Philosophy Now Forum

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 4:55 pm

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?

Objectively,
The 'you' is a human being, or, human beings.

However, to KNOW thy Self, as in Who am 'I', IS the, objective, 'I'.

The 'I' is NOT a human being.

So, when you say, "you" and "yourself".

Who are you actually referring to? Who is the 'you' considering "yourself"? Who is the 'you' in "yourself"? Who is the 'self' in "yourself"? 'Your' implies ownership so who is the owner/you of "self" in "yourself? Et cetera, et cetera.

You have to KNOW thy Self, fully, FIRST, in order to be able to grasp and understand if and how one considers them self to be a human being or not.

When you have discovered and/or learned who and/or what 'you' are, then you will see the contradiction in asking a question like: Do 'you' not consider 'your-self' a human being?

As stated earlier; 'you' are a human being, whereas, 'I' am not.

All of this, obviously, would appear rather perplexing and puzzling, but really it is not AFTER thy Self is fully understood and KNOWN.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 5:27 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 4:55 pm

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?

Objectively,
The 'you' is a human being, or, human beings.

However, to KNOW thy Self, as in Who am 'I', IS the, objective, 'I'.

The 'I' is NOT a human being.

So, when you say, "you" and "yourself".

Who are you actually referring to? Who is the 'you' considering "yourself"? Who is the 'you' in "yourself"? Who is the 'self' in "yourself"? 'Your' implies ownership so who is the owner/you of "self" in "yourself? Et cetera, et cetera.

You have to KNOW thy Self, fully, FIRST, in order to be able to grasp and understand if and how one considers them self to be a human being or not.

When you have discovered and/or learned who and/or what 'you' are, then you will see the contradiction in asking a question like: Do 'you' not consider 'your-self' a human being?

As stated earlier; 'you' are a human being, whereas, 'I' am not.

All of this, obviously, would appear rather perplexing and puzzling, but really it is not AFTER thy Self is fully understood and KNOWN.

You think you are smart but act like a fool.

This is like a case where one is asked,
Is that diamond gem hard and solid?
Smart Fool Age will answer, NO! the diamond is 99.99% empty and soft.

Your problem is you are unable to appreciate the Principle of Charity and read the questioner's mind which is focus on the conventional empirical perspective.

Instead in thinking you are smart, you change the perspective to the atomic perspective where it is true a diamond gem in that sense is not solid and is 'soft'.
This is intellectually dishonest.

In the above case, you are asked in the conventional empirical self,
Do you not consider yourself a human being?
which can easily be answered conventionally.

But you stupidly change perspective to the metaphysical perspective to try to make others look stupid.
You should have given the conventional answers then say but in another perspective ..

You understand K.I.S.S. ?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:53 am

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.

So, and as you like to use figures, what is the percentage of the people that you want to change, being open to what you want to change them to on a 'voluntary basis'?

They were only 'fool proof methods" because they worked on you, only. By your own admission you were just voluntarily wanting to go that way, anyway.

I find it hilarious that you wrote, based on 'convincing oneself' with evidence and proofs.

Human beings do not 'convince' them self of some thing. They convince "others", or more often than not, 'try to' convince others of some thing.

Also, one does not 'convince' them self with evidence and proofs. One sees some thing, one way or another, and then when 'evidence and proofs', of some thing else, come along, then they just see things a different way. Saying 'convincing oneself with evidence and proofs' is a contradiction in terms. You would have to be believing in some thing, but know it is not right to be wanting to, or telling oneself to, be 'convinced' of some thing else.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:53 amI was once a theist [pantheist] and voluntarily graduate to be non-a-theists based on critiques from others and critical thinking.

So why not just write the critiques down from your critical thinking.

You say that it worked on you, so why would it not work on everyone?

Or, does your phrase 'voluntary graduate to be a non-theist' somehow infects the idea that some one can just change another, through the rewiring of neurons, by critiques from others and critical thinking?

Does one need to be 'voluntary wanting to graduate to be a non-theist' before they could even begin to become one?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:53 amThere were obviously changes in my brain.

And, what the actual changes were are obvious, but it is a real pity that you can not see what those changes actually are and were.

Your whole idea of the changing of others to think, see, and believe what you do, being based solely on the premise that you were once a theist, with an existential crisis, and through voluntary you graduated to being a non-theist, therefore what worked for me, veritas, so it will work for every one, will NOT work.

You actually believe that all theists had the exact same crisis as you had, and that because you see things clearly now, then all other theists do not see clearly, are disillusioned, and therefore need to be corrected, just like i, veritas, was, that that then is going to happen. Am I right? Please correct me if i am wrong.

Although your plan has good intentions and might actually work, the changing of one group of distorted thinking human beings into another group of distorted thinking human beings is really rather unnecessary, and so a complete waste of effort.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 5:18 am

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.

Which could just well work against your favor.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 5:18 amWhat 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.

So, ride the wave, use the phones and start texting, telling ALL muslims that the ideology of islam is based on evil intentions and that God/Allah is an impossibility. That surely will make them see things much clearer, and the world a much better place to live in.

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;
[/quote]

This is the way you want human beings to be, just like you;
Real a newspaper article.
Assume/conjecture that that story is 100% correct about technology usage within the "tribes" is very common.
Grow this assumption/conjecture to a belief.
Look at a picture.
Use that as evidence to back up and support your own belief that technology usage within the "tribes" is very common. (By the way which "tribes" are we talking about here? And, do not the children of EVERY tribe in the world spend some (more?) time on a new technology introduced to them, by adults, if the technology is intriguing and/or being enjoyed?)
And then reference this with links and supporting evidences, which are just the exact same newspaper article and one picture.
Therefore, verifying its authenticity and thus making it now a Justified True Belief.

Therefore, with the advent of "technology", based on the idea that many young people now spend their time engrossed in their phones and social media pages (as if that even needed to be read to be known), anyway, based on that the plan of getting ALL or some muslims to see that the true ideology of islam is based on evil intentions and that they should accept that God/Allah is an impossibility will be easy to put into practice and fulfill.

Unfortunately though what just might happen is more people are brought up in and/or converted to islam than what your plan will achieve in converting the numbers of people away from islam.

Your plan, obviously, could also influence some to resist further and fight back, which could then produce the exact opposite of what you are saying you want to happen.

Are you just going to accept another's BELIEF, and change to that other BELIEF, especially if it completely opposed your BELIEF, or would you take a stance and fight harder for your own BELIEF?

In fact, what could be causing far more conflict in the world is what you are actually doing here. That is; TRYING TO convert others to some thing that they do NOT want to be converted into and follow.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 5:18 amI 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.

But when are you, veritas, going to be influenced to realize and see that what you are clinging to is also an illusion, and it does not matter for what purpose?

You can not fix the 'problem' until you admit you have a 'problem'. And, to you, you do NOT have a 'problem', am I right?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 5:18 amWhat new knowledge and technology could be used to influence you to see what the actual and real Truth IS?

Then they will give up theism and replace it with fool proof voluntarily methods to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

lol

Do you, veritas, have the inherent unavoidable existential crisis?

Do ALL people have it?

Are ALL people born with it?

When does it actually come to surface in people?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 5:18 amWe don't need to change 300 millions or more but rather influencing a critical mass of 100 millions is sufficient to turn the tide.

How did you arrive at the figure '100 million' as being a 'critical mass'?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:01 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:53 am

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.

So, and as you like to use figures, what is the percentage of the people that you want to change, being open to what you want to change them to on a 'voluntary basis'?

They were only 'fool proof methods" because they worked on you, only. By your own admission you were just voluntarily wanting to go that way, anyway.

I find it hilarious that you wrote, based on 'convincing oneself' with evidence and proofs.

Human beings do not 'convince' them self of some thing. They convince "others", or more often than not, 'try to' convince others of some thing.

Also, one does not 'convince' them self with evidence and proofs. One sees some thing, one way or another, and then when 'evidence and proofs', of some thing else, come along, then they just see things a different way. Saying 'convincing oneself with evidence and proofs' is a contradiction in terms. You would have to be believing in some thing, but know it is not right to be wanting to, or telling oneself to, be 'convinced' of some thing else.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:53 amI was once a theist [pantheist] and voluntarily graduate to be non-a-theists based on critiques from others and critical thinking.

So why not just write the critiques down from your critical thinking.

You say that it worked on you, so why would it not work on everyone?

Or, does your phrase 'voluntary graduate to be a non-theist' somehow infects the idea that some one can just change another, through the rewiring of neurons, by critiques from others and critical thinking?

Does one need to be 'voluntary wanting to graduate to be a non-theist' before they could even begin to become one?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:53 amThere were obviously changes in my brain.

And, what the actual changes were are obvious, but it is a real pity that you can not see what those changes actually are and were.

Your whole idea of the changing of others to think, see, and believe what you do, being based solely on the premise that you were once a theist, with an existential crisis, and through voluntary you graduated to being a non-theist, therefore what worked for me, veritas, so it will work for every one, will NOT work.

You actually believe that all theists had the exact same crisis as you had, and that because you see things clearly now, then all other theists do not see clearly, are disillusioned, and therefore need to be corrected, just like i, veritas, was, that that then is going to happen. Am I right? Please correct me if i am wrong.

Although your plan has good intentions and might actually work, the changing of one group of distorted thinking human beings into another group of distorted thinking human beings is really rather unnecessary, and so a complete waste of effort.

The whole issue is VERY complex and I am only scratching the surface.
On this issue you are at level 2/10 while I am at 9/10.

Note this usual face illusion experiment where I showed how the human brain/deceives oneself cognitively.



The above illusion is easy to explain, i.e. turn over the image to reveal the truth.
The illusion of God is very complex and difficult to explain to get to the truth because it involves very sophisticated transcendental thinking and pseudo syllogism.

The basic solution could be something like;
I could construct a smartphone apps where one can easily download and repeatedly test a thousands or million times to convince one God is an illusion.

The above need to be enhanced with real practices and experiences that will convince one the truth that God is an illusion and better alternative fool proof replacements need to be found to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:37 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 5:18 am
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.

Which could just well work against your favor.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 5:18 amWhat 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.

So, ride the wave, use the phones and start texting, telling ALL muslims that the ideology of islam is based on evil intentions and that God/Allah is an impossibility. That surely will make them see things much clearer, and the world a much better place to live in.

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;

This is the way you want human beings to be, just like you;
Real a newspaper article.
Assume/conjecture that that story is 100% correct about technology usage within the "tribes" is very common.
Grow this assumption/conjecture to a belief.
Look at a picture.
Use that as evidence to back up and support your own belief that technology usage within the "tribes" is very common. (By the way which "tribes" are we talking about here? And, do not the children of EVERY tribe in the world spend some (more?) time on a new technology introduced to them, by adults, if the technology is intriguing and/or being enjoyed?)
And then reference this with links and supporting evidences, which are just the exact same newspaper article and one picture.
Therefore, verifying its authenticity and thus making it now a Justified True Belief.

Therefore, with the advent of "technology", based on the idea that many young people now spend their time engrossed in their phones and social media pages (as if that even needed to be read to be known), anyway, based on that the plan of getting ALL or some muslims to see that the true ideology of islam is based on evil intentions and that they should accept that God/Allah is an impossibility will be easy to put into practice and fulfill.

Unfortunately though what just might happen is more people are brought up in and/or converted to islam than what your plan will achieve in converting the numbers of people away from islam.

Your plan, obviously, could also influence some to resist further and fight back, which could then produce the exact opposite of what you are saying you want to happen.

Are you just going to accept another's BELIEF, and change to that other BELIEF, especially if it completely opposed your BELIEF, or would you take a stance and fight harder for your own BELIEF?

In fact, what could be causing far more conflict in the world is what you are actually doing here. That is; TRYING TO convert others to some thing that they do NOT want to be converted into and follow.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 5:18 amI 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.

But when are you, veritas, going to be influenced to realize and see that what you are clinging to is also an illusion, and it does not matter for what purpose?

You can not fix the 'problem' until you admit you have a 'problem'. And, to you, you do NOT have a 'problem', am I right?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 5:18 amWhat new knowledge and technology could be used to influence you to see what the actual and real Truth IS?

Then they will give up theism and replace it with fool proof voluntarily methods to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

lol

Do you, veritas, have the inherent unavoidable existential crisis?

Do ALL people have it?

Are ALL people born with it?

When does it actually come to surface in people?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 5:18 amWe don't need to change 300 millions or more but rather influencing a critical mass of 100 millions is sufficient to turn the tide.

How did you arrive at the figure '100 million' as being a 'critical mass'?

As I had stated you are at level 2/10 while I am at 9/10 on this particular issue.
So it is not easy for me to provide you with the tons of research materials I have gathered to justify my optimism that what I proposed can be done in the near future.

I have stated before, DNA wise ALL human being are born with a potential of the inherent unavoidable existential crisis. That 'ALL' include me.
This potential is activated in different degrees with the majority of theists having the higher activations.
The secular will seek non-theistic methods to deal with the inherent existential crisis, e.g. secular activities, SOME will turn to drugs, pain killers, commit suicide, etc.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 5:43 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 5:27 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 4:55 pm

Do you not consider yourself a human being?

Objectively,
The 'you' is a human being, or, human beings.

However, to KNOW thy Self, as in Who am 'I', IS the, objective, 'I'.

The 'I' is NOT a human being.

So, when you say, "you" and "yourself".

Who are you actually referring to? Who is the 'you' considering "yourself"? Who is the 'you' in "yourself"? Who is the 'self' in "yourself"? 'Your' implies ownership so who is the owner/you of "self" in "yourself? Et cetera, et cetera.

You have to KNOW thy Self, fully, FIRST, in order to be able to grasp and understand if and how one considers them self to be a human being or not.

When you have discovered and/or learned who and/or what 'you' are, then you will see the contradiction in asking a question like: Do 'you' not consider 'your-self' a human being?

As stated earlier; 'you' are a human being, whereas, 'I' am not.

All of this, obviously, would appear rather perplexing and puzzling, but really it is not AFTER thy Self is fully understood and KNOWN.

You think you are smart but act like a fool.

You are WRONG here.

I do NOT think I am smart.

But as for how I appear to act or not to you, I can not dispute as this is, obviously, totally up to you.

This is like a case where one is asked,
Is that diamond gem hard and solid?[/quote]

I assure you this is nothing like that.

Although I readily admit that it might appear that way, to you.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 5:43 amSmart Fool Age will answer, NO! the diamond is 99.99% empty and soft.

I can assure you that your ASSUMPTION is WRONG, again.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 5:43 amYour problem is you are unable to appreciate the Principle of Charity and read the questioner's mind which is focus on the conventional empirical perspective.

You still have NOT recognized the Truth about 'convention'. Although I have explained it to you.

Just about any writing can be INTERPRETED in different ways.

'Conventional' IS like ALL things in Life, relative to the observer.

There is NO 'conventional empirical perspective', unless of course one is agreed upon, PRIOR.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 5:43 amInstead in thinking you are smart,

THAT is your ASSUMPTION veritas, which once again IS WRONG.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 5:43 am you change the perspective to the atomic perspective where it is true a diamond gem in that sense is not solid and is 'soft'.

LOL That is EXACTLY NOT what I did.

This is intellectually dishonest.[/quote]

If you say so.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 5:43 amIn the above case, you are asked in the conventional empirical self,

As you like to appear the holder of all wisdom of 'conventional empirical' things.

How about you tell us what the actual 'conventional empirical self' IS?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 5:43 amDo you not consider yourself a human being?
which can easily be answered conventionally.

If as I think you are suggesting what the answer will be, then what is the point of the question? (But I will await your reply, of what the 'conventional' answer is, before I say much more here).

But you stupidly change perspective to the metaphysical perspective to try to make others look stupid.[/quote]

I CERTAINLY did NOT do such thing to make any one look stupid here. I NEVER intend for any one to look stupid especially IF they ask a clarifying
question in an apparent OPEN way. In fact I encourage it and SEEK it out. I love and thrive on being challenged.

If, however, they do what you, veritas, and do come across as though their BELIEF is absolutely true, right, and correct, when it is obviously not, then I will question them in a way, that they, themselves, will inevitably end up looking stupid, all by their own self.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 5:43 amYou should have given the conventional answers then say but in another perspective ..

"Should" I?

What happens if I did give this "conventional answer", which in ALL honesty I still do NOT know what it IS, and then what "should" I do next?

You said I "should" say, 'But in another perspective ...'

How "should" i continue, from your perspective?

As far as I can see now, all I would have done would be just repeat what I said above anyway?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 5:43 amYou understand K.I.S.S. ?

Tell Me how I explain that 'you' are human beings and 'I' am God and keep that simple?

Especially when there are thousands upon thousands of people just like you, veritas, who actually BELIEVE that you and they KNOW thee Truth, and insist that 'God is an impossibility'?

Explaining the simple, to people who BELIEVE otherwise, is not a very simple task to do.

Take, for example, just explaining the simple action that the earth revolves around the sun. Even after some 400 or so years it is still impossible to keep that simple and explain that simple idea to those who have BELIEFS, that it is an impossibility.

If it takes that long for just that kept simple idea, then how long would it take to explain, to you, that God is not just a possibility but is in fact talking to and with 'you', right now?

Keeping It Simple Stupid is certainly NOT going to work, on you, is it?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:47 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:01 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:53 am
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.

So, and as you like to use figures, what is the percentage of the people that you want to change, being open to what you want to change them to on a 'voluntary basis'?

They were only 'fool proof methods" because they worked on you, only. By your own admission you were just voluntarily wanting to go that way, anyway.

I find it hilarious that you wrote, based on 'convincing oneself' with evidence and proofs.

Human beings do not 'convince' them self of some thing. They convince "others", or more often than not, 'try to' convince others of some thing.

Also, one does not 'convince' them self with evidence and proofs. One sees some thing, one way or another, and then when 'evidence and proofs', of some thing else, come along, then they just see things a different way. Saying 'convincing oneself with evidence and proofs' is a contradiction in terms. You would have to be believing in some thing, but know it is not right to be wanting to, or telling oneself to, be 'convinced' of some thing else.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:53 amI was once a theist [pantheist] and voluntarily graduate to be non-a-theists based on critiques from others and critical thinking.

So why not just write the critiques down from your critical thinking.

You say that it worked on you, so why would it not work on everyone?

Or, does your phrase 'voluntary graduate to be a non-theist' somehow infects the idea that some one can just change another, through the rewiring of neurons, by critiques from others and critical thinking?

Does one need to be 'voluntary wanting to graduate to be a non-theist' before they could even begin to become one?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:53 amThere were obviously changes in my brain.

And, what the actual changes were are obvious, but it is a real pity that you can not see what those changes actually are and were.

Your whole idea of the changing of others to think, see, and believe what you do, being based solely on the premise that you were once a theist, with an existential crisis, and through voluntary you graduated to being a non-theist, therefore what worked for me, veritas, so it will work for every one, will NOT work.

You actually believe that all theists had the exact same crisis as you had, and that because you see things clearly now, then all other theists do not see clearly, are disillusioned, and therefore need to be corrected, just like i, veritas, was, that that then is going to happen. Am I right? Please correct me if i am wrong.

Although your plan has good intentions and might actually work, the changing of one group of distorted thinking human beings into another group of distorted thinking human beings is really rather unnecessary, and so a complete waste of effort.

The whole issue is VERY complex and I am only scratching the surface.
On this issue you are at level 2/10 while I am at 9/10.

You can NOT even explain this most SIMPLEST of issues, simply.

One post you write and say; Keep It Simple Stupid, but in another post you even admit that your OWN issue is VERY complex.

VERY contradictory, I might say, and have shown, to some.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:47 amNote this usual face illusion experiment where I showed how the human brain/deceives oneself cognitively.



The above illusion is easy to explain, i.e. turn over the image to reveal the truth.

But there is NOTHING to revealing the Truth. The Truth is already revealed. Just adult human beings have lost the capability of being able to LOOK AT the Truth and SEE It for what It Really IS.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:47 amThe illusion of God is very complex and difficult to explain to get to the truth because it involves very sophisticated transcendental thinking and pseudo syllogism.

Or, maybe 'the illusion of God' is very complex and difficult to explain BECAUSE 'the illusion of God' is just AN illusion itself. Considering you are NOT open, you will NEVER know.

Also was it NOT you who suggested that K.I.S.S?

If it was you, then why do you NOT Keep It Simple Stupid, yourself?

Surely explaining the so called "illusion of God" would be a very extremely simple and easy thing to do, if it was so actually Right and True.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:47 amThe basic solution could be something like;
I could construct a smartphone apps where one can easily download and repeatedly test a thousands or million times to convince one God is an illusion.

Lol so it would work like how all cults, religions, schooling works. Keep repeating some thing until you BELIEVE it is true. Sort of like you are TRYING TO do with the pic above. You BELIEVE that the more you post it and other's see it, and read your comments, then that it would then some how have MORE truth in it and to it.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:47 amThe above need to be enhanced with real practices and experiences that will convince one the truth that God is an illusion and better alternative fool proof replacements need to be found to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

But you have NOT even produced one thing whatsoever that even suggests that God is an impossibility.

ALL you are doing is TRYING TO project your own BELIEF as though it is somehow True, Right, and Correct.

If you can NOT do that simply, then WHAT is the "issue"?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:56 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:37 am

Which could just well work against your favor.



So, ride the wave, use the phones and start texting, telling ALL muslims that the ideology of islam is based on evil intentions and that God/Allah is an impossibility. That surely will make them see things much clearer, and the world a much better place to live in.



Note technology usage within the tribes is very common;

This is the way you want human beings to be, just like you;
Real a newspaper article.
Assume/conjecture that that story is 100% correct about technology usage within the "tribes" is very common.
Grow this assumption/conjecture to a belief.
Look at a picture.
Use that as evidence to back up and support your own belief that technology usage within the "tribes" is very common. (By the way which "tribes" are we talking about here? And, do not the children of EVERY tribe in the world spend some (more?) time on a new technology introduced to them, by adults, if the technology is intriguing and/or being enjoyed?)
And then reference this with links and supporting evidences, which are just the exact same newspaper article and one picture.
Therefore, verifying its authenticity and thus making it now a Justified True Belief.

Therefore, with the advent of "technology", based on the idea that many young people now spend their time engrossed in their phones and social media pages (as if that even needed to be read to be known), anyway, based on that the plan of getting ALL or some muslims to see that the true ideology of islam is based on evil intentions and that they should accept that God/Allah is an impossibility will be easy to put into practice and fulfill.

Unfortunately though what just might happen is more people are brought up in and/or converted to islam than what your plan will achieve in converting the numbers of people away from islam.

Your plan, obviously, could also influence some to resist further and fight back, which could then produce the exact opposite of what you are saying you want to happen.

Are you just going to accept another's BELIEF, and change to that other BELIEF, especially if it completely opposed your BELIEF, or would you take a stance and fight harder for your own BELIEF?

In fact, what could be causing far more conflict in the world is what you are actually doing here. That is; TRYING TO convert others to some thing that they do NOT want to be converted into and follow.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 5:18 amI 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.

But when are you, veritas, going to be influenced to realize and see that what you are clinging to is also an illusion, and it does not matter for what purpose?

You can not fix the 'problem' until you admit you have a 'problem'. And, to you, you do NOT have a 'problem', am I right?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 5:18 amWhat new knowledge and technology could be used to influence you to see what the actual and real Truth IS?

Then they will give up theism and replace it with fool proof voluntarily methods to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

lol

Do you, veritas, have the inherent unavoidable existential crisis?

Do ALL people have it?

Are ALL people born with it?

When does it actually come to surface in people?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 5:18 amWe don't need to change 300 millions or more but rather influencing a critical mass of 100 millions is sufficient to turn the tide.

How did you arrive at the figure '100 million' as being a 'critical mass'?

As I had stated you are at level 2/10 while I am at 9/10 on this particular issue.

Considering ALL of this particular issue IS of your making, then you could count me as being at level 0/10. I certainly do NOT see any "issue" here. What I do see however is you TRYING TO inflict your BELIEFS onto others, which is EXACTLY what you propose others do NOT do.

So it is not easy for me to provide you with the tons of research materials I have gathered to justify my optimism that what I proposed can be done in the near future.

The WAY you propose can very easily and simple be done.

What you propose to HAPPEN can NOT be done, especially considering you, your VERY self, can NOT change your OWN beliefs.

You WANT others to change their BELIEFS, yet you have proven countless times already here that you are NOT even able to LOOK AT your own beliefs in any way, shape, nor form.

You are EXPECTING others to do what you, yourself, can NOT and WILL NOT do.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:56 amI have stated before, DNA wise ALL human being are born with a potential of the inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

AND, I have stated before also, that just stating some thing, in of itself, does NOT make it FACT.

Provide the EVIDENCE that show through dna ALL human beings are born with a potential of the inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

If you can NOT provide that evidence, which the Truth of is already obvious, just provide the name of human being who has the argument or physical evidence that shows the part in the genetic material of dna that has or holds this potential you talk about here.

If you are going to make ridiculous comments like the potential behavior of a human beings is held within some materialist thing, then SHOW us that exact part. This should be very easy as dna is a gene, which is obviously made up of physical things.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:56 amThat 'ALL' include me.

Yes you will say that now BECAUSE you have already admitted that you have had this, so called, "inherent unavoidable existential crisis' previously.
You are just TRYING TO an excuse and justify some sort of mental breakdown you had as though it was inherent and unavoidable.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:56 amThis potential is activated in different degrees with the majority of theists having the higher activations.

And the EVIDENCE for this IS ....?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:56 amThe secular will seek non-theistic methods to deal with the inherent existential crisis, e.g. secular activities, SOME will turn to drugs, pain killers, commit suicide, etc.

So, your argument here is;
The non-theists will seek non-theists methods, good argument captain obvious. They do this to deal with some thing that you BELIEVE exists, but actually do NOT have any evidence nor proof for, other than it HAPPENED, to veritas, and therefore it MUST happen to EVERY one else.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 7:59 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:56 amThe secular will seek non-theistic methods to deal with the inherent existential crisis, e.g. secular activities, SOME will turn to drugs, pain killers, commit suicide, etc.

So, your argument here is;
The non-theists will seek non-theists methods, good argument captain obvious. They do this to deal with some thing that you BELIEVE exists, but actually do NOT have any evidence nor proof for, other than it HAPPENED, to veritas, and therefore it MUST happen to EVERY one else.

Note I mentioned DNA wise, which obviously this is based on extensive research on what is DNA.
If I assert, DNA wise all human males will have many sexual erections during their lifetime, do I have to visually confirm that every human male has erections? That is where you are dumb.

There are tons of research and information on the inherent existential crisis and its relation to the DNA.

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.

From the thread i'm taking Veritas Aequitas on in "Theists Leaped into La La Land", he\she is proving to be extremely lacking with what is required for rational debate.
Have a look. Veritas Aequitas is a militant atheist, lacking the credentials of intelligence to comprehend a concept of God beyond, a God as a man floated in space and created everything, and that (apparently) theists believe all atheists are followers of Satan.
I mean FFS, it follows, if an atheist doesn't believe there is a God, they truly are not gonna believe there is a Satan!

Veritas Aequitas - you are an IDIOT.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:32 am 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.

I don't see how anything I've said is off-point. In fact we seem to be agreeing?

It is indeed possible (but harder) to change your intolerant ways.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 8:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 7:59 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:56 amThe secular will seek non-theistic methods to deal with the inherent existential crisis, e.g. secular activities, SOME will turn to drugs, pain killers, commit suicide, etc.

So, your argument here is;
The non-theists will seek non-theists methods, good argument captain obvious. They do this to deal with some thing that you BELIEVE exists, but actually do NOT have any evidence nor proof for, other than it HAPPENED, to veritas, and therefore it MUST happen to EVERY one else.

Note I mentioned DNA wise,

Noted.

Note I did respond previously when you mentioned "dna wise", (whatever that really means).

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 8:24 amwhich obviously this is based on extensive research on what is DNA.

Doing any sort of research, extensive or not, on WHAT dna IS, will NOT prove, nor infer, nor even remotely suggest that 'ALL human beings are born with a potential of the inherent unavoidable existential crisis', as you are stating is an actual and Real FACT here.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 8:24 amIf I assert, DNA wise all human males will have many sexual erections during their lifetime, do I have to visually confirm that every human male has erections?

No.

You could use other sensory ways to confirm. For example, you could handle every male erection, and thus via feelings, you could confirm, if that is what you want to do.

Come on now, having a "crisis", which IS obviously a mental process only, and thus NOT necessarily a proven result of dna is FAR different than a human male erection. A mental "crisis" is NOT the same as having a perfectly normal dna, or genetic, reaction to what is NEEDED to keep the species existing.

OBVIOUSLY, dna plays are part in what is absolutely, fundamentally, and genetically, needed for procreation for that species. A human male erection is NECESSARY for human procreation to take place. If you roughly KNOW how procreation works in humans, then you do NOT need to visually nor via sensory feeling confirm that all human males, over a certain age, have erections, especially if you are a male of the human species. You will get the idea eventually. Genes, and/or dna, create what is needed to produce more of itself. A male erection, and a female egg, is a VERY natural and OBVIOUS part of human CREATION. Keeping itself alive is HOW genes work, naturally. The fact that a male erection is needed human procreation should STICK OUt as being blatantly obvious, without the need for visual confirmation.

A "crisis", on the other hand, Is NOT so obviously necessarily influenced nor effected by genes, nor thus "dna wise". Show us a study that reports some thing similar to that of 'an existential crisis' IS a condition dna wise, and then we CAN take a look at it. Until then I will just remain OPEN.

If, however, after you provide that study, then prove, with evidence, that 'an existential crisis' IS 'unavoidable'.

And then prove, with evidence, that 'an unavoidable existential crisis' IS inherent.

But, there is NO need to worry about providing evidence that ALL human beings are born with a 'potential' for 'an inherent unavoidable existential crisis' BECAUSE by the very definition of 'inherent' and 'unavoidable' the word 'potential' is completely redundant.

Also, the words 'inherent' and 'unavoidable' seem to make each other redundant, there maybe some way you can expand on this. So, again I will remain OPEN and await your response/s.

By the way when you use the word 'unavoidable' does that mean EVERY human being is born having this 'unavoidable' 'existential crisis'?

Because if the 'existential crisis' does not come on until later in life after birth, then OBVIOUSLY this so called 'inherent crisis" could be avoided by the extinguishing of the human body prior to the onset of the so called "unavoidable crisis".

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 8:24 amThat is where you are dumb.

WHERE was it that I am "dumb"?

Was it WHERE you made the ASSUMPTION that I would think or say that you have to visually confirm that every human male has erections.

If so, then remember that was NOT what I said you would have to do, but rather WHAT YOU SAID you would HAVE TO DO, after you made the statement that if you asserted DNA wise all human males will have many sexual erections during their lifetime.

To me, there is NO need to assert that all human males will have "many" "sexual" erections during their lifetime, and, if you want to visually confirm them or not was what you said and thus idea. That was NOTHING to do with me.

If, however, that was not WHERE I am dumb, then WHERE was it that you say I am 'dumb'. By the way, how are you defining 'dumb' here?

Also, how many is "many" sexual erections, during one's lifetime?

And, how are you differentiating between 'sexual' erection and 'non-sexual' erection here?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 8:24 amThere are tons of research and information on the inherent existential crisis and its relation to the DNA.

Is there?

Was it, or was it NOT you, who started a WHOLE thread on the, supposedly, importance of providing 'supporting evidence' with links and references, which you stated were critical?

If it was you, then what do you say about, How about you provide some sort of supporting evidence, links, and/or references to back up and support what you are stating here in a way as being an absolute fact?

After all would it not be best to follow your OWN advice instead of dismissing it and ignoring it?

You have after all also stated that you are the one who provides the most links and references, therefore, it should come more "naturally" for you to do so now.

After all of this, I just remembered; How do you define 'existential crisis'?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 5:43 am Your problem is you are unable to appreciate the Principle of Charity and read the questioner's mind which is focus on the conventional empirical perspective.

Instead in thinking you are smart, you change the perspective to the atomic perspective where it is true a diamond gem in that sense is not solid and is 'soft'.
This is intellectually dishonest.

Well, that is a mis-interpretation of the Principle of Charity if there ever was one.

In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity or charitable interpretation requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation

In applying the principle I assume that you are far more knowledgeable, far more intelligent and far more rational than I am.

For I know that the is-ought gap cannot be bridged with logic and reason. It is because I am charitable I assume you know this too. Therefore I assume that you also know all arguments can be reduced down to 'I want X' while the rest of the verbiage is just an elaborate rationalisation of your desires.

Rhetoric is the art of persuasion. The purpose of arguments/rhetoric is to hypnotise other people into agreeing with you. It is because I am charitable I assume you know this too.

Or maybe you don't know this? In which case - my charity is misplaced.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 11:27 amRhetoric is the art of persuasion. The purpose of arguments/rhetoric is to hypnotise other people into agreeing with you.

No it's not.
The art of persuasion is to provide an articulate rational explanation of something to someone, in the hope that they are intelligent enough to comprehend it. It is not to merely induce some form of suggestion via 'hypnotism'.