Is there any missunderstanding left or did the replies answer your questions to a sufficient degree?

Btw: I forgot to mention in my last reply that the function of defining something as True can be done in a tatological system regardless of the synthetic truth.
Assume we define all man are mortal. Now let's say there is something x that is man'ish but not mortal.
In a system that puts the emphasis on the synthetic truth we would have to correct the definition to: man can be mortal or immortal. (Cmp. All swans are white example)
However we could also put the emphasis on the existing definition viewing it as analytical statement which in turn leads to the statement x is not a man since x is not mortal.
So even more synthetic seeming statements can under a certain framework be understood as analytic propositions that we call axioms. If all men are mortal and socrates is a man are axioms(maybe not the best ones) the conclusion is necessarily True since they are threated as analytic propositions (because they are definitions).

How is this projecting?

I described what the function of a strawmen is. (In the part you quotet). I am in no way flawless far from it. So if you spot me using a strawmen feel free to point it out. Where did I mark your own position as "intellectual garbage". In my view I didn't.
I asked first for reformulation/preciser formulation via the questions:

So is there anything that doesn't fall into a subdomain of Philosophy?
And are all sciences subdomains of philosophy? — CaZaNOx

and

While your view seems to state everyone is a philosopher(please correct me If I am wrong) — CaZaNOx

And then I specified my view so you could address/argue against it properly. (ignoring the previous dispute)

Oh yes I forgot my point would not be that they are not subdomains and rather that the subdomains should be the determing factors for topics that are well nested within the subdomain and merley the topics/questions that don't neetly fit should be considered philosophical.
The question how I should code a for loop in c is not really a philosophical one. The question what the limitations of AI could be is. Despite both being techincal questions. — CaZaNOx

But anyhow like for your friend that felt the need to reference me in condecending ways ("people like this", what is this refering to?) (or am I wrong to not see this as compliment?) without him having the courage to address me directly, I feel that you are having a simular negative view on me maybe combined with a lack of courage to aknowledge shortcomings (I repetedly asked you to mention the cheritable interpretation that would exclude those philosophers therefore showing that it wasn't a strawmen and the mistake was on my side. The fact that you didn't do that despite it being in your intrest seems to suggest the mistake is yours.) that makes any further discussion not fruitfull.
Btw framing the response "Are you saying that..." [insert famous philosophers] "are all not philosophers" as Actually expressing the point x and y are subdomains of P is questionable at best even when leaving aside what is written between the lines and then trying to paint me as acting in an emotional manner or as me projecting without pointing out what and where just for giving you flak for such a reply seems to me the desperate approach to throw dirt at me and hope it sticks.
After all I took the post to be about my opinion I thought I give it and that would be that. In it I mentioned points that you now seem to illustrate quite well.

So TLDR
1) I simply gave my opinion om the OP.
2) You reply in passive aggressive semi beliteling manner via strawmen.
3) I point it out.
4) You try to paint me as the agressor write down your own view on the topic.
5) I refute your illustrations and try tonleave it be by addressing your philosophical points.
6) You ignore my philosophical point and try to paint me again as acting in an irrational manner.
7) This response. Basically refuting your points and asking for proof (that I assume wont come) and addressing further points that I wanted to mention earlier but didn't in hope of a good debate evolving. And finally me stating that I will let it be and that this is a good example of what I ment with my initial post. (I am not stating I didn't/don't do any mistakes if you point them out properly I will concede them. F.e. Where and what I am projecting).

Anyway thank you for your time and have a nice time

Oh yes I forgot my point would not be that they are not subdomains and rather that the subdomains should be the determing factors for topics that are well nested within the subdomain and merley the topics/questions that don't neetly fit should be considered philosophical.
The question how I should code a for loop in c is not really a philosophical one. The question what the limitations of AI could be is. Despite both being techincal questions.

So is there anything that doesn't fall into a subdomain of Philosophy?
And are all sciences subdomains of philosophy?

Oh, wow, my pretty benign comment certainly touched a nerve with you. — NKBJ

You don't address the point of you making a strawmen. The wow my benign... acts merley as a way to downplay what you did. You quote it but don't answer it.

My point was merely that politics and theology are sub-disciplines of philosophy and thus entirely relevant to the forum. — NKBJ

We know that you don't want to address my point and rather mark it as intellectual garbage so you can present your "obviously" better point. Thats basicaly why someone uses a strawmen.
I still fail to see the cheritable interpretation of my view that would exclude all this philosophers as being philosophers. While your view seems to state everyone is a philosopher(please correct me If I am wrong)

I already contextualized my response by stating the reason as understanding you to not use much effort. Addressing this again isn't adding anything and serves mainly as distraction.

Nice strawmen. Are you trolling or what's the matter with you, anyway your response could be added to my list or be understood as not much effort. You know that in philosophy one should practice a positive interpretation. I don't know what positive interpretation you chose to come to this conclusion.

And just in case you really don't get it you A) forgot literally tons of Philosophers from platon over augustinus, thomas of aquinus to Kant, Hanna Arendt, Marx, Popper and so on. Just for the political realm.
For the theological realm one could argue that Kant seperated the term God from philosophy and that it could be undestood as a severe lack of knowledge to not know that. But even that was not my point. Since as I mentioned I am generous in this regard
B) My point is that a certain topic like the question should we paint the benches in village V in blue or red is despite it being a political question not 'really' a philosophical one. So we obviously have three categories 1) Philosophical but not Political questions 2) Philosophical and Political Questions 3) Not 'really' philosophical but political questions.
My statement suggests that we have not only for politics enough questions of type 3) for me to be a disturbance.

I mostly feel that the level of discussion is not statisfactory. That people put few effort in, and that it's not really philosophy we are discussing.
This often leads to me reading posts but not commenting. I view myself as generous in all three mentioned shortcomings but it's just often hard to ignore this points.
Few effort can f.e. be 10 open questions where already one could fill multiple chapters.
Note: 'not really philosophy' is not ment to discredit and rather expresses the view that some topics fit other fields better like f.e. politics or religion/theology.

How can the conclusion of a sound deductive argument be necessarily true if it is also the case that only analytic propositions are necessarily true? — Hume1739

I don't know where you are getting the "sound deductive arguments" are "necessarily true" from.
As you pointed out soundness uses synthetic propositions and therefore is "technically" never "necessarily true".

The most cheritable way of reeding the statement (assuming it's from a credible source) is that it tries to point out that every sound argument needs a valid structure.
Or it is persumed that there exist Premisses that are True since the syntetic basis for them is strong enough to claim it to be True. F.e. the premiss "I exist".
Maybe it is a good way to illustrate the second case with a counter example. If you assume there are no Premises that can justifiably be called True the concept of soundness falls apart.

Maybe it's helpfull to conceptualize it as synthetic Truths being held to a different Standard. If they meet this standard they are True. Once we have accepted the premisses as True it follows due to the validity that the argument is sound and that in this regard the conclussion is "necessarily True"(assuming the premisses are True).
Maybe one can further add that the Debatte if Premisses are not True and if there exist True premisses is not part of logic. So it introduces a further aspect that allows Logic to model more specific differences if one assumes the premisses to be True. Meaning if you actually believe Sokrates is a man, and that all man are mortal you necassrily have to believe the synthetic proposition that sokrates is mortal.

Ok I think the issue is resolved with the clarification you provided.
However I'll try to explain why I used "only" so it gets clear for your aswell what the "issue"/missunderstanding was.
In my conception of the terms deism and theism, deism is a more general term.
I understand deism to mean: At least one god exists.
And theism to mean: At least one god exists + god or gods are active after creation.

Therefore I understood your statement about theism to "only" mention the first part with leaving the second part away. Therefore I understood your statement to "only" resolve into a statement about existence, that does not voice any further specifications about the nature of god.

This in my view however describes a deism and not a theism. However this further specifications, if I understand you correctly, doesn't matter to you in regard to the discussion we are having since you view the difference of deism and theism as "an insignificant particular".
I think this should make clear why I used "only" to describe your position.

For me, theism does seem to resolve into a guess that at least one god exists.

Do you disagree? — Frank Apisa

From my explanation how I conceptualise theism the description you provided is incomplete but not false, or maybe better put a diffrent one then I use which motivated me to ask you how you view the difference of deism and theism.

I also think the disagreement that I have is merley motivated due to my different conception of the terms. However I think one could argue which of the Definition seems more reasonable for this topic.
In other words we could argue if the fact that god is active or passive is significant for evaluating if atheism or religion is better for us. However I would concede that the significance is only limited in regards to the topic at hand.

I think this resolves the discussion or do you haven any further objections?

I am not sure of what terms you are asking me to contrast. — Frank Apisa

I was refering to the difference between deism and theism.
I would argue that theism in contrast to deism also requires god to be active after the act of creation. Otherwise I would suppose you are not able to make a meaningfull distinction between deism and theism.
However I'am unsure what you mean when you say:

Theism seems to resolve into: "A guess that at least one god exists in the REALITY. — Frank Apisa

My interpretation was that this means, that your undrestanding of the term theism is only stating the existance of god(s). However you negated this Interpretation so I am curious why you negated this.
By stating

I didn't say that. — Frank Apisa

Fair point to a certain degree.

I thought this was an interesting contrast, which needs no explanation of the terms. We all know what they mean. — Pattern-chaser

In a "classical" debate regarding correctness I would agree. I still find it stunning that it is so hard to address the actual positiv positions like materialism, physicalism, naturalism ect by name but I see that this could lead to an unnessary disortion of the topic.
However since the OP adressess as you state

The OP asked us to consider, not theism and atheism themselves, but whether theism or atheism is "better for us". — Pattern-chaser

We are not arguing about a topic that is as clear as you suggest when you write

I think after all these centuries of discussion, we all know what theism and atheism are. — Pattern-chaser

Since "Better for us" f.e. can address positions regarding how we ought to act. Like f.e. example moral realism, moral anti-realism, moral skepticism ect.
I don't think the positions are significally linked to the debatte what onthological framework we use.
We could maybe in a oversimplifing manner state that theism holds some degree of moral realism. However it is also concivable that some atheist endorse a moral realism. The focus on the ontological framework therefore seems missplaced.
However I agree that the question the OP formulates is an intresting one.

In regards to the concept of Deism. Where would you see the difference between the terms? How do you categorize them? Where do you get your understanding of the term theism as only stating the existance of god from?

I am aware of that. I don't think that I was arguing about the correctness. At least I don't see how my post in general or the part you quotet is making a statement about correctnes. Afterall it's only a listing of the position.
This contains implicitly that I address the OP as being unspecific since atheism as such includes a hughe amount of mutualy exclusiv positions.
Or in other words: the OP seems to view atheism itself as positive stance that endorses a specific view, which as I argue isn't the case.

Your post seems to contain a confusion. I have a har time understanding why people have such problems with understanding atheism.

I'll try to explain.
You have positive(positioning) statements of the form:
B exists.
B has properties x, y, z.
Let's call this position Bist

Now theres people saying this(refering to either properties or existance) is wrong.
Let's call them aBist.
The second statement is a pure negation and does not contain any positive statement at all.

A aBist could himself state C or D or E ect exists and has properties x, y, z or even that B exists but B having properties a, b, c and not x, y, z.
Basically this means that any other logical option of then Bist is a aBist.
However negations are not real properties we could define a Human as not Rock or not Horse or not...
Simularly you saying I don't like warm sushi doesn't mean that you are saying anything else in regards to any other dish. It doesn't even mean that you are saying I don't like sushi.

Now theism includes two statements
1) God(s) exists
2) God(s) interacts(s) after creation.

Positions that negate this and therefore are atheistic Positions include:
Deism(God exists but doesn't interact/only creates once), Simulationtheory(Person that interacts exist (depends on the usage of the termGod)), Materialism, Physicalism, Naturalism, Spiritualism, Dualism ect.
Depending if you demand of Gods to have humanlike attributes/forms. You could argue that Beliefs that f.e. use god like beings but represents them soley as animals is not a theism.
However the common ground between this sometimes mutually exclusive Positions is merley the negation of theism.

This leads to the conclusion that your survey is flawed since f.e. Buddism and or tribal can be interpreted to fall in to the category atheism.

I was really sort of angling for a more relativistic approach to modelling society, in the OP...ie that everyone has their own frame of reference and will/might see things differently, to other people. — wax

I see.

I agree but would like to sketch it out a little bit more. I think since language is expression of thought it is a good tool to illustrate.
Language needs to integrate/map new occurances in the real world(creative/analogical thinking) while maintaining a certain stability of words in order for them to be used as comunication tools(conservative/logical thinking).
Analogical thinking is characterized by creating a context/story that allows to link two concepts and /or integrate new concepts. F.e. Gold=yellow, Sun=yellow theerefore gold is/stands for the sun. Or gold=yellow, honey=yellow honey=liquid gold. Here the story is given via the same colour yellow.
Common form Poetry
Logical thinking is characterized by defining somethings and then deducing based on this definitions while maintaing formal correctness. F.e. Man defined as Mortal, Socrates defined as Man, ergo socrates is Mortal.
Common Form Scientific Paper
The balance of this varies from person to person, and within a person depending on circumstances like age.
The variance between persons can be seen via the political spectrum where the left is rather integrating and the right is rather conservative(Us political compas).
The variance within a person can be explained as follows. A joung child needs to still integrate more and has less concepts/words that are well established therefore it is rather open torwards new stuff (integrating) while the old person has used concepts that one got used to that helped surviving for a long time and therefore tries to rather conserve this seemingly good concepts. Thats why people start left and become more right during their life.

it has to do with motivation — Nasir Shuja

is a bit of a simplification. A big enough motivation to connect two concepts via a rather complex story/contex can be achieved for any two concepts. However one should be carefull with only focusing on motivation since reality tends not to bend torwards your motivation. But you aknowledge that. I also think it makes a hughe difference what the topic is and as long it is yourself I don't see to big of a problem.

I agree with you that due to Descartes people use a grid more often nowadays to locate their position in society f.e. the political compas.

However I don't see how you derrive the simplicity from the coordinate system. We could f.e. consider ancient schemes where the social role was not necessarily understood as being on a grid and rather being a identity in itself. F.e. One being a nobel, peasant, mercant, warrior, slave ect. We could call this scheme simple aswell. And understand it to lead to a dysfunctional view of society.

One could even argue that due to the coordinate system it is easier to model a very complex society by introducing n Dimensions with Real numbers. Creating a complex hyperspace where n is only really limited by the brain power.

So I am curious how and why you derrive the simplicity?

As already stated in my view the real simplification takes places by shifting torwards measurable quantities and ignoring hard to measure qualites. F.e. Shifting away from seeing the political opponent as positive quality in regards to driving the conversation forward productivly to a person that has a different viewpoint being away from my position distance x.

However I didn't understand if you where refering to such aspects or the aspect of them using simple grids. If you where refering to the simple grids: where do you see the difference of the models used? Do you have something specific in mind?
What are the dysfunctions that take place in the coordinate system but not in other systems according to you?

Just to clarify are you talking about the european left-right spectrum (big governement vs small governement)
Or the US left-right spectrum (societal liberal vs societal conservative)

But it doesn't seem possible just to pick some arbitrary group (Canadians, for example) and build a hate program against them. — Bitter Crank

I think this is a dangerous underestimation of psychological warfare and propaganda.

F.e. You could take germans during WW1 and the forming an popularizing of the term Huns for germans associating them with barbarians. We can see that term being weaponized to create a certain image to legitimize the killing and fighting against. Other typical methods are associating groups with animals or "being dirty or plaguelike" in order to dehumanize them and legitmate violence.

I think the key aspect is that the argument is not driven by factual assignments that are true and rather by analogies and dissortions and lies.
There is a wide range of negative images that can be ascribed to canadians however I don't think I can really make it compelling since the images to triger an emotional response to make the mind more easily influenced torwards your bias is missing and it should be understood as process that takes it's time.

However one could f.e. say that they are like dogs following their chinese overlords (insert documentary of chinese influence of canada) or that the friendly immage they portray is just to trick you to not look whats going on behind the scences (insert random despicable practice f.e. pedophila that is so reprehensible that it has to be hidden behind a smile further insert maybe a link to the cathlic church that also has a simular issue with a seemingly inocent image and further insert documentary of candian pedophiles and suggesting it is widespread or emphazises in the news that there was again an incident in canada).

Repeting this over and over will do the trick.

The cartesian co-ordinate system somehow ascribes measurability to the entire physical world. I think this view is very widespread. One could view a naive capitalism in this regard as result of this framework. This naive capitalism overemphasizes quantity over quality. F.e. Modern architecture has developed in to a state where bulidings are rectangular in order to maximize the living space and therefore maximizing the money that can be demanded whilist leaving away features like decorations or some round corners that would somehow be "more attractiv" but less efficient and a feature that can't directly be priced. However people somehow don't necessarily prefer living in blocks. The same is true for city design.
One could also view utilitarianism in this context. Or the desire to have more money rather then the desire to have a better life. I think there are plenty of examples showing an overemphazing of direct measurable quantity that gets maximized instead of focusing on not easily measurable quality.
However it is difficult to connect it to the cartesian view directly, since efficency to a certain degree is itself something that people have tried to achieve before descartes. However in architecture it is rather obvious that there has been a drastic shift torwards quantity away from quality that seems to support a yes as answer to your question if one takes this shift in architecure that still holds on as symptom.

I think it highly depends on the framework you use. As you mentioned in your post the "reincarnation" idea is set in a religious or philosophicaly speeking platonic framework.
In this framework you have Substance/Essence that is the actual identiy and Form/Modus the current form you are in. (Don't hang me up based on the terms.)

The most prominent expression of this idea is the (human) soul. Where a person is defined via his/her soul and not via the external form features like size, haircolour, weight, age ect.
Famously expressed in Abrahmic religions the Substance exists independant of the form and can even exist without a form. This makes it possible for the soul to enter heaven or hell while leaving the form/body behind on earth.

The Platonic idea of Substance is mainly derrived from the "existance" of ideal virtual geometrical shapes that don't have their true manifestation in the physical realm. F.e. a true circle doesn't physically exist.

It now seems to be a personal preference wich framework one chooses to endorse. However I see the the percieved Substances as abstractions of real physical objects taking place in human minds that illegitmatly get projected to have a truely independend existance even withouth the existance of physical minds that calculate them. So I view Substance as practical simplifications to solve a general set of problems and don't subscribe a true independend existance to them. However if one does not specificy them back (negate the abstraction when applying the concepts to real instances) one makes a logical error in my view. A good argument for this is that nowadays the Substance of certain objects f.e. Alphabetical letters or roadsigns are better evaluated by computers then by human beings.

Thats why in my view religions as well as fabels (where the prince gets transformed to a frog and maintains his self) are predicated on providing a "plausible" framwork/story to legitmize this assumption. F.e. being able to transform back under the correct circumstances in to a simular form he was in, in case of the fable of the frogprince.
In Asian religions this f.e. is done by introducing the concept of universal justice(Karma) as necessesity/property of the universe. We also find a linking to justice in abrahamic religions. So it rather seems to me to stem from the desire for justice and not from logical reasoning. This is due to Justices and "Soul" being linked in a circular manner. In order for Justice to exist there needs to be a Soul so justices can still take place even if the Body dies and the Soul needs justice to fullfill the (illegitimate)justice demand directed at the universe. However this should not downplay the evolutionary significance that is achieved by justice to organize groups.

I think your questions are rather broad thats why will response in rather lengthy way to try to illustrate the issue however I would recomend to restrict yourself to maybe one pointed question that clearly seperates what is part of the discussion and what not. So one could focus on one of the different layers mentioned in my response.

Just to make it clear at the begining I more or less agree with:

It's impossible to judge if it was racist, because the contents of the tweet are unavailable.
And the whole "minorities can't be racist" stuff is just baloney. — NKBJ

Lets now try to look at the different layers and your questions.
1)First of it's worth pointing out that philosophy as intellectual endeavor is focused on what is and not on what terms we use. Since both definitions describe a different thing we could just resolve the issue by calling them racismA and racismB and a big part of the conflict would be resolved.
However the attempt to redifine the term racism is a political strugle due to the negative connotations already connected to the term "racism". It therefore is not a philosophical discussion in this regard wich definiton one should use and rather a conventional/political issue determined by the politcal stance one takes.

2)The underling philosophical question(ignoring politcal aspirations) that arises based on limiting oneself to one term "racism" is wheter one thinks truthvalues of certain statements should be determined by focusing on the contex of a statement or on the statement itself. F.e. Is it more important who says it or is it more important what is said. Trivially both positions have stronger and weaker cases so determining the actual case is very sensitive to the particular case. As already mentioned in 1) which meaning of the term is used by a person is also very sensitive to the personal stance and beliefs of said person(that f.e. find their expression in political stance).

3)One could obviously argue that the new definiton is incoherent in regard to the classical meaning however this is not the issue since the redefining takes root in not agreeing with the classical definiton.

4)What is more problematic is that the formula "prejudice + power" is internally inconsistent and illdefined. This in my view seems to stem from a questionable usage of Foucaults understanding of power. I could address this more precisly but it would make my response even longer so I'll leave this aside here. One could counter this by saying that it is a young term so one should give it more time to be developed. However this seems to me to be a weak point since it doesn't negate the internal problems. Just to clarify this interal problem: One could argue that Moore as a comedian is a powerfull individual vs she belongs to a non powerfull group. Or that the powerterm that is usually refering to structural/institutional power is just one very undynamic form of power that doesn't account for more dynamic forms of power.

5) Refering to 1) but for the particular issue. The position that focuses on the statement over the context presupposes a "being-given" of rationality (usually the case in philosophical debates). Meaning we are all humans, we can all use logic, we have time to carefully use our reasoning skills to evaluate the situation and articulate what we actually mean. However what Moore herself uses as defense is a refering to emotions(fear) that implies that the above conditions are not met. Making the statement a contextsensitve issue in her view. (Note: Law as example aknowledges contex f.e. being intoxicated, but doesn't let this negate the commited action f.e. punching someone. Speech can also be seen as action. And therefore focuses on the first notion)

6) Refering to 3) In regards to 5) we see that the redefining implicitly also erodes other common notions like existing law and it's practice in general since the more fundamental philosophy does undermine other classical notions that focus on statements over context.

7) Refering to 1) The political approach if understood as well intentioned tries to address "precieved" current structural injustices and can be therefore seem legitmate in this regard. However the negative conotations of the term racism stem from the fact that it is used to dehumanize people in a first step to legitmate violence or injustice in a second step. This is the case regardless if this takes place intentional or not. However the redifining of the term as mentioned in 3) does not provide a term for the action of Moore if she is understood as not having power. However such a term that should technically have the same ammount of negative connotation should be provided for Moores action since the redefining doesn't negate the fact of what Moore did. This term should have the same weight due to her alledge actions still meeting the criteria of dehumanizing people (based on their alledged group identity) which gives a segway to further "problematic" actions that are based on this dehumanization. If the redefining in 3) is understood as bad intentioned it deliberatly doesn't provide this demanded term with the connected negative connotations to criticies this type of actions to legitmaze future violent actions by people "with no or low power".(Note: The power term of Foucault can not really be understood as ascribing "no power" to people and low power blends in to the internal problems refered to in 4).)

So my question is, should Moore be considered a racist? If so, can she be considered a racist under the "prejudice + power" definition of racism? In other words, is there some way to argue that she has the requisite power to be a racist? If not, should those who use the "prejudice + power" definition of racism seriously reconsider how they define "racism"? — czahar

Q1: See 1) 2) and 5)
Q2, Q3: See 4)
Q4: See 4), 6) and 7)

Just to have it said: This is obviously a drastical simplification due to the size of the topic as such. It should also be clear that for every point there are multiple finegrained positions that don't necessarily agree with how I simplified it. To illustrate this consider 6) where one could for example argue that all that is taking place is a redefiniton of one term where the implication of erroding the bigger structural framework is not given or not as strong as I made it. Where one could use the example of mentally ill people that get a "special status" in law that leads to them not going to prison and rather mental hospitals and that this special case doesn't negate the general case of application of law. Also I want to point out that I don't necessarly prefere the views expressed and that they are rather a tool to illustrate the issue. F.e. I would personally admit that some degree of exeptions can be legitmized opposing the simple view illustrated in 6) depending on the particular topic at hand.

Last but not least: I am strongly opposed to dehumanization taking place no matter how you call it. So the reference you provided is valid it's simply morally reprehensible of her and the authorities that kicked the men from the plane.

I somwhat fail to see how this addresses my post.
However just to clarify:
1) I don't think I am judging the fear of dying
2) I was specifically trying to elaborate that viewing the fear as biological necessity and seeing it as the basis of our society seems to be the wrong perspective in my view.
3) I aknowledge that a) you where not primarily focusing on that and b) that you have a different view then I do. However just stating it as a fact seems a bit of a rushing over this issue but is justifed by a).
4) Regarding your main point (we spend 99% not being) I think this is somehow a bit wrongheaded aswell since the object to witch you are ascribing the property of not being does not exist. I therefore see it as logical negation that is only true in an abstract state and not as real factual property that can be ascribed legitmatly.
In other words it seems strange to me to say todays dinosaurs have the property of not existing. It rather seems to be the case that the universe has the property that dinosaurs are not existing currently/haven't been existing for 99% of time itself. However since you or dinosaurs are not the universe and rather parts of it it doesn't seem fitting for something living to understand itself as if one was the universe. I agree that for the universe the not existing is just the other side of the coin. However for the being this isn't the case. Not existing ia not the other side of the coin and rather the destruction and as consequence there being no coin around. Thats why your statement in my eyes is not wrong. It is obviously true for the universe. However equating oneself with the universe is some abstract mental gymnastics that doesn't negate the fact that your not the universe. Therfore in your framework of fear it seems justified for living beings to be fearfull of death.

I think you are quite 'wrong' in your conclusion.

You state yourself that:

we neglect, deny and run from "not being". — Filipe

This statement is not the sensation/feeling that we usally refer to as fear.
Fear usually implies that an action should be executed. Strongly simplified we could reduce it to fight or flight.
In case of death as a concept fight doesn't seem to be to much of an option. (One could argue that the fight response could be translated into forming metaphysical, religious concepts. However I'll ignore this here)
So we are left with the flight response. One could argue that the flight response leeds to trying to escape via neglect/deny/run-from-it. (As I understand this seems to be the direction your taking). However this nearly completley ignores the difference in expierence there is between facing a predator animal to being "fearfull of death". I would agree that there are cases of sick or old people that respond in a truely fearfull way by overcompensating their constant confrontation with death by fleeing in to simple pleasure activities. But this pathological behavior is not typical for the vast sum of humans. (Due to lacking constant confrontation with death in regard to ones own surviability.)

If we don't try to explain the neglect of death as fearfull behavior there is in my opinion a more productive way of conceptualising the neglect.
What I have in mind is intelligibility/predictability. This is a more productive approach in my view since it can be stated for biological entities in general.
Intelligibility and predictability are necessary presuppositons for a biological entity since it legitimizes it's actions and therefore allows their execution.
They f.e. execute the action of gaing energy (via food) to have power to take further actions. This is unnecessary if you "assume" you die anyway and wont be able to execute the future "planed" actions.
Since being can be defined as something that does a sequence of "planed" actions it is somehow implied that the basic modus operandi is to be in a state of "neglect" of death. Just to be able to keep on living ergo keeping the definition of what you are (a living being).
As example take yourself and an ant. If either one of you is walking from somwhere to a food sorce neither of you is assuming that you are going to be killed on that path f.e. by lightning. Since this presupposition would be unproductive in the sense that it would hinder/negate your approach of reaching your goal(getting food). The "fear" only kicks in if theres a good enough/immidiate reason.

The key difference I see between this to views is that your view needs rather much brainpower in order to reflect upon the past and the future. This is not trivially given for any living entity f.e. it seems strange to suggest that ants or other animals negate/neglect death because of reflections of their past and future.
On the other hand it doesn't seem to odd that the basic modus opperandi of living organisms contains this neglect due to it being not productive and the basic presuppositions demanding this neglect implicitly if something "wants to be a living organism". Therefore already conceptualizing it as neglect seems problematic since it's more appropriate to view it as attempt to be a productive living being. This more basic view therefore not only is simpler in demands and therefore more broadly applicable to biological systems in general. But it also alows to integrate moments of fear of death by taking in to consideration the brainpower. We can therefore explain situational moments where your a) and b) arise aswell as pathological situations in "higher order" beings given the right circumstances. Your view would opposed to that come up with a strange explanation why animals operate in simular fashion to humans despite of missing the ability to reflect the past or estimate the future while still being able to situationaly evaluate risks and dangers.
It therefore seems to be a better conceptualization that biological entities want to live than that they "concioussly" fear death and therefore "flee" in to trying to stay alive based on their thoughts.

thank you aswell for your kind remarks.
If you want my opinion on other topics or modified versions of the argument feel free to tag or contact me.
Btw. I wan't to quickly state that I didn't intend on suggesting you to work on your being insensitive.
Since I think there are truths that can hurt people. Just because others view telling the truth as being insensitive you shouldn't restrain from telling the truth. Thats why the criticism torwards calling people stupid wasn't that it's insensitive and more that it is bad for achieving your goal.

I think you got some things backwards. Don't get me wrong, I agree with the "obvious" point of evolution and natural selection. However what you don't seem to get is, that it's a problem of what kind of framework/paradigm a person embraces.
This is visible throughout the entire Post you made. So I'll play devils advocat.

1) Refering to people with a different view as stupid:

This is what I was trying to make, discrediting it makes no sense, I'm trying to make this for the stupid. — ep3265

or not reasonably minded :

Skeptics who are reasonably minded can and will change their mind, this isn't meant for all obviously. — ep3265

is not only "slightly" inapropriate in a philosophical discussion. It also shows that you basically don't know the philosophy 101 concept of "positive interpretation" that is used to prevent one from creating a strawmen.
Furthermore I hope I don't have to explain to you that defining reasonable as "the position I hold" is logically flawed.
What this statements basically express is that you can't understand the opposing position(framework they operate with) and then you dissmiss it (argument from incredulity).
If we assume you weren't calling the position you argue against stupid you basically just are babbeling on with the crucial point being "how do I make people change their mind (with psycholgical tricks)". Since your post doesn't hint at all at this option I think it's fair to assume(with refrence to the quotes), that you view the people holding a different view as stupid. Which as elaborated is highly questionable.

(Quick note: Since you address a set of different believes it's hard to argue in defense for all of them at the same time. So I will take a position of a person that takes the bibel rather seriously but not necessarily strictly literal as example so you can apply the reasoning to watered down positions.)
2) If we use the term evolution we already are in the scientific framework. This is the case, since evolution implies progressive change(simple to complex) and not simply change or degenerating change(complex to simple). However religious views often strictly don't use progressive change. You assuming the case of evolution is therefore dodging the issue. (It is tacticaly reasonable to try to frame the debate but not logical justified without arguing for it, smart religious people will notice that). Since you're basically trying to presuppose your conclusion by entailing it in your premis. Because you denie with this premiss the possibility of god (complex), creating living beings (complex) that pass on their genes. In fact if you project the basic idea of progressive change to a universal level it strongly argues against god.
Furthermore even in scientific terms progression is not as trivially given as it might seem. One example might be the extinction of the dinos that can be atrributed rather to luck for mamals. An other (sometimes made pseudo) point would be the second law of thermodynamics suggesting that order decreases over time. So one could say god creates order and then entropy increases leading to the degeneration of the world (including the biological sphere).

3) It's a simular case for natural selection. The very essence of a religious world view is that god is paramount. Therefore we could (and see people) embrace devine selection (gods plan) as principle. F.e. If asked why children die.
At this point evolution is particulary weak since it uses a circular argument. Namley natural selection which states survival of the fittest. Meaning only those who survive are fit.
While fittness is defined as those who survive.
This doesn't lend to much predictive power. Or in other words it has a simular predictive power as the religious view that states that it was gods plan. Who is currently fit or divinley selected we simply don't know.
As above you use this premis as given just to entail it twice in the conclusion as basis of your argument. But if the opposing side doesn't agree on the premis your further thoughts, as good as they might be, are usless.

4) New Species and micro/macro evolution. Again you miss the religious premis that basically postulates a soul embeded in a dualism(on earth). The key part of this dualism is that objects have a essence and a form. A soul would be the essence, the looks would be the form. Could god make a new essence with divine selection? Yes he could. But if we assume a more passive god we could still view the changes occuring as simply changes of form. One year the birds are bigger the other one it's smaller but the essence remains. The selection criterion you embrace (sexual reproduction or in your words inability to breed) is deeply flawed after all humans can not only not breed with half of the human race (same sex) but we also might have individuals that may have problems with reproduction for whatever reason. Simply saying they can't breed therefore they aren't human would be kind of a stretch.
Note that also the time frames are not necessarily substantiated by religious texts.

In Conclusion:
I agree with you and what your intending to do. However I think you don't address the actual issues at all. You rather list arguments that sound convincing to you as someone who already embraces this view. But it's clearly visible that you aren't even trying to understand the opposing position/framework. This plus the condecending statements you made earlier seem to indicate that most people will see through you, no matter behind what pleasent words you hide your statements. Since it's a talking down position you take rather then trying to have an honest discussion.
I would also consider if I where you if:"I just want to show myself that I am smarter then those "dumb" evolution deniers" is the case. Or if you are genuinly intrested in changing minds.
Either way I hope my post helped to shed some light on the issue and sorry for it getting so long and the intial "rant".

Therefore, I am truly lost in the labyrinth of purpose, wherever you go you will ostensibly not find any. — Edward the Cactus

Aren't you just projecting your bad expieriences in one area on to a lot of other persons and fields.

I mean you just state that couples have kids because they are bored and want something new and feel the obligation to have kids. I literally never met any couple that said we where bored so we thought we'll make a kid. This is maybe something an existental nihilist like you would say. I get that. But assuming the majority of couples are existental nihlist is just wrong.

You assume there to be one purpose and then state if something is not that ultimate purpose you'll get devestated.

However if we conceptualize purpose as to achieve a goal, your conception of purpose only works if you fullfill your goal one moment before you die. Because you only allow one true purpose. This leads you to your negative conclusion.

But if we take a less extreme view and don't assume there to be only one true purpose you get plenty of options. F.e. you could say playing videogames served me well as purpose and now I set a new goal for myself. So if you conceptualize a purposefull life to be a life where you set plenty of meaningfull goals and try to achieve them and once you achieve them you set the next meaningfull goal, theres no reason why you shouldn't be able to lead a happy and purposfull life.

Theres an analogy with truth here. If you want to find the whole Truth you won't succede. But if you want to get a more accurate view of the world (get closer to the truth) you do the same action but employ a different conceptual framework leading to different interpretations. "I still didn't find the truth" or "I found out something new and now know more about the world."

I want to state that I agree with critisism raised by other replies. Especially that the definitions are causing the problem.

However I have further criticism that haven't been voiced yet.

Let the world (w) be defined as: the domain that contains all domains.
Let existence be defined as appearing within a domain. — auto to on

1) "The world" seems to imply that there is only one world. Therefore the introducing of multiple worlds (w1,..., wn) is unjustified since they contradict the first definition.

2)The definition of existence presupposes the existence of a domain in which elements can appear in. Therefore if we claim the world exists we either presuppose a different kind of existence (existence2) of the world in order to ascribe existence1 (existence as used in the definition) to the world. Or we get a circular reasoning pattern where the existence of the world is a prerequist for existence, and existence is required for the existence of the world.

Furthermore if we claim that the world exists we don't get w2 that is within w1 since we only ascribe existence to w2. Therefore w1 would be the worlds pseudoexistence (existence2) and w2 would be the world with ascribed existence1. However they both refer to the same world w.

I know that existence is not a property and rather a quantifier but since you use existence rather confusingly I'll describe it as if existence was a property. If we have an object O and we ascribe two different properties to O we don't get O1 and O2 and rather O with properties P1 and P2.

Therefore the confusion most likley arises from the questionable use of the term existence and it's two forms that are not distinguished properly. If we see this as faulty or insufficient description we get a faulty tautology because of the definitions used.

This means that any other deduction based on this definition is flawed. Therefore viewing any other transformation in this tautology as consistent because of conclusions that might be true is a logical error. (From False everything follows)
This applies to your response stating:

Other conceptions may be consistent with these definitions — auto to on

3) First of let's note that S1,...,Sn just appear randomly and are not defined and irrelevant to the problem. Therefore we can leave them aside.
Note: I am aware that you think theres a problem if S1 appears alongside w1 but also within w1 however theres no definition given that states something among the lines of "if something appears alongside x this something can not be within x". You generally seem to establish rules that are not given by the definitions. Another example would be something containing itself creates a new instance of itself. This is needed to even argue that you get w1 and w2. (It's like assuming that if I say I am my best friend that you assume theres two of me, since you have in your head that the best friend is a different object despite no rule stating that.)

Since you somehow want to hold on to your definition for no clear reason lets adress that aswell.

Let us therefore assume that the world (w1) [...] is contained within world (w2) [...]. Now we are met with the same difficulty, if the world properly contains itself then this should obtain (w1) = (w2). [...] but it[(w1)] must also contain itself, let us call the world contained within (w1) for (w0). — auto to on

What you are doing here is create a problem where there is none. Since w1=w2 and w2 contains w1, w1 contains w1. Or in other words w1 contains itself.
We can show this aswell if we accept that w0 is the world contained in w1 and show that w0 = w2.

This can be done intuitivly by saying that w0 is the domain that contains all domains and that the same is true for w2 and that there can only be one domain of all domains.
We could also state the reason given in 1) and conclude that you are just making up new names for the world and think this is a logical problem.

However lets assume the premisses you defined as trivially given for w2 (our initially defined world).

Since (w) in (wn) refers to world and world is defined as domain of all domains (wn) trivially is a domain (d).
Further every (w) in (wn) refers to world and world is defined as the domain of all domains (D)
Since every domain (d) is contained(<=) in the domain of all domains (D)
It follows that (d) w2 <= w0 (D)
Since you have already established that w0<=w1<=w2 and therefore w0<=w2
we get w0=w2 or more general wj=wi where i and j are arbitrary numbers. We would also get w1=w1 or in other words w1 contains itself.

In conclusion your set of definitions is faulty or at best incomplete. Even if we ignore the flaws the problem you make up doesn't exist since you just rename a single instance and think the ability to establish an infimit ammount of names equates to a infinit regression since you presume that ascribing a new name creates a new object.

I hope I understood you correctly and that this helps solving your problem.^^

There's something comforting about wanting to become nothing. It has no qualities or properties that define it, apart from the lack of properties about it.

What are some thoughts about this property of nothingness that makes people want to become nothing? — Wallows

My argument is among the lines that the idea of "becoming nothing" is a logical error.

I know this isn't something that will likley help people in a sucidal state. However it helped me.

The argument:
If you want to commit suicide you evaluate your current situation. Based on the evaluation you conclude that you should take an action to change the future situation. The goal of the action suicide, is that your future you (you f.e.1s in the future) will be better of.
However if you kill yourself there won't be a future you*.
This reasoning is selfcontradictory. Since you choose to use effort in order for your future you to be better of. However since this future you only exists virtually in the moment you decide to take the action and the action itself denies the future you becoming real the action denies the justification for the action.
The reason for the logical mistake is an equating your virtual future you now with the real future you.

If we look at your statement about the comforting aspect of becoming nothing we can now identify two things.
1) The comforting element is the motivation or in other words the benefits you ascribe to the virtual future you.
2) The becoming nothing won't happen. Since it is predicated on a the virtual you transitioning from one state (now) into another state (nothing). While in reality you will neither transition, nor will you be in another state. You will simply cease to exist. You won't be or become anything since being or becoming implies your existance that won't any longer be the case.

*Worldviews that seperate mind/soul and body and therefore see suicide as the ending of bodily pain while not negating the soul like f.e. Christianity usually have a doctrine of getting punished if one chooses to commit suicide to prevent suicide.