Live data from Hacker News

Poll: What is your religion?

news.ycombinator.com

221–230 of 368 posts

Re: Poll: What is your religion?

#221
post #186
post #176

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, on…

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 mad…

> 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.

Re: Poll: What is your religion?

#222
post #30

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.

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.

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.

Re: Poll: What is your religion?

#223
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that if I were all-powerful and all-knowing I could have done a much better job with it.

Are you referring to The Big Rewrite around the time of Noah?

"Plan to throw one away, you will anyway."

Re: Poll: What is your religion?

#224
post #160
post #32

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)

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 jus…

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.

Re: Poll: What is your religion?

#225

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

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 und…

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.

Re: Poll: What is your religion?

#226

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…

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 pregna…

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".

Re: Poll: What is your religion?

#227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

"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 ath…

Addition: Atheists can sound pedantic when it comes to word order, but this pedantry has a point. Compare the following two sentences:

"I'm asking you to not join the Navy."

"I'm not asking you to join the Navy."

The difference in word order is the same as the different phrasings between different atheists:

"I do not believe god exists." (I call this atheism)

"I believe god does not exist." (I call this strong atheism)

Re: Poll: What is your religion?

#228
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a false dichotomy because there is more than two possible outcomes. At one end you have 'there is no god' in which case it doesn't matter, fine, but then at the other end there's more than just 'worship God' - there's also 'worship multiple Gods', or 'worship the devil', or endless other possibilities of worship, with no strong reason to pick any one of them. Unless I have misunderstood the Wager.

I think the assumption is that you are considering believing in a Christian God and on those terms the wager is valid. As far as I know other religions offer little promises in terms of what happens if you stick with it. I think category A would be believing in Jesus and category B would be not believing in Jesus whatever that means to you.

If the wager deals with only the Christian god, it's arbitrarily limited and has little value.

Re: Poll: What is your religion?

#229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

I think this was about the ability to understand a fundamental concept.

The fundamental concept of a god can be easily grasped by small children. There is a powerful being. He controls physical laws. How hard is that?

Re: Poll: What is your religion?

#230
post #216
post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Isn't the question only meaningless if the answer is No? Assuming you're talking about the traditional Judeo-Christian God, then you would certainly be missing out on a lot of good (both in this life and the next) if the answer is Yes.

If the question is meaningless, it has no meaningful answer; the answer cannot be "no", so... no.

Your line of thinking is begging the question; you pre-suppose that the question is meaningful before you address its meaning.

Post reply on HN