david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) (02/29/84)
[line-eater line]
As I promised, here are the results of the net.religion survey. All in all,
36 people responded to the survey (not a very good showing). Is that all
that is out there? I also note that the people who are most active in this
newsgroup did not respond to the survey (I can think of five off the top of my
head - you know who you are). Comments about each question are included with
that question, and general comments are listed at the end. I tried *hard* to
include everyone's response here, and even *harder* not to proselytize. :-)
------------------------------
1. Basic religious preference
------------------------------
9 a) Christians
6 b) Jewish
0 c) Buddhist
0 d) Hindu
1 e) Moslem
4 f) Atheist
4 g) Agnostic
11 h) Other, including:
Agnostic with theistic/pantheistic overtones
a,c,d,e,f (Those are all serious answers, believe it or not. Hail
Astarte!)
Traditional Egalitarian Jewish + agnostic
monotheistic non-sentient all-powerful [being|life force]
LDS, Scientology, my own observations
Helenistic polytheist
skeptic
"other"
between Christian and Agnostic
Baha'i
Comments on question 1:
* unaffiliated personally, though the church I attend happens to be a
combination Disciples of Christ and United Church of Christ. I have strong
views that the current demoninational structure of the Christian church is
very much unBiblical. I most often refer to sections in Ephesians on the
need for Unity, and how the Bible's description of the church refers to
either all believers everywhere or a (geographically) local subset, never a
division based on "we're right and you're wrong."
* Skeptic, i.e. I think God is a possibility, but have yet to see sufficient
evidence. Strictly speaking, this is different from an agnostic, who
believes it is impossible to know if God exists.
* I'll admit to belief the reality of the mystical, I'm extremely suspicious
of any statement as to the nature of this mystical reality.
* Agnostic (more or less) have certain Buddhist and Satanistic leanings -- on
the whole, quite a mongrel.
------------------------
2. Religious upbringing
------------------------
20 Christian
6 Jewish
0 Buddhist
1 Hindu
1 Moslem
1 Athiest
1 Agnostic
5 Other, including:
Jewish(conservative) + agnostic
2 Unitarian
LDS, my own observations
none
Comments on question 2:
Only my own; many comments were of the "not very strong" flavor; most of these
were in the Christian and Jewish catagories. I left them out to reduce the
monotony.
-------------------------------------------------
3. How long have you subscribed to this religion
-------------------------------------------------
Answers varied between 3 months and "all my life" (9 responses). Numbers
given in years, with number in parenthesis indicating number of identical
responses. Two "joke" responses were also given.
1/4
5/12
2/3
3/4
1
1.5
2 (2)
5
7 (2)
9 (3)
10 (4)
12
15
20
23
"all my life" (9)
"Dont subscribe - get it at the newsstands"
"various" (don't know what he meant by this - Dave)
comments on question 3:
* Seems like forever. At times the ideas of specific religions become
attractive and I'll half-believe, then common sense asserts itself. I
resist conversions.
-------------------------
4: I post to net.religion
-------------------------
2 a) often
10 b) sometimes
12 c) rarely
9 d) never
2 e) new on the net
Comments on question 4:
* It's more fun just watching it...
------------------------------------------------------
5: What is your basic attitude toward other religions
------------------------------------------------------
0 a) they are all wrong and deserve death
0 b) they are all wrong and need to be zealously converted
1 c) for the most part, they are wrong and need correction
3 d) they are partly right and partly wrong, just misguided
5 e) they are all right to some extent
12 f) to each his own (don't care)
Comments on question 5:
* some are right (to some extent)
* most have good and bad aspects. All consider themselves RIGHT.
* wrong and musn't be attacked (unless they attack others)
* e and f
* most think that only they are right
* they are all wrong and all right
* to each his own, as long as he doesn't believe a, b (or to a less extent,
c)
* we can all learn from each other
* d modified by f
* I don't know if they are wrong or right
* (Ok as long as) they believe in God, Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit
* Note that I have taken out the don't care. I do care. Jews are Jews and I
encourage them to be observant. I would never encourage non-Jews to become
Jewish. Conversion to Judaism is possible but should be discouraged. I am
mildly interested in others' views. All are "right", to an extent.
* Hmm...very difficult to pick one of your choices. I'll say "(g) other" for
self-defense. My reasoning is something like this: I, as a Christian, know
that the only way to God is through Christ; that is explained to me in the
Bible. However, I do not know that I have the only way to Christ. When the
Bible says, "Believe in the Lord and yo shall be saved," I view that as
sufficient but not the only "necessary" condition. Other things of which
I'm not aware might be sufficient, too. *One* of these various possibilities
of sufficiency is undoubtedly necessary, but any one of them might do. I
can't say that all American Indians, for example, are completely wrong in
their belief in the Great Spirit. They might be identical, in a different
context, to our view of Jesus Christ. I suppose that this moves me closer
to "(d) part wrong/part right," and I freely admit that I think they lean
toward "wrong" without viewing them as "heathen." As I said, I have trouble
picking one of your choices.
* They are all wrong, to a greater or lesser extent; parts of some of them,
however, are useful for the moral vales they instill, although parts of some
of them are morally quite reprehensible; for the most part, though, to each
his own.
* I believe that they are probably all wrong in some ways, but most have some
goodness in them.
* At least three things are called *religion*: social organizations,
mythologies, and mysticism. Social organizations must be judged
individually. A mythology can be criticized on grounds of the morals it
teaches. If a mythology makes claims of literal truth it is subject to
experimental criticism, but I'm not sure that's useful, since mythologies
do not serve the function of empirical knowledge. Mysticism, since it
involves perception, albeit unusual perception, cannot be criticized;
mystics are subject to the usual criticisms one applies to people.
----------------------------------------
6: What is your opinion of net.religion
----------------------------------------
0 a) serves no useful purpose
10 b) some pearls, but mostly swine
2 c) half good, half bad
12 d) useful forum of discussion, with some reservations
4 e) excellent medium to discuss religious matters
2 a joke
comments about question 6:
* some pearls, but mostly less than pearls
* it shows beyond all doubt that there are a large group of people with
simple-minded attitudes who wish everyone to be similar.
* better than net.jokes
* a good joke
* b and d
* Usually useless in terms of convincing anyone of anything, but an
interesting medium for finding out what other people believe.
* As I've said in net.religion, the quantity of hatred expressed is horrendous
and completely inexcusable. The overly-used technique of sarcasm adds
little to the discussion, too.
* I have many reservations about this forum. It sometimes descends to almost
a childlike level, but there are any pearls to be found here.
---------------
Other comments:
---------------
* Interesting poll. Looking forward to seeing the posted results.
* Too many people are trying to convert everyone else in a highly personal
area for this forum to be effective. I originally thought that I would
learn about a variety of religious beliefs when I started reading this
group. Unfortunately, whenever a non-Christian belief is stated, rather
than learning much about it, I end up reading the defenses of why they
should not be converted to Christianity. I don't want to read that!!! I
want to find ot what makes that religion different from Christianity. I
admit that there are some admirable parts of Christianity, but too often the
religion is pushed down your throat by zealots. That is why I no longer want
to say "I am a Christian." Christianity is too hypocritical for my taste.
Please let other religions state their beliefs without telling they are
going to burn in hell. Every person has his or her own reasons for choosing
his religion.
* Seems like a couple of other questions would have been interesting, like:
7) How active is your religious practice (very) and 8) Do you subscribe to
a theology (Zen -- I just happen to belong to the Presbyterian Church). I
have enjoyed your discussions with Maroney et al. You certainly have taken
on a difficult task, since for the most part, Christianity is not very
logical to non-Theists. For the most part, their quarrel seems to be with
the understanding of YHWH presented in the Old Testament, which really
isn't much of a problem except for Fundamentalists and philosophical
"sophomores" who know much but understand little.
* It's amazing how many people try for so long to argue the same points with
the same arguments. Does no one know anything about history of religion?
(Excepting Laura Creighton and Tim Maroney, who do.) The newsgroup is
basically filled with naive Christians who don't know a) very much about
their own religion nor b) how to distinguish it from religion in the
abstract.
* You spelled "atheist" wrong.
* I feel somewhat intimidated posting to the net right now, given the types
of discussions now prevalent. I *really* wish that either there were a
net.religion.jewish that I could submit to, or that net.religion posed a
more favorable climate for me to post to it.
* Others should be counted (or your being prejudiced).
* Please do post the results. I never submit to net.religion but I read it
every day.
* There comes a point where people should stop flaming at each other and
accept that others have different points of view.
* Here's hoping you post the results.
* Not at this time, but I reserve the right to cross-examine at a later time.
* People need to learn how to live with people who have different wants/needs.
These wants/needs also cover religion and religious expression. A good
part of the worlds problem (not all of them) are that people can't live with
one another knowing that each is of a different faith. This is a over-
simplification of the problem, but I believe my point is basically true.
* I think net.religion could be used by people interested in religious
questions to broaden their knowledge and understanding of one another's
point of view. Instead, most of the articles are about a few dead-end
debates sch as why one should/should not believe in God, evolution vs
creation etc.
That's it. I refrained from making any comments about the replies, and am
simply repeating them here unedited. Spelling errors are my mistake as many of
the replies I copied by hand; if you want to flame a comment for content, ok;
but direct speling flames to me.
A personal comment on the survey? I'm surprised at the number of Christians
that read this forum, although they are not in the majority. I'm also surprised
at the very limited readership of this forum, although I don't know how many
people didn't respond. The content of some of the replies would be comic, if
they weren't so very serious.
-- David Norris :-)
-- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david