Live data from Hacker News

Thursday = Thor's day

sivers.org

71–80 of 196 posts

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#71

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.

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-defined to be more plausible than Thor.

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#72
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/?

And, according to the following page, the planetary day names eventually made their way to Japan in the first millenium, by way of India and China:

http://www.cjvlang.com/Dow/dowjpn.html

I was always curious about the Friday -> "gold" day -> payday link, but I guess this was a total coincidence. The actual derivation seems to be Friday gold planet's day.

Other parts of the same site are devoted to the European, Chinese, and Vietnamese day name origins:

http://www.cjvlang.com/Dow/index.html#TOP

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#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 proscription is against idolatry, which basically amounts to a worship of things that are seen, or the creation itself, which in KJV language is as follows: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." In other words, belief in God is everything while belief (in the sense of worship) in anything else is all idolatry.

Thus, the logic of a monothestic religion of this type is that there is one true God and every other purported deity is a mere figment of man's imagination, hence an idol (the very word "idol" derives from a Greek root from which the Greek word "to see" comes from - even the word "idea" comes from a Greek word originally meaning "to see with the mind") and hence not real.

The logic of this piece holds if we proceed from an atheistic baseline, which takes the opposite view that only that which is material is real and all purported deities are only figments of man's imagination. If you assume that premise, then it is true that my belief in one deity and rejection of the 529 that others have believed in is not materially different from your rejection of all 530 of them (or whatever the number).

But this logic falls apart if one assumes there is one true deity (infinite creator and providential overseer of a creation from which the deity is above and apart) and all the rest of the purported deities are simply products of the mind and hence not real or true. 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.

I know this is not the forum to get into religious debates but, if my summary of the logic is wrong, I invite others to explain why. Note that I am not assuming here that any religious point of view is true. I am merely taking that view on its own logic and explaining why it makes perfect sense for someone with that belief to say that he is a theist while one who is not a believer is an atheist. If the premise of one true God is true, it is utterly irrelevant to say that man has concocted a billion fake ones such that we are all atheists in denying them.

In other words, from the theistic perspective, the question is whether there is indeed a true deity of whatever type. If so, that is pretty important. If not, then obviously it is not. (Disclaimer: I am a believer and, indeed, a deacon in my church - but I am not making my points from a religious perspective, merely a logical one).

Edit (concerning the several replies): I invited you to engage the logic of my argument and you certainly did! My post is probably beside the point if all the original piece did was depict a way of steering away from a religious discussion that begins "How can you not believe in God?" or if it was merely a technique for getting a believer to understand the viewpoint of one who does not believe in a particular deity or in any at all. I don't think I was trying to exalt the theistic point of view or to denigrate those who don't accept it - merely trying to say what follows from accepting its premises. Got to rush now because I have to prepare to teach a Bible study tonight (really). Thanks for the fine comments - very stimulating.

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#74
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.

I think there are two points. The conventional use of this argument is the one you are talking about, and that is why I said at the end of my post that it IS useful for that.

However, the article specifically says “So, I guess we're not compatible, huh?”, meaning that we can't get along because we are different. And the response to that is “Of course we are! I like you a lot. And we do agree on 519 of the gods, so we'll just not mention that last one.” My response is that zero to one is a big jump. Darek seems to be a "lets all get along" kind of guy, and that is great, but this quote doesn't justify that.

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#75
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…

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...

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#76

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.

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 asked someone at the Harvard divinity school what the most compelling arguments in favor of religion were today, they'd probably talk about Thor ... -- not at all

Sure, because choosing what to believe in, without a scientific basis, is essentially fashion. And believe me -- Thor is _way_ out of fashion.

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#77
post #65

"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 :)

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.

From Judaism, monotheism spread to Christianity and Islam and some might say in some minor form to some variants of eastern religions/philosophies.

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#78
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 :)

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.

That's a very problematic argument for a few reasons.

Firstly your now considering early Judaism unenlightened. However the core beliefs are still very much the same; and many customs from contemporary Norse times are still observed by some sects.

Secondly that's the practice of religion; which is very different from a belief itself. It is possible to believe in God or a set of gods without following the practices of the organisations themselves. The difference between then and now is that a) you were "sold" the practices as an inherent part of belief in XYZ God and b) to believe without practising them was dangerous. As a result the actual belief in the Abrahamic God is somewhat irrelevant to the practices.

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#79
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting there's a difference in the procedural, moral and/or intellectual rigor of religion 2500 years ago, as compared to today, on a scale similar to the differences between alchemy and science? or astronomy and astrology? I can't say I see differences of that magnitude. In fact, I don't see many significant differences at all . (E.g. whereas most modern religions are far less bloodthirsty than some hist…

Absolutely. Modern day religious scholars are doing things like giving people psilocybin in double blind studies to elicit primary religious experiments. (And they found that they were able to create primary religious experiences in roughly 70% of the participants.) Saying that these academic papers that are being published in the top journals in the country are the intellectual equivalent of Catholicism is ridiculou…

I'm not sure why endeavors wholly separate from the practice of religion should be considered to reflect upon the state of religious practice.

Surely one can be religious and practice science. But in what denomination of which religion is it a requirement?

The non-religious have performed countless similar studies on religious experience, efficacy of prayer, etc. Are you suggesting their activities reflect on the state of religious practice in the modern world, simply because their subject matter is related to religious practice?

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#80
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.

> "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."

Not if the reasoning you use to rule out the other 519 gods is "exclusivity of god #520". Or if the reasoning is "I haven't explicitly ruled them out, I just don't have any positive evidence for their existence, but I do for #520".

It's certainly worth thinking about whether your reasoning for whatever god(s) you believe in is consistent. The original argument sort of touches on that, but it does it quite poorly.

Post reply on HN