Good and Evil

[dahrling]

Right, but how would that change come about? For example, in the case of WWII and the Holocaust - death was seen as an acceptable "solution" for Jews. As a result, millions died. Of course, using our conscience we know this is wrong. It doesn't have to be explained. You just have to realize that there is no real logic behind it. It was just hate. I don't think there is ever truly any logic behind killing, except in the case of self-defense. But otherwise I personally cannot see any other time death can be considered to be fair or good. 



May I offer some examples? When the Catholic church tortured heretics. When Muslims stone people for "sinning". When Jews used to stone them for the same reason. When the people overthrew the French government during the French revolution and killed the nobility. They all thought they were doing the right thing. But they weren't. Why? I think it always comes down to violence. And what is violence?

"Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as "the intentional use of physical force or , threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation" 


I believe all evil roots from violence and ignorance. With education I believe we can, for the most part, eradicate it. Of course, there are always those who are gravely mentally ill and who need medical help to overcome their desire for violence. But for most of the population, all it takes is education. We have evidence of this. Countries that invest heavily in education, and that tend to be secular, are the ones with the highest human development levels. The least violence. The longest and happiness lives. 





I agree, which is why I stopped believing in god. I could not believe in a god who claims to be good but who is violent. If he is love, and if he is good, than how can he hate? How can he be violent? It is just complete antagony.


If you are very sick you may not understand what you're doing (same thing if you're far too ignorant). Today we still have "honor killings" in Muslim countries. They believe they're doing the right thing. But we know they're not because their god doesn't exist. They have faith in him, even though it isn't logical. And in many Christian countries we have other types of violence. But the most secular countries tend to be where violence is lowest. But how can we convince people there is no god? We can't. Just like we can't convince them unicorns don't live on the moon. How do we know they don't? Because we know unicorns are manmade myths. There is no religion based on unicorns. There could have been. Anyone can make something up and tell it as though it is true.  When people realize their religion is based on mythology with no real logic behind it, then they will finally wake up. Because religion is based on faith. And faith is a belief held with no proof. We may not yet be able to completely disprove their beliefs, but we might be able to shake up the foundations of their creed so that they can analyze what they hold sacred and reach their own conclusions using their conscience.

The list of issues with the above would be too long to highlight here. The W.H.O.'s definition of violence is far too anthropocentric, and seems to exclude the near-genocidal violence homo sapiens has committed and is continuing to commit against other life forms (otherwise known as "defaunation"). Religious societies do not make claims that lack evidence. Rather, their criteria for what constitutes valid evidence are different from that of a laboratory. Very well, but who decides which evidence is valid? In the case of a religion, it is religious specialists. In the case of science, scientific specialists. In the case of politics, the politicians, etc, etc. If someone close to me professes their love for me, it is I who has the right to decide. It would seem there is no final arbiter of truth. That is, everything depends on which kind of evidence one accepts, i.e. which group and subgroup of specialists we revere. In itself, the fact that wealthy countries tend to be the most secular on average will not make me any wealthier automatically. The same applies to violence: the fact that, along with everything else, wealthy secular countries outsource violence to Third World regions of the globe that, incidentally, happen to be religious, says more about global injustice than the merits (or demerits) of religion in relatiob to violence, although your inclusion of secular political religion in the category of religiously-motivated violence is welcome.

So if someone professes their love for you, but hurt you, e.g parents who correct their children by using some type of violence, whose is the  right to judge whether or not this is love? Can a parent hurt their child on the basis that child may not see them as being abusive? Every person who has been physiologically abused believes that their abuser holds their best interest at heart at the time. Otherwise they could simply walk away. But they can't. 

It isn't a question of making you or I wealthier, it isn't about wealth. India is wealthier than most countries in the world. But Denmark, a much smaller country, has a better quality of living. Why? Their secular set of beliefs allow them to. The Indians still believe in things like castes. The Danish don't. They are mostly secular. You can say that wealthy countries wage war on poorer regions of the world, but that isn't exclusive to them in anyway. Look at ISIS. They're waging war against those same wealthy countries, but not for their wealth, but for their power and their world view.