Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Mon Aug 06, 2018 12:07 pm**

Transfer from here;
viewtopic.php?p=367923#p367923

Necromancer wrote: ↑Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:54 am Theists must be good or their holy book will no longer mean anything to them. Thus, evil "Theists" are in fact hypocrite-Theists!

However, with Atheists it's different. They have no moral code. And you may wonder why they are not (Secular/Atheistic) Humanists if they are so good? You don't get it? Ooohh, I bet you do!

I define evil in terms of human acts and thoughts that are net-negative to the well-being of the individual and therefrom to humanity.

The question of whether one or a group of people is good or evil is not based on whether there is a holy book from God or not.

Whether a person or group is good or evil [in various degrees] is whether one is guided by an effective Framework and System of Morality & Ethics that guides one to act good progressively and not commit evil.

In consideration of the above one cannot generalize all-theists or all-non-theists and reach conclusion on that basis. That is bad logic and critical thinking.

Most organized theistic religions has some form of Framework and System of Morality and Ethics which is grounded to the supposedly holy texts from their God.
There are various theistic religions and each must be reviewed individually in accordance to the contents of their holy texts which is supposedly from God.

Note this thread
The Contract/Covenant With God
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24687
In this case, a believer has to enter into a contract with his God with an obligation to comply with all the command of his God within his holy texts.

The most obvious is Islam where the holy texts i.e. Quran & Ahadiths contain loads of commands that are evil laden which inspire SOME evil prone Muslims to kill and commit all sort of evil acts upon non-Muslims. The evidence for this is so glaring as supporting by the almost daily if not weekly terrible acts of Islamists who kill and main non-Muslims in the name of their God and religion.

Thus your claim that an evil theist is a hypocrite is false.
A Muslim who commit acts [generally considered as evil] like killing non-Muslims is not a hypocrite but rather a true good Muslim who obey the commands from God's holy text.

I agree the NT is do not have terrible evil laden verses like killing non-Christians but nevertheless the NT do contain verses that are negative [i.e. lesser evil] to humanity.
It is the same with Judaism.

On the other hand the religious texts of the main schools of non-theistic religions like Buddhism and Jainism do not contain any leading verses that exhort Buddhist to kill or commit any evil acts upon non-Buddhists.
So it would appear non-theists in terms of Buddhism, Jainism and the likes do not condone evil acts in any way and thus has a very good and Moral System.

As for other non-theists [atheists] we cannot generalized all of them in one group but should review their moral status in accordance to the respective groups or individuals accordingly and their resulting acts and their impact on humanity.

Another criteria that non-theistic morality is more favorable is immutability till eternity.
The Abrahamic holy texts are supposed to be immutable i.e. its commands from God cannot be changed.
Since the holy texts of all the Abrahamic religions contain evil laden verses they promote evil acts that last till eternity.

On the other hand, secular morality and ethics do not has a God that command moral issues that are immutable.
Thus secular morality and ethics has the opportunity to change and improve/evolve in time towards a fool proof Framework and System of Morality and Ethics but it is impossible for theistic moral systems to change with changing times.

Views?

Posted: **Mon Aug 06, 2018 5:34 pm**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Aug 06, 2018 12:07 pm Transfer from here;
viewtopic.php?p=367923#p367923

Necromancer wrote: ↑Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:54 am Theists must be good or their holy book will no longer mean anything to them. Thus, evil "Theists" are in fact hypocrite-Theists!

However, with Atheists it's different. They have no moral code. And you may wonder why they are not (Secular/Atheistic) Humanists if they are so good? You don't get it? Ooohh, I bet you do!
I define evil in terms of human acts and thoughts that are net-negative to the well-being of the individual and therefrom to humanity.

The question of whether one or a group of people is good or evil is not based on whether there is a holy book from God or not.

Whether a person or group is good or evil [in various degrees] is whether one is guided by an effective Framework and System of Morality & Ethics that guides one to act good progressively and not commit evil.

In consideration of the above one cannot generalize all-theists or all-non-theists and reach conclusion on that basis. That is bad logic and critical thinking.

Most organized theistic religions has some form of Framework and System of Morality and Ethics which is grounded to the supposedly holy texts from their God.
There are various theistic religions and each must be reviewed individually in accordance to the contents of their holy texts which is supposedly from God.

Note this thread
The Contract/Covenant With God
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24687
In this case, a believer has to enter into a contract with his God with an obligation to comply with all the command of his God within his holy texts.

The most obvious is Islam where the holy texts i.e. Quran & Ahadiths contain loads of commands that are evil laden which inspire SOME evil prone Muslims to kill and commit all sort of evil acts upon non-Muslims. The evidence for this is so glaring as supporting by the almost daily if not weekly terrible acts of Islamists who kill and main non-Muslims in the name of their God and religion.

Thus your claim that an evil theist is a hypocrite is false.
A Muslim who commit acts [generally considered as evil] like killing non-Muslims is not a hypocrite but rather a true good Muslim who obey the commands from God's holy text.

I agree the NT is do not have terrible evil laden verses like killing non-Christians but nevertheless the NT do contain verses that are negative [i.e. lesser evil] to humanity.
It is the same with Judaism.

On the other hand the religious texts of the main schools of non-theistic religions like Buddhism and Jainism do not contain any leading verses that exhort Buddhist to kill or commit any evil acts upon non-Buddhists.

"If you meet the buddha kill him".

So it would appear non-theists in terms of Buddhism, Jainism and the likes do not condone evil acts in any way and thus has a very good and Moral System.

As for other non-theists [atheists] we cannot generalized all of them in one group but should review their moral status in accordance to the respective groups or individuals accordingly and their resulting acts and their impact on humanity.

Another criteria that non-theistic morality is more favorable is immutability till eternity.
The Abrahamic holy texts are supposed to be immutable i.e. its commands from God cannot be changed.
Since the holy texts of all the Abrahamic religions contain evil laden verses they promote evil acts that last till eternity.

On the other hand, secular morality and ethics do not has a God that command moral issues that are immutable.
Thus secular morality and ethics has the opportunity to change and improve/evolve in time towards a fool proof Framework and System of Morality and Ethics but it is impossible for theistic moral systems to change with changing times.

Views?

"I define" automatically premises the statement under you perseptive degree of truth where everything is relative to you and hence if all truth is relative to the persceptive base you alone hold, anything you do not understand is inherently evil according to you; hence you hold the role of judge, jury and executioner over not just over these beliefs but everyone else as well.

Warfare is part of the human condition...the atheists and their savagery have proven this over the years.

If you want a further understanding of death and destruction, you may want to read the Baghavad-gita as it gives a different perspective to these faiths which does not entirely contradict them either.

Posted: **Mon Aug 06, 2018 11:04 pm**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Aug 06, 2018 12:07 pmI define evil in terms of human acts and thoughts that are net-negative to the well-being of the individual and therefrom to humanity.

The question of whether one or a group of people is good or evil is not based on whether there is a holy book from God or not.

Whether a person or group is good or evil [in various degrees] is whether one is guided by an effective Framework and System of Morality & Ethics that guides one to act good progressively and not commit evil.

In consideration of the above one cannot generalize all-theists or all-non-theists and reach conclusion on that basis. That is bad logic and critical thinking.

Most organized theistic religions has some form of Framework and System of Morality and Ethics which is grounded to the supposedly holy texts from their God.
There are various theistic religions and each must be reviewed individually in accordance to the contents of their holy texts which is supposedly from God.

[...]

In this case, a believer has to enter into a contract with his God with an obligation to comply with all the command of his God within his holy texts.

The most obvious is Islam where the holy texts i.e. Quran & Ahadiths contain loads of commands that are evil laden which inspire SOME evil prone Muslims to kill and commit all sort of evil acts upon non-Muslims. The evidence for this is so glaring as supporting by the almost daily if not weekly terrible acts of Islamists who kill and main non-Muslims in the name of their God and religion.

Thus your claim that an evil theist is a hypocrite is false.
A Muslim who commit acts [generally considered as evil] like killing non-Muslims is not a hypocrite but rather a true good Muslim who obey the commands from God's holy text.

I agree the NT is do not have terrible evil laden verses like killing non-Christians but nevertheless the NT do contain verses that are negative [i.e. lesser evil] to humanity.
It is the same with Judaism.

On the other hand the religious texts of the main schools of non-theistic religions like Buddhism and Jainism do not contain any leading verses that exhort Buddhist to kill or commit any evil acts upon non-Buddhists.
So it would appear non-theists in terms of Buddhism, Jainism and the likes do not condone evil acts in any way and thus has a very good and Moral System.

As for other non-theists [atheists] we cannot generalized all of them in one group but should review their moral status in accordance to the respective groups or individuals accordingly and their resulting acts and their impact on humanity.

Another criteria that non-theistic morality is more favorable is immutability till eternity.
The Abrahamic holy texts are supposed to be immutable i.e. its commands from God cannot be changed.
Since the holy texts of all the Abrahamic religions contain evil laden verses they promote evil acts that last till eternity.

On the other hand, secular morality and ethics do not has a God that command moral issues that are immutable.
Thus secular morality and ethics has the opportunity to change and improve/evolve in time towards a fool proof Framework and System of Morality and Ethics but it is impossible for theistic moral systems to change with changing times.

Views?

First of all, let it be said that the best (Kantian-level) ethics and morality come with the Non-Theists Humanists. I have no problem with them as long as their standards are up to the best of the Theists.

Secondly, the Theists are not "obliged" to the standards of the stone age. They must respect the loose descriptions of what evil is, also in the modern sense. So going to Heaven (or Jannah/Firdaws, etc.) is actually a trained feeling from (Kantian) non-evil ethics and morality. It's (now at least) a known fact that Kantian ethics and morality are the best. Other ethics and moralities have to comply in order to preserve appeal and authority.

That you posit Al-Qaida or ISIS as Theists when they are in fact rejected by the Muslims themselves, I find dubious and part of that facade story for how Theists possibly are "all" evil and blind.

Given how few (true) Humanists there are in the World, I think it's fair to say that Theists are leading the way in order to create the best ethics and morality for the future and in turn making it legislation when appropriate. Also so they are granted grace of the One Deity to Heaven (or Jannah/Firdaws, etc.).

Good?

Posted: **Tue Aug 07, 2018 1:53 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Aug 06, 2018 12:07 pmTheists must be good or their holy book will no longer mean anything to them. Thus, evil "Theists" are in fact hypocrite-Theists!

However, with Atheists it's different. They have no moral code. And you may wonder why they are not (Secular/Atheistic) Humanists if they are so good? You don't get it? Ooohh, I bet you do!

You sure sounds high functional.
- no idea about psychology.
- no idea how the brain really works
- grab majority of your ideas out of thin air.

Posted: **Tue Aug 07, 2018 3:33 am**

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 06, 2018 5:34 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Aug 06, 2018 12:07 pm ...
On the other hand the religious texts of the main schools of non-theistic religions like Buddhism and Jainism do not contain any leading verses that exhort Buddhist to kill or commit any evil acts upon non-Buddhists.

"If you meet the buddha kill him".
...

"I define" automatically premises the statement under you perseptive degree of truth where everything is relative to you and hence if all truth is relative to the persceptive base you alone hold, anything you do not understand is inherently evil according to you; hence you hold the role of judge, jury and executioner over not just over these beliefs but everyone else as well.

Warfare is part of the human condition...the atheists and their savagery have proven this over the years.

If you want a further understanding of death and destruction, you may want to read the Baghavad-gita as it gives a different perspective to these faiths which does not entirely contradict them either.

"If you meet the buddha kill him".
do not appear in any of the core religious texts of mainstream Buddhists.

The above in any case is not meant to be literal nor a command from the Buddha.

The above statement is about 'detachment' to anything even if it is the Buddha, e.g. where believers idolizes the founder of their religion as in Jesus and Muhammad. The consequences is the killing of those who drew cartoons of Muhammad.

I have read the Bhagavad Gita and the famous fighting scenario is metaphorical of an internal battle with one internal uncontrollable instinctual impulses.
There are some evil elements within the Gita, e.g. the caste system which I do not agree with but that is not the core of the Gita.

Posted: **Tue Aug 07, 2018 3:36 am**

HexHammer wrote: ↑Tue Aug 07, 2018 1:53 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Aug 06, 2018 12:07 pmTheists must be good or their holy book will no longer mean anything to them. Thus, evil "Theists" are in fact hypocrite-Theists!

However, with Atheists it's different. They have no moral code. And you may wonder why they are not (Secular/Atheistic) Humanists if they are so good? You don't get it? Ooohh, I bet you do!
You sure sounds high functional.
- no idea about psychology.
- no idea how the brain really works
- grab majority of your ideas out of thin air.

What you quoted is not mine.

Posted: **Tue Aug 07, 2018 3:50 am**

Necromancer wrote: ↑Mon Aug 06, 2018 11:04 pm ...

That you posit Al-Qaida or ISIS as Theists when they are in fact rejected by the Muslims themselves, I find dubious and part of that facade story for how Theists possibly are "all" evil and blind.

Note,

Theism is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of the Supreme Being or deities.
-wiki

The fact is the operators of the Islamist terrorist believe in a God therefore they are theists.
They believe in the Quran and Prophet Muhammad and therefore they are Muslims.

That the Islamic jihadists are rejected by the majority do not confirm they are not theists nor truer Muslims.
The fact [to be discussed] is the Islamic jihadists comply with more of Allah's command in the Quran than the majority of Muslims. They are therefore truer Muslims than the majority of Muslims.

Given how few (true) Humanists there are in the World, I think it's fair to say that Theists are leading the way in order to create the best ethics and morality for the future and in turn making it legislation when appropriate. Also so they are granted grace of the One Deity to Heaven (or Jannah/Firdaws, etc.).
Good?

I agree Christianity [not Islam] has a more effective system of moral than the humanists but only for the present.
Because the commands of God are fixed and immutable whatever pros they have at present are being outweighed by its cons as we move into the future.
To avoid the catastrophes humanity need to develop a flexible fool proof Framework and System of Morality and Ethics that can sustain perpetual peace.

Posted: **Tue Aug 07, 2018 9:23 am**

Disregard this post.

Posted: **Tue Aug 07, 2018 10:03 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 07, 2018 3:33 am"If you meet the buddha kill him".
do not appear in any of the core religious texts of mainstream Buddhists.

It's a figure of speech - a koan at best.

Religious text is a way to communicate with the divine. Kind of like lifes little instruction manual, since nothing in life has come with any instructions on how to live life.. in turn no instruction manual was ever created except what the mind has made up via knowledge.

Knowledge is guidance, the analytical tool used to return to divine source.

Basically, to return to your true source, you first have to die, die to the thing you think you are...but because source wants you to be, it dies so that you can be...and is why you desire source because you are no thing without it.

In essence there is no room in now here aka source for two. There is only source and the contents of source ineparably ONE

Oneness never lived or died...living and dying is in the dream of separation, a painful and desparate suffering place which always seeks for peace and security...itself...looking on the outside external to itself it can only see separation, painful as that may be. To know peace security is to know yourself to be source not separate from source. What appears outside of you has been sourced from within you only, only you can change what's outside if you don't like it, you change it by changing your inner thoughts about it.

Source can never leave itself, it never leaves, only you leave in the dream of separation when source became a character known...that which is known does not exist separate from source, there is no way out of being outside of yourself, the only way out of the pain and desperate suffering of separation is back in, the return to source. In other words, you have to die if you want to live the life you have always dreamed of. And if you do not like the dream you are dreaming for yourself, then all you have to do is change it to one you do like.

It really is that simple.

.

Posted: **Tue Aug 07, 2018 10:42 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Aug 06, 2018 12:07 pmI define evil in terms of human acts and thoughts that are net-negative to the well-being of the individual and therefrom to humanity.

The question of whether one or a group of people is good or evil is not based on whether there is a holy book from God or not.

Here's the quoted part I intended to quote, sorry for the misquote, but the answer is the still the same.

Posted: **Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:02 am**

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Aug 07, 2018 10:03 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 07, 2018 3:33 am"If you meet the buddha kill him".
do not appear in any of the core religious texts of mainstream Buddhists.
It's a figure of speech - a koan at best.

Religious text is a way to communicate with the divine. Kind of like lifes little instruction manual, since nothing in life has come with any instructions on how to live life.. in turn no instruction manual was ever created except what the mind has made up via knowledge.

Knowledge is guidance, the analytical tool used to return to divine source.

Basically, to return to your true source, you first have to die, die to the thing you think you are...but because source wants you to be, it dies so that you can be...and is why you desire source because you are no thing without it.

In essence there is no room in now here aka source for two. There is only source and the contents of source ineparably ONE

Oneness never lived or died...living and dying is in the dream of separation, a painful and desparate suffering place which always seeks for peace and security...itself...looking on the outside external to itself it can only see separation, painful as that may be. To know peace security is to know yourself to be source not separate from source. What appears outside of you has been sourced from within you only, only you can change what's outside if you don't like it, you change it by changing your inner thoughts about it.

Source can never leave itself, it never leaves, only you leave in the dream of separation when source became a character known...that which is known does not exist separate from source, there is no way out of being outside of yourself, the only way out of the pain and desperate suffering of separation is back in, the return to source. In other words, you have to die if you want to live the life you have always dreamed of. And if you do not like the dream you are dreaming for yourself, then all you have to do is change it to one you do like.

It really is that simple.

I am familiar with the idea of returning to one's true source.
The Hindus used the analogy of the water droplet [Atman] floating in the sky above mountains and its natural nature to return and merge with the ONE ocean [Brahman] of bliss.
I once believed the above but no more.

Some Buddhists believe in rebirth [not reincarnation] but the core of Buddhism view the concept of Atman and Brahman as something temporary. To insist they are permanent and eternal is illusory.

Buddhism do not view the things and things-in-themselves has permanent existence, to do so would be clinging to something thus leading to the cycle of birth and death, thus sufferings.
So just as one has to 'kill the Buddha on sight' one has to kill the idea of a permanent soul and eternal God as something permanent and eternal.

Posted: **Tue Aug 07, 2018 4:58 pm**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Aug 07, 2018 3:33 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 06, 2018 5:34 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Aug 06, 2018 12:07 pm ...
On the other hand the religious texts of the main schools of non-theistic religions like Buddhism and Jainism do not contain any leading verses that exhort Buddhist to kill or commit any evil acts upon non-Buddhists.

"If you meet the buddha kill him".
...

"I define" automatically premises the statement under you perseptive degree of truth where everything is relative to you and hence if all truth is relative to the persceptive base you alone hold, anything you do not understand is inherently evil according to you; hence you hold the role of judge, jury and executioner over not just over these beliefs but everyone else as well.

Warfare is part of the human condition...the atheists and their savagery have proven this over the years.

If you want a further understanding of death and destruction, you may want to read the Baghavad-gita as it gives a different perspective to these faiths which does not entirely contradict them either.
"If you meet the buddha kill him".
do not appear in any of the core religious texts of mainstream Buddhists.

The above in any case is not meant to be literal nor a command from the Buddha.

The above statement is about 'detachment' to anything even if it is the Buddha, e.g. where believers idolizes the founder of their religion as in Jesus and Muhammad. The consequences is the killing of those who drew cartoons of Muhammad.

I have read the Bhagavad Gita and the famous fighting scenario is metaphorical of an internal battle with one internal uncontrollable instinctual impulses.
There are some evil elements within the Gita, e.g. the caste system which I do not agree with but that is not the core of the Gita.

You claim all these texts are evil...but what is evil?

Posted: **Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:44 pm**

So just as one has to 'kill the Buddha on sight' one has to kill the idea of a permanent soul and eternal God as something permanent and eternal.

You cannot kill what you ARE you can only kill what you are not.

.

Posted: **Tue Aug 07, 2018 9:02 pm**

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:44 pm You cannot kill what you ARE you can only kill what you are not.

What are you not?

Posted: **Wed Aug 08, 2018 12:17 am**

V.A. has yet to demonstrate that evil exists. If it exists in the same sense "cold" or "dark" exist, then "evil" is the absence of something, a privation, not something that has real existence.

Philosophy Now Forum

Theistic Versus Non-Theistic Morality and Ethics.

Theistic Versus Non-Theistic Morality and Ethics.

Re: Theistic Versus Non-Theistic Morality and Ethics.

Re: Theistic Versus Non-Theistic Morality and Ethics.

Re: Theistic Versus Non-Theistic Morality and Ethics.

Re: Theistic Versus Non-Theistic Morality and Ethics.

Re: Theistic Versus Non-Theistic Morality and Ethics.

Re: Theistic Versus Non-Theistic Morality and Ethics.

Re: Theistic Versus Non-Theistic Morality and Ethics.

Re: Theistic Versus Non-Theistic Morality and Ethics.

Re: Theistic Versus Non-Theistic Morality and Ethics.

Re: Theistic Versus Non-Theistic Morality and Ethics.

Re: Theistic Versus Non-Theistic Morality and Ethics.

Re: Theistic Versus Non-Theistic Morality and Ethics.

Re: Theistic Versus Non-Theistic Morality and Ethics.

Re: Theistic Versus Non-Theistic Morality and Ethics.