The Problem of "Belief"
Donating = Loving
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.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
@A Gnostic Agnostic: WTF is all the Hebrew about - Are we talking about the Old Testament? Your Kung-fu is very weak master.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ld_o751b_I4 Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ... What is the hell does HEBREW have to do with anything?
Now THAT is funny! As funny as the "no touch" martial artists who get their arses kicked to jericho and back when they take on an actual fighter.
Holy shit, is there no end to gullibility?
What is really funny is that the guy is Jamacan, he holds black belts in several other styles, has trained in Knun-fu, and THEN WENT TO ISRAEL to invent and spread this bullshit martial art with thousands of years of history based on the Hebrew Alphabet. "there no end to gullibility?" is the understatement of the year.
Martial Arts, Religion, Patriotism and the cult of Victimhood....killer combination to make money....
RE: could you provide us with a list of these 22 angles
RE: Those links don't seem to provide the information I asked for.
RE: Worse; that looks like a pseudoscience/new-age website.
I think you are misunderstanding something.
The 22 Hebrew letters are 22 different perspectives of a single form, that form being the First Hand model. This model can be seen here:
If you notice, when the form itself is rotated, it produces the 22 Hebrew letters. The First Hand model itself is held/fit in the hand, and 22 different gestures produce the 22 letters.
You can watch a video of how this works here:
I already linked the chart:
Genesis 1:1 has an auto-correlation which defines the model whence the First Hand is derived:
"These patterns strongly imply that the Hebrew Bible has significant meaning encoded in the sequence of letters that make up the texts. Kabbalists have always claimed that this was so, but it has been hard to prove. Even statistical evidence of letter patterns does not really help because statistics do NOT provide meaning."
And it is true: there is significant meaning encoded in the sequence of letters. And the best part is: no "belief" in a god is necessary (or even called for).
Why won't you just tell us these 22 angles? Is it like a secret that you can't reveal until we've joined an organization or taken a secret oath?
Because I don't understand what you are actually asking for. Are you asking for what each hand position means and/or implies? Are you asking for a picture of the different angles? Do you even understand the concept? It's one form, viewed from 22 different perspectives. You know how you can look at a shape from different perspectives? If you do that with the First Hand model, you get the 22 Hebrew letters which correlate to the hand positions as if holding the form in the hand. You have to either imagine the form itself in your hand, or physically make one and rotate it yourself to see the 22 letters. I linked a chart which does this for you already, but you're asking be to tell you the angles? I don't know what you are asking for.
There is no organization or oath. Whatever is true is true whether it comes from me or anyone else. Therefor I don't want or expect anyone to "believe" anything, I'd like for them to use their own conscience and understand that "belief" is a (the) problem, not a solution, and the so-called Abrahamic religions don't actually have a clue what is written in the book of Genesis - if they did, they would understand what the word translated as 'GOD' is - that is, a thing understood, not "believed" in.
You said there were 22 angles. I'm simply asking you for a list of those angles.
You know; something like 45°, 90°, 30°, ...
Of course that isn't enough to define a rotation, so it would be nice if you could include that information as well.
It seems to me that you are saying a certain shape can be rotated to generate the Hebrew alphabet. I'm asking you to give me the information required for me to actually preform these rotations; so I can verify it myself.
Summary: I want to verify that when I preform a rotation (I'm asking you for information about this rotation), I get a resulting letter in the Hebrew alphabet; and that this can be done for each of the 22 different letters. In short: I'm trying to determine if you are full of shit.
No, there might be an alternative motive here: you might be trying your best to make me appear full of shit, because that might be the reality you want to be true, because there might be enmity that you are trying to hide. If so, it is the same mob mentality as guilty before proven innocent.
Will make it simple so others understand what is going on.
There is one form. Only one. It is the First Hand model that can be held in the hand - it begins at the tip of the thumb and drops down and around while extending out to the four fingers. When you hold this object (you will have to either find a copy, or buy the book for the paper cut-out, mine is made from coat-hanger wire) you can perform 22 different gestures (ie. arm/hand positions) each having have a correlating perspective relative to the observer. These 22 correlating perspectives are exactly what I provided as requested:
If you do not understand this, I am afraid there is no point going further as there is certainly a barrier. Maybe read about it some more, or watch a Youtube video? Viewing a shape from 22 different perspectives does not beg for mathematical "angles" - if you hold a model against a light and rotate it, you too will see the letters.
So if you want to verify that when you perform a rotation (the information for which is provided already) you get a resulting letter of the Hebrew alphabet, physically do it yourself? Like hell, do you ask people to hold it for you while you go? Build a replica and do it yourself, I already did it for myself and learned the gestures well enough to just imagine the form spinning as read. I still rotate my hand slightly as if holding a model even when not, because it helps me keep the shape(s) correct.
@A Gnostic Agnostic
Someone tells me there are these 22 angles, and so I asked for a list of those angles. Does that make me an unreasonable person? Maybe you could provide just a couple of them? Why does it seem I have to practically beg you for this?
It is wonderful New Age pseudo science: I found this https://www.meru.org/FAQ.html#title.
The geometry of the gestures allows a deeper understanding of the biblical stories as metaphors according to the FAQ page.
All this bollocks could have been sorted out days ago if the original poster had just linked what I have just now instead of bollocking on about whatever over complex bollocks he was bollocking on about.
Fuck, I HATE over intellectualisation to aggrandise the writer. It is a fucking simple concept.
@Old an shouts
Yep, that is New Age.
/e: It gets worse:
As I said, could have been sorted days ago if Aggie had pointed to that New Age pseudo science load of bollocking bollocks.
We could all have had a good laugh and gone back to bed instead of sorting through the clouds of wasted, empty verbiage trying in vain to find a grain of meaning therein.
I am going back to bed *Grabs Shiraz from Tin Mans hand* Good NIGHT!
ALL: The "DUNNING KRUGER EFFECT" in action. I think I figured out how these people get on here and try to hang around.
RE: Someone tells me there are these 22 angles, and so I asked for a list of those angles. Does that make me an unreasonable person? Maybe you could provide just a couple of them? Why does it seem I have to practically beg you for this?
No, someone advanced the notion that a particular form can be viewed from 22 different perspectives and derive the Hebrew alphabet. You took/take this to mean "angles" (ie. mathematical numerical angles) which has 0 application/meaning to the advanced notion, despite what you may "believe". The reason you are trying to stick to this is because you, like others in this thread, are trying to pile on me (ie. undermine) and/or what is being imparted at all costs because of something inside of yourselves that doesn't like the implications, thus others must "believe" that I am somehow being dishonest, instead of it actually being yourselves. It is scapegoating - your problems as my problem. The only motivation such people have is to attack others, and this is the same as the Mark of Cain - attack others esp. for what they are themselves guilty of. In this particular case, you are the one being unreasonable while attempting to pin it on me.
So, I do not know if you are an unreasonable person, but you are certainly being "unreasonable" here in attempting to undermine an assertion by yourself imposing a requirement that is not actually a requirement (it only serves as as weapon for you to further attack me), and attempting to undermine on that erroneous basis (straw man). Take the form, take a light, move it yourself and you will see the letters via the shadow. If you want mathematical measurements, do it yourself as it otherwise has 0 practical meaning/importance to anyone or anything besides yourself and your crusade of attacking me. Should I expect you to do it again? Such people can not help themselves - attack, attack, attack.
The only point that it all boils down to is "belief" is required to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil such that a person "believes" to know it, thus becomes internally polarized and attempts to project/blame their own polarization problems onto others and/or as being due to others. This pathology of blaming/attacking is the Biblical equivalent to the mark of Cain and is the defining factor of ideological houses (such as Islam) which advances an "us vs. them" framework. It is also the pathology that explains what those like Cognistic / Old man shouts do: attack others due to ones own internal polarization(s), and it is pathetic (ie. a pathology). What you might not understand is projection is an axiom such that it can be seen by anyone/everyone who knows the axiom "accuser is the accused" and are themselves not polarized; at least, to the same degree. Subjecting things to the conscience and rendering true/false statements need not involve emotions unless one has an emotional attachment for/against something. This is where the desire to attack/undermine comes from.
There is thus a difference between "believing" and "knowing" - it takes a "believer" to "believe" whatever is evil, is good. Actually, it takes a "believer" to "believe" anything that suits themselves, even at the cost of others (ie. attacking them). Muhammad's Islam is this: "believe" anything/everything that suits ones own motivations such that they justify attacking others. You, Cognistic, Old man etc. all doing this: attack others on the basis of your own "belief"-based justifications.
I can already guess that there are people who reported this post in attempt to censor it - censorship is indicative of fascism, and justifying censorship is the same thing as evil justifying itself as good based on "belief", which is the principle problem on the planet that I am working to solve. Why are there people on an atheist forum, attacking another atheist who is trying to take down religious "belief"-based ways of thinking? Maybe the mods can look at those attacking me and try to understand this, because although I already do, I'd be called a "conspiracy theorist" which is a term used to demote critical thinking in lieu of slander and making others feel bad/stupid for thinking something different. It's pathetic (ie. pathology) and those who succumb are likewise.
Oh LOL...you do not know your way around this site do you?
This is not some theist site or New Age site where dissenting views are censored. You can fucking complain about all sorts of shit including bad language, but guess what...ideas are allowed full expression. Including fucking crackpot shite the like of which you are spouting without any verification.
The only reason you will get banned here is for transgressing the rules on the right...the commandments if you will.
Fuck me dead, you have only been called out on the idiocy you are spouting and you are already playing the victim card?
What kind kind of silly fuckwit does that?
Are you sensitive my precious?
A bit thin skinned?
If you don't like being mocked, don't spout fucking nonsense.
And do not play the victim when you are the idiot.
@ Agnos... "If you don't like being mocked, don't POST fucking nonsense." Where in the fuck have you run into all the drivel you post and why in the fuck would you believe it? How do you not understand that it is all, every bit of it, from your first post to the last, pure nonsense. I second Old Man's Remarks. You are so far out in left field it appears there may be no hope for you at all. Still, the kind atheists at AR keep trying.
To mods/admins: I have made a new thread that has an atheist argument that more or less covers what is enclosed here. Feel free to close this one as it has already been over-run by trolls and bullies, despite them citing the rules to me, which I am following and they are not.
To the others: you are trolling and bullying. You are not focusing on the content, you're going after me personally. I don't care because I know 'I am' is actually nothingness and else is "belief" (that includes whatever you "believe" yourselves to be and/or myself to be). I am sorry if you do not like what I say, but your hostility just speaks volumes as to how pathetic your own "belief"-based nature is. Please get over yourselves and knock the content, not the person.
Ps: sweeping assertions that something is "COMPLETE F@CKING B$" is more revealing of your own internal 'state': and so it appears to you that way. Nothing I say, or anyone says, is to be "believed" in. If something is, it is, and if it is not, it is not, regardless of if unknown or known. Therefor, "belief" is a problem, not a solution, so I don't want anyone "believing" anything. If I say something is so, that doesn't make it so. If it is so, it is that it is so, and any one else who looks can see it for themselves without needing an authority. It is a question of choice: do they choose to look and perchance find for themselves, or do they choose to attack and undermine others?
Here is an atheist poem for the haters:
In 'I am that I am' and
removing "belief" in a god,
could each 'I am' be an empty being?
And if 'I am' is/are actually nothing(s),
what does that leave? That.
What is that?
That, you are (tat twaum asi)
the shade over 'I am' which
seeks to justify itself. If naught,
only 'I am' remains again
and 'that' is boundlessness.
Therefor, when two empty 'I am'
join, and imagine any 'that',
is 'that' like a mustard seed
that begins the smallest of all
but over time it is brought forth
fully into being?
Could this be the "belief-less" kingdom of heaven:
as it need not be "believed" in but merely known
as it is made manifest accordingly by those who so know?
I AM that I AM such:
empty [BOUNDLESSNESS] empty
Like an Adam and an Eve and a boundless tree:
and one-and-one-make-one ad infinitum thats.
Then whence evil into the world?
it is this woman that you gave me:
THE ORIGINAL ACCUSATION.
Eve, you are eating from the forbidden fruits
of the tree that 'god' told us not to eat from.
Man blames woman for his own iniquity,
woman blames "serpent" for evil in the world.
They are both at fault: not KNOWING their own sin
for focusing on the others'. This is not a game:
it is a test of conscience.
And Adam sinned, and Eve sinned,
and their reconciliation
is the same as 'peace'.
True peace is not in "belief":
it takes the kingdom of heaven by force
and disrupts the Edenic 1:1 state of fidelity
in favor of 1:4, 1:9/11 etc. which is a product
of man's own iniquity. Such are the "believers"
who "believe" themselves entitled to more
than what their own 'god' has appropriated
as the seed of creation itself: 1:1.
If the ratio of men/women were restored as 1:1, this would be the single-most effective effort towards true world peace/balance. However, the "believers" who take the kingdom of heaven by force (ie. women) "believe" themselves entitled to the "unbelieving" whores as war spoils and as punishment for their "unbelief". Such is the evil of men and their "belief".
Okay, I believe I've got it now. I'm pretty sure I know what the problem of belief might be, but I am having trouble believing it. Because how can I know it is true if I believe the knowledge of my belief might not be true? In other words, I KNOW I believe I know what the problem is with belief, but do I BELIEVE I know that is truly the problem causing me to believe I do not know for certain? How am I to believe I know something I doubt? How do I know I believe something I believe I don't know? You know what, I believe I'm just gonna finish my cup of coffee while continuing to ponder what I believe I think I know about the problems of belief.
re: An atheist argument? WTF??? "However, the "believers" who take the kingdom of heaven by force (ie. women) "believe" themselves entitled to the "unbelieving" whores as war spoils and as punishment for their "unbelief". Such is the evil of men and their "belief".
SERIOUSLY???? ISN'T IT TIME TO SAY "BYE BYE?"
@Cog Re: To Agnos - "ISN'T IT TIME TO SAY "BYE BYE?""
Hey, just an observation on my part, but it seems to me that our dear Agnos said, "Bye-bye," long before he ever joined the AR... *chuckle*...
@Tin-Man: *fizzy tea blowing out my nose.*
RE: Okay, I believe I've got it now. I'm pretty sure I know what the problem of belief might be, but I am having trouble believing it.
If you "believe" you got it, you don't "know" you got it. I can say I believe you don't got it, or I know you don't got it. In the former, it is not actually known, in the latter, it is certainly known regardless of what anyone "believes". I know which I'd choose, but I will abstain.
RE: Because how can I know it is true if I believe the knowledge of my belief might not be true? In other words, I KNOW I believe I know what the problem is with belief, but do I BELIEVE I know that is truly the problem causing me to believe I do not know for certain?
If you "believe" the "knowledge" of your "belief" might not be true? If that is the case, it is not real "knowledge", it is still belief. In other words, if you "know" you merely "believe" you know, this is ackknowledging that something is still merely a "belief" (ie. limited) and not certainly true. What is certainly true or untrue is so whether or not one is aware of it or not. The problem is consciously being aware (ie. knowing) of what is untrue (ie. what not to "believe" in) and this is where real truth is: how to tell what is not true.
RE: How am I to believe I know something I doubt? How do I know I believe something I believe I don't know? You know what, I believe I'm just gonna finish my cup of coffee while continuing to ponder what I believe I think I know about the problems of belief.
You can "know" you doubt a particular "belief". The second question is nonsensical: how to know "I believe something I believe I don't know". If you work backwards "I believe I don't know" there is an absence of knowledge either way beyond this. Once "belief" has entered the equation, it is necessarily not "knowledge" because "knowledge" is its antithesis: knowing what not to "believe" (ie. absence of "belief").
For example, I know the "kingdom of heaven" was a "family friendly" reference to the between-the-legs-of-a-woman. I know and understand this is not "common knowledge" now, but the Church has done a lot to confuse people about this "kingdom of heaven" such that they are "believing" it is a place one goes to after they die.
Come on now, there are entire religions now "believing" the kingdom of heaven is full of virgin women. What the hell else do you expect sexually degenerated men to imagine as the greatest source of pleasure?
Well, damn. Now I believe I don't know much at all about belief, while at the same time I'm pretty sure I know I don't believe much about what I don't know. Although, I am 99% CERTAIN that I am 73% confident in the questionable fact that I have no belief in, and know absolutely nothing about, those things about which I have ZERO knowledge. And I know I believe this because I believe I cannot know about that which is unknown. Just like I can't do what can't be done. And I can't sing what can't be sung. I can't make what can't be made, and I can't save someone who can't be saved. It's easy. All you need is love.
(.....*respectfully tipping hat to The Beatles*...)
@A Gnostic Agnostic
You are the one who told us these things are angles!
@A Gnostic Agnostic:
The lock upon my garden gate's a snail, that's what it is
The lock upon my garden gate's a snail, that's what it is
First there is a mountain then there is no mountain then there is.
First there is a mountain then there is no mountain then there is.
The caterpillar sheds his skin to find a butterfly within
Caterpillar sheds his skin to find a butterfly within
First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is
First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain
Oh A Gnostic we've lost your name....
Sigh....I had such a crush on Donovan.
@CyberLN: My Zen days. LOL
@A Gnostic Agnostic
You are the one who told us these things are angles!
Which you selectively focus on and reference despite the more numerously supplemented "perspectives" that would otherwise render your entire inquiry for numerical mathematical angles as stupid and/or meaningless, given you would (and do) otherwise understand what is already true: a single form, viewed from 22 different angles and/or perspectives yield the 22 letters and mathematical angles is irrelevant. Perhaps it is even stupid to ask about them. Perhaps that is why you are relentlessly trying to pin your own conflation on me. Stupid is, as stupid does, no? Would you like to move on, now, that all is clarified? Or will you dwell and continue in an ongoing state?
Ps: sweeping labels of "new age" is meaningless: if something is sound, including the work of Meru, it is sound. The derivation of the form and its correspondence to first gestures then the letters themselves is sound. The 30+ years of work bears this out, and one who has not cared to read even methodology (ie. how it was found to be so) are wholly dishonest in accusations of it being "new age". That is not to say it is all sound: I find some of it problematic, such as assumptions introduced that possibly draw a desired conclusion (in the case of the Judaism/Christianity/Islam flower integrating principles of living) but is otherwise exceptional and sound. People are known to reject things they don't like and/or don't fit their own "worldview" as this research might, given it demands a more careful scrutiny/consideration of the book of Genesis outside of "belief"-based theology.
Gnostic Atheist, you wrote, “People are known to reject things they don't like and/or don't fit their own "worldview" “
People are also known to reject things that are bupkus.