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

121–130 of 196 posts

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#121

Post by Alex3917 »

scott_s wrote: post #102
Alex3917 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science isn't separate from religious practice, but rather it's one of our contemporary religions. Only instead of the ten commandments, you start with the unprovable beliefs that there is nothing supernatural, the universe can be explained entirely through natural laws, we can learn about these natural laws through observation and measurement, the world exists as we see it and is not an illusion, etc. So in regards…

See Eliezer Yudkowsky's The Fallacy of Gray, HN discussion and essay: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1147767

I don't disagree with you at all. If you look at a lot of modern religious thought though, the assumptions are usually just as sound as the assumptions behind science. In fact, they are usually the same plus or minus one, with well-grounded reasons behind any diffs.

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#122

Post by joubert »

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?

but he won't. and neither would any other deity. they're just made up.

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#123

Post by RK »

VictorHo wrote: post #59
roqetman wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Many major religions are monotheistic by definition. The entire premise is that only 1 true god exists. Saying we "agree on 519 of 520 and disagree on 1" is a non-statement. The first person's belief in that 1 by definition precludes his belief in the other 519.

Many people have actually dabbled in several religions before ending up in the one they're currently in. Alternatively, they may have studied other religions to some extent to reassure themselves of the "correctness" of their original religion. In that sense they are familiar with other beliefs and probably feel that they have rejected those other systems on their own merits. In that framework, the 519 of 520 argument does make since, exclusive of the monotheistic prohibition against other gods.

I think what you are saying is that a Christian (for example) would say, "of course I don't believe in other god X, because I'm not allowed to". The 519 of 520 argument depends on whether the monotheist can also reject those other gods on their own merits.

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#126

Post by pyre »

ErrantX wrote: post #85
jboydyhacker wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Heh, my fault - I simplified it a little forgetting this is HN :D To answer your point - the answer is yes, and no. Ultimately it is next to impossible to be sure (assuming we can take the critical rather than the religious view of the history) when/where/how Judaism appeared. At the time pretty much every country had their own God or gods and considered them superior to the others (though, ironically, appear to have…

> Then, yes, Judaism influenced or started pretty much all of the modern religions.

If by 'all the modern religions,' you just mean the 'big 3.' [namely: Christianity, Islam, Judaism] I've never seen claims that any of the 'Eastern' religions were influenced by Judaism.

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#127

Post by joubert »

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…

why should religious belief have a special place in the continuum of silly thoughts? (you say they should be respected)

if you can make someone believe anything (e.g. there's this god with x,y,z attributes), you can make them do anything.

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#128

Post by ErrantX »

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…

But you're talking from a position where it is currently not possible to prove the existence/non-existence of a God.

If, for example, God were proven to exist then the definition of an Atheist would not change. However the people who were Atheists would absolutely change - myself for one :) because many current Atheists are also rationalists.

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#129

Post by hugh3 »

joubert wrote: post #122
hugh3 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

but he won't. and neither would any other deity. they're just made up.

Now now, that's a skepticism failure. A proper skeptic should acknowledge that it's very very unlikely that Thor exists, but that there is a small nonzero probability that he might.

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#130

Post by detst »

ErrantX wrote: post #107
mixmax wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Sounds similar to a friends refusal to reject the existence of ghosts. They don't really have any interest in ghosts and no doubt don't believe in their existence but refuse to express their disbelief for fear of being proven wrong.
Post reply on HN