7 ms·

Poll: How religious is hacker news?

110 points by smallegan 12y ago

After seeing the top post related to OneBody the open source Church project I found myself curious as to how the rest of hacker news identified themselves spiritually. Sometimes we make assumptions about a particular group of people and this poll seems like a great way to challenge those assumptions and take a closer look at who makes up the hacker news community. So.... How do you identify yourself spiritually? (Please comment if you choose Other.)

Ardeof 12y ago
I believe in knowledge, does that count? Seems to be quite the rarity around these parts called... "Earth"
designNERD 12y ago
You can be an Agnostic Atheist. Agnosticism is about whether you believe you can prove the existence of God or not. Atheism and Theism is about actual belief in God. One can be an Agnostic Atheist or Agnostic Theist. Agnostic atheist= I don't know whether we can prove God exists but I don't believe in God Agnostic theist= I don't know where we can prove the God exists or not but I do believe in God. Being an agnostic is not the "I'm not really sure" category people have made it to be.
- SamReidHughes 12y ago
  That's not what agnostic means. Most people who believe in God wouldn't say they can prove God exists, and they aren't agnostic.
  - mjburgess 12y ago
    No, that is exactly what it means. It doesnt take very long to look something up (eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism ). Agnosticism is not about being uncertain, it's the position that the answer is unknowable or unknown - which is much stronger than merely being uncertain.
    - meepmorp 12y ago
      You have a point, but the person you're responding to makes a more important one - the colloquial definition of agnostic, in reference to religion, is a person who's not sure what they think about the existence of gods. When you call yourself an agnostic, that's what people typically understand by it.
      - mjburgess 12y ago
        That's the problem with surveys like this: the categories are political not philosophical. It would be better to ask, "Does a deity feature amongst your considerations when making a decision?" I take it that's what people are mainly interested in anyway. If this question was asked alongside the others in these questionnaires I think you'd see a high percentage of non-atheist responders agreeing.
      - SamReidHughes 12y ago
        I am not making a point about the colloquial definition. The wikipedia article he linked disagrees with him too.
    - jasonkostempski 12y ago
      If that's the definition then it's useless as a distinguishing label since everyone on either side of faith can't know. If anyone could know, faith and belief wouldn't be necessary.
      - mjburgess 12y ago
        Many atheists and theists believe you can provide evidence one way or another. Most people are not agnostic.
    - SamReidHughes 12y ago
      There is a difference between saying you can prove something and saying you know something. Your own Wikipedia article disagrees with you.
  - staticshock 12y ago
    Sorry, but designNERD is right. Agnosticism has the greek root "gnosis", which means "knowledge". It's technically defined as a view that some things ("God" being a common, but not sole example) are unknowable. It's an epistemological concept. Theism has the greek root "theos", meaning "God". Its primary concern is with the actual existence of God, so it's an ontological concept. It's possible to think of agnosticism as side-stepping the theism debate by saying, "the nature of knowing matters more to me than the nature of being," but they're definitely compatible. You can say that the existence of God is unknowable (agnosticism,) but you believe that He's still out there (theism.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism
    - SamReidHughes 12y ago
      Saying you know something and saying you can prove something are two different things.
  - designNERD 12y ago
    Just because they wouldn't admit to it does not mean that the condition doesn't exist. And I have met Christians who have stated that they can't prove God one or another but that doesn't stop their belief.
- qiqing 12y ago
  You can also be an Atheist Buddhist.
  - jackpirate 12y ago
    You can also be a Christian Atheist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism
- adrianlmm 12y ago
  No, you can't be an agnostic atheist, there is no such thing.
  - tlrobinson 12y ago
    Wikipedia, for one, would beg to differ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
    - adrianlmm 12y ago
      That's interesting.
  - conception 12y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Types_of_agnosticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Types_of_agnosticis...
  - designNERD 12y ago
    Yes you can as I am one.
- tcskeptic 12y ago
  Right, and I would describe myself as an agnostic Christian. The claims of Christianity are ridiculous and unprovable, and I believe them.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- gfodor 12y ago
  Inevitably any internet thread about religion has the "what does agnostic mean" argument. It's dumb, nobody cares. People who call themselves agnostic usually do so because they are too scared to call themselves atheist for whatever reason. (Fear of religious friends judging them, fear of losing pascal's wager, etc.) Or because they think they are clever and think atheists are foolish for asserting there is no God with such certainty. (When in fact the burden of proof lies elsewhere.) These people should just suck it up and call themselves atheists.
  - hnnewguy 12y ago
    >These people should just suck it up and call themselves atheists. Boy, look at you telling people what and how they should believe. I'm agnostic because I don't know if there exists a God, and couldn't care less when it comes to the day to day affairs of my life.
    - gfodor 12y ago
      Right, so what you're saying is you're an atheist. It's okay. There are a lot of us. I don't know if there is a teapot orbiting the Earth, but I wouldn't invent weasel words to distinguish between subtle groups of people who have varied opinions around the likely absence of said teapot. Especially not if most of the population believed strongly in the existence of said teapot. edit: Also I'm not telling anyone how to believe, I'm just saying that people using the term agnostic as some way to contrast themselves with atheists either don't understand the term atheist, have an aversion to it or fear of using it to label themselves, or have some unsettled self-reflection to do on their existence because they secretly believe in a God but don't want to admit it. When you say you're an atheist you are saying you do not share the belief in God that most of the human population does. It's pretty simple.
      - gliese1337 12y ago
        Teapotism doesn't have significant cultural importance. Atheism does. To a lot of people, it really does make a difference whether you actually disbelieve in the god they believe in, or if you are genuinely undecided. It is thus useful to have a word to distinguish between those two states, and perfectly honest (hardly weasely) to use them. Even if its only for social signalling, that's important!
- lucisferre 12y ago
  Deist might be a more useful alternate choice than Agnostic then. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
- Dewie 12y ago
  I don't like to say that I'm an agnostic or atheist or anything like that, because why would I? If I don't believe in a god, calling myself an atheist is like calling myself a non-Christian if I'm not a Christian, or a non-Jew if I'm not Jewish. Why would I define myself in contrast to whatever other religious groups there are, when I'm areligious (at least in my case)? It doesn't make sense. So because I don't believe in an Abrahamic god, I'm still supposed to take a stand/have an opinion on him. Why? Do Christians have an opinion/stance on Vishnu?
  - MichaelGG 12y ago
    Atheist is often an umbrella term for people that don't believe any sort of supernatural things, from an Abrahamic god to forest spirits.
  - MichaelGG 12y ago
    Atheist is often an umbrella term for people that don't believe any sort of supernatural things, from an Abrahamic god to forest spirits.
  - jonnathanson 12y ago
    Atheism doesn't necessarily imply that you care about, or are being forced to define yourself against, other people's conceptions of spirituality, or religion, or god(s). It simply means that you don't believe in a god, gods, etc. I'd suspect that for most atheists, the label begins and ends there. Atheism isn't a way of life for most people, and despite what anti-atheist types would proclaim, it's not a "religion," either. At its simplest, atheism is a philosophical stance. Religious people believe the value of god = 1; atheists believe it = 0. Is atheism often framed within the context of theism? Well, sure, because that's the category of the discussion. Like you, I have a "don't believe; don't care too strongly; not a factor in my life whatsoever" stance toward religion. But if the subject of religion comes up, and I am asked to give my stance on the matter, atheism is a better label than most. "Apathetic atheist," or even "atheist who rejects the premise of this line of inquiry altogether" are acceptable and defensible flavors of atheism. Atheism isn't specifically defined in opposition to the Abrahamic religions. It so happens that those religions (particularly, Christianity) occupy a majority of this country's religious population, and as such, they're the belief systems most often pitted vis-a-vis atheism, and vice versa. But there were atheists and agnostics long before Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. Being an atheist doesn't have to mean much more to your life than not being a tennis fan. The state of not being a tennis fan is largely irrelevant until someone asks you if you watch tennis. At that point, you are temporarily and conditionally defined as a non-tennis-fan, within the framing of tennis fandom as a subject. But your non-tennis-fandom doesn't have to define your life, or even be much of a factor outside of that conversation.
- hrasyid 12y ago
  You can check both
- mbell 12y ago
  I'm curious what your definition of atheism is. I consider myself an atheist but I don't in absolute terms claim that god(s) don't or can't exist, I simply reject the concept of 'belief' at large. i.e. if you can't provide definitive evidence in support of an idea, it's not fact.
  - smallegan 12y ago
    Sounds like you'd fall into the Agnostic category by definition.
ChikkaChiChi 12y ago
I don't identify myself spiritually nor do I use it as any sort of litmus test in any community I am a part of.
- aroman 12y ago
  So, "Other"?
  - ChikkaChiChi 12y ago
    He did say to comment, you know.
SoftwareMaven 12y ago
So do Mormons get to check two boxes? Mormons are Christian.
- conception 12y ago
  Mormons are Christian in the same way that Muslims are Christians and Christians are Jews, though.
  - Noctem 12y ago
    That's really not true. The official title of the Mormon church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Christ is central to the religion, and is certainly not viewed merely as a prophet.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- Retric 12y ago
  Christianity and Judaism are considered separate religions. So, I don't think Mormons are technically Christians or Jewish despite using both of there religious texts. Or if they are then I think Muslims might also qualify as they also believe in Judaism + Christ + one more prophet. Though depending on who you ask they might require Jesus to be part of the holy trinity and not just another prophet. PS: Granted, I think the general stance with most people is simply let religions self identify as plenty of religious debates end up with one side killing the other.
  - hellogoodby3 12y ago
    Muslims believe in Jesus as a prophet, but not that he is the son of God. Mormons do believe that Jesus is the son of God, which is the defining characteristic of being Christian
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
geophile 12y ago
ZERO Jews? I'm surprised. (Disclaimer: I'm an atheist, born Jewish, and currently Jew-ish.)
- ChikkaChiChi 12y ago
  I put 'Other' for a different reason, but my mother is 100% Ashkenazi Jew.
sillysaurus3 12y ago
Sometimes we make assumptions about a particular group of people and this poll seems like a great way to challenge those assumptions and take a closer look at who makes up the hacker news community. HN polls haven't been trustworthy for years. Too many people giving too many false results. Pg noticed this when there was a poll asking about the age of HNers and a bunch of people responded with "Over 80." He mentioned he'd make their fonts extra huge so they'd still be able to read HN.
- mschuster91 12y ago
  > He mentioned he'd make their fonts extra huge so they'd still be able to read HN. Shit, I'd be happy about this on mobile. HN on mobile Chrome is just painful :'(
- smallegan 12y ago
  Fair enough but I figure it never hurts to ask if there is a chance at learning something new or interesting and the comments in this thread have proved interesting enough for me.
- tokenadult 12y ago
  Correction: HN polls were never trustworthy because they are all voluntary-response polls.[1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2177163 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2177163
seanalltogether 12y ago
Having grown up in the church, I have honestly never found a good replacement for the sense of community and support that a church offers. Its a shame that no other non-religious organizations have been able to replicate it.
- ChikkaChiChi 12y ago
  I would contest that any communal group that meets face to face regularly develops similar bonds and that this is not exclusive of spiritual gatherings. I think over the past few generations we have lost more of those reasons to get together, and church is one of the last hanger-ons of these close knit communities.
  - mercer 12y ago
    Agreed, but spiritual gatherings are often centered around questions or issues that are important, fundamental, and/or relevant to daily life. That's something you generally don't have as much with other types of communal activities, and it's something that, in my experience, creates tight communities much faster, and bonds that often go deeper. It's like friendships. There's a gradual strengthening over time, but usually the big 'jumps' are caused by personal or interpersonal crises; moment of vulnerability.
- lesigh 12y ago
  Might want to try a humanist gathering.
- click170 12y ago
  I humbly suggest that you simply haven't found them yet. As an example, I understand that AA meetings foster a very supportive community atmosphere. My local Linux User Group meets regularly and has a very friendly homely feel where you can bring in whatever problem you're working on and people are always happy to at least hear you explain it even if they can't help. Meetup.com is a very good place to find meet-ups in your area which is a great place to start :)
  - 12y ago
shkkmo 12y ago
I believe that there is commonality between referents for the term 'god'. I believe that there is wisdom to be found in most religious systems of belief. I call myself omnignostic.
flatline 12y ago
Really, only one other Buddhist? I guess that makes sense with only 13 Christians as of this posting. I took the precepts, don't know that I particularly consider myself religious but I still subscribe enough to check the little up arrow. Edit: nevermind, poll took off;) Edit 2: zenjzen, you also appear to be hellbanned.
- zenjzen 12y ago
  I'm an atheist buddhist.
morganvachon 12y ago
I chose "other" because even though I do believe in God and follow the teachings of Jesus, I don't align myself with modern Christians who seem determined to be the opposite of what he taught. Hate, especially irrational, pointless hate, is something I simply don't understand and don't want in my life. I know a lot of it is politics instead of faith, but that's no excuse; in fact that makes it even more despicable.
lanna 12y ago
Antitheist
netgineer 12y ago
The one scientologist is a troll, right? .... right?
- georgemcbay 12y ago
  One of my early jobs (mid-90s) was working for an unnamed but relatively famous (for the time) ISP in Los Angeles where the vast majority of other employees turned out to be Scientologists. They do exist in the tech industry.
  - nknighthb 12y ago
    What exactly is the point of saying "unnamed" when everyone knows exactly which company you're talking about? Its scientology connections are not a secret and have been covered in both tech and muggle press many times over the years.
    - georgemcbay 12y ago
      Well, speaking of muggles it is just a name that shall not be named (by me). I didn't mean to imply nobody would know the name, I specifically made sure there was enough information in the post (city/time frame/specific tech business type) so that it would be pretty obvious what company I was talking about (at least to anyone who was on the net back then).
- bunkat 12y ago
  I've never understood why people put Scientology in a different bucket than other religions such as Christianity. I wonder why you didn't comment 'The 79 Christians are trolls, right? ...right?'
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
param 12y ago
Sikh!
beefsack 12y ago
The idea of religious engineers has always been one that fascinates me.
- gfodor 12y ago
  Even better, try biologist creationists. They exist!
  - hnriot 12y ago
    I would contest that. They can be either but not both. They are either not very smart biologists or not very devout creationists. Or more likely just attention seekers.
    - a-nikolaev 12y ago
      There is a famous one, Michael Behe. Not exactly a creationist, but an intelligen design advocate. http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/faculty/behe.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe edit: He has a nice paragraph on his web page: >>Official Disclaimer My ideas about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are entirely my own. They certainly are not in any sense endorsed by either Lehigh University in general or the Department of Biological Sciences in particular. In fact, most of my colleagues in the Department strongly disagree with them.
    - gfodor 12y ago
      Not true. I know someone who last I spoke was in graduate level cell biology and did lab work on brains at a top university, yet did not believe in evolution. In fact, I recall her citing her personal awe of the brain etc as evidence of intelligent design. Don't underestimate humans' abilities to selectively ignore evidence, the immense pressure of their peers, parents, and friends who have similar beliefs, and the underlying fear of death that motivates people to believe in an afterlife (and all the various attached beliefs from there) to allow compartmentalization of beliefs from knowledge.
nemo1618 12y ago
"I used to be an atheist until I realized I was god." - J. Krishnamurti http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
- coreyja 12y ago
  I used to be an atheist until I found this wikipedia article on Aptatheism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism
brenfrow 12y ago
Now just waiting to do an analysis on what to do with this data?
- joeclark77 12y ago
  Check how it correlates with browser choice? My hypothesis is that people of faith will be less likely to use Firefox since they purged Brendan Eich, while atheists will be more likely to use Apple (Safari) because the instinct toward religion is a strong one... [please know i'm just kidding here!]
rando289 12y ago
No recognition for the Church of Emacs?!
eof 12y ago
Other - Using standard nomenclature in a non-standard way I'd call myself a "Spiritual Atheist." I had been an atheist of the "cold" variety: life spontaneously arose from non-life in an undefined fashion, and everything relevant to the conversation evolved from this first life.. only the "observable" could be real. Seemingly non-local consciousness-connections (a dream where something bad happens to someone and they die that night, you think of someone in that moment they call you, esoteric initations into new-agey meditation [law of attraction, remove viewing], they way the universe seems to be inscrutably "nicer" to me the more buddha-like it is [e.g. when regularly meditating]) The reasons my metaphysics changed are nearly ineffable; and are certainly not objectively verifiable (at least by me). The ramifications are easy to grok: - The universe is a holy playground - The universe has some sort of intention - The more your intentions fall in line with the intentions of the universe, the more satisfying life is. There are also some non-obvious (but ultimately important) "actionable" ramifications: primarily that sometimes the best way to solve a corporeal problem is to get the spiritual aspect (ie, the interface between you and the universe) in line.
- gyrogarant 12y ago
  Please tell me: What do you mean with this line: 'The more your intentions fall in line with the intentions of the universe, the more satisfying life is.' I am curious.
rocky1138 12y ago
The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon
imsofuture 12y ago
"Theist" should be a choice. I believe in god/a god, perhaps (likely?) not a knowable one.
gyrogarant 12y ago
How come that there is no 'Feminist' option? /ducks ...
STRiDEX 12y ago
I feel like atheist and agnostic are too concrete. I view it like non-Americans view thanksgiving. You can read the wiki page and it makes sense, but I'm not going to go out of my way to do it too. It's not really something that applies to me.
pstuart 12y ago
Spiritual atheist. But when I get the time I'm going to start a new religion: Ovumist. The holy tract: http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html
georgemcbay 12y ago
I grew up in a family of catholics, went agnostic, went militant atheist, and then realized the universe is so fucking weird and likely beyond our ability to ever truly comprehend it that "who am I to judge others for believing in ridiculous things?". Which is to say, I think all religions we have that claim to have any kind of historical meddling from a 'creator' are rather obviously fictional and borderline ridiculous, but I don't have any better answers to "the big questions", so I'm fine letting people believe whatever they like without opposition or debate so long as what they believe doesn't result in the oppression of others.
java-man 12y ago
The data is clearly not representative. Take a look at number one post in Show HN titled " OneBody Church Directory software I've been hacking on for 7 years". This post has 740 points | 203 comments, clearly very popular (number two has 77 points | 46 comments). Does it mean atheists are more open responding to polls about spirituality?
- danso 12y ago
  This is not true. The top post is: "OneBody Church Directory software I've been hacking on for 7 years" I suspect that many, many HNers, myself included, upvoted because of this: "software I've been hacking on for 7 years" It's great whenever someone shows off their side project, and astonishing when it's a project they've diligently maintained for a generation in web-dev years.
  - MichaelGG 12y ago
    Agree. As much as I'm against religion, I found the software to be neat. The thread seemed to contain the same sentiment by multiple users.
- ryandvm 12y ago
  I would agree with your supposition that atheists are disproportionately interested in taking part in polls about religion - particularly on sites with a palpable anti-religious bias.
- lotharbot 12y ago
  Not everyone who commented on the OneBody thread is Christian, or religious in any way. Past polls and discussions suggest that HN is somewhere around 3/4 non-religious (with various flavors of atheism and agnosticism most prevalent) and 1/4 religious (with various flavors of Christianity most prevalent). This thread is no different. But HN also has a high regard for technical prowess and interesting projects, combined with a low tolerance for douchebaggery. Which means that interesting projects that happen to be targeted toward Christians (particularly one that could be easily forked for other religious or non-religious groups) can generate a lot of positive discussion... and the sort of people making snarky remarks about "imaginary friends" will tend to get downvoted/flagged into oblivion.
cconroy 12y ago
Whichever one is most parsimonious is what you should be.
swayvil 12y ago
I was working this job (tech writer) at this tech place (little computers) a few months ago (temp). The population was evenly split between christians and potheads. I suppose it says something.
shared4you 12y ago
Classifying Hinduism and Buddhism as "religions" in the Western sense of the word is imprecise and misleading at best. You can be a Hindu atheist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charvaka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charvaka Swami Vivekananda popularized the Ramakrishna school of thought, but they themselves deny to be called Hindus. Goa deputy Chief Minister considers himself to be a "Christian Hindu": http://www.firstpost.com/politics/india-hindu-nation-im-christian-hindu-goa-dy-cm-francis-dsouza-1634437.html http://www.firstpost.com/politics/india-hindu-nation-im-chri... Hinduism in not an organized religion like Abrahamic religions. The definition of Hinduism is very fluid in practice. Similarly one can be a Buddhist atheist as well. PS: Also please add Sikhism and Jainism to the poll -- two other major Indian religions!
- mahranch 12y ago
  > Similarly one can be a Buddhist atheist as well. This makes me think of my time in Japan. On polls (or when asked), the majority of the Japanese will say or mark down "Buddhism". However, for all intents and purposes, they're atheist/agnostic. They don't believe in God or gods/deities, they view it kinda the same way we view Santa Claus. They only follow a few Buddhist rituals out of cultural pressure/habit (funeral services, news years celebrations, etc). It's extremely similar to how agnostics or even atheists will celebrate Christmas even though they don't believe in God. It's fun, everyone else is doing it so why not?
- joeclark77 12y ago
  You can also be a Jewish Christian Buddhist Atheist if you want. You are Jewish if you're a member of the Jewish people (i.e. descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob). You are Christian if you were baptized according to a valid Trinitarian formula. You are Buddhist if you believe in and practice Buddhism. You are atheist if you don't believe in God. The point? Religions are not all "the same kind of thing" and interchangeable.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
chadkruse 12y ago
Other - I identify with [insert own name here]. Let me explain... I dated a woman once who dated a woman just prior to dating me (I'm male). We were having beers with a mutual friend and upon hearing that fact, our mutual friend said "wow, I didn't know you were bisexual Jen" (not her real name). Jen's response..."I'm not bisexual...I'm Jen. I don't believe in labels." I'm not Atheist, Agnostic, or Lutheran (the religion my parents chose for me). I'm Chad. I haven't used a label for anyone's politics, religion, sexual preference, or other complicated matters since. Thank you Jen. The best part...you get to focus on getting to know someone on a personal level instead of arguing about definitions :)
- Zikes 12y ago
  I understand wanting to avoid labels to avoid associating yourself with the cultures and assumptions that come with them, but you can't avoid them all. If you go to a Christian church and believe in their ideologies, that makes you a Christian. If you're willing to get into a relationship with a person of either gender, that makes you bisexual. If you're open to the idea of an omnipotent deity but don't subscribe to any particular one, that makes you agnostic. If you're reading this, that makes you human. They're just facts of life.
cowbell 12y ago
Other: Jedi Knight
lifelongUU 12y ago
Unitarian
robgibbons 12y ago
At first, I was an atheist, and I pitied religious folks for their incredible stupidity. Then, I learned about agnosticism, and I realized it better describes what I believe, and that my lack of belief in God is possibly incorrect. I still pitied the religious for their blind faith. Then I realized one day, while pondering the subject, that because it is not possible to experimentally test for the existence of God, nor to derive any conclusion based on logic, then the question itself is in fact "extra-logical." It cannot be resolved with the scientific method, or any other means of rationalization. To even attempt to do so is itself irrational. The question therefore must be, simply, "Do you believe in God?" This question does not attempt to bring logic, science or rationality into the picture. It is a question purely of faith, of which I acknowledge I have none. So, in the end, I am still an agnostic, but one who now accepts that there can be quite rational, scientific thinkers who have faith in the existence of God.
- Doji 12y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
  - joeclark77 12y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton's_fence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton's_fence
ethana 12y ago
I've turned agnostic recently from being a sole christian. The more time I spend with computing and learn about machine learning/AI, I think that we can and will create self-aware AIs. At that point, we'll have to question what reality programmed us?
- pedrosorio 12y ago
  And then we'll have to ask: what reality programmed that one? It's turtles all the way down.
spiritualid 12y ago
I believe dualism and I know how to do induce out of body exp but I don't know is scientific or not. what its criterion?
ketralnis 12y ago
I don't see a voting option for "I'd really rather not debate religion on HN at all, please go away"
Udo 12y ago
It looks like this thread is being moderated off the front page, but it's something that I think is interesting too. I was astonished about the overwhelming response the church software got. Don't get me wrong, it's a great effort, but the sheer amount of votes it received seems somewhat out of proportion for what you'd expect a comparable project to get. So I'm curious if this Show HN maybe released some pressure in that regard. But I do think the poll's setup is mistaken, as are people who feel their particular faith should be reflected accurately. It would have been better (and less fraught with squabbling over definitions) if we kept it simple and allowed people to self-identify as non-religious, somewhat religious, and very religious. To me, the intensity of faith would have been more interesting than the precise flavor. I also think there is a community aspect we could have captured as a second variable: "how engaged/motivated are you by being part of your religious community?" - I suspect this is a big factor as well, maybe in some cases even more so than the actual belief in the supernatural. Who knows, but I would have loved to get some data on this.
- smallegan 12y ago
  Good point, I guess that may have had a bit less controversy if it was only a couple of buckets. Also it is sad to see something core to our humanity moderated off the front page.
- kybernetikos 12y ago
  > allowed people to self-identify as non-religious, somewhat religious, and very religious. The word 'religious' has enough negative connotations that even many religions like to challenge its use to apply to themselves. I did a module of comparative religion a while ago which involved interviews with deeply devout practitioners of a number of religions. All of them said something like 'it's not really a religion, it's a way of life', or 'it's not a religion, it's a relationship', or words to that effect. This poll, at least avoids that problem.
  - Udo 12y ago
    This really baffles me. Does that mean it's impossible to refer to a person's religiosity in general without offending them if you don't provide the exact name of their faith? So the majority of religious people don't actually acknowledge their religiosity and the only way to talk to them about it is to outwardly treat every religion as if it is a huge special case?
classicsnoot 12y ago
How come no Pastafarianism option?
aligajani 12y ago
and what exactly is the reason behind this poll?
gschlenkhoff 12y ago
Religion influences the decision to become an entrepreneuer. So are all the Agnostics and Atheists the employed hackers while the believers the bosses? http://www.voxeu.org/epubs/cepr-dps/religion-influences-peoples-decision-become-entrepreneur http://www.voxeu.org/epubs/cepr-dps/religion-influences-peop...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
recursion1133 12y ago
I consider myself a truthist for lack of a better word. One who seeks the truth, however, more specially, a monothiest.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
luke-stanley 12y ago
I put Buddhist, but consider myself atheistic to many concepts, but agnostic to others (see: Simulation Argument), and pan-theistic in general - as in, the term reflects a unity of the Universe that any true Cosmos fan should come to see, for instance. (Proof of such is hard won by sceptical scientists.) Stats with this kind of options are could be seen as rather divisive and can give a false impression if interpreted without nuance.
captn3m0 12y ago
Here are the poll results in graph format: http://hnlike.com/hncharts/chart/?id=8088478 http://hnlike.com/hncharts/chart/?id=8088478

dm2 12y ago

I have wanted more adoption of community centers for a long time, just a place for children and adults to go for support and supplemental education. I could write a very long article about their benefits and reasons, but this probably isn't the appropriate forum to do that. A place where kids can get mentors and adults can get assistance for a wide variety of subjects would be extremely helpful to the community. This kind of place is usually only provided in poorer areas where it is then overcrowded and becomes much less useful. Many parents assume kids get all the education for life in school. Teachers assume kids get most of their life education at home. This is not true all of the time but I've seen it far too often. The result is a lack of education and guidance for children. Some parents just don't have time for their kids, kids are left to learn on their own or from their environment, which is always less than optimal (yes, always exceptions to everything). Colleges could offer credits for people who help staff and organize these places. Adults who were helped by these community centers could be encouraged to give back if it helped them in life. Children in need of mentors should be the main area of focus in my opinion. They could call upon these people later in life if needed, almost like another parent (which not all people are fortunate enough to have). The children who were mentored would have a much higher chance of ensuring their mentor was taken care of later in life, when the mentor got old. There's just no downside from what I can tell, it's mostly a funding and organizing problem to solve. Please don't take this the wrong way but excluding God from these centers would be important. Not everybody accepts that there is some magical being controlling everything, and many people have different gods. All of these people should be equally welcomed into community centers without fear of having God, Jesus, and the sins of the Devil preached to them constantly.

zaphar 12y ago

I'm one. Feel free to ask me anything you want. With the caveat that I don't participate in uncivil discussions.

pubby 12y ago
How do you deal with all the inconsistencies between science and religion? e.g. evolution vs creationism.
- zaphar 12y ago
  I consider most if not all those consistencies to be manufactured. Evolution vs Creationism is of course the poster child for this. The simple answer is I wasn't around for either Evolution or Creation whichever one happened so I can't give a definitive ruling either way. I happen to believe that God did some sort of creative act. What form that act took (7 days of creative work? or billions of years of guided evolution?) I can't really say. Either one is something of a miracle to my mind though. Both appear to be highly unlikely to occur, yet I and your are here having this conversation so one of them had to. I choose to believe God was the motivating force behind whichever one it was. I have one rule that I follow. My faith must be rational. If an article of faith is disprovable then I don't hold with it. That leaves a lot of room for faith though.
  - MaxDPS 12y ago
    Do you believe in the literal story of Noahs flood? As in, the whole world was covered in water?
    - zaphar 12y ago
      I can't say one way or the other. There is enough water to cover most of the earths surface if it's not tied up in ice at the poles so it's physically possible. And there is also evidence of water coverage over many parts of the earth that are not near any ocean. However the story could also be interpreted in terms of a localized flood covering all of the known earth. I do believe Noah was a literal person and I do believe there was a flood. I even like the idea of a global flood as it seems to allow one to explain some phenomena observed in Geological formations. However I'm not a Geologist so my opinions there are pretty uninformed and could just as likely be wrong.
      - MaxDPS 12y ago
        Its true that a lot of land would be covered by melted ice but even then, over 90% of earth would still be above sea level as shown here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2488452/Map-reveals-devastation-worlds-ice-melted.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2488452/Map-r... Also, fossil evidence doesn't not support a worldwide flood. If a worldwide flood would have happened you have have fossils from that era all over the place in sediments of rock, but you don't. They are all found neatly organized in their own respective layers. Here is some more info if you are interested: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_flood#Fossil_layers http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_flood#Fossil_layers I think a localized flood is a much better explanation for people who believe that part of the bible.
  - robotresearcher 12y ago
    > I wasn't around for either Evolution or Creation You are around for evolution.
- gliese1337 12y ago
  Fundamentalist creationism is not an inescapable consequence of "religion" generally. Can't speak for zaphar, but I for one have no problem believing that God could've created the world any way he felt like, including by letting evolution happen. Despite being not merely religious but an actual Bible-believing Christian, I am nevertheless quite willing to accept that a good deal of scriptural text is metaphorical. A lot of it is pretty dang hit-you-over-the-head-with-a-stick obviously metaphorical, so the idea that the Biblical creation account might not be intended as an accurate scientific account is Not A Problem. Regarding other possible inconsistencies, I find that most of the ones people complain about are like evolution- not actually necessary inconsistencies if you think about it. For the rest, I assume that one or the other is either wrong or incomplete, and hold off judgment until either scientific concensus or doctrinal assertion are changed. When it comes to questions of scientific fact, I usually lean in favor of science. When it comes to matters of philosophy or ethics, I lean in favor of religion. And for reference, I don't usually consider sociology or social psychology to be very convincing "science".
  - zaphar 12y ago
    A lot of it is pretty dang hit-you-over-the-head-with-a-stick obviously metaphorical Revelation anyone?
  - lotharbot 12y ago
    > "A lot of it is pretty dang hit-you-over-the-head-with-a-stick obviously metaphorical" Origen: "[if scripture was purely literal] we would not certainly believe, when thus possessing the meaning of Scripture in a continuous series, that anything else was contained in it save what was indicated on the surface; so for that reason divine wisdom took care that certain stumbling-blocks, or interruptions, to the historical meaning should take place, by the introduction into the midst (of the narrative) of certain impossibilities and incongruities; that in this way the very interruption of the narrative might, as by the interposition of a bolt, present an obstacle to the reader, whereby he might refuse to acknowledge the way which conducts to the ordinary meaning; and being thus excluded and debarred from it, we might be recalled to the beginning of another way, in order that, by entering upon a narrow path, and passing to a loftier and more sublime road, he might lay open the immense breadth of divine wisdom. This, however, must not be unnoted by us, that as the chief object of the Holy Spirit is to preserve the coherence of the spiritual meaning, either in those things which ought to be done or which have been already performed, if He anywhere finds that those events which, according to the history, took place, can be adapted to a spiritual meaning, He composed a texture of both kinds in one style of narration, always concealing the hidden meaning more deeply; but where the historical narrative could not be made appropriate to the spiritual coherence of the occurrences, He inserted sometimes certain things which either did not take place or could not take place; sometimes also what might happen, but what did not: and He does this at one time in a few words, which, taken in their “bodily” meaning, seem incapable of containing truth, and at another by the insertion of many." - http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.v.v.i.html http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.v.v.i.html section 15 Origen was one of the foremost Christian scholars of the 2nd-3rd century. This was the predominant approach Christians took to scripture until 19th century America, when literalism took over -- for a short time. Of particular note, the earliest parts of Genesis would have been obviously metaphorical to any of the early readers... because they blatantly undermine the Egyptian creation stories. They take the most significant Egyptian gods and describe them as mere objects (even the sun and moon aren't named -- they're just "lights".) They take the most significant elements of the Egyptian stories and turn them around, twist them up on themselves, and use them to express how Yahweh is different from Horus, Isis, and the rest. It's like the way Shrek takes common tropes from Cinderella-type movies and turns them on their head, only serious instead of comedic.
robgibbons 12y ago
So... you're a civil engineer?
- zaphar 12y ago
  Software Engineer. :-) Which admittedly some engineers don't consider to be true engineering. But given that this is Hacker News I assumed it was an acceptable claim.
MichaelGG 12y ago
If you believe god's takes part in the world in obvious ways (like miracles as written in many texts) why don't such things seem to happen around people documenting things ? Why allow large amounts of people to live lives of pure suffering? Etc. If you say that god's more of a force from afar, why is that worth worshipping any more than another natural phenomenon?
- zaphar 12y ago
  I see three questions here. 1. Why don't Miracles get documented? This one is less difficult to answer for me than it might seem. First of all by definition a Miracle is not an everyday occurrence, is out of the ordinary experience, and is unscheduled. Given those items it's not too surprising that they would not be documented at any time relatively recently. Second I would consider the the Miracles in the Gospels to be documented. However you likely don't count those since they are not recent enough to be recorded by something more permanent than a written word that has been copied multiple times. Either way I don't find this to be a significant blocker to faith. Even in scripture Miracles were pretty rare except for during Jesus 3 years of ministry. 2. Why allow large amounts of people to live lives of pure suffering. To answer this one you have to ask what are Gods motives for creating us? 2a. Motive #1 is for God to be worshipped freely. In order for him to be worshipped freely we have to be free to choose. If we are free to choose this implies that we can choose not to. The Christian Faith holds that we have freedom of choice. 2b. It boils down to God having a choice between Robots who all worship him due to programming or Human beings of whom a subset worship him out of choice. He values the Human beings more than Robots. You will either find this a harsh decision by him or a loving one depending on your viewpoint. 3. I don't believe he is a force from afar. All of that said my faith is personal and much of what I believe I believe because of personal experience that I interpret as Him taking action in my life. Not in the Miracle fashion you describe in your questions but action nevertheless.