Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[R00tKiT]

I have absolutely zero obligation to respond to everything you say or anything you say. Limiting what I respond to is a mercy I grant to the rest of the forum to prevent our interactions from becoming book-length. I have a life to attend to and the more of your posts I read, the less of them I want to respond to.

I don't get the suddenly rude tone. Trying to save face? 

But if you're used to quick chit chat about the big questions, or mistakenly think that biased, superficial thoughts, while sitting comfortably in your sofa, about sweet people thinking that god loves us all, are going to have any kind of weight in these discussions, just say it.

Go. Run. You're free.

Definitions are notoriously consistent with themselves.  In my experience, when people unfamiliar with any moral system beyond their own make statements like that, they're thinking of exclusively sub optimal decision fields, inherent conflicts between a plurality of value making properties, or the simple failure of a moral agent to consistently apply that moral system in day to day life.  

We can define evil functionally, we can define it generally by it's relation to all moral systems, or we can define it specifically with reference to the contents of a given moral system.  The first two are the most instructive as concepts, though we use the third in our day to day lives.

Functionally, evil is a categorization of items based on the referents of a moral system.

Generally, we can refine and expand on Boru's definition; evil is harm done by a competent agent in circumstances with relevant attributes absent the presence of mitigating facts.    There's an incredibly high chance that this description of evil will be functionally equivalent to any description of evil, derived from any source..including a religious source.  Disagreements are generally over the contents of terms, rather than the form of the moral inference.

The third definition is not a definition of evil itself, but a description of facts that can contribute to the categorization.

What qualifies as a competent moral agent?
What are the relevant attributes of a circumstance with moral import?
What are the mitigating factors of any relevant attribute or competent moral agent?  

All fun questions, but as a practical matter - it's not necessary to know the answers to live a moral life.  Don't harm, do help.

Word salad aside, I still can't find any moral system in these lines. You're referring to it but it remains undefined. Anyway, in light of your definition of evil, absence of any harm is equivalent to absence of evil. What kind of harm, physical or psychological, did Muhammad do to his bride back then? I want precise, objective answers.

Do we have any reported complaints from Aisha herself? No. What we have instead are anonymous newbies fourteen centuries later feeling bad for her over the web.