It was an act of god...

smash

At the end of the day it just means natural disaster but it seems to be a cop out for insurance policies and the likes, so would you argue it if you didn't believe in god?

For me it seems as out dated as swearing on the bible in court.

mailforkev

Surely absolutely everything that happens everyone is an act of God if your beliefs are that way inclined?

So yes, it's a bullsh1t excuse to get out of paying up.

Frank Black

smash wrote: »

At the end of the day it just means natural disaster but it seems to be a cop out for insurance policies and the likes, so would you argue it if you didn't believe in god?

For me it seems as out dated as swearing on the bible in court.

It's a legal definition for an event outside human control. Should probably be called an Act of Nature.

You can choose not to swear on a bible in court if you so wish btw.

Ghandee

I swear to God on high that this thread will get taken over by either Jesus bashers or Jesus freaks.

Lando Griffin

black francis wrote: »

It's a legal definition for an event outside human control. Should probably be called an Act of Nature.

You can choose not to swear on a bible in court if you so wish btw.

Except where it was caused by man.

IE. Global warming leading to the icebergs melting hence rising sea levels and more rain leading to floods.

D1stant

black francis wrote: »

You can choose not to swear on a bible in court if you so wish btw.

Can you do something else on it?

TeddyTedson

We have no reason to believe a God exists. People need to publicly acknowledge this already.

AnonoBoy

God acting the bollocks more like.

Ghandee

D1stant wrote: »

Can you do something else on it?

Swear on your ma's good name.

dulpit

There was a film about this with Billy Connolly in it, his boat sinks and is ruled an Act of God, so he challenges this in court, he sets out to prove that God does not exist so he should be paid.

The Man who Sued God: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Sued_God

Frank Black

Lando Griffin wrote: »

Except where it was caused by man.

IE. Global warming leading to the icebergs melting hence rising sea levels and more rain leading to floods.

Good luck with proving that in court.

orestes

I always thought it meant an act of nature that is beyond reasonable expectation, so it wouldn't be factored into the insurance plan.

House being damaged by flood water in rainy place beside a river - definitely a reasonable possibility of it happening, so factored into insurance premium and if it happens you're covered.

House getting picked up by a tornado and ending up in Oz - act of God (or wicked witch of the west) so if it happens you're on your own, apart from the annoying dog.

donegal_road

smash wrote: »

At the end of the day it just means natural disaster but it seems to be a cop out for insurance policies and the likes, so would you argue it if you didn't believe in god?

For me it seems as out dated as swearing on the bible in court.

I heard that the reason WW2 was referred to as 'The Emergency' in Ireland, was because insurance companies wouldn't stand over damage created by either an emergency or an act of God, so the Emergency Powers Act was created in 1939, which lapsed in 1946.

Conor Bourke

I'm pretty clueless about the whole insurance industry but I agree, I've always thought it was a cop out.

The bible in court really baffles me, I struggle to get my head around that one much more. I sat in the central criminal court last year and watched an absolute gouger pick up the bible, swear on it and proceed to lie through his teeth. The dogs on the street knew he was lying. He contradicted the confession and irrefutable evidence he had previously given to the gardai. He was advised to lie by his defence council. Every time he, or any other person who gave evidence- prosecution or defence, I asked myself what the point of swearing on the bible even is.

Does, for example a Muslim person have to swear on a bible in an Irish courtroom

EDIT: I see as someone above posted, you don't have to swear on the bible. Well then why bother making anyone do it in that case?

smash

Lando Griffin wrote: »

Except where it was caused by man.

IE. Global warming leading to the icebergs melting hence rising sea levels and more rain leading to floods.

It's now called climate change because global warming was bullshít.

Lando Griffin

black francis wrote: »

Good luck with proving that in court.

I'm not going to prove anything in court, I live on a hill.

Hobbes

smash wrote: »

At the end of the day it just means natural disaster but it seems to be a cop out for insurance policies and the likes, so would you argue it if you didn't believe in god?

That is why they use "Force Majeure" instead of "Act of God".

For me it seems as out dated as swearing on the bible in court.

You don't need to swear on a bible in court and haven't had to for years.

Dravokivich

Its an insurance policy for the insurance company.

Czarcasm

Hobbes wrote: »

That is why they use "Force Majeure" instead of "Act of God".

You don't need to swear on a bible in court and haven't had to for years.

Take your facts with you and get out! :mad:



Factual information in AH, pfft!

Pace2008

smash wrote: »

It's now called climate change because global warming was bullshít.

Man, at least check up the spiel put forward by corporate-funded libertarian think-tanks, in opposition to the views of the overwhelming majority of climatologists, before you put your foot in it. You cannot deny that the earth is getter hotter. It is amatter of complete objectivity. What you're supposed to say is that human activity is not the cause of this phenomenon.

Sleepy

I always fancied including the Vatican in the lawsuit should an Insurance Company ever try that one with me...

If it's an Act of God, they, as his representatives on earth should be financially liable, if not, it's the Insurance Company's problem.

Tiddlypeeps

Pace2008 wrote: »

Man, at least check up the spiel put forward by corporate-funded libertarian think-tanks, in opposition to the views of the overwhelming majority of climatologists, before you put your foot in it. You cannot deny that the earth is getter hotter. It is amatter of complete objectivity. What you're supposed to say is that human activity is not the cause of this phenomenon.

Global temperatures have been showing a downward trend since around 2005/2006. source, source

I'm not getting into a debate about global warming or wether it's real or wether we caused it because I haven't a clue. I just wanted to point out that what you arrogantly state as fact is at best debatable or at worst demonstrably wrong. I'm never sure what sources can be classed as reliable in debates like this so I'm gonna err on the side of debatable.

smash

Sleepy wrote: »

I always fancied including the Vatican in the lawsuit should an Insurance Company ever try that one with me...

If it's an Act of God, they, as his representatives on earth should be financially liable, if not, it's the Insurance Company's problem.

Didn't Billy Connolly make a film about that?

Bad Santa

TeddyTedson wrote: »

We have no reason to believe a God exists. People need to publicly acknowledge this already.

Explain Halle Berry then.

Sofaspud

Bad Santa wrote: »

Explain Halle Berry then.

Causes lustful thoughts, therefore obviously an act of Satan.