Evil is the most suppressed notion in the modern mind.

[TheVisionofEr]

The importance of the thought of evil is suppressed due to the insistent instinctual modern belief that human beings are good. The belief that humans are good leads to the belief that all that is objectionable in their conduct is due to situation. And that correspondingly this situation might be improved and is being improved. This is the primary difference between Catholicism and Atheistic modernity. Catholicism takes for granted that man is always to be found interlarded with unscrupulous wickedness. Thus, the human must only endure history, the trail of miseries and idiocy on the Catholic teaching.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Agreed in a way.

I define 'evil' as any potential human tendencies and acts that are net-negative to the individual[s] well being and therefrom to humanity.

DNA wise, ALL humans are "programmed" inherently with the potential to commit 'evil' acts.
Some 20% of humans are born with an active tendency to commit evil acts.

Yes, this inherent potential of evil is heavily suppressed in the modern mind and most people are ignorant of this biological and evolutionary human potential to commit evil.

In a way, Christianity is quite to the point with this fact, i.e. all humans are born sinful [with an evil potential]. But theistic Christianity is wrong in claiming God exists as real and created man and allow man to be sinful.
Christianity [including Catholicism] which is God driven is not an efficient Framework of Morality and Ethics.

Where did you get the claim that non-theists [atheist] insist all humans are good in nature in contrast to being evil?

Buddhism which is non-theistic [atheistic] recognize humans are inherently evil thus promote the idea that all should work toward compassion [good] for all.
There are approximate 488 million Buddhists around the world;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_by_country

[Skepdick]

The importance of the thought of evil is suppressed due to the insistent instinctual modern belief that human beings are good. The belief that humans are good leads to the belief that all that is objectionable in their conduct is due to situation. And that correspondingly this situation might be improved and is being improved. This is the primary difference between Catholicism and Atheistic modernity. Catholicism takes for granted that man is always to be found interlarded with unscrupulous wickedness. Thus, the human must only endure history, the trail of miseries and idiocy on the Catholic teaching.

Just as we worked our way up to more nuanced ways of thinking, you are trying to drag us back into the black-and-white world of good and evil.

Relativism is more sophisticated framework (with its own sets of pitfalls), and yet - relatively speaking - relativism is less evil than the framework of good-and-evil.

[TheVisionofEr]

Where did you get the claim that non-theists [atheist] insist all humans are good in nature in contrast to being evil?

The atheist is the secularist. Defined by the polemic with Catholicism. The secularist regards the world, inclusive of the DNA, as alterable. The overcoming of external man, the DNA, is the only thing needful to the secularist atheist. There is no "inner" man under his mythology of progress towards perfect goodness or "non-harm" (absence of the "net-negative") even though he goes on in his daily life speaking of "subjectivity."

[TheVisionofEr]

The importance of the thought of evil is suppressed due to the insistent instinctual modern belief that human beings are good. The belief that humans are good leads to the belief that all that is objectionable in their conduct is due to situation. And that correspondingly this situation might be improved and is being improved. This is the primary difference between Catholicism and Atheistic modernity. Catholicism takes for granted that man is always to be found interlarded with unscrupulous wickedness. Thus, the human must only endure history, the trail of miseries and idiocy on the Catholic teaching.

Just as we worked our way up to more nuanced ways of thinking, you are trying to drag us back into the black-and-white world of good and evil.

Relativism is more sophisticated framework (with its own sets of pitfalls), and yet - relatively speaking - relativism is less evil than the framework of good-and-evil.

First of all I was speaking empirically. Common sense speaks of harm and of benefit. The thought of supreme harm or evil is of great importance in the common sense world we all live in.

In general, speaking methodologically, the simple cases let one take their bearings. The concept or possibility of Good is utterly complex. Relativism proper is no more or less complex as a mere word. Everything comes out only in the detail.

[nothing]

The importance of the thought of evil is suppressed due to the insistent instinctual modern belief that human beings are good. The belief that humans are good leads to the belief that all that is objectionable in their conduct is due to situation. And that correspondingly this situation might be improved and is being improved. This is the primary difference between Catholicism and Atheistic modernity. Catholicism takes for granted that man is always to be found interlarded with unscrupulous wickedness. Thus, the human must only endure history, the trail of miseries and idiocy on the Catholic teaching.

Your first proposition captures the problem: belief to even know what absolute 'good' is.

What is the very first admonishment ever given to humanity by god,
according to the founding text of Judaism/Christianity/Islam?

GENESIS 2:17
ומעץ הדעת טוב ורע לא תאכל ממנו כי ביום אכלך ממנו מות תמות
And concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: do not eat from it
as eating thereof in time shall certainly cause death (over death).

It takes a believer to believe evil is good, thus satan is god, thus
all eaters of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are believers
such to ever-bring suffering and death into the world.
Satan would have no potency if not for believers
who somehow believe satan is god. Eve is in the word believe.

Now consider 'believer vs. unbeliever' and understand that
any possible satan is pinned to the side of the believers by necessity.
An 'unbeliever' includes all who believe not evil is good / satan is god.

[IvoryBlackBishop]

The importance of the thought of evil is suppressed due to the insistent instinctual modern belief that human beings are good. The belief that humans are good leads to the belief that all that is objectionable in their conduct is due to situation. And that correspondingly this situation might be improved and is being improved. This is the primary difference between Catholicism and Atheistic modernity. Catholicism takes for granted that man is always to be found interlarded with unscrupulous wickedness. Thus, the human must only endure history, the trail of miseries and idiocy on the Catholic teaching.

Just as we worked our way up to more nuanced ways of thinking, you are trying to drag us back into the black-and-white world of good and evil.

Relativism is more sophisticated framework (with its own sets of pitfalls), and yet - relatively speaking - relativism is less evil than the framework of good-and-evil.

That's a "black and white" view of "black and white" thinking.

I'm sure that, in theory and practice, there are advantages to "black and white" thinking as well as "more nuanced thinking".

Just as "relativism" (whatever that is) isn't the only "alternative" to "black and white thinking".

Nor is, from what I see, "black/white" thinking and "more nuanced" thinking solely a product of specific "ages, epochs, or eras", but things which can be observed in a myriad of contemporary and historical contexts.

[bahman]

Aren't we evil when we put pressure on our opponent? Our world is still full of evil. The tools of war however changed from sword to nuke.

[Impenitent]

evil is so suppressed you have to speel it backward

-Imp

[Walker]

evil is so suppressed you have to speel it backward

-Imp

That one's pretty good.

[Skepdick]

That's a "black and white" view of "black and white" thinking.

It's not, and if you are simply trying to frame the argument, I assure you that i can recurse deeper into the stack than you can.

Just as "relativism" (whatever that is) isn't the only "alternative" to "black and white thinking".

It really is. Black-and-white can be seen as two-valued logic e.g classical/Boolean logic.

You can have 3; and 4; and 5; N-valued logics, but for convenience sake we just call them many-valued logics.

To my knowledge there is no such thing as a singe-valued logic, so the alternative to black-and-white thinking (Boolean) is a many-valued thinking (relativism).

If you have other alternatives, I am all ears.

Nor is, from what I see, "black/white" thinking and "more nuanced" thinking solely a product of specific "ages, epochs, or eras", but things which can be observed in a myriad of contemporary and historical contexts.

Some might say the roots of black-and-white thinking can be traced as far back to Aristotle and Classical logic. The dualisms of true and false.
It is the plurality of context that which grants philosophy infinite interpretation (and job security).

What Aristotle interpreted as true, IvoryBlackBishop may have interpreted it as false, and so even in a Boolean context truth is relativized with respect to Skepdick (who is observing Aristotle and IvoryBlackBishop disagreeing). Mis-interpretation through recontextualization is Sophistry 101.

But when you think about it, there really is only one context, we call it "existence", "reality", "the universe", "being" or whatever else.

You say the sky is blue. I say it's red. We are both right within our respective languages and we go about our happy lives.

[IvoryBlackBishop]

It's not, and if you are simply trying to frame the argument, I assure you that i can recurse deeper into the stack than you can.

So what is your view on black-and-white thinking then?

Just as "relativism" (whatever that is) isn't the only "alternative" to "black and white thinking".

It really is. Black-and-white can be seen as two-valued logic e.g classical/Boolean logic.

You can have 3; and 4; and 5; N-valued logics, but for convenience sake we just call them many-valued logics.

To my knowledge there is no such thing as a singe-valued logic, so the alternative to black-and-white thinking (Boolean) is a many-valued thinking (relativism).
[/quote]
I fail to understand what you're referring to a "relativism".

As an example from legal philosophy in my understanding, the "action" of "using a knife" in a vacuum isn't "right or wrong", if someone used it for a legal purpose (e.x. cutting bread), as opposed to an illegal or immoral purpose (e.x. stabbing an innocent person), the physical "act" of using the knife might be virtually identical, but the context, intentions, etc determine whether or not it is a "crime" or immoral act.

(Something similar could be said in regards to the issue of "consent", as far as how the law defines "consent" in coutrooms, it is not reducible to a specific physical, verbal, or non-verbal act; the same actions which could be "rape", "sexual" assault, sexual harassment, etc if done to a non-consenting party, would be identical to those done by a married or dating couple with consent (e.x. "rough sex", "foreplay", consensual flirting, etc) - but again, this not prediated on a philosophy of "moral relativism", rather defining whether or not a crime was committed, simply requires contextualization.

So no, I fail to see your conflation of something being open to multiple interpretations with "relativism" of any kind.

And yes, if your view is that the issue of "black and white thinking vs nuanced thinking" is not open to multiple interpretations, but is better without question than "black and white thinking", then this proves my point.

If you have other alternatives, I am all ears.
[/quote]
Say that again without the jargon, it's terrible writing.

Nor is, from what I see, "black/white" thinking and "more nuanced" thinking solely a product of specific "ages, epochs, or eras", but things which can be observed in a myriad of contemporary and historical contexts.

Some might say the roots of black-and-white thinking can be traced as far back to Aristotle and Classical logic. The dualisms of true and false.
It is the plurality of context that which grants philosophy infinite interpretation (and job security).

What Aristotle interpreted as true, IvoryBlackBishop may have interpreted it as false, and so even in a Boolean context truth is relativized with respect to Skepdick (who is observing Aristotle and IvoryBlackBishop disagreeing). Mis-interpretation through recontextualization is Sophistry 101.

But when you think about it, there really is only one context, we call it "existence", "reality", "the universe", "being" or whatever else.

You say the sky is blue. I say it's red. We are both right within our respective languages and we go about our happy lives.
[/quote]
See above.