OSDev.org

Hi all, I'm just curious to know the religions in the community and what percentage is affilliated with each.

Feel free to speak about it, but be careful and please don't start a flame war ... Just to get the ball rolling, I'm Christian.

NB: I've intentionally only left four options, the 3 here I believe are the most common. Otherwise, you can just check 'other' and explain in a post.

I have no "religion", Personally I think the whole thing is a big waist of time..

So is this thread

Ok... I'm just interested, how does that make a thread a waste of time?

Note that having no religion makes you an atheist. Probably the first of many. Not that I will discriminate, it's your personal choice.

pcmattman wrote:Ok... I'm just interested, how does that make a thread a waste of time?

Note that having no religion makes you an atheist. Probably the first of many. Not that I will discriminate, it's your personal choice.

I guess I could be classified as "Atheist", but why can't I be just classified as someone who follows science fact vs. blind faith in religious deities..

I don't even have faith in humanity, let alone the over active imagination that "religious folk" have.

But, This will simply result in a flamewar.. Doesn't belong on an OSDev forum.

pcmattman wrote:Note that having no religion makes you an atheist.

No it doesn't. You're confusing religion with spirituality, which is unfortunately a common mistake. Belonging to a religion is not a prerequisite for belief in the divine, just as it is not a prerequisite for morality.

I don't really belong to an organized religion, but I'm not an atheist either, so I put "other". If I had to use some kind of label, I guess I would go with "pantheist".

No, this thread will not start a flame war, do you remember? There *was* a flame war about religions, "trolls",Harry Plotter and stuff.
But I don't know why start flame wars about this, it is anybody's free choice.

inflater

@pcmattman: I second colonel there.

an atheist is someone who searches for arguments to actively deny any deity's existence - and by doing so acknowledges the possible existence of them supernaturals, eh? Fact is you can't prove the believers wrong for how do you falsify the statement "God exists" - there is simply no means to prove such a statement.

I for one don't care. I have decided a long time ago to leave christianity for good. This is my own, private decision and not to be discussed at any rate. as for the deities: I leave them alone, they leave me alone. Good deal, isn't it?

Wooo.. go the Christians.. There're 3 of us!

MessiahAndrw wrote:Wooo.. go the Christians.. There're 3 of us!

Hey! Make that 5! (Someone else voted before me...) Whoo!

My problem with this kind of polls is distincting common ways of life by the local name of 'God'. (i.e. Cristians vs Muslims vs Jews vs ... vs ...). All prescribe the 10 commandments and share some version of the holy book.

What interests me more is how people live their lives - wether they live by god's rules, how much they give or take, and how they face life. I know a family of atheists which behave more like the christian way prescribed by the bible than most families.

To me it doesnt matter wether god exists or not. Its the point of living your life the right way that matters.

Hence, i'll vote "Other" for "Agnosticism"

---

@distantvoices: Atheist means one of:
- someone who does not believe that god exists
- someone who believes that god does not exist
which are the weak and strong forms respectively. What you describe is merely a fundamentalist. "Normal" people dont go actively proving their belief.

Hi,

I don't think this discussion is suitable for these forums, but...

distantvoices wrote:Fact is you can't prove the believers wrong for how do you falsify the statement "God exists" - there is simply no means to prove such a statement.

If God does/did exist, then it would be reasonable to assume He is/was capable of providing undeniable proof of His existance. Because it's impossible to prove that God actually does exist then this means either of 2 things:

a) God just doesn't exist, or
B) God does exist, but doesn't want everyone to believe he exists.

Therefore, if God does exist, then I am complying with His intentions by NOT believing He exists....


Cheers,

Brendan

Brendan wrote:If God does/did exist, then it would be reasonable to assume He is/was capable of providing undeniable proof of His existance.

How do you define 'proof'? Something that you can feel or touch? Something that can be scientifically proven? How sure are you that what you currently believe in as 'proof' is actually true? 500 years ago, people had 'proof' that evil spirits caused disease, yet now we have changed our 'proof' to believe that germs cause it. Why is scientific evidence believed to have such permanent value when our scientific knowledge completley changes every 50 years? Your essentially putting together 3/4's of a puzzle, and then saying: "Yes. I am 100% sure that this puzzle is a tree!"; when in fact, the puzzle is a house. Maybe, God's proof is not what you currently define it, but instead faith; that is, believing in what you currently do not know.

Hi,

Alboin wrote:

Brendan wrote:If God does/did exist, then it would be reasonable to assume He is/was capable of providing undeniable proof of His existance.

How do you define 'proof'? Something that you can feel or touch? Something that can be scientifically proven? How sure are you that what you currently believe in as 'proof' is actually true?

Consider something like gravity - it can't be seen or touched, but it's easy to prove it exists simply by dropping something.

Alboin wrote:500 years ago, people had 'proof' that evil spirits caused disease, yet now we have changed our 'proof' to believe that germs cause it. Why is scientific evidence believed to have such permanent value when our scientific knowledge completley changes every 50 years?

I agree - scientific proof needs to be based on scientific principles, and not effected or persuaded by religion or personal beliefs (like a belief in the existance of evil spirits). I also think scientists should draw a much stronger distinction between "scientific theory" (that which has not been proven) and "laws" (that which has been proven beyond doubt).

Of course you are correct in that even scientific laws can be found incorrect when new information becomes available. An example of this is Newton's laws of motion, which break when something approaches the speed of light and were disproved later (but still quite valid for most practical purposes despite being disproved).

Alboin wrote:Your essentially putting together 3/4's of a puzzle, and then saying: "Yes. I am 100% sure that this puzzle is a tree!"; when in fact, the puzzle is a house. Maybe, God's proof is not what you currently define it, but instead faith; that is, believing in what you currently do not know.

Faith is just another word for "belief". Believing something just because you believe it isn't necessarily the most sane approach. For example, if I strongly believed that I am immortal, then I would have "faith" in my immortality, and while I'm alive I would have no proof that I'm not immortal. Of course my faith in my immortality doesn't prove anything, except perhaps that I need psychiatric help.

In this case, using scientific methods to prove my immortality would involve repeatedly attempting to get killed - something that would probably disprove my "faith" in my immortality quite quickly.

There are many incompatible religions, all of which have believers who have faith. If faith was proof, then would it prove I'll be reincarnated when I die, or that there's many Gods, or just one?


Cheers,

Brendan

i was raised a christian and still think there is something bigger then us out there which is my belief and that is what faith is all about imho. it is a personal belief. you cannot compare all faiths and claim them to be true or false, faith is what you feel and is not tangible, true and false are. Its like comparing apples with pears, doesn't work.

though on a side note if all religions are valid, we all go to hell anyway because most of them state that the non-believers go the hell. so you can only go to heaven if you believe/practice in all religions. so the beast is quite happy i guess