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.
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.
AGAIN??? SERIOUSLY??? Zis dis zo vech diietic bred eb kiffolisk yot.
FFS
Re: OP
What The Holy Fucking Hell??? Seriously???... *qradruple face palm*...
Please recognize the strictly emotional reactions: they are rooted in impulsiveness.
Emotional outbursts (ie. emotionalism) reveals a stunting of conscious consideration - one finds this a lot when "believers" are faced with evidence that what they "believe" may not be true (ie. facing the unreality of their own "belief"). This is another good reason why "belief" is not a virtue - one does not / can not become emotionally polarized by any worldview which undermines their own "belief"-based one, for lacking one that relies on "belief".
The conscience is a faculty superior to the emotions: it has the ability to discern and/or scrutinize particular(s) of any argument without inserting personal emotionally-infused rhetoric. This is the real integral nature of any sound argumentation, and the author will patiently await any/all counter-arguments that deal with the content rather than dealing with emotional outbursts.
The author considers any such emotional outbreaks as being a result of inability to deal with the content. If this were not true, a considered and rational counter-argument would be advanced that does not rely on personally-directed sweeping and dismissive rhetoric.
EDIT: if a being were a glass of water, and hatred were sediment, those who are full of hatred stand to have this hatred stirred by facing whatever it is they hate, and so they accuse the one stirring as causing their hatred, not "knowing" the problem is not that which stirs, but that which hates. Knowing the problem is the first step towards any solution, and whenever a problem "believes" itself to be a solution, this is the same thing as cancer. Censorship is a problem (rooted in fascism), not a solution.
Is this Breezy again? Mr. Psychology himself. Someone turn off the computer, the noise is irritating.
LOL...reading this wall of drivel I immediately thought "Breezy having a lend" .
The late psychoanalyst Dr. Carl J. Jung did compare Adolph Hitler to Muhammad. I make the same comparison here:
Male central figure orator warlord who amasses the power of a state via public oration, weaponizes this power against political adversaries (via fascism), signs so-called "peace" treaties only to later break them (while blaming the other side for doing so) and later using it to commit genocide against Jews en masse.
Does this apply to Adolph Hitler, or Muhammad? Please take your pick: it applies to both. This is because they are the same archetype, and Dr. Carl J. Jung made the correct comparison.
Islam is the root of fascism: holding a polygamous genocidal man as infallible via the "believing" evil (ie. genocide) is good (as in: deserved/necessary). "Belief" is the agency required for a "believer" to "believe" evil is good.
Knowledge of good and evil is in knowing who/what/where/why/when/how and/or if *not* to "believe", which acts as a barrier against adopting false "belief"-based assertions that render the satanic state: expression of being bound (to "believe") in an ongoing state. Because Islam is making a false "belief"-based assertion re: the Qur'an and Muhammad, Islam itself is the expression of being bound to believe that evil is good in an ongoing state, rendering Islam a 'satanic' ideology. This is not a rhetorical statement: it is a practical one. Islam fulfills the components required to satisfy 'satan': the expression of being bound in an ongoing state.
You atheists should be thrilled: instead, maybe Russian (ie. Islamic) bots only pretend to be "atheist" and thus are tasked with undermining anything/everything that undermines Islam, which is the principle humanitarian crisis acting as an obstacle to world peace:
"Belief" is not a solution, it is a problem.
Islam is a "belief"-based ideology (not "race") perpetuating a certainly false "belief" as 'true' which is feeding the principle "believer vs. unbeliever" division on the planet.
Islam is not a solution, it is a problem.
The extended problem is: Islam "believes" itself to be the only solution (revealing of its supremacy) and takes its own Qur'an as superior to any/all so-called man-made laws. Again, the problem is the "belief" that the Qur'an (ie. Islamic law; sharia) is from god, when in fact it is man-made. Muhammadans therefor erroneously "believe" they are replacing man-made laws (ie. non-Muslim/unbeliever) with god's law (ie. Muslim/believer). The reality is: Islam/Qur'an are man-made and Muhammadans are installing 7th century man-made laws by force over 21st century man-made laws. This is a humanitarian crisis beyond reproach.
Questions: what atheist would attack another atheist for arguing against god? Why would they do it? More division in-house? Where is the division coming from? Would they be willing to blame it on the one who is attempting to reconcile the division? Who truly desires for peace?
The problem is "belief". The solution is knowing who/what/where/why/when/how and/or if *not* to "believe".
RE: "The problem is belief and the solution is knowing." Knowing IS belief. You must believe something to know it. How dense are you? Knowledge is a subset of Belief.
https://medium.com/perspectivepublications/the-difference-between-belief...
Apparently dogs can't look up...
I believe you....
And Cows Can't Walk down stairs... Hey!!! We might have the makings of a Country Song...
Lock the door and turn the lights down low
apparently dogs don't look up you know
and cows can't walk down the stairs.
I hope you under stand!
RE: Knowing IS belief. You must believe something to know it. How dense are you? Knowledge is a subset of Belief.
___________________________________________________________________
Taken from the NTL:
"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 have 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."
___________________________________________________________________
Knowledge is not ***necessarily*** a subset of "belief". 'I am' need not be "believed" in: it can be known instead.
(lack of) conscience: ones own (in)ability to inquire
con - self
science - inquiry
Query: Am I?
Return: I am.
Result: I know I am (able to query).
*Bad result: I believe I am (able to query).
*Redundant/incoherent after definite state of "knowing".
Query: who? what? where? why? when? how? if? why?
Is book T/B/Q *really* the perfect word of god?
etc.
This is the (use of) conscience: granted by acknowledgement of 'I am'. Thus, if one does not know 'I am' they must therefor "believe" they are something they are not, which is whatever one is "believed" to be, outside of 'I am'.
If 'I am' were unconditioned consciousness, a "belief"-based identity is like a shade around 'I am' whose characteristics are contained in the light that is cast about after passing through the shade onto its own surroundings. Therefor, the quality of the shade determines the quality of the light, and renders the statement "your body is a lamp, and you are the light of the world" as technically 'true'. This is why I keep reiterating: truth is truth, no matter where it comes from. It doesn't follow from this therefor gospels therefor Jesus etc. all that is important is: is what is being imparted true?
Knowledge is not necessarily a subset of "belief".
This is why when people ask me "who the F@CK do you think you are?" I always insist: "I do not think I am, I know I am." I just make sure to correct them, because I am already, so I may therefor think.
______________________________________________________
EDIT:
I am
(begets)
I know (I am) and/or I believe (I am)
and (as in: both): acknowledgement that one has "beliefs"
or (latter only): no acknowledgement, only "beliefs"
gnostic: one who knows
agnostic: one who knows not
atheist: one who believes not, in the affirmative of the existence of a god(s) or deities. Some atheists argue affirmatively that god does not exist, but this is not, as it should not be, a defining factor of atheism.
The only reason I do not identify as an atheist is because I do not state, in the affirmative, that a god certainly does not exist. The question as to whether or not a god exists is known to me, though I keep this to myself. I do not "believe" there is one, I do not "believe" there is not one: theists and atheists are in the same boat here and they both do not understand the problem is "belief" itself.
Then you misunderstand atheism.
And like so many false intellectuals and spiritual guru wannabes before you, you will fail to evidence this knowledge.
I am betting you have an exit strategy;no doubt accusing most on these forums as being too limited intellectually/spiritually/evolved to understand the great revelation you bring.
Playing word games is not endearing, it is for the intellectually challenged and those that need the false security of a feeling of superiority. Unfortunately your pretensions are useless in this environment where the average intelligence is probably double the population norm from my experience of the debates here.
Thank you for your insights Mr. Philosopher. Do you have anything original. If you did not think, how would you know you are?
TLDR
WTF!
If you are trying to say there is a god, you need to provide objective evidence that a god is real.
RE: Then you misunderstand atheism.
No - I understand others misunderstand atheism, which is why I do not identify as one to avoid the confusion. What I know, I know. What I do not know, I do not know. If my lack of belief in the affirmative "there is not a god" discounts me as an atheist and places me into a category of non-theist, so be it. I neither believe in the existence nor non-existence of.
RE: And like so many false intellectuals and spiritual guru wannabes before you, you will fail to evidence this knowledge.
No: you will. The knowledge is attained from within, not without. I can only point: look inside of yourself. If you deny yourself, you deny the very thing needed to 'know' which is... yourself. That is: to know 'I am' inside of you. I have my own, you have yours, and there might be a primordial 'I am' that is to know. I can't stick your head down your own neck and/or roll your eyeballs backwards into yourself - you have to do this consciously, but the problem is choice. I can't choose for you.
If granting god as (unknown), a thought experiment:
Imagine the likeness of an equilateral triangle upright:
set the top point as 'that', and
set the two bottom as 'I am'
such: I am that I am in equilateral.
Know there to be a will behind every 'I am':
I am willing... that... I am willing
wherein either will is either:
bestowing/receiving
(ie. to give/sow or to take/reap).
Call the bestower Adam, and
call the receiver Eve, and 'that'
as any conceivable interaction
shared between the two.
Now with this framework in mind, continue the thought experiment thus:
If Adam bestows from a place of evil/negativity (ie. evil),
but Eve receives it not as evil/negative, but rather good/positive
does "evil" not leave one and become consumed by the other as "good"?
3 Questions:
1. Can good and evil theoretically be "reconciled" in this way between two: such that any/all "evil" acted upon takes place via a shared 'will' (ie. mutually imagined and agreed upon 'that') wherein the other takes it as good? If so,
2. Does this satisfy a condition of "knowing" (simultaneously) good and evil? If so,
3. What does this say of the Genesis account that 'god' is a plural word (ie. "we") with an image and likeness that is masculine and feminine who are knowing of good and evil?
Once again: knowing is possible and explicitly distinct from "belief". It takes a "believer" to "believe" evil is good, but one can "know" ones evil can be anothers good. I was reluctant to extend that last part out because people will start b*tching that this is impossible and/or does not make sense. In the context of 'I am that I am' as long as it sustains a steady transmutation of "evil" into "good" between the two, and the transmutation is reciprocal (ie. both have the ability to act on evil while being taken as good) it can be sustained until ad infinitum (ie. forever) and/or there is no evil left (which ever comes first). The only barrier is themselves: and this relates to ego and the... spasm associated. They are linked. There is love, and there is lust. One tends one way, the other, the other. If you wish to know something about evil, see the latter lust and how men are consumed by it. I am in chastity thus hold no reservations in condemning idols that pervert the Edenic state of 1x1=1 (bestower x receiver = one) and tend towards polygamy, which is necessarily infidel of the same state.
RE: I am betting you have an exit strategy;no doubt accusing most on these forums as being too limited intellectually/spiritually/evolved to understand the great revelation you bring.
There is no revelation: the truth is always in plain sight. The "revelation" is a local (ie. internal) event that happens internally. Again, to each their own - I know I do not believe am better or worse than another, I know at any given time I am equally surrounded by those who are better, and those who are worse, and I am always in the middle. This is just how creation seems to works, and I do not argue with it because it is fair. I therefor only make accusations that are not projections of my own guilt, as I check myself before making accusations. No exit strategy - what you see is what you get, and I am always willing to defend atheism as being "more correct" than any "belief"-based religious dogmas.
RE: Playing word games is not endearing, it is for the intellectually challenged and those that need the false security of a feeling of superiority. Unfortunately your pretensions are useless in this environment where the average intelligence is probably double the population norm from my experience of the debates here.
What pretension is there in admitting that I am nothing? That is the point: 'I am' is actually nothing, which can be known, and else is "belief". It is like this: how can something come from nothing? The answer is: people make something out of nothing for/as a living. That is the whole point: to make something from nothing joyfully and blissfully, not suffering "us vs. them" worldviews rooted in enmity. This is stupid when the choice is ones own: live happily, or live miserably. People who suffer are liable to blame someone else for their suffering. The source of suffering is the "belief" that someone is something that they are not, and 'I am' contains boundless possibility. It is the identities adopted that limit.
__________________________________
RE: Thank you for your insights Mr. Philosopher. Do you have anything original. If you did not think, how would you know you are?
What does originality matter? I only care about what is true and/or untrue. It seems to me whatever is true must be atemporal, thus can pop in and out as if time is not a factor.
Is it because you think, you are? Or is it because you are, you (may) think? Being grants thinking, not the other way around. Philosopher starts in the brain and works backwards. This is backwards. Conscience inquiry needed: what condition(s) are necessary to think? If one suffers a head trauma and their brain is damaged such that they can no longer think, does this indicate they are not? No: it is an intellectual crime to identify with/as the mind. A being is neither body nor mind. The intellect is like a tool: the sharper it is, the more effective it is. It is not the being. The being is 'I am' which can either be known or unknown such that 'I am' is "believed" to be something it is not.
____________________________________________
RE: TLDR
WTF!
If you are trying to say there is a god, you need to provide objective evidence that a god is real.
1. I am not trying to say there is a god, and don't know how you extrapolated that, and
2. It doesn't matter if there is or is not a god, what matters is what method one uses to test for one.
Honestly, the problem/solution has more to do with knowing what god is *not* in relation to knowing who/what/where/why/when/how and/or if *not* to "believe" and why. If one takes the approach of ruling out everything god is certainly *not* rather than wasting time postulating what god possibly *is* one is necessarily either left with what god is after ruling all else out, or at best, all of what god is not. In either case, they are already doing better than the "believing" theists who "believe" they already have the answer, but are dead wrong as in the case of "believing" evil is good, thus becoming "bound to believe" something that is not true in an ongoing state.
Once you go "know", you never go back, but
Once you go "belief", you never go forwards... unless by way of knowing what not to "believe".
It is only things that weigh down on people which burdens them: fear, guilt, shame etc. and these are certainly tools massively exploited. None of these are a virtue: understanding them is, and this most certainly leads to knowledge of good and evil as it relates to the will, intent and motive of others. See right now, people might be confusing what my will, intent and motive are. They are this: for real practical "peace". Unfortunately, it takes a "believer" to "believe" that war is a part of the equation for peace, and that waging it against "unbelievers" this is the most superior way of living. It is completely upside-down and backwards, so why then would atheists attack me for undermining the "believers"? What I do not know, I do not know.
@Agnos Re: "What I do not know, I do not know."
Sure. You SAY you do not know, but how do you KNOW you do not know what you do not know? Maybe you just BELIEVE you do not know. Ever consider that? When all along you probably really DO know what you do not know, but you just don't know that you know it, because you don't believe you know it. Maybe if you started to BELIEVE that you know what you do not know, then you might (just possibly) start knowing all those things you claim you do not know. Believe me, I know it may be difficult for you to believe that, but I sometimes believe I know a few things about which I speak.
@ Aggie
*Bows respectfully to bench* I rest my case m'lud, the petitioner has condemned himself from his own mouth.
I would ask for restitution for the damage inflicted on my intellect by this assault of word salad and new age flim flam and billygrottle. I would also ask to be rewarded for my accurate prophecy in the first sentence reproduced here in blockquote.
However as I consider the petitioner to be in very real danger of being apprehended under Section 36 of the mental health act 1944, I agree in advance that any further punishment would not help the petitioner gain any insight into his malaise.
*flicks gown and sits down adjusting wig to a jaunty angle*
Edit:Added a line or two for effect
That does not disqualify you from being an atheist. Worse, many users have already told you this; but you don't seem to get it. It is a really nasty red flag.
@Nyar Re: To Agnos - "That does not disqualify you from being an atheist. Worse, many users have already told you this; but you don't seem to get it."
Tsk-tsk-tsk.... *shaking head in disappointment*... C'mon, now, Nyar! Get with the program already. It's really quite straightforward in a round-about manner if you don't let your brain get lazy and stop thinking about it too much. I mean, it is inconspicuously very plain to see in a vaguely abstract way that good ol' Agnos KNOWS and UNDERSTANDS perfectly well all that we have told him. The simply complicated hypothetical fact of the matter, though, is that he does not BELIEVE that he knows and understands these things that he believes we are telling him. I don't know that I could possibly make that any more clearly convoluted, but I do believe it is potentially possible if I stopped believing in doubt.
RE: That does not disqualify you from being an atheist. Worse, many users have already told you this; but you just keep going. It is a really nasty red flag.
________________________________________________________
The 'if' implies I do not know how others understand the term 'atheist'. This is because I do not care enough about it, and neither care for others trying to label what I am or am not. A label is a label, and labels are used in identity politics by people who try to cue/signal not listening to others based on them. To employ the same: it is a really nasty red flag, this labeling business, and should be avoided wherever possible. See "believer" vs. "unbeliever" for how that goes: it is the same problem I am after. If you can solve that labeling problem, you'll make a "believer" out of even me! The question is: what does one focus on?
The problem is "belief" as "believers" "believe" that "belief" is a virtue whereas "belief" is without virtue, and atheists are closer to this than theists are. Despite this, who chooses to focus on what I am and/or am not, rather than the fact that hundreds of millions of people are dead due to a false assertion(s) "believed" to be true, but is (are) certainly false? How does the problem go from that, to somewhere else? What shifts the focus? Do others not care that literally billions of people are suffering? That is fine - there is no moral judgment to be made here, but why attack people who do? I do care that people suffer, and I suffer knowing they know not (that) they suffer. I don't suffer those who are arrogant and attack: they suffer enough for the both of us.
Where are your priorities? I already indicated: I am nothing (ie. born with nothing, have knowledge that all that is material is temporary, die with nothing) and solving the problem of 'from whence human suffering?' is what I am bound to.
Who else wishes to pile on? Still only one refutation that was addressed already in the OP. Everything else is personal, personal and personal. Very boring tbh - does anyone have a real, working conscience that can undermine the argument while not relying on ad hominem?
@A Gnostic Agnostic: Your posts are wordy, disjointed, inane assertions and not much more. Do you have any evidence at all for the SOURCE you assert started everything or for the God like thing that is waiting at the end of an infinite regression?
@AlI: "I do not know how others understand the term 'atheist'. This is because I do not care enough about it,"
TRANSLATION: "I am going to post what I want to post and your stupid definitions do not concern me."
@All: " and neither care for others trying to label what I am or am not."
TRANSLATION: "And your opinions mean shit."
@ALL: " it is a really nasty red flag,"
TRANSLATION: "You know what you can do with your red flag."
@All: "The problem is "belief" as "believers" "believe" that "belief" is a virtue whereas "belief" is without virtue, and atheists are closer to this than theists are."
TRANSLATION: Belief as believers believe in non-belief is a reef of grief offering no relief to those with belief.
Instead believe and cleave to the sleeve of the naive conceived on Christmas eve. (It's the Theist version of "How much would would a wood chuck chuck.")
RE: "Hundreds of millions of people are dead due to a false assertion" If this is true, if I make a false assertion I will die. Hmmm. Okay, I will play along. "You are an idiot!" *Popping Sound* Huh! Just a car backfiring. I'm still here. Does that mean......?
RE: Where are your priorities?
TRANSLATION: "Why in the hell don't you think like me. Can't you see I am the harbinger of truth?
RE: Born with nothing, have knowledge that all that is material is temporary, die with nothing and solving the problem of 'from whence human suffering?
TRANSLATION: I am special because I am the only one that can see clearly that we live and then we die. But I take it one step further. The SOURCE is with me. The same magical SOURCE that started the universe and all that is. The magical SOURCE you all lack because of your stupidity. EMBRACE THE SOURCE YOUNG ATHEISTS.
RE: "does anyone have a real, working conscience that can undermine the argument"
TRANSLATION: I will continue making the same inane assertions, without facts or evidence backing them up, until someone agrees with me. It's what I do. God told me the world would reject me and I just don't give a damn. I am doing God's work.
Hope this helps everyone.
Thank you Cognostic. I don't want to waste my energy on this one.
@David. It does get rediculous at a point. I am tempted just to sign out on all of these idiotic presup repetitious posts. There is no substance to any of them. Misinterpretation of words, inane assertions, and outright lying. Useless!
RE: I mean, it is inconspicuously very plain to see in a vaguely abstract way that good ol' Agnos KNOWS and UNDERSTANDS perfectly well all that we have told him. The simply complicated hypothetical fact of the matter, though, is that he does not BELIEVE that he knows and understands these things that he believes we are telling him. I don't know that I could possibly make that any more clearly convoluted, but I do believe it is potentially possible if I stopped believing in doubt.
___________________________________________________________
If one knows something, one no longer need "believe" in it.
"Belief" means to take as true, even if unknown to be certainly true.
"Know" means known not to "believe" as it is "known" to be false.
I do not "believe" the things others are telling me, I acknowledge them (ie. know of them). I do not either know how you could possibly make that any more clearly convoluted, except to say: clearly, it is convoluted that not "believing" in doubt has no bearing on its actual existence: either doubt exists, or does not exist and either can be known. Else: again, "belief". It resolves back into the same knowing of 'I am'.
If you would like to argue it is impossible to "know" 'I am' without first "believing" 'I am', I know I am wasting my time, as with the philosophers, who "believe" and/or think themselves into existence LOL. Such are the "believers" who "believe". Here is your "believing" book of Genesis:
1:1
In the beginning BELIEVED God (in)
the heavens and the earth.
1:3
And God BELIEVED there to be light,
and light was to be BELIEVED in.
And BELIEVING the light (God) it was good,
and distinguishing God the light from the dark,
and BELIEVING God the light as DAY
and BELIEVING God the dark as NIGHT...
The "BELIEVERS" need to understand that there is a definite state: is. One can posit: is I am? Equivalent: Am I? We already went through this: if there is a knowledge of 'I am' there is a conscious use of 'will'. One has will: will to choose. To choose what?
You know how in the Matrix trilogy Neo gets to the very end and says in front of the architect: "the problem is choice". The problem is not a particular choice; the problem is choice itself, and that includes who/what/where/why/when/how and/or if to believe, or not to believe.
To be? Or not to be? That is the question.
To "is" or not to "is" I am?
To exist, or not to exist.
etc.
All existence is necessarily contained in 'I am'... it is everything else that is illusory, including the "belief" that one is something that they are not. This is where suffering comes from in a technical way: as one is further from just plain simple 'I am' the more they suffer. The closer they are, the less they suffer. The truth is in 'I am' and I can only point to it, as to each their own inner.
If one is and/or has nothing, what does one stand to gain but anything and/or everything? The less one is, the more one can become.
RE: Your posts are wordy, disjointed, inane assertions and not much more. Do you have any evidence at all for the SOURCE you assert started everything or for the God like thing that is waiting at the end of an infinite regression?
________________________________________________________________
I have evidence of something else:
i. The assertions are not inane, they are potent and render "belief" in any god impotent.
ii. "started" implies fixed temporal (ie. In the beginning...) but that is not even what is actually imparted by the book of Genesis for the "believers" who "believe" in translations. The word is 'creating' which implies at any time. The grammar doesn't stand in English, but roughly:
'At the head creating elohim the essence of the heavens and the essence of the earth.'
wherein 'elohim' (ie, 'GOD') defines a reciprocity of the bestowing/receiving principle ad infinitum less.. well, to whatever degree one eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, as whatever internal polarization derives from this act is ones own death. It is thus a form (technically, the equation/form for infinity), not a "belief"-based being or deity-based entity, rather an empty vessel such that ANY two beings (such as an Adam and an Eve) can enter in as (I am that I am) and become one in/as 'I am that I am' which is the whole point: two act AS one via a shared will. Therefor the form that "creates" is just that: a bestower "let light be" and a receiver "and light was". The will is shared: and saying elohim.
1:3
And saying elohim
'let light be,'
and light was.
So to the ones asking for proof of a god, again... it is inside of yourselves. I do not desire to take any of you as partner, and I feel the sentiment is shared nonetheless. I have done the work I have done to understand 'from whence human suffering?' and part of that work involved understanding the book of Genesis properly such that I knew who/what/where/why/when/how and/or if *not* to "believe" any assertions otherwise made about it. The only quality that I look for is its ability to prove itself true and make accurate predictions about the future. That is the whole point of any science, including conscience: making predictions. What the hell good is any science if it can not do that? "Belief" is not a science, it is lacking of it. "Belief" needs more conscience.
I'm here bringing more conscience to "belief" and getting crucified for it. I can not get a single cogent rebuttal to the argument that deals strictly with the premises or conclusion, and rather am attacked personally. I can't but take this as owing to its strength rather than any weakness. Does anyone have a point to make that is not ad hominem? Even a general question?
Tell you what: ask me something that requires use of the conscience as it applies to the argument, and I will literally copy-paste my entire conscious process which derives the answer. Maybe there is something to be learned from that.
This guy’s penis is either very large or extremely small. I have a very strong feeling that it is not of average length. And I am usually right about these things.
Just one point:
"The late psychoanalyst Dr. Carl J. Jung did compare Adolph Hitler to Muhammad. I make the same comparison here:"
So what ?
Basic logical fallacy; argument from authority; that a thing is true because of who makes the claim , rather than being true in its own right.
I suppose an argument could be made that both Muhammad and Hitler were liminal figures . I doubt that is what Jung meant, or that you have any idea of the meaning of the term.
Carl Jung was a contemporary of Sigmund Freud. They apparently hated each other
Herr Doktor Jung introduced concepts such as the 'collective unconscious' , "racial archetypes" and my favourite "synchronicity" ,being the notion of meaningful coincidences .(short answer; there are no such things)
He also believed in poltergeists, writing about his experiences at length in his autobiography "Memories, Dreams, and Reflections"
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
A question for the questioner: You write with such confidence that I can only assume a fairly solid academic background . Would you mind giving me a run down of your main credentials? I need this information lest I confuse an erudite academic with a rather arrogant autodidact with delusions of adequacy.
@I HAVE A DESIRE......
I really want to copy all of A Gnostic Agnostic's posts in a single thread so they will all be together and we don't have to search for them when doing any referencing.
RE: This guy’s penis is either very large or extremely small. I have a very strong feeling that it is not of average length. And I am usually right about these things.
______________________________
Penises are like "beliefs". To each, their own 'thing'.
No, I don't want to see your 'thing'.
No, I will not show you my 'thing'.
Can we talk about something else?
I am a gnostic agnostic.
What I know, I know.
What I do not know, I do not know.
The rest is all about 'things'
and I am no thing special.
ALLAHU AKBAR
PS: Yes, Allah is Muhammad's 'thing'.
Translation: My god has a bigger dick than your god!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vdPVCNNbkc
RIP Mr. Carlin - lover of language.
_____________________________________________
RE: Basic logical fallacy; argument from authority; that a thing is true because of who makes the claim , rather than being true in its own right.
truth > authority
A thing is true not because of who makes the claim, the claim is either true or untrue, but finding the former more often than the latter makes the person.
Male central figure fascist orator military leader who used oration to amass political power which was weaponized to silence political opposition which resulted in the genocide of Jews.
Fits: Muhammad
Fits: Adolph Hitler
Qur'an: It's the Jews!
Question: Where does Nazism come from?
It takes a "believer" to "believe" this is all coincidental happenstance. It takes one who is honest with themselves (ie. others) to see the truth for what it is: fascism was not defeated, because Islam is the root of fascism as they perpetually scapegoat/project the crimes of its own house against any/all adversaries, like say, POTUS. All the haters are subject to the same stupidity that Islam is:
"BELIEVERS" vs. "UNBELIEVERS"
and they pile on me for revealing Islam as the root of fascism. Islam will blame Jews, blame Christians, blame "unbelievers", blame "infidels" (how many wives did Muhammad have?), blame atheists (hellooooo?) and, yet, despite approx. 270 000 000 people dead due to a single false assertion:
The Qur'an is the perfect and final revelation of God which is superior to any/all other "man-made" laws.
and somehow, I am fighting against this, but being attacked by atheists? Those who attack me are just as "religious" as the people they claim as problematic: focusing on the person, and never the bigger problem. Can you be any more of idol worshipers? I know I am nothing, so please get over it and focus on the problem of "belief".
____________________________________
RE: A question for the questioner: You write with such confidence that I can only assume a fairly solid academic background . Would you mind giving me a run down of your main credentials? I need this information lest I confuse an erudite academic with a rather arrogant autodidact with delusions of adequacy.
I was educated in a Roman Catholic school system: elementary through to high school. They had me saying prayers to someone named "Mary":
Hail Mary! Full of grace, the LORD is with thee;
blessed art thou - among women
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb: Jesus.
Holy Mary, mother of GOD
pray for us sinners now
and at the hour of our death,
AMEN
I dropped out from High School for the following reason: I was re-taking an English course from a previous semester I had dropped entirely. I was given a test which I already completed concerning a book, and got the wrong answer the first time - the correct answers were given afterwards, so I already knew them the second time around. Or so I "believed".
I marked the "correct" answer, which I "knew" but got it wrong. I went to my first English teacher and asked her: can you clarify this for me? This was in the English portables, and my current teacher overheard my inquiring. She was mad: she came out and told me that if I have a problem with my test to see her, and not my old teacher (this happened with all three of us present). My old teacher looked at me in a way which revealed it: these English teachers do not even agree among themselves what is right and wrong. Whatever they "believe" is the right answer, they judge others according to that. I was angry about this because I started wondering how much this affected my own education: how much of what I "know" is actually just someone else's "belief"? How do I know that what I "believe" is even true?
I dropped out of all formal education from here, and never got my High School Diploma. I can not stand to "be educated" by others and let them decide what I learn or don't learn. I want to decide that.
So I studied what I wanted, when I wanted, in accordance with my own will. I studied astrophysics (esp. black holes) having read Hawking, general relativity, quantum mechanics etc. to get a grasp of real, physical laws that bear themselves out. I moved to astrotheology and studied the various myth stories in relation to the twelve zodiac. I studied the history of Egypt, history of Judaism, history of Christianity, history of Islam/Muhammad/Qur'an. I studied the form which gave rise to the Hebrew letters such that I could read the book of Genesis etc. and all of this, I decide based on how it serves my own internal pursuit of 'from whence human suffering?'
It's not about the answers one finds. It's about the next question that they can ask. That is what the conscience is for: to inquire. To acknowledge, to try, to test, and to find what is true from what is not true. This is the first "operation" according to the book of Genesis, and it is not that because it is in the book of Genesis it is true, but that it is true, it is in the book of Genesis. I understand the Jews came into possession of this book, but know not to "believe" it was delivered to an "inspired" Hebrew man on a mountain. That idea will be "borrowed" by Islam regarding Muhammad and his being "inspired" and having a direct link to an Abrahamic god. I know not to "believe" these, but others do not, and they suffer not knowing its true source. I know why they suffer, and the House of Islam doesn't "like" knowing that I know, because they know, as I do, the Qur'an is man-made. They are intentionally keeping it from the Muslims because they will lose all their power.
That is the sum of all fears for Islam: Muslims learn the truth about their history/book/religion. It is Fantasy Land - the truth is beyond what many can accept: Islam is absolutely upside-down and backwards, and is a 1400-year-running humanitarian crisis. Once the House of Islam runs out of others to "blame" - it falls.
That is why they fear me: I know the original sin, and if others did too, the "blaming" will come to an end. The "atheists" who are fighting against me, are holding me back from doing this but that is what the House of Islam wants: atheists attacking each other. There are people on here who attack me based on this - they hide, like cowards, and try to have you "believe" I am not worth listening to. It is all a part of covert jihad / fascism.
____________________________________________________
RE: I really want to copy all of A Gnostic Agnostic's posts in a single thread so they will all be together and we don't have to search for them when doing any referencing.
_______________________________________________
I want the same: I indicated in the first thread for the mods/admins to lock/delete, and keep all "belief" discussions here.
Unrelated, but related:
"All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing."
Such stupidity here: all knowing is belief.
I believe I am
I know I am
Which is true? To those who say: you have to first "believe" something in order to "know" it! Waffle from a cabbage.
Instead of:
"All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing."
Try:
"All is "belief" less 'I am'."
Wherein the latter can be known/unknown/believed.
Am I?
I am (therefor I may think).
I am is known: it can Q/A.
I know... what not to believe
is superior to
I believe... and be dead wrong.
"Beliefs" are like fruits: if they are false, they produce suffering/death.
"Axioms" are like fruits: they are necessarily true, thus are ever-yielding.
Former: Book (x) is from a god, but in reality is man-made (us vs.them)
Latter: E=MC^2
One is unconscience (belief).
One is science (knowledge).
"Belief" is the agency required for a "believer" to "believe" evil is good.
Who are they, then, who call themselves "believers"?
Rather than focusing on what one knows, focus on one knows not. In that, the possibility of knowing arises.
Question:
Can a person acknowledge they know not? Is this a form of knowledge: to acknowledge?
What I know, I know. <---knowledge
What I do not know, I do not know. <---acknowledge
Related: MOI
(Method of Inquiry)
Purpose: To graduate any/all "beliefs" into "knowns"
I am
(begets)
I know... and I believe...
Take belief-based assertion (x).
Subject (x) to what one already knows.
If what one already knows is not sufficient to graduate belief (x) from I believe (x) to either:
i. I know (x) is (still possibly) true, or
ii. I know not to believe (x)
Any/every 'I believe' becomes an 'I know' which must necessarily incline toward truth.
Separating the darkness from the light: beliefs into knowns.
Do you know what not to believe?
Pages