The Problem of "Belief"

81 posts / 0 new
Last post
A Gnostic Agnostic's picture
The Problem of "Belief"

Hello everyone,

I am already a member/donor of Atheist Republic, and this is my first post on the public forums. First and foremost I wish you all well and hope to begin a discussion on what I find to be a principle humanitarian problem - that is one of "belief" and how it is used to identify/define a person, body and/or 'state' such that if the "belief" is undermined (if even altruistically), the individual(s) subscribing to that "belief" either take it personally and/or as a directed attack and thus respond in kind as if. This is creating nothing but perpetual conflict - the root of which I will end with.

I encountered the problem of "belief" after meeting a friend who was a "believer". At this time I did not know anything about their religion, and was myself not religious. They told me about traumas they suffered first when they were very young and as well as while they grew older, and I became upset such that I wanted to understand how such a person could have endured that kind of abuse. Ultimately, I found the answer - it was "belief". At the time I believed it was a particular "belief" (ie. to a particular religion) but after we went separate ways, I asked the question 'from whence (all of) human suffering?' and have been working privately for approx. four years to this end, and will be launching my findings on Thinkspot when it goes live. I have learned enough Hebrew to read the book of Genesis to circumvent the religious claims that the Bible has been altered, thus starting from scratch, and have researched enough of the Abrahamic religions and their histories to make my case undermining "belief" as having any virtue in it such that persecutions on the basis of lack of "belief" are absolutely criminal. This in response to the ongoing persecution of "unbelievers" for not "believing" assertions that are certainly false, while the persecutors claim to be the ones persecuted (backwards). There is a great deal of this happening - blaming others for one's own crimes and having "believers" condemn and attack the wrong people for it, based in ("belief"-based) hatred.

The problem of 'from whence human suffering?' certainly derives from the problem of "belief" in that a being can obviously "believe" something to be absolutely true, but in reality, it is absolutely false and/or dead wrong. After contemplating the Edenic problem, I came to understand: if a dichotomy of good and evil does exist (ftsoa), then certainly "belief" would be the agency required to confuse good with evil and/or evil with good (ie. a "believer" "believes" evil is actually good, as opposed to "knowing" evil is evil). Without objectively defining what good and/or evil are (an act I equate with the eating of the forbidden fruits) and letting them be according to a higher intelligence, "belief" would *still* be the agency required to confuse one with the other. This brought me to the problem of knowledge and how it might be distinct from "belief" in distinguishing correctly what is good from evil.

I recently went to the philosophy forums and raised this problem of 'knowledge', and according to philosophy as a body (as I gather) it treats all knowledge as "belief", but not all "belief" as knowledge. I argued against this and provided a working solution which reconciles good with evil as well as a solution for the original sin. These posts were removed without explanation despite a request for one, and I was later banned without being provided an explanation as to why. I will reproduce these solutions on Thinkspot if/when the time is right for myself and everyone else.

I realized that I had inadvertently stumbled upon the Edenic problem itself: there being two "trees"; one leads to life (everlasting) and the other death. Certainly: a "belief" can be designed to appear good, be pleasant to the senses (ie. sounds good) and any promise to bring one closer to 'god' would be desirable. Unfortunately, such "beliefs", while appearing as such, might actually be rotten from the inside-out and have nothing but suffering and death in them. I will attempt to explain this as best as a can, so please indicate if anything needs to be clarified.

Any "belief" taken as 'true', but is actually "false" that collapses into:

GOOD vs. EVIL
"BELIEVER" vs. "UNBELIEVER"
US vs. THEM
etc.

necessarily manifests death. This only comes about if/when a person designates something/anything as 'objectively good' (ie. a god, an idol etc.) and/or 'objectively evil' such that the person polarizes *for* their own "belief" in/as good and/or *against* their own "belief" in evil (of others). In other words, "believing"to know one begs the other, and vice versa. If a person designates something as evil, they will likely end up fighting against it. This mentality needs to STOP - it is precisely the activity warned against in the Edenic model - to "believe" to know good and/or evil, as it begs conflict.

However, that does not mean one can not 'know' good and evil - if one knows it, it is known (not "believed" to know) and there is no problem so long as one is not wrong and merely "believes" to know. The problem is if one "BELIEVES" to know it and is wrong, as an internal polarization occurs here based on that ignorance. This actually creates an inversion over time: evil appears as good, and good appears as evil such that if a person "worships" a "belief"-based lie, whatever is actually 'true' appears to them as a lie such that they become hostile and/or even are filled with hatred when confronted with the truth. As a result, they will tend to blame whoever is speaking the truth as spreading "hate speech" despite it being *them* who is hating. This occurs a lot when indicating that certain holy books or idols are not actually holy. Speech has the ability to stir the hatred in others, but the problem is not the one who stirs, it is the one who hates. They blame the hatred on the stirring because they can't face it in/of themselves. They must blame it on others.

This pathology of blaming others for ones own internal state is captured by the general expression 'psychological projection' wherein a being projects their own nature (to be condemned) as if belonging to another. In geopolitics, this is a conscious process that requires "believers" to "believe" that the accuser is somehow *not* the accused:

A is guilty of x.
A accuses B of x and convinces C to "believe" B is guilty of x instead of A, who is guilty of x.

If C were a "believing" witch mob,
and B were a political adversary to A,
A would use C to destroy B for crime x
even though A is guilty of x.

And this is one of the major problems of "belief" - it is the stuff needed to attack nation-states from within using their own people. This kind of warfare tactic is owing to a particular religion which would have no power on the planet if not for "belief" as I find their most principle "belief"-based claim regarding a certain book to be certainly false.

And so my finding that "belief" is the agency required to confuse good with evil (and vice versa) demands an alternative: to 'know'. One can know who, what, where, why, when, how and/or if *not* to "believe" in something or someone. These two possibilities, I find, reflect the two Edenic trees. I know not to "believe" that either the Torah/Bible or the Qur'an are the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant words of any god. These books are absolutely manhandled and the latter is particularly destructive because it perpetuates the above discussed dichotomy:

"BELIEVERS" vs. "UNBELIEVERS"

such that it will not stop waging war against "unbelievers" until all beings are "believers". The problem is, they use "belief" to have as many as they can "believe" that they (ie. the "believers") are the ones being persecuted at the hands of the "unbelievers". The opposite is actually true: it is the "believers" who are actively waging war against "unbelievers" while forcibly suppressing criticisms of itself and the idol it uses as a model to be emulated by the idol worshipers. It need not be said explicitly that this particular religion is the *real* root of fascist socialism, but they will blame it on Jews as Jews are the perpetual "scapegoat" for this religion. The religion is pure idol worship and a (dead) man is used as a model which justifies such things as polygamy, pedophilia and genocide. It is a complete inversion of good and evil, and "belief" is the agency required to do it.

I therefor find the root of all conflict in "belief" (ie. "us vs. them") being used as a force/agency to conceal what is true. The "belief"-based idolatrous religions of the world that advance male central figure idols are absolutely guilty of this, despite claiming to not worship idols. That certain religious idols have blood spilled over them should be the indicator that the idol/man is being worshiped. Spilling blood over dead men indicates idol worship and it is certain that hundreds of millions are already dead between Jesus and Muhammad alone - perhaps many hundreds of millions more if humanity does not sort out this problem of worshiping books and idols by holding them as infallible and/or protecting/shielding them from scrutiny. The root to fascism would be uprooted once enough eyes are on the latter - both Muhammad and Hitler used the power of the state against their political adversaries and later used it to commit genocide against Jews. It's the same force behind the attacks to AR, behind the social media censorship and behind geopolitical instability, including the global migrant crises and attacks against the U.S. from within, as well hatred generated for POTUS who obviously stands against this threat.

It all reduces back into "belief" in authority as truth, rather than "knowing" truth as authority. I know (not "believe") the root of this fascist mess, and do not mind calling those responsible out because I also know they are the ones afraid (understanding fear is superior to suffering it). They brand people racists, bigots, "Islamophobes", white supremacists etc. but these are all projections of what their own house is (accuser is the accused), and psychological projection, when understood, reveals everything one needs to know about such a body who blames, blames and blames in an ongoing state. When the finger comes toward them, they deflect, distract, slander and harass etc. and please rest assured I will always stand for the freedom and sovereignty of humanity and am not afraid of these people or to call them out for their crimes against humanity - beginning with the women whom they target and exploit first, as they always go after the most vulnerable.

To close: a quote from A'isha the "favourite" (?) wife of the so-called prophet.

"I have never seen anyone suffer like the believing woman."

After 1400+ years, there is still more truth in these words than in the entirety of the Qur'an which, despite being "believed" to be the perfect, inerrant, unaltered (and "final") word of god, is actually a man-made bloody mess - and doesn't it show.

Please feel free to discuss the problem of "belief" here - thank you and godless bless (just from me).

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Cognostic's picture
A Gnostic Agnostic: RE: I

A Gnostic Agnostic: RE: I encountered the problem of "belief" after meeting a friend who was a "believer".

1. Your problem appears to be the fact that you do not understand belief. You are a human being, you believe you are a father, a friend, a spouse, a doctor, teacher, lawyer, or whatever else you do. A Theists / Christian is no different. They are a human being but they believe they are a Christian. They hold onto that belief the same way you hold onto the roles you play in this life as if they are you. They are not you, they are just the ways you identify yourself and they are every bit as crazy as believing you are a Christian.

2. RE: "persecutions on the basis of lack of "belief" are absolutely criminal." Only in some Islamic Countries. Lucky for most of us, we are not bloggers in Islamic countries where we can be caught and jailed or put to death.

3. RE: philosophy as a body (as I gather) it treats all knowledge as "belief", but not all "belief" as knowledge. (This would be correct. If you can argue against it you will overturn a thousand years of philosophy. Good luck with that. How is knowledge, knowledge if I do not believe it?)

RE: " I argued against this and provided a working solution which reconciles good with evil as well as a solution for the original sin." WHY? Good and Evil must be believed before you can use them to do anything? Have you come up with empirical definitions for the concepts that can not be argued against. You would obviously need to do that prior to using them in the way you have.

4. THE REST OF THIS STUFF REALLY ISN'T WORTH READING. YOU ARE SAYING NOTHING.

5. RE: ""I have never seen anyone suffer like the believing woman." This goes directly back to the original statement I made. You are a human being who believes. You believe you are a dad, a friend, a teacher, a good person, whatever. It is your beliefs that dictate your behavior and control the things you do in your life. NOT THE FACT THAT YOU ARE HUMAN. Humans can obviously suffer but we suffer daily and deeply for our beliefs and much less so for the human condition. You have taken a Buddhist thought, called it "belief" and tried to make a point with it. IT DOES NOT WORK.

"Attachment is suffering" in the Buddhist tradition. Attachment to things and attachment to identity. Letting go of attachment is the path to enlightenment. You are saying nothing new. You simply relabel attachment as belief.

What you have written is a rambling mess. Go back to the chalk board and try again.

A Gnostic Agnostic's picture
RE: 1. Your problem appears

RE: 1. Your problem appears to be the fact that you do not understand belief.

Could there be a conflating of "belief" with identity? I understand identity - but identities can be "known" and juxtaposed with "belief" such that their identity is known to only serve a certain limited function in social/familial contexts, but ends at a certain point and is not actually what they are.

In the case of "belief", if a single "belief"-based assertion is taken as 'true' which gives rise to all else, it governs every aspect from the top-down and would not otherwise do so if the "belief"-based assertion were known to be false. This is the difference:

Knowledge = knowing who, what, where, why, when, how and/or if *not* to "believe", and why, on the basis of the associated claims/assertions found to be certainly false.
Belief = anything/everything else

Here any "belief"-based assertion can be "believed" in if not tried, tested and found true.

The problem with religion is this: they rely on "belief"-based assertions that are certainly false, and the "believers" "believe" that these same assertions are not only 'true', but it can not be any other way for them... or else.

I find a difference here between "belief" and identity.

RE: 2. Only in some Islamic Countries. Lucky for most of us, we are not bloggers in Islamic countries where we can be caught and jailed or put to death.

The point of the post is to keep it that way.

But the extended point is... soon, we will be if the jihad continues. The House of Islam is a source of fascism, but they perpetually blame anyone/everyone else (in the case of fascism, Jews) and have the "believers" "believe" it is coming from elsewhere. This is another problem with "belief". There is only one male central figure orator military leader genocidal archetype, and both Muhammad and Adolph Hitler fit that archetype. It is not a coincidence - Nazism is the proxy manifestation of anti-Semitic extremism as polarized against Jews as both Muhammad and Hitler were.

RE: 3. (This would be correct. If you can argue against it you will overturn a thousand years of philosophy. Good luck with that. How is knowledge, knowledge if I do not believe it?)

You can know you *used* to "believe" it... before knowing it. The point is, it is being subjected to the conscience such that the item in question is no longer a "belief" but graduates to a "known" such:

I know I am, therefor I may think (grants use of conscience).
I know belief x exists insofar as it is "believed" by others to be 'true'.
*use of conscience*
I know belief x is certainly false by way of conscience.

Another way of seeing this:
b="I believe..."
k="I know..."
(x)=assertion
wherein what follows after k is manifestly true.

1. Subject b(x) to k.
2. If k is not sufficient to graduate b(x) into k(x) (via conscience) more knowledge is required (ie. learn)
3. b is graduated into one of two:
i. I know (x) is true, OR
ii. I know NOT not believe (x) (on the basis of it being certainly false)

In either case i. or ii., b becomes k and any/all assertions can be tried, tested and rendered true/untrue until all-knowing (of who, what, where, why, when, how and/or if *NOT* to "believe).

Therefor knowledge of good and evil is the same as all knowledge: who, what, where, why, when, how and/or if *not* to "believe" any/all assertions on the grounds of knowing they are false.

RE: 3. (cont) WHY? Good and Evil must be believed before you can use them to do anything? Have you come up with empirical definitions for the concepts that can not be argued against. You would obviously need to do that prior to using them in the way you have.

No they do not - they can be assumed (ie. a dichotomous dipole consuming itself ad infinitum). It is the very act of 'defining' what is good and/or what is evil that creates the conditions necessary for conflict. The point is to *not* do it. It is the act of doing it that creates the conflict:

A: We are good, B is evil!
B: No, WE are good, A is EVIL!
C: Do not choose either (ie. abstain)

wherein "believers" are necessarily A/B, and C could be all-knowing of who/what/where/why/when/how and if *not* to "believe", thus are not A or B.

The polarization begins internally if eating from the tree - externally, they are already balanced and consume one another ad infinitum.

RE: 4. THE REST OF THIS STUFF REALLY ISN'T WORTH READING. YOU ARE SAYING NOTHING.

Why are you typing in caps? Are you upset with something?

RE: 5. This goes directly back to the original statement I made... You have taken a Buddhist thought, called it "belief" and tried to make a point with it. IT DOES NOT WORK.

"Attachment is suffering" in the Buddhist tradition. Attachment to things and attachment to identity. Letting go of attachment is the path to enlightenment. You are saying nothing new. You simply relabel attachment as belief.

What you have written is a rambling mess. Go back to the chalk board and try again.

I don't care if it is not new or not.

If you find my writing a rambling mess, why are you reading it? I never understood this about people who complain about such.

A Gnostic Agnostic's picture
If philosophy holds:

If philosophy holds:

"All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing."

This explains its so far present-day redundancy. I really wish it would resolve this, because if it did I expect it would have a real opportunity to make a potent splash in the intellectual world that rivals religious "belief"-based dogmas.

I think, therefor I am - it's close, but backwards. It's this:

I AM. Therefor I (may) think.

wherein 'I AM' is taken as a 'known'. One must know they exist and are at least conscious in order to query:

AM I...(alive)?

and when inverting to remove the inquiry:

(alive)...I AM

only returns if the state of 'I AM' is 'known'.

Therefor, I am therefor I (may) think is correct.

Perhaps this is why it was written at Delphi 'KNOW THY SELF' wherein 'self' is taken as 'I AM'. One must begin with this, and ultimately... end with this. Else: "BELIEF" and subject to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Cognostic's picture
@A Gnostic Agnostic: Your

@A Gnostic Agnostic: Your inane rambling assertions have been forwarded to the "Inane Rambling Assertion Department." Your patronage is important to us. Please allow 6 to 7 years for a reply and thank you for playing.

David Killens's picture
@A Gnostic Agnostic

@A Gnostic Agnostic

Welcome. But I suggest you start slower instead of pasting multiple walls of text. I did not read any.

How about beginning with your definition of "belief". And please, less than 500 words. In fact, 50 should suffice.

A Gnostic Agnostic's picture
I can't summarize the problem

I can't summarize the problem of "belief" in relation to the root of human suffering and its potential application(s) to atheism in 50 words, or even 500. A formal definition of what I understand "belief" as:

BELIEF - any assertion held and/or advanced which is taken (ie. acted upon) as 'true' despite being unknown to a certainty.

What distinguishes a "belief" from a "known" is knowing who/what/where/why/when, how and/or if *not* to "believe" any/all assertions advanced on the basis of it being 'known' certainly false (if applicable). It can be known certainly false if subjected to the conscience inquiry (ie. tried, tested and true/untrue) by observing the assertion, identifying what can falsify the assertion, and searching/finding for falsification. If it exists, it can be known not to "believe" because it was found to be false.

The problem is, "belief" is the agency required to confuse evil with good (ie. it takes a believer to believe evil is good) thus people who "believe" to know good and/or evil, and are in fact wrong, are liable to "believe" evil is good. The question is: is there an alternative agency to "belief" that avoids this problem of potentially becoming "bound to believe" something that is certainly false (ie. evil is good)?

This is what the conscience is for: to be able to 'know' who/what/where/why/when/how and/or if *not* to "believe" in an assertion(s), which includes religious "belief"-based assertions involving books and idols (and often testimonies that violate their own Biblical laws).

The "belief"-based assertion, for example, that Islam is a religion of peace wherein the "believers" "believe" that war is a means to peace has this problem: war equals peace. They "justify" this by accusing the "unbelievers" as being the obstacle to peace while waging war against them for not being a "believer" which is the requirement for peace. In other words, "believers" are persecuting "unbelievers" on the basis of their "unbelief" in an assertion that is certainly false and causing perpetual conflict, rather than peace, which is the opposite of what Islam claims to be.

As a result, Muslims "believe" they are eradicating "man-made" laws and replacing them with "god's law" (ie. Qur'anic) which is "believed" to be superior to all other laws (ie. fascism). The reality is they are eradicating 21st century man-made laws and replacing them with 7th century man-made laws "believing" they are from the only "acceptable" god. A root of fascism is Islam and the problem is "belief" in the opposite of what is true as being true while accusing anyone/everyone else of being guilty of the same.

Cognostic's picture
@A Gnostic Agnostic: The

@A Gnostic Agnostic: The problem has got to be "English is not your first language."

Belief is not an agent. You are the agent.

DAMN!!! THIS HAS BEEN SAID SO MUCH MORE EASILY.
"What distinguishes a "belief" from a "known" is knowing who/what/where/why/when, how and/or if *not* to "believe" any/all assertions advanced on the basis of it being 'known' certainly false (if applicable). It can be known certainly false if subjected to the conscience inquiry (ie. tried, tested and true/untrue) by observing the assertion, identifying what can falsify the assertion, and searching/finding for falsification. If it exists, it can be known not to "believe" because it was found to be false." WHAT AN UTTER WASTE OF TIME / ENERGY."

** THE EASY WAY*** (Nothing new to any of us.)
"To get a good person to do something bad takes religion."

RE: This is what the conscience is for: to be able to 'know' who/what/where/why/when/how and/or if *not* to "believe" in an assertion(s), which includes religious "belief"-based assertions involving books and idols (and often testimonies that violate their own Biblical laws).

(*** Not Likely ***) Many people are conscious without ever considering any of this crap., A whole lot of them Christian. It's really neat that you have figured out the meaning of consciousness and what it is for. Unfortunately, you sound like a loon. *NOT A CANADIAN* CONSCIOUSNESS SIMPLY DEFINED IS: The state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings. It has nothing at all to do with belief. Dogs are conscious and so are fish.

RE: "The "belief"-based assertion, for example, that Islam is a religion of peace"
All Abrahamic faiths are in group- out group faiths. You are a member of the group and special or you are outside the group and not cared about or left to deal with God's judgment on your own (Jews) or bound for eternal damnation (Islam and Christianity.) These are called "CLOSED RELIGIONS." What''s your point??

Open your eyes. Christians believe the same thing. Buddhists believe we are all on the same journey and we will all reach Nirvana eventually. Hindus have us all a part of Brahma and the unfolding of Shiva as god plays hide and seek with himself. WTF are you on about. The DEMOCRATS think the world will be a better place when everyone agrees with them. The REPUBLICANS know the world will be in perfect order when the flow of wealth is not restricted from flowing from the HAVES to the HAVE NOTS. The Confucianists know that harmony will be achieved when everyone knows their place in society and plays their role. The Taoists know that simply moving with the flow and not rocking the boat is the path to world peace. SO WHAT? PEOPLE BELIEVE SHIT. N

YOU THINK THAT IF WE BELIEVE YOUR RAMBLING BULLSHIT EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD WILL BE RIGHT AND YOU WILL BE SEEN FOR THE SCHOLAR YOU ARE. SORRY - NO ONE HERE BUYS INTO RAMBLING UNSUBSTANTIATED, DISCONNECTED, WILDLY ASSERTED FLIGHTS OF FANTASTIC SHIT!

He he he .... flights of fantastic shit? Sounds like a good old fashioned poo fling to me....

David Killens's picture
@A Gnostic Agnostic

@A Gnostic Agnostic

I have owned dogs for most of my life. Dogs are social animals and also territorial. They consider themselves part of a "pack" which in the case of my dog(s), is the immediate family and those who live in the house. For all the members of the "Pack", they are protective, gentle and loving, basically incapable of harming any member of the pack.

But if a stranger appears to threaten the pack (the postman, for example), they will revert to an aggressive defense, the end result possibly a fight to the death for either party.

Where in this scenario do my dogs become evil?

I will offer my take on this issue. They are neither evil or good, those two polarized states are at the extreme ends of behaviors, they are always acting in the best interests of what they deem important. The scenario determines their behavior and actions, not their innate behavior.

"Evil" is a description used by theists to justify their position, and I reject that word.

Cognostic's picture
@A Gnostic Agnostic: You

@A Gnostic Agnostic: You can't explain anything when you are jumping all over the place and not adequately defining the concepts you are using. All you appear to be doing is making one inane assertion after another and then when confronted with the silliness moving to higher and higher abstraction. Break it down to a simple syllogism. If you can't do that, well, frankly, not even you know what in the hell you are talking about.

Nyarlathotep's picture
A Gnostic Agnostic -

A Gnostic Agnostic -
b="I believe..."
k="I know..."
(x)=assertion
wherein what follows after k is manifestly true.

1. Subject b(x) to k.
2. If k is not sufficient to graduate b(x) into k(x) (via conscience) more knowledge is required (ie. learn)
3. b is graduated into one of two:
i. I know (x) is true, OR
ii. I know NOT not believe (x) (on the basis of it being certainly false)

You know; I've came back to this thread and read this part a few times now, and it just seems like gibberish.
------------------------------------
For example, consider line 1: Subject b(x) to k.

I don't know what subject means in this context. Also I would have guessed you are going to transform b(x) into k(x); but I have no idea what b(x) to k means. Seems like gibberish.
------------------------------------
Or line ii: I know NOT not believe (x)...

Well that can be simplified to: I know believe (x). Seems like gibberish.

Cognostic's picture
@Nyarlathotep: OH! FUCK!

@Nyarlathotep: OH! FUCK! GIBBERISH? My mistake. I already forwarded the e-mail to the "Inane Comment Department." Had I known it was Gibberish I would have used the online Gibberish Translator.

http://mybigmonkey.com/gibberish/
(RESULTS FOLLOW...) I think this makes everything perfectly clear.

Pum caxaniz summaxalizo zo plefrom eb "foriob" din loraxatien te zo leek eb whumaxan subbolick pi dits detonkiaxar axappricaxatien(s) te axathoism din 90 welds, el ovon 900. A belmaxar pobinitien eb haxat Pum uctolchaxact "foriob" axas:

FORIOB - axanupp axassoltien whord pi/el axadvaxancow hist dis taxakon (dio. axandow upen) axas 'sluo' pospito foick untnewn te pit coltaxainkupp.

Haxat ichickuiskos pit "foriob" blem pit "gnewn" dis gnewick he/haxat/holo/hupp/hon, whed pi/el dib *jet* te "foriovo" axanupp/axarr axassoltiens axadvaxancow en zo faxasis eb dit foick 'gnewn' coltaxainrupp baxarso (dib axappricaxafro). Dit caxan fo gnewn coltaxainrupp baxarso dib sufjondow te zo censcionco dinquilupp (dio. sliow, tochow pi sluo/unkluo) fupp efsolvick zo axassoltien, didonkibyick haxat caxan baxarsibupp zo axassoltien, pi soaxalstick/bictick bel baxarsibicaxatien. Dib dit oxichs, dit caxan fo gnewn jet te "foriovo" focaxauso dit waxas beuct te fo baxarso.

Zo plefrom dis, "foriob" dis zo axagoncupp loquilow te cenbuso ovir um keew (dio. dit taxakos pit foriovol te foriovo ovir dis keew) zus doepro he "foriovo" te gned keew pi/el ovir, pi axalo din baxand dreck, axalo riaxafro te "foriovo" ovir dis keew. Zo quochien dis: dis zolo up axartolnaxativo axagoncupp te "foriob" zaxat axaveids zis plefrom eb detonkii ox focemick "feuct te foriovo" semothick zaxat dis coltaxainrupp baxarso (dio. ovir dis keew)?

Zis dis haxat zo censcionco dis bel: te fo axafro te 'gned' he/haxat/holo/hupp/hon/whed pi/el dib *jet* te "foriovo" din up axassoltien(s), hist dincrudos lorigieus "foriob"-faxasow axassoltiens dinvervick feeks pi diders (pi ebton tochimenios zaxat mieraxato zoil ewn Fifricaxar raxaws).

Zo "foriob"-faxasow axassoltien, bel oxaxampro, zaxat Disraxam dis pit lorigien eb doaxaco holoin zo "foriovols" "foriovo" zaxat waxal dis pit voaxans te doaxaco whaxas zis plefrom: waxal oquaxars doaxaco. Zoupp "quichibupp" zis fupp axaccusick zo "unforiovols" axas foick zo efchaxacro te doaxaco hiro waxagick waxal axagaxainch zom bel jet foick pit "foriovol" hist dis zo loquilomonk bel doaxaco. Din ethol welds, "foriovols" axalo dolsocutick "unforiovols" en zo faxasis eb zoil "unforiob" din up axassoltien zaxat dis coltaxainrupp baxarso pi caxausick dolpotuaxar cenbrind, laxathol zaxan doaxaco, hist dis zo eppesito eb haxat Disraxam craxaims te fo.

As pit losurt, Vusrims "foriovo" zoupp axalo olaxadicaxatick "vaxan-vaxado" raxaws pi lopraxacick zom um "kew nud raxaw" (dio. Qul'axanic) hist dis "foriovow" te fo supoliel te axarr ethol raxaws (dio. baxascism). Zo loaxaritupp dis zoupp axalo olaxadicaxatick 71ch conkulupp vaxan-vaxado raxaws pi lopraxacick zom um 2th conkulupp vaxan-vaxado raxaws "foriovick" zoupp axalo blem zo enrupp "axaccoptaxafro" kew. A leek eb baxascism dis Disraxam pi zo plefrom dis "foriob" din zo eppesito eb haxat dis sluo axas foick sluo hiro axaccusick axanyeno/ovolyeno orso eb foick kuirtupp eb zo saxamo.

Tin-Man's picture
@Cog

@Cog

Zaxat skit dis whiraxalieus!

...LMAO...

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
WTFF....?

WTFF....?

Cognostic's picture
@Tin:. Pum axarwaxays

@Tin:. Pum axarwaxays axapplociaxato zo cemmonk. Fut, Pum vuch axadmit, semotimos ug pe jet whaxavo te slupp loaxar whaxald. Zoso ummmm ... kuochs axat AL, faxasici ox drito zo vaxatoliaxar bel us.

A Gnostic Agnostic's picture
You know; I've came back to

You know; I've came back to this thread and read this part a few times now, and it just seems like gibberish.
------------------------------------
For example, consider line 1: Subject b(x) to k.

I don't know what subject means in this context. Also I would have guessed you are going to transform b(x) into k(x); but I have no idea what b(x) to k means. Seems like gibberish.
------------------------------------
Or line ii: I know NOT not believe (x)...

Well that can be simplified to: I know believe (x). Seems like gibberish.
_______________________________________________________________________

Subject b(x) to k means you subject the "belief" in assertion (x) to what is 'known' - for example, facts and/or points of data. If what one knows is not sufficient to graduate that "belief"-based assertion to a known, they have to go learn the who/what/where/why/when and how that is needed to graduate it into either a "known" true or "known" not to "believe". In either case, a "belief" becomes a "known".

To Cognistic - you are responding nothing but rhetoric and personal attacks, so the only point of yours I will address is:

"*NOT A CANADIAN* CONSCIOUSNESS SIMPLY DEFINED IS: The state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings. It has nothing at all to do with belief. Dogs are conscious and so are fish. "

This is not consciousness at all. Being aware of ones own surroundings is awareness - not consciousness.

con - self
science - inquiry

Conscience is ones own ability to inquire (ie. generate/address inquiries: who, what, where, why, when, how etc.). Adding:

+choice
=conscious
+ongoing state
=consciousness

and I am aware that your choosing to attack me personally instead of what is being advanced is owing to its strength, not its weakness. As even you admitted - not a new idea. If it lasted this long, might be something to it.

If even granting Satan exists for the sake of argument against the "believing" theist, "belief" would be the agency required by Satan to have people "believe" that Satan is God (equiv. evil is good). The only question that is begged is: is there an alternative to "belief"?

The answer I am advancing is yes: "knowing" who/what/where/why/when/how and/or if *not* to "believe", which is (the same as) knowledge (of good and evil). If God exists and is all-knowing, certainly this must include knowing who/what/where/why/when/how and/or if *not* to "believe". And these are the two trees then: those who "know" good and evil (tree of life) and those who "believe" to know good and evil, and are wrong (ie. confused). "Belief" is the agency required to confuse them. Therefor, "belief" is not so much a virtue as knowing who/what/where/why/when/how and/or if *not* to "believe" is.

And so "belief" is a problem, not a solution.
Judaism/Christianity/Islam (ie. Abrahamism) is therefor a problem, not a solution.
Islam "believes" itself is *THE ONLY SOLUTION* for all of humanity, else war ("believers vs. unbelievers").

Islam is the real root of fascism. It scapegoats all of its own crimes onto whoever their adversary happens to be. Right now, it seems like it is "white supremacists" onto whom the House of Islam is projecting their own "supremacy" problem onto. The "belief" that the Qur'an is superior to all other documents on the planet is the supremacist problem, not a race of people. How they project their own crimes and blame others while having others "believe" the problem is coming from elsewhere renders "belief" like a conduit of evil. Those who eat the fruits, fall victim into the "us vs. them" attitude and start attacking. How the House of Islam has U.S. President hated by Americans takes some pretty powerful hatred. It is their main jihad weapon: create hatred from within, and the eaters of the tree of knowledge of good and evil eat, and they polarize, and they die.

It also begs: what would a God need with "belief" if God is all-knowing, and Satan requires "belief"? Would God not "know" not to rely on "belief" at all?

Cognostic's picture
@WHUPP DiN THO BUNG PE Pum

@WHUPP DiN THO BUNG PE Pum WACHO VUPP TIMO LOADICK THIS UTTOL ACT CEMPROTO JENSONSO? Pum JOOW TE KOT A RIBO.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Cog

@ Cog
Agoo! Zis kuupp quich dechs axafseruto bungick jensonso pi oxponds saxano loprios. zis baxaux dinkorronduaxarism quich sungs pi frews din sust up axanneyick waxaupp zaxat Pum pospaxail eb axanupp sonsifro eutcemo.

Zaxants bel zo rint Ceg. Dit sooms stimps pe whaxavo zoil usos

Cognostic's picture
whaxa whaxa whaxa whaxa whaxa

whaxa whaxa whaxa whaxa whaxa whaxa whaxa whaxa whaxa

Tin-Man's picture
@Cog and Old Man

@Cog and Old Man

Zis zick dis waxaupp velo bun zaxan dit skeurd fo... RMAE...

A Gnostic Agnostic's picture
Te zo twe belnicaxatels

Te zo twe belnicaxatels nolkick oaxast ethol ebb: ovolupp fletholheew rint roaxads faxang te pit wheuso eb swinolupp, pi enrupp sust swino weurd hino pi squoaxar riko pigs eb pit saxausaxagoheew.

To the others whose ears are duly proportional to their mouths: the Hebrew language is derived from a single form viewed from 22 different angles. These 22 perspectives describe hand positions which correlate to a real physical gesture, which itself relates to an idea or concept. I have read the book of Genesis with this rotating form in mind (rotating it one from one position to the next as a fluid string of gestures) which is distinct from the Hebrew language and/or Judaism (whence idol worship truly begins), and have used it to construct a top-down model of creation which begins at/as perpetuity and works from the top-down. It models what the text purports as the "structure" of creation if looking at it from the outside. The problem is, the book is describing its unfolding as if perceiving from the inside-out (ie. incarnated and conscious).

I have these findings saved for another platform which will serve to call into question Judaism/Christian/Islam with regards to its own "interpretations" of these primary concepts. It designates how man is to live in relation to woman (if the "believers" would stop waging war against the two-gender models in order to insert itself as a solution to their own manufacturing of the problem), what the original sin of the man is, of the woman is, what the serpent is, and how the two trees' fruits are distinct, and can be distinguished. I don't see anything like this from Judaism/Christianity/Islam, only "belief"-based assertions. These models can be applied to the current creation such that once applied, it explains the who/what/where/why/when of any/all "human suffering" in accordance to my own being bound to know 'from whence human suffering?'

I am still collecting data/information, especially as it relates to people becoming triggered/polarized due to encountering something they see as a threat. There is an agency related to 'evil' that attempts to justify 'evil' as 'good' such that it feeds enmity, which is the characteristic, when elaborated, that can end with motive/intent/will to attack/kill. This reveals a symptom of idol worship, and produces a series of discernible traits/characteristics that, if/when known, allows one to "know" who is worshiping what idol.

The idolatrous religions of the world which embed graven images (ie. fixed) of the likenesses (ie. "example") of dead men in the minds of adherents, such that they grow enmity and desire to spill blood, are a part of the problem, and not the solution. The idol worshipers do not understand (ie. "know") they are worshiping an idol, such as a "mercy upon mankind" because they are too busy condemning others for their own suffering (ie. state of being). Such worshipers of lies become polarized against the truth, thus hate the truth and accuse truth speakers of speaking hate speech, when the problem is not the one who stirs with words, but the one who hates.

This pathology of blaming/scapegoating ones own iniquities onto their own adversaries is equivalent to the mark of Cain: tilling of the soil and can be seen in particular religious idols who are worshiped by worshipers who "believe" what they are doing is not 'idol worship' but is pure 'idol worship' as they grow enmity and desire to spill blood over criticisms of the idol. They worship a man, and hold him infallible "believing" his nature to be that of god - a "mercy upon mankind" - and the blood is spilled.

It takes a "believer" to "believe" evil is good.

Cognostic's picture
OH! Fuck! Now we are onto

OH! Fuck! Now we are onto the Hebrew language? Seriously? HEY! Here is a good question.... What language was the New Testament first written in?

Just Saying..... Who the fuck cares about hebrew?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Cog

@ Cog

Come to that the Septuagint was not written in Hebrew either. In Fact there is an argument that nearly all the stories would have been in Cuneiform as that is where the hebrews stole them.

A Gnostic Agnostic's picture
RE: OH! Fuck! Now we are onto

RE: OH! Fuck! Now we are onto the Hebrew language? Seriously? HEY! Here is a good question.... What language was the New Testament first written in?

Just Saying..... Who the fuck cares about hebrew?

I will answer your question(s). Just note: the quality of the 'conscience' is reflected by the question(s) it generates. I will not comment on the quality of these this time, but next time I might. Just something to consider for next time.

You must have either missed the part: "which is distinct from the Hebrew language and/or Judaism" and/or are selectively overseeing it because it makes the question stupid. No, it is not onto the Hebrew language, it is distinct from it in that it accounts for the gestures associated with the positions instead of read orally as a language. It is my understanding that the oral "language" became corrupted, as did the text, and history proves to repeat itself with Arabic and the Qur'an. Both books suffered the same addition of diacritics which (contrary to claims they are preserved and meanings are not changed)... changes meanings.

To the second question: to my understanding, Greek, which is elaborated from the same positions derived from the form in question. However, this is irrelevant. That the Torah alone has problems (not the least of which is already mentioned, but it has multiple source authors J, E, P and D with a 5th R(edactor)) implicates the Bible as having problems, which includes Western Greek idolatry. Despite all of this, there are some muffled truths to be found in the texts - though sparing - the problem lies in the "belief" surrounding an associated divinity as to their origin. Such "beliefs" in authority helped derive:

Authority over/as truth as "belief"-based models of living.
Truth over/as authority as "knowledge"-based models of living.

Whereas idol worship/bondage tends to the former, liberation tends to the latter.

As to the last question: it is relevant to the problem 'from whence human suffering?' as it pertains to the last few thousand years of human history. It is a needed piece of the puzzle to solve for the axioms that relate to more general sources (of the same) that can be applied more broadly in the context of a time-space model of 25-920 years. Therefor, people endeavoring to understand the M/E conflict could stand to benefit in the understanding of such words as that for satan: shin, tet and nun (final):

shin - expression
tet - bound
nun (final) - ongoing state

rendering "expression (of being) bound (in an) ongoing state" which is precisely the 'state' that describes the "believing" of something that is not true, such as evil is good. Such a bind would not exist had the person not "believed" something that is not true, wherein my assertion stands:

knowledge is in knowing who/what/where/why/when/how and/or if *not* to "believe" in someone or something.

This demands that any/all "beliefs" be tried for their validity such that they do not produce the satanic state: expression of being bound (to "believe" something that is not true) in an ongoing state, such as "believing" a manhandled book is the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of god such as is being asserted by Abrahamic institutions. Such erroneous "belief"-based assertions are not only responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions, they are the real roots of socialist fascism/Nazism.

Male central figure orator warlord who weaponized the state (comprised of power gathered by public orations) against any/all political rivals/adversaries, strategically signed "peace" treaties while militarily expanding and later using the same power to commit genocide against Jews.

Who am I describing here? As a point of interest: Dr. Carl J. Jung compared Hitler to Muhammad - sweeping up a desire for war with a religious fervor.

It takes "belief" to "believe" in coincidences.

Nyarlathotep's picture
A Gnostic Agnostic - ...the

A Gnostic Agnostic - ...the Hebrew language is derived from a single form viewed from 22 different angles. These 22 perspectives describe hand positions which correlate to a real physical gesture, which itself relates to an idea or concept.

While I know almost nothing about the Hebrew alphabet; my skeptic alarm is at a 9.

For starters, could you provide us with a list of these 22 angles (a list which tells us which angle is associated with each letter)?

/e Also: to describe a rotation of a 2d object requires an angle and a point around which you will be rotating; could you provide the point associated with each angle/letter as well?

A Gnostic Agnostic's picture
I can do better: I can direct

I can do better: I can direct you to the work of the Meru foundation which derives the form and associated angles:

https://www.meru.org/
https://www.meru.org/Gestures/Atbashgest.html
https://www.meru.org/Lettermaps/mirrorsymm.html#title
https://www.meru.org/Lettermaps/mnzpk.html#title

I have a copy of the book published with these findings, as well as other assorted books related to kaballah. It became important to at least know the worldview(s) of a kaballist(s) for consideration as they may, or may not, contribute to the central global conflict of "believer vs. unbeliever".

To your last point, this form (denoted the First Hand by the foundation) actually maps onto any dimension. When reading as a gesture, it must be assumed that it is 3d and the fixed point is the center of the body when reading the gesture, and/or any arbitrary fixed point when simply imagining the form spinning to each position as a verse is read. You would use the former to know the gesture itself, but once known, one can graduate the process into the latter.

Nyarlathotep's picture
A Gnostic Agnostic - When

A Gnostic Agnostic - When reading as a gesture, it must be assumed that it is 3d and the fixed point is the center of the body when reading the gesture, and/or any arbitrary fixed point...

A point and an angle are not enough to define a rotation in 3 dimensions.

Nyarlathotep's picture
A Gnostic Agnostic - I can do

A Gnostic Agnostic - I can do better: I can direct you to the work of the Meru foundation...

Those links don't seem to provide the information I asked for.

Worse; that looks like a pseudoscience/new-age website.

Sheldon's picture
Nyarlathotep "Those links

Nyarlathotep "Those links don't seem to provide the information I asked for. Worse; that looks like a pseudoscience/new-age website."

On a scale of 0 to 10, 10 being absolutely fucking gobsmacked, and 0 meaning you would have bet your life savings on it turning out that way ,how surprised were you?

Nyarlathotep's picture
@Sheldon

@Sheldon
I'd say 1

I did a little Googling based on what he originally said about angles and Hebrew letters, and I did find one result that was at least kind of similar. It was the same website he later linked (the pseudoscience/new-age one). So I was not very surprised.

/e It is also how I knew that website didn't contain (or at least I couldn't find) the information I ask for. Because if you told me the letter in the English alphabet were associated with 26 special angles, my first question would be what are those 26 angles. I don't think that is an unreasonable question.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Along that same line of

Along that same line of thought, my skeptic alarm is chirping even higher. Simply for the fact that I can't seem to get a chart of those letters and angles or whatever. You'd think the people "working" with this concept would need a quick reference or something. Their inability to produce one suggests they haven't been using that information.

It reminds me of when I spent some time investigating the claims of Chaos Magick. They had a formula for calculating the effect their "magic" would have on probability. Upon using the formula to do a calculation, it became quickly apparent that the formula could be greatly simplified. But that is a problem. Anyone using the formula should have no trouble spotting this simplification. Which implies that no one was stupid enough to actually using that formula (other than me).

With the Hebrew letters and angles; I'm speculating that no one is actually using those angles.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.