15 ms·

Thursday = Thor's day

245 points by CitizenKane 16y ago

drats 16y ago
Hacker News?
- RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
  I agree that it's not Hacker News, but it is intellectually engaging, and there are lessons to be learned ... Conflict resolution, finding common ground, agreeing differences that exist, but don't have to matter, and the observation that today we can invest all of 3 minutes to discover stuff, then decide whether we want to know more. When I was 22 I moved country, and I knew nothing about where I was going. Encyclopedias told me very, very little, and after days, literally days, in the library, I still knew almost nothing. Today I can spend 5 minutes on the 'net and know more in that time than I could've found in days of diligent, comprehensive, but above all boring research. Read with the intent of learning - not all lessons are obvious, and some are worth more for having found them, rather than being given them.
  - ABrandt 16y ago
    I think its been particularly interesting growing up during this transitional period. I'm 21 now, but I can remember up to about the 6th grade when card catalogs and encyclopedias were still pushed on us at school. But the internet was coming into its own during this period as well. These parallel environments have given my generation a unique perspective of the web. We've essentially grown up together--perhaps there's a psychological connection here that can explain other behaviors.
- CitizenKane 16y ago
  FWIW, I submitted it because I found it intellecually engaging. I think there is a lesson here that's pertinent for hackers, being able to take a situation and look at in a unique way. Then taking that unique perspective and using it to your advantage. But what I love about Derek's writing is that there always seems to be a lot of interesting nuggets of wisdom that they contain. I think there is a lot of interesting material here and that it could be taken a lot of different ways depending on the reader's perspective.
  - rue 16y ago
    I did not find it in any way engaging. Embarrassing, rather. The "discussion" is not original, as was pointed out earlier, and rather poorly presented (granted the possible real protagonist may have been more charismatic.) On the other hand, if someone does find it useful or educational, I suppose the only fault can be found in myself for not having pointed to the same insight.
    - ErrantX 16y ago
      With the greatest respect; i'm not sure that everythign posted here has to be educational or useful. Sivers' writing is generally "inspirational" (I love his writing style), light hearted and informative. I actually think there is a very deep and important point to be learned from this particular post.
      - rue 16y ago
        You do not consider learning a "very deep and important point" to be educational nor useful? :) However you wish to refer to your experience, for one reason or another I did not share it but, as I was musing, that is sort of irrelevant since someone did.
        ErrantX 16y ago
        Hmm, I was making a point regarding your comment and a weird mix of the original "not hacker news" one and your own. Sorry :( Formally: 1) I actually do think it is educational 2) Regardless, things posted to HN, surely, don't have to be educational all the time! :) To discuss your post a bit more: I think you missed the point. The subject of Sivers anecdote was irrelevant; as I read it (and the following explanation) it is about learning things :)
qeorge 16y ago
I love that we're living in a time where it's so easy to learn. Well put, Derek. Me too.
- VictorHo 16y ago
  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 for the subsequent year or two or three, and no more than a few hours here and there really digging into what evidence exists to support an atheist or religious perspective. It's a cycle that sadly continues - 200 years ago everyone was Christian so people defaulted to it. Now, the trendy thing for "intellectuals" is atheism, and so many jump in without a thought (this continues to hold for both sides, as exemplified in the article). 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 (e.g., check out a church, speak in a truly unbiased fashion with ardent believers and non-believers alike, grab 20 minutes of a pastors time who has probably dedicated his life to talking to people like us, etc). There is no topic that gets less thought relative to its importance.
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    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 was Christian so people defaulted to it. Now, the trendy thing for "intellectuals" is atheism, and so many jump in without a thought I feel that's a bit disingenuous - 200 years ago to hold a different religious belief was risking your life. grab 20 minutes of a pastors time who has probably dedicated his life to talking to people like us Oh. man no. Religious organisations are designed to self propagate. A pastor is essentially a salesman for the religion. Hear what he/she has to say but treat it with a large dose of salt. Ultimately religious belief is (or should be) an individual thing.
alanh 16y ago
Posted on a Friday? Madness!
- inferno0069 16y ago
  They were on a date -> Love god -> Friday!
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
huherto 16y ago
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/?
- Gigamo 16y ago
  The article actually mentions most of them. :)
- stonemetal 16y ago
  Sabado = sabbath Friday = Freyja Norse god more or less equivalent to Venus. Wednesday = Norse god Woden more commonly known in the US with out the W aka Oden.
- nopassrecover 16y ago
  The French I was taught in primary school hinted at most of this too. I'd venture anyone who knew bits of different languages would have probably guessed the roots of the days, atlhough English roots differ from romance roots (Wednesday based on the English god Woden instead of the Roman god Mercury). * Dimanche * Lundi * Mardi * Mercredi * Jeudi * Vendredi * Samedi
  - btilly 16y ago
    Actually if you know enough about the history of the Norse religion, Odin to Mercury is not a difference. Odin comes from Wotan who started as the messenger of the gods then gained prominence in the pantheon. By Roman times he was co-equal with Tiwaz and had acquired many of his characteristics. By Norse times Thor was still important enough to take the central position in the temple at Uppsala. However Odin was god of wars, aristocracy, and poetry. After Christianity took over, Odin continued to gain importance in the mythology (which was after all continued by poets telling stories for aristocracy) and by the time Snorri Sturluson wrote The Prose Edda was the familiar allfather, king of the gods, etc.
- hackermom 16y ago
limist 16y ago
Reframing is just a fantastic psychological tool/technique, and is the logical follow-up to Einstein's maxim that "The world will not evolve past its current state of crisis by using the same thinking that created the situation." This example by Sivers is brilliant.
fuzzythinker 16y ago
I love that guy's responses! Though when I do something similar (not quite same level as him), my friends usually give me the weird look..
Psyonic 16y ago
The story was good, I'm definitely happy to live in a time with such easy access to information, but as for the actual argument, haven't we all heard this before? That doesn't diminish it, but I'm surprised by how new it seems to many people. It's been argued forever. I'm sure it goes back much further than this, but here's a passage from 2005's "Sense and Goodness Without God" (http://www.amazon.com/Sense-Goodness-Without-God-Metaphysical/dp/1420802933/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-3991836-2050562?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183299102&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Sense-Goodness-Without-God-Metaphysica...): But if the idea of a god is inherently illogical (if the very idea is self-contradictory or meaningless), or if it is contradicted by the evidence, then there are strong positive reasons to take a harder stance as an atheist – with respect to that particular god. For in this sense, even believers are strong atheists – they deny the existence of hundreds of gods. Atheists like me merely deny one more god than everyone else already does – in fact, I deny the existence of the same god already denied by believers in other gods, so I am not doing anything that billions of people don’t do already.
Alex3917 16y ago
"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.
- hugh3 16y ago
  Isn't the God of existing Abrahamic religions the same dude that the ancient Hebrews were worshipping 2,500 years ago?
  - Alex3917 16y ago
    Yeah, but if you look at the etymology of 'religion' it just means to tie back. In other words, to reunite people with some original source of all things. My point is that if you want a contemporary account of god, ask the people working on the Hubble telescope or the folks from csp.org, not some random sect whose beliefs haven't changed in 2,500 years. To give another example, if I wanted to debunk astrology then I'd start by arguing against the beliefs of Kary Mullis (who won the Nobel prize in science), not some 4000 year old scrolls.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
      - Alex3917 16y ago
        I know the difference, and I used them properly. It might have been a little confusing because I refer to both in the same post, but I meant them to be completely different examples. (In other words, astronomers are engaged in religious activity because they are trying to figure out the origins of the universe. Whereas Kary Mullis is an expert on the contemporary arguments in favor of astrology, if there are any.)
- rue 16y ago
jz 16y ago
Now you can start to dive into any subject with some whimsical web browsing - an alternate to watching a TV show Wow, I just had a discussion with my wife about giving up cable TV but keeping cable Internet for this reason. My argument was during the 1/2 hour of a silly sitcom, I can become knowledgeable with just about any subject of my choosing. And even if I want to veg out, I can still find most shows on the web. Her counter argument was the cable box + remote are easier to use than hooking up a computer to the TV, which is what we currently do.
- mkramlich 16y ago
  ... until the iPad came along. ;)
mkramlich 16y ago
My minimum requirement for believing in any particular god is if I can have lunch with them. Can I call them, invite to a party, and they actually show up. Etc.
- hugh3 16y ago
  Does this apply to people as well?
  - mkramlich 16y ago
    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.
    - hugh3 16y ago
      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?
      - stavrianos 16y ago
        a good deal of that might constitute stronger evidence than attending a lunch date, and therefore validate belief. Lunch makes a good testing bar, above which other proofs may pass.
      - mkramlich 16y ago
        Funny! :-P But seriously, since flying and causing thunderstorms are way more exotic and powerful abilities than merely having lunch with someone, they would be acceptable substitutes for lunch. Better than lunch!
      - joubert 16y ago
        but he won't. and neither would any other deity. they're just made up.
TomOfTTB 16y ago
This just makes me sad to be honest with you. The idea that “we believe in 519 out of 520 Gods” means anything shows a fundamental misunderstanding of religion. You may not like the beliefs of some religious people but the point of religion is the beliefs. It’s not that a God created the world it’s that a benevolent God created the world and left teachings which lead to benevolence. On that note I’d point out that he’s wrong about learning something too. The web is a wonderful place and you can go out and learn things but the problem with the Web as opposed to a person is the web doesn’t challenge your beliefs. He took the most superficial point imaginable out of a serious conversation and pursued it. So while he learned something useless he missed the much deeper contradiction in the statement he was so enamored with.
- hugh3 16y ago
  It’s not that a God created the world it’s that a benevolent God created the world and left teachings which lead to benevolence. I'm confused. Are you saying that the second part can be true without the first part being true?
- ErrantX 16y ago
  I think the point is very simple and very elegant. It's not about God, it's about the fact that humanity (and our history) is a lot more subtle than most people really compute (I came to that realisation myself not very long ago). The beauty of it is that the religious conversation didn't matter too much - it was just that the clever rhetoric device (the Norse gods) was the avenue to a wealth of information. It is there for the taking but never actively taught. So, the point is that you can pick up any passing point of interest and satisfy your craving for it like never before. Then half an hour later move on to something else. And you will still have those Norse gods/weekdays lined up as a party trick...
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    No? So Sivers' message was just about religion then? ;)
- darthpanda 16y ago
aero142 16y ago
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 there are billions of people who don't believe in your particular God, and that it isn't that strange to not believe.
- hugh3 16y ago
  A better analogy would be as follows: "Why don't you believe the sun is composed primarily of hydrogen and helium?" "Well, there have been hundreds of theories of what the sun might be composed of; giant birds, fire, holes in the sky... I just believe one less than you do" That analogy still only works if there's some particularly good reason for believing that one God is significantly more likely to exist than any other.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  > So is the difference between believing in no gods, and one God. Im not sure that takes into account the fact that belief in one particular God (or set of gods) usually precludes belief in all the others. In that respect belief/non-belief is not very different.
- dionidium 16y ago
  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.
  - aero142 16y ago
    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.
zokier 16y ago
There is one "error" in that discussion imho. Even if Thursday is named after Thor, it doesn't mean that Thursday was dedicated in celebration of Thor. And on the other side, Easter isn't named after Jesus. So I'm not following how Thursday and Easter are even remotely related. edit: of course this is just nit picking, and is not really relevant on the big picture.
- joubert 16y ago
  easter is named after a month in the germanic calendar named after the goddess Ēostre
psnj 16y ago
I've always found this an interesting topic, and once in a while it's interesting to discuss it with someone who believes in a god. Sometimes I wonder how much we choose what we believe, especially when it gets down to this bottom-of-the-soul (or "soul"), meaning-of-life stuff. When someone is incredulous at the fact that I don't believe in any sort of god, I 've said: "Let's try this: for the next sixty seconds, I'll start believing in God, and for the same sixty seconds, you have to stop believing in God. Are you in?" Naturally, it's not really possible for either person to do this, but sometimes it promotes interesting discussion about the nature of faith — why can't we do this, etc, etc? Of course, a lot of times it just pisses people off too.
grellas 16y ago
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.
mcantor 16y ago
Interestingly, "Sunday" in Japanese is expressed with the kanji for "sun" and the kanji for "day". It's obviously pronounced differently, but the literal meaning is the same as the English phonetics.
- ktf 16y ago
  That's true for Monday as well, which I've always thought was cool: 月曜日 = Monday 月 = Moon, 曜日 = day of the week
johnthedebs 16y ago
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.
gcv 16y ago
George Carlin put it best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o
coolio73 16y ago
Aren't all these atheist/theist debates better housed on reddit with all the other dreck and stale debates the host? Hacker News is for news, not for silly things that just make people waste oxygen arguing about them.
pbhjpbhj 16y ago
Reddit was down?
DanielBMarkham 16y ago
Derek makes the same mistake many make when dealing with deities -- he personalizes them. My guess is that the ancients viewed deities as categories of things we don't know -- hence the 6 zillion gods. Over time, organization set into religion and people began anthropomorphizing the gods. Judaism moved "categories of things we don't know" from a multiple choice to a single entity. Then organization set in again with the anthropomorphizing. It's a mistake to take this to zero -- the assumption that we know everything and things we cannot prove are not worthy of consideration. Having a deep understanding of the huge amount of unknown in the universe is a critical part of a balanced life. To say you don't believe in one person's personification is to miss the point entirely.
ktf 16y ago
I can't believe nobody has brought up the Flying Spaghetti Monster: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster

245 points by CitizenKane 16y ago

drats 16y ago

Hacker News?

RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
I agree that it's not Hacker News, but it is intellectually engaging, and there are lessons to be learned ... Conflict resolution, finding common ground, agreeing differences that exist, but don't have to matter, and the observation that today we can invest all of 3 minutes to discover stuff, then decide whether we want to know more. When I was 22 I moved country, and I knew nothing about where I was going. Encyclopedias told me very, very little, and after days, literally days, in the library, I still knew almost nothing. Today I can spend 5 minutes on the 'net and know more in that time than I could've found in days of diligent, comprehensive, but above all boring research. Read with the intent of learning - not all lessons are obvious, and some are worth more for having found them, rather than being given them.
- ABrandt 16y ago
  I think its been particularly interesting growing up during this transitional period. I'm 21 now, but I can remember up to about the 6th grade when card catalogs and encyclopedias were still pushed on us at school. But the internet was coming into its own during this period as well. These parallel environments have given my generation a unique perspective of the web. We've essentially grown up together--perhaps there's a psychological connection here that can explain other behaviors.
CitizenKane 16y ago
FWIW, I submitted it because I found it intellecually engaging. I think there is a lesson here that's pertinent for hackers, being able to take a situation and look at in a unique way. Then taking that unique perspective and using it to your advantage. But what I love about Derek's writing is that there always seems to be a lot of interesting nuggets of wisdom that they contain. I think there is a lot of interesting material here and that it could be taken a lot of different ways depending on the reader's perspective.
- rue 16y ago
  I did not find it in any way engaging. Embarrassing, rather. The "discussion" is not original, as was pointed out earlier, and rather poorly presented (granted the possible real protagonist may have been more charismatic.) On the other hand, if someone does find it useful or educational, I suppose the only fault can be found in myself for not having pointed to the same insight.
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    With the greatest respect; i'm not sure that everythign posted here has to be educational or useful. Sivers' writing is generally "inspirational" (I love his writing style), light hearted and informative. I actually think there is a very deep and important point to be learned from this particular post.
    - rue 16y ago
      You do not consider learning a "very deep and important point" to be educational nor useful? :) However you wish to refer to your experience, for one reason or another I did not share it but, as I was musing, that is sort of irrelevant since someone did.
      - ErrantX 16y ago
        Hmm, I was making a point regarding your comment and a weird mix of the original "not hacker news" one and your own. Sorry :( Formally: 1) I actually do think it is educational 2) Regardless, things posted to HN, surely, don't have to be educational all the time! :) To discuss your post a bit more: I think you missed the point. The subject of Sivers anecdote was irrelevant; as I read it (and the following explanation) it is about learning things :)

qeorge 16y ago

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

VictorHo 16y ago
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 for the subsequent year or two or three, and no more than a few hours here and there really digging into what evidence exists to support an atheist or religious perspective. It's a cycle that sadly continues - 200 years ago everyone was Christian so people defaulted to it. Now, the trendy thing for "intellectuals" is atheism, and so many jump in without a thought (this continues to hold for both sides, as exemplified in the article). 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 (e.g., check out a church, speak in a truly unbiased fashion with ardent believers and non-believers alike, grab 20 minutes of a pastors time who has probably dedicated his life to talking to people like us, etc). There is no topic that gets less thought relative to its importance.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  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 was Christian so people defaulted to it. Now, the trendy thing for "intellectuals" is atheism, and so many jump in without a thought I feel that's a bit disingenuous - 200 years ago to hold a different religious belief was risking your life. grab 20 minutes of a pastors time who has probably dedicated his life to talking to people like us Oh. man no. Religious organisations are designed to self propagate. A pastor is essentially a salesman for the religion. Hear what he/she has to say but treat it with a large dose of salt. Ultimately religious belief is (or should be) an individual thing.

alanh 16y ago

Posted on a Friday? Madness!

inferno0069 16y ago
They were on a date -> Love god -> Friday!

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

huherto 16y ago

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/?

Gigamo 16y ago
The article actually mentions most of them. :)
stonemetal 16y ago
Sabado = sabbath Friday = Freyja Norse god more or less equivalent to Venus. Wednesday = Norse god Woden more commonly known in the US with out the W aka Oden.
nopassrecover 16y ago
The French I was taught in primary school hinted at most of this too. I'd venture anyone who knew bits of different languages would have probably guessed the roots of the days, atlhough English roots differ from romance roots (Wednesday based on the English god Woden instead of the Roman god Mercury). * Dimanche * Lundi * Mardi * Mercredi * Jeudi * Vendredi * Samedi
- btilly 16y ago
  Actually if you know enough about the history of the Norse religion, Odin to Mercury is not a difference. Odin comes from Wotan who started as the messenger of the gods then gained prominence in the pantheon. By Roman times he was co-equal with Tiwaz and had acquired many of his characteristics. By Norse times Thor was still important enough to take the central position in the temple at Uppsala. However Odin was god of wars, aristocracy, and poetry. After Christianity took over, Odin continued to gain importance in the mythology (which was after all continued by poets telling stories for aristocracy) and by the time Snorri Sturluson wrote The Prose Edda was the familiar allfather, king of the gods, etc.
hackermom 16y ago

limist 16y ago

Reframing is just a fantastic psychological tool/technique, and is the logical follow-up to Einstein's maxim that "The world will not evolve past its current state of crisis by using the same thinking that created the situation." This example by Sivers is brilliant.

fuzzythinker 16y ago

I love that guy's responses! Though when I do something similar (not quite same level as him), my friends usually give me the weird look..

Psyonic 16y ago

The story was good, I'm definitely happy to live in a time with such easy access to information, but as for the actual argument, haven't we all heard this before? That doesn't diminish it, but I'm surprised by how new it seems to many people. It's been argued forever. I'm sure it goes back much further than this, but here's a passage from 2005's "Sense and Goodness Without God" (http://www.amazon.com/Sense-Goodness-Without-God-Metaphysical/dp/1420802933/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-3991836-2050562?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183299102&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Sense-Goodness-Without-God-Metaphysica...): But if the idea of a god is inherently illogical (if the very idea is self-contradictory or meaningless), or if it is contradicted by the evidence, then there are strong positive reasons to take a harder stance as an atheist – with respect to that particular god. For in this sense, even believers are strong atheists – they deny the existence of hundreds of gods. Atheists like me merely deny one more god than everyone else already does – in fact, I deny the existence of the same god already denied by believers in other gods, so I am not doing anything that billions of people don’t do already.

Alex3917 16y ago

"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.

hugh3 16y ago
Isn't the God of existing Abrahamic religions the same dude that the ancient Hebrews were worshipping 2,500 years ago?
- Alex3917 16y ago
  Yeah, but if you look at the etymology of 'religion' it just means to tie back. In other words, to reunite people with some original source of all things. My point is that if you want a contemporary account of god, ask the people working on the Hubble telescope or the folks from csp.org, not some random sect whose beliefs haven't changed in 2,500 years. To give another example, if I wanted to debunk astrology then I'd start by arguing against the beliefs of Kary Mullis (who won the Nobel prize in science), not some 4000 year old scrolls.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
    - Alex3917 16y ago
      I know the difference, and I used them properly. It might have been a little confusing because I refer to both in the same post, but I meant them to be completely different examples. (In other words, astronomers are engaged in religious activity because they are trying to figure out the origins of the universe. Whereas Kary Mullis is an expert on the contemporary arguments in favor of astrology, if there are any.)
rue 16y ago

jz 16y ago

Now you can start to dive into any subject with some whimsical web browsing - an alternate to watching a TV show Wow, I just had a discussion with my wife about giving up cable TV but keeping cable Internet for this reason. My argument was during the 1/2 hour of a silly sitcom, I can become knowledgeable with just about any subject of my choosing. And even if I want to veg out, I can still find most shows on the web. Her counter argument was the cable box + remote are easier to use than hooking up a computer to the TV, which is what we currently do.

mkramlich 16y ago
... until the iPad came along. ;)

mkramlich 16y ago

My minimum requirement for believing in any particular god is if I can have lunch with them. Can I call them, invite to a party, and they actually show up. Etc.

hugh3 16y ago
Does this apply to people as well?
- mkramlich 16y ago
  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.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    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?
    - stavrianos 16y ago
      a good deal of that might constitute stronger evidence than attending a lunch date, and therefore validate belief. Lunch makes a good testing bar, above which other proofs may pass.
    - mkramlich 16y ago
      Funny! :-P But seriously, since flying and causing thunderstorms are way more exotic and powerful abilities than merely having lunch with someone, they would be acceptable substitutes for lunch. Better than lunch!
    - joubert 16y ago
      but he won't. and neither would any other deity. they're just made up.

TomOfTTB 16y ago

This just makes me sad to be honest with you. The idea that “we believe in 519 out of 520 Gods” means anything shows a fundamental misunderstanding of religion. You may not like the beliefs of some religious people but the point of religion is the beliefs. It’s not that a God created the world it’s that a benevolent God created the world and left teachings which lead to benevolence. On that note I’d point out that he’s wrong about learning something too. The web is a wonderful place and you can go out and learn things but the problem with the Web as opposed to a person is the web doesn’t challenge your beliefs. He took the most superficial point imaginable out of a serious conversation and pursued it. So while he learned something useless he missed the much deeper contradiction in the statement he was so enamored with.

hugh3 16y ago
It’s not that a God created the world it’s that a benevolent God created the world and left teachings which lead to benevolence. I'm confused. Are you saying that the second part can be true without the first part being true?
ErrantX 16y ago
I think the point is very simple and very elegant. It's not about God, it's about the fact that humanity (and our history) is a lot more subtle than most people really compute (I came to that realisation myself not very long ago). The beauty of it is that the religious conversation didn't matter too much - it was just that the clever rhetoric device (the Norse gods) was the avenue to a wealth of information. It is there for the taking but never actively taught. So, the point is that you can pick up any passing point of interest and satisfy your craving for it like never before. Then half an hour later move on to something else. And you will still have those Norse gods/weekdays lined up as a party trick...
- ErrantX 16y ago
  No? So Sivers' message was just about religion then? ;)
darthpanda 16y ago

aero142 16y ago

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 there are billions of people who don't believe in your particular God, and that it isn't that strange to not believe.

hugh3 16y ago
A better analogy would be as follows: "Why don't you believe the sun is composed primarily of hydrogen and helium?" "Well, there have been hundreds of theories of what the sun might be composed of; giant birds, fire, holes in the sky... I just believe one less than you do" That analogy still only works if there's some particularly good reason for believing that one God is significantly more likely to exist than any other.
ErrantX 16y ago
> So is the difference between believing in no gods, and one God. Im not sure that takes into account the fact that belief in one particular God (or set of gods) usually precludes belief in all the others. In that respect belief/non-belief is not very different.
dionidium 16y ago
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.
- aero142 16y ago
  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.

zokier 16y ago

There is one "error" in that discussion imho. Even if Thursday is named after Thor, it doesn't mean that Thursday was dedicated in celebration of Thor. And on the other side, Easter isn't named after Jesus. So I'm not following how Thursday and Easter are even remotely related. edit: of course this is just nit picking, and is not really relevant on the big picture.

joubert 16y ago
easter is named after a month in the germanic calendar named after the goddess Ēostre

psnj 16y ago

I've always found this an interesting topic, and once in a while it's interesting to discuss it with someone who believes in a god. Sometimes I wonder how much we choose what we believe, especially when it gets down to this bottom-of-the-soul (or "soul"), meaning-of-life stuff. When someone is incredulous at the fact that I don't believe in any sort of god, I 've said: "Let's try this: for the next sixty seconds, I'll start believing in God, and for the same sixty seconds, you have to stop believing in God. Are you in?" Naturally, it's not really possible for either person to do this, but sometimes it promotes interesting discussion about the nature of faith — why can't we do this, etc, etc? Of course, a lot of times it just pisses people off too.

grellas 16y ago

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.

mcantor 16y ago

Interestingly, "Sunday" in Japanese is expressed with the kanji for "sun" and the kanji for "day". It's obviously pronounced differently, but the literal meaning is the same as the English phonetics.

ktf 16y ago
That's true for Monday as well, which I've always thought was cool: 月曜日 = Monday 月 = Moon, 曜日 = day of the week

johnthedebs 16y ago

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.

gcv 16y ago

George Carlin put it best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

coolio73 16y ago

Aren't all these atheist/theist debates better housed on reddit with all the other dreck and stale debates the host? Hacker News is for news, not for silly things that just make people waste oxygen arguing about them.

pbhjpbhj 16y ago

Reddit was down?

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

Derek makes the same mistake many make when dealing with deities -- he personalizes them. My guess is that the ancients viewed deities as categories of things we don't know -- hence the 6 zillion gods. Over time, organization set into religion and people began anthropomorphizing the gods. Judaism moved "categories of things we don't know" from a multiple choice to a single entity. Then organization set in again with the anthropomorphizing. It's a mistake to take this to zero -- the assumption that we know everything and things we cannot prove are not worthy of consideration. Having a deep understanding of the huge amount of unknown in the universe is a critical part of a balanced life. To say you don't believe in one person's personification is to miss the point entirely.

ktf 16y ago

I can't believe nobody has brought up the Flying Spaghetti Monster: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster