If there is a "belief"-based state responsible for the genocide of hundreds of millions, that is an observation. — A Gnostic Agnostic

What 'hundreds of millions'? What 'genocide'?

See:

https://www.sikhnet.com/news/islamic-india-biggest-holocaust-world-history

and

https://www.politicalislam.com/tears-of-jihad/

excerpt from the latter:

This gives a rough estimate of 270 million killed by jihad.

Islam as an entity is responsible for more genocide than any other comparable 'state' on the planet. It is the leading source of genocide, not to mention the various other atrocities it commits while "religiously" blaming anyone/everyone for what they themselves are guilty of and/or attempting to shift attention away from itself onto others.

But what is in the past is over: I am not interested in playing the "blame" game as I now understand the "original sin" as just that: blaming others. I am interested in a solution that addresses the problem 'from whence human suffering?' and understanding its source is the first step in this. That "belief" is the agency required to "believe" evil is good and vice versa is the problem that this humanity must overcome lest the genocides continue.

The first victim of Islam is the "believing" Muslim by virtue of the facts that follow.

Contrary to what the House of Islam holds as 'true':
i. The Qur'an is *not* the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of a (the) god. It is evolved from Syriac Christian strophic hymns which had Arabic imposed over it, rendering some words/phrases unintelligible unless reverted back to Syriac,
ii. Muhammad is *not* the perfect model for all of humanity. The 'model' of Muhammad was constructed circa 685-690 as a fixed "pattern of conduct" for Muslims to follow. It is based on the historical conqueror "Muhammad" who waged war against "unbelievers" for not "believing" he was the final messenger of a/the Abrahamic god, and
iii. Mecca did not exist in the time of Muhammad - all mosques built up until 730 CE were constructed facing Petra located in South Jordan. As such, Mecca could not have been the birthplace of Islam.

These truths, among others, render the shahada certainly a false testimony contrary to the ten commandments which, if one is to be truthful in their claim to be following the Abrahamic god, must be taken as Potent. This renders any/all bearers of the shahada testimony as certainly heretical to the Abrahamic god, should it exist.

Further, Muhammad (if his historical account is to be taken as accurate) violated every single one of the ten commandments (in some cases ad absudum) such that if one were willing to "believe" that his character is a testament to a living god (himself being dead) they find death in "believing" in him. One can not testify to the character of a man if the man is dead. The testimony is certainly necessarily false, and this axiom of not bearing witness to that which has not been witnessed is potent regardless of whether or not there is an Abrahamic god.

This is why "belief" is not a virtue so much as knowing who, what, where, why, when, how and/or if *not* to "believe" is, as "belief" is the agency required to confuse evil with good.

EDIT - and so perhaps my appeal to the logic experts regarding a logic that undermines a "belief" in god has some context and meaningful incentive to find.

It's a category error to say that beliefs are chosen. — S

You believe that because you believe you are not free.

You believe that because you believe you are not free.

I like this response very much.

Perhaps freedom is the default state, and bondage only comes by way of "belief". One can "believe" they are not free in lieu of knowing they are.

People do not suffer their bondage, they suffer their freedom.

:up: Freedom and bondage are not absolutes.[quote="A

Gnostic Agnostic;332496"]People do not suffer their bondage, they suffer their freedom.[/quote]

Interesting, I didn't know there were any sad gurus. :joke: Seriously, though, he seems to be following in Osho's footsteps, and I did have respect for Osho.

You believe that because you believe you are not free. — Janus

That's an interesting guess, but it's wrong. I believe that, like I said, because beliefs simply aren't the kind of thing that can be chosen, even if other things can. I can choose what flavour crisps to buy in the shops later on for my lunch, but I can't choose to believe what year I was born. It's the same for you. It's the same for everyone. Why don't you try choosing to believe that you were born last week? You'll find that you can't.

This is my last comment to you.

Organized religion has historically been a rationale for tribalism, and ensuing genocide. But more pernicious are pompous tin pot orators like you, ( the self styled 'Greatest I Am'), who lay claim to 'the truth', whether that 'truth' be given the label 'religious', 'political' or 'national'.

I generally agree with you on this one, though I think one could choose to try to change a belief and this can happen over time. Not about your birth date or something else with very little swing room. But beliefs about people or psychology or approaches to business or political ideas. One can decide for a variety of reasons that if there is a chance, for example, the belief you have might be wrong, you can go in search of anomalies. You could engage with people who believe the opposite and check very carefully to see if you are dismissing out of hand. This might be especially appealing if it is a belief that you would prefer was not true, but the bulk of the evidence you are aware or, and or deduction, lead you to believe otherwise. There is no discrete choice: Now I will believe that our government should have more socialist facets to it, or whatever. But one could more in the direction of making it possible and if some evidence arises, keep on going, choosing to go for the belief that you prefer but seriously doubt. There could be other motivations. Since some beliefs have to do with other people, there can be some beliefs that actually affect one's experiences with other people. More of less interpersonal placebo effects. There are similar things in learning skills. If you go in with the belief you can't, well this will affect how you deal with frustration and failures along the way. So, one might aim for the confidence beliefs. And again, the rub is, this is not a decision, as you say, like choosing chips tonight at the store. It's more like the stroke victim choosing to fight to walk again. It's a long haul thing. And stroke victim who believes he never will stands some good chance of being correct.

I can choose what flavour crisps to buy in the shops later on for my lunch, but I can't choose to believe what year I was born. — S

If I believe you used this red herring in error, does that prove your argument right? Or, if I believe you used the argument nefariously, does that prove me wrong in thinking you to be wrong?

That's true of course regarding what you cannot but believe you know, but regarding what you don't know, if you really believe that, well it's a stifling belief you have there, which you may choose to revise at some time. :wink:

Janus said it better than me, as usual. I still stand by my annoying bullshit, though.

What annoying bullshit? I thought your comment was on the money; it was a red herring that S produced there. @S seems to have barrels of them at hand to be tossed out there at the slightest provocation in lieu of argument.

Thanks. I'm just the joker in the back of the room, though. Any accidental logical cohesion on my part is exactly that. :rofl:

:lol: I'll take your word for it, but I'm dubious.

Yes, agreed, one can choose a course of action to take, and that course of action might lead to a belief, but one can't choose to belief something. You could only ever do the latter in a sort of disingenuous way which doesn't count, as in, I could go around saying, "I now believe that God exists", or whatever, "And that's because I've just chosen to believe so a moment ago", but that's not the same thing. That's just pretending.

If I believe you used this red herring in error, does that prove your argument right? Or, if I believe you used the argument nefariously, does that prove me wrong in thinking you to be wrong? — Noble Dust

I don't care, but if you care about your false accusation of a red herring, you should attempt to back it up.

That's true of course regarding what you cannot but believe you know, but regarding what you don't know, if you really believe that, well it's a stifling belief you have there, which you may choose to revise at some time. :wink: — Janus

Beliefs, by definition, are what you're convinced of. There aren't any exceptions. That's not the definition of knowledge, although of course you'd be convinced in the case of knowledge, too. Knowledge requires belief.

And it depends what you mean by "revise". If you mean something more than reconsidering the matter, then no, that's false, and obviously so. My belief always accords with what I'm convinced of at the time. So I can reconsider, which is a mental act I can perform, and if I end up convinced otherwise, then I can revise my claim accordingly. But no, I can't choose to change my belief: that's a nonsense category error. It's out of my control.

How is it a red herring? It isn't. Are either of you going to explain what lead you to that erroneous judgement? Once you've finished jerking eachother off, that is.

This is my last comment to you.

Uh oh.

Organized religion has historically been a rationale for tribalism, and ensuing genocide.

Great - thank you for admitting to this reality.

But more pernicious are pompous tin pot orators like you, ( the self styled 'Greatest I Am'), who lay claim to 'the truth', whether that 'truth' be given the label 'religious', 'political' or 'national'.

You are describing Muhammad here. In fact, the expression "Allahu akbar!" means "Allah is greater" who lays claim to 'the truth' which, apparently, is that the greatest example for all of humanity is a polygamous pedophile infidel man waging war against "unbelievers" for not "believing" he was the greatest prophet to have ever existed.

I understand that at any given time one is equally surrounded by "evil" and/or "good" such that the only factor which disturbs this is ones own internal polarization. This is how I understand not to see myself:

i. above anyone else
ii. below anyone else

and everything is on eye level for me. And even in this I say: "belief" is not a virtue, and neither am I to be "believed" but the truth is powerful enough to speak for itself. I can only point to it, and watch the worshipers of lies become filled with hatred and accuse of me spreading hatred. If it is inside of you, and I stir it, the problem is not that I stir, but that you hate.

and everything is on eye level for me. And even in this I say: "belief" is not a virtue, and neither am I to be "believed" but the truth is powerful enough to speak for itself. I can only point to it, and watch the worshipers of lies become filled with hatred and accuse of me spreading hatred. If it is inside of you, and I stir it, the problem is not that I stir, but that you hate. — A Gnostic Agnostic

And what about those theists who do not feel superior to atheists, who see all as sinners or in shamanic or indigenous religions even see us as merely one creature amongst many. Or Christians who took Jesus' 'he who is without sin, cast the first stone. Or other theists who do not act or see as you say?

I too care not.

If there is any logic that can be constructed from this or what needs to be clarified first, I am very curious to see how rationalists would try to address the problem of "belief". — A Gnostic Agnostic

Probably positive atheism.

I don't see why the rest of the stuff is needed?

I intuit it to be true, and intuit there is a logic that must exist which proves this to be true. If I am wrong, the pursuit of whatever is true is the most important thing. There are a few items I myself see that would have to be clarified and checked for problems. — A Gnostic Agnostic

Why does it a require a "proof that it is true"? A logical refutation that undermines "a belief in god" would be a disproof simply from positive atheism - of course formulated in some kind of sound argument opposing, but most are too lazy for that, so let's just say "strong" atheism.

It seems to me knowing what not to "believe" is superior to "belief" given "belief" to be the agency required to confuse in the first place. — A Gnostic Agnostic

So... atheism?

Does not being in a state of confusion first require a false "belief"? — A Gnostic Agnostic

Maybe I'm just being tired, but this question fucks me up.

Are you asking does coherent thinking require false beliefs...?

Or are you saying, "is it true or not that being a state of confusion first requires a false belief?"
If the former, no, if the latter still no.

The latter is essentially most religious people. They are running off emotion to inform their belief system heavily, but they are not all confused, it's just their emotions triumphs rationality more often than not.

I am interested to discover whether or not there is a logic that can be constructed which renders the statement: '"belief" is not a virtue as true'. I intuit it to be true, and intuit there is a logic that must exist which proves this to be true. — A Gnostic Agnostic

Logic does not allow for discovering correspondence-theory truth. Only observation can attempt to do that.

Logic does something completely different. You start by assuming that particular statements are true. From there, you can use logic to derive that other connected statements are also true.

Therefore, you can always logically conclude that "belief is not a virtue" simply by assuming it.

If I am wrong, the pursuit of whatever is true is the most important thing. — A Gnostic Agnostic

There is a syntactical problem with that statement. Imagine that S1 is true. Then S2=$\neg$S1 is false. So, by pursuing the falsehood of S2 you attain exactly the same goals as by pursuing the truth of S1. In logic, "true" and "false" do not correspond to morally "good" and "evil". There is no such mapping.

There is a big warning in the wikipedia page on boolean algebra against assuming that "true" and "false" mean anything more than arbitrary symbols in their algebraic structure:

There is nothing magical about the choice of symbols for the values of Boolean algebra. We could rename 0 and 1 to say α and β, and as long as we did so consistently throughout it would still be Boolean algebra, albeit with some obvious cosmetic differences.

But suppose we rename 0 and 1 to 1 and 0 respectively. Then it would still be Boolean algebra, and moreover operating on the same values. However it would not be identical to our original Boolean algebra because now we find ∨ behaving the way ∧ used to do and vice versa.

Then S2=$¬S1$ — alcontali

Is this intentional?

Is this intentional? — Shamshir

No, merely syntactically:

S1=true $\wedge$ S2=$\neg$S1 $\Rightarrow$ S2=false

Because:

S2=$\neg$S1 $\Rightarrow$ S2=$\neg$true $\Rightarrow$ S2=false

S2 syntactically resolves to "false" by virtue of a succession of permissible find & replace operations. No need for using additional propositional rewrite rules.

If you mean to ask if it is intensional logic (or some kind of modal logic):

Intensional logic is an approach to predicate logic that extends first-order logic, which has quantifiers that range over the individuals of a universe (extensions), by additional quantifiers that range over terms that may have such individuals as their value (intensions). The distinction between intensional and extensional entities is parallel to the distinction between sense and reference.

No, because the expression does not make use of special-purpose quantifiers.

I too care not. — Noble Dust

Okay. You should look up what a red herring is, though. Because giving an example of why I believe what I do alongside my explanation of why I believe what I do, in response to Janus's false claim about why I believe what I do, is very clearly not a red herring, so you're both very clearly wrong to accuse me of having commited that fallacy.

:sad: I'm sorry to have elucidated these harsh feelings in you.

:sad: I'm sorry to have elucidated these harsh feelings in you. — Noble Dust

You mean elicited, not elucidated.

:sad: Correct. I'm sorry to have elicited these harsh feelings in you.

Correct. I'm sorry to have elicited these harsh feelings in you. — Noble Dust

Well don't be. You're a big boy now. Just learn from your mistake and move on.