Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on April 12, 2008, 09:29:46 am
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7344381.stm
An Italian woman artist who was hitch-hiking to the Middle East dressed as a bride to promote world peace has been found murdered in Turkey.
The naked body of Giuseppina Pasqualino di Marineo, 33, known as Pippa Bacca, was found in bushes near the city of Gebze on Friday.
She had said she wanted to show that she could put her trust in the kindness of local people.
Turkish police say they have detained a man in connection with the killing.
Reports say the man led the police to the body.
There is no god. :blah:
-
Did she think that that was a good idea? :confused:
There is no god. :blah:
You're right. There is, however, one God. :rolleyes:
-
There is a God. There are also wicked people.
And stupid ones, judging from this report. A woman? Hitchhiking? To the Middle East? Dressed as a bride?
I don't know if she was willfully stupid or just naive, but that's a perfect recipe for exactly what happened.
-
It was an odd risk to take, I have faith in mankind as whole, but not in any particular member of it, it's kind of overly optimistic to think that the world is a safe place, it isn't, never has been.
Maybe we, as a race, have the possibility of a grand future ahead of us, but I still wouldn't walk down a dark alley in Hackney at 2:30am.
-
Definitely not smart for an older woman to do alone. It probably would have turned out differently if the person in question had been a 25 year-old guy, someone who can at least put up a fight. It's a common mistake to assume that just because some place is quaint, charming and traditional, every single person there must hospitable and kind.
-
This story is awesome on so many levels.
And proof, that you can't put your trust in any kind of people, let alone local people.
-
Wow. Just wow.
-
The world is a scary place, thats why you carry a Bible in one pocket and 30 rounds of 5.56 Full Metal Jacket in the other. Just in case God decides that you can take care of the problem without divine intervention.
-
Definitely not smart for an older woman to do alone. It probably would have turned out differently if the person in question had been a 25 year-old guy, someone who can at least put up a fight. It's a common mistake to assume that just because some place is quaint, charming and traditional, every single person there must hospitable and kind.
Then there would be two bodies, instead of one. And the cause of death would be acute lead poisoning.
-
It probably would have turned out differently if the person in question had been a 25 year-old guy
A 25-year old guy hitchhiking around the middle east wearing a bridal gown? He barely would've made it off the plane!
-
Or he could have been mistaken for a Saudi sheikh.
-
Or he could have been mistaken for a Saudi sheikh.
Well in that case, he wouldn't have been let on the plane in the first place.
Zing!
-
There is a God. There are also wicked people.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
-Epicurus
-
There is a God. There are also wicked people.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
-Epicurus
2. evil; harmful; injurious: a malevolent inclination to destroy the happiness of others.
:rolleyes:
------------------
It probably would have turned out differently if the person in question had been a 25 year-old guy
A 25-year old guy hitchhiking around the middle east wearing a bridal gown? He barely would've made it off the plane!
:wakka:
-
2. evil; harmful; injurious: a malevolent inclination to destroy the happiness of others.
My point exactly.
-
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
-Epicurus
The flaw in this argument is that it demands that evil be destroyed immediately and/or instantaneously. The entire span of human history is simply a "grace period" before that actually happens.
-
There is a God. There are also wicked people.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
-Epicurus
2. evil; harmful; injurious: a malevolent inclination to destroy the happiness of others.
:rolleyes:
Look at me trying to apply modern definitions to the speech of someone way back in the B.C. period!
:rolleyes:
-
The flaw in this argument is that it demands that evil be destroyed immediately and/or instantaneously. The entire span of human history is simply a "grace period" before that actually happens.
It isn't really a flaw considering that God is supposed to be "all knowing and benevolent". Indeed, if God has the power, why wait unless it has no will?
-
Kosh, what are you doing?
-
The usual blasphemy and heresy.
-
Freedom of choice / free agency. If man cannot choose to do evil, and is forced only to do good, then choice does not exist. Free agency is our greatest gift. To take that away would be malevolent.
-
If that were the case then why pass judgement after death? Isn't telling someone you will burn for eternity not a measure of coercion?
-
I'd imagine because it is completely up to you whether you want to "burn in eternity" or not. If you believe in that kind of stuff. You're just being told the consequences to your actions.
-
It isn't really a flaw considering that God is supposed to be "all knowing and benevolent". Indeed, if God has the power, why wait unless it has no will?
Cause even "evil" people aren't 100% evil. Why should he smite them now? They'll get whats coming to them in the afterlife....good people too.
So that argument is totally flawed, since you can't call God malevolent, given that He's giving away eternal bliss and all that jazz.
-
Freedom of choice / free agency. If man cannot choose to do evil, and is forced only to do good, then choice does not exist. Free agency is our greatest gift. To take that away would be malevolent.
Burn in hell or live in heaven? A choice, I guess, but not much of one. As Kosh put it,
Isn't telling someone you will burn for eternity not a measure of coercion?
In addition, who decides morals? Out of the thousands of religions that exist and have existed, which one follows "proper" rituals and beliefs?
For me, the main argument for atheism is the fact that religion varies across times and cultures and you can't clump all faiths together and create a coherent picture of what God(s) want.
-
Remember, children; eternal suffering awaits anyone who questions God's infinite love.
-
Freedom of choice / free agency. If man cannot choose to do evil, and is forced only to do good, then choice does not exist. Free agency is our greatest gift. To take that away would be malevolent.
Burn in hell or live in heaven? A choice, I guess, but not much of one. As Kosh put it,
Isn't telling someone you will burn for eternity not a measure of coercion?
In addition, who decides morals? Out of the thousands of religions that exist and have existed, which one follows "proper" rituals and beliefs?
For me, the main argument for atheism is the fact that religion varies across times and cultures and you can't clump all faiths together and create a coherent picture of what God(s) want.
That is the correct question.
Remember, children; eternal suffering awaits anyone who questions God's infinite love.
Really? That sucks. I guess Kosh is a goner then. :shaking:
-
In addition, who decides morals? Out of the thousands of religions that exist and have existed, which one follows "proper" rituals and beliefs?
For me, the main argument for atheism is the fact that religion varies across times and cultures and you can't clump all faiths together and create a coherent picture of what God(s) want.
Haven't you notice that morals in all major religions are in their core the same? That "core" doesn't change over time
Isn't telling someone you will burn for eternity not a measure of coercion?
Consider it a friendly warning, a pointer in the right direction.
It's no different than our most basic laws like "do not murder". If you're not willing to face the consequences then don't do it..simple.
-
Haven't you notice that morals in all major religions are in their core the same? That "core" doesn't change over time
The Catholic church orders us not to use contraception, Bhuddists and Hindus don't care. Islamic law allows a man to have multiple wives, christian custom allows one. Scientologists want us to donate money to them. There are plenty of differences in religious dogma. Religions share morals no more than all cultures share certain common-sense guidelines, eg, "do not murder".
Isn't telling someone you will burn for eternity not a measure of coercion?
Consider it a friendly warning, a pointer in the right direction.
It's no different than our most basic laws like "do not murder". If you're not willing to face the consequences then don't do it..simple.
OK. The argument was about the relation between eternal punishment and free will. Pointer, friendly reminder, whatever you want to call it, punishment is a way of restricting our behavior. If you have punishment, you cannot have truly free will. I'm not saying that free will is good; in many cases I'd wish we'd take a cue from the Borg. The point is, the christian God applies punishment and does not allow truly free will.
It appears we're talking about christianity here, which isn't conducive to free will by the literal definition. The thing is, christian scholars have a peculiar definition of "free will" that makes these sorts of arguments confusing. As my priest likes to say (yes, my parents make me go to Catholic mass), it's not "freedom to do as you wish, but freedom to do as you ought." Make of that what you will.
-
Haven't you notice that morals in all major religions are in their core the same? That "core" doesn't change over time
The Catholic church orders us not to use contraception, Bhuddists and Hindus don't care. Islamic law allows a man to have multiple wives, christian custom allows one. Scientologists want us to donate money to them. There are plenty of differences in religious dogma. Religions share morals no more than all cultures share certain common-sense guidelines, eg, "do not murder".
Isn't telling someone you will burn for eternity not a measure of coercion?
Consider it a friendly warning, a pointer in the right direction.
It's no different than our most basic laws like "do not murder". If you're not willing to face the consequences then don't do it..simple.
OK. The argument was about the relation between eternal punishment and free will. Pointer, friendly reminder, whatever you want to call it, punishment is a way of restricting our behavior. If you have punishment, you cannot have truly free will. I'm not saying that free will is good; in many cases I'd wish we'd take a cue from the Borg. The point is, the christian God applies punishment and does not allow truly free will.
It appears we're talking about christianity here, which isn't conducive to free will by the literal definition. The thing is, christian scholars have a peculiar definition of "free will" that makes these sorts of arguments confusing. As my priest likes to say (yes, my parents make me go to Catholic mass), it's not "freedom to do as you wish, but freedom to do as you ought." Make of that what you will.
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Sorry. Punishment does absolutely in NO WAY restrict free will. Fact. Action reaction. You choose the ACTION, and universal law (some people would call that God - or God's law) dictates the consequence or reaction. It is up to you whether to decide if you define the consequence is punishment or reward. Punishment is not a way of restricting behavior. Punishment is a consequence.
Freedom from consequence only exists where law does not exist. Free will is another thing entirely. Without law there is no choice, however. In fact, without law to dictate consequence, nothing would exist at all. But thats another discussion.
P.S. Don't confuse human laws with laws of nature.
-
Haven't you notice that morals in all major religions are in their core the same? That "core" doesn't change over time
The Catholic church orders us not to use contraception, Bhuddists and Hindus don't care. Islamic law allows a man to have multiple wives, christian custom allows one. Scientologists want us to donate money to them. There are plenty of differences in religious dogma. Religions share morals no more than all cultures share certain common-sense guidelines, eg, "do not murder".
The CC encourages not using contraception, it doesn't order it.
Major religion differences are not in the core issues.
OK. The argument was about the relation between eternal punishment and free will. Pointer, friendly reminder, whatever you want to call it, punishment is a way of restricting our behavior. If you have punishment, you cannot have truly free will. I'm not saying that free will is good; in many cases I'd wish we'd take a cue from the Borg. The point is, the christian God applies punishment and does not allow truly free will.
It appears we're talking about christianity here, which isn't conducive to free will by the literal definition. The thing is, christian scholars have a peculiar definition of "free will" that makes these sorts of arguments confusing. As my priest likes to say (yes, my parents make me go to Catholic mass), it's not "freedom to do as you wish, but freedom to do as you ought." Make of that what you will.
Bollocks. Of course, you're entilted to have whatever oppinions you want.
Free Will means you can do a zillion billion things. But not all of those zillion billion are good or encouraged. You have more than enough freedom, but the few "do nots" seem to overshadow everything else for you.
You go to the store with 100$. You have free will to buy whatever you want with those 100$. You got choice - candy, fruit, cerials, meat, veggies...whatever..or you might go and buy video games...or you can go buy drugs.
And drugs are bad. So having to face the negative consequences for buying drugs somehow doesn't make you free, since the other 999999 choices of purchase obviously don't matter.
IMHO, I personally think this is all about people wanting to dodge responsibility for their actions.
Like a spoiled brat telling everyone his parents are mean since they spanked him when he tried to set fire to the curtains..they are killing his free wil and wild spirit... :rolleyes:
-
You're right, Trashman and Hazaanko. If someone holds a gun to your head and asks for your wallet, it could be said that you have the free will to refuse. But by that definition, free will means nothing. In fact, Wiktionary gives two definitions for the word.
1. (philosophy) The ability to choose one's actions, or determine what reasons are acceptable motivation for actions.
2. (philosophy) The doctrine that humans (and possibly other entities) are able to choose their actions without being caused to do so by external forces.
Again, not saying that free will is a good thing as it allows morally unrestricted action.
The CC encourages not using contraception, it doesn't order it.
Major religion differences are not in the core issues.
Yes. Virtually all human cultures have certain elements in common.
-
The CC encourages not using contraception, it doesn't order it.
Major religion differences are not in the core issues.
Hey, if you go with religion as to why you don't use contraception, you deserve all the AIDS you get. In fact, one could say I encourage the spread of AIDS that way.
It weeds out the stupid.
-
Hey, if you go with religion as to why you don't use contraception, you deserve all the AIDS you get. In fact, one could say I encourage the spread of AIDS that way.
It weeds out the stupid.
:wtf:
Another low stab at religious people, eh Blacky? No self-control whatsoever...tsk, tsk..
-
Hey, if you go with religion as to why you don't use contraception, you deserve all the AIDS you get. In fact, one could say I encourage the spread of AIDS that way.
It weeds out the stupid.
:wtf:
Another low stab at religious people, eh Blacky? No self-control whatsoever...tsk, tsk..
yeah, come on. they aren't stupid, they just don't know better
ignorant was the word you were looking for
-
yeah, come on. they aren't stupid, they just don't know better
ignorant was the word you were looking for
Funny, I was about to say the same thing about you .. :lol:
-
ah, the classic "I know you are, but what am I" defense
alas, i am helpless
-
the real purpose of religion is so the ruling elite can keep their power while the common people waste all their time debating and practicing religion when they should be dethroning those who have power.
:D
-
the real purpose of religion is so the ruling elite can keep their power while the common people waste all their time debating and practicing religion when they should be dethroning those who have power.
:D
thats why the US has separation of church and state, to keep the government from setting up a religion.
-
Actually, the only countries where the Government and Church aren't constantly wrangling over 'moral dilemmas' are the ones where the Government IS the church, and many of those are just scary, because they impose what they consider to be a 'higher law', whilst not actually having any accountability to the fact that those laws are being enforced as intended.
-
the real purpose of religion is so the ruling elite can keep their power while the common people waste all their time debating and practicing religion when they should be dethroning those who have power.
:D
Marxist argument. You should read Foucault - he's better.
-
Actually, the only countries where the Government and Church aren't constantly wrangling over 'moral dilemmas' are the ones where the Government IS the church, and many of those are just scary, because they impose what they consider to be a 'higher law', whilst not actually having any accountability to the fact that those laws are being enforced as intended.
right, my point exactly
-
The CC encourages not using contraception, it doesn't order it.
We had this argument. You were proved wrong. You learned nothing at all.
In 1997, the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family stated:
"The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life
On July 17, 1994, John Paul II clarified the Church's position
Therefore, when there is a reason not to procreate, this choice is permissible and may even be necessary. However, there remains the duty of carrying it out with criteria and methods that respect the total truth of the marital act in its unitive and procreative dimension, as wisely regulated by nature itself in its biological rhythms. One can comply with them and use them to advantage, but they cannot be "violated" by artificial interference.
Yeah. It's just encouraged. :rolleyes:
-
i don't consider the usa to have separation of church and state. sure you try to pray in school, or in my case visit the church of satan website, they will thump your skull. but what happens in every political campaign for office, whatever office that may be? the politicians try to appeal to the church for votes. sometimes they take political views that parallel the way the church sees things, in an attempt to gain votes. the whole anti gay marriage thing for example. now i know that most of these politicians couldn't care less one way or the other, they just see it as pleasing the most people and thus bringing the most votes. politicians will always tilt their views to favor what they see as the majority of the population. also when most of the voters are evil christians, that also tilts the government. there is no separation of church and state. its a myth.
-
I read somewhere that 52% of Americans would not vote for a well qualified Atheist for president
-
*SNIP*
"Therefore, when there is a reason not to procreate, this choice is permissible and may even be necessary."
i don't consider the usa to have separation of church and state. sure you try to pray in school, or in my case visit the church of satan website, they will thump your skull. but what happens in every political campaign for office, whatever office that may be? the politicians try to appeal to the church for votes. sometimes they take political views that parallel the way the church sees things, in an attempt to gain votes. the whole anti gay marriage thing for example. now i know that most of these politicians couldn't care less one way or the other, they just see it as pleasing the most people and thus bringing the most votes. politicians will always tilt their views to favor what they see as the majority of the population. also when most of the voters are evil christians, that also tilts the government. there is no separation of church and state. its a myth.
Are you surprised the politicians try to gain favor with the majority? If the majority was "the leauge for mandatory pogo sticks" they would claim it's the way to go.
and..."evil christians"? :wtf:
-
Posting on HLP is a form of contraception in itself...
Anyway, in your opinion, Trashman, what would be a good reason to not procreate under the pope's definition?
-
"Therefore, when there is a reason not to procreate, this choice is permissible and may even be necessary."
Seriously? You're hinging your argument on that?
That was actually the pope saying that you don't have to have kids if you can't afford to feed them, etc. In those cases you may use natural family planning methods to prevent pregnancy. The pope was not saying that you can use contraception. The rest of the sentence quite clearly points that out.
But feel free to come out with the usual nonsense.
-
well... Im glad I dont answer to the Vatican
-
i say we should drop some warheads on it
-
I wouldnt go that far.....
-
I wouldnt go that far.....
its ok, nuke advocates using warheads on most things
-
Interesting... :pimp: