251–260 of 340 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is like, “well, there are other passages that conflict with that, so maybe just do it when it’s appropriate”
> maybe just do it when it’s appropriate when we want you to
What is the point, other than ceremonial, I guess.
One can raise their right hand and swear on the bible or swear on "Pale Blue Dot" and still not do what they swore to do. And someone might not swear at all and keep faithful and do what he or she is supposed to do.
How does swearing in make a bit of difference? It's nuts. Just hire me and let me get on with the job.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What school did you graduate from? This is great.
Canadian engineering schools do a ceremony and oath designed by Rudyard Kipling. It has some serious gravitas and leaves a real impression on young minds. The Kipling oath isn't phrased that way so it probably wasn't a Canadian school, but it does have a similar intent.
Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what y…
My brain literally locks up when I read King James-style English. I wonder if AI can discover patterns in language or other signal domains that totally disrupt the modern brain and cause humans to crash. Biblical passages nearly do that to me, so I think that they must exist.
From Wikipedia: "The 1611 and 1769 texts of the first three verses from I Corinthians 13 are given below.
[1611] 1. Though I speake with the tongues of men & of Angels, and haue not charity, I am become as sounding brasse or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I haue the gift of prophesie, and vnderstand all mysteries and all knowledge: and though I haue all faith, so that I could remooue mountaines, and haue no charitie, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestowe all my goods to feede the poore, and though I giue my body to bee burned, and haue not charitie, it profiteth me nothing.
[1769] 1. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing."
[2016] 1. If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.What’s the point of this? Presumably the idea of swearing on the Bible is that the person being sworn in believes they are making a promise to God. Hopefully this person does not have that kind of fear of Carl Sagan.
The point is simply not adhering to religious bs if you don't believe in it.
Good. The bible is not the only source of mores and norms to swear on. And a turn towards science would be nice, especially in the increasingly alarmingly anti-science USA.
Swearing on a Sagan book is arguably better. It's based on fact, not an unverifiable and highly unlikely fairytail.
Fairies don't have tails.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that’s not what the word means. Religion and superstition are different concepts. This is a linguistic fact, regardless of your personal beliefs.
> Religion and superstition are different concepts. Please point to the part in my original response where I said religion and superstition are the same concept. I said believing in a god is superstition. Which it is. Superstition (n): A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
A person believes something that results in superstition.
This definition states that superstition creates itself rather than being the result of external factors.
As a finer point, laws of nature could themselves be superstition. Godel's incompleteness theorem proves that we cannot prove all the laws in the universe. As such, we assert a truth that we know we cannot prove then act as though it must be true.
Even if you accept that as incidental, we know conclusively that recent discoveries (eg, James Webb showing unexpected galaxy sizes) show that much of our current "laws of nature" are definitely in conflict with reality making scientists superstitious in practice as well.
Finally, it is of no little interest to me that so many theoretical physicists are "simulationists" where they believe the universe is a simulation where the creators can exert complete control, but they still hold the belief that these creators are not actually gods (even though that is unprovable and for us would amount to a distinction without a difference).
Perhaps humans are simply hardwired for religion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If there's not a supernatural enforcer then there are no consequences to lying/breaking your oath. Interestingly, it looks to me that even atheists are endorsing this false idea here! Most Christian theology holds that God is the present age is not going smite people for breaking such oaths. I think you are right to frame this ritually not theologically. I would argue that purpose of swearing on an object is that i…
> Most Christian theology holds that God is the present age is not going smite people for breaking such oaths. Or to put it another way. Since it is very obvious that people routinely break oaths, Modern Christians have come up with the rationalization that God chooses not to smite them, rather than accept the more likely explanation that God can't smite them for the same reason Superman couldn't prevent the 11 Septe…
If the phrasing of 'antisinning' wasn't enough of a tell, you might notice this fits Progressive antiracist rhetoric literally perfectly. And it's not a coincidence. The man who wrote "How to Be an Antiracist" (which is undoubtedly the most influential modern text on such topics) not only spent most of his early education in Christian schools, but is also the son of two Christian ministers. Antiracist rhetoric is literally Christian original sin repackaged with racism replacing sinning. Design patterns show up across all "industries."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If there's not a supernatural enforcer then there are no consequences to lying/breaking your oath. Interestingly, it looks to me that even atheists are endorsing this false idea here! Most Christian theology holds that God is the present age is not going smite people for breaking such oaths. I think you are right to frame this ritually not theologically. I would argue that purpose of swearing on an object is that i…
> Most Christian theology holds that God is the present age is not going smite people for breaking such oaths. Or to put it another way. Since it is very obvious that people routinely break oaths, Modern Christians have come up with the rationalization that God chooses not to smite them, rather than accept the more likely explanation that God can't smite them for the same reason Superman couldn't prevent the 11 Septe…
That is too cynical for my taste. People observe the world around them. They see that sometimes people prosper when they do evil. A lot of theology is an attempt to understand why this is the case. Perhaps the Gods fickle? Perhaps there are no Gods? Perhaps the Gods want to preserve human agency?
Any religion that makes it a core tenant of the faith that God will prevent or punish X, and a human being is capable of doing X, will have dilemma when a human being do X and not be punished. So we have a survivorship bias in favor of religions that can bend without breaking. That religion, and human culture in general, is not falsifiable does not mean it is necessarily wrong anymore than ethics not being a science.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This follows from an ideology set out by Ayn Rand. How does that follow? Ayn Rand did not create any ideology worth mentioning in this context.
I followed it, I read some of Ayn Rands books a long time ago and thought there was a lot of ideological thought that has context in this discussion. Individual responsibility vs crowd think - taking the oath on a Carl Sagan book rather than the Bible certainly seems to me an act of individual responsibility
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
[Kung Fu Monkey -- Ephemera, blog post, March 19, 2009]”