Thursday = Thor's day • Hacker News Board

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#151

Post by philwelch » Fri, May 07, 2010, 10:50 PM UTC

jboydyhacker wrote: post #77

ErrantX wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that Judiasm was originally multiple gods. They got the idea for monotheism from the Egyptians during the brief period where a pharaoh actually tried to have monotheism. The Jews adopted that even tho the Egyptians reverted relatively quickly to multiple gods under King Tut. Mostly because the priests of all the various gods that had been shut down wanted power back. F…

The Jews never worshipped multiple gods, but there is evidence that at one point, they believed other gods existed (but they did not worship them, they only worshipped the god of the Hebrews, now known as G-d).

There's also virtually no evidence that Jewish monotheism was influenced by Atenism, the Egyptian monotheism founded by Akhenaten. It's a fun theory but not one that most scholars give credence to.

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#152

Post by grellas » Fri, May 07, 2010, 10:50 PM UTC

sgk284 wrote: post #147

grellas wrote: post #73

The logic here doesn't hold with respect to monothestic religions such as Judaism or Christianity. The Ten Commandments, which are common to these two religions, have two "tables," the first of which (commandments 1 - 5) defines the relations between God and man and the second of which defines the relations between men (6 - 10). The very first commandment is "thou shalt have no other gods before me. The next proscrip…

I think the argument is fairly sound and is great at concisely explaining why religion is a product of humanity's imagination and current culture. (With all due respect, don't take this as an affront on your beliefs.) I like the argument for a number of reasons: - It beg's the question "Why do I reject those other 529 gods?" Generally there is no good answer for this other than being indoctrinated at a young age. You…

Nice points, though we disagree. Ironically, I was an atheist for 20 years of my adult life before I went in the other direction (I don't think I became irrational in the process, but that is where we disagree).

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#153

Post by philwelch » Fri, May 07, 2010, 10:53 PM UTC

pyre wrote: post #135

orp wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To my knowledge, the religious decree about slaughtering goats is the same today in judaism as it was 2,500 years ago. The reason it's not practiced today is 'just' because the decree also states that you have to perform the sacrifice at the great temple on temple mount. That poses a technical problem, since: 1. The temple was destroyed 2k years back, and there's a pretty famous mosque standing in its place. 2. Relig…

I was under the impression that a most of the religious classes/castes (other than the Rabbis) in Judaism were wiped out by the Romans (or someone) and that some of those were the ones that were supposed to perform certain ceremonies. I may be wrong though, I can't find anything about this in a quick Wikipedia search.

Rabbis aren't a caste, they're just a profession.

There is a priestly caste, the kohanim. The kohanim have various obligations and duties, most of which are moot in the modern world, and one of which involves the hand gesture made famous by Leonard Nimoy.

There is another caste, the Levites, but they have no remaining duties.

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#154

Post by [deleted] » Fri, May 07, 2010, 10:53 PM UTC

grellas wrote: post #97

jamesbritt wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" In that case, the person who believes in the true deity can consistently say that he as a theist believes in the true one while rejecting all the false ones while the person who denies all of them includes in that denial the one true deity and hence is an atheist." This looks to be a matter of definition of "atheist". (Or "theist", for that matter.) Is an atheist one who does not believe the claims of the existence…

An atheist can be either one who does not believe the claims of the existence of deities (if no such deity exists) or one who does not believe in what is in fact a true deity (if the deity does exist). I will grant that, if the atheistic view is correct that there is no true deity, then it is the believer who suffers from reality distortion. That, of course, is the nature of that debate. But I don't think the point I…

[deleted]

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#155

Post by arch_hunter » Fri, May 07, 2010, 10:59 PM UTC

sgk284 wrote: post #147

grellas wrote: post #73

The logic here doesn't hold with respect to monothestic religions such as Judaism or Christianity. The Ten Commandments, which are common to these two religions, have two "tables," the first of which (commandments 1 - 5) defines the relations between God and man and the second of which defines the relations between men (6 - 10). The very first commandment is "thou shalt have no other gods before me. The next proscrip…

I think the argument is fairly sound and is great at concisely explaining why religion is a product of humanity's imagination and current culture. (With all due respect, don't take this as an affront on your beliefs.) I like the argument for a number of reasons: - It beg's the question "Why do I reject those other 529 gods?" Generally there is no good answer for this other than being indoctrinated at a young age. You…

> It beg's the question "Why do I reject those other 529 gods?" Generally there is no good answer for this other than being indoctrinated at a young age.

But that does not explain people who switch religions later in life.

For myself, I decided that I could not be atheist after encountering spirits. My encounters with spirits disproved atheism for me, instead I am currently a Christian because that is the only religion that is able to accurately describe my spiritual encounters. Atheism as a worldview denies that spirits exist, therefore in my mind it can not possibly be accurate.

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#156

Post by ericb » Fri, May 07, 2010, 11:08 PM UTC

nocman wrote: post #119

wdewind wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It pains you? really? Not to be simplistic, but if you don't actually believe in god in the first place, than the decision to believe in god or not is just about as relevant as the decision to believe in santa claus... re: pastors, barber called, time for a hair cut...

"if you don't actually believe in god in the first place, than the decision to believe in god or not is just about as relevant as the decision to believe in santa claus" That's not really an a accurate statement. What a person believes doesn't determine what is relevant in this case. What does determine what is relevant is what the truth about God actually is. If God does exist, and if the Bible accurately describes…

Pascal's wager only makes some semblance of sense when you consider one possible god with a simple "damned if you don't" heuristic. Throw in all the possible gods that have come before and after (Ra, Zeus, Freyja, Odin, The Moonies) and the wager starts to look pretty bad when you have to pick the "right one."

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#157

Post by timwiseman » Fri, May 07, 2010, 11:09 PM UTC

sgk284 wrote: post #147

grellas wrote: post #73

The logic here doesn't hold with respect to monothestic religions such as Judaism or Christianity. The Ten Commandments, which are common to these two religions, have two "tables," the first of which (commandments 1 - 5) defines the relations between God and man and the second of which defines the relations between men (6 - 10). The very first commandment is "thou shalt have no other gods before me. The next proscrip…

I think the argument is fairly sound and is great at concisely explaining why religion is a product of humanity's imagination and current culture. (With all due respect, don't take this as an affront on your beliefs.) I like the argument for a number of reasons: - It beg's the question "Why do I reject those other 529 gods?" Generally there is no good answer for this other than being indoctrinated at a young age. You…

You make some very cogent points and make them well. But there are alternative ways of looking at it.

- It beg's the question "Why do I reject those other 529 gods?" I reject the others specficially because I accept Christianity. I can neither prove my religion nor disprove (most) of the others, yet by accepting mine I must reject all others. I acknowledge I do this as a leap of faith, but that is different from being indoctrinated at a young age. I will agree with your over all point that most people just believe whatever they are told at a young age, but the more thoughtful people of any religion will often be able to bring forth real arguments for it. This of course is not proof, and many of these arguments involve sometimes personal experiences, but that is still very different from no good answer other than indoctrination.

Most of those gods have likely been created before your god had even first been mentioned.

Many religions will disagree with this. Literalists amoungst Christians and Jews, for instance, will beleive that God was known about since Adam with an unbroken chain of believers. The reasonable literalists will agree that God was first written about late in history, but that is different.

To those people, society did not move past older deities so much as some branched off to false religions and then some of those false religions faded away.

(I am not a literalist, but it is an alternate explanation)

If you follow the trend of gods, you realize that humanity has been generally moving away from polytheism towards monotheism.

True as a general rule, but first note that some polytheistic religions are still around, even in relatively highly educated populaces. Second, note that an alternate explanation is that God is trying to subtly guide humanity to the truth and moving to monotheism is man's response to this guidance. I am again not saying I personally believe this, but that is provides a different explanation.

You make excellent arguments which I respect, but there are other explanations for everything you bring up and I do not think they would provide much weight to someone who already believed one way or another.

[edit: fixed an omitted "not"]

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#158

Post by jamesbritt » Fri, May 07, 2010, 11:10 PM UTC

enjo wrote: post #93

jamesbritt wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" In that case, the person who believes in the true deity can consistently say that he as a theist believes in the true one while rejecting all the false ones while the person who denies all of them includes in that denial the one true deity and hence is an atheist." This looks to be a matter of definition of "atheist". (Or "theist", for that matter.) Is an atheist one who does not believe the claims of the existence…

+1 for proper use of 'begging the question' :)

Thanks. I cop to having a certain glee when the opportunity for that arises. :)

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#159

Post by joubert » Fri, May 07, 2010, 11:34 PM UTC

ErrantX wrote: post #148

joubert wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's a problem. We don't pretend to respect people for having silly beliefs, except when it is religious - why this exception? I find it helps to think of religious belief/conviction as a socially acceptable form of mental disease, comparable to examples in drug use.

I suspect you're preaching to the converted :-) I rationalise it by accepting this phenomenan exists - I will fight when it is detrimental of course, but otherwise just let it slide.

preaching is one of my character flaws :-)

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#160

Post by char » Fri, May 07, 2010, 11:34 PM UTC

VictorHo wrote: post #52

qeorge wrote: post #3

I love that we're living in a time where it's so easy to learn. Well put, Derek. Me too.

I agree with that statement, but it does pain me that this was his big takeaway. There is no decision that is more life-impacting than belief/disbelief in a God. To see someone so quickly silenced/swayed by such simple rhetoric really illustrates how many important subjects are not getting nearly as much thought as they deserve. We will spend months stressing about a job or a start-up, which might affect our lives fo…

"When deciding which direction to take with a start-up we do hours and hours of customer interviews, site visits, market research, brainstorming, reading, and even self-reflection. The same, and more, should be done for religion."

How, exactly? The former involves actual data points and hard evidence by which you can understand what is probabilistically true. In talking to a religious figure, you're just getting someone's opinion on what he believes. That method of 'research' cannot possibly help someone understand what is true in reality.