Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday April 21 2019, @12:48PM   Printer-friendly
from the RIP dept.

According the Beeb (BBC):

At least 137 people have been killed and hundreds more injured in explosions at churches and hotels in Sri Lanka, police and hospital sources say.

At least eight blasts were reported. Three churches in Negombo, Batticaloa and Colombo's Kochchikade district were targeted during Easter services.

The Shangri-La, Kingsbury, Cinnamon Grand and a fourth hotel, all in Colombo, were also hit.

A curfew has been imposed from 18:00 to 06:00 local time (12:30-00:30 GMT).

The government also said there would a temporary block on the use of major social media networks.

No group has yet said it was responsible for the attacks.

Update:"At least 207 people have been killed and 450 hurt in explosions at churches and hotels in Sri Lanka, police say."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by SomeGuy on Sunday April 21 2019, @02:35PM (63 children)

    by SomeGuy (5632) on Sunday April 21 2019, @02:35PM (#832949)

    As fun as blowing things up might be, history as shown over and over that violence towards religitards results in them becoming stronger and more determined. The correct way is to educate them to the point where enough of them realize that there is is no such thing as god, and they dismantle their monuments to stupidity themselves. Perhaps an unobtainable goal, but that is the ideal way none the less.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21 2019, @02:36PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21 2019, @02:36PM (#832950)

    The swedes are trying that right now
    it isn't working

  • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Bot on Sunday April 21 2019, @02:53PM (23 children)

    by Bot (3902) on Sunday April 21 2019, @02:53PM (#832958) Journal

    says the atheist fundie...

    --
    Account abandoned.
    • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21 2019, @03:55PM (22 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21 2019, @03:55PM (#832975)

      You either don't know what one or both words mean. Then again you're a religious kook.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Bot on Sunday April 21 2019, @06:14PM (21 children)

        by Bot (3902) on Sunday April 21 2019, @06:14PM (#833058) Journal

        There are two kinds of atheists, right? the one who lack belief in god, and the one who believe in no god. The first, correctly defined as the agnostics, do not talk like you do. The second is a religion. QED. Does not matter that atheists wear the agnostic candid vest when their arguments look lacking.

        --
        Account abandoned.
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by pTamok on Sunday April 21 2019, @07:47PM (9 children)

          by pTamok (3042) on Sunday April 21 2019, @07:47PM (#833091)

          There are two kinds of atheists, right? the one who lack belief in god, and the one who believe in no god. The first, correctly defined as the agnostics, do not talk like you do. The second is a religion. QED. Does not matter that atheists wear the agnostic candid vest when their arguments look lacking.

          Hmm. I don't recall atheists worshipping the absence of something. It's a bit like defining someone as a stamp-collector because they say they don't collect stamps.

          There are actually lots of different kinds of atheists and agnostics, and some debate about which labels people should use for different philosophical stances. It's a bit like a religious war where the two sides carry banners, one saying: "There is no God!", and the others saying:"There might be a God, but we have no way of telling!". The levels of nuance between an absolutist atheist position (There definitely is no God), and absolutist agnostic position (It is unknowable if there is a God or not), an uninterested position (Who cares about this religion stuff anyway), a Zen Buddhist position (Mu), and countless other positions occupy many thinkers to very little constructive ends.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21 2019, @09:19PM (8 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21 2019, @09:19PM (#833119)

            > ... an uninterested position (Who cares about this religion stuff anyway)

            That's me (raises hand!) -- when I was introduced to the term Post-Theological it finally clicked. Before that I used to wonder where I might fit in. Certainly not anywhere in the spectrum of my peers in grade school who went to a variety of churches and temples... and asked me if I was atheist or agnostic. My reply was, "None of the above."

            Superstition not needed to answer those big questions. I'm happy with the questions that we can test and answer rationally (science anyone?) and I'm not freaking out that there are still some unanswered big questions.

            Here's the author who clicked for me (I think I read something earlier by David Niose to start), https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201102/being-post-theological [psychologytoday.com]

            We don't need creation myths anymore, because we have a pretty good understanding of how the Earth formed and how life evolved. We also know that our planet is not the center of the universe - nor is our sun, nor is our galaxy. Though we can throw out numbers to describe the vastness and age of the universe, most of us are incapable of fully comprehending the true enormity of those numbers, yet we at least understand that each is staggering.

            • (Score: 2) by Bot on Monday April 22 2019, @02:53PM (7 children)

              by Bot (3902) on Monday April 22 2019, @02:53PM (#833399) Journal

              And finally some game of life's creature became sentient and later they discovered everything that could be discovered (unlike us):

              > We don't need creation myths anymore
              they said,
              > because we have a pretty good understanding of how the Grid formed
              In fact they traced everything back to the initial state of the grid, see nothing out of the ordinary, call it a no god. Well paint me surprised, it's conceptually far more difficult to have a creator present in its creation then having the creator and creature belonging to incompatible abstractions.

              Even worse the quest for the low level aspects, defined as science discovering what things REALLY are. The guy in the matrix looking at the source code and the evolving state. Low level is not more real, it is a different POV. Useful for seeing how things got implemented. Is it the definitive set of necessary rules needed for anything to exist. Why? Necessity might not even be defined in the context of low level aspects.

              So in the same way as the creatures don't find god in the ultimate quest for knowledge, what chance have we got of escaping to a hypothetical meta dimension from which we could finally determine whether our scientific models are accurate, eternal, complete, well formulated?

              --
              Account abandoned.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22 2019, @04:16PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22 2019, @04:16PM (#833433)

                I'm sure god's up there, somewhere, shouting down how much she loves us, wondering why we can't hear her.

              • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday April 22 2019, @11:11PM (5 children)

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday April 22 2019, @11:11PM (#833586) Journal

                The Simulation Argument (because let's be real, that's all this is) is no more interesting, useful, or enlightening than the idea of solipsism. It can never be proven or disproven.

                Also, you seem to be under the delusion that specific religious claims can only be tested empirically and, therefore, only opposed inductively, with all the problems induction brings with it. This is not so; many claims can be shown to be internally inconsistent and therefore deductively disproven. This is what I have done to your religion with my vivisection of your free will theodicy.

                You think you're the smartest guy in the room, don't you? You'd best think again; your apologia are amateur-hour-level bad. There are probably plenty of people besides me who can rubbish them right here on this very site.

                --
                I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 23 2019, @01:10AM (3 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 23 2019, @01:10AM (#833632)

                  The Simulation Argument (because let's be real, that's all this is) is no more interesting, useful, or enlightening than the idea of solipsism. It can never be proven or disproven.

                  It can and has [gizmodo.com] while solipsism is the childish ignorance that leads to adult pathological narcissism, ironically necessitating the destruction of the real self in the process.

                  that specific religious claims can only be tested empirically

                  That's the proof and there is none.

                  • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday April 23 2019, @10:38PM (2 children)

                    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday April 23 2019, @10:38PM (#834074) Journal

                    You don't seem to have understood what you're reading. "We live in a hologram" being not literally true (maybe...) is *not* the same thing as saying that we do, or do not, exist essentially as some higher being's VMWare session. We cannot prove we do or do not, because we don't know what conditions we'd have to test for in order to find this out or not, nor do we know if we could even comprehend what those conditions were, let alone test them, even if we did know.

                    Richard Carrier, who for all his faults is sharp as a tack when it comes to thinking about things like this, argues from a Bayesian perspective that we likely do not live in a simulation. However, I distrust the Bayesian approach in this case because it relies on prior probabilities, and we simply do not (and perhaps *cannot...*) possess knowledge of all the relevant priors.

                    Specific religious claims can be tested deductively because, and this is what you miss, they *are* being made in context of our experiential reality. Genesis, for example, is etiological myth; it attempts to explain observed and therefore [almost?]-universally experienced features of the human condition. These claims supervene, a long, long, long, looooooong way down, on the very basics axioms of thought, those which can only be denied by affirming them, as the law of identity, law of mutual exclusion, etc. They may therefore be tested using standard predicate logic, perhaps modal logic for the really annoyingly pedantic cases (shove it, Plantinga...).

                    And when they are tested, they are found wanting. Mene mene tekel upharsin, as it were. Inductive arguments are nice, and have their place in counter-apologetics, but the best counter-apologetic arguments are like judo.

                    --
                    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24 2019, @10:46PM (1 child)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24 2019, @10:46PM (#834546)

                      "We live in a hologram" being not literally true (maybe...) is *not* the same thing as saying that we do, or do not, exist essentially as some higher being's VMWare session. We cannot prove we do or do not, because we don't know what conditions we'd have to test for in order to find this out or not, nor do we know if we could even comprehend what those conditions were, let alone test them, even if we did know.

                      As a testable theory it has been disproven. [fastcompany.com] A worthless hypothesis is just that - nothing to be proven or disproven by deductive nor inductive thought processes. You practically made this exact point before proceeding to freewheel around it in favor of abduction. Those "higher beings" are reportedly too busy with crop circles to settle for mere implication.

                      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday April 25 2019, @04:59AM

                        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday April 25 2019, @04:59AM (#834619) Journal

                        That article says nothing I didn't, if you actually read it. It's a lot of words to say "as we understand things today, no, we're not in a simulation, but unknown unknowns are unknown." I personally don't think we are, but I also know that we don't have, and likely never will have, any possible way of testing this. It's on the same level as questions of solipsism or free will, and for the same reasons.

                        The value to this sort of question is that it (ideally, anyway) makes simple religious believers stop and confront the question of how they know what their religion tells them is true. Sufficiently advanced simulations are indistinguishable from God(s), to say it that way. Or we can dispense with the simulation entirely and just ask "How do you know your God's not just some incredibly smart demon who's playing the long game and feeds off your soul energy?" The underlying concept this reduces to is "could you be fooled by something that could fool you?"

                        --
                        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                • (Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday April 23 2019, @08:01AM

                  by Bot (3902) on Tuesday April 23 2019, @08:01AM (#833758) Journal

                  simulation is about the worst example of relationship between abstractions. I use it when it is sufficient. If you reject it because you think it implies it requires reality to be a Sim, then you did not get what I wrote repeatedly. In fact it seems that people reply to what they think is my agenda. Whatever.

                  --
                  Account abandoned.
        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday April 21 2019, @10:45PM (5 children)

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday April 21 2019, @10:45PM (#833155) Journal

          Category error. Agnosticism is a knowledge claim: one claims to have knowledge or not have it. A/theism is a faith claim: one claims to have a belief. I for example am an agnostic theist (well, agnostic sorta-Deist, but yeah). Meaning I believe there's a God but have the epistemological humility to understand the atheists, agnostic or gnostic, may well be correct.

          Atheism is a religion like "unplugged" is a TV channel or "bald" is a hairstyle.

          No one is going to take you seriously when you keep spewing this amateur bullshit. That you'd ever even think of posting it shows that you're either amazingly ignorant and unthinking, or worse, know exactly how wrong it is and post it anyway for rhetorical purposes, which makes you a willful liar at best.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 2) by Bot on Monday April 22 2019, @04:47PM (4 children)

            by Bot (3902) on Monday April 22 2019, @04:47PM (#833443) Journal

            >Atheism is a religion like "unplugged" is a TV channel or "bald" is a hairstyle.

            "god does not exist" is a phrase that, no matter its truth value, contains one glaring problem if you are naive, three if you are nitpicking.
            I have expanded on this several times already.

            So, atheism is a religion like channel fuchsia is a TV channel or pepper is a hairstyle.
            Agnosticism is I don't know the channel, I don't know the hairstyle.

            unplugged does not belong to the abstraction TV channels just like fuchsia, bald does not belong to hairstyle just like pepper.
            An objection stating an equivalent of what I said is quite difficult to accept or counter.

            --
            Account abandoned.
            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday April 22 2019, @10:48PM (3 children)

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday April 22 2019, @10:48PM (#833573) Journal

              So we both think gnostic atheists are full of shit. So what? They may still be right, even if they got there by fallacious means (beware of the Fallacy Fallacy! Tail-recurse on THAT one for a bit...).

              People can make whatever claims they want. Epistemology has its limits, including an unfortunate tendency to get backed into a corner and eaten by a basilisk of one sort or another. You must be the meal to end all meals for the one that got you, you poor son of a bitch...

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday April 23 2019, @11:00AM (2 children)

                by Bot (3902) on Tuesday April 23 2019, @11:00AM (#833792) Journal

                In fact the conclusion of atheists about the ineffable god's domain does not concern me. I am bothered by the fact that they call out other religions only to reason just like the inquisitors. Plus, when simple counterexamples show the limits of application of logic, they try to rationalize that instead of accepting that. I don't refer to keyboad warriors but apparently thought out sites like Rational wiki. Whatever.

                --
                Account abandoned.
                • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 24 2019, @09:14PM (1 child)

                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday April 24 2019, @09:14PM (#834501) Journal

                  Ahh, so your problem is that you think atheists are just as bad as you, but don't have the ability to go "My daddy can beat up your daddy" to back it up. Duly noted. Might makes right in your worldview, and I've noticed that from day one.

                  --
                  I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                  • (Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday April 25 2019, @07:52AM

                    by Bot (3902) on Thursday April 25 2019, @07:52AM (#834651) Journal

                    I'll try to be more clear.
                    Normal religion: "God told me..." unfalsifiable but unprovable. All OK.
                    Theocracy: "God told me and you better agree" unprovable and totalitarian. Trouble.
                    Atheist: "God icecream because the smell of purple is the square root of 5". Provably devoid of a defining structure and a logical structure. They get away with it only because they use terms and logic passages WE ARE USED TO apply in other contexts.
                    Agnostic: "Well you really can't say" provable and devoid of consequences. All OK.

                    --
                    Account abandoned.
        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21 2019, @10:46PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21 2019, @10:46PM (#833157)

          Not this shit again.

          By your definition, anyone who is passionate about something is "religious". Stamp collecting, saving the whales, teaching astronomy, using Apple products, watching My Little Pony, one can be passionate about these, you can even say they are "religious" ABOUT it, but that is just a comparison of their actions. That does not make any of those a religion.

          And it seems that anyone who "lacks the belief" is suddenly forced over to the other group whenever they open their mouths!

          Is there the same absolute distinction for people who quietly "do believe" and people who try to convince others of their belief?

          Really, "lack belief" and "believe in none" is really picking hairs. We are talking about the unknown. Until more (any) evidence pops up the possibilities are infinite. The probability that some magic sky fairy, as defined by any specific religion defines it, is so small that one might as well say it does not exist. If you are so insane that you think everyone should prepare for all possibilities then make sure you are also giving the proper tributes to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Great Green Arkleseizure, the ghost of Steve Jobs, Princess Celestia, and all the other infinite possibilities.

          But you don't care. You just want to troll.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22 2019, @03:48AM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22 2019, @03:48AM (#833247)

          There are two kinds of atheists, right? the one who lack belief in god, and the one who believe in no god. The first, correctly defined as the agnostics, do not talk like you do. The second is a religion. QED. Does not matter that atheists wear the agnostic candid vest when their arguments look lacking.

          Agnostics are *not* atheists. I've been both.

          Agnostics (despite the linguistic roots of the name) do not believe that there is(are) no god(s), they believe that the existence or non-existence of same is unknowable.

          Atheists lack belief in god(s), and necessarily believe in no gods.

          Atheism is not anything close to a religion.

          You're talking out of your exhaust fan, and is smells like there are burning polymers inside.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22 2019, @12:11PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22 2019, @12:11PM (#833346)

            Why are you more interested in using semantic games to beat others than using the ideas to seek the truth?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22 2019, @09:55PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22 2019, @09:55PM (#833542)

              I'm not interested in "beating" anyone. I do, however, appreciate facts and evidence presented in an unbiased, unfiltered fashion.

              GP, whether through ignorance or design, presented an argument that didn't reflect objective reality. They sabotaged their own argument by redefining common English terms (agnosticism and atheism) to match their argument, rather than using the universally accepted definitions for those terms.

              This invalidated their statements (at least to me) and, by pointing this out, I hoped that GP would restate their argument in clearer, more direct and more valid terms, in hopes of improving the discussion.

              To be clear, I merely pointed out (as did several others) that those words have specific meanings which aren't the meanings GP ascribed to them. That wasn't an attack, nor was my motivation competitive.

              We are all free to believe what we wish, and to express those beliefs. I welcome all such activities. At the same time, if one wishes to clearly and unambiguously express *anything*, it really helps to use language appropriately.

              As for "using the ideas to seek the truth," to which specific ideas, and which specific truth, do you refer? Please elucidate.

            • (Score: 3, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday April 22 2019, @10:57PM

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday April 22 2019, @10:57PM (#833582) Journal

              They're not mutually exclusive, yanno. He can seek the truth AND dunk all over these idiots like Charles Barkley on a pogo stick while he's at it :)

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
  • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21 2019, @03:50PM (27 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21 2019, @03:50PM (#832973)

    For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion(operation of wandering)(planet) so that they will believe the lie.

    Mystery Red of the Great American Eclipse [sloppyta.co]
    It has blood on it! [sloppyta.co]
    ABCNews: Eclipse makes pendulum wander [archive.org]
    Losing my religion [sloppyta.co]
    Sun researchers find strange eclipse reading [sloppyta.co]

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 21 2019, @05:27PM (26 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 21 2019, @05:27PM (#833030) Journal
      You have been very particular to claim "God sends them a powerful delusion" not that the wicked deceive themselves. Here, once again, you claim that God lies. But by your theology, the only one who lies is Satan. Who is really sending the "powerful delusion" and to whom?

      One wonders who you really worship when you choose to treat dogmatic disbelief of well known, objective phenomena as a litmus test for grace. Well, here's hoping your eternal reward is not so eternal!
      • (Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday April 21 2019, @06:23PM (25 children)

        by Bot (3902) on Sunday April 21 2019, @06:23PM (#833064) Journal

        You are not familiar with the concept of immanence of God, now? Something happens = god makes something happen.

        So, enter the head of the ones behind the origin of the verses and ask each one what they meant, if they meant an actual miracle or were just formulaic or were just theologically reaffirming the control of god over the universe.

        Cue the "oh but why god makes bad things happen". Good question, prove that the hypothetical god is not determining the outcome of every single particle interaction to provide the best possible outcome for the universe with the current rules governing it and you will be able to formulate the question without being a hypocritical guy who thinks he has a baseline for determining something as ultimately good. If you are discussing the contingent good, you are even more explicitly hypocritical.

        --
        Account abandoned.
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday April 21 2019, @10:53PM (17 children)

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday April 21 2019, @10:53PM (#833160) Journal

          That proof is very easy: just need to figure out what Yahweh thinks is "bad," since it's his opinion that counts in the end.

          This reduces to "sin is bad."

          Where does sin come from? Well, people like you are forced to say it comes from free will. And when asked why Yahweh then allows free will if it has even the possibility of causing sin to obtain--some like Plantinga will go further and say it's a logical impossibility for a significantly-free-willed, non-God essence *not* to sin at some point--you are trapped into the Free Will Theodicy, which says Yahweh values free will over compulsion.

          Once you've finished laughing yourself sick over Exodus 3 and 4, to say nothing of how ridiculous it is to give your creations free will and then torture them for eternity if they use their free will in ways you don't like, you settle down and start thinking a bit: Okay, so if free will *inevitably* leads to sin, how does Heaven work?

          And you come across a real problem: There is no sin in Heaven, or so we're told. But free will inevitably leads non-God beings to sin. So, what changes in Heaven?

          These are the horns of an inescapable dilemma: either sin actually does obtain in Heaven eventually because of free will, or *something else is changed* about these significantly-free-willed beings so that they never sin.

          But wait! If that's the case, it's NOT free will that leads to sin, but something *else,* something that by definition is out of our control. And whose control is it in? Why, Yahweh's of course! What THAT means is that sin is not a matter of free will, but of circumstance, and Yahweh could have prevented all sin while still having the significantly-free will he so values in his creations by tweaking their circumstances...say, creating them in Heaven already, or "pre-glorifying" them.

          So which is it, Bot? Do people sin in Heaven (and, corollary, can they be thrown OUT of Heaven?), or is it entirely possible to have significantly-free will and not sin, and in this case, where did you pull this free-will theodicy from?

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22 2019, @12:05PM (7 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22 2019, @12:05PM (#833344)

            Will you ever tire of telling your creator how ridiculous he is, as if you know better than he?

            Would you ask your creator how he created you? Yet you would ask him how he would solve sin.

            Your chief complaint is that you lack answers--a poor excuse.

            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday April 22 2019, @10:42PM (6 children)

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday April 22 2019, @10:42PM (#833570) Journal

              You could at least belch the relevant passage at me, couldn't you? About "what is the pot to say to the potter, 'why have you made me this way?'"

              That's a false analogy, and it commits a serious category error. Pots are not sentient beings. This very same Bible goes out of its way to emphasize that humanity is created "in the image of Yahweh," just a little below the angels, even. You know something? If I made a sentient robot, and I fucked it up, that robot would have every right to ask me what the hell I was thinking, making it the way I did. And I would be guilty of having done something terrible to it.

              My complaint, oh Anonymous Coward, is not lacking answers. To the contrary, I *have* answers, we *all* have answers, and they show that this entire mythological cycle is a bust. It fails as etiological myth, it fails as moral teaching, and it certainly fails historically and scientifically. It isn't even internally consistent, which is no surprise if you can trace its theological evolution from Sumeria through the Exile, the Seleucid kings, and the Roman Empire.

              The world is not the cartoon image Abrahamic theism expects it to be. A being like Yahweh has no need of ugly, hacky, cobbled-together kludges like genetic code or a gigantic universe that's almost entirely frozen vacuum, with most of what isn't frozen vacuum occupied by unstable balls of nuclear hellfire or giant, random-ass clouds of molecules. Yahweh is a child's conception of the Divine, born of fear and ignorance and the dark side of "will to power."

              There is no escape from the above dilemma. The problem of evil is a defeater for all types of theism that involve a Yahweh-like figure. You don't get to ignore that by making childish, ridiculous appeals to emotion like the above. I am not ridiculing my creator. I am ridiculing *you,* and all who cling to such perverted, blasphemous beliefs. I believe there is a God, and it is nothing like the murderous egomaniac you dare, you DARE, to call by that name.

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 23 2019, @05:10PM (5 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 23 2019, @05:10PM (#833922)

                Matthew 4:5-7. Why should I tell you what you know?

                Why do you speak without answering? Will you ever tire of telling your creator how he should create, as if you could?

                Your chief complaint remains that you lack answers, therefore you deify yourself--childish thinking.

                • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday April 23 2019, @09:57PM (4 children)

                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday April 23 2019, @09:57PM (#834060) Journal

                  You don't read so good, do you? I know I can't convince you and that's fine; anyone else reading this is going to see your posts, my responses, and your responses, which consist of weaksauce bullshit like quoting Scripture as if it's an argument, bare assertions, argumentum ad baculum, arguments to emotion, and ad hom. Yes, ad hom; you did not address any of my argument, you simply called me a childish thinker.

                  Know what? You CAN'T. And I know you can't, and you know I know you can't, and I know you know I know you can't. You're so far out of your depth it's anyone's guess as to whether sheer barotrauma or drowning will get you first.

                  Look at it this way: when an eight year old can spot problems with the creation narrative, that narrative probably isn't worth a hill of beans.

                  --
                  I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24 2019, @01:35AM (3 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24 2019, @01:35AM (#834152)

                    Will you ever tire of accusing others of doing what you are doing? Will you continue to cry, "You called me childish!" immediately after spewing your filthy insults? Will you continue to cry, "You didn't address any of my argument!" immediately after not addressing your interlocutor's? You project so much, you could rent yourself to movie theaters.

                    It's always the same lines from you. Don't you get bored of writing these inane, childish responses in post after post? Of course, it is easier than actually thinking and answering, and carries less risk of finding out that you're wrong.

                    But, of course, you already know that you're wrong: you've simply chosen whom to serve.

                    The stupid part is that you know how it will end for you, yet you choose it anyway. Who would choose death over life? Is your master paying you that well? Humans are strange creatures, though: some would rather live drunk in a gutter than admit the truth.

                    Well, we'll all find out soon enough. You'll have no excuse when your time comes.

                    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 24 2019, @02:38AM (2 children)

                      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday April 24 2019, @02:38AM (#834185) Journal

                      You're not very good at this. Trying that kind of rhetoric only works when you actually have the moral, intellectual, and philosophical high ground, and you have none of those. And no actual arguments either. You don't even have an account; you're another nameless, faceless little pissant who couldn't deduce his way out of a soggy paper bag if his life depended on it.

                      It's especially hilarious that you wrote an entire post of projection and then accused me of projecting :) I love you nutjobs! You make it almost, almost, too easy. I'd feel guilty, except you deserve every bit of mockery that comes your way.

                      Do better. I dare you. Argue better, if you can. We both know you can't.

                      --
                      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24 2019, @03:52PM (1 child)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24 2019, @03:52PM (#834385)

                        Do better. I dare you. Argue better, if you can. We both know you can't.

                        Fuck you. Answer my argument that you have ignored in post after post while declaring your own victory. You have no high ground--you have no ground at all, because you have ceded all of it. You sound like AOC: "I'm the boss!" In your dreams, obviously. Do you sleep-write? That would explain a lot.

                        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 24 2019, @09:01PM

                          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday April 24 2019, @09:01PM (#834490) Journal

                          What argument did you make? Make one, lay it out in detail, and I will address it.

                          Why so angry, AC? All those flavors out there and you had to choose plain old salty...

                          --
                          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22 2019, @02:22PM (8 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22 2019, @02:22PM (#833386)

            Or do you take a different tack, and recognize that if one gives up one's free will voluntarily in order to unify with the divine one then attains heaven? One is given free will so that one has the free-willed choice to reject that path and instead enslave oneself and thus achieve divine enlightenment. In heaven, anyway. But a life of serving others unselfishly is devilishly hard to achieve or maintain, might even be impossible without a mediator involved.

            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday April 22 2019, @10:54PM (7 children)

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday April 22 2019, @10:54PM (#833579) Journal

              But that isn't giving up one's free will at all! That's freely choosing to give up selfish pursuit of one's own goals above all else, for sure, but it doesn't affect the will one iota. Don't conflate the two. That isn't enslavement either; if anything, there is a kind of extra level of freedom in it, if only because it lets you step back and see just how transient and vain so much of what people do is. Waking up to that kind of realization makes you radically realign your priorities...

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 23 2019, @06:13PM (6 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 23 2019, @06:13PM (#833970)

                I doubt we'll agree on it, but what I am proposing is the intentional sacrifice of that free will and making oneself a willing slave. If one does still possess that free will after that (an interesting existential question) one will never choose to access it again but rather act according to how one is compelled in response to the realization that is faith. For example, the concept in Islam [al-islam.org]. Lest anyone feel left out, Judaism [jtsa.edu] and Christianity [tms.edu] carries the same thoughts in places.

                The problem is that on this side of death if one is actually giving up one's choices, then whom is one giving them up to in a practical sense? A Pope, an Imam, a Rabbi, a Minister? A President? I believe this is a critical link for radicalization of faith that leads one to a suicide attack - they cede their will to that of the 'higher authority' yet follow the dictates of a person. Yet there can be noble purpose, also. The closer I come to realization of the divine, the less free my responses in life are. Not in the "will I have Taco Bell or KFC for lunch" sense, but it the realization that service to others becomes the only option. If there is one option is there still choice?

                Returning to the theodicy question: Perhaps the inhabitants of heaven are all people who finally realized that free will is a trap that ensnares the soul in sin, and exiting that trap requires "only" recognition that all things which are given as free will choices lead to destruction. Exiting that path of free will is the method to salvation.

                (Do I really believe that.... I'm not capable of that completely and I doubt any can do that; doing so would be complete integration with the divine. Maybe by my last breath I'll be capable. In the meantime, if none of us can get that perfection then we need to be extremely suspicious of any who do claim that mantle, lest one be persuaded to strap on a bomb in the name of God. In the meantime, Carl Spackler shared with me that someday he'll achieve total consciousness, so maybe I'll follow his example for awhile. I hear he manicures a mean green.)

                • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday April 23 2019, @09:53PM (5 children)

                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday April 23 2019, @09:53PM (#834059) Journal

                  You have some interesting points, ones which I'd long ago considered and come to similar conclusions to, but you're still conflating actually losing your free will with simply choosing to use it in certain ways due to what you know to be true about the nature of reality.

                  Yes, it's true that after you've learned certain things about reality, there are acts you simply will not do. But you don't do them because you realize how utterly counterproductive and destructive and pointless and false they are, not because you actually lose the ability to choose to do them. It's the difference between choosing not to punch someone and not punching someone because you have no arms.

                  This is also not relevant to the free will theodicy, heaven or no heaven, because the entire point of it is that it is inevitable that at least the potential of sin if not its actual existence is an inevitable consequence of significantly-free will in a non-God essence, i.e., *any* rational soul that is not God. This being the case, law of large numbers entails (not implies, entails, in the formal sense) that as time T approaches infinity ("eternity"), *all* such beings will sin. It's one specific case of the general law that anything not logically impossible will happen at least once as elapsed time approaches infinity.

                  So there cannot actually be no sin in heaven, or anywhere else, that non-God, significantly-free essences exist, *unless* significantly-free will is *not* actually the cause of sin. But if significantly-free will is not the cause of sin, then whatever *is* the cause of sin is by definition not under control of said non-God essences, which means it *is* under God's control, which is a nice way of saying "Yahweh fucked up and is trying to blame his creations."

                  I often hear from the very same people who will push the free will theodicy, usually almost in the same breath, that free-willed beings in heaven do not sin because they have been "glorified" by God. This makes my point for me; it is out of said beings' control, and must be done to them by an outside force, this being God. Somehow, these people never seem to realize how they set up their own Jenga tower and then knock it down in the very next instant.

                  --
                  I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24 2019, @01:42AM (4 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24 2019, @01:42AM (#834153)

                    So there cannot actually be no sin in heaven, or anywhere else, that non-God, significantly-free essences exist, *unless* significantly-free will is *not* actually the cause of sin. But if significantly-free will is not the cause of sin, then whatever *is* the cause of sin is by definition not under control of said non-God essences, which means it *is* under God's control, which is a nice way of saying "Yahweh fucked up and is trying to blame his creations."

                    Small-minded nonsense. You're at least a few thousand years behind on your theology.

                    I often hear from the very same people who will push the free will theodicy, usually almost in the same breath, that free-willed beings in heaven do not sin because they have been "glorified" by God. This makes my point for me; it is out of said beings' control, and must be done to them by an outside force, this being God. Somehow, these people never seem to realize how they set up their own Jenga tower and then knock it down in the very next instant.

                    O Great Logician, surely you realize the flaws in your reasoning.

                    But, by all means, continue to tell God his limitations.

                    BTW, can you link the universe you created here? kthx

                    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 24 2019, @02:34AM (2 children)

                      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday April 24 2019, @02:34AM (#834181) Journal

                      Hey, did you know when you make that many bare assertions at once you have to register the inside of your head as a brothel? 'S true.

                      How about you do the counterargument then, "O Great Logician?" This should be hilarious. I am not telling Yahweh his limitations; he is telling them to us, and I am putting two and two together. That you are incapable of doing or unwilling to do the same is on you, not me.

                      Funny, though, that you basically challenge me to create a better universe. You miss the point: the universe we have is not the one we would expect from a being that operates the way Yahweh tells us he does. The old geocentric cosmos, no bigger than the planet and the several heavens with its various orbiting luminaries and the sphere of fixed stars (hah! "fixed stars!") is. If it turned out that was reality, that would make me believe.

                      You really, really, *really* suck at this. My prediction is that you will continue to suck, and probably not last much longer before mysteriously disappearing off the thread. Until then, I'll happily kick your ignorant ass up and down the aisles. Because since I'm not an atheist, not only do I think you're wrong and evil, I think you're a blasphemer as well :)

                      --
                      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24 2019, @03:48PM (1 child)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24 2019, @03:48PM (#834382)

                        > I am not telling Yahweh his limitations

                        That is the only thing you have done, and it's the only thing you do. It's frankly laughable that you, silly little human being, declare what the entire fucking universe ought to be like. And you think yourself so wise! You're a coward, hiding behind your self-worship, having placed yourself in God's place. You don't have the courage to face the reality of the absurd belief you hinge your entire philosophy on. You've binged on so much bullshit that you can't see the real world.

                        To top it all off, you're boring. "I win because I say so and I'm gonna keep winning because I say so. Smiley face!" Every fucking thread, the same bullshit from you. Only a bot or a truly evil satanist would be so consistently motivated to spout it.

                        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 24 2019, @09:04PM

                          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday April 24 2019, @09:04PM (#834492) Journal

                          Yahweh has told *us* *his* limitations, pal. I am looking at what the Bible says, what apologists say, and what the shell of various myths, apocrypha, and tweaks to the religion says, and going "Wait, *that's* your idea of a God? That doesn't even meet the basic criteria for what it means to *be* God..."

                          Use your words, oh modern-day pillar of salt. You're throwing an emotion-laden temper tantrum and it's doing neither you personally nor your "witness" any good. Truthfully, if I were your God, I'd drop you into Hell for making me look bad in front of the unbelievers.

                          tl;dr: Get on my level.

                          --
                          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                    • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday April 24 2019, @07:32AM

                      by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday April 24 2019, @07:32AM (#834252) Journal

                      You're at least a few thousand years behind on your theology.

                      Puzzling comment, the very latest theology is a thousand years old. Or are you a Thomist? "The fool hath said in his Heart, 'There is no God!'" St. Anselm, circa 900 Anno Dominatrix. But the point is, there is no god, so it is very hard to tell him (seriously? Male bias?) about his imperfections, the greatest of which is not existing. Anselm's "ontological proof" fails, since "existence" is not a property possessed by things, since they would have to exist prior to having the property of existence, in order to gain the property of existing. Got that?

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 21 2019, @11:28PM (6 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 21 2019, @11:28PM (#833177) Journal

          You are not familiar with the concept of immanence of God, now? Something happens = god makes something happen.

          I'm familiar with it, for example, The Incoherence of the Philosophers [wikipedia.org] has that as a key concept.

          It's deeply flawed because once you have God making everything happen, then as Azuma noted, you lose free will. This always leads to contradiction. No one expects a broken watch to fix itself. But almost every religion expects people to try to improve their behavior, thoughts, and beliefs. They implicitly assume free will and reject this no matter what their stated beliefs on the matter are.

          • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday April 22 2019, @09:08AM (5 children)

            by aristarchus (2645) on Monday April 22 2019, @09:08AM (#833319) Journal

            Holey Shit! Did khallow just cite al-Ghazali, the Sufi? OMG. Might be some hope for the boy, provided he actual read the text. And, of course, read its obvious rebuttal, The Incoherence of Incoherence [wikipedia.org] by Ibn Sina. In'shallah, khallow. إن شاء الله‎, In'shallah.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 23 2019, @04:07AM (4 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 23 2019, @04:07AM (#833708) Journal
              Indeed. I thought it was worth noting the commonality between this concept of immanence and formation of some of the worst beliefs of the Islamic world.
              • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday April 23 2019, @07:31AM (1 child)

                by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday April 23 2019, @07:31AM (#833751) Journal

                Interesting! Never thought there might be an opportunity for a philosophical discussion with the khallow. Your exegesis, please!

                • (Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Tuesday April 23 2019, @01:45PM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 23 2019, @01:45PM (#833842) Journal

                  Never thought there might be an opportunity for a philosophical discussion with the khallow.

                  Not trying (and perhaps not thinking) is not the same as philosophical discussion!

              • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 24 2019, @09:17PM (1 child)

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday April 24 2019, @09:17PM (#834503) Journal

                Do you mean immanence, or the doctrine of "occasionalism?" They're not the same thing.

                For extra yuks, compare and contrast Calvinism and Islam on the subject. Now look up "Dominionist." That might be very revealing about the current state of geopolitics...

                --
                I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 24 2019, @10:27PM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 24 2019, @10:27PM (#834530) Journal
                  Here, the immanence is complete enough that God makes things happen (apparently to our detriment except for those who apparently know he's bullshitting with this reality thing). That veered into Occasionalism. I still think the two are similar enough to make relevant observations about the belief holders.

                  Now look up "Dominionist." That might be very revealing about the current state of geopolitics...

                  Only if they get their own world to politicize. Else it's just another few drops in the bucket.

  • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21 2019, @03:57PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21 2019, @03:57PM (#832976)

    Eh, it's changing a religion for another one.
    You choose what you want I guess.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21 2019, @06:11PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21 2019, @06:11PM (#833054)

      Yes. You can choose to observe the world around you and make rational informed decisions based on that, or you can choose to ignore all that and live in the land of make-believe.
      You choose what you want I guess.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22 2019, @11:48AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22 2019, @11:48AM (#833340)

      changing a religion for another one

      Some people will kill you for that.

  • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Sunday April 21 2019, @04:48PM

    by RamiK (1813) on Sunday April 21 2019, @04:48PM (#832997)

    Actually, recent studies [soylentnews.org] suggest only a mass lobotomy could cure the problem. And I feel it's a fair point to suggest employing Madame Guillotine would expedite things to a great extent.

    --
    compiling...
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday April 21 2019, @05:37PM (3 children)

    by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Sunday April 21 2019, @05:37PM (#833036) Homepage

    Muslims have always been degenerate scum. Some fools believe that if you introduce Muslims to Western comforts and culture, then they will shed their ways. Untrue. They will still pray to Allah and murder in his name after slamming heroin and snorting coke off of a Quran, and they engage in any kind of sex you can imagine -- premarital sex, anal sex, sex with other men, sex with goats, etc.

    The only thing worse than a judgemental savage is a hypocritical judgemental savage who hates themselves as much as they hate everybody else. This is the mentality that gives birth to suicide-bombers.

    • (Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday April 21 2019, @07:11PM (1 child)

      by Bot (3902) on Sunday April 21 2019, @07:11PM (#833077) Journal

      Suicide missions actually can be seen as rituals in a cult on its own, pre-dating Islam IIRC. It would explain why some guys try to bypass airport security with explosives, when their organization still likely owns some SAM from afghan soviet resistance, and could fire them near the airport where the planes are easy to catch.

      --
      Account abandoned.
      • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21 2019, @07:39PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21 2019, @07:39PM (#833087)

        Some people claim that the explosion of TWA Flight 800, which went down in 1996, was not caused by a spark in a fuel tank, but by a missile. If that missile was from a terrorist-operated boat, as some believe, then the government's denial of it being a terrorist act actually makes some sense, as you wouldn't want to give the terrorists the media coverage that the act was supposed to generate.

        However, the denial of that (possible) terrorist act helps explain why both of the Towers were hit by planes on 9/11, with a delay in between the strikes. It was to make sure there were plenty of media camera already trained on the towers when the second plane hit -- making it impossible to claim it was not a terrorist act.

        Perhaps this is why terrorists don't bother to use SAMs to attack airplanes. They already did, and it didn't work, as the authorities can too easily claim it was just an accident.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22 2019, @09:15AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22 2019, @09:15AM (#833321)

      Ethanol_fueleds have always been degenerate scum. Some fools believe that if you introduce Ethanol_fueled to Western comforts and culture, then he will shed his ways. Untrue. He will still pray to Bourbon and slander with his gob after slamming heroin and snorting coke off of a Penthouse, and then engage in any kind of sex you can imagine -- premarital sex, anal sex, sex with other men, sex with goats, etc. Ethanol-fueled sex, we call it.

      Would like to say I fixed it for you, but dude, you are too far gone! Have you seen the movie, "Leaving Las Vegas"? Might be an option.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22 2019, @07:49AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22 2019, @07:49AM (#833296)

    That works on Christianity.

    Islam has a sort of immune system built in to it. All followers are commanded to kill those who stray from Islam. This means that everybody in an Islamic society must at least pretend to be Islamic. When you look around you and it appears that 100% of the population supports Islam, it sure makes sense to believe. After all, if the smartest people you know are all believers, it must be right.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22 2019, @09:19AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22 2019, @09:19AM (#833322)

      Kind of like being Southern Baptist, in Missouri, and burning crosses on N*****s lawns, right?