Believers of Religions without Evil Verses also Commit Evil?

I always get this sort of reply when I proposed that the Abrahamic religions with SOME evil laden verses contribute to evil as committed by SOME of its evil prone believers.

“The experience in Buddhist countries indicates that even when the population is exposed to a religion without evil texts, violence is common.”

The evil acts from Buddhists, where Buddhism is claimed to be a peaceful religion, is very evident in Myanmar, Tibet, and Sri Lanka which has a predominant Buddhist population.
From such observations, it is very common for many to imply that Buddhism itself had something or contribute to such evil acts.

IMO, those who infer Buddhism is as bad as any of the Abrahamic religions in terms of evil acts committed by their followers, has very low level and bad critical/analytical thinking capabilities.

If one were to practice good critical and analytical thinking, one will note there are two significant variables within religious related evils, i.e.

  1. Human nature - 1% [say] of humans are potentially vulnerable to commit evils regardless of conditions
  2. Evil laden verses in holy texts.

Thus we have the following;

Abrahamic religions;

  1. 1% evil prone believers
  2. 5++% evil laden verses within holy texts

Buddhism

  1. 1% evil prone believers
  2. Zero % evil laden verses within holy texts.

From the above, one can infer that variable 1 can induce 1% of any group of human being to commit evil regardless of whatever the religions.

However as for the Abrahamic religions, there is the added factor of 5++% of evil laden verses that facilitate their already evil prone believers to commit evil.
Therefore the Abrahamic religions are partly evil.
Buddhism itself is not evil.

The fact that some Buddhists are evil is not because of Buddhism but the fact that they are human beings.

Would you agree Buddhism is not evil per se?

The problem is that you made those numbers up and are basing the on wishful thinking alone.
Anyway, I’ve already answered this. You don’t need to have ‘evil verses’ in a holy text in order for it’s teaching to be evil, and you don’t need teachings to be evil in order for people to do evil things in order to protect those teachings (and the tradition based on them). That’s just a overly-simple way of looking at it.

For example, if a political/religious system promoted absolute peace and understanding and sharing and so on, teaching that the only way for this to be achieved was for world leaders and armies to voluntarily give up their weapons and authority, then there is nothing inherently evil in that, if you are a child. But if such a teaching became widespread, it would obviously lead, over and over, to disaffected zealots declaring that the World leaders weren’t peacefully disarming themselves fast enough, and that they need to be ‘encouraged’ somehow- so you’d have a religion that in effect supported and endorsed violent anarchists and coups without specifically saying so.

Another example would be a pacifistic, non-resistance based religion that encourages it’s followers to be trod upon and victimized by anybody who wants to victimize them. It may not teach anything evil, but it would lead to a whole lot of folks getting needlessly killed, enslaved, or what have you.

Notes:

  1. There are some who argue that there are evil laden verses in the Buddhist sutras.
    One source is “Buddhist Warfare”
    http://www.amazon.com/Buddhist-Warfare-Michael-Jerryson/dp/0195394844
    This can be easily discounted as the authors do not understand the context.
    At the worst, the few controversial verses are a needle in a haystack and not likely to stand out amidst the core principles of Buddhism.

  2. 1% of evil prone believers.
    It is a very common statistics from the psychological and psychiatric community that 1% amongst the population are psychopathic or has other psychosis.
    In any case, humans are 98% beasts [DNA basis] and very vulnerable to commit evil, so my usage of 1% is very conservative.

You know who you sound like now? A Muslim.

Note this OP is on ‘Religion’ so politics is out.

As my OP has explained;
If the holy texts of a religion has no verses that condone anyone to commit evil, any evil acts of zealots would logically has nothing to do with the religion itself.

The point is all religions has to involve people.
Within any large group of people, it is inherent there will be a % of evil prone ones.
Since the existence of evil prone people is a common factor, the difference would be to compare the verses in the holy texts.

Did not expect you to be so simple.
Note there are merely a few verses, less than 5 or so in the Buddhist sutras as compared to 1000+ in the Quran and more in the Bible.
What is most critical is the malignant use of the “us versus them” impulse as I had highlighted elsewhere.

Ah, I see. So it's not just verses that actually advocate violence we're talking about. It's any verse that you interpret as having an 'us versus them' spin. And why are these evil? Well, because they disagree with your political ideology, naturally enough.  What about verses that encourage inaction, teach people not to bother trying to achieve great things, and not to resist oppression? If a person thought THAT was evil, Taoism would be just about the worst religion ever conceived by man.

That is simply false. You’re taking a child-like understanding of ideology. If my religion teaches that nobody should hurt any living creature under any circumstance, and as a consequence millions of people starve to death because they are unwilling to harvest plants or animals for food, then my religion is evil and the evil done is certainly because of the religion itself, despite the fact that all the verses contain nothing but sweetness and light.

If you can prove Taoism has evil elements, then it is not relevant to the is OP which refers to “religion without evil verses.”

You’re are going off tangent here.
The original context of the OP is even without evil laden verses, Buddhist commit evils acts such as terrorism and killing/murdering of non-believers.
It is not a question about Buddhists fasting and risking their health.

That is a big IF that has no reality at all. Where is the evidence?

Jainism do teaches any believers should not harm living creatures to the extent that they wear a mask to cover their mouth to avoid swallowing flying insects and others.
However this act has not result in evil acts like those committed by ISIS and others of the likes.

The evidence of a thought experiment? Let’s try this again.

IF there was a religion that preached that no living creature should ever be harmed, and IF the result of these teachings was a society that succumbed to mass starvation because they would not harvest food, THEN the religion would be directly responsible for much evil even though there are no ‘evil verses’ in it’s holy texts.
I am refuting the quoted logical argument of yours that you made, not…talking about some actual pacifistic religion. It is clear by hypothetical counter example that

'If the holy texts of a religion has no verses that condone anyone to commit evil, any evil acts of zealots would logically has nothing to do with the religion itself. ’

is false. History is full of examples of good-sounding creeds, religious or otherwise, that lead to disaster. If you need it broken down into an abstract principle instead of a counter example, the principle at work here is that nice-sounding creeds can have disastrous, evil consequences.

If you need further explanation of what a thought experiment is and what they are for, let me know.

Another thought experiment :

Religion B:
Sit and contemplate. Harm nobody.

Religion B has no evil texts but has no incentive to produce medicine, science or technology which could be used to stop harm.

In fact, I think that is a major problem with religions/sects which concentrate on changing the individual rather than changing the external circumstances. There needs to be a balance between internal and external.

And what happens to the ‘sit and contemplate’ people if their neighbors are ‘innovate and expand’ people, or ‘conquer to prove your god’s strength’ people? Is their religion not partly responsible for their fate?

I have no issue with ‘thought experiments’ if they make sense and are relevant, but they are not relevant to the OP in the original context it was raised.

Note the point of the OP is.
Believers of religions without evil laden texts also commit evil acts.
Now my point is these believers do not commit evil acts because of the religion itself but rather it is due to the inherent evil nature.

Note this OP is not interested in thought experiments but actual incidents supported by evidence, e.g. this and many others;

Even if I consider your thought experiment, it does not work;
If religious texts do not have evil laden verses but there are subsequent fatalities, these latter are merely unfortunate indirect consequences.
There is no evil elements in the first place and thus it follows there is no evil consequences.

Here is an example -actually not relevant as I am referring to mainstream religions.
The holy texts of the Heaven’s Gate cult recommend suicide as a way to heaven. Such acts are not violent against non-believers and thus seemingly not evil. But the recommendation of suicide is ‘evil.’
The Hindu religion do not condone the killing of cows, but if any non-Hindu suffered from mad cow disease after eating the infected meat, we cannot blamed Hinduism for being evil.

For your thought experiment to work, you must prove there are evil elements at the source.

Btw, the original context related to this thread was related to the question,
Is Buddhism (has no evil laden verses) evil because SOME Buddhist committed terrorist and other evil acts?
Your thought experiments (whilst entertained) are moot to the OP.

Yeah, keep pushing that 'evil passages in the Koran made him do it".

news.nationalpost.com/2014/12/22 … ng-caught/

 Right, and I'm saying that's not necessarily true.  Even if a holy text contains no evil verses, it can directly lead to evil acts if it proposes creeds that are evil by implications, or creeds that are impossible to live by in the real world without doing evil. 
Ha. If you wants to try and disallow thought experiments from your discussions for some reason, then don't claim to put forward logical principles.  Thought experiments are how you demonstrate the falseness of a proposed logical premise.  You stated

'If the holy texts of a religion has no verses that condone anyone to commit evil, any evil acts of zealots would logically has nothing to do with the religion itself. ’

That is not an evidence-based proposition, that is an attempted logical premise- if A, then B. What I have shown you is that if A, sometimes not-B. Meaning you are wrong.

  This is just you, again, making up whatever definition of 'evil' suits you.   If you want to use such an obtuse understanding of evil that any verse that pushes what you see as an 'us vs them' attitude is evil, then fine.  But if you want to turn around and say that other verses which push people to starve themselves or not innovate or not resist oppression or any hypothetical example are NOT evil, then you are flat out contradicting yourself, and that will be plain to everybody.  If a verse says "All other faiths are wrong", and that leads to wars over religion, then that is an indirect consequence in exactly the same way that "Don't hurt any living things" leading to starvation would be an indirect consequence. 
What the fuck?  How would Hindu be responsible for somebody getting sick from eating cows when it specifically tells people not to eat cows?  That's completely the opposite of what I'm talking about.  A better example would be if Hindu forbid people from harming cows or interfering with their lives, and as a result tons of people got sick due to their being cow shit everywhere.  THAT would be the kind of thing I'm talking about, and yes, if the Hindu faith didn't allow people to clean up cow shit or keep cows out of places that are supposed to be sanitary, the evil done would be the responsibility of that religion.   Because they advocated something nice like 'not hurting cows'.  
   Nice-sounding advice can lead to horrible evil. It is absolutely crucial to understand this to have a mature view of ideology.