Humans are fundamentally evil - according to Science

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes but when that primary emotion is anger a form of continual reduction or atomism exists where no solution is observed except a form of regressive negation leading to self negation.

Anger in response to an injustice is necessary but when that injustice is generalized over a group of people or a belief system it effectively is unjust under many circumstances as the groups are a labeling of people without respect to there personal identies which often transcend any one group as people are people wherever you go.

You can apply your anger to all non religious related evils and violence if you are going to be just considering it is not limited to religion alone. To localize it to religion alone is unjust.

I have already explained my position re evil in general to tens of people.

Here is the repetition.
I believe ALL evil acts and violence in the World must be addressed and resolved ASAP. I have discussed this generally.

To be effective in problem solving, one need to break down whatever the problem, in this case evil, into its smallest units and search for various patterns.

One person cannot address ALL the evil potential from all sources.
This is why the best I can do is to focus on what I am capable to contribute, i.e. religious-related evil. I have competent knowledge in Philosophy of Evil plus Philosophy of Religion. This is why I am 'localizing' my effort re evil to 'religion' and not in areas like politics, etc. which I do not have competence.

Get it?

Scientific Method = fallacy of equivocation??
Prove that.

lol...just Google the scientific method or look in multiple books and you will see multiple definitions.

Have done that before but all these are reducible to a generic model and processes.

So if scientific knowledge is a polished conjecture and all other forms of reasoning and religion are problematic because they are conjectures, who determines what is polished and what is not? You do understand the scientific method is responsible for deaths as wells right? So should scientists be attacked as well?

How can you be so blur.
Science is merely a tool which has utility to any user thus it would be dumb to blame the tool.
Effectively you should blame the user of the scientific tool who need to develop their moral quotient.

Scientific knowledge must be applied in the same sense as emotion of anger above with emphasis on the right way, i.e. morally.
And what is the scientifically accepted moral system?

Blur again.
There is no scientific moral system.
It is the users of the scientific tool who must has reasonable moral quotients to act morally and optimal to the circumstances.

What you don't realize is your expressions of non-self is driven by VERY PRIMAL impulses much deeper than the emotions which are more difficult to modulate. That is why you are lashing out at me [bigot, fuck, irrational, emotional] subliminally.

Honestly, you seem to be driven by anger, don't want to change, so why not help push you over the cliff? The most primal of all concepts and being is the point, why not get to the point and call your arguments for what they are? If you are truly rational, maintaining a balance of emotion and reason, then they should be of no problem. It is very difficult to argue against primitiveness when truth inevitably points to primes and simples.

Note I am the one who has been providing rational arguments with a balanced emotions. I don't lash out at you in retaliation.

Ask yourself why all these mental disturbances is happening to you when you are only reading words from a computer monitor?
Truth is the words has triggered your defense mechanisms.

Do you feel defensive always talking about defensiveness?

Running away with a question to a question?
I am trying to get you to reflect and understand the truth about your inner self.
Think and reflect on your own reactions.

[Eodnhoj7]

Yes but when that primary emotion is anger a form of continual reduction or atomism exists where no solution is observed except a form of regressive negation leading to self negation.

Anger in response to an injustice is necessary but when that injustice is generalized over a group of people or a belief system it effectively is unjust under many circumstances as the groups are a labeling of people without respect to there personal identies which often transcend any one group as people are people wherever you go.

You can apply your anger to all non religious related evils and violence if you are going to be just considering it is not limited to religion alone. To localize it to religion alone is unjust.

I have already explained my position re evil in general to tens of people.

Here is the repetition.
I believe ALL evil acts and violence in the World must be addressed and resolved ASAP. I have discussed this generally.

To be effective in problem solving, one need to break down whatever the problem, in this case evil, into its smallest units and search for various patterns.

One person cannot address ALL the evil potential from all sources.
This is why the best I can do is to focus on what I am capable to contribute, i.e. religious-related evil. I have competent knowledge in Philosophy of Evil plus Philosophy of Religion. This is why I am 'localizing' my effort re evil to 'religion' and not in areas like politics, etc. which I do not have competence.

Get it?

Scientific Method = fallacy of equivocation??
Prove that.

lol...just Google the scientific method or look in multiple books and you will see multiple definitions.

Have done that before but all these are reducible to a generic model and processes.

So if scientific knowledge is a polished conjecture and all other forms of reasoning and religion are problematic because they are conjectures, who determines what is polished and what is not? You do understand the scientific method is responsible for deaths as wells right? So should scientists be attacked as well?

How can you be so blur.
Science is merely a tool which has utility to any user thus it would be dumb to blame the tool.
Effectively you should blame the user of the scientific tool who need to develop their moral quotient.

Scientific knowledge must be applied in the same sense as emotion of anger above with emphasis on the right way, i.e. morally.
And what is the scientifically accepted moral system?

Blur again.
There is no scientific moral system.
It is the users of the scientific tool who must has reasonable moral quotients to act morally and optimal to the circumstances.

What you don't realize is your expressions of non-self is driven by VERY PRIMAL impulses much deeper than the emotions which are more difficult to modulate. That is why you are lashing out at me [bigot, fuck, irrational, emotional] subliminally.

Honestly, you seem to be driven by anger, don't want to change, so why not help push you over the cliff? The most primal of all concepts and being is the point, why not get to the point and call your arguments for what they are? If you are truly rational, maintaining a balance of emotion and reason, then they should be of no problem. It is very difficult to argue against primitiveness when truth inevitably points to primes and simples.

Note I am the one who has been providing rational arguments with a balanced emotions. I don't lash out at you in retaliation.

Ask yourself why all these mental disturbances is happening to you when you are only reading words from a computer monitor?
Truth is the words has triggered your defense mechanisms.

Do you feel defensive always talking about defensiveness?

Running away with a question to a question?
I am trying to get you to reflect and understand the truth about your inner self.
Think and reflect on your own reactions.

Word salad....