"Atheists Killed >140 millions" is Fallacious

[Peter 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.

K: and failing to see the humor of what I wrote.. was your humor surgically
removed or were you not born with it?

Kropotkin

Due to high standards, that's too tired a cliche and unoriginal to be humourous, so I thought I'd turn it into something real.

K: I would love to hear about your ''high standards" what exactly does that
entail?

W: Happy wife, happy life, but a pussy whipped man doesn't necessarily make her happy.

K: I am guessing you aren't married.. and how do we define a ''pussy whipped man?"
I would guess that in my many years, I haven't seen any ''pussy whipped men"..
and what does a ''pussy whipped man'' look like?

W: A case could be made that the original sin was Adam listening to Eve and trusting Eve, instead of God.

K: if there was a foundation for marriage, it would be trust..
I would put my trust in my wife, 24/7, 365 over god... for my wife
exists, god doesn't... if there is no trust between a husband and wife,
there is nothing....may as well be strangers...

W: One could even say it was "wrong" of Adam to put his faith in Eve ... and since they were the only two, wrong to put his faith in humanity rather than God ... wrong in the sense that the cost was paradise.

K: and I would put my trust in humanity, long, long before god...
to be honest, in thinking about it, is paradise really that great of a place?
if staying in paradise meant the strict obedience to god,
I would leave it.... it has no interest to me.. just as heaven has
no interest for me... heaven and Eden are to me, a nightmare to
escape from...

Kropotkin

[Walker]

That's exactly why i keep my wife pregnant, barefoot and in the kitchen. And when i take her to church i put her in a long dress. So long u can't even see her ankles. And if one of my Christian brothers looks at her, it's her fault. I don't let her vote and i don't give her equal wages. When she isn't doing dishes i may let her croquet little pot holders with crosses on em while she watches Fox news, but that's it.

That evil bitch is gonna pay for what she did.

"Merican Humor, not so long ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiKy3KdL9_A

[promethean75]

I don't think that guy's wife would find that song funny, but here's a song about that guy that she would find funny (when she divorced his dumbass).

https://youtu.be/d4xwRSpwIp4

Warning: extended Frank soloing in song.

[Age]

"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."

May be so, may be not. We will just have to wait, to see. Or, as some might say here, to be, or not to be.

you here may well be 'the instrument', and 'being played', or may be not.

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

Oh really, can you define me as a person?

Very obviously, what 'you' believe is absolutely true here, is already figured and known with certainty. Thus, who and what 'you' Truly are is very easy and very simple to know.

So, to define 'you', 'the person', is done by just saying and/or writing; the invisible thoughts and feelings/emotions within 'that body'.

And, to further on this strictly defined definition, and in relation to the once seemingly puzzle called the bible, 'per-son' refers to 'the individual one' who has grown, or arisen, 'per', through, being a 'son', a child, of 'man', humankind , or of God, the Father. The word 'son' just referring to 'child', and nothing to with 'male', and the word 'father' to do with 'adult/parent/ing', and nothing to with 'male', neither.

Children are raised through adult human beings way and right and wrong teachings, or through God's ways and teachings, which obviously can only be Right and good.

The story about "jesus christ" and being a 'son of' man, or a 'son of' God, and the 'second coming of "christ", was and is just about human beings being 'raised' in different way, and the 'second coming' is just the realization, or revelation, that all children are 'Jesus Christ' and that all adult human beings when doing only what is good and Right are 'God', in a sense.

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

People are never God. People are just the invisible thoughts and emotions within human bodies. And an individual person is just the invisible thought and emotions within one human body, or 'the soul' as some might refer to it/them. While God is the invisible (always OPEN) Mind, which is not just within all human bodies but is also able to transcend through and within all physical bodies.

Although when the invisible thoughts, and emotions, are coinciding with what 'God knows', which is nothing more than just what absolutely every one could agree with and accept, then this is when human beings, or a human being, is evolving out of the human being stage/level of evolution, and up and into the next and further stage, of (the Universe, Itself), coming-to-know thy, or Its, Self.

Therefore, 'you', the one known and identified here as "nemos" is just, and strictly, defined as those invisible thoughts and emotions, within 'that body'. Of which some of 'you', that is; some of 'those thoughts' in 'that body' are Right and Correct sometimes, and some of 'you' and thus 'those thoughts' are partly right and correct, while at other times are just plain old Wrong and Incorrect. But this is only because 'you' exist because of and solely of 'the observations and experiences' of that visibly seen physical body. Which obviously 'you', as a child/previous thoughts and thinking, and emotions, had absolutely no choice over what 'that body' observed, experienced, and went through. That is until one time, a particular 'age', when 'you', 'the person' and 'thoughts' within, have to start taking responsibility for absolutely every thing that 'that body' does and achieves, or does not or not achieve.

[Age]

Was the artist true to his vision, or a sell-out to the church?

Religion is politics - there is no place for free-thinking or anarchism.

When one takes the 'religion' word to just refer to any and all 'beliefs' or 'faith' of things, without proof, then there is obviously no 'free-thinking' in any religion. And, one religion is in 'science', itself. Where it can be clearly seen, by some people, when they have 'belief' and/or 'faith', without proof, in what others have said or written. This belief or faith even extends to some saying and claiming, 'it must be true, because it is written in 'the book', referring to some scientifically written literature or text. Exactly like what some people do with theological written literature and text.

A good example of this is how and when some people claim that the Universe began, because it is, 'In the beginning', and/or 'God created the Universe', in some books, and, 'In the beginning when the Universe began by or with a Big Bang'.

There is absolutely no 'empirical proof', let alone any 'proof' at all, that the Universe began, but there are, when this is being written, and were when this was being written, a lot of people who 'believed' and had 'faith' in 'what was written', and in those who were said to have claimed and written such things.

And, once any one has 'fallen to the trap' of 'believing' some thing is true, before actual proof is obtained, then absolutely all 'free-thinking' regarding 'this thing' has gone.

As for 'anarchism', this is what will and did work, perfectly, in creating what is about to come, in regards to your people in the days when this is being written.

Some may try to encode their vision in a politically correct form.

Which was, literally, just a 'sign of the times'.

People, back then, at just about all times, tried to change 'their views' to fit in with was, currently, believed to be true and correct. They 'tried' ever so hard to 'believe' what others 'believed', without ever really realizing that one never has to believe absolutely any thing. Which, by the way, when one actually knows some thing to be true, then even then they still do not have to 'believe' that it is, as, obviously, it just is irrefutably True, anyway.

[Age]

Was the artist true to his vision, or a sell-out to the church?

Religion is politics - there is no place for free-thinking or anarchism. Some may try to encode their vision in a politically correct form.

People come and go. Religion persists. Blame the worship gene.

We hope that this was 'in jest'.

[Age]

...Religion persists. Blame the worship gene.

It is true that people are more suitable to be classified as "man of faith" and not "man of reason",

But why are you suitable to be classified as this here "nemos"?

Why not just change your ways?

because the overwhelming majority, if not all, place their faith or conviction above reasonable arguments.

As can be very clearly seen and proved True here.

Out of curiosity, do you class "yourself" among this claimed 'overwhelming majority' here "nemos"?

However, do you know someone who currently worships Zeus and Aphrodite or Jupiter and Venus? But they also hoped to persists.

[Age]

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.

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.

Wow. This is the first time that we agree on something. I however think that the Serpent is Satan which is a separate being rather than something within humans.

Which is another reason why human beings had been 'fooled/deceived', and were 'fooling/deceiving' "themselves".

Now, will you explain, exactly, how 'satan' could be anything outside of human beings?

I know that this misconception and misinterpretation has been passed on down the centuries through generations of human beings, but when actually thought about, 'How, exactly, could what the thing, which is referred to as 'satan/devil', possibly be outside of 'the human being?'

[Immanuel Can]

... We no longer have to say anything about earthquakes, tornadoes, etc.

I didn't say anything about it either, but if it has already been said, I wanted to understand where its legs come from.

Susan Neiman.

[Age]

So what exactly should be considered natural evil?

Neiman says that's just how we talk about disasters and misfortunes. She doesn't think they're actually "evil" in a moral sense. But she believes that any theodicy has to deal with both the personal evils and the natural disasters, and that if we don't deal with both, then we haven't comprehensively dealt with the issue of "evils."

1. Here is another example of 'faith', and/or 'belief', in another, and in what they say and/or state.

2. Notice how the 'evil' word was changed here to the 'disasters' word after the 'natural' word.

3. So-called 'dealing with' just what are normal and natural events is not 'dealing with' the issues of 'evils' at all. And, to claim or propose so is beyond ridiculousness.

That's what she thinks. You can disagree, if you like, of course. And it you do, it simplfies our task by half: and the easiest answer to why evil exists becomes simply that human being exist, and they have free will to do evil. We no longer have to say anything about earthquakes, tornadoes, etc.

But only some human beings do 'evil', that being the adult ones only.

[Age]

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.

K: and failing to see the humor of what I wrote.. was your humor surgically
removed or were you not born with it?

Kropotkin

Due to high standards, that's too tired a cliche and unoriginal to be humourous, so I thought I'd turn it into something real.

Happy wife, happy life, but a pussy whipped man doesn't necessarily make her happy.

A case could be made that the original sin was Adam listening to Eve and trusting Eve, instead of God.

Greed and selfishness, "eve", is one of the root causes of the 'evil', in 'the world', in the days when this is being written, and, blaming others, "adam", is one of the main reasons why 'evil', in 'the world', still persists, and continues, in the days when this is being written.

One could even say it was "wrong" of Adam to put his faith in Eve ...

Of course it is wrong to put faith in the words, and thinking, of a human being and even "ones" 'self' over the words, and knowing, of God, Itself.

and since they were the only two, wrong to put his faith in humanity rather than God ... wrong in the sense that the cost was paradise.

Good point.

[Age]

K: and failing to see the humor of what I wrote.. was your humor surgically
removed or were you not born with it?

Kropotkin

Due to high standards, that's too tired a cliche and unoriginal to be humourous, so I thought I'd turn it into something real.

K: I would love to hear about your ''high standards" what exactly does that
entail?

W: Happy wife, happy life, but a pussy whipped man doesn't necessarily make her happy.

K: I am guessing you aren't married.. and how do we define a ''pussy whipped man?"

1. Where one thinks or believes that always keeping a wife happy could or would even lead to a happy life anyway. Unless, of course, the wife is always happy along with their partner, and children, if any, and with absolutely every thing else.

2. Where one continually says, 'yes dear...and does it.. whatever she says... and just does it or face many nights on the couch'.

I would guess that in my many years, I haven't seen any ''pussy whipped men"..
and what does a ''pussy whipped man'' look like?

In this context the 'man' word is not necessarily referring to the physical body at all but rather to the thinking and feelings within the physical body of one known as 'male gendered'.

And, what 'this man' looks like is one that continually says, 'yes dear, and does whatever is told to, by the wife or partner, and just does whatever for fear of facing the consequences from the wife, or partner.

W: A case could be made that the original sin was Adam listening to Eve and trusting Eve, instead of God.

K: if there was a foundation for marriage, it would be trust..
I would put my trust in my wife, 24/7, 365 over god... for my wife
exists, god doesn't...

What can be clearly seen here is how 'belief' when existing can completely and utterly overrun or overshadow what the actual Truth of things is, exactly.

This one is so blinded by 'belief' that it would put 'trust' in something, which could be 'dead' in the next 15 minutes.

Also, the actual 'foundation' of marriage is not trust at all. But something else.

if there is no trust between a husband and wife,
there is nothing....may as well be strangers...

Are you here suggesting that you cannot have friends, or even just know someone, if there is not trust between you and them?

Also, why, to you, if there is no trust between a husband and wife, then there is, supposedly, absolutely no thing at all?

W: One could even say it was "wrong" of Adam to put his faith in Eve ... and since they were the only two, wrong to put his faith in humanity rather than God ... wrong in the sense that the cost was paradise.

K: and I would put my trust in humanity, long, long before god...

Well one would hope, and even trust, that you would put trust in something that does exist, like humanity, long, long before you put trust in something that does not even exist.

Can we trust that you would, for sure?

to be honest, in thinking about it, is paradise really that great of a place?

Well considering that, by definition, there is no thing better than 'paradise', everything else would be worse, so it could stand to reason that 'paradise' is so-called 'that great of a place'.

if staying in paradise meant the strict obedience to god,
I would leave it....

1. How could there ever even be a strict obedience to something that does not even exist?

2. Obedience, strict or not, to the God that actually exists is what is actually Right, good, and best for every one. So, who would not want to follow and have strict obedience to this?

it has no interest to me.. just as heaven has
no interest for me... heaven and Eden are to me, a nightmare to
escape from...

Kropotkin

So, to this one, its own very distorted and twisted 'belief' has made it think and believe that living in 'Paradise' would be a 'nightmare to escape from'.

Which just goes to show, once again, how these people, back then when this was being written would say just about absolutely anything to try to back up and support their beliefs, even when their beliefs could not be more False, more Wrong, more Inaccurate, more Incorrect, and/or more stupid and absurd.

[Walker]

Age: 2 quick points.

1. Your quotes are all screwed up.
2. Relevance to the subject title is either obscured or missing, although you were led astray with comments that you couldn't let stand.