<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Computer language use and religious affiliation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://michaelkimsal.com/blog/computer-language-use-and-religious-affiliation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://michaelkimsal.com/blog/computer-language-use-and-religious-affiliation/</link>
	<description>Web development and new media observations</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 16:16:27 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Yo</title>
		<link>http://michaelkimsal.com/blog/computer-language-use-and-religious-affiliation/comment-page-1/#comment-66603</link>
		<dc:creator>Yo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2009 14:03:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelkimsal.com/blog/?p=429#comment-66603</guid>
		<description>Can you fix your results php page? I&#039;m interested in the results!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can you fix your results php page? I&#8217;m interested in the results!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mgkimsal</title>
		<link>http://michaelkimsal.com/blog/computer-language-use-and-religious-affiliation/comment-page-1/#comment-36080</link>
		<dc:creator>mgkimsal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Jun 2008 03:04:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelkimsal.com/blog/?p=429#comment-36080</guid>
		<description>IH!  :)

For one to confidently assert that there is a God requires that that person be omniscient.  

&quot;But it doesn&#039;t!  I just need faith!&quot;

OK, then call atheists &quot;people of faith&quot;.  It&#039;s a faith that doesn&#039;t require any evidence or belief in a supernatural being though.  And an atheist wouldn&#039;t call refer to themself with that label - you might use it to refer to them.  Similarly, someone who has a belief in the supernatural (spirits, witches, &quot;Jesus&quot; as the Son of God, fairies, etc.) might consider it a completely normal belief, but an atheist may refer to that person as delusional.

And what&#039;s this?  &quot;That would by definition make them God.&quot;  

By whose definitions?  If someone knew everything about the entire universe (and even beyond) it wouldn&#039;t make them &quot;God&quot;.  It would make them someone who knew everything about the universe (and beyond).  You need a belief in a God to come up with that definition (a &quot;God&quot; being &quot;omniscient&quot;) in the first place.

Thanks for playing.  :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>IH!  <img src='http://michaelkimsal.com/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>For one to confidently assert that there is a God requires that that person be omniscient.  </p>
<p>&#8220;But it doesn&#8217;t!  I just need faith!&#8221;</p>
<p>OK, then call atheists &#8220;people of faith&#8221;.  It&#8217;s a faith that doesn&#8217;t require any evidence or belief in a supernatural being though.  And an atheist wouldn&#8217;t call refer to themself with that label &#8211; you might use it to refer to them.  Similarly, someone who has a belief in the supernatural (spirits, witches, &#8220;Jesus&#8221; as the Son of God, fairies, etc.) might consider it a completely normal belief, but an atheist may refer to that person as delusional.</p>
<p>And what&#8217;s this?  &#8220;That would by definition make them God.&#8221;  </p>
<p>By whose definitions?  If someone knew everything about the entire universe (and even beyond) it wouldn&#8217;t make them &#8220;God&#8221;.  It would make them someone who knew everything about the universe (and beyond).  You need a belief in a God to come up with that definition (a &#8220;God&#8221; being &#8220;omniscient&#8221;) in the first place.</p>
<p>Thanks for playing.  <img src='http://michaelkimsal.com/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt K</title>
		<link>http://michaelkimsal.com/blog/computer-language-use-and-religious-affiliation/comment-page-1/#comment-36079</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt K</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Jun 2008 02:57:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelkimsal.com/blog/?p=429#comment-36079</guid>
		<description>Atheism shouldn&#039;t even be a choice...it&#039;s logically impossible.  For one to confidently assert that there is no God requires that they be omniscient--they would have to know everything about the entire universe to be able to factually state that.  That would by definition make them God.

If someone wants to call themselves agnostic--not being able to prove the existence of God--then that&#039;s OK.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Atheism shouldn&#8217;t even be a choice&#8230;it&#8217;s logically impossible.  For one to confidently assert that there is no God requires that they be omniscient&#8211;they would have to know everything about the entire universe to be able to factually state that.  That would by definition make them God.</p>
<p>If someone wants to call themselves agnostic&#8211;not being able to prove the existence of God&#8211;then that&#8217;s OK.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gurminder</title>
		<link>http://michaelkimsal.com/blog/computer-language-use-and-religious-affiliation/comment-page-1/#comment-26975</link>
		<dc:creator>Gurminder</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2008 08:03:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelkimsal.com/blog/?p=429#comment-26975</guid>
		<description>There was no Sikhism :( ... It is world&#039;s fourth largest religion...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There was no Sikhism <img src='http://michaelkimsal.com/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif' alt=':(' class='wp-smiley' />  &#8230; It is world&#8217;s fourth largest religion&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: links for 2008-01-28 &#171; Richard@Home</title>
		<link>http://michaelkimsal.com/blog/computer-language-use-and-religious-affiliation/comment-page-1/#comment-26961</link>
		<dc:creator>links for 2008-01-28 &#171; Richard@Home</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2008 05:08:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelkimsal.com/blog/?p=429#comment-26961</guid>
		<description>[...] Michael Kimsal’s weblog » Computer language use and religious affiliation I voted! (They didn&#8217;t have a &#8216;realist&#8217; option, so I added it to &#8216;other&#8217;. Please go and vote too! (tags: programming religion survey) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Michael Kimsal’s weblog » Computer language use and religious affiliation I voted! (They didn&#8217;t have a &#8216;realist&#8217; option, so I added it to &#8216;other&#8217;. Please go and vote too! (tags: programming religion survey) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Kimsal&#8217;s weblog &#187; Computer language use and religious affiliation update</title>
		<link>http://michaelkimsal.com/blog/computer-language-use-and-religious-affiliation/comment-page-1/#comment-26904</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Kimsal&#8217;s weblog &#187; Computer language use and religious affiliation update</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:03:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelkimsal.com/blog/?p=429#comment-26904</guid>
		<description>[...] the religion and language survey,first written about here, we&#8217;ve already got 2800 entries in less than 24 hours.  I&#8217;d like to leave this open [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] the religion and language survey,first written about here, we&#8217;ve already got 2800 entries in less than 24 hours.  I&#8217;d like to leave this open [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mgkimsal</title>
		<link>http://michaelkimsal.com/blog/computer-language-use-and-religious-affiliation/comment-page-1/#comment-26903</link>
		<dc:creator>mgkimsal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:59:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelkimsal.com/blog/?p=429#comment-26903</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve considered the multiple religions option, but as it&#039;s so far in to it as it stands, changing the terms that drastically now would skew whatever semblance of accuracy there might be in the results.  There is the option for &#039;other&#039;, and people are using that in some measure.

I know about the super/subset angle, but I&#039;ve talked to a number of developers who are very adamant about being agnostic, but not atheist.  It felt like there was enough of a distinction to make there so I made it.  I wish I&#039;d split up the Muslim category more, and had a few more choices, but there are people putting things in &#039;other&#039; so it&#039;s not the end of the world.

Thanks for the feedback.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve considered the multiple religions option, but as it&#8217;s so far in to it as it stands, changing the terms that drastically now would skew whatever semblance of accuracy there might be in the results.  There is the option for &#8216;other&#8217;, and people are using that in some measure.</p>
<p>I know about the super/subset angle, but I&#8217;ve talked to a number of developers who are very adamant about being agnostic, but not atheist.  It felt like there was enough of a distinction to make there so I made it.  I wish I&#8217;d split up the Muslim category more, and had a few more choices, but there are people putting things in &#8216;other&#8217; so it&#8217;s not the end of the world.</p>
<p>Thanks for the feedback.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: magv</title>
		<link>http://michaelkimsal.com/blog/computer-language-use-and-religious-affiliation/comment-page-1/#comment-26901</link>
		<dc:creator>magv</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:53:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelkimsal.com/blog/?p=429#comment-26901</guid>
		<description>Nice to see agnostic and atheist being two different options. You know the latter is the superset of the former, right? So it may be a good idea to allow users to select multiple religion options at the same time.

One more thing: satanist would be an important and interesting option to see. Some people would certainly turn it into a joke, but it&#039;s worth a try i guess.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice to see agnostic and atheist being two different options. You know the latter is the superset of the former, right? So it may be a good idea to allow users to select multiple religion options at the same time.</p>
<p>One more thing: satanist would be an important and interesting option to see. Some people would certainly turn it into a joke, but it&#8217;s worth a try i guess.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mgkimsal</title>
		<link>http://michaelkimsal.com/blog/computer-language-use-and-religious-affiliation/comment-page-1/#comment-26891</link>
		<dc:creator>mgkimsal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jan 2008 18:43:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelkimsal.com/blog/?p=429#comment-26891</guid>
		<description>@Richard

I wrote elsewhere that the original idea was brought about because I was wondering if &#039;strongly typed&#039; vs &#039;weakly typed&#039; languages had any correlation to religions - absolutism vs relativism, perhaps.  The end result survey doesn&#039;t quite do the best job of capturing that particular data set, but it&#039;s ended up being open ended enough such that I think the results may still be interesting anyway.  Or not - no real way to tell until later.  I may start doing some &#039;dynamic&#039; view of the data before the survey&#039;s closed, but I have no firm plans for that yet.

Thanks!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Richard</p>
<p>I wrote elsewhere that the original idea was brought about because I was wondering if &#8217;strongly typed&#8217; vs &#8216;weakly typed&#8217; languages had any correlation to religions &#8211; absolutism vs relativism, perhaps.  The end result survey doesn&#8217;t quite do the best job of capturing that particular data set, but it&#8217;s ended up being open ended enough such that I think the results may still be interesting anyway.  Or not &#8211; no real way to tell until later.  I may start doing some &#8216;dynamic&#8217; view of the data before the survey&#8217;s closed, but I have no firm plans for that yet.</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard@Home</title>
		<link>http://michaelkimsal.com/blog/computer-language-use-and-religious-affiliation/comment-page-1/#comment-26882</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard@Home</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jan 2008 16:10:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelkimsal.com/blog/?p=429#comment-26882</guid>
		<description>What a fantastic and original idea for a survey. What was the catalyst for this? I can&#039;t wait to see the results.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What a fantastic and original idea for a survey. What was the catalyst for this? I can&#8217;t wait to see the results.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
