or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › New Jersey firefighters sworn in on iPad Bible app
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Jersey firefighters sworn in on iPad Bible app - Page 2

post #41 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts View Post


Are you serious?
As a scientist I can tell you that you are very wrong with the assumptions you have made.
Tell me where religion uses science to prove the existence of this so called all mighty being?


You haven't read him correctly.

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #42 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I don't see how one can claim both. Saying you're agnostic and atheistic is the same as claim to be [input_religion] and agnostic. You either have faith that one unverifiable belief is correct or you choose to only believe in what you know.
To be clear, having a belief system does not mean you have a religious belief system. All religions are a belief system but not all belief systems are religious. This is why atheism is a belief system and not religion.
I see nothing politically neutral or fence sitting about being agnostic. Are scientists being neutral when don't have an answer to a question? Imposing your feelings and desired outcome as fact is not science.
It is in no way the burden of anyone who believes in a religion to provide you or anyone else with proof. I certainly don't require you to offer proof to maintain your beliefs but if you claim that there is no god and try to present this as fact as opposed to simply stating this is what you believe to be true you put the burden of truth on yourself. Clearly you cannot present such a truth but you still believe it. That is faith.
There is a difference between supporting the freedom of belief and letting someone else's freedom impede your life, liberties and beliefs. Are you fine with politicians being religious? I disinterested with any religion on might hold and will judge the person on their deeds through as much empirical evidence as can be afforded to me.


PS: I believe there is biological life on other planets. I am not talking little green men in flying saucers with ray guns, but the word in life in general. I have no way of proving this — just as others who believe there is no other life in the Universe — but based on the vast number of stars, known stars with planets, and many other factors the odds seem high enough that some form of biological life would have been started outside this world, at some time in the past present or future. I also have faith that the odds in the Lottery are so bad that I'll never win so I don't play. I also have faith I'll walk up tomorrow and have prepared myself for the new week. I can't prove any of these will be true but they are still part of my belief system along with a seemingly infinite other things.

I'm quite surprised in your comments, you have always come across as someone that at least can be reasoned with.
Again you make the same mistake as the untold billions of this Earth. That is requiring me to prove the non-existence of this entity.
Why should I ? I didn't make the grandiose statement. Prove to me that I am not this entity.
post #43 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Unlikely.  So unlikely that I will behave as if you don't, despite not being able to have 100% certainty.  I'll just round from 99.9999999999999999999999999999% certainty up to 100% because I don't give a shit about your terrible claim and your fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

Now, if you presented evidence that you actually had such a coin, I'm all eyes.  Of course, such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence.  Your move.
Again prove that I don't.
You make the claim that there is this entity, so prove it to me, I'm all eyes.
Unlike you I don't get into a personal attack "shitty", for example, this proves I have won.
post #44 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post


You haven't read him correctly.
Yes I did
post #45 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts View Post


Again prove that I don't.
You make the claim that there is this entity, so prove it to me, I'm all eyes.
Unlike you I don't get into a personal attack "shitty", for example, this proves I have won.

I make no claim of any entity.  I think you are responding to the wrong person.  I'm an agnostic atheist with igtheist tendencies.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #46 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts View Post

I'm quite surprised in your comments, you have always come across as someone that at least can be reasoned with.
Again you make the same mistake as the untold billions of this Earth. That is requiring me to prove the non-existence of this entity.
Why should I ? I didn't make the grandiose statement. Prove to me that I am not this entity.

I'm not requiring you to do anything, but if you accept somethng as the truth that you can't back up with empirical evidence it is only a belief. As previously stated, it's usually impossible to prove a negative which means that atheism will always have to remain a belief.

I've had many discussions on this board where I've conceded my own argument because I was not able to backup with research what I had thought I had read. I may have completely missed the article in my search or maybe I misread it or maybe it never existed in the first place, but if I can't offer support for an argument I make where I claim something is a fact then I will gladly withdraw any aforementioned declaration.

PS: In your previous statement about the coin you are not being reasonable. You want others to prove you don't have a trillion dollar coin but you are the one that said this exists within your pocket. You are the one that is then required to show proof of this existence if you want your words to be anything more than a belief you hold.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #47 of 103
It's shocking to me that people have to swear on the Bible for a public office.
post #48 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I find it interesting that those who are atheists also have a belief system that they can't also can't prove as proving the absence of something is usually impossible. Faith is defined as complete trust or confidence in something. If you believe there is no god then you have faith in the lack of this existence without any such proof and yet many atheists will say they do not have an unverifiable belief system. Many religions at least offer miracles, writings, and artifacts that they believe are proof. It's not good science but at least it's better than the complete absence as proof.

I define myself as agnostic. I don't say there is or isn't a god. I literally proclaim that I am without the knowledge nor the ability to know if there is or isn't a god as defined by any religion I'm aware of. I see that as the only way to be scientific about it.

 

You may feel like you have reached the maximum knowledge possible by claiming to be agnostic, but be careful that may not be enough, there is always something new to learn and you could still change your mind.

 

Well, if you look into it, proves do exist that god does not exist in philosophy. And especially that the soul doesn't exist and that there can't be influence from the immaterial to the material.

 

I learned that thanks to iTunes U (see how I'm back to the subject?) and the Yale courses on Death.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/death-video/id341651012

It's extremely interesting, if you take some time looking into it.

post #49 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I'm not requiring you to do anything, but if you accept somethng as the truth that you can't back up with empirical evidence it is only a belief. As previously stated, it's usually impossible to prove a negative which means that atheism will always have to remain a belief.

I've had many discussions on this board where I've conceded my own argument because I was not able to backup with research what I had thought I had read. I may have completely missed the article in my search or maybe I misread it or maybe it never existed in the first place, but if I can't offer support for an argument I make where I claim something is a fact then I will gladly withdraw any aforementioned declaration.

PS: In your previous statement about the coin you are not being reasonable. You want others to prove you don't have a trillion dollar coin but you are the one that said this exists within your pocket. You are the one that is then required to show proof of this existence if you want your words to be anything more than a belief you hold.

 

Yes, exactly my point !  I made a silly statement that I have a trillion dollar coin in my pocket. Thats the whole point of the matter.

Now do you see where I am coming from ?

In the past the arguments were of the order "prove there isn't a god". But I state to them, I am not holding the position that there is one, you are, so the onus is on you. If you fail to see this, then what is the point in discussing anything at all, not just the existence of an entity.

post #50 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I make no claim of any entity.  I think you are responding to the wrong person.  I'm an agnostic atheist with igtheist tendencies.

 

I'm confused and I quote you as follows:

 

Unlikely.  So unlikely that I will behave as if you don't, despite not being able to have 100% certainty.  I'll just round from 99.9999999999999999999999999999% certainty up to 100% because I don't give a shit about your terrible claim and your fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.
Now, if you presented evidence that you actually had such a coin, I'm all eyes.  Of course, such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence.  Your move.

 

Want to elaborate ?

post #51 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


You have an unwavering faith in the absence of god despite having no proof there is no god. That is a belief system. You can rattle off as many things as you want that you don't believe in but but it's still a belief that you can't prove and yet you adamently believe in.

If you honestly can't see how atheism is a belief in something that can't be prove then prove to me there is no god.

 

It is not unwavering.  Provide some proof and Atheists will change their mind.

 

I don't believe in magic fairies at the bottom of my garden.  Is that a belief system?  Are you also agnostic about that?  Is it unreasonable to say "Magic fairies do not exist", or should I always have to say "Well, I've never seen the magic fairies, but I wouldn't want to rule it out"?

 

No, it's fair to say "Magic fairies don't exist", just as it's fair to say "God does not exist".  If you provide evidence to the contrary, then we can reassess the situation.  

post #52 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Surely it's obvious to any regular on this forum that I question everything. I have no problem with traditions but I am not a sentimental nor a traditionalist by nature.


Story time: A woman was preparing a roast for her dinner as she's done dozens of times before. Her husband comes in and asked, "Why do cut the ends off the roast and put them on the side of the pan?" The women replied, "Well that's how my mother already did it." Her curiosity piqued the woman called her mother and asked, "When making a roast why did cut the ends off and put them on the side of the pan?" Her mother replied, "That's the way my mother did it." The women then called her grandmother and asked her the same question to which she replied. "The pan was too small"

 

I hear where you're coming from. In general, I agree people should take a skeptical eye to tradition, especially in fast moving fields like engineering. But I don't think it's uniformly useless. 
 
For example in a Presidential/Prime Ministerial swearing-in ceremony you need to change the span/range of your thinking, from doing what's right for you in your lifetime, to doing what's in the general good in the long term. 
 
Psychologically it might help you to have your eyes opened to the passage of time, and see history spread out before you, and feel like you are now becoming part of it instead of watching from the sidelines. So putting some ancient robe on your shoulders and making you swear on an old book, might not be entirely useless, if it helps you see the long term. Sort of like an actor might find a prop useful in getting in to a role.
post #53 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

For those who claim there is no God, please observe the screen grab I made of an SMS that I received a couple of years ago on my brand new iPhone 4:

 

 

Case closed.

 

You got that?  Sorry.  I thought I sent it to my cousin in Florida.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #54 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post

It's shocking to me that people have to swear on the Bible for a public office.

 

 

In a country that proclaims to be free.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #55 of 103

That is the society we are living in today. Religion plays a factor in politics all the time.
 

post #56 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atashi View Post

So many things to comment on, but I guess the main thing is that they didn't plan on using an iPad app - it was a last minute solution they put to use when nobody had a 'real' bible handy. From that perspective it sounds to me like a good quick solution so they could get the cerimony done and over with.

 

I wonder though if you aren't christian, do you have to or can you swear in on whatever tome is holy in your tradition? Book of Shadows for the wiccan firefighters? And if not then what is the point of swearing in on a holy book at all, if it's not holy to you?

 

Philosophically I'm also curious about how a bunch of words mass-produced, printed by machine on machine made paper, is 'more holy' than a digital representation of the same words displayed on a screen? Is the paper holier than the screen? I thought it was the content that was important, not what it's printed or displayed on.

 

Cheers!
 

 

Agreed. It is all about the content written, printed, or rasterized. Holy water isn't any different compared to regular water beyond the "perceived" difference due to ceremony performed in its presence. If someone trashes a bible app as not authentic, they don't have respect for the purported word of god anyway. 

 

I personally find the use of bibles for this sort of thing offensive. 

post #57 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


You have an unwavering faith in the absence of god despite having no proof there is no god. That is a belief system. You can rattle off as many things as you want that you don't believe in but but it's still a belief that you can't prove and yet you adamently believe in.

If you honestly can't see how atheism is a belief in something that can't be prove then prove to me there is no god.

 

No.


The statement "I do not believe God exists" is not logically equivalent to "I believe God does not exist."


If you can't honestly see the difference between those two statements, then further discussion is pointless.

/bs
Reply
/bs
Reply
post #58 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

You have an unwavering faith in the absence of god despite having no proof there is no god. That is a belief system. You can rattle off as many things as you want that you don't believe in but but it's still a belief that you can't prove and yet you adamently believe in.

If you honestly can't see how atheism is a belief in something that can't be prove then prove to me there is no god.

Most people who claim to be atheists are actually agnostics - not claiming to be able to prove that there's no god, but simply pointing out that there's no evidence for it.

There is absolutely no verifiable evidence to establish the presence of a God - nothing but third hand (or even more distant) claims. And most of those are full of self-contradictory statements (read the bible some time to see how many times it contradicts itself). You may believe in Bigfoot, if you wish, but I'm going to say I don't believe it unless there's real, verifiable evidence.

Which position is more rational?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ecs View Post

Indeed. In fact Science and Religion don't interfere, as the scientific method states it only applies to things that can be physically measured, which leaves the supernatural outside of Science. This means you'll never be able to prove the absence of supernatural with the scientific method, or otherwise you'd be using it wrongly. At the same time, Religion, when truly practiced, adheres to Science in the things that can be physically measured.

Atheists who "just trust Science", are, well, having faith in something they cannot prove (they cannot prove any knowledge for themselves, they need to trust what others say). And you know, quite a few research papers have been proven in fraud, with researchers lying about the results in the paper...

You're horribly confused.

First, while science doesn't claim to be able to disprove religion, there are countless examples where religious people make claims that are contrary to science. In those cases, science is based on facts, reasoning, and logic while religion is based on nothing but mindless belief.

Example:
Age of the earth. Many religious groups still claim that the earth is under 10,000 years old. (One recent poll indicated that as many as 40% of Americans fall into that category). Their evidence? They claim that it's in the bible - even though there's absolutely no such claim in the bible. So not only are they using hearsay evidence, but they're even misquoting the evidence that's there.

Scientifically, there is evidence from almost every field of science that establishes that the age of the earth is in the billions of years range. Astronomy, physics, chemistry, anthropology, archaeology, biology, genetics, radiation physics, and almost every field of science has evidence that the earth is billions of years old.

Now, a logical, thinking person has to choose between two options:
1. The earth is billions of years old.
2. God did actually create the earth 6,000 years ago but did it in such a way to fool us into thinking it was older. He created it with fossil record intact. Radioactive isotopes partially decayed. Photons already enroute from quintillions of stars. Evolution occurred at a rate many orders of magnitude faster than at present and then it magically slowed down almost overnight. And so on.

Can a scientist prove that #2 didn't happen? No. By its very nature, if God were real and wanted to make it look like the earth was billions of years old, then he could do so. If someone wants to believe that God gave us brains only so that he could trick us, they're free to believe that. But what they can't do is deny all the evidence around us. They can't deny evolution - it has been scientifically proven beyond any reasonable doubt. They can't deny the fossil record. They can't pretend that Jesus rode a dinosaur.

IOW, religious people need to get over the idea that their views trump factual reality. They can claim that "god made it that way" if they wish, but they need to stop pretending that the facts don't exist.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #59 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atashi View Post

Philosophically I'm also curious about how a bunch of words mass-produced, printed by machine on machine made paper, is 'more holy' than a digital representation of the same words displayed on a screen? Is the paper holier than the screen? I thought it was the content that was important, not what it's printed or displayed on.

Cheers!

 

In my eyes- and what should be in the eyes of all Christians, it is the words- not the paper. Whether it be on a napkin, or note card, or in our memory and spoken- it's the Living word and not the pages. Just as church is the people in it, not the building.
I'm sure some old folks would see it as a problem, and have no basis as to why, but I don't at all.

That said- to all commenters- can we please watch the "religious brainwash" comments or calling it a "Fairy tale" or superstitious, etc- that are insulting? No need for it.
Dlux, solip, jrag, and others have presented themselves and their opinions in a great form and all without the use of insults.
Edited by Andysol - 2/11/13 at 6:13am

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #60 of 103

Talking to deities is easier with a 4G connection.  Back in the day we had to rely on that guy down the street who heard voices and tried to kill his son, and you just know he said a few things that probably weren't legit.

post #61 of 103

As someone who studied physics, it's always painful to read people saying that science is a 'faith' and that scientists are too dumb to realize it.

I've never seen so many intelligent people than at university. People who only cared about science and knowledge and worked a lot for a ridiculously small salary, earned after a lifetime of study. Their intelligence also lies in that they never fell the need to answer to the anti-science. They just do their work, and people outside don't even realize everything that science does for them.

I can't talk for the beliefs of those people as a whole, but it seems natural that 'those who know' don't believe in a god like the one depicted by most religions.

I think that science can't answer all those questions, and a lot of those, as I stated above, are actually answered by metaphysics. There is no soul, there is no god. We are just an assembly of atoms and interactions. Just like an assembly of wood makes a chair. When we die our 'I' returns to the same state it was before our conception, it becomes non-existent. When we break a chair into pieces, the 'chair' ceases to exist, there is no 'soul' of a chair remaining.
 

post #62 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I find it interesting that those who are atheists also have a belief system that they can't also can't prove as proving the absence of something is usually impossible. Faith is defined as complete trust or confidence in something. If you believe there is no god then you have faith in the lack of this existence without any such proof and yet many atheists will say they do not have an unverifiable belief system. Many religions at least offer miracles, writings, and artifacts that they believe are proof. It's not good science but at least it's better than the complete absence as proof.

I define myself as agnostic. I don't say there is or isn't a god. I literally proclaim that I am without the knowledge nor the ability to know if there is or isn't a god as defined by any religion I'm aware of. I see that as the only way to be scientific about it.

 

Atheism isn't a belief system.  The issue with "god" is not that there is a lack of evidence, but rather that "god" is what is known in epistemology as an invalid concept.  It literally doesn't mean anything because its parameters are not defined.  It is not that "there is no evidence," but rather that when someone says "god" he is being incoherent precisely because there is no definition of "god" that qualifies as a non-contradictory delimiting of the term.  Even "Purple Unicorn" has more epistemological validity than the invalid concept "god" because "purple unicorn" is clearly defined.  A unicorn is defined as a horse with a straight horn growing out of it's head.  A purple one is...well, purple.  Because "purple unicorn" can be delimited (defined), it qualifies as a valid concept, i.e. it can be "thought about" and communicated.  However, despite being coherent by virtue of being delimited, there is no evidence, ergo it is a fictional creature.  The problem with the invalid concept "god" is not that there is no evidence.  The problem is that it literally means NOTHING.  Hence why nobody on earth agrees even with his neighbor on what "it" is.  It's simply a word game, and human beings are still in their infancy when it comes to coping with their capacity for language (the creation of concepts through symbos - written, spoken, signed, or pictoral - and their definitions...specific, coherent, non-contradictory definitions.  "God" does not mean anything.  If I were to say, "a creature that is more powerful than any in the universe," that would at least be coherent...but nobody would accept that as the definition.  There is nothing coherent about "supreme being".  What...is that like a pizza supreme?  A being...like a living being?  But "living" is a concept that is coherent only in so far as what we have defined as life.  If it means "something else," then the person who suggests so must say what he means.  If he can't say what he means, far from this indicating a "profound possibility," he is merely communicating that he has no idea what he is talking about...he is being incoherent. 

 

"God" is a semantic game.  Most people don't study epistemology, so the "god debate" is reduced to one of evidence.  But you can no more look for evidence of "god" than you can look for evidence of a square circle.  It is incoherent, meaningless babble...not a validly defined concept that can be communicated.  Far worse than fictional concepts, which can usually be easily communicated, "god" is simply a semantic game that humans, in their linguistic infancy, have been playing for thousands of years.  The only reason we all know what the debate is "about" is because we all associate the same words with the idea..."supreme," "before everything" etc.  But our having a common reference point of arbitrary, incoherent attributes is not the same as having a valid definition.  Sure, we agree enough on the arbitrary attributes, but any analysis of those attributes results in incoherence. 

 

It's not that I believe "god" doesn't exist.  It's that people who use words they haven't defined have no idea what they are saying, and therefore have nothing to communicate.  If they want to talk about their emotions, that's valid.  But pretending "supreme being" or "creator the stuff before which there was nothing" has absolutely no meaning.  It's an abuse of language.  Declaring agnosticism about god is the same as declaring agnosticism for a square circle.  Why bother?  It doesn't mean anything.  It's not that IT doesn't exist...there IS no "it."  It's just incoherent babble. 

post #63 of 103

A religious discussion on AI, huh?

 

[this account has been abandoned]

Reply

[this account has been abandoned]

Reply
post #64 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts View Post

 

I'm confused and I quote you as follows:

 

Unlikely.  So unlikely that I will behave as if you don't, despite not being able to have 100% certainty.  I'll just round from 99.9999999999999999999999999999% certainty up to 100% because I don't give a shit about your terrible claim and your fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.
Now, if you presented evidence that you actually had such a coin, I'm all eyes.  Of course, such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence.  Your move.

 

Want to elaborate ?

You responded to my post discussing the definitions of atheism & agnosticism with a glib comment about a trillion dollar coin in your pocket, asking me to prove you don't have one.  

 

1.  It's not up to me to prove you don't have something.

2.  I default to not believing you because the claim is ridiculous--coupled with no evidence--and act as if you don't have such a coin, despite not truly knowing for sure.

 

I am thinking that you perhaps were mistaking me for someone else because your original reply to me was a complete non sequitur.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #65 of 103
I am a pastor and I use my iPad with a Bible app to study and preach from. There is nothing sacred about what form of Bible you hold in your hand.

There is nothing disturbing about this. The Word of God is the Word of God, no matter the medium used.
post #66 of 103

As this is the religious thread here:

 

the pope will resign

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/11/world/europe/pope-benedict-resignation/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #67 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by pastorbran View Post

I am a pastor and I use my iPad with a Bible app to study and preach from. There is nothing sacred about what form of Bible you hold in your hand.

There is nothing disturbing about this. The Word of God is the Word of God, no matter the medium used.
Our youth pastor does the same, and has even grabbed an occasional singular verse from his phone. And almost all scripture in service is always put up on a large screen- most people don't even bring a bible to church. Can't tell you the last time I used my physical bible, but I use the youversion bible app daily- I can read 20 different translations at the palm of my hand on a particular verse I might be pondering.
No different than using your iPad when you are playing music on a piano. Just a medium.

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #68 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

We have the separation of church and state. Not religion and state.

The firefighters weren't all required to be Presbyterian or something. That would be a church/state issue.

 

And yet while you correct to a degree, oaths should still not be done using a religious text. Why? Because not all of them are Christian. Some could be Jews, Muslim etc. Why is one group being separated out in such a way. It's discriminatory and insulting. And it's an invasion of privacy considering that ones religion is not a factor in doing this particular job. 

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #69 of 103
Can we expect Gideon's to start leaving QR codes in hotels and motels?
post #70 of 103
Originally Posted by Vorsos View Post
A religious discussion on AI, huh?

 

I moved it to PO early on. There's an escape clause over here that allows political discussion.

 

By that I mean, "we never went back and edited the rules page to exclude religious discussion in PO". 


Edited by Tallest Skil - 2/11/13 at 8:55am

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #71 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post

You may feel like you have reached the maximum knowledge possible by claiming to be agnostic

Agnostic doesn't having the maximum knowledge possible it means without knowledge. I could say you are male. Based on stats on tech forum usage and how you reply to comments the odds are in my favour that I'm correct. However, it would be just a guess as I have no knowledge of what your gender is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts View Post

Yes, exactly my point !  I made a silly statement that I have a trillion dollar coin in my pocket. Thats the whole point of the matter.
Now do you see where I am coming from ?
In the past the arguments were of the order "prove there isn't a god". But I state to them, I am not holding the position that there is one, you are, so the onus is on you. If you fail to see this, then what is the point in discussing anything at all, not just the existence of an entity.

You take the existence of (or lack thereof) god very personally. Unless someone is actively trying to get you to believe in their religion why would you expect them to prove anything to you? You certainly aren't going around trying to convince others there is not god (at least I hope not). If you do, then it is up to you provide proof that your argument is accurate if you are presenting it as more than your belief but as a fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutcho View Post

No, it's fair to say "Magic fairies don't exist", just as it's fair to say "God does not exist".  If you provide evidence to the contrary, then we can reassess the situation.  

That is agumentum ad ignorantia. It's an fallacious argument and the core issue I see with people asserting atheism as factual and using pejorative comments like "magic fairies" when discounting a belief system that is not their own. It's not only illogical but very closed minded.
Quote:
It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

I hear where you're coming from. In general, I agree people should take a skeptical eye to tradition, especially in fast moving fields like engineering. But I don't think it's uniformly useless.

I never said traditions are useless. As someone who studies anthropology as a hobby I could not make an argument against the need for traditions and customs in society. It's a wonderful thing, it's just not something that appeals to me on a personal level.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol77 
Atheism isn't a belief system.

Absolutely it is. You believe in something that can't be proven. What it's not is a religion as that requires "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods" according to the AED3.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorsos 
A religious discussion on AI, huh?

It's been a hoot.
Edited by SolipsismX - 2/11/13 at 8:56am

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #72 of 103

Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Now, a logical, thinking person has to choose between two options:
1. The earth is billions of years old.
2. God did actually create the earth 6,000 years ago but did it in such a way to fool us into thinking it was older. He created it with fossil record intact. Radioactive isotopes partially decayed. Photons already enroute from quintillions of stars. Evolution occurred at a rate many orders of magnitude faster than at present and then it magically slowed down almost overnight. And so on.

Can a scientist prove that #2 didn't happen? No. By its very nature, if God were real and wanted to make it look like the earth was billions of years old, then he could do so. If someone wants to believe that God gave us brains only so that he could trick us, they're free to believe that.

Why would people want to put their faith in someone who is playing tricks on them?

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #73 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomkarl View Post

OK, it's bad enough that government offices in a country that has separation of church and State swears in firefighters with a Bible, but using an electronic device as a substitute is ludicrous.

I'm sure that the Pope wouldn't consider an iPad (bible app or not) as sacred as the church's Bible.

I agree with your first point, but the second seems to miss the mark. If you believe in a book being sacred, what versions are sacred? Hand written originals?
post #74 of 103

I'm pastafarian.
 

post #75 of 103
When I take a public office, I demand to be sworn in on a paper copy of Steve Jobs' biography.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #76 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post

I'm pastafarian.

But which denomination? I personally feel that spaghetti is far to constrictive of a noodle for my beliefs and therefore believe that linguini is our creator's true form¡ Some believe that there are multiple pasta gods in all pasta shapes but I find polypastaiastic religions to be heresy¡ 1tongue.gif

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #77 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

Ha--I see I'm not alone in my reaction. My first thought when I saw this was that the separation of church and state, wisely intended by the founders of this country, is now just a click of the Home button away!

Sadly, the 3-way alliance of religion, government, and mega-corporations is enforced by tradition and prejudice even more than by law. (Well, alliance is the wrong word, since one of those three is simply using the other two...)

This story reflects a change of tradition... but not QUITE the change that justice demands...

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but the separation between church and state pertains to not having a state run religion, not the absence of all religion. Swearing in on the bible is more of a tradition, although I think the iPad app is not a suitable replacement for that tradition.
post #78 of 103

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post

It's shocking to me that people have to swear on the Bible for a public office.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

 

 

In a country that proclaims to be free.

 

 

 

 

John 8:32  "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

post #79 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by ipen View Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post

It's shocking to me that people have to swear on the Bible for a public office.

 

 

 

John 8:32  "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

 

Ironic line.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #80 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Most people who claim to be atheists are actually agnostics - not claiming to be able to prove that there's no god, but simply pointing out that there's no evidence for it.

There is absolutely no verifiable evidence to establish the presence of a God - nothing but third hand (or even more distant) claims. And most of those are full of self-contradictory statements (read the bible some time to see how many times it contradicts itself). You may believe in Bigfoot, if you wish, but I'm going to say I don't believe it unless there's real, verifiable evidence.

Which position is more rational?
You're horribly confused.

First, while science doesn't claim to be able to disprove religion, there are countless examples where religious people make claims that are contrary to science. In those cases, science is based on facts, reasoning, and logic while religion is based on nothing but mindless belief.

Example:
Age of the earth. Many religious groups still claim that the earth is under 10,000 years old. (One recent poll indicated that as many as 40% of Americans fall into that category). Their evidence? They claim that it's in the bible - even though there's absolutely no such claim in the bible. So not only are they using hearsay evidence, but they're even misquoting the evidence that's there.

Scientifically, there is evidence from almost every field of science that establishes that the age of the earth is in the billions of years range. Astronomy, physics, chemistry, anthropology, archaeology, biology, genetics, radiation physics, and almost every field of science has evidence that the earth is billions of years old.

Now, a logical, thinking person has to choose between two options:
1. The earth is billions of years old.
2. God did actually create the earth 6,000 years ago but did it in such a way to fool us into thinking it was older. He created it with fossil record intact. Radioactive isotopes partially decayed. Photons already enroute from quintillions of stars. Evolution occurred at a rate many orders of magnitude faster than at present and then it magically slowed down almost overnight. And so on.

Can a scientist prove that #2 didn't happen? No. By its very nature, if God were real and wanted to make it look like the earth was billions of years old, then he could do so. If someone wants to believe that God gave us brains only so that he could trick us, they're free to believe that. But what they can't do is deny all the evidence around us. They can't deny evolution - it has been scientifically proven beyond any reasonable doubt. They can't deny the fossil record. They can't pretend that Jesus rode a dinosaur.

IOW, religious people need to get over the idea that their views trump factual reality. They can claim that "god made it that way" if they wish, but they need to stop pretending that the facts don't exist.

Excellent.
I, myself no longer bother using logc in reasoning with religious people, I know for certain that he/she will disagree with you.
Believing in fairy tales is one thing, having your whole life revolve arpund it is another.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › New Jersey firefighters sworn in on iPad Bible app