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

61–70 of 196 posts

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#61

Post by rue »

ErrantX wrote: post #46
rue wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did not find it in any way engaging. Embarrassing, rather. The "discussion" is not original, as was pointed out earlier, and rather poorly presented (granted the possible real protagonist may have been more charismatic.) On the other hand, if someone does find it useful or educational, I suppose the only fault can be found in myself for not having pointed to the same insight.

With the greatest respect; i'm not sure that everythign posted here has to be educational or useful. Sivers' writing is generally "inspirational" (I love his writing style), light hearted and informative. I actually think there is a very deep and important point to be learned from this particular post.

You do not consider learning a "very deep and important point" to be educational nor useful? :)

However you wish to refer to your experience, for one reason or another I did not share it but, as I was musing, that is sort of irrelevant since someone did.

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#62

Post by dionidium »

aero142 wrote: post #38

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 the…

I disagree. The point of the argument is that the same reasoning used to rule out all the gods you don't believe in can be used to rule out the god(s) you do.

Your analogy isn't equivalent in that way. Thinking through why you don't believe in Thor might help you reveal a double-standard or inconsistency. Thinking through why you didn't -- what? -- give birth to all the other children in the world is nonsensical.

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#63

Post by mkramlich »

hugh3 wrote: post #36
mkramlich wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Funny! :-P But seriously, since flying and causing thunderstorms are way more exotic and powerful abilities than merely having lunch with someone, they would be acceptable substitutes for lunch. Better than lunch!

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#64

Post by lotharbot »

aero142 wrote: post #38

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 the…

"Me and Bernie Madoff have a lot in common. There are 6.8 billion people on earth neither of us have defrauded."

A similar argument can be used with Jeffrey Dahmer and murder, various priests and child molestation, Kobe Bryant and defeating people in a 1-on-1 basketball game, or Fred Phelps and funerals protested.

There is a big difference between no children and one, no murders and one, no gods and one, no felonies and one, and so on.

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#65

Post by ErrantX »

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.

Judaism (to take an example) was a contemporary of those religions too - it hasn't changed an awful lot over the intervening time span.

You seem to shrug off "what people believed 2,500 years ago" as, perhaps, silly or illogical and then chasten someone for doing the same to current religion :)

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#66

Post by Alex3917 »

[deleted] wrote: post #57
Alex3917 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

[deleted]

I know the difference, and I used them properly. It might have been a little confusing because I refer to both in the same post, but I meant them to be completely different examples. (In other words, astronomers are engaged in religious activity because they are trying to figure out the origins of the universe. Whereas Kary Mullis is an expert on the contemporary arguments in favor of astrology, if there are any.)

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#67

Post by sshumaker »

ErrantX wrote: post #65
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.

Judaism (to take an example) was a contemporary of those religions too - it hasn't changed an awful lot over the intervening time span. You seem to shrug off "what people believed 2,500 years ago" as, perhaps, silly or illogical and then chasten someone for doing the same to current religion :)

2,500 years ago, Jews were slaughtering goats and offering them as burnt offerings on altars in order to absolve themselves of sin.

Modern Judaism is distinctly different than what was practiced two millenia ago.

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#68

Post by psnj »

I've always found this an interesting topic, and once in a while it's interesting to discuss it with someone who believes in a god.

Sometimes I wonder how much we choose what we believe, especially when it gets down to this bottom-of-the-soul (or "soul"), meaning-of-life stuff. When someone is incredulous at the fact that I don't believe in any sort of god, I 've said: "Let's try this: for the next sixty seconds, I'll start believing in God, and for the same sixty seconds, you have to stop believing in God. Are you in?"

Naturally, it's not really possible for either person to do this, but sometimes it promotes interesting discussion about the nature of faith — why can't we do this, etc, etc?

Of course, a lot of times it just pisses people off too.

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#70

Post by ErrantX »

rue wrote: post #61
ErrantX wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the greatest respect; i'm not sure that everythign posted here has to be educational or useful. Sivers' writing is generally "inspirational" (I love his writing style), light hearted and informative. I actually think there is a very deep and important point to be learned from this particular post.

You do not consider learning a "very deep and important point" to be educational nor useful? :) However you wish to refer to your experience, for one reason or another I did not share it but, as I was musing, that is sort of irrelevant since someone did.

Hmm, I was making a point regarding your comment and a weird mix of the original "not hacker news" one and your own. Sorry :(

Formally:

1) I actually do think it is educational

2) Regardless, things posted to HN, surely, don't have to be educational all the time! :)

To discuss your post a bit more: I think you missed the point. The subject of Sivers anecdote was irrelevant; as I read it (and the following explanation) it is about learning things :)

Post reply on HN