Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Thursday = Thor's day

sivers.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 196 posts

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#31

Post by hugh3 »

Alex3917 wrote: post #19

"You and I are almost identical in our beliefs! If history has named, say, 520 gods, you don't believe in 519 of them, I don't believe in 520 of them." This argument comes from Dawkins book The God Delusion. It's clever, but also kind of dumb. Trying to discredit contemporary religion based on what people believed 2,500 years ago is like trying to discredit science based on alchemy.

Isn't the God of existing Abrahamic religions the same dude that the ancient Hebrews were worshipping 2,500 years ago?

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#32

Post by rue »

Alex3917 wrote: post #19

"You and I are almost identical in our beliefs! If history has named, say, 520 gods, you don't believe in 519 of them, I don't believe in 520 of them." This argument comes from Dawkins book The God Delusion. It's clever, but also kind of dumb. Trying to discredit contemporary religion based on what people believed 2,500 years ago is like trying to discredit science based on alchemy.

Given the ideas and tenets of "contemporary" religion are 1500 to 2500 years old, I think it is a perfectly valid comparison.

Lame, yes, but valid.

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#33

Post by hugh3 »

TomOfTTB wrote: post #28

This just makes me sad to be honest with you. The idea that “we believe in 519 out of 520 Gods” means anything shows a fundamental misunderstanding of religion. You may not like the beliefs of some religious people but the point of religion is the beliefs. It’s not that a God created the world it’s that a benevolent God created the world and left teachings which lead to benevolence. On that note I’d point out that he…

It’s not that a God created the world it’s that a benevolent God created the world and left teachings which lead to benevolence.

I'm confused. Are you saying that the second part can be true without the first part being true?

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#34

Post by zephjc »

hackermom wrote: post #15
huherto wrote: post #7

Interesting. Knowing a little bit of English/Spanish you can guess the origin of most of the days of the week. * Sunday/Domingo - Sun/? * Monday/Lunes - Moon/Luna * Tuesday/Martes - ?/Mars * Wednesday/Miercoles - ?/Mercurio * Thursday/Jueves - Thor/Jupiter * Friday/Viernes - ?/Venus * Saturday/Sabado - Saturn/?

This is how it goes in Swedish as per our Norse history and heritage: Monday = Måndag = Månes dag (Máni's day) - Måne, the brother of Sol. "måne" is also Swedish for "moon" Tuesday = Tisdag = Tyrs dag (Týr's day, son of Oden) Wednesday = Onsdag = Odens dag (Oden's day) Thursday = Torsdag = Tors dag (Thor's day) Friday = Fredag = Frejas dag (Freyja's day) - some say this day is named after Frigg, and some Norse histor…

Icelandic shares only some and ends up being more like Bulgarian and Portuguese mentioned above - looks like the early Christian influence got the Icelanders too

   Monday: mánudagur = moon day
   Tuesday: þriðjudagur = 3rd day
   Wednesday: miðvikudagur = mid-week day
   Thursday: fimmtudagur = 5th day
   Friday: föstudagur = fasting day
   Saturday: laugardagur = washing day
   Sunday: sunnudagur = sun day

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#35

Post by roqetman »

Alex3917 wrote: post #19

"You and I are almost identical in our beliefs! If history has named, say, 520 gods, you don't believe in 519 of them, I don't believe in 520 of them." This argument comes from Dawkins book The God Delusion. It's clever, but also kind of dumb. Trying to discredit contemporary religion based on what people believed 2,500 years ago is like trying to discredit science based on alchemy.

That would imply that the current view of god(s) is more advanced (in a provable way) that the old view of them. To an atheist, this is nitpicking.

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#36

Post by hugh3 »

mkramlich wrote: post #30
hugh3 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this apply to people as well?

Nope I believe Linus Torvalds exists even though I don't expect to have lunch with him. I have higher standards for gods. Unlike most of the planet. Unfortunately.

It still seems a little unfair. If Thor flew across the sky right now, brought thunderstorms to the desert, Mjolnir-ed the Space Needle, appeared on television shaking hands with Conan O'Brien, and rebuffed your lunch invitation on the grounds that he has a thumb-wrestling appointment with Quetzalcoatl, you still wouldn't believe in him?

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#37

Post by mtoledo »

infinite8s wrote: post #27
xelipe wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You beat me to it... I was going to mention that in Spanish, the weekdays are named after Roman gods from Latin. If you find this amazing, then you will be surprised that the month of July is named after Julius Caesar. But what I find truly amazing is that Caesar Salad is named after a guy from Tijuana!!!

And August for Emperor Augustus, January for the roman god Janus (who was actually Zeus), etc

There's a legend that emperor Augustus wanted his month to have 31 days as well, just like Julius, and that's why we have 31 days on both months.

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#38

Post by aero142 »

This argument is fun but not much more.

"Why don't you have any children?. This seems strange to me."

"Well, there are billions of children in the world that are not yours, I just have one less than you. We're basically the same."

The difference between having no children and one child is big. So is the difference between believing in no gods, and one God.

I think the original argument is useful to point out that there are billions of people who don't believe in your particular God, and that it isn't that strange to not believe.

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#39

Post by Alex3917 »

hugh3 wrote: post #31
Alex3917 wrote: post #19

"You and I are almost identical in our beliefs! If history has named, say, 520 gods, you don't believe in 519 of them, I don't believe in 520 of them." This argument comes from Dawkins book The God Delusion. It's clever, but also kind of dumb. Trying to discredit contemporary religion based on what people believed 2,500 years ago is like trying to discredit science based on alchemy.

Isn't the God of existing Abrahamic religions the same dude that the ancient Hebrews were worshipping 2,500 years ago?

Yeah, but if you look at the etymology of 'religion' it just means to tie back. In other words, to reunite people with some original source of all things. My point is that if you want a contemporary account of god, ask the people working on the Hubble telescope or the folks from csp.org, not some random sect whose beliefs haven't changed in 2,500 years.

To give another example, if I wanted to debunk astrology then I'd start by arguing against the beliefs of Kary Mullis (who won the Nobel prize in science), not some 4000 year old scrolls.

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#40

Post by hugh3 »

roqetman wrote: post #35
Alex3917 wrote: post #19

"You and I are almost identical in our beliefs! If history has named, say, 520 gods, you don't believe in 519 of them, I don't believe in 520 of them." This argument comes from Dawkins book The God Delusion. It's clever, but also kind of dumb. Trying to discredit contemporary religion based on what people believed 2,500 years ago is like trying to discredit science based on alchemy.

That would imply that the current view of god(s) is more advanced (in a provable way) that the old view of them. To an atheist, this is nitpicking.

It might be legitimate if you were arguing with a deist (holding merely the belief that there is some form of deity responsible for creating the universe) rather than a Christian (holding the belief that God created the universe then sent a bunch of prophets to the Jews then appeared as his own son as a carpenter in Judea for some reason then got himself crucified by the Romans so that everybody's sins would be forgiven).

The former of these (which I do not personally hold) is a more sophisticated and plausible than the existence of Thor, while the latter is pretty much on exactly the same level.

Post reply on HN