New Discovery

[peacegirl]

Now that we have both Age and peacegirl here, I shall reveal how we could actually get a chance at the Golden Age of humanity. Get a chance at survival, really.

By increasing the average IQ of humans by 20-30 points, while also increasing their average EQ/empathethic ability by 20-30%. Using genetic engineering, gene expression modification, and other techniques.

That's it, that's the only way. Aside from that, all we can do is pray for a huge technological miracle, or maybe that aliens will save us, or maybe that God will intervene.

God IS intervening by showing us how to get out of the mess we're in.

But reinterpreting blame, or learning Age's openness technique? Grow up.

It's not about reinterpreting blame. It's about giving up blame.

[peacegirl]

The so-called 'Golden Age of humanity' will also not occur in 'the way' you are 'trying to' say and claim, here.

Now, contrary to one of your very fixed and closed beliefs, here, I know the 'Truly peaceful and harmonious world for every one, as One, can, and will, happen.

So, can you comprehend that 'that belief' of yours that I have decided that the claimed of the removal of all evil sounds impossible was, and is, a fabrication of 'yours', only, which you took on to believe is absolutely, and which has affect your ability to see and learn things from the Truly open perspective?

This is really sad coming from a philosophy forum that is held in high regard. If this is the consensus, there's nowhere for me to go. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

1. 'What', exactly, is supposedly 'really sad', to you, here?

THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE CLOSED YOUR MIND TO THE POSSIBILITY THAT THIS IS AN AUTHENTIC DISCOVERY.

2. Who, supposedly, holds 'this philosophy forum' in so-called 'high regards'?

I GUESS NO ONE. TALK ABOUT ONE FLEW OVER THE COO COO'S NEST.

3. If 'what' is the consensus?

4. There is, supposedly, nowhere for you to go in relation to 'what', exactly?

IN RELATION TO CONTINUE ON.

5. And, 'we' can present words to you, but 'we' can not make 'you' consider nor to think differently.

NOPE. YOU CAN'T MAKE ME CONSIDER THAT ONE PLUS ONE EQUALS ELEVEN EITHER.

Look, you obviously have a belief, here, which you are completely unwilling 'to shake' nor let go of, and considering the fact that you are certainly not ready to just look at and discuss what you are presenting, here, shows that you are also not yet ready to consider any thing other than what you believe, here.

IT'S NOT A BELIEF. TO SAY THAT IN ORDER FOR ME TO BE HEARD IS TO ADMIT IT COULD BE WRONG IS UNFAIR. I HAVE PRESENTED THE FIRST THREE CHAPTERS IN A PDF FORMAT AND I TYPED IT OUT FOR THOSE WHO WANT IT SPOONFED TO THEM, BUT FOR YOU TO TELL ME THAT I HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT HE WAS WRONG AND LET GO OF IT, JUST BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE THERE IS NOTHING TO IT SHOWS ME THAT YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO TAKE THIS KNOWLEDGE SERIOUSLY, WHICH GIVES ME NOWHERE TO GO.

[MagsJ]

.

This is really sad coming from a philosophy forum that is held in high regard.

High regard? At this point, one will find more sane people in a Youtube comment section than on this forum.

Wow, this explains a lot. Thank you.

..you gathering more info for your Leftist agenda over here, as well as you were over there at ILP?

How’s it’s going?

[Atla]

God IS intervening by showing us how to get out of the mess we're in.

Divine intervention too. Anything else?

I know, my God tells me that we should blame people who want to get rid of blame, for being dangerously naive and delusional. Blame applied correctly is gooood.

[peacegirl]

.

High regard? At this point, one will find more sane people in a Youtube comment section than on this forum.

Wow, this explains a lot. Thank you.

..you gathering more info for your Leftist agenda over here, as well as you were over there at ILP?

Leftist agenda? I don't have a political agenda.

How’s it’s going?

Hi MagsJ, how are you? The way the website was structured at ilp had changed and I didn't enjoy it as much. Aside from that, there were only a few people that I conversed with on my thread. The one who took over (I think his name was Satyr) had his own beliefs and accused me of following the Christian faith (or something along those lines) which, to him, was weak. Humanize was another person I would have liked to talk to, but when I mentioned "no blame", he immediately took it the wrong way and that was the end of that. And iambiguous (I think he posts here too), although very knowledgeable, frustrated me to no end by him constantly saying that we could not not do something if will is not free, leading into a circular discussion --- along with his thoughts on dasein, morality, and being unable to solve the abortion issue objectively --- made me realize quickly that it was a lost cause to share this book with him. These forums aren't the best because it's rare for someone to introduce something revolutionary with such big claims. I do have a few people reviewing the book that are not in these forums, so we shall see.

[Atla]

...

Ok so the book doesn't prove the magical cosmic law of God, doesn't know what determinism even is, and thoroughly fails to explain why we should stop blaming people even if the cosmic law is true. But let's grant all those now: let's say that the cosmic law is real and we can ONLY ever do what's best for us, and let's call that determinism, and let's say that we can't blame people.

Let's EVEN grant this obviously unjustified time asymmetry where there is no past blame but there is future responsibility.

And let's EVEN grant that I can't know what's the most satisfying to you, even though in reality there are many situations where I can easily tell.

And most importantly, let's EVEN grant that people have fully functioning consciences. Even though it's a well-known fact that about 1 in 25 people have no conscience at all, and some more people have weak consciences, and these people tend to commit more crimes.

We granted all the above. Okay so the following seems to be the main point of the book, let's see (I'm curious to see what will come out of this):

As you are contemplating hurting me in some way, I know, as a matter of positive knowledge, that you cannot be blamed anymore because it is an undeniable law that man’s will is not free. This is a very unique two-sided equation, for it reveals that while you know you are completely responsible for everything you do to hurt me, I know you are not responsible. For the very first time you fully realize that I must excuse you because it is now known that man must always select of available alternatives the one that offers greater satisfaction, and who am I to know what gives you greater satisfaction. Consequently, you are compelled to realize that should you desire to hurt me in any way whatsoever, you must also take into consideration the knowledge that under no conditions will I strike you back because it can never satisfy me to hurt you for doing what I know you are compelled to do. This prevents you from thinking up excuses in advance because you know you are already excused. You cannot say, “I couldn’t help myself because my will is not free,” because you know I already know this. You cannot apologize or ask for forgiveness because you are already forgiven, and no one is blaming you. This means that should you decide to hurt me with this first blow or be careless and take the risks that lead to a first blow, and I would have to choose between 83 retaliating or turning the other cheek, you would know that I would be compelled by my nature to find greater satisfaction in turning the other cheek because of the undeniable fact that I would know you had no choice, since your will is not free. Remember, you haven’t hurt me yet; consequently, this is still a choice under consideration. And when it fully dawns on you that this hurt to me will never be blamed, judged, or questioned in any way because I don’t want to hurt you in return for doing what must now be considered a compulsion beyond your control — ALTHOUGH YOU KNOW IT IS NOT BEYOND YOUR CONTROL AT THIS POINT SINCE YOU HAVEN’T HURT ME YET — you are compelled, completely of your own free will, so to speak, to relinquish this desire to hurt me because it can never give you greater satisfaction under the changed conditions. [Note: It must be understood that the expression ‘of your own free will,’ which is an expression I use throughout the book, only means ‘of your own desire,’ but this does not mean will is free. If you need further clarification, please reread Chapter One.] In other words, when you know that others will never blame or punish you for what they are compelled to excuse, but also that the other factors truly responsible for the dissatisfaction which engendered the consideration of hurting others as a possible solution will be permanently removed as a consequence of following our slide rule in all of its ramifications, you will be given no opportunity to ever again strike another blow of hurt. It becomes the worst possible choice to hurt another when it is known there will be no blame because there is no advantage in hurting those whom you know are compelled to turn the other cheek for their satisfaction. Conscience, this guilty feeling over such an act, will not permit it because you will get less satisfaction, not more. Let me say again that if man’s will was free, we could not accomplish this because we would be able to choose what is less satisfying when something more satisfying is available.

Hm I still don't get how this is supposed to work. Say on a scale of 1 to 10, hurting you would give me a satisfaction of 8, and not hurting you would give me a satisfaction of 3. But then I realize that I won't be blamed, so my satisfaction of hurting you must fall below 3?

Why? Why doesn't it fall to say 7? And I'll still hurt you. Or if I don't care, it remains at 8. Or the fact that you won't blame me makes me so disgusted that it goes up to 9?

Explain why it will fall below 3?

[peacegirl]

God IS intervening by showing us how to get out of the mess we're in.

Divine intervention too. Anything else?

I know, my God tells me that we should blame people who want to get rid of blame, for being dangerously naive and delusional. Blame applied correctly is gooood.

This just shows me you have no idea what this book is about. He was very clear that we cannot just suddenly stop blaming.

Until this knowledge is understood, we will be compelled to continue living in the world of free will; otherwise, we would only make matters worse for ourselves.

[peacegirl]

...

Ok so the book doesn't prove the magical cosmic law of God, doesn't know what determinism even is, and thoroughly fails to explain why we should stop blaming people even if the cosmic law is true. But let's grant all those now: let's say that the cosmic law is real and we can ONLY ever do what's best for us, and let's call that determinism, and let's say that we can't blame people.

To say that we only do what's best for us could be taken the wrong way. If I am risking my life to save you from a fire (for example), technically this wouldn't be doing what is the best for me if I could perish in the process of trying to save you, but I would still be moving in the direction of greater satisfaction.

Let's EVEN grant this obviously unjustified time asymmetry where there is no past blame but there is future responsibility.

And let's EVEN grant that I can't know what's the most satisfying to you, even though in reality there are many situations where I can easily tell.

Why would it matter to you what's most satisfying to me. Where does this even come into play?

And most importantly, let's EVEN grant that people have fully functioning consciences. Even though it's a well-known fact that about 1 in 25 people have no conscience at all, and some more people have weak consciences, and these people tend to commit more crimes.

There is no way to prove that under changed conditions a person's conscience would be weak, as you seem to believe. You are basing this on observations made in this world, not the new world. You can't do that and think that conscience is static and doesn't change according to major changes in the environment.

https://youtu.be/1YQcAJVKIBA?si=JeW9i3iJwFtWIE7O

We granted all the above. Okay so the following seems to be the main point of the book, let's see (I'm curious to see what will come out of this):

As you are contemplating hurting me in some way, I know, as a matter of positive knowledge, that you cannot be blamed anymore because it is an undeniable law that man’s will is not free. This is a very unique two-sided equation, for it reveals that while you know you are completely responsible for everything you do to hurt me, I know you are not responsible. For the very first time you fully realize that I must excuse you because it is now known that man must always select of available alternatives the one that offers greater satisfaction, and who am I to know what gives you greater satisfaction. Consequently, you are compelled to realize that should you desire to hurt me in any way whatsoever, you must also take into consideration the knowledge that under no conditions will I strike you back because it can never satisfy me to hurt you for doing what I know you are compelled to do. This prevents you from thinking up excuses in advance because you know you are already excused. You cannot say, “I couldn’t help myself because my will is not free,” because you know I already know this. You cannot apologize or ask for forgiveness because you are already forgiven, and no one is blaming you. This means that should you decide to hurt me with this first blow or be careless and take the risks that lead to a first blow, and I would have to choose between 83 retaliating or turning the other cheek, you would know that I would be compelled by my nature to find greater satisfaction in turning the other cheek because of the undeniable fact that I would know you had no choice, since your will is not free. Remember, you haven’t hurt me yet; consequently, this is still a choice under consideration. And when it fully dawns on you that this hurt to me will never be blamed, judged, or questioned in any way because I don’t want to hurt you in return for doing what must now be considered a compulsion beyond your control — ALTHOUGH YOU KNOW IT IS NOT BEYOND YOUR CONTROL AT THIS POINT SINCE YOU HAVEN’T HURT ME YET — you are compelled, completely of your own free will, so to speak, to relinquish this desire to hurt me because it can never give you greater satisfaction under the changed conditions. [Note: It must be understood that the expression ‘of your own free will,’ which is an expression I use throughout the book, only means ‘of your own desire,’ but this does not mean will is free. If you need further clarification, please reread Chapter One.] In other words, when you know that others will never blame or punish you for what they are compelled to excuse, but also that the other factors truly responsible for the dissatisfaction which engendered the consideration of hurting others as a possible solution will be permanently removed as a consequence of following our slide rule in all of its ramifications, you will be given no opportunity to ever again strike another blow of hurt. It becomes the worst possible choice to hurt another when it is known there will be no blame because there is no advantage in hurting those whom you know are compelled to turn the other cheek for their satisfaction. Conscience, this guilty feeling over such an act, will not permit it because you will get less satisfaction, not more. Let me say again that if man’s will was free, we could not accomplish this because we would be able to choose what is less satisfying when something more satisfying is available.

Hm I still don't get how this is supposed to work. Say on a scale of 1 to 10, hurting you would give me a satisfaction of 8, and not hurting you would give me a satisfaction of 3. But then I realize that I won't be blamed, so my satisfaction of hurting you must fall below 3?

Why? Why doesn't it fall to say 7? And I'll still hurt you. Or if I don't care, it remains at 8. Or the fact that you won't blame me makes me so disgusted that it goes up to 9?

If you were thinking of hurting me on a scale of 1-10, it must be because I had hurt you in some way, but if you were not hurt by me in any way at all, then you would have NO justification to hurt me on your scale of 1-10. You would fall below 0. Think about this: if your cheek has not been struck, do you need to strike back or turn the other side of your face?
Explain why it will fall below 3?

Knowing IN ADVANCE that you will not be blamed, along with the removal of the factors that allowed you to even consider hurting others as a solution to your problem, would prevent the very first blow. If the factors were such that by not hurting others, you became a loser, like the example in the economic chapter, then you would be justified to hurt others as the lesser of two evils (the law of self-preservation). But when this justification is removed by preventing you from becoming a loser unless you hurt them, you would have no justification to consider this act as a preferable alternative.

[Atla]

There is no way to prove that under changed conditions a person's conscience would be weak, as you seem to believe. You are basing this on observations made in this world, not the new world. You can't do that and think that conscience is static and doesn't change according to major changes in the environment.

Conscience isn't static, but it's pretty much proven at this point that some people would have no conscience even in your new world, because that's sometimes genetic. Though there would be less people without conscience. Anyway let's grant that everyone will have normal conscience.

Because knowing IN ADVANCE that you will not be blamed, along with the removal of the factors that allowed you to even consider hurting others as a solution to your problem, would prevent the very first blow. If the factors were such that by not hurting others, you became a loser, like the example in the economic chapter, then you would be justified to hurt me. But when this justification is removed by preventing you from becoming a loser unless you hurt me, you would have no justification to consider this move, as the lesser of two evils; namely, not to hurt myself even though I have to hurt you.

Let's not bring other factors into this, they can also be changed while keeping blame. We can keep blame and remove all factors that allow us to even consider hurting others.

I still don't get why knowing in advance that I won't be blamed would make such a difference.

[peacegirl]

There is no way to prove that under changed conditions a person's conscience would be weak, as you seem to believe. You are basing this on observations made in this world, not the new world. You can't do that and think that conscience is static and doesn't change according to major changes in the environment.

Conscience isn't static, but it's pretty much proven at this point that some people would have no conscience even in your new world, because that's sometimes genetic. Though there would be less people without conscience. Anyway let's grant that everyone will have normal conscience.

That is absolutely not true, but you have to understand that in order for this paradigm shift to work, all blame in the environment must be removed that would give someone the justification to take advantage of others.

Once the transition gets officially launched, that is, as soon as the leaders have become citizens by passing their examination, it will be mathematically impossible for war to continue or begin again, and the greatest transition in the history of mankind will be well on its way. Assuming that you fully understand what it means that man’s will is not free, the next step in our blueprint (our diagram of how it is now possible to remove all evil from our lives) is to remove from around the entire earth, regardless of who gets displaced, all those people who are in any way associated with blame, including the leaders and their subordinates (remember, everything is exactly the same except for the written test and the IBM offices): politicians, governors, senators, all the way up to the President and his Cabinet. Everybody, notwithstanding, gets displaced if their manner of earning a living is the least bit redolent of blame. Is it humanly possible to believe that the solution to the problem of war and crime involves the end of all government or, to phrase it more appropriately since many aspects of government will continue to function, the end of all authority and control? If this is true (which is not yet proven), could the commander in chief find any satisfaction in being denied the privilege of making speeches as to what he is going to accomplish even though this denial results in the very thing all the speeches in the world could never bring about? Is it not true that if the President truly cares about ending all war, could he possibly desire to tell others what to do when it can be revealed in a mathematical manner that such authority would only result in the very war he is making efforts to prevent? If every member of the government who is engaged in telling others what is right and wrong should learn that the most harmonious relations imaginable will exist on Earth the moment all government comes to an end, are these people given a choice if this is really what they want? Because this is a very crucial point, it is imperative that you completely understand what is meant by the mathematical corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, so I suggest that you reread the second chapter to fully understand why any person who judges what is right for another is absolutely wrong (as two plus two equals five is wrong), since it strikes the first blow and demonstrates how any judgment of another, before something is done, is an advance accusation that offers unconscious justification to do what is criticized by the standard imposed in the tacit blame. If you know that you can prevent the very thing you do not want by being a certain way, do you have a choice as to which direction you must go for greater satisfaction? The very first thing this book reveals in a mathematical manner is that no individual or group of individuals can ever again desire to govern another because it will be seen that not governing is truly better for themselves. For this reason, it is impossible for the government to discover the solution when this entails the removal of all government. This does not mean that the politicians are responsible for what now exists, but their removal is necessary for the cure, which will come about of their own free will. At that moment my friend interrupted…

“You can’t be serious. You don’t expect the government of the United States to discharge all her troops and leave the field to communism.”

“The sole purpose of disarming our defenses, as other countries can disarm theirs, is simply because, under the conditions just described, no country can find satisfaction in physically hurting those who refuse to hurt them in return for doing what must be considered a compulsion beyond control. But the people who are on the offensive know that this desire to hurt those who refuse to fight back is not beyond their control, and when they fully realize that their desire to strike a blow must be excused without the possibility of any justification, they are given no choice but to relinquish this desire to hurt others with the use of weapons.”

“Do you honestly believe that crime will cease when the police are removed? I think the crooks would have a ball.”

Because knowing IN ADVANCE that you will not be blamed, along with the removal of the factors that allowed you to even consider hurting others as a solution to your problem, would prevent the very first blow. If the factors were such that by not hurting others, you became a loser, like the example in the economic chapter, then you would be justified to hurt me. But when this justification is removed by preventing you from becoming a loser unless you hurt me, you would have no justification to consider this move, as the lesser of two evils; namely, not to hurt myself even though I have to hurt you.

Let's not bring other factors into this, they can also be changed while keeping blame. We can keep blame and remove all factors that allow us to even consider hurting others.

It's the blame that allows us to shift what is our responsibility.

I still don't get why knowing in advance that I won't be blamed would make such a difference.

This only relates to first blows. The reason knowing in advance that you will not be blamed which prevents you from striking this first blow is that in order to strike a first blow (to gain at their expense of someone else) needs a justification. That is how conscience works. In a free will society, our conscience does not reach the temperature required to prevent this hurt to others. We know that if we do something to hurt someone and are questioned by the authorities, we can come up with excuses by telling them why it wasn't our fault or by shifting our responsibility to someone or something else as the cause for what we know we did. Knowing in advance that we will be blamed gives us the necessary justification to carry through with what we have been contemplating. If our excuses fall on deaf ears and we can't get off the hook, we are punished, which is payment in full for what we did, which also eases conscience. But when we are not being blamed or being held responsible (since everyone knows our will is not free), then we can't pay a price because it's beyond our purchasing power since our responsibility cannot be shifted away from ourselves. IOW, a free will society of blame and punishment gives us the advance justification to do the very thing these threats of punishment are trying to prevent. But when we know in advance that no one in the world, not even the one to be hurt, will question or blame us or hold us responsible, when we know that we would be responsible (the two-sided equation), then we cannot proceed with what we are about to do, because our conscience would never permit it, thereby preventing the act.

[Age]

Please quit your whining, God.

Please find out the actual difference between 'just pointing out a fact' from 'whining'.

I did God, that's why I'm asking you to please stop whining already.

Lol, just claiming you did some thing, without ever showing or proving you did, once again, does not mean that you actually did.

Also, why do you keep saying things as though they are true, when you believe, absolutely, they are not true?

Do 'you' have some sort of psychological disorder?

you claim to be able to recognise and see them in 'others', but is there a possibility that you could have one or two "yourself"?

[Age]

This is really sad coming from a philosophy forum that is held in high regard. If this is the consensus, there's nowhere for me to go. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

1. 'What', exactly, is supposedly 'really sad', to you, here?

THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE CLOSED YOUR MIND TO THE POSSIBILITY THAT THIS IS AN AUTHENTIC DISCOVERY.

2. Who, supposedly, holds 'this philosophy forum' in so-called 'high regards'?

I GUESS NO ONE. TALK ABOUT ONE FLEW OVER THE COO COO'S NEST.

3. If 'what' is the consensus?

4. There is, supposedly, nowhere for you to go in relation to 'what', exactly?

IN RELATION TO CONTINUE ON.

5. And, 'we' can present words to you, but 'we' can not make 'you' consider nor to think differently.

NOPE. YOU CAN'T MAKE ME CONSIDER THAT ONE PLUS ONE EQUALS ELEVEN EITHER.

Look, you obviously have a belief, here, which you are completely unwilling 'to shake' nor let go of, and considering the fact that you are certainly not ready to just look at and discuss what you are presenting, here, shows that you are also not yet ready to consider any thing other than what you believe, here.

IT'S NOT A BELIEF. TO SAY THAT IN ORDER FOR ME TO BE HEARD IS TO ADMIT IT COULD BE WRONG IS UNFAIR. I HAVE PRESENTED THE FIRST THREE CHAPTERS IN A PDF FORMAT AND I TYPED IT OUT FOR THOSE WHO WANT IT SPOONFED TO THEM, BUT FOR YOU TO TELL ME THAT I HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT HE WAS WRONG AND LET GO OF IT, JUST BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE THERE IS NOTHING TO IT SHOWS ME THAT YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO TAKE THIS KNOWLEDGE SERIOUSLY, WHICH GIVES ME NOWHERE TO GO.

Once more, 'you' are believing, absolutely, your own made up assumptions. Which from the very outset are absolutely False and Incorrect.

And, it is for this very reason why you are, relatively, getting absolutely nowhere, here.

I suggest you become open, first, and then begin discussing, here.

[peacegirl]

1. 'What', exactly, is supposedly 'really sad', to you, here?

THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE CLOSED YOUR MIND TO THE POSSIBILITY THAT THIS IS AN AUTHENTIC DISCOVERY.

2. Who, supposedly, holds 'this philosophy forum' in so-called 'high regards'?

I GUESS NO ONE. TALK ABOUT ONE FLEW OVER THE COO COO'S NEST.

3. If 'what' is the consensus?

4. There is, supposedly, nowhere for you to go in relation to 'what', exactly?

IN RELATION TO CONTINUE ON.

5. And, 'we' can present words to you, but 'we' can not make 'you' consider nor to think differently.

NOPE. YOU CAN'T MAKE ME CONSIDER THAT ONE PLUS ONE EQUALS ELEVEN EITHER.

Look, you obviously have a belief, here, which you are completely unwilling 'to shake' nor let go of, and considering the fact that you are certainly not ready to just look at and discuss what you are presenting, here, shows that you are also not yet ready to consider any thing other than what you believe, here.

IT'S NOT A BELIEF. TO SAY THAT IN ORDER FOR ME TO BE HEARD IS TO ADMIT IT COULD BE WRONG IS UNFAIR. I HAVE PRESENTED THE FIRST THREE CHAPTERS IN A PDF FORMAT AND I TYPED IT OUT FOR THOSE WHO WANT IT SPOONFED TO THEM, BUT FOR YOU TO TELL ME THAT I HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT HE WAS WRONG AND LET GO OF IT, JUST BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE THERE IS NOTHING TO IT SHOWS ME THAT YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO TAKE THIS KNOWLEDGE SERIOUSLY, WHICH GIVES ME NOWHERE TO GO.

Once more, 'you' are believing, absolutely, your own made up assumptions. Which from the very outset are absolutely False and Incorrect.

And, it is for this very reason why you are, relatively, getting absolutely nowhere, here.

I suggest you become open, first, and then begin discussing, here.

I think our discussion is over Age. You keep telling me I'm wrong when you ask no questions. It's not worth it to me to continue on.

[Age]

IT'S NOT A BELIEF. TO SAY THAT IN ORDER FOR ME TO BE HEARD IS TO ADMIT IT COULD BE WRONG IS UNFAIR. I HAVE PRESENTED THE FIRST THREE CHAPTERS IN A PDF FORMAT AND I TYPED IT OUT FOR THOSE WHO WANT IT SPOONFED TO THEM, BUT FOR YOU TO TELL ME THAT I HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT HE WAS WRONG AND LET GO OF IT, JUST BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE THERE IS NOTHING TO IT SHOWS ME THAT YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO TAKE THIS KNOWLEDGE SERIOUSLY, WHICH GIVES ME NOWHERE TO GO.

Once more, 'you' are believing, absolutely, your own made up assumptions. Which from the very outset are absolutely False and Incorrect.

And, it is for this very reason why you are, relatively, getting absolutely nowhere, here.

I suggest you become open, first, and then begin discussing, here.

I think our discussion is over Age. You keep telling me I'm wrong when you ask no questions. It's not worth it to me to continue on.

Lol Here 'we' have another prime example of what happens to one when they assume and believe things.

I have asked questions, although 'this one' believes I have not. And, it is was, obviously, by me asking questions 'this one' questions why 'this one' was providing responses.

Now, 'this one' believes absolutely that its responses are absolutely right, without even just considering what any one points out and shows. As can be clearly seen by 'this one's' responses to others, here

[Age]

The so-called 'Golden Age of humanity' will not occur in 'the way' you are 'trying to' say and claim, here.

Now, contrary to one of your very fixed and closed beliefs, here, I do know the 'Truly peaceful and harmonious world for every one, as One', can, and will, happen and occur.

So, can you comprehend that 'that belief' of yours that I have decided that the claimed removal of all evil sounds impossible was, and is, just a fabrication of 'your own imagination', only?