Acts of God
polycounter lvl 18
Just skim-reading through the EULA of World Of Warcraft, I noticed that in one part they abdicate responsibility for matters arising from "Acts of God, war, riot or embargoes".
Bill Bailey also brought this up in his stand-up comedy show, "Part Troll"... when signing forms for a hire car, he noticed it cost more to upgrade the insurance to provide for, among other things, "Acts of God".
So, what I'm wondering is - what constitutes an Act of God? Would it qualify if an angel floated down out of the sky and ripped the doors off your car? How about if Jesus Christ wandered into my room and formatted my hard drive because I'd been playing too much World of Warcraft? Lightning bolts destroying my internet connection?
Who defines these acts? Surely in this day and age, it would make sense to replace this archaic term with "Acts of Nature", or something similar.
Anyway, I personally don't believe in God. So how can I be insured against or responsible for something that there is no proof for?
Bill Bailey also brought this up in his stand-up comedy show, "Part Troll"... when signing forms for a hire car, he noticed it cost more to upgrade the insurance to provide for, among other things, "Acts of God".
So, what I'm wondering is - what constitutes an Act of God? Would it qualify if an angel floated down out of the sky and ripped the doors off your car? How about if Jesus Christ wandered into my room and formatted my hard drive because I'd been playing too much World of Warcraft? Lightning bolts destroying my internet connection?
Who defines these acts? Surely in this day and age, it would make sense to replace this archaic term with "Acts of Nature", or something similar.
Anyway, I personally don't believe in God. So how can I be insured against or responsible for something that there is no proof for?
Replies
To make it really clear it has nothing to do with god as such apart from its name.
Anyway, I personally don't believe in God. So how can I be insured against or responsible for something that there is no proof for?
[/ QUOTE ]
That's a strange question. What does belief have to do with it? If I decide I don't believe in automobile accidents, that doesn't mean I won't be in one anyway or that I cannot/should not have auto insurance. Natural disasters, inexplicable events and similar are sometimes generically classified as acts of God. If you don't have act of God insurance because you're an atheist, so be it, but lets hope your home is immune to tornados and lightning bolts and meteors and earth quakes and whatever other events migh occur in which you don't have anyone you can sue for damages. Faith isn't a requirement for practical protection, regardless of what the terminology used is.
/jzero
I know what "Acts of God" are (as others define it)... but why should typhoons, tornadoes, lightning, volcanes etc. be called Acts of God? Those are acts of nature, of weather systems.
Having "Acts of God" clauses, automatically assumes everyone believes in God, and may attribute natural earthly effects to this vaguely-defined supernatural being. I would be a lot more comfortable with it if it said "Acts of Nature" instead of "Acts of God". It's more specific, too.
Toomas: Yep - so why call it Acts of God at all, if it has nothing to do with deities or so-called supreme beings? That's making all sorts of crazy assumptions...
Vermilion: Sorry, you're right, I shouldn't have mentioned my beliefs. However, others should not inflict their beliefs on me via contracts and so forth!
Anyway, your argument for belief is kinda redundant. Sure, someone can choose not to believe in automobile accidents, but what are they going to say if you stand them near a couple of occupied vehicles, and arrange a collision? Automobile accidents are a fact of life, you see them on TV, if you're in the right place (or the wrong place) at the right time, then you can witness one firsthand.
I'd like to see you try to introduce me to God (or in fact, give any proof at all!). You can't use belief in automobile accidents as a comparison to belief in religious deities, the comparison just doesn't work at all.
Basically what I was getting at was, why call it "Acts of God" at all? That might make no sense at all to some people. Is there a big list somewhere of which phenomenons (I'm assuming most natural disasters) fall under this ominous catch-all deity category?
The "faith" isn't my problem with it, people can believe what they want to believe. The terminology is precisely the problem I have with it! Do you see where I'm coming from?
jzero: If you say so
Ryno: Yup. I understand that. I just want to know why it's called "Acts of God", and not anything else? Why can't it be "Acts of Satan"? Natural disasters are evil, after all! Why not blame them on an essentially nonexistant evil being?
Changing it to Act of Nature would limit it to only nature related events. Usually it's only really applied to weather related events, but in case something comes up that you don't have an explanation for, or at least a better description, act of god would cover it. I think it's generally used at the end of a list of specific events, and then act of god covers anything else not listed that's not under your control. I don't believe in any god either, but I think the definition of a god and the supposed capabilities is more what applies. Whether or not there is a god that caused this event is irrelevant.
If you had read the EULA before being born you would have seen that what you have done is worse than murder, deception or grabbing girls arses after a few too many pints.
[/ QUOTE ]
LMAO
And surely Tom, what you believe does enter into this debate? Since the people at insurance companies who adopted this phrase many moons ago clearly did so on the basis of their beliefs right?
[/ QUOTE ]
Once upon a time, I'd have thought so. Somewhere along the line, I realized it doesn't matter. I mean, this isn't an issue of faith, it's one of semantics. I know what the clause means, you know what the clause means, MoP knows what it means, so the wording is frankly irrelevant. Insurance companies the world over could unanimously decide to rename it acts of flubblylubblies. Words aren't significant on their own but only when we agree upon their meaning, and if we all agree upon what "acts of god" or "acts of flubblylubblies" is referring to, the particular words we use to accomplsih the task aren't something I get my panties in a bunch over. I mean, I *do* believe in God, but I don't think an earthquake that flattens my house is a divine act any more than MoP does, so the wording is just as irrelevant to me.
But so what? I'm more worried about bullshit money-wasting lawsuits from fame-seeking atheists about the Pledge of Allegience or that the current administration will use faith-based initiatives in trying to amend the US Constitution to forbid gay marriage. Once something becomes politicized, it's an issue. Is that really what you'd want here, a nation- or planet-wide handwringing to get this old-fashioned and impotent piece of text updated to a new-fashioned and impotent piece of text? No one is oppressing atheists with this - it's much ado about nothing.
*edit*
For the record, I'm not saying that the phrase isn't outdated or inaccurate, I'm saying that using an outdated and inaccurate phrase to define something we all fully understand is just fine. No one has doornails in their doors anymore, and I expect most people don't even really know what one is. Should we abolish the phrase "dead as a doornail" from our language because it's an antiquated reference? How many phrases do we have like that in English? Remember, this isn't about religion, this is about semantics...
i heard a story of a person that lost there house to a strainge type of lightning called ball lightning , and act of god didnt cover it ... even tho i would think for somthing that is unexplained act of god sounds about right ...
And surely Tom, what you believe does enter into this debate?
[/ QUOTE ]
It was directed at me? If thats the case then i dont really think i said anything about what i belive. And if its not the case then just ignore this
Vermilion: Heh, I know what you mean. It is really just a tiny minor detail, but I still think it'd be worth a change.
On a tangent, and a lighter note, how about we try to "fix" outdated catchphrases to bring them up to date and relevent to the modern world?
So, we could do something like this:
Acts of God = Natural Occurences
"Dead as a doornail" = "Dead as a Dodo" - everyone knows what a Dodo is! How about "Dead as a dinosaur" ?
"Bent as a nine bob note" = ... etc.
I love old sayings that are irrelevant today, they tend to have much more character than modern expressions and just make me laugh.
Yay agnosticism.
tighter'n Dick's hatband...
like a duck on a junebug...
I still use those more than I care to remember
Dukester: In what instance would you use "like a duck on a junebug"? How big is a junebug? Can it support the weight of a duck?
How about "Safe as houses"... in this day and age, many houses aren't actually that safe!
There's always the good ol' Blackadder ones - "As cunning as a fox that's just been appointed Professor of Cunning at Cunning University."
And yes, Japanese beetles are a type of junebug.
Apparently, I'm very amusing to them when I get angry and curse in my own language / accent again though they understand the words no more than normal, the attitude behind it is crystal clear!
Even after almost 5 years Im still often completely misunderstood. So dont expect it to improve Ror. Still, there is some value to people not understanding you sometimes. Just the other day, a dev. director at work was asking me something about the project, and I kept replying "well the values go from nought to seven". He kept asking me to repeat and I kept saying it louder each time. He was just looking at me with his head cocked sideways like a dog, desperately trying to understand me. Eventually he just wandered off muttering something about nevermind and asking someone else.
It was only afterward I realised the beauty of it all. He of course had no clue what nought was. Funny, Im gonna use it all the time now.
I like my laughs cheap and nasty, I admit it!
Likewise, I will say 'ach' on demand as long as they will say 'yuuuup' for me
I'll always just be a cross between Shrek and groundskeeper wullie in their eyes, but thats fine as long as they realise they'll always be a Bill Hicks stereotype of the southerners to me
They don't understand a word I say here unless I spell it out and talk reaallll sloooow.
[/ QUOTE ]
HAHA!
@Mop: i think they should change it to "an act of one of the gods" just to piss off both sides of the arguement. personally I agree with "act of nature".