Air Force Academy makes 'God' optional in cadets' oath

[ThinClient]

I left Cain and Able out for a specific reason, so that you can acknowledge, without me mentioning it, that the Biblical story is the only "proof" (from a purely documentation standpoint) that we have of crime before the code.

Anything outside of that is pure guess-work and assumption, which I wanted to establish you as doing.

A fictional book of allegory and fairy tale isn't proof of anything. Hell, the first written language was Sumerian and the first novels were the Illiad and The Odyssey.

You would be presenting a far more intelligent argument by using one of those instead of using a fictional book of fairy tales that was written less than 2000 years ago.

 

[sandorski]

I left Cain and Able out for a specific reason, so that you can acknowledge, without me mentioning it, that the Biblical story is the only "proof" (from a purely documentation standpoint) that we have of crime before the code.

Anything outside of that is pure guess-work and assumption, which I wanted to establish you as doing.

No. It is the only one that I can point to, but your assertion that it is the only one that exists as "proof" is utterly ridiculous. There are many other writings that pre-exist the Bible. There are Laws and Morals that pre-exist the Bible.

Again I repeat the question, think hard about it. Hell, I'll even add another question for you to ponder:

1) Why would a Moral exist for some Action that does not exist?

2) Why wasn't their a Moral against Software Privacy before the existence of Software?

 

[IronWing]

I don't think there is any documented history that we can point to that shows murder (or any other "bad" behavior) existed before human morality did.

I'd like to see something if you have it.

I left Cain and Able out for a specific reason, so that you can acknowledge, without me mentioning it, that the Biblical story is the only "proof" (from a purely documentation standpoint) that we have of crime before the code.

Anything outside of that is pure guess-work and assumption, which I wanted to establish you as doing.

Since "bad behavior" is defined by morals your request is a bit a of distraction from the issue.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Jesus wasn't a socialist. You should be ashamed of yourself for even saying that.

Taking God out of the oath is just wrong and they should keep it.

Especially if their god is Allah, right? Right indigestible? I mean, that's what religious freedom is all about, right indigestible?

And Jesus gave away free shit, helped the poor, the sickly, so he was definitely not a libertarian, or republican, so he must have been, GASP... a liberal or socialist.

Don't make me put another smackdown on you little troll. :awe:

 

[Retro Rob]

Since "bad behavior" is defined by morals your request is a bit a of distraction from the issue.

Well, I couldn't find a better term so I used one that closely illustrated my point.

 

[IronWing]

Well, I couldn't find a better term so I used one that closely illustrated my point.

That point being?

 

[Retro Rob]

Especially if their god is Allah, right? Right indigestible? I mean, that's what religious freedom is all about, right indigestible?

And Jesus gave away free shit, helped the poor, the sickly, so he was definitely not a libertarian, or republican, so he must have been, GASP... a liberal or socialist.

Don't make me put another smackdown on you little troll. :awe:

Isn't "Allah" Arabic for "God"?

So, it shouldn't matter, right?

 

[Retro Rob]

No. It is the only one that I can point to, but your assertion that it is the only one that exists as "proof" is utterly ridiculous. There are many other writings that pre-exist the Bible. There are Laws and Morals that pre-exist the Bible.

LOL -- I know for a fact there are other writings that predate the Bible. So what? I wasn't saying the book was the first piece of literature ever written.

My larger point was that we can't find any writings of any moral code no later than about 5,000 years ago.

Anything in excess of that is mere conjecture, guesswork, pure and utter assumption.

1) Why would a Moral exist for some Action that does not exist?

2) Why wasn't their a Moral against Software Privacy before the existence of Software?

You're making assumptions again....please, stop.

 

[thraashman]

Isn't "Allah" Arabic for "God"?

So, it shouldn't matter, right?

It shouldn't, but considering who he was talking to, it often seems to matter to that individual.

 

[ThinClient]

LOL -- I know for a fact there are other writings that predate the Bible. So what? I wasn't saying the book was the first piece of literature ever written.

My larger point was that we can't find any writings of any moral code no later than about 5,000 years ago.

Anything in excess of that is mere conjecture, guesswork, pure and utter assumption.




You're making assumptions again....please, stop.

Your book of fairy tales is wrought with immoralities and unethical actions that the Christian is required to revere as holy.

You don't belong in any conversation that debates morality or ethics.

 

[thraashman]

Your book of fairy tales is wrought with immoralities and unethical actions that the Christian is required to revere as holy.

You don't belong in any conversation that debates morality or ethics.

Come come now. Rob M is not being antagonistic that I've seen there's no need for you to be. I myself don't believe in any religion or in the Bible but I don't feel the need to insult the beliefs of another. I know it's difficult sometimes, but I'm sure you can discuss without the need to attack.

 

[ThinClient]

Come come now. Rob M is not being antagonistic that I've seen there's no need for you to be. I myself don't believe in any religion or in the Bible but I don't feel the need to insult the beliefs of another. I know it's difficult sometimes, but I'm sure you can discuss without the need to attack.

You haven't been following threads in other forums. The guy has made rude and insulting comments directly at me in threads in the past (read: before I started affording him the same courtesy). He plays these stupid games every single day. He comes into a thread, pretends to know what he's talking about (like with evolution), gets shown that he knows absolutely nothing of what he's talking about, he eventually settles down and asks to be educated, we educate him on the matter, then the next day it starts all over with the same stupid illogical and irrational arguments from him that we destroyed the day before.

He is the religious version of Alkemyst.

 

[sandorski]

LOL -- I know for a fact there are other writings that predate the Bible. So what? I wasn't saying the book was the first piece of literature ever written.

My larger point was that we can't find any writings of any moral code no later than about 5,000 years ago.

Anything in excess of that is mere conjecture, guesswork, pure and utter assumption.




You're making assumptions again....please, stop.

I wish you could allow yourself to actually Think. Your own Book already shows that you are wrong to be making this argument. Regardless whether that Book is accurate or not, it has the Action before the Moral. At this point you are just being ridiculous.

 

[Retro Rob]

It shouldn't, but considering who he was talking to, it often seems to matter to that individual.

Yeah, I figured that much. That's telling a person who speaks Spanish, "hey, my name ain't Roberto"!!

 

[Retro Rob]

I wish you could allow yourself to actually Think. Your own Book already shows that you are wrong to be making this argument. Regardless whether that Book is accurate or not, it has the Action before the Moral. At this point you are just being ridiculous.

No, you don't understand. As far as evidence goes, man (humans) had morals starting about 5,000 years ago, give or take a century or two because that's what the documentation supports.

Since I wasn't alive then, morality (in documented history) just "appeared"...I think the evidence supports my conclusion.

 

[IronWing]

No, you don't understand. As far as evidence goes, man (humans) had morals starting about 5,000 years ago, give or take a century or two because that's what the documentation supports.

Since I wasn't alive then, morality (in documented history) just "appeared"...I think the evidence supports my conclusion.

The lack of evidence is evidence supporting your conclusion?

We have no written records of North American Indians having a moral code dating prior to 1492. It is safe to conclude that these folks did not have a moral code prior to the introduction of writing into the Americas.

This is fun.

 

[Retro Rob]

The lack of evidence is evidence supporting your conclusion?

Just like the lack of evidence is evidence God doesn't exist?

Do you want to start taking out of both sides of your mouth?

 

[IronWing]

Just like the lack of evidence is evidence God doesn't exist?

Do you want to start taking out of both sides of your mouth?

Gods very much exist. People create them every day.

Shall we conclude that the first occurance of any particular type of event is bounded by the first written record we have of such an event? Did snow not fall before the first recorded snowfall?

 

[ThinClient]

Just like the lack of evidence is evidence God doesn't exist?

Do you want to start taking out of both sides of your mouth?

There is a lack of evidence that vampires and unicorns exist, but no rational thinking person believes that they do.

Same deal for your invisible magic man, buddy.

 

[ThinClient]

No, you don't understand. As far as evidence goes, man (humans) had morals starting about 5,000 years ago, give or take a century or two because that's what the documentation supports.

Since I wasn't alive then, morality (in documented history) just "appeared"...I think the evidence supports my conclusion.

By your own logic, vocal communication and writing just "appeared" too so they must be god-given too, right?

...right?


Your evidence isn't evidence. You're clinging to a conclusion and twisting whatever you can find to support that conclusion. However, the conclusion is only supported in your own mind. Outside of your skull, there's no one who you make sense to.

 

[Retro Rob]

Gods very much exist. People create them every day.

Shall we conclude that the first occurance of any particular type of event is bounded by the first written record we have of such an event? Did snow not fall before the first recorded snowfall?

If I am not mistaken, don't we have geological evidence of snowfalls? If so, those are the records of when we started having snowfalls, so we can naturally ascertain that snow began to fall when the evidence supports.

 

[ThinClient]

If I am not mistaken, don't we have geological evidence of snowfalls? If so, those are the records of when we started having snowfalls, so we can naturally ascertain that snow began to fall when the evidence supports.

What the hell are you even talking about? Snow doesn't fossilize so the only thing we have to go on to prove that snow has ever occurred are man-made historical records. Snow fell before man started recording anything about snow.

What does this have to do with the cost of human rights in China?

 

[Retro Rob]

What the hell are you even talking about? Snow doesn't fossilize so the only thing we have to go on to prove that snow has ever occurred are man-made historical records. Snow fell before man started recording anything about snow.

What does this have to do with the cost of human rights in China?

Yeah, I don't know what I was talking about. Was too overzealous in attempting to express a point.

Thanks.

 

[sandorski]

No, you don't understand. As far as evidence goes, man (humans) had morals starting about 5,000 years ago, give or take a century or two because that's what the documentation supports.

Since I wasn't alive then, morality (in documented history) just "appeared"...I think the evidence supports my conclusion.

You're just being obtuse. Your own Book that you have repeatedly stated as being the center of Your beliefs disagrees with You. Deal with it and stop arguing utterly moronic positions.

Edit: ahh, it appears you have backed off, maybe.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Agreed as well.

IMO, it's fine if you want to have that personal view of "making up your own morals", but you really nailed it...having separate groups holding totally contrasting standards of morality is a very, very scary place to live in.

You would be basically living in a place where nothing is technically "wrong".

That's a scary thought.

You're living in just such a world. Mother nature doesn't give a shit.
I don't know why you'd think the truth being the truth would change anything. You being wrong doesn't change anything about reality.