TL;DR

A public (atheist) argumentation that defeats "belief" in any/all "all-knowing" gods (as in: a potent "all-knowing" agency governing over all that is expressed through/as a dichotomous dipole of right/wrong, good/evil etc.) as it pertains to any/all monotheistic worldviews (and their associated "belief"-based assertions) advanced by "belief"-based institutions such as Judaism, Christianity, and/or Islam).

******
P1 'Belief' is the agency required to confuse evil with good, and/or vice versa.
P2 'Knowledge' is the agency required to reconcile evil with good, and/or vice versa.
C Belief is not so much a virtue as knowing who/what/where/why/when how and/or if *not* to "believe" is.
******
p1 acknowledges the need for "belief" to be present to "believe" whatever evil is, is actually good.
p2 acknowledges an all-knowing god is necessarily knowing how to reconcile evil with good and/or vice versa.
c demands that 'knowledge' (of what not to believe) is both: superior to, while being antithetical to, "belief" and begs a following-up of 'wisdom' being the 'why'. Here, what 'what' is to image (ie. masculine), 'why' is to likeness (ie. feminine) such that the particular points of 'what' produce the waveform 'why' and vice versa.

This argumentation (ie. it's implications) does not have any particular need to define what is objectively good/evil (a/the problem itself relating to the mythological tree of the knowledge of good and evil which stands above Judaism/Christianity/Islam) and/or god/satan outside of 'god' being taken as "all-knowing". This resolves the state of 'all-knowing' (ie. the characteristic as ascribed to an "all-knowing" god) as necessarily inclusive of the all-knowing of who/what/where/why/when/how and/or if *not* to "believe". If this is elaborated far enough, and such is taken as a 'body of knowledge', as one approaches "all-knowing" of what not to "believe", one approaches whatever an all-knowing "god" must necessarily be, thus "belief" in a god is rendered necessarily null. Else: 'god' does not exist (atheists can/do assert this, though the author does not) and/or 'god' is not all-knowing, which is an argument I candidly await from any "believing" Jew/Christian/Muslim who would certainly suffer to collapse the house for which they stand.

If an "all-knowing" god exists, this argumentation reveals that ones own proximity to it would necessitate such a knowledge of what *not* to believe: that is, as one tends toward what an all-knowing "god" is and/or could possibly be, one tends toward all-knowing of who/what/where/why/when/how and/or if *not* to "believe". This renders 'god' as a total and complete absence of "belief" in any/all false assertions: 'all-knowing' what not to "believe" and any/all applicable reasons why.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

NTL;

For "believers" and/or "unbelievers" alike (to be taken as either wills);
I am willing to (argue via) debate [WTD]:

'BELIEF' is NOT a VIRTUE."

as an unconditional general compression of:

"Belief" is not so much a virtue as "knowing" who/what/where/why/when/how and/or if *not* to "believe" is.

This argument calls into question the viability of any 'state' of "belief" as compared to any alternative(s) 'state' (ie. of "knowing") which is (are) necessarily superior to it on the basis that: it is necessarily true that any 'state' of "belief" can possibly be certainly false and/or certainly untrue despite being "believed" to be otherwise. This has implications for any/all "belief"-based geopolitical 'states' that governs the lives of others based on historical bodies of text, including notably the cohesive bodies of:

i. Judaism (re: Torah)
ii. Christianity (re: Bible)
iii. Islam (re: Qur'an)
iv. (any/all associations/derivatives therefrom i. ii. and iii.)

and their contribution(s) (if any) to the active use of forcible suppression of (the expression of) alternative worldview(s) (ie. fascism) which run contrary to such "belief"-based 'states'' own worldview(s) held (and therefor acted upon) and forcibly advanced as 'true' despite possibly being certainly false and/or certainly untrue.

Example:

Let satan exist for the sake of argumentation (against "believers" in satan/god).
Observe the agency required by satan to lure adherents into "believing" satan is god (ie. evil is good) to be "belief" (ie. one must "believe" satan is god and/or evil is good, otherwise satan would have no potent control over that being).

If "belief" were a currency, who is the head of its bank? Call this black.
If "knowledge" were a competing currency, who is the head of its bank? Call this white.

The problem is obviously in the conscience: to "believe" vs. to "know", and these are like the yang and yin: moving from a place of ignorance (ie. black, "believing" to know) to knowing (ie. white, knowing one knows). How does one move from black to white?

It is the same: whereas satan requires "belief", an all-knowing god (if one exists) would certainly "require" all conscious knowledge of who/what/where/why/when/how and/or if *NOT* to "believe" (and why) which effectively stands to guard *against* otherwise "believing" something/someone that is certainly not true, which is the principle goal of satan: to have "believers" "believe" satan (ie. evil) is god (ie. good). As such, "belief" is the agency required to confuse evil with good and/or vice versa.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

GOAL: To identify the real root of 'fascism' such it is to be 'known' (ie. witnessed by anyone) rather than 'believed'.

'Fascism' is taken as: any active use of forcible suppression of (the expression of) alternative worldview(s) that do not serve, and/or serve against, collectivist goal(s) of a "belief"-based ideological 'state' advancing a/the principle division of humanity:

"BELIEVERS" vs. "UNBELIEVERS"
(ie......US.........vs...........THEM.......) and/or
whichever perpetuates suffering/war/death.

The root of fascism is the same as the root of the above division: "belief" in a superior worldview rendering use of forcible suppression, as defined above.

The goal of the argumentation, therefor, is to resolve (ie. collapse) this ridiculous ideological division by revealing its present source (historical is of interest only as it serves the present), as well as the source of the suffering of those who are unknowingly subject (ie. enslaved) to it. The agency required to create/perpetuate this division is certainly "BELIEF" itself and, as it happens, the same is required for the creation/perpetuation of any/all human suffering that exists. The "belief" thread I began was attacked by apparently angry individuals as they began accusing me for things they were themselves guilty of - a finding that will necessarily follow from the elaboration of such pursuits in identifying the root(s) of fascism (ie. human suffering). It has to do with individuals who "religiously" accuse others of their own crimes such that they endeavor to have "believers" "believe" that the crimes that are being committed by themselves, are actually being committed by whoever their adversary is. Therefor, an understanding of 'scapegoating' is necessary to understand 'fascism'. See the following analogy of 'scapegoating':

***SCAPEGOATING***

A is a political/ideological body guilty of a crime (x).
B is the political/ideological adversary of/to A.

A (knowingly/unknowingly) accuses B of (x)
and "endeavors" to have any/all "believers" C
"believe" that B is guilty of (x) instead of A
who is in reality guilty of (x).

If C "believers" "believe" A, and likewise accuses/condemns B for (x)
and A gets away with crime (x)
this is the goal of fascism:
to accuse another of ones own crime.

The "accuser" is, in reality, the "accused" and this is a central characteristic of fascism: fascists accuse others of what they are themselves guilty of, including... fascism itself. Please see ANTIFA: so-called anti-fascists who "believe" they are fighting *against* fascism, but are actually themselves fascists supported by "believers" who "believe" they are the opposite. Please also note that ANTIFA has a strong presence on these forums in particular and they will certainly attack this work, as they know they can not survive unless they have "believers" who "believe" in their reasons to hate others. "Belief" is dead, and so thus are the fascists who rely on it - it allows them to scapegoat their own crimes onto others and get away with it, begging the problem of 'justice' which is another topic. The head honcho of fascism is also literally dead, and has been for over a thousand years but is still worshiped by the (real) fascists who haven't understood the meaning of how he died (poisoned by a woman) and how it relates to the problem of evil as elaborated in the very texts they purport as "inspired" in some way.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Argumentation Usage of Terms/Definitions

'belief' - any general state of being (ie. existence) defined by
any (set of) assertion(s) whose characteristics govern the cohesive worldview of any body
such: that what is 'believed' as being so, is generally taken as so (despite not being "known") as it serves to govern the cohesive worldview of any body as a whole.

eg. "I believe book Q is the perfect, unaltered word of god." and ones cohesive worldview is defined by this being taken as 'true' which has implications for that individuals' own internal state of being as it relates to suffering (ie. ignorance).

'knowledge' - any state of being (ie. existence) defined by
conscious awareness (ie. of who, what, where, why, when, how and/or why)
of any 'belief'-based assertion(s) "believed" (ie. taken as) as 'true' (by others) but
whose principle characteristics either can be, or already are, 'known' to be certainly untrue and/or certainly 'false'
thus certainly 'known' to confuse (as a whole) the cohesive worldview of any such "believing" bodies associated (esp. to its own detriment).

eg. "I know not to believe book Q is the perfect word of god, because..." followed by conscious awareness of a fact(s), logic(s), reasoning/argumentation etc. which necessarily negates the "belief"-based "true" assertion, and renders it as certainly false. This knowledge serves to protect one from becoming bound to "believe" something that is not true, owing to ones own (in)ability to know it is not true, which is taken to be the same as ignorance.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

"BELIEF" and "FASCISM"

In the case of fascism, "believers" "believe" their own ideas are superior (ie. a particular book is perfect and can not be surpassed) and judge others on the basis of their "unbelief" in the same, which includes people who "know" that the same book can be surpassed, and is surpassed by many others. "Believers" will wage war against "unbelievers" while employing the agency of "belief" to have others "believe" that it is the other way around: that "unbelievers" (ie. atheists) are waging war against "believers" (ie. theists). "Belief" is the agency required to confuse this, as it is with all things. "Belief" is the agency required to invert anything/everything, including who is oppressing who. Knowledge reconciles this - knowing that "belief" is required for fascism lends itself to discerning who is making accusations and whether or not they actually apply to the accuser. An example of this is to follow.

It takes a "believer" to "believe" war is a solution, instead of a problem (to 'world peace'). One can "know" war means lack of peace, but it takes a "believer" to "believer" war is a means to peace and/or war is a solution to lack of peace.

When a problem "believes" itself to be a solution, this is the same agency as cancer. There are problematic "belief"-based ideologies that hold their "belief" it is the *only* solution to humanity. This is a humanitarian crisis and births the need for fascism in the first place. If this ideological house were globally identified as the root of fascism, it would reveal its madness and declare war against any/all such designations, despite them being absolutely 100% true.

Recently, SA declared "atheism" as a form of terrorism. This is precisely an indicator of fascism: to scapegoat ones own iniquities onto whoever their political adversaries are. In the case of SA, which perpetuates the "believer" vs. "unbeliever" divide responsible for the real terrorism on the planet which atheists/atheism absolutely rejects (as does the author), it is SA who is guilty of being a terrorist 'state' and now patently pathetic for attempting to scapegoat its own nature onto others. But this precisely is the nature of fascists: scapegoat their own crimes onto others and using "believers" to condemn/attack. It is a sick pathology that the author would like to see resolved due to it contributing to an enormous amount of human suffering on the planet.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

ARGUMENTATION EXTENDED

A public argumentation that defeats "belief" in any "all-knowing" god (as if: governing over all that is (a dichotomous dipole of) good/evil as it pertains to any monotheism advanced by "belief"-based institutions).

P1 'Belief' is the agency required to confuse evil with good, and/or vice versa.
P2 Knowledge is the agency required to reconcile evil with good, and/or vice versa.
C Belief is not so much a virtue as knowing who/what/where/why/when how and/or if *not* to "believe" is.

This argumentation (ie. it's implications) resolves the state of 'all-knowing' (ie. god) as all-knowing of who/what/where/why/when/how and/or if *not* to "believe", which renders any/all "belief" in (a) god completely backwards and stupid (ie. retarded). These terms are not (only) rhetorical: they are (also) practical and are used to impart the real practicality of their meaning.

backwards:
"BELIEF" in AUTHORITY over/as all TRUTH,
rather than
"KNOWLEDGE" in TRUTH over/as all AUTHORITY
(ie. it takes "belief" to "believe" war is peace, which is backwards: in reality, war is (the absence of) peace).

stupid:
"BELIEF" is not "KNOWING"
"KNOWING" what not to "BELIEVE" prevents backwards worldviews which produce STUPID behaviors, such as judging/persecuting/waging war against other people on the basis of what they do *not* "BELIEVE" - even if the rejection of said "BELIEF" is sound, such as in the cases of Judaism/Christianity and/or Islam, with the latter being a presently unrecognized (by many, not by the author) humanitarian crisis as it religiously/pathologically scapegoats its own crimes (against humanity) onto whoever their political adversary is. Once again, the agency required for this to be effective is "belief". The truth is always in plain sight, it is the "belief" that distorts.

retarded:
If one "believes" to already have something (incl. whatever is 'true') they will:
i. not go looking for it, and may
ii. persecute others for not being in possession and/or agreeing with the same "belief"-based 'truth'.

If an "all-knowing" god exists, this argumentation reveals that ones own proximity to it would necessitate such a knowledge of what *not* to believe: that is, as one tends toward what an all-knowing "god" is and/or could possibly be, one tends toward all-knowing of who/what/where/why/when/how and/or if *not* to "believe". This renders 'god' as a total and complete absence of "belief" in any/all false assertions: 'all-knowing' what not to "believe" and any/all applicable reasons why.

It is on this argumentation (along with others) that the author rejects "belief" as a viable basis upon which to construct any 'state' and thus find "belief" in any god to be a demonstration of ignorance rather than anything that can be argued to be 'true' knowledge.

This also reduces "belief" into a necessary component of 'idol worship' which the atheists might find interesting, because it necessarily takes a "believer" to be an 'idol worshiper', thus atheism has an opportunity here to denounce any/all "belief"-based 'states' in favor of knowledge that "belief" necessarily leads to 'idol worship' as in the cases of Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. The "believers" protect these idols because the nature of the idol justifies that of their leaders: polygamy, pedophilia and waging war against "unbelievers" for a living. "Belief" is the agency required to confuse evil with good, and these are the "believers" waging war against the "unbelievers". It is backwards and upside-down, which is the problematic effect that "belief" has. Knowing it is backwards and upside-down is the solution.

First, atheists will have to get past the philosophers who erroneously hold:

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

I think, therefor I am, is backwards. I am, therefor I (may) think, is correct. Here, 'I am' is a known and prerequisite for thinking such that "I think..." is possible only after 'I am' is known to exist. In reality, the only thing that can be truly "known" is 'I am' whereas any "belief" to be something other than "I am" is just that: a "belief". I am... a Jew, a Christian, a Muslim, a "believer", an "unbeliever", an American, a European, an anything doing the work of god etc. all of this is "belief", including claims to be been receiving revelations from an angel - this is also a "belief", and a most catastrophic one as it pertains to the deaths of hundreds of millions of "unbelievers" who know this is not true.

For example, a "belief" that the Qur'an is perfect and delivered by a god is falsifiable, and once so scrutinized by a non-idol-worshiper and is found to be false (evolved from Syriac Christian strophic hymns, one now "knows" therefor not to "believe" in the Qur'an and/or worship the psychological idol Muhammad and/as Allah (the Muslims "believe" that what they are doing is somehow *not* idol worship, but spilling blood over criticisms of a dead man is revealing of intense idol worship that is not even matched by Christianity's Jesus as it once was). It is possible, for example, to "know" that Muhammad and Allah are one and the same, because it takes a "believer" to "believe" they are distinct insofar as it serves them to deny worshiping a man, which is what Islam actually is.

Thus the first victims of Islam are the "believing" Muslims themselves, and their lives are governed by a certainly false "belief"-based authority (ie. Qur'an and/or idol of Muhammad) such that it serves to perpetuate:

"BELIEVERS" vs. "UNBELIEVERS"
(ie. conflict ad infinitum)

wherein myself, and any/all atheists, stand to suffer at the hands of "believers" who "believe" in something that is manifestly untrue. This, then, begs the fascist need for "belief"-based inversion that "unbelievers" are the ones persecuting the "believers". In reality, "unbelievers" are persecuted by "believers" because the latter can not stand rejection by the former (ie. I do not "believe" because I know not to "believe" whereas you do not). A "believer" necessarily does not know what not to "believe" if knowledge is knowing who/what/where/why/when/how and/or if *not* to "believe" and why. The 'why' part is life experience itself: if one touches a hot stove and burns their hand, they could know not to do it again less they desire to suffer another burned hand. The rest is conscience: ones own inquiry, and accordingly to my own inquiry of 'from whence human suffering?' I find the problem to be "belief".

If satan exists, and requires "belief" such that "believers" "believe":
i. that "belief" is a virtue, and
ii. satan is god (equivalent: evil is good)

I re-state the argument:

P1 Belief is the agency required to confuse evil with good, and/or vice versa.
P2 Knowledge is the agency required to reconcile evil with good, and/or vice versa.
C Belief is not so much a virtue as knowing who/what/where/why/when how and/or if *not* to "believe" is.

Wherein when a "believer" "believes" something that is not true, their being satisfies what the Hebrew word for SATAN actually implies absent need for any "belief":

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

"The expression of being bound (insert attachment: to "believe" something/someone that is not true) in an ongoing state".

And this renders "belief"-based ideologies, just as well as with any associated false "belief"-based assertion(s), as being necessarily 'satanic' in that the adherents' lives are merely expressions of their being bound to believe that which is not true in an ongoing state. This is the reality that "believers" can not see, owing to their "belief". The leaders of the ideologies would have them "believe" their suffering is as a result of someone or something other than the ideology itself, and this is where conflict arises: "belief" that ones own suffering is a result of others, thus breeding enmity, hatred and the primordial "us vs. them". This brings the need for accusations, and even according to the Edenic story, Adam was kicked out of paradise for accusing Eve of his own crime. There is an extremely potent amount of wisdom to be had from this understanding: man blames woman for his own iniquity. This translates into women being blamed for the actions of men, including rape. There are particular "belief"-based ideologies that advance this: it is the fault of the woman for being raped, not the man, therefor she must wear a piece of clothing to ward off depraved men. The problem is not the woman, it is the degenerated man who looks at women as nothing but objects of sex/desire. This inversion of blame-shifting from the man to the woman reveals something about the nature of true 'evil'. It certainly involves false accusations in attempt to blame others for ones own crime.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

ROOT OF FASCISM

This 'satanic' state is, in reality, what fascism is a product of: the enduring "belief" in something/someone that is not true, therefor requiring hostile use of force (ie. "believers" vs. "unbelievers") to subdue any/all who do not accept the "belief" as 'true'. This renders my finding of the root of fascism as the "belief"-based religion of Islam which religiously uses "Jews" and/or whoever its political adversaries are to scapegoat any/all iniquities of the House of Islam (ie. supremacism - the "belief" that their own ideology is superior to all others). This is done such that "believers" "believe" the problem of fascism is somewhere other than Islam; ideally, to have "believers" "believe" the problem is exactly whoever the adversary of Islam is. This is seen in the recent surge of accusations of "white supremacism": the House of Islam is the supremacist house, and "white men" are the political adversaries, therefor the scapegoating of supremacism onto "white men" is a geopolitical jihad warfare tactic, as is such "belief"-based enterprises as "Islamophobia" which is another projection of an iniquity of the House of Islam. There are too many of these projections/scapegoats to mention here, but the pathology of fascism reduces into an axiom:

The accuser is the accused.

And it will always hold true for the House of Islam, because the whole of Islam is naturally upside-down and backwards which satisfies a condition of knowledge:

"thus certainly 'known' to confuse (as a whole) the cohesive worldview of any such "believing" bodies associated (esp. to its own detriment)."

Knowing what not to "believe" is superior to "belief", and Islam proves itself to be the inverse 'opposite' of self-purports. It's only viable way of existence relies on "belief" and/or "believers" to "believe" that the crimes against humanity committed by the House of Islam are coming from somewhere *other* than the House of Islam. If this were not so, the House of Islam would fall and its adherents free from "believing" something that is not true.

and as of yet the House of Islam continues to:
i. wage war against "unbelievers" for rejecting a certainly false assertion(s), and
ii. accusing any/all others (ie. "unbelievers") for the crimes of the House of Islam.

Now watch these words stir the latent hatred in those who are themselves full of it, as they attempt to accuse the author of speaking "hate speech" which is itself a fascist jihadist expression designed to silence opposition to Islam and/or the political Left (same entity). The problem is not those who stir, it is those who hate (ie. as in: hating Jews for 1400 years), and as like "belief", hatred is not a virtue, but rather a 'satanic' vice:

the expression of being bound to hate in an ongoing state.

Once all accusations and/or finger-pointing is removed/reconciled, matters can be seen clearly. All matters tend to "belief" being a problem rather than a solution, and Islam actively wages war against "unbelievers" while blaming anyone/everyone else for war-mongering, despite war-mongering being built into the 1400-year-standing "belief"-based doctrine of Islam. The problem is: Islam has Muslims "believing" war is coming from everywhere else. In reality, the leaders of Islam constantly use "believers" to wage war against "unbelievers". Again, the problem is, has been, and always will be "belief".

There is an alternative to "belief": it is knowing what not to "believe". If the name of god is 'I am that I am' there is no "belief" in this, neither did creation come by way of "belief", but rather will. If one wills not to know, they may "believe" and endure the currency of satan. If one wills to know, they may come to "know" that "belief" is dead.