Philosophy Now Forum

Age:- Your style of writing where you keep using capitals for every other words is extremely annoying to read, it does not ENHANCE your points.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Dec 07, 2018 4:08 pm Yes, blame muslims.

More accurately: if Aziz -- in the name of the prophet -- blows people up, hold Aziz accountable.

Lovely as it may be to lay the blame on the idiotic writings of a a schizophrenic pedophile (praise be the friggin' prophet!), reality is: Aziz (and no one but Aziz) is responsible.

So, yeah, blame the wrong-doin' muslim (and leave the blamless muslim alone).

And: all this 'thought police' nonsense is well & fine till you run across some stubborn sonuvabitch who takes issue with busybodies futzin' around with his head.

Tread lightly, busybodies.

Would it be easier to deal with 300* million Aziz[s] or one evil laden ideology of Islam.

• * conservatively 20% of ALL 1.5 billion Muslims are evil prone and can be easily triggered to act impulsively on the evil laden commands of Allah in the Quran.

Are you familiar with this game -Whac-A-Mole - where you whack one down, it and others will reappear again and again, i.e. the lost cause of fire-fighting, trying to 'cure' instead of 'prevention'.



I have stated those Muslims who committed Islamic-based evil and violent acts must be held accountable to the Law of the Nation or an International Court. But this should be secondary and not primary.

OP wrote:Nevertheless the Muslims evildoers must accept legal accountability and prevented from carrying out the evil acts.
viewtopic.php?p=370344#p370344

The primary and critical root cause must be the loads of evil elements within the ideology of Islam.

"Would it be easier to deal with 300* million Aziz[s] or one evil laden ideology of Islam."

The only way to stymie the diseased ideal is by stymieing the diseased idealist.

Burn the book: some one will write it out again.

Ban the practice: it will continue behind closed doors, and on the battlefield.

No, you deal with each rabid mole as it pokes its head up, knowing there'll always be another and another and another...

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:15 am "Would it be easier to deal with 300* million Aziz[s] or one evil laden ideology of Islam."

The only way to stymie the diseased ideal is by stymieing the diseased idealist.

Burn the book: some one will write it out again.

Ban the practice: it will continue behind closed doors, and on the battlefield.

No, you deal with each rabid mole as it pokes its head up, knowing there'll always be another and another and another...

I agree banning will not work and I am not proposing that.

What I had proposed is to strive to find fool proof replacements to deal with the existential crisis that led Muslims into believing in Allah in the first place.

This will involve the rewiring of the neural circuits within the brain/mind and understanding that enable one to wean off the cling to a God and its holy texts. Given the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology, this is very feasible.

It will not work immediately in the present but very feasible within the next 50, 75, 100 years or later, but we have to start now with discussing the idea.

We cannot get rid of it 100% but once we wean off the majority to its less benign alternatives, the problem will be very easy to deal with.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 3:31 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Dec 07, 2018 12:40 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Dec 07, 2018 3:23 am
I suggest you read Jeff Foster's article on how he was using his nondual experience to bullshit his way through everyone's view.



I suggest you read the whole article.

In any case what Jeff Foster's understood as above are very common warnings by wise spiritual masters of the ancients.

LOL

Did you read the article?

No

What are your counters if any?

What is there to counter.

If people, like yourself, CLAIM to KNOW some thing, but when questioned for clarity do NOT answer the questions, like you do almost always, then what IS the actual case IS, is obviously, SEEN, UNDERSTOOD, and KNOWN.

You human beings think/BELIEVE that when I ask a question for clarity that it is a rhetorical question asked to prove some kind of point. This could NOT be any further from the actual and Real Truth, even if you had tried to go further away.

If you, like most nondual BELIEVERS, want to express as though you KNOW some thing, then be prepared for me to ask questions, and you better be able to back up what you say YOU KNOW, or else you are just doing what ALL adult human beings do. That is; BELIEVE that you are RIGHT and that "others" are WRONG.

My OPEN clarifying questions, and your OWN responses or non-responses, usually, counter your own claims, anyway. My job is NOT to counter any thing here, but to SHOW just how easily I can make you counter your own selves, without you even noticing nor recognizing you are doing it.

Jeez, that's been the wet dream of tyrants and dictators since before man fell outta the trees.

No thanks. Stay the hell outta my head.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Dec 07, 2018 12:40 pmYou human beings think/BELIEVE that when I ask a question....blah blah

Do you not consider yourself a human being?

This thread is abundant with the paradox of tolerance.

Do you draw a distinction between Islam-the-ideology and intolerance-the-human-behaviour?

Some Muslims are intolerant. But most Muslims are.
Some Christians are intolerant. But most Christians are.
Some Buddhists are intolerant. But most Buddhists are.

Some humans are intolerant. But most humans are.

The OP appears to be intolerant of Islam. Should we blame intolerance?

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 7:10 pm This thread is abundant with the paradox of tolerance.

Do you draw a distinction between Islam-the-ideology and intolerance-the-human-behaviour?

Some Muslims are intolerant. But most Muslims are.
Some Christians are intolerant. But most Christians are.
Some Buddhists are intolerant. But most Buddhists are.

Some humans are intolerant. But most humans are.

The OP appears to be intolerant of Islam. Should we blame intolerance?

Where is your logic and critical thinking?

The OP is focusing on 'Do Not Blame Muslims' not Islam.

Islam is an ideology.
What is wrong with critiquing an or any ideology?
What has happened to your critical thinking skills and tendencies?

Islam is an ideology that is believed.
Beliefs [NURTURE] can be changed with philosophy-proper and critical thinking.

It is possible but harder to change one's NATURE that one is born with, e.g. the naturally tendency to commit evil in this case.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 4:12 pm Jeez, that's been the wet dream of tyrants and dictators since before man fell outta the trees.

No thanks. Stay the hell outta my head.

You seem lost.
Note 1000 or 500 years ago no one would imagine humanity would be able to come up with Laws to abolish chattel slavery. Note all recognized Nations has laws that abolish Chattel slavery. This involved only some changes in the neural wiring in the brain.

Long ago the majority believed the Earth is flat but not now and this is corresponded with changes in the neural wirings in the brain.

It will be the same with theism where is possible to wean it off with some natural changes [fool proof] within the neural wirings in the brain.

Nuthin'.

But you propose more than analysis, Veritas. You propose "rewiring of the neural circuits within the brain/mind".

You propose to reshape humans into sumthin' more to your liking, whether they like it ir not.

My proposal is more modest: kill the bad guys and leave the rest alone.

Your proposal destroys autonomy; mine merely provides consequence for bein' a fuckwad.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:47 am Nuthin'.

But you propose more than analysis, Veritas. You propose "rewiring of the neural circuits within the brain/mind".

You propose to reshape humans into sumthin' more to your liking, whether they like it ir not.

My proposal is more modest: kill the bad guys and leave the rest alone.

Your proposal destroys autonomy; mine merely provides consequence for bein' a fuckwad.

Where did I say use force.
I have always stated, "use fool proofs methods on a voluntary basis" and based on convincing oneself with evidence and proofs.

I was once a theist [pantheist] and voluntarily graduate to be non-a-theists based on critiques from others and critical thinking. There were obviously changes in my brain.

Your proposals to kill is very immoral and evil.

If you don't use force how the hell else are you gonna get 300 million zealots to still still and listen to your evidence and proofs?

I've said it before: you wanna reason with the unreasonable; you wanna play nice with rabid dogs.

#

"I was once a theist [pantheist] and voluntarily graduate to be non-a-theist"

Yeah, but I suspect you were never fanatical in your theism. You were willing to listen. The bulk of that 300 million aren't.

#

"Your proposals to kill is very immoral and evil."

Nah, I just take that old Hebrew injunction (If you know someone is coming to kill you, get up early in the morning and go kill them first) seriously. I take self-defense and the defense of loved ones seriously. And: if Aziz wants to make me die cuz I won't take a knee for Allah, well, I'm thinkin' the best thing I can do is make Aziz die for Allah. Sure, you can talk to 'em, but I don't fancy gettin' offed while you parley.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 4:11 am Age:- Your style of writing where you keep using capitals for every other words is extremely annoying to read, it does not ENHANCE your points.

Okay, if I remember I will not use them when discussing with you.

By the way, how exactly do I have control over your internal feelings/emotions just by using capital letters for some words?

How can just that be 'annoying' to you, let alone 'extremely annoying'?

Do you get so easily annoyed, like this, often?

Is there any thing else I do, that annoys you?

I do not want to annoy you, especially since you are saying that I have this kind of control over you. I would much prefer to make you wiser and happier, than make you annoyed. Would you like to inform me of what does make you happy, so then I could do that instead.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 4:23 am If you don't use force how the hell else are you gonna get 300 million zealots to still still and listen to your evidence and proofs?

I've said it before: you wanna reason with the unreasonable; you wanna play nice with rabid dogs.

If there is a will there will be a way.
I am not expecting immediate solutions at present but rather we need to plan now to achieve results in say 50, 75 years or ASAP thereafter.

At present there is the current trend of an exponential expansion of knowledge and technology. What I proposed will be to ride on this wave.
Note how easily a large % of the whole of humanity is owning and using a smart phone within less than 20 years.

The jungle village hooked on their phones
Tech has arrived in this indigenous village in the remote Amazon jungle. Many young people now spend their time engrossed in their phones and social media pages.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-latin ... eir-phones

Note technology usage within the tribes is very common;


I am optimistic the new knowledge and technology will be able to influence theists to understand their clinging to an illusion for psychological purpose in the future ASAP. Then they will give up theism and replace it with fool proof voluntarily methods to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

We don't need to change 300 millions or more but rather influencing a critical mass of 100 millions is sufficient to turn the tide.