Thursday = Thor's day • Hacker News Board

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#111

Post by Alex3917 » Fri, May 07, 2010, 9:50 PM UTC

Nwallins wrote: post #76

Alex3917 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's like saying that because we've already debunked alchemy and astrology, being asked to debunk evolution as well is just nitpicking. If you asked someone at the Harvard divinity school what the most compelling arguments in favor of religion were today, they'd probably talk about Thor to the same extent that your bio101 professor talked about star alignments-- not at all. Whereas oftentimes they're actually using…

> That's like saying that because we've already debunked alchemy and astrology, being asked to debunk evolution as well is just nitpicking. Well, yes. Scientists around the world agree that every scientific topic should be debunked. The ones that are left -- the ones that survive an attempt at debunking -- should be taken as fact, presumably until they are debunked and replaced with something more valid. > If you ask…

"Scientists around the world agree that every scientific topic should be debunked. The ones that are left -- the ones that survive an attempt at debunking -- should be taken as fact, presumably until they are debunked and replaced with something more valid."

This is exactly the same as what many modern religious thinkers would say, which was my original point-- that debunking old dogma doesn't do anything to disprove the 'cutting edge' of religious thought.

edit: Whatever, if you read my archive you'll see I'm probably the most atheist atheist on HN, but at least I'm willing to be intellectually honest and give the other side a fair shake.

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#112

Post by detst » Fri, May 07, 2010, 9:51 PM UTC

mixmax wrote: post #94

VictorHo wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That depends entirely on who you are, and I'd say your view is a bit prejudiced. I'm from one of the most atheist countries in the world, and to tell you the truth I don't think I've ever had a serious conversation with friends or family discussing whether God (or a god) exists. To us it would be like having a serious discussion about whether or not the tooth fairy existed. We just don't really care, and think the wh…

I was going to make this same point.

No amount of investigation into god/religion is going to prove the existence of a god. Once someone reaches this realization and at the same time still lacks faith, I see no reason to go any further if they aren't inclined. There's finite time and only so much people can do with it. I don't see why god/religion should be any more deserving of this time than anything else.

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#113

Post by pyre » Fri, May 07, 2010, 9:51 PM UTC

lotharbot wrote: post #91

hugh3 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think many people may be missing the point. The point of the argument is to challenge people to question whether the existence of their god is any more plausible than any of the other thousands of deities whose existence has been postulated. It works well against Christians or anyone else whose god has specific and well-defined properties. It doesn't work against deists since their "god" is sufficiently poorly-defi…

> "It works well against Christians" No it doesn't. It amazes me how often I hear Christians say "this argument works well against atheists" and then make an utterly stupid argument that none of the atheists I know would take seriously. This strikes me as much the same -- it's an argument that atheists think should work well against Christians, but that most Christians will think is stupid and misses the point.

It works well against the argument, "How can you not believe in God?" The belief that 'belief in God' is a given is equally stupid.

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#114

Post by johnthedebs » Fri, May 07, 2010, 9:51 PM UTC

I think a lot of people are missing the point (although the comments are really interesting...keep those up).

One person is just trying to say to the other that their different beliefs don't make them very different people. Based on the second person's reaction, I'd say their beliefs don't make them that different (in this case).

Someone mentioned that this argument came from Dawkins' book; this seems like a small twist on that argument to make a different (and demonstrably valid) point.

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#115

Post by lsb » Fri, May 07, 2010, 9:51 PM UTC

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…

The Ancient Greek word it comes from is (w)oida, "I know". Structurally, it's the perfect tense of (w)eido, "I see": knowing something is equivalent to having seen it, for Ancient Greeks. I loved reading that in the dictionary.

Their word that properly meant "I have seen" was "(w)idon"; the wid- root comes into English as wit/witty, and via Latin as video and visual.

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#116

Post by ErrantX » Fri, May 07, 2010, 9:51 PM UTC

mixmax wrote: post #109

ErrantX wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This interested me actually. In the UK we have a general baseline of Christianity but I generally thought that the beliefs were mostly agnostic to atheist. But when I happened to mention I was an atheist to my parents (who show no other interest in religion) they were outwardly surprised.

That is interesting. I've never discussed religion with my parents or other family - just assumed them to be agnostic. Maybe I'm wrong...

Am I right in thinking (from your domain) you are Danish? I'd be interested in whether you're right or not in that assumption. Because It's common thought to me that northern European countries are generally more agnostic anyway (I suspect because the Roman Empire/Holy Roman Empire never really touched it)

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#117

Post by jackowayed » Fri, May 07, 2010, 9:52 PM UTC

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…

His argument was not a "we're basically the same, you can round off the way in which we are not, QED" argument. It was a way of giving a theist an atheist's perspective.

"HOW can you not believe in God? I can't imagine life without believing in God!"

"Well millions of people used to not be able to imagine life without believing in Zeus et al, and you don't believe in them."

It reminds them that there isn't even a consensus within theists over which god is the right one, and it's a way to diffuse the issue.

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#118

Post by timwiseman » Fri, May 07, 2010, 9:52 PM UTC

ErrantX wrote: post #95

VictorHo wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm merely pointing to the fact that many extremely intelligent individuals have given atheism a lot of thought and come out on both sides of the fence. Of all major world issues, topics of study, etc., I cannot think of another with bigger potential implications. Your statement that "religious belief should be an individual thing" is exactly the mindset that I am trying to address. The existence of a God is fact, or…

Saying something is "individual" is healthy only to the point that it does not stop you from actually researching it That's the point I am disagreeing with though. The problem with God is that there is no way we can consider it as a Fact or Non-Fact. There is currently no objective reality of God's existence - so there is no element of fact or non-fact in it (interesting side note: if we all unequivocally believe in…

No, he was saying that whether or not there is a God is either a true or false statement.

Now of course, whether or not we can determine the truth of that statement is another question entirely. I certainly am not aware of any way of proving it either way in this life, and indeed the evidence I am aware of (in either direction) is highly ambigious. And of course, even if you decide you personally beleive there is a God (or a multitude of them) that does not indicate which (if any!) of the currently available religions is closest to correct.

I arrived at my decision to believe in Christianity by a leap of faith. I think there is some evidence I can bring to bear to support it, but I am the first to admit that it would not stand up in most courts of law much less in the arena of science. I believe it because on an intuitive emotional level, it seems right.

Thus, I try to respect all religious beliefs. I cannot prove my beliefs are correct. I cannot disprove someone else's beliefs (excluding a very few fringe groups that make provably false claims, and even then it is those specific claims not the religion as a whole I could disprove).

But, while my belief in God is a personal thing, the existence or nonexistence of God is a fact. We may not be able to answer the question in this mortal life, but it is still either true or false.

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#119

Post by nocman » Fri, May 07, 2010, 9:52 PM UTC

wdewind wrote: post #75

VictorHo wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 His interactions with and expectations of man, then not believing He exists has ramifications that will affect you for all of eternity!

If God truly does not exist, then you might be able to argue that it is irrelevant whether you believe in Him or not. But even in that case, it depends on how the belief in a false deity affects the believer. Does their belief in a false deity guide how they make important decisions in life? If so, then even belief in a false deity is totally relevant.

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#120

Post by ErrantX » Fri, May 07, 2010, 9:55 PM UTC

mixmax wrote: post #108

ErrantX wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great rebuttal. > But this logic falls apart if one assumes there is one true deity I'd argue that is where the problem lies. Because currently and as far as I am aware the Atheist viewpoint and the Theist viewpoint is equally legitimate and, at some specific point, not empirically provable either way. i.e. the existence of God is purely a belief/non-belief thing (I touched on this in another comment). From a logical…

I strongly disagree. Just because something hasn't been proven to be false it doesn't mean it's true. It hasn't been decisively proven that the Earth wasn't sneezed out of the nose of a giant space-goat, but that doesn't mean that the goat-sneezing theory should be equally valid to other theories which have more empirical evidence to their name. I have never seen any empirical evidence for the existence of a god, and…

I'd say they are valid theories simply by affect of not being completely absurd by "our standards". Many scientific theories have been considered absurd then ultimately proven. Obviously the religious argument has been around much longer; perhaps it is just a bigger question that "what is light", or maybe it is just bunk (I'm in the latter camp, if it matters).

Also, from a personal perspective, I would say that the weighting is clearly in favour of non-existence. However from a religious perspective it is the other way.

That, ultimately, is the source of all disagreement over religion. How do you find a common measurements of truth/non-truth when your "markers" are entirely different.

Which is invalid? Who judges?

(the answer, I feel is that society judges - and currently we are in transition from pro-theist to pro-atheist, but it will be a long transition)