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.
Poll: What is your religion?
321–330 of 368 posts
Re: Poll: What is your religion?
#322Wrong 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".
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. :)
Re: Poll: What is your religion?
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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 scie…
If you really are a strong atheist (ie one with a belief that the probability of the existence of any god is zero rather than merely negligibly small) then I apologise for my assertion of your nonexistence.
What I should have said was that most atheists, such as myself or Richard Dawkins, are really agnostics of the negligibly-small-probability variety.
Re: Poll: What is your religion?
#324Barchart of poll results: http://www.r-chart.com/2010/07/hacker-news-religion-poll.htm...
Re: Poll: What is your religion?
#325I 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.
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.
Re: Poll: What is your religion?
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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…
The words "I believe X" used to mean "Based on all available evidence I have seen, I'm convinced that X is true". Lately however people have started to use the word to mean any strongly held opinion regardless of any evidence or reason. To believe something is "to be convinced of the truthfulness of it", to have faith is to have hope in the future based on a belief. Believe and faith can be misplaced: To be convinced…
Your word games aside, atheists do not believe anything. They only accept as true what they see or can be demonstrated.
Re: Poll: What is your religion?
#327Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 stor…
>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.
Except you don't.
Why lie so blatantly. If you're trying to establish the truth then you wouldn't do this. This doesn't prove that you always lie to convince other people of your position regardless of it's truth but it does lead us in that direction.
Re: Poll: What is your religion?
#328Earlier quoted context omitted.
I strongly disagree. I think some forms of religion, Christianity included, are very good at explaining how to understand the world and the forces (especially good and evil) at work in it -- and it encourages its adherents to change the world for the better. I also happen to think that these religions' interpretations of the world are wrong.
Hmm, well I would separate moral guidance and a knowledge for how things around us works. On a moral level some of religion's teachings are great, I personally though don't take more than that from religion and think that it promotes being content with knowing less about our world and universe in order to make it's stories and non moral teachings more relevant.
I agree with your stance, but I disagree that religions don't encourage adherents to understand the world. As I said in the GP, I think the way they encourage adherents to understand the world is mistaken, but it still exists!
Re: Poll: What is your religion?
#329Interesting 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?
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.