22 Oct 11
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI have no idea on this, since it's not in my experience at all.
[b]Just wondering...
When an atheist goes to court, does he or she have to swear on the Bible?
😉[/b]
I would think they would make provision for swearing on whatever holy book you want to use, perhaps even none at all.
22 Oct 11
Originally posted by jaywillI think there is a version that goes 'Do you swear or AFFIRM to tell the truth, yada yada yada. I don't think the hands on the bible thing is used anywhere anymore. Might be mistaken on that, maybe in the bible belt.
"Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and not in a sneaky relativistic way ?"
22 Oct 11
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyReference section, along with dictionaries and encyclopedias.
[b]2) In libraries, are various translations of the Bible categorized on shelves in the fiction or non-fiction section?
gb[/b]
I believe the libraries here also put them under Religion, which is where I'd expect to find them.
I just looked it up. Under the Dewey Decimal System, Religion is 200-299, and the Bible is specifically 220-229.
Fiction is under Literature, which is 800-899.
Why the sudden trolling? Feeling your oats today?
22 Oct 11
Originally posted by SuzianneHi, Suzianne.
Reference section, along with dictionaries and encyclopedias.
I believe the libraries here also put them under Religion, which is where I'd expect to find them.
I just looked it up. Under the Dewey Decimal System, Religion is 200-299, and the Bible is specifically 220-229.
Fiction is under Literature, which is 800-899.
Why the sudden trolling? Feeling your oats today?
Thanks for the facts. Is intentional trolling defined as getting typecast as a socially inept poster wishing to maliciously flout internet social boundaries or is that sort of labeling simply a convenient way to dismiss any individual who rejects groupthink?
gb
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116952
22 Oct 11
1 edit
No; in the UK they can use: "I do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and not but the truth"
Instead of: "I swear by almighty God the evidence....."
I would use the former even though I am a theist.
22 Oct 11
1 edit
#3) If the claims of an 'evolutionary process' are to be taken seriously, why on earth did basic standards of personal hygiene and the upgrade of open latrines and flowing ditches in the street to outhouses and indoor plumbing require so much more time to evolve than fire and chess and the wheel? #4) Why was Socrate's no-nonsense method of questioning so threatening to the status quo?
gb
22 Oct 11
Originally posted by VoidSpirit"The primary rule of life: Relax." -VoidSpirit
even more important, does a christian have to even though it goes against their very faith?
"This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man."
-Shakespeare, Hamlet, Polonius
Me likey.
gb
22 Oct 11
Originally posted by Grampy BobbySocrates' use of the elenchus wasn't particularly threatening; it was just annoying. That's why he considered himself a gadfly. It wasn't until the kids started following him around and imitating his style with their parents, and the priests and politicians, that Socrates was brought up on trumped up charges of atheism, corrupting the youth, and "making the worse appear the better" argument.
[b]#3) If the claims of an 'evolutionary process' are to be taken seriously, why on earth did basic standards of personal hygiene and the upgrade of open latrines and flowing ditches in the street to outhouses and indoor plumbing require so much more time to evolve than fire and chess and the wheel? #4) Why was Socrate's no-nonsense method of questioning so threatening to the status quo?
gb[/b]
22 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrWell then I stand corrected, bbar. Guess my erroneously held view was that the early Socratic Method involved a primary premise followed by a secondary conclusion format of surgical questioning which invariably exposed the pontificator's claimed position of truth as falsehood. In this context, notions of bogus blowhards becoming annoyed or threatened seemed quite logical.
Socrates' use of the elenchus wasn't particularly threatening; it was just annoying. That's why he considered himself a gadfly. It wasn't until the kids started following him around and imitating his style with their parents, and the priests and politicians, that Socrates was brought up on trumped up charges of atheism, corrupting the youth, and "making the worse appear the better" argument.
gb
P.S. Nice to see you again, bbar. Trust you and your family are well and prospering and enjoying many days of autumn sunshine.