Why the Focus on Religious-Based Evil Only?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am often questioned as to why I am focusing on religions only in relation to evil.
I must have repeated my answer tens or > 100 times to different posters.
To avoid repetitions I am posting my reasons to the above question for those who have not read of my reasons on why I focus on religious based evil.


My definition of 'evil':
Evil is the essence of any human act or thought that is net-negative to the well being of the individual, others and humanity.

DNA/RNA wise ALL humans has the potential to commit evil and violence acts.
Unfortunately a certain percentile [conservatively 20%*] of all humans are born with an active tendency to commit evil acts ranging in various degrees.
*why? this need to be discussed further.

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, e.g. the fishbone technique.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishikawa_diagram

One person cannot address ALL the evil potential of the World from all sources.

Whilst not a Buddhist, I have adopted one of the Boddhisattva's vow re extending empathy and compassion to all living persons and things. Thus when one see so much sufferings, as a concern citizen of humanity one must strive to contribute in the most effective way possible.

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.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What I find irritating is from people who are suspicious I have some kind of hidden 'evil' agenda.

In reality these people had been subliminally brainwashed and cowered by the threat of terror by a certain religion. Thus when there is a discussion of evil related to a religion they are quick to condemn me without being aware they themselves are being screwed mentally within the subliminal impulses in their brain by some who are divinely commanded to spread terror to subdue them.

Note this relevant point;

• We [God] shall cast terror [R3B: l-ruʿ'ba] into the hearts of those [infidels] who disbelieve because they [infidels] ascribe unto God partners [ShRK: ashrakū idols and deities], for which no warrant hath been revealed.

[-1-]

ascribe unto God partners [ShRK: ashrakū idols and deities], for which no warrant hath been revealed.

What the dickens does this mean?

Ascribe unto God partners -- meaningless. In today's English. I don't speak Biblese.

For which no warrant hath been revealed -- warrant? For an arrest? or Warranty, or guarantee?

If you don't speak English, yet use English words and grammar, then don't expect people to not think of you as Evil.

[-1-]

Veritas, aren't you the one who enjoys so eloquently but with false premises bash the Islamic religions, and condemn their followers?

If yes, please say it now, and I'll endeavour to my best abilities to avoid looking at posts in this thread. I've learned over the past months that you have a special bias and prejudice against the Islam, and your uttermost hatred and condemnation of it is based on false premises. I am not curious about your skewed views on it.

Please let us know now, before you trap us into it, if you are using this thread to disseminate your Islamophobia.

[Veritas Aequitas]

ascribe unto God partners [ShRK: ashrakū idols and deities], for which no warrant hath been revealed.

What the dickens does this mean?

Ascribe unto God partners -- meaningless. In today's English. I don't speak Biblese.

For which no warrant hath been revealed -- warrant? For an arrest? or Warranty, or guarantee?

If you don't speak English, yet use English words and grammar, then don't expect people to not think of you as Evil.

Sorry, I should have put that sample statement in quotes.
That was not mine but I pick it from the Q_uran translated in old English by Pickthall.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas, aren't you the one who enjoys so eloquently but with false premises bash the Islamic religions, and condemn their followers?

If yes, please say it now, and I'll endeavour to my best abilities to avoid looking at posts in this thread. I've learned over the past months that you have a special bias and prejudice against the Islam, and your uttermost hatred and condemnation of it is based on false premises. I am not curious about your skewed views on it.

Please let us know now, before you trap us into it, if you are using this thread to disseminate your Islamophobia.

NOPE! note this OP which I had raised.

Do Not Blame Muslims!
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24842

For all the evil acts committed by some Muslims, DO NOT blame Muslims but the PRIMARY focus should be on the ideology of Islam.
.....
.....
As I had demonstrated above, whenever terrible evil acts [terror] are committed with reference to Islamic elements, we should not blame and bash Muslims or even the Muslim evil doers but we must focus our attention on Islam itself, the ideology and the religion which in a major part is inherently evil.

I disagree with the term 'Islamophobia' in the sense it is used currently which is insulting to anyone with reasonable intelligence.
It is very rational [with evidence] that the ideology of Islam [not Muslims] generates real fears & terror and is a serious threat to humanity in the future.

That is why I am a very strong critique of the ideology [not the believers].

[TimeSeeker]

How did you calculate that religion is a nett negative? What is your yardstick? What positive AND negative contributions did you take into account before reaching this conclusion?

Also, what do you have against violence? I am not opposed to it, in fact - I make it a point to be highly proficient in it. It's a tool/skill like any other.
You can use any tool/skill for good, or for for evil purposes.

But really, the question that your post begs: what is religion?

[Veritas Aequitas]

How did you calculate that religion is a nett negative? What is your yardstick? What positive AND negative contributions did you take into account before reaching this conclusion?

42. QED!

OK I will add;

The critical point here is 'negative' in the moral and well-being sense.
Net-negative applies in marginal cases.
What will be established as negative and net-negative will not be arbitrary but be computed within an effective Framework and System of Morality and Ethics comprising the appropriate objective standards.

How?
We utilize [very aggressively, not violently] the principles of continuous improvement and continuous questioning.

Also, what do you have against violence? I am not opposed to it, in fact - I make it a point to be highly proficient in it. It's a tool/skill like any other.
You can use any tool/skill for good, or for for evil purposes.

Note the general understanding of what is 'violent' i.e.

Violent:
1. using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
"a violent confrontation with riot police"
synonyms: brutal, vicious, savage, harsh, rough, aggressive, bullying, threatening, terrorizing, fierce, wild, intemperate, hot-headed, hot-tempered, bloodthirsty, ferocious, berserk, frenzied; More

2. (especially of an emotion or a destructive natural force) very strong or powerful.
"violent dislike"
synonyms: intense, extreme, strong, powerful, forceful, great, vehement, wild, frenzied, raging, riotous, rampaging, rampant, out of control, stormy, tempestuous, turbulent, tumultuous, intemperate, uncontrolled, unrestrained, uncurbed, unchecked, unbridled, unfettered, uncontrollable, unmanageable, ungovernable, inordinate, excessive, consuming, passionate, overwhelming, immoderate
"a rush of violent jealousy swept through her"

From Google Dictionary.

Given the above it is not wise on your part to insists,
"in fact - I make it a point to be highly proficient in it. It's a tool/skill like any other."
Your view imply is likely you may have psychopathic tendencies [not necessary malignant but could be].

An average wise person would reject 'violence' outright but perhaps accept violence only in the most extraordinary circumstances.

But really, the question that your post begs: what is religion?

Note Ninian Smart's definition, i.e. to qualify as what is a religion, the ideological set must conform to the following 7 dimensions;

Ninian Smart's Seven Dimensions or Religions
http://danbhai.com/wr/l01.htm

Note the above do not include theism, because religions [that satisfy the 7 dimensions] like Buddhism, Jainism, and others are non-theistic.

To the above I would add, the fundamental of the above is the drive and impulses of the existential dilemma or existential crisis, i.e. an inevitable DOOM.

[TimeSeeker]

We utilize [very aggressively, not violently] the principles of continuous improvement and continuous questioning.

What if I don't agree to these principles?

Note the general understanding of what is 'violent' i.e.

The 'general' understanding is irrelevant when two particular interlocutors are engaging. I am giving you my understanding.

Violent:
1. using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
(.....)
An average wise person would reject 'violence' outright but perhaps accept violence only in the most extraordinary circumstances.

Yes. That is precisely the definition I am using and that is a bandwagon fallacy. I would argue that the average person being unable to ENACT violence means they are subjected to more existential risk than I am. I can use the THREAT of violence to end various confrontations - attempted robberies, muggings etc. I can resort to violence as a last resort if attacked by another human or animal.

You can't. So by the evolutionary criteria which you claim to embrace being skilled at violence is a trait statistically beneficial to my survival.

I agree to never INITIATE violence, but I do NOT AGREE to be a pacifist! Any society which breeds pacifism is suicidal.

Note Ninian Smart's definition, i.e. to qualify as what is a religion, the ideological set must conform to the following 7 dimensions;

Ninian Smart's Seven Dimensions or Religions
http://danbhai.com/wr/l01.htm

Note the above do not include theism, because religions [that satisfy the 7 dimensions] like Buddhism, Jainism, and others are non-theistic.

To the above I would add, the fundamental of the above is the drive and impulses of the existential dilemma or existential crisis, i.e. an inevitable DOOM.

All of those are linguistic definitions. I am looking for something empirical. Berhaviorism...

[Veritas Aequitas]

We utilize [very aggressively, not violently] the principles of continuous improvement and continuous questioning.

What if I don't agree to these principles?

That would be none of my business!
If you commit anything against the laws of your land, then you will have to face the judge or jury. Meanwhile you will have to take the necessary steps to improve your moral quotient, moral compass and conscience.

Note the general understanding of what is 'violent' i.e.

The 'general' understanding is irrelevant when two particular interlocutors are engaging. I am giving you my understanding.

The inclination toward the general understanding is very critical to represent your average psychological state.
If not, it is likely you have and 'wearing glasses' with psychopathic tendencies [not necessary benign but could be].

Violent:
1. using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
(.....)
An average wise person would reject 'violence' outright but perhaps accept violence only in the most extraordinary circumstances.

Yes. That is precisely the definition I am using and that is a bandwagon fallacy. I would argue that the average person being unable to ENACT violence means they are subjected to more existential risk than I am. I can use the THREAT of violence to end various confrontations - attempted robberies, muggings etc. I can resort to violence as a last resort if attacked by another human or animal.

Why don't you focus on the acts of deterrence and self-defense rather than phrase them in term of violence.

You can't. So by the evolutionary criteria which you claim to embrace being skilled at violence is a trait statistically beneficial to my survival.

I agree to never INITIATE violence, but I do NOT AGREE to be a pacifist! Any society which breeds pacifism is suicidal.

Nah! why don't state "I will act in self-defense if attacked or threatened"

Note Ninian Smart's definition, i.e. to qualify as what is a religion, the ideological set must conform to the following 7 dimensions;

Ninian Smart's Seven Dimensions or Religions
http://danbhai.com/wr/l01.htm

Note the above do not include theism, because religions [that satisfy the 7 dimensions] like Buddhism, Jainism, and others are non-theistic.

To the above I would add, the fundamental of the above is the drive and impulses of the existential dilemma or existential crisis, i.e. an inevitable DOOM.

All of those are linguistic definitions. I am looking for something empirical. Berhaviorism...

Did you read the article???

Most of the elements therein are based one empirical evidence of real actions as observed except the ones on doctrines and ethics.

What Ninian Smart did was to study all elements of a set of ideology and practices which is claimed to be labelled religious within a religion. What he discovered was the 7 main dimensions that are common within all sets of ideology claimed to be 'religion' from all over the world.

[TimeSeeker]

That would be none of my business!
If you commit anything against the laws of your land, then you will have to face the judge or jury. Meanwhile you will have to take the necessary steps to improve your moral quotient, moral compass and conscience.

Still ignoring the elephant in the room. How do TWO PEOPLE come to a CONSENSUS on laws?

The inclination toward the general understanding is very critical to represent your average psychological state.
If not, it is likely you have and 'wearing glasses' with psychopathic tendencies [not necessary benign but could be].

That is an appeal to common sense. There is no rule which says that we must represent 'average' anything. Averages are statistical artefacts and so you are committing a fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_projection_fallacy

Further. You are making a value judgment. Lets say that I do have 'psychopatic tendendies'. It that a bad thing? According to whom?

Nah! why don't state "I will act in self-defense if attacked or threatened"

Because killing somebody in self-defence is still VIOLENT? Is it not?

Since you ARE appealing to 'common sense' then 'violence' and 'killing' are amoral actions. Free of value judgment!

MURDER is immoral. Assault is immoral. Intimidation is immoral. According to the law of the land...

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 CHOSING FRAMEWORKS

[Veritas Aequitas]

That would be none of my business!
If you commit anything against the laws of your land, then you will have to face the judge or jury. Meanwhile you will have to take the necessary steps to improve your moral quotient, moral compass and conscience.

Still ignoring the elephant in the room. How do TWO PEOPLE come to a CONSENSUS on laws?

That is kindergarten stuff.
Two persons can arrive at consensus voluntarily if they share the same beliefs.

The inclination toward the general understanding is very critical to represent your average psychological state.
If not, it is likely you have and 'wearing glasses' with psychopathic tendencies [not necessary benign but could be].

That is an appeal to common sense. There is no rule which says that we must represent 'average' anything. Averages are statistical artefacts and so you are committing a fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_projection_fallacy

Further. You are making a value judgment. Lets say that I do have 'psychopatic tendendies'. It that a bad thing? According to whom?

Having pyschopathic tendencies is not necessary a bad thing, it can be potentially pro-social or anti-social.
But when you have a bias to the concept of 'violence' then there is a likelyhood of committed acts that are violent and negative to your well being and that of others.

My principle is that of agreeing to self-defense as and when necessary and doing whatever it take to defend myself within moral principles.

Nah! why don't state "I will act in self-defense if attacked or threatened"

Because killing somebody in self-defence is still VIOLENT? Is it not?

Since you ARE appealing to 'common sense' then 'violence' and 'killing' are amoral actions. Free of value judgment!

MURDER is immoral. Assault is immoral. Intimidation is immoral. According to the law of the land...

Killing someone in self-defense is not violent within the general definition of 'violent' as I had listed earlier.

Nevertheless I agree 'killing another human being' is morally wrong.
Thus the solution is to prevent a situation where one has to defend oneself against another human being.

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 CHOSING FRAMEWORKS

Nah!
Ethics is not obligatory in all Frameworks and Systems [F&S]. The Scientific, Mathematics, and others are value neutral. It is more likely the F&S of a technological F&S that uses Science, mathematics that need an ethical based framework and system.

[TimeSeeker]

That is kindergarten stuff.
Two persons can arrive at consensus voluntarily if they share the same beliefs.

Two people who share the same beliefs don't need to ARRIVE AT CONSENSUS. Because they already AGREE.
Disagreement IS 'difference in opinion'.

Congratulations - you will make a GREAT politician. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dLbkrPu ... use-lights

But when you have a bias to the concept

The word 'bias' implies a norm. What is your normative authority for concepts?

Killing someone in self-defense is not violent within the general definition of 'violent' as I had listed earlier.

Well, it may not agree with your DEFINITION (linguistic artefact) but the first person EXPERIENCE of splattering somebody's brains, breaking their spine or neck or shoving a knife in their jugular (all in self-defence, mind you) is a pretty fucking violent affair.

And I should know - having been a police officer for 15 years...

So the 'general definition' is wrong

Ethics is not obligatory in all Frameworks and Systems [F&S]. The Scientific, Mathematics, and others are value neutral. It is more likely the F&S of a technological F&S that uses Science, mathematics that need an ethical based framework and system.

morality IS obligatory in all systems CONSENTED TO. And you keep ignoring that fact like you ignored it in the objective morality thread.

There is no such thing as value-neutrality! If you were value-nutral you would be DEAD!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan's_ass

[Veritas Aequitas]

That is kindergarten stuff.
Two persons can arrive at consensus voluntarily if they share the same beliefs.

Two people who share the same beliefs don't need to ARRIVE AT CONSENSUS. Because they already AGREE.
Disagreement IS 'difference in opinion'.

Congratulations - you will make a GREAT politician. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dLbkrPu ... use-lights

You are short-sighted on this.
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.

Killing someone in self-defense is not violent within the general definition of 'violent' as I had listed earlier.

Well, it may not agree with your DEFINITION (linguistic artefact) but the first person EXPERIENCE of splattering somebody's brains, breaking their spine or neck or shoving a knife in their jugular (all in self-defence, mind you) is a pretty fucking violent affair.

And I should know - having been a police officer for 15 years...

So the 'general definition' is wrong

When one is acting in self-defense one do not have a conscious awareness of the act as violent. Note Bruce Lee's 'fighting without fighting' i.e. no awareness of any violent elements. It is just a spontaneous act to ensure survival. It is the same if one is a policemen, soldier, surgeon cutting people, butcher, executioner and the likes.

On the other hand, there are people with psychopathic tendencies who feasted with glee on these tendencies by getting into jobs that legalize such acts they are conscious as violent that satiate them in some degrees.

Ethics is not obligatory in all Frameworks and Systems [F&S]. The Scientific, Mathematics, and others are value neutral. It is more likely the F&S of a technological F&S that uses Science, mathematics that need an ethical based framework and system.

morality IS obligatory in all systems CONSENTED TO. And you keep ignoring that fact like you ignored it in the objective morality thread.

There is no such thing as value-neutrality! If you were value-nutral you would be DEAD!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan's_ass

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.

[TimeSeeker]

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.

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.

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 ?