Evil is not the Opposite of Good, it's the Opposite of Truth

[chr0naut]

No you have disproven nothing. Evil is the opposite of truth. there is no disputing that, period, end of story. 

Now is evil only the opposite of the truth? Probably not.

One may do evil, using truthful, but hurtful information. For instance, in the process of blackmailing or bullying someone.

I.E. one may do evil, even using truth.

This identifies that the definition of 'evil', is external and separate to the definition of 'truth'.

Traditionally, both concepts were considered to be absolutes. 'Evil' was something harmful and usually intentional. 'Truth' was totally without error in fact and was separate from perception or opinion.

Recently, American political pundits have redefined the popular conception of 'truth' to be something subjective, which is outside of the traditional and historical definition of 'truth' as an absolute. So, a redefinition of 'evil' in terms of this relativist and subjective 'truth' is further erosion of the language, allowing people of various opinions to describe all different opinions as 'evil' by their definition.

Read the novel "1984" by George Orwell to see how such redefinition of language is used by tyranny.

[chr0naut]

Curse my verbosity....

that last comment applies still though...

Arguments like this don't have proofs... this isn't geometry...

more like...

Algebra.

Check your functions.

While I appreciate your cautious approach, I much prefer that language retain its absolutes and not be diluted towards emotional meaninglessness (as Shakespeare put it, "full of sound and fury but signifying nothing").

In science and in mathematics, it takes a single disproof to eliminate a postulate, even among a sea of corroborative fact.

Even algebra has definitive specific answers.

[Maxmars]

While I appreciate your cautious approach, I much prefer that language retain its absolutes and not be diluted towards emotion-charged meaninglessness.

In science and in mathematics, it takes a single disproof to eliminate a postulate, even among a sea of corroborative fact.

Touche!

I admit my inclination towards embracing the chaos of dialogue.. slower and mercurial... but richer somehow...

worthless as that might be on a scale of utility.

[Unknownparadox]

One may do evil, using truthful, but hurtful information. For instance, in the process of blackmailing or bullying someone.

I.E. one may do evil, even using truth.

This identifies that the definition of 'evil', is external and separate to the definition of 'truth'.

Traditionally, both concepts were considered to be absolutes. 'Evil' was something harmful and usually intentional. 'Truth' was totally without error in fact and was separate from perception or opinion.

Recently, American political pundits have redefined the popular conception of 'truth' to be something subjective, which is outside of the traditional and historical definition of 'truth' as an absolute. So, a redefinition of 'evil' in terms of this relativist and subjective 'truth' is further erosion of the language, allowing people of various opinions to describe all different opinions as 'evil' by their definition.

Read the novel "1984" by George Orwell to see how such redefinition of language is used by tyranny.

All of this is is nice and all, but completely irrelevant. Evil is definitely the opposite of truth.

Like I said the first time.

Is evil only the opposite of the truth? Probably not.  

Oh and by the way, if anyone is redefining language, it's the woke. Gender one of the words which has been redefined, and is being used to teach sex to children as young as 3-4. Which seems pretty damn evil to me.

So you may be on to something there with that redefinition of language.

[andy06shake]

All of this is is nice and all, but completely irrelevant. Evil is definitely the opposite of truth.

Like I said the first time.

Is evil only the opposite of the truth? Probably not.  

Oh and by the way, if anyone is redefining language, it's the woke. Gender one of the words which has been redefined, and is being used to teach sex to children as young as 3-4. Which seems pretty damn evil to me.

So you may be on to something there with that redefinition of language.

Evil isn’t some cartoonish antonym of truth.

It's a moral concept, not a metaphysical one.

Lies can be evil, but so can cruelty, greed, and ignorance.

All of which flourish quite well among self-proclaimed truth-defenders.

[SurferSoul]

Evil is the opposite of good not truth. 

Many things have been called evil that are not evil and many things have been called good which are evil. You can’t even define one without a concept of the other. 

We have language which helps and also complicates things, we have right and wrong devoid of being either good or evil, yet being wrong is also being not true. 

There is evil as in acts of cruelty which are hard to fathom, no excuse of for the greater good can explain.  This is evil, not due to lack of empathy as the act is deliberately intended to cause a sick joy out of another’s pain. That is evil. 

There is no devil or evil force that can manipulate anyone or harm anyone or do anything whatsoever unless these are manifested consciously and meditated on over and over in the thoughts of a person. 

So be careful what food your mind consumes.

[UltraBudgie]

There is no devil or evil force that can manipulate anyone or harm anyone or do anything whatsoever unless these are manifested consciously and meditated on over and over in the thoughts of a person. 

sigh wrong pure evil is destructive to the soul regardless of consciousness or intent the only protection and salvation is grace although if you haven't experienced it i can understand why you said what you did and if you have well then you can recognize its influence and it becomes objectively true perception that most are blind too sadly although that blindness is a form of grace too as it shields those who would otherwise succumb. the fancy theology is merely an exercise to try and see if such experience can be communicated to those whose eyes have not been held open to it and as evidenced in this thread it is still futile although it remains worthwhile to try i suppose.

[Unknownparadox]

Evil isn’t some cartoonish antonym of truth.

Did someone say it was?
 

It's a moral concept, not a metaphysical one.

Yeah I kinda figured that out, when I figured out the cycle of life.
 

Lies can be evil, but so can cruelty, greed, and ignorance.

While some lies might not meant to be evil or cruel. Such as no honey that dress doesn't make you look fat. Go ahead and wear it to the high school reunion, so they all think you look fat.

I have never have had anyone say. Hi I am hear to do evil. While that may have occurred for some people. Evil is still always the opposite of truth. 
 

Now is evil only the opposite of the truth? Probably not.

Like I said the first time.⬆
 

All of which flourish quite well among self-proclaimed truth-defenders.

 Quite right you are. What you may or may not know is. Both side have their self proclaimed truthers. And none piss me off more than the one's peddling ludicrous ideas in stark and direct contradiction to the cycle of life.

[SurferSoul]

sigh wrong pure evil is destructive to the soul regardless of consciousness or intent the only protection and salvation is grace although if you haven't experienced it i can understand why you said what you did and if you have well then you can recognize its influence and it becomes objectively true perception that most are blind too sadly although that blindness is a form of grace too as it shields those who would otherwise succumb. the fancy theology is merely an exercise to try and see if such experience can be communicated to those whose eyes have not been held open to it and as evidenced in this thread it is still futile although it remains worthwhile to try i suppose.

Sorry my whole post was a bit of a shit post, this is what happens when I rush and don’t think clearly. 
The opposite of good is bad, the opposite of true is false, so the opposite of evil would be love. 

I also think you misunderstood the paragraph you quoted which is on me for not explaining properly. People can of course be harmed by evil, but that evil needs a medium to act through, namely people. Natural disasters aren’t evil, death isn’t evil, predators that need prey for their very sustenance aren’t evil.
The thing that’s evil is knowing the consequences of your actions and knowing the suffering they bring, yet doing those actions because they bring suffering, because all the negative emotions are in fact the objective. That is evil. 

Have you or anyone else had the devil or a demon suddenly appear in your life out of nowhere come up and harm you personally, make threats, bribes? You that don’t entertain evil thoughts in your minds? I don’t think so. The devil didn’t make anyone do anything against their will.

[UltraBudgie]

thank you for clarifying i understand how that goes certainly and perhaps the distinction one could make is between evil itself as i called it pure evil although there is nothing pure about it haha and the influence of evil which is in my experience very much as you describe and yes i have and threats and bribes are things that people do as you say and such images as the devil are personifications only representative of the concept of evil itself which as i said is purely destructive to the mind and soul, the tempter or accuser is a lesser personage

edit and that distinction between evil and the influence of evil which is what affects humans to do evil things or whatever we label them, that reminds me of the weird thing jesus said when he was like why do you call me good because there is none good but god which was weird because he was kind of a good egg it seems you know but if you parallel the logic its like no actions are themselves good only the influence of good and material world and humans and human actions are conduit for good maybe but not good in and of themselves that is just god who is good pure good