"Atheists Killed >140 millions" is Fallacious

[Age]

It is quite logical if you think about it: She wouldn't eat the fruit if she was sure that she would die so the opposite is true, namely she was sure that she wouldn't die if she ate the fruit. That was what Serpent said which was a lie so she was fooled.

If one person tells you the truth, and one tells you a lie, are you fooled? That's up to you. Believe the person who's the truth-teller. Doubt the liar.

How could I know who is telling the truth and who lies!?

you obviously cannot, prior.

But, however, because "immanuel can" believes it already knows who 'the lair' and who 'the truth teller' is, before a word is even spoken, said, or written "immanuel can" then just accepts, or rejects the words, which are then expressed, by who says or writes them.

That's the right choice. But don't blame anybody but yourself if you go the other way.

So no, it's not at all the logical conclusion.

All we know is that she ate the fruit so she believed in Serpent and not God. This means that she was fooled.

Pretty basic stuff, really.

The word 'serpent' just being a symbol/representation of the 'devil', within human beings, and which deceives human beings.

And, by the way, the word 'serpent' was also used because when one really 'turns around', and 'repents', from the 'serpent', then, and only then, can things begin to really change, for the better.

[Age]

How could I know who is telling the truth and who lies!?

When God tells you something, that's something you always can -- and should-- believe.

How are other people supposed to know when it is actually God telling them something?

Obviously you cannot tell the difference, and thus do not yet know. So, when are people supposed to know when God tells them something?

To prove that you do not yet know, and that you are still delusional "immanuel can", in the days when this is being written, can be being you admitting that God has told you that It is a 'he', or is 'male gendered'.

And if you don't, then the fault only falls one side of that equation.

But look at the way 'the world' is in, in the days when this is being written, partly because a lot of you people believe that what you say and claim was told to you, by God, and that absolutely everyone else should believe what 'i' am telling 'you' because God told 'me'.

Now, how to separate what is actually True, Right, Accurate, and Correct, (or from God's view/perspective), from what is not, is an extremely simple and easy thing to do. But, first things first here, as some would say.

[Age]

How could I know who is telling the truth and who lies!?

When God tells you something, that's something you always can -- and should-- believe. And if you don't, then the fault only falls one side of that equation.

Why should I believe that God is good in the first place?

1. But there is not need to believe any thing.

2. Why you should accept that God is good, in the first place, is because by definition God cannot be anything other than so-called 'good'.

What if He was a deceiver?

Well then that 'he' would not be God, at all, and would, instead, just be what is commonly referred to here as 'the devil', instead.

God Himself says that He creates evil Isa.45:3: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. How a good God could commit evil?

1. God is not a 'he'. So, whoever told you that God is a 'he' was not necessarily meaning to 'lie', itself, but was informing you of a re-repeated misinterpretation or confused definition.

2. Creating the 'thing', which does, creates, and/or commits what is referred to as 'evil', does not necessarily mean that God, Itself, commits 'evil'.

3. God, itself, never commits 'evil', but obviously if God created every 'thing', then 'evil' would have to be included in that claim. However, when the Truth becomes known, then how and why 'evil' came to exist, and continued to exist, back in the days when this was written, will also come-to-light, and also be fully understood, agreed upon, and accepted.

[Age]

When God tells you something, that's something you always can -- and should-- believe. And if you don't, then the fault only falls one side of that equation.

Why should I believe that God is good in the first place?

Eve knew Him. She knew that every good thing she'd ever gotten came from Him. She knew He'd never done anything to her to make her think it would be otherwise. Yet she was prepared to believe a liar, and to doubt God's intentions toward her.

Are you here saying and/or suggesting that "eve" had been 'fooled'?

But basically, her real motives are given in Genesis. See here:

"When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took some of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband with her, and he ate." (Gen. 3:6)

But let's pretend not to notice all of that except the last phrase. Adam never spoke to the Deceiver. If you doubt that Eve knew what she was doing, what's Adam's excuse?

"adam" was deceived by a deceiver, just like "eve" had been deceived, by a deceiver.

Obviously, "eve" chose to do what 'she' did, just like "adam" chose to do what 'he' did.

The only real difference here is "adam", the male of the two, 'tried to' blame someone else for 'his' own chosen doing. Whereas, if I recall correctly, "eve" did not.

[Age]

Eve knew Him. She knew that every good thing she'd ever gotten came from Him. She knew He'd never done anything to her to make her think it would be otherwise. Yet she was prepared to believe a liar, and to doubt God's intentions toward her. But basically, her real motives are given in Genesis. See here:

"When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took some of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband with her, and he ate." (Gen. 3:6)

And you are ignoring what the Serpent says.

No, I'm not. The fact that somebody "says" something doesn't mean you have to believe it.

And as you are proving irrefutably True here "immanuel can", once you have been 'fooled', 'tricked', or 'deceived', as you obviously have here, then most of you will believe what has been 'said'.

Now, of course, you do not have to believe what someone 'says'

And you ignoring that God Himself said that He creates evil!

Show me that.

But let's pretend not to notice all of that except the last phrase. Adam never spoke to the Deceiver.

But "eve" had now become the 'deceiver', so "adam" spoke to the 'deceiver', or maybe more correctly "eve", the now 'deceiver', spoke to "adam".

If you doubt that Eve knew what she was doing, what's Adam's excuse?

Adam's has no excuse.

Well, then, the very best you can say is that the "oops, I was fooled" excuse might work for Eve, if you believe that; it doesn't work for Adam.

Are you here trying to suggest that "adam" that there was absolutely nothing at all in "adam" trying to tell "adam" to reject God, and to do something else?

If yes, then what you are essentially saying here is that "adam" on absolutely nothing at all just decided to reject God and go on 'his' own way. Which would place "adam" here in this story 'back' to a pre-evolved animal species before human beings came-to-exist. Which go completely against the actual story of "eve" and "adam".

So we're back where we started, aren't we?

What we see here might be another example of a "christian male" who keeps trying to blame the 'women' known as "eve" for all the Wrong in 'the world'.

Obviously, "adam" was 'fooled', 'tricked', and/or 'deceived' just as much as "eve" was, but worse though is "Adam" tried to blame something else, that being "eve", for what "adam" did.

Also, this never takes away from the Fact that those adult human beings were each 100% responsible for what each of them 'chose' to do.

Although they may not have accepted and taken 100% responsibility for what they had done.

Which is more or less exactly what you adult human beings did, back in the days when this was being written. As I have been clearly showing and proving irrefutably True throughout this forum.

[Age]

And you are ignoring what the Serpent says.

No, I'm not. The fact that somebody "says" something doesn't mean you have to believe it.

She simply was convinced that what the Serpent said was true and not a lie otherwise she wouldn't eat the fruit. Could we agree on that?

And you ignoring that God Himself said that He creates evil!

Show me that.

Isaiah 45 : 7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Adam's has no excuse.

Well, then, the very best you can say is that the "oops, I was fooled" excuse might work for Eve, if you believe that; it doesn't work for Adam. So we're back where we started, aren't we?

We are not where we started. Adam had no excuse. Eve had!

But there are NO excuses, ever, for doing Wrong. Full stop.

There are, however, reasons why, (and find the reason 'why', then the prevention can begin). Now, the reason why they both, freely', chose to do what IS Wrong is because they were both 'deceived'.

By who and/or what does not matter, because they both still had 'the ability to choose' absolutely 'freely' within them. The 'ability to choose' from what is 'Known' internally in regards to what was Right and/or good, in Life [God], or from what they both had each been 'telling' "themselves", and 'thinking' was okay or all right to do [one's own personal view or perspective].

[Age]

No, I'm not. The fact that somebody "says" something doesn't mean you have to believe it.

She simply was convinced that what the Serpent said was true and not a lie otherwise she wouldn't eat the fruit. Could we agree on that?

No, because it ignores what the Bible says was the case: namely, that she had her own reasons, as well, for what she did.

Really?

if yes, then what were 'those reasons', exactly?

What does it say in the bible, exactly, about 'her own reasons', which you speak of and talk about here?

And it matters not at all,

It was common, back in those olden days, for things to, all of a sudden, 'not matter', usually when one 'knew', came-to-realize but not necessarily consciously, that they could not back up and support 'a claim' that they had just made.

since Adam didn't have anything like that excuse.

Yet, if I recall correctly, it was only "adam" who tried to blame someone else for what "adam" had done.

Which was still a very, very common practice of the adult 'male' human being, back in the days when this was being written.

Show me that.

Isaiah 45 : 7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Oh, I see...here we're going to get into how to read words in context again.

"Evil" has at least two different connotations: one is morally evil. That's what we've been talking about. But another is practically bad, like volcanoes, tidal waves, diseases, and other mishaps.

But the latter here is not a connotation of 'evil' at all, nor ever.

Unless, of course, one is somewhat delusional.

Susan Neiman, the secular Jewish lady who is famous for studying such things, calls these "personal evil" and "natural evils." She says that a full account of theodicy requires us to deal with both -- and I think that's right. But when it comes to the Adam and Eve situation, we're not talking about "natural evils," but only "moral or personal evil." But that's a long discussion, and we can set it aside for the moment. What matters is that there is such a thing as "natural evils."

Notice how this one wants to divert away from the very Fact that what it had previously perceived to not exist does and did actually exist when "bahman" showed, exactly, where is it is written, 'I, the LORD, do all these things'.

What Isaiah is saying, then is that the Lord decides whether we get good results or bad results in our lives; he's decidedly not saying that God creates moral evil.

1. It is claimed God created every thing.

2. God then created the ones who cause and create 'evil', namely; you adult human beings.

3. Therefore, God essentially created 'evil' as well.

And, when the actual reason why 'evil' came-to-exist becomes also known by you human beings, then you will see and understand why it was perfectly acceptable, back in the good 'old days' when this was being written.

Remember, having created 'evil' to come-to-exist does not mean that the one known as God here actually does any 'evil', Itself.

Adam had no excuse. Eve had!

I don't think she did. The Bible doesn't suggest she did. It says the opposite.

No it does not. your interpretation "immanuel can", however, says and states otherwise.

Again, the 'male' being better or not as wrong as the 'female' 'confirmation bias' shines through very clearly here from the "male christian", "immanuel can".

But then, if you like, you can pretend to think women have gotten a raw deal, maybe. I don't believe that's true, but you can believe it if you wish.

But you still like to think or believe that "adam" had an 'excuse' while "eve" did not, right "immanuel can"?

But where we can agree is this: you can't say the same of men. Adam made a choice. And even if you imagine, contrary to Scripture and to the truth of the case, that she didn't, that remains true. And we are all Adam's children, too.

But they both made 'a choice', which was made on both of them having being 'deceived'. However, they still both made a 'free willed choice', against what they both 'Knew' was Wrong, or not good.

They each had 'deceived' "their" own 'selves', without ever actually seeing, noticing, nor recognizing this irrefutable Fact. And this is just because of how clever and 'devilish' the 'deceiver', or 'devil', really is.

you adult human beings, in the days when this was written, had been 'tricking', 'fooling', and 'deceiving' "your" own 'selves', without ever really seeing, recognizing, and/nor even noticing that you have been doing this, all along, (since "adam" and "eve", the first representations of human beings, came-to-exist, or evolved-into-creation).

[Age]

She simply was convinced that what the Serpent said was true and not a lie otherwise she wouldn't eat the fruit. Could we agree on that?

No, because it ignores what the Bible says was the case: namely, that she had her own reasons, as well, for what she did. And it matters not at all, since Adam didn't have anything like that excuse.

The Bible does not say anything about whether she was fooled or not. I am arguing in favor of that she was fooled. My reasoning is simple: She as an intellectual creature wouldn't eat the fruit if she believed that she would die!

A whole meaning of the serpent, with a forked tongue, 'tricking' "eve" into believing and/or following 'it', and/or 'its way', is to show, and represent, the literal lowest animal to the ground, splitting the truth, to 'fool' "eve" into doing what 'she' knew was Wrong.

The voice of the serpent, by the way, for those who have not yet come-to-realize was inside the head, and not outside of it at all. The representation of the serpent and telling lies, was to reveal the inner voices 'we' all here, from within telling us to do things, which 'we' all essentially 'Know' is Wrong. It is just a 'Knowing', which was still 'unconsciously known'.

Isaiah 45 : 7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Oh, I see...here we're going to get into how to read words in context again.

"Evil" has at least two different connotations: one is morally evil. That's what we've been talking about. But another is practically bad, like volcanoes, tidal waves, diseases, and other mishaps. Susan Neiman, the secular Jewish lady who is famous for studying such things, calls these "personal evil" and "natural evils." She says that a full account of theodicy requires us to deal with both -- and I think that's right. But when it comes to the Adam and Eve situation, we're not talking about "natural evils," but only "moral or personal evil." But that's a long discussion, and we can set it aside for the moment. What matters is that there is such a thing as "natural evils."

What Isaiah is saying, then is that the Lord decides whether we get good results or bad results in our lives; he's decidedly not saying that God creates moral evil.

How do you know that that verse refers to natural evil and not moral evil?

"immanuel can" does not actually 'know'. It just makes out it 'knows' to present as some sort of authority figure here.

Even its condescending remark of; Oh, I see...here we're going to get into how to read words in context again. is it just trying to make out that it 'knows' how to read and interpret words, correctly and properly, while you do not.

However, this is obviously not true

especially considering a fair deal of what it has said and claimed throughout this forum.
Oh, I see...here we're going to get into how to read words in context again.

Adam had no excuse. Eve had!

I don't think she did. The Bible doesn't suggest she did. It says the opposite. But then, if you like, you can pretend to think women have gotten a raw deal, maybe. I don't believe that's true, but you can believe it if you wish.

But where we can agree is this: you can't say the same of men. Adam made a choice. And even if you imagine, contrary to Scripture and to the truth of the case, that she didn't, that remains true. And we are all Adam's children, too.

How do you know that we are Adam's children?

Because the story is about "adam" and "eve" being the first, and only, two human beings. Therefore, and logically anyway, all of you other human beings would be the children/descendants of "adam", and of "eve".

Do you have any evidence from what the Bible says?

Does it not say, nor imply, in the bible that "adam" and "eve" are/were the first two human beings?

[Age]

The Bible does not say anything about whether she was fooled or not.

I quoted it. If you can't read it, I can't do much about that.

As can be, clearly seen, it clearly states that "eve" was 'fooled'. Obviously, otherwise 'she' would not have made a Wrong 'choice'.

How do you know that that verse refers to natural evil and not moral evil?

I said that: context.

Of which "immanuel can" believes, wholeheartedly, that it, alone here, is in the only one in possession of and has the true and right 'context'.

How do you know that we are Adam's children?

Who else's?

Are you not a child of God "immanuel can"?

And, is it not implied that "adam" and "eve" are a creation/child of God?

If 'they' are God's children, then 'you' are also a child of God. So that is who else you, human beings, are a child of.

[Age]

The Bible does not say anything about whether she was fooled or not.

I quoted it. If you can't read it, I can't do much about that.

I argue in favor of what I think is correct. I cannot do much about that if you cannot understand it

How do you know that that verse refers to natural evil and not moral evil?

I said that: context.

Could you please elaborate?

How do you know that we are Adam's children?

Who else's?

We are the result of evolution!

Which was created, or came-from, who and/or what, exactly?

Or, was evolution just always eternally-before, to you?

[nemos]

What if He was a deceiver?

Well then that 'he' would not be God, at all, and would, instead, just be what is commonly referred to here as 'the devil', instead.

Which again indicates that god is not a person but a position, because the characteristics of a person, unlike the duties of a position, are not strictly defined. And if someone does not fit the job description, we are free to remove them from their position and fire them, or, for example, demote them to the position of lord of hell.

[Walker]

K: as a long time married man, Adam was simply trying to do as he was told...
the best way to stay married a long time is to simply say, yes dear...and
do it.. whatever she says... just do it or face many nights on the couch...

PS, we have a very comfortable couch...

Kropotkin

Interesting. So willing to sacrifice truth for comfort. You have pinpointed corruption's cause, which is ... caving like a zombie to totalitarians. I've seen guys like that walking with their wives in public, looking both resigned and perplexed. With the Totalitarian Democrats Who Hate America in charge, we're seeing more of it these days.

[Age]

What if He was a deceiver?

Well then that 'he' would not be God, at all, and would, instead, just be what is commonly referred to here as 'the devil', instead.

Which again indicates that god is not a person but a position, because the characteristics of a person, unlike the duties of a position, are not strictly defined.

Besides "henry quirk" here in this forum is there anyone else who thinks or believes God is, or could be, a 'person'?

By the way, the characteristics of a 'person' can be strictly defined.

And if someone does not fit the job description, we are free to remove them from their position and fire them, or, for example, demote them to the position of lord of hell.

[nemos]

"HAMLET: Why, look you now, how unworthy a thing you make of me! You would play upon me, you would seem to know my stops, you would pluck out the heart of my mystery, you would sound me from my lowest note to the top of my compass, and there is much music, excellent voice, in this little organ, yet cannot you make it speak. Sblood, do you think I am easier to be played on than a pipe? Call me what instrument you will, though you can fret me, you cannot play upon me."

By the way, the characteristics of a 'person' can be strictly defined.

Oh really, can you define me as a person?
I admit that I am much simpler than a suitable candidate for a god.

[Walker]

I admit that I am much simpler than a suitable candidate for a god.

... assuming total simplicity is not God.

Oh really, can you define me as a person?

Eliot also agrees:

And I have known the eyes already, known them all—
The eyes that fix you in a formulated phrase,
And when I am formulated, sprawling on a pin,
When I am pinned and wriggling on the wall,
Then how should I begin
To spit out all the butt-ends of my days and ways?
And how should I presume?