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This discussion has been archived.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: 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.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (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.