Why the Focus on Religious-Based Evil Only?

Tell us a little about yourself.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12408
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Why the Focus on Religious-Based Evil Only?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

TimeSeeker wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:33 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:25 am When people arrive at consensus, say by a show of hand or voting papers, they do it because they share the same belief in that specific issue.
You are a great politician indeed. You still haven't SHOWED ME how to CHOOSE between classical and constructive logic.
I thought I have already explained that.
Note the example ....,
when in tiger country and you hear the sound of the broken twig, it is either it is a tiger or there is no tiger, thus no excluded middle. If you ruminate and toy with the idea of maybe or maybe not, you are sure to be lunch to a tiger in one of those excluded-middle sessions.
I did go into details in that post.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 6:22 am When one is acting in self-defense one do not have a conscious awareness of the act as violent.
Having acted in self-defence and having CONSCIOUSLY TRAINED TO BE SKILLED AT VIOLENCE. You don't know what you are talking about.

EFFECTIVE self-deffence requires conscious and WILLING AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE. The sooner you neutralize the threat - the less likely YOU are to sustain any injuries.
It is very unfortunate if your trainers used the concept of violence and that could be exploited the violent prone.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 6:22 am What is the moral/ethic element in mathematics where 1 +1 = 2 or in geometry where all triangles must have three sides, and the likes.
Because that is the mathematics you have CHOSEN!

How did you CHOOSE the mathematics where 1+1 = 2. Why didn't you CHOOSE the mathematics where 1+1 = 10 ?
You are deflecting.
There are no ethical consideration within a 1 + 1 = 2 F&S or a binary F&S, etc.

To choose either would be outside the scope of the specific F&S which may not involve ethical elements at all.

There is only an ethical elements when there are consequences that effect the human individual[s] or group.
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Why the Focus on Religious-Based Evil Only?

Post by TimeSeeker »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:53 am
TimeSeeker wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:33 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:25 am When people arrive at consensus, say by a show of hand or voting papers, they do it because they share the same belief in that specific issue.
You are a great politician indeed. You still haven't SHOWED ME how to CHOOSE between classical and constructive logic.
I thought I have already explained that.
Note the example ....,
when in tiger country and you hear the sound of the broken twig, it is either it is a tiger or there is no tiger, thus no excluded middle. If you ruminate and toy with the idea of maybe or maybe not, you are sure to be lunch to a tiger in one of those excluded-middle sessions.
I did go into details in that post.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 6:22 am When one is acting in self-defense one do not have a conscious awareness of the act as violent.
Having acted in self-defence and having CONSCIOUSLY TRAINED TO BE SKILLED AT VIOLENCE. You don't know what you are talking about.

EFFECTIVE self-deffence requires conscious and WILLING AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE. The sooner you neutralize the threat - the less likely YOU are to sustain any injuries.
It is very unfortunate if your trainers used the concept of violence and that could be exploited the violent prone.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 6:22 am What is the moral/ethic element in mathematics where 1 +1 = 2 or in geometry where all triangles must have three sides, and the likes.
Because that is the mathematics you have CHOSEN!

How did you CHOOSE the mathematics where 1+1 = 2. Why didn't you CHOOSE the mathematics where 1+1 = 10 ?
You are deflecting.
There are no ethical consideration within a 1 + 1 = 2 F&S or a binary F&S, etc.

To choose either would be outside the scope of the specific F&S which may not involve ethical elements at all.

There is only an ethical elements when there are consequences that effect the human individual[s] or group.
No I am not deflecting you stupid fuck.

THAT IS THE FUCKING EPISTEMIC PROBLEM YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO SOLVE

You have TWO SYSTEMS.

A: 1+1 = 10
B: 1 + 1 = 2

They are both COHERENT. SOUND. INTERNALLY CONSISTENT! They both produce EXACTLY THE SAME CONSEQUENCES.
Any difference is merely symbolic! Language!

What PROCEDURE did you USE to CHOOSE: A or B ?

CHOICE IS AN EPISTEMIC PROBLEM
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12408
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Why the Focus on Religious-Based Evil Only?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

You are fucking straw-men, yourself and often lost.

Note you made this point,
TimeSeeker wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:34 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 6:22 am Most of the elements therein are based one empirical evidence of real actions as observed except the ones on doctrines and ethics.
Which is ironically, the only thing that actually matters in the end. Because without ethics you have no way of CHOOSING FRAMEWORKS ;)
I have defended above but you have not stuck to the same point.
The choice of choosing 1+1=2 or 1+1=10 basically has nothing to do with ethics.
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Why the Focus on Religious-Based Evil Only?

Post by TimeSeeker »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 20, 2018 5:41 am I have defended above but you have not stuck to the same point.
No you haven't.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 20, 2018 5:41 am The choice of choosing 1+1=2 or 1+1=10 basically has nothing to do with ethics.
Whether it has or doesn't have anything to do with ethics is something we can still debate further.

For now I will settle on you making a CHOICE between 1+1=2 or 1+1=10 and telling me HOW you did it.

You haven't yet explained the PROCEDURE. So you are stalling/avoiding the EPISTEMIC ISSUE OF CHOICE

:)
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12408
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Why the Focus on Religious-Based Evil Only?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

TimeSeeker wrote: Sat Oct 20, 2018 7:24 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 20, 2018 5:41 am I have defended above but you have not stuck to the same point.
No you haven't.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 20, 2018 5:41 am The choice of choosing 1+1=2 or 1+1=10 basically has nothing to do with ethics.
Whether it has or doesn't have anything to do with ethics is something we can still debate further.

For now I will settle on you making a CHOICE between 1+1=2 or 1+1=10 and telling me HOW you did it.

You haven't yet explained the PROCEDURE. So you are stalling/avoiding the EPISTEMIC ISSUE OF CHOICE

:)
You are deflecting from the issue, I am not interested in your deflected issue.
Why should I bother to change the topic away from the question of ethics?
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Why the Focus on Religious-Based Evil Only?

Post by TimeSeeker »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 20, 2018 8:30 am You are deflecting from the issue, I am not interested in your deflected issue.
Stop deflecting with unfounded accusations of deflection and answer the damn question.

1+1 = 2 OR 1+1 = 10 ?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 20, 2018 8:30 am Why should I bother to change the topic away from the question of ethics?
Because these are YOUR WORDS
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 20, 2018 5:41 am The choice of choosing 1+1=2 or 1+1=10 basically has nothing to do with ethics.
Suddenly you want to talk about ethics?!? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

STOP DEFLECTING FROM ANSWERING THE EPISTEMIC QUESTION OF CHOICE.

Philosophers suffer from eternal commitment-phobia :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
If 'dogma' is bad then philosophy this is the other extreme and is no better!
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12408
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Why the Focus on Religious-Based Evil Only?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

TimeSeeker wrote: Sat Oct 20, 2018 8:33 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 20, 2018 8:30 am You are deflecting from the issue, I am not interested in your deflected issue.
Stop deflecting with unfounded accusations of deflection and answer the damn question.

1+1 = 2 OR 1+1 = 10 ?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 20, 2018 8:30 am Why should I bother to change the topic away from the question of ethics?
Because these are YOUR WORDS
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 20, 2018 5:41 am The choice of choosing 1+1=2 or 1+1=10 basically has nothing to do with ethics.
Suddenly you want to talk about ethics?!? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

STOP DEFLECTING FROM ANSWERING THE EPISTEMIC QUESTION OF CHOICE.

Philosophers suffer from eternal commitment-phobia :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
If 'dogma' is bad then philosophy this is the other extreme and is no better!
d
I did not expect you to be so dumb.
Note you were the one who raised the question of ethics and I responded accordingly.
TimeSeeker wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:34 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 6:22 am Most of the elements therein are based one empirical evidence of real actions as observed except the ones on doctrines and ethics.
Which is ironically, the only thing that actually matters in the end. Because without ethics you have no way of CHOOSING FRAMEWORKS ;)
Read again, you were one one who raise the the question of ethics in relation to choosing framework!

Now you are deflecting and switching away from your own point.
This is crazy.
Note you have done such deflections many times.
You got AHDD beside psychopathy?

Btw, I started this thread as such it is up to me to decide whether you have deviated from topic or not.
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Why the Focus on Religious-Based Evil Only?

Post by TimeSeeker »

OK well, seems you have made your bed. Now sleep in it. I will not interact further with you until you answer the questions.

A. 1+1 = 10
B. 1+1 = 2

Question 1: A or B?
Question 2: Why?
User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 655
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Why the Focus on Religious-Based Evil Only?

Post by QuantumT »

There is only one type of evil: The lack of empathy.

There is however many things this lack can emerge from, the most common are:

- A twisted psyche (being a sociopath).
- A thirst for revenge.
- Religious/political indoctrination.

The latter is the most rare.
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Why the Focus on Religious-Based Evil Only?

Post by TimeSeeker »

QuantumT wrote: Sat Oct 20, 2018 11:23 pm There is only one type of evil: The lack of empathy.

There is however many things this lack can emerge from, the most common are:

- A twisted psyche (being a sociopath).
- A thirst for revenge.
- Religious/political indoctrination.

The latter is the most rare.
There is a book by Paul Bloom called "Against empathy". It makes a rational case against it. I buy the argument.
For a 2 minute video see here: https://youtu.be/S1zZ_eKSAAI

The TL;DR is that empathy works at small social scale: communities where everybody knows everybody. It was an evolutionary advantage. Until society grew too large - now empathy is just not good enough. The moment you start exceeding Dunbar's number the human ming begins to form 'ingroups' and 'outgroups'. It is the us-and-them mentality.

And so to say that 'lack of empathy' is evil is to claim that if we just 'increased empathy' somehow then evil will go away. Yeah?

How do we increase empathy ? :)
Davyboi
Posts: 201
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2018 6:56 pm

Re: Why the Focus on Religious-Based Evil Only?

Post by Davyboi »

If you don't mind me asking, but doesn't all religions have that common elements? Each religion has there fanatics, that focuses on those that are a threat? Religion and humans are a bad combination! Most wars have been fought over religion.. and over the years so many people have died.. needlessly?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12408
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Why the Focus on Religious-Based Evil Only?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Davyboi wrote: Fri Nov 30, 2018 3:49 am If you don't mind me asking, but doesn't all religions have that common elements? Each religion has there fanatics, that focuses on those that are a threat? Religion and humans are a bad combination! Most wars have been fought over religion.. and over the years so many people have died.. needlessly?
Ninian Smart wrote a very thick book in his comparison of the world religions and presented the common elements with are the 7 Dimensions of Religion.
http://danbhai.com/wr/l01.htm

One will note therein, theism is not a common element because there are many religions that are non-theistic, e.g. Buddhism, Jainism, etc.

"Each religion has its own fanatics .." is not an effective focus as the critical elements are conflated.

The facts are these;
  • 1. DNA/RNA wise ALL human beings has the potential to commit evil acts.
    1A. Approx 20% [conservatively] of all humans are born with an active evil tendency.

    2. Those in 1A are triggered, induced and catalyzed by evil elements to commit terrible evils and violent acts which can be secular or religious.

    3. The ONLY religion with a heavy load of evil elements within its holy texts that directly inspire its believers to commit terrible evil acts is Islam. [Judaism and Christianity has evil elements within their holy texts but they do not inspire believers directly to commit terrible evil acts.
From 1 above, it is obvious 20% of believers in all religions will have evil tendencies whom will be triggered to commit evil from secular or religious doctrines.
Therefore if a Christian or Buddhist commit terrible evil, one must ask whether the believer is directly inspired or induced by his religious doctrines and commands.

If a Christian or Buddhist raped or murdered another person, we cannot blame their religion because there are no such commands within their religious texts or doctrines that exhort them to do it.
Therefore the Christian or Buddhist who raped or murdered another must be triggered by his own inherent nature and we cannot blame the respective religion.
This is what happened with Buddhists in Myanmar and Sri Lanka who rioted and murdered but we cannot blame Buddhism or their being Buddhists. Rather they committed those crimes as evil prone human-beings triggered by tribalism or other secular reasons.

On the other hand, when Islamists raped and murdered innocent people, these inherently evil prone Muslims are compelled and inspired by their religious doctrines and God to rape and murder innocent non-believers. [proofs given in various threads and posts].

In this case we should blame the religion itself as the primary cause that trigger their evil prone believers to commit terrible evil and violent acts against in particular non-believers deemed as threat to the religion.

Note this from the Islamic terrorists who relied on their holy texts with this;
2."What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred,
this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list.

"The fact is,
even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to HATE you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-new ... ns-8533563
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Why the Focus on Religious-Based Evil Only?

Post by -1- »

2."What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list.

"The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to HATE you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-new ... ns-8533563
So... embrace Islam. World peace achieved.

You don't have to become a Muslim... or a believer in the words of the Koran. You are only asked to embrace it. That shouldn't be too hard.

Heck, I embrace my wife, and that's no little feat.

But you, veritas, forgot to read an important part of your document quote: (quote) Quote:"The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands,"

This is steep. You are asking us to have pity for you, when you bomb others, imporison them, torture them... fuck man, go fuck yourself, don't ask for pity if you do those horrible things to others. And you have no right to talk about cruel this and evil that, when you do those things with a straight face as if they were the most natural things to do in the world. Pfuy, pig. Fuck you.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12408
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Why the Focus on Religious-Based Evil Only?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

-1- wrote: Sat Dec 01, 2018 8:56 pm
2."What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list.

"The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to HATE you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-new ... ns-8533563
So... embrace Islam. World peace achieved.

You don't have to become a Muslim... or a believer in the words of the Koran. You are only asked to embrace it. That shouldn't be too hard.

Heck, I embrace my wife, and that's no little feat.

But you, veritas, forgot to read an important part of your document quote: (quote) Quote:"The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands,"

This is steep. You are asking us to have pity for you, when you bomb others, imporison them, torture them... fuck man, go fuck yourself, don't ask for pity if you do those horrible things to others. And you have no right to talk about cruel this and evil that, when you do those things with a straight face as if they were the most natural things to do in the world. Pfuy, pig. Fuck you.
There are two or more meanings to 'embrace', i.e.
  • 1.hold (someone) closely in one's arms, especially as a sign of affection.

    2. accept (a belief, theory, or change) willingly and enthusiastically.
Regardless of some ambiguity, the principle of Islam within the Quran is basically convert or die with temporary provision for Christians and Jews [people of the Book] who must be submissive and pay protection tax.

The Quran dictates that all human beings are born Muslims [bloody arrogance] and thus must revert and confirm to be a Muslim as soon as possible. Thus not reverting and embracing Islam is a state of disobedience and insult to Islam if a person remains a non-Muslim.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Why the Focus on Religious-Based Evil Only?

Post by -1- »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Dec 03, 2018 7:10 am
-1- wrote: Sat Dec 01, 2018 8:56 pm
2."What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list.

"The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to HATE you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-new ... ns-8533563
So... embrace Islam. World peace achieved.

You don't have to become a Muslim... or a believer in the words of the Koran. You are only asked to embrace it. That shouldn't be too hard.

Heck, I embrace my wife, and that's no little feat.

But you, veritas, forgot to read an important part of your document quote: (quote) Quote:"The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands,"

This is steep. You are asking us to have pity for you, when you bomb others, imporison them, torture them... fuck man, go fuck yourself, don't ask for pity if you do those horrible things to others. And you have no right to talk about cruel this and evil that, when you do those things with a straight face as if they were the most natural things to do in the world. Pfuy, pig. Fuck you.
There are two or more meanings to 'embrace', i.e.
  • 1.hold (someone) closely in one's arms, especially as a sign of affection.

    2. accept (a belief, theory, or change) willingly and enthusiastically.
Regardless of some ambiguity, the principle of Islam within the Quran is basically convert or die with temporary provision for Christians and Jews [people of the Book] who must be submissive and pay protection tax.

The Quran dictates that all human beings are born Muslims [bloody arrogance] and thus must revert and confirm to be a Muslim as soon as possible. Thus not reverting and embracing Islam is a state of disobedience and insult to Islam if a person remains a non-Muslim.
I see. I have two choices. To be a Muslim and get the heck bombed out of my country, and have my people kidnapped, taken to a remote island to be kept there indefinitely and tortured incessantly; or else to not become a Muslim and be hated by those who are Muslims.

I'd rather be hated than be tortured, killed, maimed and bombed.

Because I bow to the bigger threat.

I am a coward. I would rather live and be hated by some remote people, than to be tortured and kept tied up in painful poses, while hungry, sleep deprived and really having to go to the washroom. Then come the water boarding before bed, where I am raped by well-hung prison guards. Hallelujah to the Lord, Hozhannah (however you spell this word) to the Heavens.
Post Reply