Comment by kjellsbells | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kjellsbells | Hacker News Reader

I'm struck in these conversion essays how authors compare the worst people in their old belief system to the best people in their new one. For example aggressive atheists vs welcoming christians, or, in the other direction, firebreathing zealots vs rational atheists. Seems like an apples to oranges comparison, and not one to use as the basis for converting.

In the specific case of conversion to belief in the Christian God, the arguments presented seem to branch from a sense of wonder and awe, or even mystery (which even scientific endeavour can generate, eg cosmology) to selection of the specific biblical deity. Why that one, and not, say, the Hindu Atman or even a god we dont know about that the civilization on some distant star worships? It seems quite convenient. As a counterweight it would be good to read of conversion narratives from people outside of the Western tradition.

I am with CS Lewis in his observation that if Jesus was not the Son of God then it would be the biggest, ugliest fraud of all time. I dont make the leap that he does that Jesus must therefore be divine.

Lurker here, just wanted to comment on your second point to say I agree as a Christian. Although Sanger has clearly delved intellectually into becoming a theist as described here, his conversion to Christianity as a specific religion appears less thorough as detailed in this blog. Though I find various theistic arguments mentioned by the essay to be persuasive, I personally was/am more gripped by the historical arguments put forward for the reliability of the Gospels and Jesus' resurrection, so it was a bit surprising to find no mention of such arguments in this blog.

As a side, to say Christianity is fraudulent if it's false is rather harsh, as fraud indicates intentional deception or malice. Yet skeptical positions that attribute deception or malice to Jesus' disciples are quite rare due to how difficult they are to defend. So if Christianity is false, it would most likely have been an honest mistake by the early Christians rather than an intentional deception, at least in my estimate.

That large fraud would be closely followed by a few others. Moses and Mohammed would have some difficulties too.

Yes, although to be fair, the argument would hinge on whether one of them claimed his own divinity, or just claimed to be inspired by Him.[1]

Whether Jesus asserted his divinity in the NT is something that is not supported by all theological scholars, and so that would also excuse him from the bind.

I could, theoretically, get behind a Supreme Being idea, but I remain unconvinced that such an entity has a special interest in a single lifeform on the third rock from a minor star, and a penchant for talking in the kind of riddles that these lifeforms then use to kill each other.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis's_trilemma

Converts do tend to romanticize their new side over the old one. But I think Larry's view has specific alignment with history: at the time, the most outspoken on the websites he visited were strongly Atheistic or Anti-Religious. That sentiment prevailed in websites like Reddit which, for example, had /r/atheism and its "euphoria".

StarSlateCodex describes this phenomena in detail, as well as what happened to the more drama-prone Atheists who Larry probably tussled with: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/10/30/new-atheism-the-godles...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com