3• 16 years ago

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

bfung• 16 years ago

Sweet, I'm vote #666 for Nonreligious/Atheist/Agnostic/etc ...

drlisp3• 16 years ago

You forgot deism. No way this is covered by "Other"

mkramlich5• 16 years ago

I believe in Google

what is that, Googleism?

SandeepE• 16 years ago

I was born Buddhist, later wondered into many religious believes, such as Christianity, Satanism, Paganism, Wicca. Yes I have tried them all and realized the to me Buddhism makes more sense. It helps me look for the answers right within me. The questions arise within one's self, and answers shall too. At least that is what I believe in. It gives me the answers to questions that interest me. But I do not mean by any means that it can give answers to all your questions or it is the right religion to you. It simply is mine.

djacobs5• 16 years ago

I haven't read every last comment yet, but this is the most civil discussion on religion I've ever seen online. Congrats, HN. I think you've passed the test for excellence.

emilsedgh• 16 years ago

Atheist

ntoll• 16 years ago

I practice Zen, but since there is no concept of God or other supernatural "magic" I can also accurately describe myself as an atheist although this might be better categorized as "it's complicated".

cookiecaper2• 16 years ago

I am Mormon. I voted Christian. I run a (desolate) Mormonism-related reddit clone at zionlist.com.

peropaal• 16 years ago

Apple

_polos_• 16 years ago

Wrong question. The real one would be "what is your faith?", because all of us need to believe in something (that is, nobody is auto-sufficient, we all depend on many many things outside of us, we base our existence on a long history etc.).

And (very important), if you ask "what is your faith/belief?", nobody can escape the question saying "not relevant".

tome6• 16 years ago

Interesting point. I'd like to see that poll. I'd also like to see a poll "What sort of atheist/agnostic are you?". I'm sure there are lots of interesting different sorts of thinking to be discussed along the same lines as we've seen here.

ErrantX3• 16 years ago

because all of us need to believe in something

Numerous studies have shown that this is not correct.

You are right in the sense that it is impossible to live life as a pure empiricist - at some point you have to take some things on trust, and probably on faith.

But a deity faith is not required. :)

Gormo15• 16 years ago

It's impossible to be a pure empiricist because you must translate your experience of reality into a conceptual representation in order to think about it at all.

Perhaps you can be purely empiricist if you have no conscious awareness. But if you are conscious, you can approximate empiricism by maintaining awareness of the distinction between reality and your understanding of it.

maushu• 16 years ago

Haruhism, the belief that our fates are at the hands of a insane Japanese school girl that has no idea she's god.

What can I say? I thought Atheism was just boring.

joubert2• 16 years ago

Pythagorean

moxiemk1• 16 years ago

I grew up attending the Methodist Church (which up in Vermont didn't used to be quite the holy-rollers that they are in the South), and for a time in my youth was very religious.

I attended a Catholic school for middle school, and convinced myself that I would become Catholic one day. I expected that upon going off to college and being able to decide my own life that I'd covert quite soon.

Instead, I became a mathematician in more ways than just study, and began trying to generalize and abstract everything in my life. The oft-observed similarities of religions at their roots, but divergence at the "dos and don'ts" level gave rise to this conclusion:

In my being (indeed, in all beings, I should think) there is a place, a little box often marked "faith". There are a very large number of things you can put there, but the _important_ things that come out of it are always the same: be good to others, be good to yourself, be happy. Everything else attached to religions only serves to cloud those ideas. Though I could thus put anything into that box, it will always have the same result, and so for the moment, I leave it empty, and draw on the same lessons.

It's like there is an abstract class definition for faith, and I'm using a _very_ trivial implementation based on constants, because it's quite a bit faster and more efficient than the other options out there.

sjs382• 16 years ago

I wish you would have split up "Nonreligious/Atheist/Agnostic/etc" because I'm non-religious but not an atheist or agnostic. Rather, I'm just completely uninterested.

pbhjpbhj2• 16 years ago

Disinterest is termed "apathetic agnosticism" - although this term is also used for those who choose not to address such issues.

Moreover you'll find that fanatical atheists will count you as an atheist - cf the Wikipedia article on this term.

EzGraphs• 16 years ago

Barchart of poll results: http://www.r-chart.com/2010/07/hacker-news-religion-poll.htm...

ido• 16 years ago

It's interesting to see how many people voted for non-religious and "miscellaneous" religions (for lack of a better word).

Perhaps people who grew up in a household loosely practicing a major religion are less likely to see their religion as part of their cultural heritage and therefor more likely to leave it?

mgh2• 16 years ago

I am not religious but I do believe that religion has its reasons. Most of the problems in this world are caused because people do actions without a proper purpose. If everyone can stop and ask themselves the simple question 'why?' for every action they do, and if the answer is because of money, fame, sex, or anything selfish or 'sinful' according to religion, then it is not a valid cause. You entrepreneurs in Hacker News, of most people, should know that the concept of entrepreneurship lies in the desire to solve a problem and change the world for a better place. Do you believe that everything you do ultimately leads to have a higher purpose other than yourself? Most people are lost without purpose and they need some moral values, call it religion, family values, beliefs, etc, to follow. Only some people are lucky enough to know what their purpose in this world (I do believe everyone has one) early enough in their lives, and it is those people whom we follow, whom inspires us. Religion's purpose might be for those people who are lost, to find meaning in their lives so they can contribute, in their own way, for the better of the society.

Thank you.

foxtrot• 16 years ago

Other: Unitarian Universalist

Poll: What is your religion?

Related Stories