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 3

post #81 of 103
2/11/13 at 12:18pm

Is the state or government scientific? Isn't it sort of ridiculous to argue that one set of made up rules, traditions and stories somehow defiles another set of made up rules, traditions and stories?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #82 of 103
2/11/13 at 12:25pm
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.

No, wrong, wrong and wrong again.
Before I answer your specifics, you question me whether I go around attempting to influence people into my way of thinking.
You have it backwards, the number of times I had to slam the door on religious fanatics trying to convert me or shove some crap into my hand at train stations is astounding.
I seriously now question your ability to think rationally.
But this happens ALL the time when one engages a person who has strong religious beliefs.
You class yourself as agnostic, but you come across as someone whom is far from it.
I repeat again, the onus is on religious people to prove the existence of this all powerful entity, it is not on me. If you cannot understand this, then no point discussing with you any further.
Gads, it's like hitting your head against the wall.
Reply
Reply
post #83 of 103
2/11/13 at 2:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

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. 

Not entirely true - at least as far as the US government is concerned. The Constitution requires the President to take an oath of office. But that is not required to be religious or sworn.

President Franklin Pierce affirmed (not swore) his oath with his hand on a law book (not a Bible).

There's absolutely no requirement to swear on a bible. It's entirely up to the President - even though the majority have chosen to swear on a bible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post

I'm pastafarian.

Then you'll enjoy this:
http://www.coderanch.com/t/534711/md/Pirate-Crossword-Puzzle
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSteelers View Post

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. .

Not entirely true. The Supreme Court has interpreted the separation clause to essentially mean that the Government can not take a stand on religious issues and can not involve itself in any religion.

A little known fact is that it was the 18th century churches who demanded the separation clause. They were concerned that the government would do what so many other nations did and create a national religion - to the exclusion of all the rest. There was also a strong bit of "If you do something because it's mandatory, you can't claim to have done something morally good".

My brother's thesis and later book ("Wellspring of LIberty") covers much of the history of the development of religious freedom in the US. His second book on the topic will be out this spring.
Reply
Reply
post #84 of 103
2/11/13 at 4:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Not entirely true - at least as far as the US government is concerned. The Constitution requires the President to take an oath of office. But that is not required to be religious or sworn.

 

This thread got to three pages before somebody stated the obvious.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #85 of 103
2/11/13 at 6:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Not entirely true - at least as far as the US government is concerned. The Constitution requires the President to take an oath of office. But that is not required to be religious or sworn.

President Franklin Pierce affirmed (not swore) his oath with his hand on a law book (not a Bible).

There's absolutely no requirement to swear on a bible. It's entirely up to the President - even though the majority have chosen to swear on a bible.
Then you'll enjoy this:
http://www.coderanch.com/t/534711/md/Pirate-Crossword-Puzzle
Not entirely true. The Supreme Court has interpreted the separation clause to essentially mean that the Government can not take a stand on religious issues and can not involve itself in any religion.

A little known fact is that it was the 18th century churches who demanded the separation clause. They were concerned that the government would do what so many other nations did and create a national religion - to the exclusion of all the rest. There was also a strong bit of "If you do something because it's mandatory, you can't claim to have done something morally good".

My brother's thesis and later book ("Wellspring of LIberty") covers much of the history of the development of religious freedom in the US. His second book on the topic will be out this spring.
Listened to your brother on YouTube quite a bit just now. Very smart guy. What happened to you? I kid, I kid...

Seriously, he said some interesting stuff.

(2) 2010 27" iMac i7, 2012 15" Retina MacBook Pro i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad 4, iPad Mini, (2) iPhone 5, iPod Touch 5, iPod Nano 7
Time Capsule 4, Airport Extreme 5, (3) Apple TV 3

Reply

(2) 2010 27" iMac i7, 2012 15" Retina MacBook Pro i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad 4, iPad Mini, (2) iPhone 5, iPod Touch 5, iPod Nano 7
Time Capsule 4, Airport Extreme 5, (3) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #86 of 103
2/11/13 at 10:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorsos View Post

A religious discussion on AI, huh?

 

 

EXACTLY.

"And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about." --addabox
Reply
"And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about." --addabox
Reply
post #87 of 103
2/12/13 at 1:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

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.

 

Are you saying that with a straight face?  Religion itself is agumentum ad ignorantia.  It can't be proved false, so people take it to be true, and anyone that questions it is told they have to disprove the argument (that god exists).  The magic fairy example is apt in this situation.  Frankly, I just think you're being closed minded about my fairy at the bottom of the garden.

Reply
Reply
post #88 of 103
2/18/13 at 7:19am
Its not the materials the Bible is written on that matter, it is the content and who it came from they are swearing by. This is an odd and a new precedent, but the meaning is still the same.

W. Pauli, winner of the Nobel prize in physics, said that all scientific methods fail when questions of origin are involved.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n4/ten-best-evidences

Reply

W. Pauli, winner of the Nobel prize in physics, said that all scientific methods fail when questions of origin are involved.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n4/ten-best-evidences

Reply
post #89 of 103
2/18/13 at 9:04am

Also, see the answer to the same question from the FAQ:

 

Q: You guys believe there is no God, but you can't prove that there isn't. So being an atheist obviously requires at least as much faith as being a Christian.

 

A: This assumption is rooted in the elementary logical fallacy that two opposite things--belief and disbelief--are actually the same thing. A basic tenet of logic is that anyone making a positive claim bears the burden of proof for that claim. For example, in a court of law the lawyers for the prosecution bear the burden of proof, because they are making the positive claim that the defendant has committed a crime.

To take a skeptical position regarding an extraordinary claim for which one has not been provided with compelling evidence is not an act of faith; it is simple common sense. Here is an analogous situation: supposedly, as a Christian, you do not believe in the Roman or Aztec gods. Is it just as much an "act of faith" on your part not to believe in those gods as it was for the Romans and Aztecs to believe in them? If a man walks up to you and says he has an invisible magic elf sitting on his head, do you automatically believe his claim? If not, is it an "act of faith" on your part not to? Or are you simply responding to the claim with common sense and skepticism because the man has failed to provide you with adequate evidence for his elf? Choosing not to believe in something when you have no reason to believe in that thing is not an act of faith, it is just the smart thing to do.

Finally, one can turn to the Bible's definition of faith--the "substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"--to see that this is a definition that excludes disbelief. So if you still don't agree with us that atheism is not a faith, then check your Bibles.

Reply
Reply
post #90 of 103
3/1/13 at 7:33am
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."


I'm already free, imposing someone to take an oath would be the contrary of freedom. Use your brain.

Reply
Reply
post #91 of 103
3/1/13 at 7:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutcho View Post

Are you saying that with a straight face?  Religion itself is agumentum ad ignorantia.  It can't be proved false, so people take it to be true, and anyone that questions it is told they have to disprove the argument (that god exists).  The magic fairy example is apt in this situation.  Frankly, I just think you're being closed minded about my fairy at the bottom of the garden.

And I said religion wasn't? It's not an either/or situation between a belief in a deity and a belief that there is no deity. Bot require the person to accept that can't be tested nor proved.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #92 of 103
3/1/13 at 8:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutcho View Post

Religion itself is agumentum ad ignorantia.

 

In these kind of discussions it is important to make sure we're all speaking the same language and using terms in the same way. I will assume here that by "religion" you mean "faith in God or the existence of God."

 

If I'm incorrect in what you mean, I apologize and hope you'll clarify. However, if that is what you mean, then:

 

Except that "religion" isn't so much an argument as a faith proposition. There is something proposed (e.g., the existence of God, etc.) that cannot be proven (or dis-proven) in the traditional ways we prove and disprove things but for which there appears to be some evidence and some people accept this proposition on faith.

 

Indeed some people do argue (or appear to argue) that God is real. And these can be good and interesting discussions, but his existence cannot be proven or dis-proven so, ultimately, any proposition on his existence is one of faith (perhaps with reference to things that one considers evidence supporting this faith.)

 

If I say: "I believe there's a God." or "I think God exists." or "I believe in God and he does this and that but not the other and has these properties and characteristics." I'm not so much making an argument as declaring a position or proposition of faith.

 

That being the case it ("religion") is not, properly understood, an argument from ignorance because it is not really an argument to begin with.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #93 of 103
3/1/13 at 8:08am
Again, as has been stated before, a disbelief in anything that cannot be verifiably observed or tested is not the same proposition of faith as the belief in something that cannot be verifiably observed or tested. To equate the two as equal acts of faith is asinine.
Reply
Reply
post #94 of 103
3/1/13 at 8:10am

tonton, you'll get further in life by not claiming, declaring or assuming that people who disagree with you are asinine.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #95 of 103
3/1/13 at 8:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Again, as has been stated before, a disbelief in anything that cannot be verifiably observed or tested is not the same proposition of faith as the belief in something that cannot be verifiably observed or tested. To equate the two as equal acts of faith is asinine.

faith - complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

belief - something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.


Disbelief in one thing is fine but if you replace it with a belief in something else that can't be verified that is belief. It's illogical for someone to claim they are logical while ignoring their own unprovable faith.
Edited by SolipsismX - 3/1/13 at 8:37am

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #96 of 103
3/1/13 at 10:26am
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


faith - complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

belief - something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.


Disbelief in one thing is fine but if you replace it with a belief in something else that can't be verified that is belief. It's illogical for someone to claim they are logical while ignoring their own unprovable faith.

 

A lack of belief is not the same thing as a disbelief. I'm not saying a deity doesn't exist (unless it's the specific Christian one which is self-contradictory). However, the existence of a deity is such an extraordinary claim with zero evidence that there is no reason for me to take any such claim seriously. The claimant who says a deity exists must meet the burden of proof. Efforts to do so have been spectacular failures so I have no reason to entertain the idea.

Putting my dismissal of deities due to lack of evidence at the same level of acceptance of deities is completely ridiculous.

 

“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 #97 of 103
3/1/13 at 10:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

A lack of belief is not the same thing as a disbelief. I'm not saying a deity doesn't exist (unless it's the specific Christian one which is self-contradictory). However, the existence of a deity is such an extraordinary claim with zero evidence that there is no reason for me to take any such claim seriously. The claimant who says a deity exists must meet the burden of proof. Efforts to do so have been spectacular failures so I have no reason to entertain the idea.
Putting my dismissal of deities due to lack of evidence at the same level of acceptance of deities is completely ridiculous.

This is basic stuff. To say god does not exist is the same as being religious and saying to someone of a different faith "Your god does not exist because it's different from my god." In all cases you have to believe that something isn't true based on your personal feelings. That is faith. That is belief. No one is saying aethiesm is a religion.

This attempt to deny the logic and rational thinking is just pseudoscience to claim your assertion that god doesn't exist is superior. As a man of science I have no problem with faith but take offense when other assert their faith as scientific and then use this false notion as justification to look down on others for having a different set of beliefs.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #98 of 103
3/1/13 at 10:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

This is basic stuff. To say god does not exist is the same as being religious and saying to someone of a different faith "Your god does not exist because it's different from my god." In all cases you have to believe that something isn't true based on your personal feelings. That is faith. That is belief. No one is saying aethiesm is a religion.

Keep in mind that figures like Dawkins don't say it like that. Denying and not believing in are different degrees, at the very least, and he doesn't try to deny the supernatural, but without proof, there's no reason to believe in it. At least he is aware that you often can't disprove the supernatural.
Reply
Reply
post #99 of 103
3/4/13 at 6:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


Keep in mind that figures like Dawkins don't say it like that. Denying and not believing in are different degrees, at the very least, and he doesn't try to deny the supernatural, but without proof, there's no reason to believe in it. At least he is aware that you often can't disprove the supernatural.


But there are some very solid philosophical arguments that deny the supernatural. Like the fact that the supernatural couldn't possibly interact with the natural, simply because it's 'supernatural'.

Reply
Reply
post #100 of 103
3/4/13 at 6:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post


But there are some very solid philosophical arguments that deny the supernatural. Like the fact that the supernatural couldn't possibly interact with the natural, simply because it's 'supernatural'.

Why not? Superman can interact with man. Supercuts can interact with Fantastic Sams. Superficial people can interact with thoughtful people. A superficial cut can infect the whole body. I see no reason why the word super on the word natural means that it couldn't possibly affect the natural world. If one believes in the supernatural and therefore lives their life per a prescribed method they are affecting the natural world in their action though their belief in the supernatural. The only way to say that is still natural to claim that there is nothing supernatural in the whole the universe that can be believed therefore any such beliefs are therefore false.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #101 of 103
3/4/13 at 7:42am

I didn't get your last sentence Sol...
 

Reply
Reply
post #102 of 103
3/4/13 at 7:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post

I didn't get your last sentence Sol...

Interactions can be indirect.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #103 of 103
3/4/13 at 7:34pm
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance

Until you adequately define supernatural, it's impossible to have any sort of meaningful discussion about it.  Clearly delineate the supernatural from the natural in a falsifiable manner and we can talk.  Otherwise, it's pointless to discuss (just as any deity is).  This is the igtheist position, by the way.

 

“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
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