A Tripolation

I appreciate your wanting to let me know. What do you propose we do with people like this?

Is anyone truly opposed to the death sentence for the perpetrators of this massacre? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11733638 I do not see how anyone would be capable of letting the murderers in this case live.

Retribution. That's the sentiment. I love my family enough that it would elicit a violent reaction from me were they to be harmed in any way by malice. Some people do not. True. But I believe those people can be mended. I do not feel the same for killers or child molesters. There most likely isn't one. I would rather kill the person that killed my family than let the courts let him linger for decades. I would want to see his death as quickly as possible. There is no good in war. But there is good in why you fight a war. I'm personally glad that the Allies were able to stop Hitler with violence rather than being submissive. Violence only respects violence. Or are you saying that any of the conquerors in history would've been stopped by kind words?

I personally don't believe in rehabilitation efforts. I support punishment. I only think people should be 'put down' when they've murdered someone. They have no respect for life and are therefore not deserving of it. Petty crimes should serve jail time/fines/ ect. More intense crimes should be met with true solitary confinement.

I quite like the commmercialization of it. My room is quite pretty with its lights. And seasonal candles smell amazing.

You all are right. They should just be locked up with food, shelter, and water for the rest of their life. That's some harsh punishment right there.

I do not see the killing of violent, murderous people to be a violent act at all. So the irony no longer applies. I find that amusing.

This shows he was competent enough to know he was going to rob someone. And then he reacts incredibly violently to a perceived threat. I'm unable to comment on his mental stability, bit if he IS this insane, it seems a lot more humane to kill him than let him live out the rest of his life locked up constantly hearing voices. I don't believe anyone so violent should be allowed to live.

He actually just seems like a bored troll. No one's that crazy...

Similar IP thingymajig? Can you see those types of things?

Win.

Ah. I see what you're doing. I don't have the patience for this right now.

So if I start believing God wants me to go around elementary schools and slitting kids' throats, and I do this without remorse, I'm not evil, only delusional?

Then I define evil as to be so nihilistically self-involved as to condone the murder of millions, all to further your own selfish goals.

Most people think that the actions of figures such as Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Vlad the Impaler, Ghengis Khan, etc ect, to be evil. I do not know what sort of pedantic nit-picking you're trying to set me up for, but it's almost universally accepted that these people were evil, in that they committed many horrid crimes, with no remorse at all.

I'm pretty sure he was referring to morals and paths to salvation and such. Most theists HATE gray areas of morality. I personally think it's ok to kill evil people, though this in and of itself is an evil act. It is a gray area. Most theists want a DEFINITIVE guide on how to live their lives. I was referring to the fact that atheists need something to be defined as a truth in the purest sense before agreeing with it. God does not fall under this category. The Bible says (and I'm paraphrasing): You will never understand God. Stop trying. No, I don't care. Just stop. It's all part of a plan. Such an ideology is anema(? is that the word I'm looking for ?) to most atheists.

I'm a theist in a science-intensive major. I know a lot of atheists. This is NOT off the mark. They do not have "faith" in a continued lack of evidence. They simply accept the range of natural mechanisms that offer the most coherent explanation of nature. These mechanisms are always being revised, and constantly updated. It's hard to see that as "faith" in a lack of evidence. But this is also a good point.

Um...no? I like science and it's ability to toast my bread and keep my car engine running. The main reason is that Atheists need empirical evidence. They need facts, they need proofs, they need observable truths. Theism is about faith in something you are NEVER supposed to understand. Faith in something that is not observable, or tangible. And therein lies the problems between the two. Theists consider that faith virtuous; Atheists consider it intellectually dishonest.

It is off topic in my opinion. Though one could see very obvious parallels between my OP and the Christian belief of damnation because of inherent sin, and the "free will" to come to God, those parallels do not interest me. But maybe I should add that the omniscient entity is your omnipotent creator that will judge you one day. This being knew your fate all along. I don't understand how you can have free will if this being knew since the beginning of time that you would be damned or saved or stuck in the middle or whatever. If free will simply means being able to choose a set of options, but can easily be predicted by computer models, then how does that fit as free will at all? That seems to be like AI to me.

Holy Crap. How long has THAT been a law??? Edit: Ah. 1954. Wow. Thanks for that link.

Most pundits are more intelligent than the average voter. That's a biased pool, I think. And I do doubt Palin's intelligence. Or at least she doesn't contain the type of intellect that I respect.

That's taking that implied clause a bit too far. Churches are free to do whatever they please, so long as it's legal. They're simply being hypocritical.

Yes. Only one. His name was Thomas. He mainly believed in their theory of fiscal conservativeness and balanced budgets. Though I personally believe credit is the lifeblood of a national budget (credit within reasonable limits), he laid out well-spoken arguments for completely balance budgets. I respected him. The rest told me I shouldn't associate with 'damn liberals'. And I live in Kentucky. I'm pretty much stopped by one Rand Paul activist a day at the drugstore where I work. They're generally older people. And they are homophobic because they are Southern Baptists, and they believe being gay is a choice and you're wanting to defy God with that choice. And they are semi-racist because that is how they were raised. Even my own grandmother supports Rand Paul. And yes, she thinks it's a mortal sin to be gay, and has no respect for black people. I think I have more of a right to pass qualitative judgments based on experiences on the TEA Party than any other person on this site. I'm a moderate living in a rural area where Obama is practically synonymous with Satan. I agree. A lot of TEA party people do not understand what they want. They are simply angry. And yes, it's appalling that churches do that. Jesus spoke of not meddling with politics because it corrupts.

I tend to agree with that, Pangloss. I see a lot of that where I live. The Tea Party group is quite horrid in my opinion. And most of them have the intelligence of a doormat. Of course it's fallacious to generalize, but... I've only met one intelligent Tea Party-er. Go to a Southern Baptist church sometime during revival.

Ah. I see. A more accurate free will definition is needed. I'm more asking, if an omniscient entity knows what decision I will make, can any blame be placed on me for making that decision, seeing as how it was made in this entity's mind long before I was ever forced to choose and make a decision. Of course I will always have a choice. But are the consequences mine to bear? Or was I damned or blessed from the start? I see Free Will as what allows you to break out of your predictable pattern of results. Is this not the mainstream definition?