Anath's Comments

The Antichristian Phenomenon : Did Pastor Troy Just Say Religious People are Ignorant?

Wed, 1 Feb 2012 02:59:02 +0000

"The second, you define as a mere social construct" Actually I did not define it as a social construct. I defined it as "an inner sense of male-ness and female-ness." This is as much determined by body chemistry as it is by environment. You can find this true especially in transgender people, but others as well, where despite a childhood of reinforced stereotypes, they "felt" otherwise. Sex/Gender is also fundamentally tied up in body chemistry aside from external appearance. I don't really know what you think these things could be besides a combination of body chemistry and social constructs, and I find it highly suspect to claim that other societies completely accepted and enforced sex/gender as polar opposites until our own. "everyone so far seems to thing that this "gender neutral" crap is a fundamentally good idea" As a victim of constant gender stereotyping, I do think it is a good idea. However, the parents here did not actually do much that was "gender neutral", they seemed too insistent on girl-stereotyped things rather than true freedom of choice. I also do not think there is a good way to apply gender neutral in reality. Its a theory that works better on paper. "they are just a bit confused as to the application of a basically good idea." I sort of kind of maybe agreed, but then I thought a bit more and realized that I do not think that religious ideas tend to be good. I've read the Bible, and to follow it literally or even as guidelines without ignoring the vast majority of it is a really bad idea. However, I agree with Vampy above that usually the problem does not lie with the individuals, and I do believe that they believe they are doing good things and supporting good causes, and therein lies the confusion.

The Antichristian Phenomenon : Did Pastor Troy Just Say Religious People are Ignorant?

Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:43:17 +0000

I agree the people in the article are a bit confused as to gender-neutral. No combat pants? really? Those sort of clothing requirements really pissed me off growing up, and there's no reason for these people to set clothing requirements especially if they want to be "neutral"...

The Antichristian Phenomenon : Did Pastor Troy Just Say Religious People are Ignorant?

Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:41:47 +0000

I'm sure Lea will have a lot more to say here than I do, but I'd like to address your gender point: "So, what's interesting about "gender neutral" ? Gender is one of the most objective, rock solid issues. There is no in-between here- either boy or girl. True self-interest ? There is nothing more in one's self-interest than to develop according to his own nature, and to cultivate those in-born abilities specific to him. I don't think that it is in the nature of a boy who one day will become a mature man, to be and act like some sort of hermaphrodite fairy. There is nothing "relative" here. It is crystal clear. However, modern society has truly lost even its most basic direction when it cannot even tell black from white." What you're missing is that gender and sex are different and neither is totally black and white. Sex: which chromosomes you receive from your parents, either XX or XY, but with room for grey area as some people are XXX and XXY. There are natural hermaphrodites. Sex: which genitals you possess, either penis/testes or vagina/ovaries; but there is still room for error as there are numerous instances of males with uterus/ovaries and ambiguous genitalia where the parents typically decide shortly after birth which gender they'd "like" and this is typically supplemented at puberty with hormones. These instances can be due to developmental or transcription issues and may occur in XX/XY but are also defining of XXX/XXY/etc. Gender: typically refers to "gender identity" which is defined as your inner sense of male-ness and female-ness. While this is typically most important when discussing transgender cases, it does come into play with non-transgender people. There are lots of people in the world that do not feel comfortable with the gender identity thrust on them by society; boys that don't like trucks and girls that don't like princesses. Rather than make these otherwise "normal" people feel more alienated by demanding they follow societal standards (which are relative by nature) or follow their "nature" (as perceived by YOU, not the person), doesn't it make more sense to open up the definition of what is acceptable within the genders?

The Antichristian Phenomenon : Jesus is a cunt

Sun, 22 Jan 2012 17:21:47 +0000

Yeah I don't even know how to respond to these... I can't figure out if it's a troll either.

The Antichristian Phenomenon : No, son, there's no bogeyman in the closet, just an atheist

Thu, 15 Dec 2011 20:05:21 +0000

Actually there's a lot more wrong with the article you linked than simply latching onto a term. Here's my rebuttal: "Three successive theories of evolution? Oh if only they had taught me the truth during my Evilutionist brainwashing! There have been a lot more varieties than three, and none of them “die out”, but contribute to the theory in different ways as aspects of them are proven to be true or false. That is to say, remnants of what the authors list as “Variation Theory” are still there in the form of natural selection. Remnants of what the authors list as “Mutation Theory” are still there because mutation is the mechanism of natural selection. The article misses Dawkins’ contributions to the field that contrast with Gould as well. Punctuated equilibrium has been historically opposed by Gradualism (Selfish Gene), though that story is much more complicated and less antagonistic than it appears. Also, I don’t know what Gould the author has been reading but those “fundamental assumptions of Darwin”: evolution is progressive, species competing are still part of Gould, and the only change in the “constant rate” is to allow for the uneven realities of nature discovered in the century after Darwin. And this list fails to mention Lamarck for historical claims, or Gradualism and Evo-Devo for current claims (among others!), so how can we expect it to be accurate if it doesn’t even attempt to be semi-comprehensive? One can’t start with a disturbingly incomplete and error filled premise and hope to reach a reasonable conclusion, but let’s pretend that we can make a valid step from the glaringly incorrect three-successive-theories claim. First, I would love to hear a paleontologist in real life claim that their findings or predictions look anything like Creationism. They have their own timeline of evolutionary history compared to Genesis, and none of it correlates--especially no flood. Even the various extinction events do not line up with a flood. If we can’t rationalize the most fundamental Genesis claim, then there is no grounds to claim that they are even close to agreement. I am not familiar the findings of Dorit et al., but these findings have most certainly been outdated by more recent studies (post 2001). Current research does claim that there was a Y-Chromosomal Adam, but the date has been calculated to about 60,000 years, and includes variation within the Y chromosome called “Y haplogroups” which are distributed regionally and in agreement with the “Out of Africa” theory of human migration. Response to endnote 5: “human creation somewhat before BC 4100” Sure, if before BC 4100 they mean at least 200,000 years ago. Anatomically modern humans have been found with certainty in this period and before, with the oldest approximated at 600,000 years. “the Flood about BC 2472” They may trot out Dorit et al. to claim a bottleneck in human evolution, but there is no genetic bottleneck in any other species around this time frame. So even if Dorit et al. had correct findings, the flood would have only effected humans, which seems odd. “The solar-day creative-week concept is difficult to harmonize with anything happening before about BC 4129.” Too bad, because vertebrate life alone can be tracked up to 500,000,000 years. Its not even necessary discuss bacteria or other microorganisms which dwarf such numbers." And as for the final bit, I don’t have a problem challenging the Genesis account with my collection of data. Bring out your notes and I will happily correct them.

A Division by Zer0 : "Here's the problem Bro, sounds like you've never been outside of America."

Fri, 2 Dec 2011 16:11:40 +0000

Actually my issue with the "just buy games used" argument is that the developers don't see any money from used game sales. One of the main arguments against piracy is that the developers lose money, but if you're going to buy it used anyway the net result is the same; you give the developers $0. The only institution you support are the stores that sell used games, which put major negative pressures on the developers in many ways, such as high costs for advertising in their stores; i.e. requiring that they "purchase" a high volume rack or endcap at a set price in addition to regular costs of advertising. I heard a developer rant about Gamestop and the like before... Either way if you're going to give the developer $0 for their game I really don't see a difference between downloading it or purchasing it from a reseller.

A Division by Zer0 : Criticizing authors based on the characters

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 15:31:01 +0000

Well I didn't read the whole article you linked but the idea that you can do reverse psychology on a storyteller based on their protagonist, or any character in the story really, is bunk based on any basic how-to write book or workshop. At these workshops and in these sorts of books, they encourage you to base your characters on people you know or some combination of people you know. While this does include oneself, it means that flaws and shortcomings of a character could literally be taken from any person in the authors environment. So really any attempt at psychoanalysis might be misplaced and instead of the author you're really trying to analyze the author's best friend, ex-significant other, or some combination of acquaintances and tv personalities. I'm willing to bet good money that the characters mentioned in the essay stem from real people with real flaws and weren't created in a vacuum.

The Antichristian Phenomenon : How to respond to a "Used-to-be-an-Atheist"

Tue, 1 Mar 2011 01:09:26 +0000

"3. Here, I did not word my phrase very good, so it was challenged on the fact that even rationalist accept things that are subjective- such as art. But I was referring to the validity of subjective experiences in trying to understand one's own nature and the world around. If I live my life according to something I discovered via subjective experience, without, of course, claiming that it applies to anyone else, can it be accepted as valid for me, or am I to be considered delusional, wasting my precious time, only because my experience cannot be analyzed or measured by any scientific means ? I don't really know what each of you would think, though I am inclined to believe that you are likely to not consider my statement seriously." Look at my bold, italic emphasis here. Not all atheists are rationalists in the traditional definition, especially not the New Atheists. The scientific method relies heavily on empiricism, since its useless to form theories by pure reason and never actually test them. Lets break this down. Definition of rationalism: "the doctrine that reason alone is a source of knowledge and is independent of experience; the doctrine that knowledge about reality can be obtained by reason alone without recourse to experience" Definition of empiricism: "the doctrine that all knowledge of matters of fact derives from experience and that the mind is not furnished with a set of concepts in advance of experience" Most atheists (that I know / have read / etc.) do not accept either of these schools of thought exclusively. Typically they agree that Pure Reason (by definition: reason based on a priori principles and providing a unifying ground for the perception of the phenomenal world.) is a source of knowledge for mathematics, but also that matters of fact derive from experience; actually testing suspected principles. Some lean more towards one side or the other, but generally its some combination. So again, atheist = / = (traditional) rationalist. I'd also like to see what you're referring to "something you discovered". I would not claim it as valid, but I would rate it on usefulness in several areas. Usefulness and truth are not necessarily correlated. Overall though, I'd like to see you rephrase points 3 and 4 to be more specific as to what you mean. "But I find that there are more definitions of humanism that people use." Then again, just like with the atheism bit, you're not really opposing humanism, but some humanists. Separate the two. My definition is directly from two dictionaries; random house and collins. "when more and more people enter a movement, its quality declines" Like feminism? See, more men and women joined and it began to achieve its goals of rights for women. Obviously a decrease in quality. Like the LGBT movement? See, more men and women join regardless of their sexuality, and it begins to achieve its goals of gay marriage (among other things) in some states. Obviously a decrease in quality.

The Antichristian Phenomenon : How to respond to a "Used-to-be-an-Atheist"

Tue, 1 Mar 2011 01:09:04 +0000

Good, we're back to basics. Lets cover this. "2 . Ok, you added the word "testable". But from what I understand during these conversations, if our understanding of the Universe is not testable, it cannot be classified as "reality", so a person who tries to understand the world using subjective means can be said, at best, to be merely speculating." More or less, and I'm leaning to less. I'll elaborate on "testable" here to be sure we're clear about what is and is not included. A testable model of reality allows predictions to be made of future events due to the repeatability of previous events, such that an artificial event can be crafted by a third party; such as "there is gravity (insert physics), therefore if I let go of this penny, it will fall at G. The strong nuclear force is more powerful than gravity (insert more physics), so the penny will not pass through the atoms of the ground when it lands (insert equations proving this)." Every bit of that is testable in a rigorous way, repeatable, and probably exactly what you expect based on the term. However the idea of testable is a little more broad. Testability involves a degree of empiricism, as rationalism alone is rejected by most atheists. Since the definitions of reason are as follows: "to form conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises." ; "to think through logically, as a problem" ; "the power of intelligent and dispassionate thought, or of conduct influenced by such thought." ; it also logically follows that application of reason is more broad than determining the physics and natural history of our surroundings. Included in this testable model can be more mundane things, or things typically assumed to be intuition. When one pulls out a palette, one can REASON the results of mixing certain amounts of certain paints to reach a desired result, so that when the painter discovers she has not mixed enough it will be similar each time (repeatability), and when she discovers it is too yellow, knows how to counteract that (predictions) and can actually reach the desired color. More importantly, the desired color can be attained by a third party independently which can follow her steps. Now more importantly, the exceptions, what makes things NOT testable models of reality, and thereby "merely speculating"? Since dreams and magic were brought up, they are very good examples. Relying on these methods to interpret reality will not lead to a testable model, because they are not repeatable by an independent third party. You can mimic the situations as much as possible, but the results will be different each time, or frequently enough to make the similarities or repetitions statistically insignificant. If you do not believe this to be true, please prove me wrong. Another good example is religious practices such as prayer...

The Antichristian Phenomenon : How to respond to a "Used-to-be-an-Atheist"

Thu, 24 Feb 2011 20:01:42 +0000

The only search results I get for Hermetic monism are Dragon Rouge and Marsilio Ficino. The Dragon Rouge mention is in a PDF document titled Contra 3 M. Most of the stuff they talk about (on a skim) are similar to what you are saying, and you don't need to be connected or affiliated to share ideas. I'm not interested in addressing your other points here until you answer the questions I posed to you about your original comment, so please go do that. We have to understand each other before we can move forward.

The Antichristian Phenomenon : How to respond to a "Used-to-be-an-Atheist"

Wed, 23 Feb 2011 23:57:14 +0000

"any religious belief or philosophical doctrine that identifies God with the universe." or "any doctrine that regards God as identical with the material universe or the forces of nature." Is this not what you said here: "Every single part of creation is a part of the Source, but the Source is also in every single part of creation." ...? Googling the term you mentioned, I'm just finding a bunch of Dragon Rouge stuff, is this the philosophy you follow? http://www.dragonrouge.net/english/philosophy.htm

The Antichristian Phenomenon : How to respond to a "Used-to-be-an-Atheist"

Wed, 23 Feb 2011 23:13:43 +0000

P.P.S. You just described pantheism.

The Antichristian Phenomenon : How to respond to a "Used-to-be-an-Atheist"

Wed, 23 Feb 2011 21:53:17 +0000

It helps to use intense debate or another similar login, you get a longer character limit. Whether taken as “absolute rules” or not, you are not representing the castle. My logic here was not to pinpont a brick, but a whole WALL. Notice the difference in the items I corrected, in the Dawkins statements; sometimes they are night and day. Your points don’t even form a drawbridge to enter the castle! Honestly, you’d be lucky to find a single atheist that would read your list and agree to even half the points. I don't personally care if you're for or against atheism, at least get your list to be correct. Also, show me where I, personally, speak of Christianity in rigid terms that parallel yours. If you cannot do this, then you have no right to compare our points of view. New Atheism doesn’t “want” anything in regards to other atheists, and I’d like to see where you find evidence that New Atheists claim to speak for all atheists. What tends to happen nowadays is any atheist finds him or herself labeled as a New Atheist regardless of personal opinion due to media coverage on Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. since that is most of what people generally know of atheism today. Additionally, there really is nothing new in the New Atheist arguments aside from new scientific evidence, so it is very easy for this labeling to occur. Most of the hype occurs on the fringes. “What you should have said at first is this: Reason is the only way to form a testable model of reality that I AM AWARE OF.” Until you can provide an alternative, there’s no logical reason to include the level of uncertainty, and by not including that uncertainty, I do not fall into your original point. The fact is that the focus of that point has already changed from your original claim with the addition and acceptance of the terms “testable model.” It’s not like I haven’t done my research on this topic. I will stand by the bullet point: “Reason is the only method by which one can form a testable model of reality.” Until proven wrong. Go. “If I were to express a personal opinion, I regard humanism as a set of utopic, unattainable ideals, that seek to nulify what in (human) nature cannot be nulified.” Wow, provide your definition of humanism please, I think we’re operating on very different planes here. This is the definition I’m operating under: “the denial of any power or moral value superior to that of humanity; the rejection of religion in favour of a belief in the advancement of humanity by its own efforts” I don’t sense anything about the human nature bit you’re mentioning in there... it just says that we’re the only ones that can create morals and our own future, in comparison to previous supernatural mandate. I’ll modify my views when you provide me with alternatives. What you have done so far is unapologetically butchered the New Atheist / atheist points of view, then claim that “that’s ok” because you didn’t mean to actually describe the beliefs of anyone.

The Antichristian Phenomenon : How to respond to a "Used-to-be-an-Atheist"

Wed, 23 Feb 2011 01:50:15 +0000

Also, I have defined the group of atheists which you are targeting as the New Atheists. This is what they are called, it is a subset of atheism. This means you cannot oppose the New Atheists and claim you are opposing all of atheism, nor can you claim that your generalizations apply to anything but this subset of atheists. Thereby you should correct your original sentiment to be "the battle between monotheists and New Atheists" because that is what you really mean. Additionally it is no more a dogmatic, religion-like group than any other community; reddit, icanhascheezburger, Nascar fans, vegetarians, etc. Even if it is, so what? The New Atheists are only a subset of atheism, and a loosely organized one at that, so you can't say atheism is 'like a religion' because some atheists belong to a group any more than you can say atheism is 'like a political party' because some of us are leftist. More bullets. ~~~"~reason is the only function of the human mind by which one can FORM A TESTABLE MODEL OF reality ". How do you know this ? Have you experimented with other functions of the mind in trying to form a model of reality ? If yes, please tell me about them.~~~ Actually I asked YOU to clarify why these points are negative terms. In other words, I was asking YOU what other method can form a TESTABLE model of reality. New Atheists (and most other atheists I'm willing to bet) do not claim that you can't grasp reality any other way than reason, they claim you can't form a testable model any other way. Sounds like splitting hairs but there is a BIG difference. Anyway, I don't know any other way to form a TESTABLE model. So enlighten me. ~~~"~rejection of any deity, religion or scripture AS TRUTH ". Here I also must say this- if we are to refer to scriptures as an absolute truth which you must accept or die, yes, it is absurd, laughable and also dangerous.~~~ Yes, no one here will disagree on this. ~~~If, on the other hand, we refer to scriptures (regardless of their names) as symbolic, relative interpretations of reality, than we might have something here. No one can deny that, despite their failings, all scriptures are an important part of our cultural heritage that contain portions of human wisdom. People tend to look at them through modern eyes, so they dismiss them as garbage.~~~ Examples of these portions of human wisdom that cannot be attained by secular means? Reasons why these symbolic interpretations are relevant when we have the ability to discover real answers? Again, you won't find many atheists (New or otherwise) which will claim scriptures are complete nonsense. The primary focus is on the truth claim, the secondary focus is on the actual literary value. As an anthropological or archeological tool they are very useful, otherwise, not so much. ~~~"~"humanistic ideals"~~~ Still waiting for you to explain what is negative about this point. You went off on politics and forgot about the core question. ~~~From your authors tab, out of 14 authors of this site, I counted 7 that at the political compass score as left-wingers (including yourself), a couple of them approaching the extreme end of the left side.~~~ So what? The opinions of 14 people are irrelevant statistically. Additionally you only have 7/14 scores; 50% is not statistically significant. Just because this site contains leftists and your "experience" is that other atheists tend to be leftists says nothing about the general population. Don't forget confirmation bias; your "experience" is not reliable in statistics, only hard survey data. Anyway, welcome, it will be nice to have someone willing to debate with a point of view that doesn't revolve around which level of hell we're bound for. I hope you're willing to modify your views, that's good science.

The Antichristian Phenomenon : How to respond to a "Used-to-be-an-Atheist"

Wed, 23 Feb 2011 01:50:04 +0000

Ha I forget how to quote too. Anyway you misread my response. I'm not defending Dawkins or his followers, or providing an appeal to authority, but simply pointing out where you contradict yourself. I'll streamline my logic here to bullet points: ~You claim: "Richard Dawkins and his lectures are being used as some sort of bible by different people who call themselves "militant atheists". As far as I can tell, militant atheists, like any other group, have a standard set of beliefs which include *list" ~Since you use militant atheists to describe both those who follow Dawkins' work and those who have the beliefs in the list, it is fair to assume that they are equivalent. Otherwise you would have used a different term for each set. So this means: Dawkins' writing = Followers' beliefs = Your List ~Since the terms are equivalent, one can use the transverse property of equality to deduce that the content of Dawkins' writing is reflected in your list. As such: Dawkins' writing = Your list ~If we can prove that the content of Dawkins' writing is not equal to the content of your list, then the properties are not equal. I chose these two properties: "Rejection of anything that cannot be proven or measured using the scientific method" "rejection of anything asserted via subjective means and acceptance of only what can be proven in an objective way" ~Determine what Dawkins' writing says: "Dawkins addresses the misperception that science and art are at odds.".... "This chapter describes a third reason to embrace science (the first two being beauty and duty): improving one's performance in the arts." ... "The successful communication of unadulterated science enhances, not confuses, the arts"; etc. ~Thereby you are asserting that: rejection of anything asserted via subjective means = Dawkins addresses the misperception that science and art are at odds. This is not true ( 1 = / = 0 ) ~In conclusion Dawkins' writing = / = your list; your list = / = follower's beliefs. (transitive property of equality again) That's the core of my point.

The Antichristian Phenomenon : How to respond to a "Used-to-be-an-Atheist"

Tue, 22 Feb 2011 13:49:50 +0000

Oh please, that's such a strawman. Too easy to burn down. "Richard Dawkins and his lectures are being used as some sort of bible"... followed by... "Rejection of anything that cannot be proven or measured using the scientific method" "rejection of anything asserted via subjective means and acceptance of only what can be proven in an objective way" but IGNORING: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unweaving_the_Rainbo... "Dawkins addresses the misperception that science and art are at odds.".... "This chapter describes a third reason to embrace science (the first two being beauty and duty): improving one's performance in the arts." ... "The successful communication of unadulterated science enhances, not confuses, the arts"; etc. The Arts are not "proven" or "measured" by any scientific means, nor are they objective. Yet the Arts are readily accepted by Dawkins himself and the New Atheist community. You'll need to redefine your "anything", and also explain how these points are negative traits, editing out the strawman bits to be accurate to New Atheism: ~"humanistic ideals" (cut out leftist since including politics is laughable) ~rejection of any deity, religion or scripture AS TRUTH ~reason is the only function of the human mind by which one can FORM A TESTABLE MODEL OF reality

The Antichristian Phenomenon : Popular agnosticism versus proper agnosticism

Tue, 9 Feb 2010 22:13:50 +0000

"On what grounds do you reject this definition?" This one: "One who doesn't believe in a deity, but also allows that one may exist." If you don't believe in a deity, you are an atheist (a-without theos-gods). It doesn't matter if you allow for their existence, you don't believe in them. I'm not sure where you got your original definition, but dictionary.com says "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings." "Disbelief in the existence of supreme beings" is vastly different than "belief that God does not exist."

The Antichristian Phenomenon : Popular agnosticism versus proper agnosticism

Tue, 9 Feb 2010 19:17:50 +0000

But what you just described is Deism, not Agnosticism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

The Antichristian Phenomenon : Debunking Christianity 2.5 - The Ignorance of Evil

Mon, 8 Feb 2010 23:28:37 +0000

"Right and wrong"? EXTREMELY relative. Not only can the "right" or "wrong" behavior vary from person to person, but it also varies from situation to situation. Is it "right" or "wrong" to punch someone? Is it "right" or "wrong" to kiss someone? Depends entirely on the context. Additionally, I hold the view that everyone has their own particular continuum of what is "right/wrong" "good/evil" "better/worse" behaviors, so while one is able to judge and rank a behavior according to his or her own scale, they are incorrect in assuming that scale applies to anyone else. "Methods & acts of doing are part of the act itself...not a driving presence of the desire to carry it out. " You obviously missed what I was hinting at. By "presence", I was referring to a more abstract notion in terms of these opposites: "present / absent" , "positive / negative" "substance / no substance". Your argument was based around these opposites as well-- that one term is actually is the absence of another presence. My assertion is that what one might call "evil" is its own autonomous concept, not simply the absence of another concept. The reason I included "the act of DOING" specifically is based on the emphasis in that phrase: DOING. Action is the opposite of passivity, and were "evil" simply an absence, there would be no action; no DOING.

The Antichristian Phenomenon : Debunking Christianity 2.5 - The Ignorance of Evil

Sun, 7 Feb 2010 22:48:10 +0000

On your analysis on the etymology of the term "hell", I must disagree strongly. The Online Etymology Dictionary as well as several entries on Dicitonary.com list the origin of the word to be derived from Old English "hel" which derives directly from Anglo-Saxon "Hel". Here are links to confirm my information: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=hell and http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hell If you can provide reference to support your Greek theory, I would be happy to see it. When the Bible (both NT and OT) were translated into English, virtually all the variants of the afterlife were translated into "hell" despite their original Hebrew and Greek connotations. As to your second point, I would have hoped you to derive from my essay that I do not believe in the concepts of "Good" and "Evil" at all. I believe it is a false duality and ultimately the two sides are relative, not absolute. However, this leads to the fact that the only way your point of "evil = absence of good" to be definitively true is if they WERE a duality, absolutes, and completely passive. Additionally, the definition you mentioned would only cover Evil-By-Omission, such as not speaking up when something wrong is happening, but it does not cover ACTS OF "EVIL". In order to commit an ACT OF "Evil", we're not talking about an absence but a PRESENCE of action. For example, murder is an ACTIVE behavior, not a passive one; its not an "absence of good" that leads a person to commit such an action, but the PRESENCE of something else. That active presence includes motives, methods, and the act of DOING. You can't just remove "Good" and expect "Evil" to remain--frequently "Evil" requires an act of it's own.