Thursday = Thor's day • Hacker News Board

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#91

Post by lotharbot » Fri, May 07, 2010, 9:21 PM UTC

hugh3 wrote: post #71

VictorHo wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-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.

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#92

Post by jamesbritt » Fri, May 07, 2010, 9:21 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…

" 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 of deities? Or one who does not believe in the existence of what is in fact a deity?

"But this logic falls apart if one assumes there is one true deity ..." Isn't this just begging the question? By the same reasoning, if we posit that there are no deities, then no atheist is an atheist because they are not, in fact, disbelieving regarding any actual deities.

"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."

Well, that's the whole matter right there; it's pretty important whether you are a theist or an atheist, because that's part of what's under question. (More broadly, the question is whether there are any deities; there being but one is sort of a variation on that.)

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#93

Post by enjo » Fri, May 07, 2010, 9:22 PM UTC

jamesbritt wrote: post #92

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…

" 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' :)

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#94

Post by mixmax » Fri, May 07, 2010, 9:23 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…

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 whole discussion would be kind of silly if it wasn't for all the wars fought in the name of various religions.

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#95

Post by ErrantX » Fri, May 07, 2010, 9:25 PM UTC

VictorHo wrote: post #86

ErrantX wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no decision that is more life-impacting than belief/disbelief in a God. Disagreed (and I can find you multiple believers/non-believers who will agree with me). In many ways it's irrelevant - your life choice to make whichever way you choose (with in depth research or knee jerk reaction). There are lots of other diverting things to spend your time on. It's a cycle that sadly continues - 200 years ago everyone…

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 God how would that affect things - philosophical question for those so inclined :)).

An individuals opinion of God is really Faith or Non-Faith (do you believe it may be a provable Fact or may not be a proveable Fact); and that is what I feel is the personal choice - even if someone just shrugs shoulders and says "yeh, there must be a god" we have to respect that. Period.

(another side point: my problem with religion is, simply, that it tries to influence that decision, making it out to be the most important decision of your life...)

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#96

Post by orp » Fri, May 07, 2010, 9:27 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…

Personally, I'd don't see why this is an inappropriate forum, as long as the comments are intellectual in nature.

To address your point, I agree with your general claim that there's no logical inconsistency in a monotheistic view by itself. Suffice to say that the matter has been discussed so much that if there was a conclusive 'proof' against it, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

However, the argument against theism presented here is pretty effective against a standard, simplistic argument of religion which is basically 'how can something believed by so many people possibly be wrong' (which is how I interpret 'How can you not believe in God'). Holding up the multitude of religions, past and present, is a pretty good rebuttal.

Not an inconsistency, but a good argument.

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#97

Post by grellas » Fri, May 07, 2010, 9:28 PM UTC

jamesbritt wrote: post #92

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…

" 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 am making here assumes that one or the other is correct. I'm simply trying to address the logic of the original piece that no one can meaningfully use the word atheist because that person in turn will deny the existence of other deities.

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#98

Post by jrockway » Fri, May 07, 2010, 9:29 PM UTC

huherto wrote: 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/?

The Japanese seem to agree; sun, moon, fire, water, wood, gold, earth. Well, the beginning is similar, anyway...

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#99

Post by enjo » Fri, May 07, 2010, 9:29 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…

From the point of view of an atheist, there is very little to even think about. That's the problem, really. In matters of faith, faith (by its very nature) requires very little thought. You can search for 'evidence' of the existence of God, but there is none to consider really.

That's why you end up with great scientific minds being reduced to things like Pascals Gambit. While Pascal did enter into an interesting piece of game theory, the substance requires very little thought (if your not going to believe in god, you better be right sort of thing).

Re: Thursday = Thor's day

#100

Post by theschwa » Fri, May 07, 2010, 9:30 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…

I think your logic depends on your definition of atheist. Taking the word apart it simply means without a theology. Substituting in the definition of theology we get "without a particular system or school of religious beliefs and teachings." Under that definition it makes sense to say even someone with a monotheistic belief system is "without a particular system or school of religious beliefs and teachings" of other gods. Meaning, they don't have system of religious beliefs for other Gods besides their own.