"Atheists Killed >140 millions" is Fallacious

[bahman]

A psychopath does not decide to be a psychopath. She or he naturally is.

Actually, that's not so. It depends on the coping mechanisms that person chooses. A person may not be able to select his inclinations, but he certainly can select his actions. So a person who has violent inclinations can channel them into the army, or law enforcement, or combat sports, or working at a farm or slaughterhouse, or any number of other aggressive occupations that are more pro-social. Or he can suppress his inclinations, if he is morally disciplined enough. It isn't at all necessary that he acts psychopathically.

It's like being an alcoholic: one can be susceptible to alcohol, but refuse to drink. That doesn't mean one will become internally different; it just means one will have found a means to redirect that vulnerability so as to compensate for it and remain socially functional.

I am talking about inclinations that exist in a psychopath person. Of course, she or he can resist it but the very existence of inclination means that evil exists.

[Immanuel Can]

A psychopath does not decide to be a psychopath. She or he naturally is.

Actually, that's not so. It depends on the coping mechanisms that person chooses. A person may not be able to select his inclinations, but he certainly can select his actions. So a person who has violent inclinations can channel them into the army, or law enforcement, or combat sports, or working at a farm or slaughterhouse, or any number of other aggressive occupations that are more pro-social. Or he can suppress his inclinations, if he is morally disciplined enough. It isn't at all necessary that he acts psychopathically.

It's like being an alcoholic: one can be susceptible to alcohol, but refuse to drink. That doesn't mean one will become internally different; it just means one will have found a means to redirect that vulnerability so as to compensate for it and remain socially functional.

I am talking about inclinations that exist in a psychopath person. Of course, she or he can resist it but the very existence of inclination means that evil exists.

So what's your question, or the gist of your comment, whichever that is?

[bahman]

Actually, that's not so. It depends on the coping mechanisms that person chooses. A person may not be able to select his inclinations, but he certainly can select his actions. So a person who has violent inclinations can channel them into the army, or law enforcement, or combat sports, or working at a farm or slaughterhouse, or any number of other aggressive occupations that are more pro-social. Or he can suppress his inclinations, if he is morally disciplined enough. It isn't at all necessary that he acts psychopathically.

It's like being an alcoholic: one can be susceptible to alcohol, but refuse to drink. That doesn't mean one will become internally different; it just means one will have found a means to redirect that vulnerability so as to compensate for it and remain socially functional.

I am talking about inclinations that exist in a psychopath person. Of course, she or he can resist it but the very existence of inclination means that evil exists.

So what's your question, or the gist of your comment, whichever that is?

I am asking how such a person could exist if God is good so his creation must be good as well.

[Immanuel Can]

I am talking about inclinations that exist in a psychopath person. Of course, she or he can resist it but the very existence of inclination means that evil exists.

So what's your question, or the gist of your comment, whichever that is?

I am asking how such a person could exist if God is good so his creation must be good as well.

Oh, that's easy. The Biblical account says God made man good. But man is also free. He has his own volition and will. And Genesis says man used that to rebel against God. That is the definition of evil, and its origin in mankind.

[bahman]

So what's your question, or the gist of your comment, whichever that is?

I am asking how such a person could exist if God is good so his creation must be good as well.

Oh, that's easy. The Biblical account says God made man good. But man is also free. He has his own volition and will. And Genesis says man used that to rebel against God. That is the definition of evil, and its origin in mankind.

Oh, that was not easy at all. God did put the man in a sinful situation where the man could sin. The temptation was there. Serpant was there... The very act of creating a sinful situation is evil. Don't you think?

[Immanuel Can]

God did put the man in a sinful situation where the man could sin.

The situation wasn't sinful. Situations themselves are morally neutral: situations just present alternatives; they don't tell you which one you have to take.

God put man in a situation of free will, not of sin. Man had neither obligation nor necessity to sin. All he had was the opportunity to choose, either to obey or to disobey the will of God, and only in regard to one single object.

It was his choice. Freedom and choice always entail no fewer than two alternatives: without at least one command he could choose to obey or disobey, man would have had no choices, no volition, no identity of his own, no will, no options. So there had to be, at the minimum, one area in which the choice was genuinely man's.

He could have chosen to obey; and because he had had the option to do otherwise, if he had obeyed, that choice would have been fully free; but he did not choose to obey. And hence, we have evil in mankind's nature today.

[bahman]

God did put the man in a sinful situation where the man could sin.

The situation wasn't sinful. Situations themselves are morally neutral: situations just present alternatives; they don't tell you which one you have to take.

God put man in a situation of free will, not of sin. Man had neither obligation nor necessity to sin. All he had was the opportunity to choose, either to obey or to disobey the will of God, and only in regard to one single object.

It was his choice. Freedom and choice always entail no fewer than two alternatives: without at least one command he could choose to obey or disobey, man would have had no choices, no volition, no identity of his own, no will, no options. So there had to be, at the minimum, one area in which the choice was genuinely man's.

He could have chosen to obey; and because he had had the option to do otherwise, if he had obeyed, that choice would have been fully free; but he did not choose to obey. And hence, we have evil in mankind's nature today.

That is not what the Bible teaches. The temptation was there. There was the Serpent who fooled Eve...

[Immanuel Can]

God did put the man in a sinful situation where the man could sin.

The situation wasn't sinful. Situations themselves are morally neutral: situations just present alternatives; they don't tell you which one you have to take.

God put man in a situation of free will, not of sin. Man had neither obligation nor necessity to sin. All he had was the opportunity to choose, either to obey or to disobey the will of God, and only in regard to one single object.

It was his choice. Freedom and choice always entail no fewer than two alternatives: without at least one command he could choose to obey or disobey, man would have had no choices, no volition, no identity of his own, no will, no options. So there had to be, at the minimum, one area in which the choice was genuinely man's.

He could have chosen to obey; and because he had had the option to do otherwise, if he had obeyed, that choice would have been fully free; but he did not choose to obey. And hence, we have evil in mankind's nature today.

That is not what the Bible teaches.

Actually, it is. The Bible says it was man's own free decision that precipitated the Fall, not the situation, and not God.

[bahman]

The situation wasn't sinful. Situations themselves are morally neutral: situations just present alternatives; they don't tell you which one you have to take.

God put man in a situation of free will, not of sin. Man had neither obligation nor necessity to sin. All he had was the opportunity to choose, either to obey or to disobey the will of God, and only in regard to one single object.

It was his choice. Freedom and choice always entail no fewer than two alternatives: without at least one command he could choose to obey or disobey, man would have had no choices, no volition, no identity of his own, no will, no options. So there had to be, at the minimum, one area in which the choice was genuinely man's.

He could have chosen to obey; and because he had had the option to do otherwise, if he had obeyed, that choice would have been fully free; but he did not choose to obey. And hence, we have evil in mankind's nature today.

That is not what the Bible teaches.

Actually, it is. The Bible says it was man's own free decision that precipitated the Fall, not the situation, and not God.

The temptation was there. There was the Serpent who fooled Eve...

[nemos]

Oh I was fascinated by your discussion of paradise.
I have a lot of confusion too. God is said to have created man in his own likeness - probably Adam, because he was the first - from this we should conclude that God is a man. Later he created Eve, for some reason from Adam's rib (lack of materials?), so that Adam would not be bored. Why exactly the woman, but not the "bottle brother", did the god foresee from the beginning that they will have to reproduce without leaving the garden of paradise, or was originally supposed to drive them out, but the apple of wisdom was only a pretext to give it some justification. After all, it's cruel to chase away a pet you've tamed. Besides, has anyone heard about the female gender in the kingdom of God - if not, why was there still Eve, but not a reliable friend? Eve was the first to give in to the temptation - was it by accident or with original intention? What if Adam turned out to be wrongly oriented and did not give in to Eve's temptation? Could it be that Eve would be expelled, but Adam would remain in the garden of paradise?

I like another fairy tale better:
In the beginning, god created humans exactly like himself, so there was neither male nor female. However, being so perfect, people remained proud and imagined that they could do without god. God was offended by this and in his anger he divided every person into two parts - male and female - and scattered the whole world, oh yes, he also mixed the languages of people, I don't remember exactly why. Since then, people wander the world in search of their soul mate, and those who succeed can regain their former perfection.

[Immanuel Can]

The temptation was there.

There's no "temptation" to a person who has no free will. So it's a good thing there was the possibility.

[bahman]

The temptation was there.

There's no "temptation" to a person who has no free will. So it's a good thing there was the possibility.

So you agree that the temptation was there? So you agree there was the Serpent who fooled Eve? That is the sinful situation that God prepared and put Adam and Eve in knowing the fact that both Adam and Eve fail and eat the fruit. He knew it since He is omniscient. Now the question is, is it ethical to create and put individuals in a sinful situation? Is it ethical to fool them using the Serpent and then punish them because they were fooled?

[Immanuel Can]

The temptation was there.

There's no "temptation" to a person who has no free will. So it's a good thing there was the possibility.

So you agree that the temptation was there?

It's a good thing the choice was possible...the temptation itself was not a good thing. No choice would mean we had no free will.

[bahman]

There's no "temptation" to a person who has no free will. So it's a good thing there was the possibility.

So you agree that the temptation was there?

It's a good thing the choice was possible...the temptation itself was not a good thing. No choice would mean we had no free will.

So temptation is not good since it can lead to evil? Doesn't it mean that God created a sinful situation?

[Immanuel Can]

So you agree that the temptation was there?

It's a good thing the choice was possible...the temptation itself was not a good thing. No choice would mean we had no free will.

So temptation is not good since it can lead to evil? Doesn't it mean that God created a sinful situation?

You're confusing the evil of making a bad choice with the good of having a choice.