Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New NASA Director Swears Oath on Carl Sagan’s ‘Pale Blue Dot’ Instead of Bible

independent.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 340 posts

Re: New NASA Director Swears Oath on Carl Sagan’s ‘Pale Blue Dot’ Instead of Bible

#281

Post by Grustaf »

gobrewers14 wrote: post #269
Grustaf wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, superstitions relate to supernatural things. Religion does too, in a way. That doesn’t mean it’s the same thing. Language is a lot more complex than that. And sure, you might derogatorily refer to someone’s religion as a superstition, just like I might call someone a “pagan” even if he’s strictly speaking just a heretic. But in reality these are all precise terms with different meanings. To be a bit more precise…

I touch (swear an oath and break it to) a rock (a god) and I receive luck (anger). Both are superstitions. The rock example is actually less superstitious because rocks actually exist. There is zero evidence gods exist.

I didn’t make this up. It might seem like the same concept to you, but I assure you that any serious scholar, atheist or not, knows the difference.

It really has nothing to do with what you personally believe or not.

In your example the difference is that the rock effect is automatic, like gravity, but the god is a sentient being that has a will.

Why is it so hard to accept that people call these different things? You can still despise people who believe in both.

Re: New NASA Director Swears Oath on Carl Sagan’s ‘Pale Blue Dot’ Instead of Bible

#282

Post by 1659447091 »

neom wrote: post #3

"While many officeholders across the country have placed their hands on books by Dr Suess, the US Constitution, copies of the Quran or other documents, this seems to be the first time someone was sworn in on a book by Sagan." This caught my attention, wondering who got sworn in on a Dr. Suess book?? "A newly elected single mother of two wanted her kids to walk away from her swearing-in with an empowering message. So…

Here is an article about a recent US Congressman using a Superman Comic to be sworn in (along with the US Constitution)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64167015

> Incoming US congressman Robert Garcia will be sworn in using the US Constitution - and a Superman comic.

>Although using the Superman comic may be a bit unorthodox when taking the oath of office, technically it's not illegal, per Article VI of the US Constitution. The Article states, in part, that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States".

Re: New NASA Director Swears Oath on Carl Sagan’s ‘Pale Blue Dot’ Instead of Bible

#283

Post by klodolph »

Beltiras wrote: post #278
klodolph wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment seems to be based on some kind of misconception about what religion is. Like, you seem to base your comments on the idea that the Christian bible is the sole foundation for Christian beliefs and practices. There are two problems with that—it’s not true in the first place, and even if it were true, it is not straightforward to interpret the bible. If you are unwilling to put in the effort to learn what Ch…

Born raised and confirmed in Lutheran Christianity. Go project on someone else.

I’m responding to your comment, which seems to be based on misconceptions. If you have a working understanding of what religion is, it is not reflected in your comment. Or maybe I misunderstand the comment—you could elaborate what you mean.

I don’t think people who are raised Christianity are taught what Christianity is, so it doesn’t surprise me that you’re born, raised, & confirmed. People who are born and raised Christian are generally taught how to practice Christianity, and that instruction is tailored to their specific sect. They are not (typically) taught what Christianity is, especially other sects, because it is not really relevant to the practice of Christianity (this is not a judgment, I think it’s fine). I would expect people to learn what Christianity is if they went to seminary (depending, some seminaries don’t) or if they studied religion in college.

It is only through a misconception of religion that the accusation of pretense really stands. “These people aren’t really Christians, they are just pretending” is an old chestnut that has started enough wars; it is long past time to disabuse people of the misunderstandings that lead to those accusations in the first place.

Re: New NASA Director Swears Oath on Carl Sagan’s ‘Pale Blue Dot’ Instead of Bible

#284

Post by mixmastamyk »

neom wrote: post #3

"While many officeholders across the country have placed their hands on books by Dr Suess, the US Constitution, copies of the Quran or other documents, this seems to be the first time someone was sworn in on a book by Sagan." This caught my attention, wondering who got sworn in on a Dr. Suess book?? "A newly elected single mother of two wanted her kids to walk away from her swearing-in with an empowering message. So…

It’s spelled “Seuss”, and originally intended to be pronounced “soiss” as it would in German.

Re: New NASA Director Swears Oath on Carl Sagan’s ‘Pale Blue Dot’ Instead of Bible

#285

Post by [deleted] »

tialaramex wrote: post #242
EthanHeilman wrote: post #224

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…

[deleted]

Re: New NASA Director Swears Oath on Carl Sagan’s ‘Pale Blue Dot’ Instead of Bible

#286

Post by tekla »

ren_engineer wrote: post #190
tescocles wrote: post #9

Is there any actual strict requirement that you have to swear over a document of some kind? I'd have thought swearing over the bible is a stand-in for swearing "before God", and that God would ultimately be your reckoner should you break your oath. If you don't have that meaning behind the oath, what is the point in using a book at all unless it's something meaningful like the constitution of your country, as another…

>If you don't have that meaning behind the oath, what is the point in using a book at all unless? the point is a childish rebellion against traditions the nation was founded on as a social signal to their in-group for validation. Might as well tip a fedora while giving the oath

> traditions the nation was founded on

Remind me which of those they were, considering much of the founding fathers directly based much of the nation on the French system of government and after Enlightenment ideals, which famously rejected the role of God in Government

Re: New NASA Director Swears Oath on Carl Sagan’s ‘Pale Blue Dot’ Instead of Bible

#287

Post by musicale »

tialaramex wrote: post #242
EthanHeilman wrote: post #224

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…

> God can't smite them for the same reason Superman couldn't prevent the 11 September 2001 terrorist attack

Because he had traveled to deep space and was busy facing off with Imperiex-Prime, an entity capable of destroying not just the Earth (though that was part of his plan) but large portions of the universe itself?

https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Adventures_of_Superman_Vol_1_594

Re: New NASA Director Swears Oath on Carl Sagan’s ‘Pale Blue Dot’ Instead of Bible

#288

Post by wolfhumble »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #271
kaitai wrote: post #177

This discussion is fascinating, anthropologically speaking. Some observations: * Many commenters seem to be holding to this weird idea that if you don't believe God will smite you, you will not be able to behave responsibly, give your word in a trustworthy manner, etc. 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 ar…

> 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! > many folks swear on the Bible out of convention or lack of critical thought, rather than belief, but will rationalize if pressed You have contradicted yourself here. When someone asks why you swore on the Bible, you tell them the su…

>> Amusingly, some really Bible-believing folks will not swear, on a Bible or on anything else, due to Matthew 5:34-37. This intellectual consistency is lost of course when we reduce swearing on the Bible to either convention or magic. > The Bible is infamous for being logically inconsistent. It contradicts itself at every turn.

If Jesus says 'do not swear an oath at all' (Matthew 5:34), and some president or official has been swearing on the Bible since 1789 – as in the case of The United States – what does that have to do with Jesus being inconsistent? The contradictions come when people read His word and decide not to follow it! (And I have done this many times myself in many other ways, sadly, and therefore grateful to Jesus for saving 'a wretch like me').

Re: New NASA Director Swears Oath on Carl Sagan’s ‘Pale Blue Dot’ Instead of Bible

#289

Post by Beltiras »

klodolph wrote: post #283
Beltiras wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Born raised and confirmed in Lutheran Christianity. Go project on someone else.

I’m responding to your comment, which seems to be based on misconceptions. If you have a working understanding of what religion is, it is not reflected in your comment. Or maybe I misunderstand the comment—you could elaborate what you mean. I don’t think people who are raised Christianity are taught what Christianity is, so it doesn’t surprise me that you’re born, raised, & confirmed. People who are born and raised C…

I refuse to give any "believer" the benefit of the doubt. I assume they are socially Christian with no real practice or devotion from the getgo. To convince me of anything else they have to have works. There's a reason for the caricature comics have been lambasting for decades. It's only funny cause it's true.

Re: New NASA Director Swears Oath on Carl Sagan’s ‘Pale Blue Dot’ Instead of Bible

#290

Post by Beltiras »

ToValueFunfetti wrote: post #264
Beltiras wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't call out the hypocrites, how would they ever know they are wrong? Did I cast them in a negative light? Yes. Do they ever read that book of theirs? No. Once in a while you see a shining example of compassion and generosity born from church activities like this one: https://twitter.com/MorePerfectUS/status/1645867657697153046 That's the true Christian faith at work. Sadly it's the exception.

If they're only pretending to believe, they already know they're wrong. If you sincerely do just want to communicate this to them, I recommend using "God" instead of "Skygod". It doesn't change the message and it makes it sound more like you're speaking in good faith.

You wrongfully assume I want to have any sort of conversation with the converts. The only conversation I want to have with them is to tell them to stay bloody clear of politics. If you want to have rules that govern your life, I'm perfectly fine with that up to where they want legislation that affects the freedom of other people. It seems too much of late that Evangelicals took The Handmaid's Tale as an instruction manual instead of a dystopic vision.
Post reply on HN