RUS New site

Advanced search

[ New messages · Forum rules · Members ]
Page 2 of 5«12345»
Forum » SpaceEngine » Off-topic Discussions » Religiosity poll (Poll!)
Religiosity poll
Are you a religious person?
1.I am a religious theist[ 14 ][16.67%]
2.I am a non-religious theist[ 6 ][7.14%]
3.I am a deist[ 4 ][4.76%]
4.I am a religious atheist[ 2 ][2.38%]
5.I am a non-religious atheist with supernatural beliefs[ 7 ][8.33%]
6.I am a non-religious atheist with no supernatural beliefs[ 51 ][60.71%]
Answers total: 84
SalvoDate: Saturday, 30.11.2013, 14:58 | Message # 1
Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Italy
Messages: 1400
Status: Offline
("updated" version of the old poll)

I had a discussion with my friends about this, and I decided to start this poll, just to get an idea smile




Definitions:

  • theism - having a belief in a deity/god that does or has intervened in the universe
  • deism - having a belief in a deity/god that created the universe but has not intervened in it
  • atheism - lacking a belief in a deity/god
  • religion - a framework of tenets and traditions related to supernatural and/or spiritual beliefs
  • supernatural - elements of existence beyond those that are known to exist in nature (e.g. souls, reincarnation, afterlife, incorporeal consciousness, ghosts, extraterrestrial visitations)

Examples of...
...theistic religions - Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Sikhism
...atheistic religions - Buddhism, Scientology, Raëlism, many aboriginal religions





The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition.

CPU: Intel Core i7 4770 GPU: ASUS Radeon R9 270 RAM: 8 GBs

(still don't know why everyone is doing this...)


Edited by Salvo - Saturday, 30.11.2013, 15:00
 
WatsisnameDate: Sunday, 01.12.2013, 03:12 | Message # 16
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2611
Status: Offline
Quote Voekoevaka ()
I have myself a lot of question about how the soul can be considered on a scientific point of view ?


Science makes no consideration of the 'soul', and this is the way it will always be unless some aspect of the soul's existence or lack thereof is testable.

Quote Voekoevaka ()
Does quantum physics are sufficient to explain the fact that somebody can be in two places at one time ?


No.

Quote Voekoevaka ()
Scientists know that since the big bang, all particles are entangled.


Nooooooo.

Entanglement means that some pair or grouping of particles interacted in such a way that their quantum states become related to one another. If you measure the states of one component of this system, then the states of the other components are immediately known, even if they are separated by a great distance.

All particles in the universe are not entangled because
(a) Large portions of the universe are not and never were causally connected, so they could never become entangled
(b) Entanglement is destroyed as soon as the system is 'measured', which in physics may mean something as simple as a photon interacting with another particle. So even if the whole universe started out entangled, it would not stay that way.

Quote
Can it explain "supernatural" processes, or does a more fundamental theory is needed?


'Supernatural process' suggests something which occurs but which is not understood by science yet. There are certainly many of these; science is always progressing and figuring out new things. smile

Personally I like to say that nothing supernatural can both exist and have any affect on the universe, because if it does then it is measurable and may be understood, at which point it is simply a part of the regular laws of nature.





 
Destructor1701Date: Sunday, 01.12.2013, 04:41 | Message # 17
Pioneer
Group: Users
Ireland
Messages: 531
Status: Offline
Quote Voekoevaka ()
Your "god" is four gods : gravitational interaction, electromagnetic interaction, strong interaction and weak interaction. So you're a polytheist ! biggrin


And lo, long foretold was the day, and the coming of a prophet! One who would unite the Four Force Gods, under one being, one Grand Unified Being, the God known to us as the Theory Of Everything, or "Toe".





 
anonymousgamerDate: Sunday, 01.12.2013, 04:51 | Message # 18
World Builder
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 1011
Status: Offline
All hail






Desktop: FX-8350 4.0 GHz, 8 GB DDR3 RAM, EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 FTW 8 GB, 2 TB HDD, 24 inch 1920x1080 screen
Laptop: Core i5 480M 2.66 GHz (turbo 2.93), 8 GB DDR3 RAM, AMD Radeon HD 6550m 1 GB, 640 GB HDD, 17.3 inch 1600x900 screen
 
midtskogenDate: Sunday, 01.12.2013, 09:01 | Message # 19
Star Engineer
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 1672
Status: Offline
Quote HarbingerDawn ()
Agnosticism refers to a position on what a person claims to know, not what they believe. On the question of gods, you either believe that a god exists, or you do not. That is a separate question from whether you claim to know that one exists. It is possible to be agnostic while being either an atheist or a theist, so that in itself is not very descriptive of a person's beliefs, and regardless there simply wouldn't be enough poll options to include that.

But the poll question was about religiosity, not specifically about a belief of lack of belief in a deity. The question options clearly distinguish between that. At least some flavours of agnosticism could be quite descriptive of a person's religiosity in that sense. Anyway, as I said somewhere, the such lists of options tend to grow asymptotically towards the number of participants.





NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Sunday, 01.12.2013, 14:51 | Message # 20
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Quote midtskogen ()
But the poll question was about religiosity, not specifically about a belief of lack of belief in a deity.

The poll is about your beliefs. Since agnosticism is not a position of belief, then it should not be in the poll. And as you and I have both pointed out, if we start trying to include things like that we'll quickly exceed the limit of poll options.

And technically, the "poll question" is not about religiosity in general, it's simply asking whether you're a religious person, which is a yes or no question. And anyway, it's important to consider the spirit of the poll and the practical limitations of its implementation rather than trying to say "well, it's about religiosity, which could include x, y, and z." The only option so far which is absent and should definitely be included is one for pantheism.





All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM


Edited by HarbingerDawn - Sunday, 01.12.2013, 14:58
 
neutronium76Date: Monday, 02.12.2013, 11:58 | Message # 21
World Builder
Group: Users
Greece
Messages: 718
Status: Offline
So the poll format has changed. Which option represents the old option: I believe in God but I am not a religious person? And do we need to vote again or is the old vote kept?




PC1:Core i7 970@3.34GHz, 6 cores/12 threads, 12GB DDR3 RAM@1.34GHz, 2x(SLI) GTX-580 GPUs 3GB VRAM(GDDR5)@1GHz, OS:Win7x64SP1
PC2:Core2Quad X9770@3.2GHz, 2 cores/4 threads 4GB DDR2 RAM@1GHz, GTX-285 GPU 1GB VRAM(DDR3)@1.24GHz, OS:WinVistax64SP2
 
Antza2Date: Monday, 02.12.2013, 12:03 | Message # 22
World Builder
Group: Global Moderators
Finland
Messages: 1049
Status: Offline
You need to vote again. Your choise would seem to be non-religious theist.




Go to antza2.deviantart.com for cool photos!
 
DoctorOfSpaceDate: Thursday, 19.12.2013, 03:09 | Message # 23
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
Pirate
Messages: 3600
Status: Offline
I recently was linked this

Seems to come from a complete lack of understanding of chemistry, biology, and physics.





Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor
G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory
EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB


Edited by DoctorOfSpace - Thursday, 19.12.2013, 03:09
 
WatsisnameDate: Thursday, 19.12.2013, 16:54 | Message # 24
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2611
Status: Offline
Quote DoctorOfSpace ()
Seems to come from a complete lack of understanding of chemistry, biology, and physics.


Very much so. The central argument appears to be that complexity and high information content systems cannot have natural origins, which is completely absurd. We find self-complexifying behavior in auto-catalytic reactions, biological systems, and evolution.

The video also gets the Big Bang theory completely wrong, by repeating the common but incorrect belief that the theory says 'everything came from nothing'. The Big Bang does not say anything about the initial instant of expansion, let alone what if anything came before that event. It only says that the universe evolved from a very hot and dense initial state, and the physics behind this is extremely well understood and verified through observation.

I've never really understood why creationists think the Big Bang theory is contradictory to belief in God, for there is no incompatibility in either direction. You can be an atheist or a theist and still accept the Big Bang. smile





 
SalvoDate: Thursday, 19.12.2013, 19:38 | Message # 25
Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Italy
Messages: 1400
Status: Offline
Quote DoctorOfSpace ()
Seems to come from a complete lack of understanding of chemistry, biology, and physics.

Yeah, a bit wacko

I can agree with 30% of what he says in video, but one mostly not, before the Big Bang there was actually something, it's false that big bang "generated" matter, it generated idrogen/most complex atoms as we know today, but, on my opinion, the mass was already there, it was only compressed in a very small space...





The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition.

CPU: Intel Core i7 4770 GPU: ASUS Radeon R9 270 RAM: 8 GBs

(still don't know why everyone is doing this...)


Edited by Salvo - Thursday, 19.12.2013, 19:38
 
midtskogenDate: Thursday, 19.12.2013, 19:52 | Message # 26
Star Engineer
Group: Users
Norway
Messages: 1672
Status: Offline
Quote Salvo ()
before the Big Bang there was actually something, it's false that big bang "generated" matter, it generated idrogen/most complex atoms as we know today, but, on my opinion, the mass was already there, it was only compressed in a very small space...

That belongs in the realm of belief rather than being an opinion based on observations, unless you can explain why Big Bang, or what appears to us as Big Bang, must have happened. For that we might need a deeper understanding of what space-time is, its place and nature.





NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
 
WatsisnameDate: Thursday, 19.12.2013, 20:49 | Message # 27
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2611
Status: Offline
Matter actually did not exist until some time after the Big Bang, with particles of increasingly greater complexity forming as the universe cooled. (Wikipedia has a good rundown of the sequence of events; the first few minutes were really interesting.) Atoms did not form until about 380,000 years after the Big Bang, with their formation resulting in the release of the cosmic microwave background radiation.

Common misconception about the Big Bang is that everything was concentrated in a small space, but this is wrong. It was concentrated everywhere. The singularity of the Big Bang is a singularity in density, not size. We can say that everything contained in the observable universe was in a smaller volume of space in the past, so we may speak of the size or scale factor of the universe being smaller, but for all we know the universe as a whole may be infinite in size, and was still infinite at the Big Bang.

We can not say anything about what happened before the Big Bang; this remains purely in the realm of speculation and we have no physics for it. (A string theorist might claim otherwise, but I'm no string theorist) tongue





 
HarbingerDawnDate: Thursday, 19.12.2013, 20:52 | Message # 28
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8714
Status: Offline
Quote Salvo ()
it's false that big bang "generated" matter

How do you know? According to our best understanding of what happened at the time, when the so-called Big Bang began, the universe had no matter, only energy. As the energy density decreased, matter was able to begin condensing from the energy. Eventually, this process produced the first atoms, which were hydrogen, some helium, and small amounts of lithium. Everything else was made in stars.

It's true that the "mass" was already there, but it was in the form of energy, not matter.





All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
 
SalvoDate: Friday, 20.12.2013, 15:59 | Message # 29
Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Italy
Messages: 1400
Status: Offline
Quote HarbingerDawn ()
It's true that the "mass" was already there, but it was in the form of energy, not matter.


That's what I meant... maybe I expressed it in the wrong way smile





The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition.

CPU: Intel Core i7 4770 GPU: ASUS Radeon R9 270 RAM: 8 GBs

(still don't know why everyone is doing this...)
 
TemperateTerraIsBestDate: Saturday, 14.02.2015, 22:17 | Message # 30
Space Tourist
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 32
Status: Offline
Atheist, no supernatural beliefs.




Sample Text
 
Forum » SpaceEngine » Off-topic Discussions » Religiosity poll (Poll!)
Page 2 of 5«12345»
Search: