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.

I thought you were arguing elsewhere that we should not think interms of good and evil. Isn't it implicit in this argument that you see theists as tending towards evil?

Could you really not sense the sarcasm? -.- It was not serious.

Serious now: only those who "believe" to know good/evil think in terms of it, and with "belief" itself being the agency to confuse them, a theist is already in the devil's playground.

An atheist does not necessarily have this problem, though they can become polarized in other ways. It is impossible for an atheist to wish to wage a war in favor of their god. Theists do this every day.

This is precisely my point: people would rather justify their hatred for Trump than anything else.

Hatred is not a virtue - it is a blinding agent. A person who is full of hatred will never see the way the things are, because hatred is the device needed/used to create any/all "us vs. them" dichotomous worldviews. This dichotomous worldview of "us vs. them" is concentrated in long-standing "believer vs. unbeliever" division that began in Judaism (under a different framework), was solidified in Christianity and is perpetuated by Islam. The latter divides the world into two segments: "believers" and "unbelievers" such that there is a standing order to wage war against "unbelievers" for not "believing" that Islam is the only "acceptable" religion of god. They use "belief" to confuse people into "believing" the sources of:

i. supremacism
ii. fascism
iii. socialism
iv. war

are something *other* than Islam, when in the reality, Islam is the root of these and it takes a "believer" to "believe" otherwise.

The principle pathology of Islam is to scapegoat/project the crimes of its own house onto their political adversaries such that "believers" "believe" the adversary is guilty, instead of the accuser who is scapegoating.

The best example of this is the scapegoating/pinning of "collusion with Russia" onto Donald Trump, when in the reality it was the Clinton DNC who colluded to interfere in the 2016 (and now 2020) election. Again, the Clinton DNC is a front for the House of Islam: one required access to the "underground market" via Clinton, which is where you will find all of your human trafficking, pedophilia etc. and it leads back to the House of Islam. This is the sum of all fears of Islam: the world wakes up and realizes the depths of the corruption of the House of Islam. Hence, the need to destroy Trump at all costs given his knowledge that Islam is the root of fascism, and not "it's the Jews!". The Jews are the perpetual scapegoat for the House of Islam, which is why they still keep *some* Jews alive. You can't blame a group of people that don't exist.

What the fuck?

I tend to do that, sorry.

Degrees upon degrees of batshittery.

Which part? Let me guess: all of it?

I have more, but there are too many people who would rather justify their hatred for Trump (in accordance with the jihad) than understand how much worse of a situation the U.S. would be in right now if Clinton had won.

The people hating on Trump are a part of the problem, not the solution. Stop with the blind hatred and understand the crimes of the Clinton cartel exponentially outweigh anything Trump has ever done.

Theorizing souls, here's your opportunity to put your mind to speculate on an undecidable, but I think interesting question.

Taking it step-by-step.

God, in Its omnipotence, can restart the world at any point.

>.< sorry, can not grant that assumption.

It can erase all history from reality, and start the creation again. Say It will do that, for whatever reason.

Okay, but only for the sake of argument.

1. What reasons should It have to do so?

Well, the Abrahamic god already did something similar: flooded the earth because it was nothing but evil.

2. How will this new world be different from ours?

Perhaps if it were intended that humans "know" what god wills for them, god "in his omnipotence" would find a better way to communicate this than sending a man to die for the sins of mankind and/or appointing an illiterate bronze age merchant warlord to deliver a message of "peace"... using a sword. These come to mind.

3. Are the same souls going to be given to the newborns, or completely different ones as in this, our, world?

Sorry again, do not grant there is such a thing as a "soul" - if everything in creation is in a state of change (ie. impermanence) it should stand that if there is anything that resembles a "soul" it, too, must be impermanent. It is hard to imagine the need for such a term if it is not actually a fixed thing, but evolves with time. Suppose the "soul" is actually ones own "body of sins" such that whatever they are bound to/by, their physical existence is a reflection of these taken to be ones "soul" which... doesn't actually exist outside of ones own manufacturing of it in the first place.

4. Can you think of a compelling reason why God would never want to restart the world?

Yes - because those who are "bound to believe" in things that are not true must continue to suffer to understand that it is their "belief" that makes possible suffering, and the only way to overcome this is to comprehend the suffering. A restart would be a get-out-of-jail-free card, and so I understand there is a "purgatory" for such people who can not otherwise help themselves.

5, Can you think of any compelling reasons why God would want to restart the world?

Not outside of "weeeee do it again!"

6. Finally, what advice would YOU give God with regards to changing parameters between our world and the newly created new and improved world?

1. Designate and strictly enforce a 1:1 masculine/feminine ratio (only two genders).
*this ensures a peace/harmony that does not end up with male patriarchal warlords taking multiple women for themselves - they become the sole purpose of war
2. Designate the following as Damnable Offenses:
i. Imposition of ones will over another (ie. rape, blackmail/coercion, assault etc.)
ii. Accusing another of ones own crime
iii. Infidelity to ones own "other half"
3. Do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (ie. "believe" to conclusively know what is good/evil thus polarize for/against them)

P.s. I am atheist, and I don't pretend to be a theist by posing this question. I mean to create a vigorous and lively mental exercise by this thread, I don't mean to create strife and animosity. In fact, I am prepared to stay clear away from further posting in this thread of mine, and let the imagination of others fly!

See how much more fun atheists are as compared to "believers" who "believe" in someone/something such that if it is undermined, they become outraged? How can I outrage you, o atheist? Your unbelief in a god makes you EVIL! Nevermind the hundreds of millions of dead bodies behind the theists, they are made VIRTUOUS by their BELIEF in god! And you don't believe! How dare you! Terrorist!

Ps. Saudia Arabia designated atheism as a form of terrorism. The irony is... a particular "belief"-based ideology is the greatest form of terrorism on the planet. Their "religion": blame others for what they themselves are guilty of.

Atheists have it more right than the theists - watch as the latter blames the problems of the world on the former. Hence 2ii.

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.

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.

That is demonisation, which is just the kind of thing that those who you're accusing engage in.

If there is a "belief"-based state responsible for the genocide of hundreds of millions, that is an observation. Demonisation would be using it as a rationale for further war, as "those who you're accusing engage in" would do. I use it as a rationale for ending war by advancing rationale as to why it exists in the first place and what would be needed to end it, peacefully. There is quite the difference between these.

I find your analysis unconvincing and shallow.

I expect you will follow up with reason...

There are good reasons for criticising the manipulation of belief, but you're not making a case; you're basically stating a single idea over and over again.

...and, is the idea unsound? We all know repeating a point doesn't make it true, but does it somehow make it untrue? Would not any true point be true regardless of how often it is stated? I probably repeat it often because that is what it keeps reducing into.

We can disagree whether or not the point is true, which is fine, as long as you have an actual reason (still searching)...

You're not showing any understanding of the meaning of gnosticism, other than a platitude about gnosis being knowledge.

...I don't understand what you mean by "showing any understanding of the meaning of gnosticism". Gnosticism doesn't have any special "meaning" associated with it insofar as I know. It's just a word, like other words. What one associates to/with it is kind of their own "thing".

"Beliefs" are like things - they should be (kept) private rather than forced by way of sword.

I could say more, but I sense you're here to talk rather than to listen, so I'll desist.

I wish you would have - I'm still looking for the reason.

Good points of course.

It is my experience that religious preachers and proselytizers are here to reinforce their own 'rationalities'. Its another aspect of the incestuous relationship between 'word magic' and 'religious belief' which inevitably involves repetition. Shallow 'questions' like this one are mere vehicles for those self reinforcement exercises.

Whatever is true, ultimately speaks for itself, but only if ones is attuned to listen. I find the notion "truth in plain sight" is indeed true: it is a matter of perception. "Belief" is what shapes perception such that good might be perceived to be evil, and vice versa. If even taking a yogic perspective, the entire point of yoga is to perceive the reality just the way it is less distortion(s). This requires the dismissal of any/all internal polarization prior to considerations of the reality.

The removal of polarization is ultimately what happens as one tends towards truth: there is no more enmity, as enmity comes from those who have an adversary as a result of the "us vs. them" dichotomy that "belief" brings forth.

It seems you're already confused, without the need for belief. Is "good" good for you, for your family and friends, for your fellow countrymen, for all humans, or for all living things in God's universe? Without this qualification (context), "good" means nothing. The same applies to "evil", of course. :chin:

You're missing the point: the point is to *not* objectively define good and/or evil.

In doing so, one invites a potential for polarization: "us" (ie. good) vs. "them" (ie. evil) and one is bound to become entangled fighting as one, against the other.

Example:

A "believes" B is evil (in relation to A's own "good").
B "believes" A is evil (in relation to B's own "good").

This certainly begs for conflict. The alternative is no polarity: observe good and evil as they are without defining either. This is the essence of the Edenic warning: do not become polarized, or you will die. It is obvious and renders "belief" demanding of scrutiny, especially as it applies to "belief" in a central figure/authority "believed" to be "good".

The "information" is actually freely available. There are entire books written on the subject.

It doesn't matter - most Muslims either can not read at all and/or have not read any book but the Qur'an. It also doesn't matter because a Muslim will "believe" that all books are inferior to the Qur'an - the Qur'an being "believed" to be from a god, but is, in fact, just as man-made as any other book.

That they "believe" they are fighting *against* man-made laws is...

Also: The style of your post suggests you're suffering from a mental illness. Please consider getting professional help!

...the real mental illness.

They accused Donald Trump of the same: his score came back perfect.

What "mental illness" did you have in mind, specifically?

I believe that the ability to empathize with others, will bring suffering on that person.

If I am reading this correctly, empathizing with others places the one who is empathizing in a state of suffering for their knowing of others' suffering. If this is the meaning, I agree:

"Christ consciousness does not come lest by way of knowing the suffering of others."

Suffering is a negative emotion. The old and new testament said the Messiah would be a man of suffering.

I'm not sure it is safe to say suffering is necessarily a negative "emotion" (it certainly can give rise to them), but suffering knowing the suffering of others can be good, giving rise to a positive emotion, such as love.

The problem is most people do not realize that as they come to know the suffering of others, the same is Christ. For those who never come to realize the suffering of others, the same is anti-Christ. Such is not a particular person, it is an internal state that either comes, or does not come, according to ones own nature. Therefor those who are in Christ, are not in a man, but as a man knowing the suffering of others such that their own conduct reflects it.

Some Hindus, most Marxist-Leninists (as in Cambodia) behave like the OP describes, are they "Abrahamic"? The agnostic atheists like GMBA, are they "Abrahamic"?

No, and I do not understand the point you are trying to make.

Some of us do sometimes do some of what is described, but the argument would have greater force if weakened.

It might depend on who is reading it and how much they tend to blame others for things they personally would otherwise have full control over.

In addition as GMBA points out, emotion sometimes doesn't accompany sin, sometimes precedes it, sometimes follows it.

I acknowledge it was stated, and simply state I do not find this sound. I think the problem lies in how one defines and/or understands what 'sin' is. The point of the OP was to advance a way of clarifying it outside of "belief"-based dogmas.

There are no grounds for saying people should not associate their suffering to its cause (that may be instructional - e.g telling the relatives not to go to Cambodia). This is slyly glossed over with the throwaway word "instead".

It's identifying the real 'cause' that is the problem.

The OP is merely telling us it's our fault we are sad. I think I've made it clear what I think of that.

That might be how you are reading it - so I would amend the statement to read:

The OP is merely telling me it's my fault I am sad. I think I've made it clear what I think of that.

And, certainly, you have made it clear how you think about that.

I don't care how mixed up a character Father Abraham was, I insist on thinking straight and I insist on thinking a lot!

To contrast I insist on thinking only insofar as it serves to discern what is true from what is untrue, and to spend as little time as needed to discern it correctly, as there always seems to be an even more fundamental problem demanding use of the faculty.

2. So you admit your point was not categorical after all !!!

No, I do not, actually. I attempted to clarify, and will do so again shortly.

Admit you have NO IDEA who these people are or why they shouldn’t continue to call themselves by the name of any religion.

I actually do not have an idea of who "these people" are and/or why "they" shouldn't continue to call themselves by the name of any religion. I do not know who you are referencing by "these people" / "they". Can you clarify?

To clarify the first point, it is categorical only when a certain condition is met: lack of scrutiny (as granted by use of the conscience). Please see this video for a basic understanding of how the word "satan" translates into normal language:

"expression of being bound forever"

such that if a "believer" never subjects their "belief" to scrutiny, it may be the case that what they "believe" is certainly false such that renders a categorical pathology captured by the above. Modified to include such, it reads:

"expression of being bound (to "believe" something that is certainly false) forever"

thus satisfying the condition of a pathology.

The point is: "belief" is not so much a virtue as knowing who, what, where, why, when, how and/or if *not* to "believe" on the basis of "knowing" such to be certainly false, if so. This renders "belief" without an intrinsic virtue.

3. You sound dismissive of what people go through.

The opposite is true: I am empathetic of what people go through. I understand what a "believer" goes through "believing" something to be true, when in fact it is false. The problem is, they themselves do not know that what they themselves "believe" has implications for (concealing the real) who/what/where/why/when/how they are suffering as they "believe" their suffering is coming from a place it is not. It is the absence of such "knowledge" (with "belief" serving in its place) that is the culprit.

What is wrong with associating trouble to a cause?

I don't understand the question. Hopefully I capture the essence of what you are after in what follows.

All problems have a cause. However, all problems can also be seen as a symptom to an even greater problem which, had it not existed, the old "problem" (now a symptom) would likewise not exist. Therefor, any/all problems have deeper problems underlying it.

In doing this (ie. seeing each problem as a symptom of a greater problem) one can derive fundamental roots (ie. root problems) that, should their reconciliation be found, all problem(s) resulting therefrom can be identified. This is the reason the problem 'from whence human suffering?' demands inquiry into the very first instance of any/all "problem", including the original sin and/or good and evil.

I know a cult that blame the sufferer, they are initially plausible but so cynical. You should stop flinging suffering in people's faces I say!

According to the Abrahamic mythology, the first instance of "blame" was Adam attempting to blame the women for his own eating of the forbidden fruits. In reality I see this as fundamentally true and it is captured by the men who blame women for being raped.

As such, I am not "flinging suffering in people's faces" as you put it, but rather prompting people to confront their own suffering as potentially having something to do with themselves - what "beliefs" they hold which enables the suffering in the first place.

You say that if anyone has emotion it is pathological. You blame them.

No, this is not true. Please do not put words into my mouth.

The emotions are what is used to perpetuate a destructive pathology, such as enmity, hatred, resentment etc. but there is nothing wrong with being perpetually happy, joyful etc. insofar as it serves ones self and others around them. Not all "pathology" is bad/evil, but it certainly can be when negative/destructive emotion(s) is (are) involved. This comes back to "satan" as alluded to above: expression of being bound forever.

You should accept the circumstances of other people's lives (if they are any business of yours) as they are.

I do - it is usually the people who do not accept the circumstances of their own lives because they are "bound to believe" something(s) that is (are) certainly false, which is a/the culprit for their own suffering.

We presume you never go through anything yourself!

I do, but I do not appropriate the source of my own suffering as belonging to anyone/anything else but myself. In other words, I know I suffer myself and nothing else is responsible for my suffering.

I find that this is true of all people, but the ones who fall into the trap of "believing" their suffering is coming from somewhere else are the ones who suffer the most not knowing the original sin is the blaming of others. I understand people wish to "believe" it is someone else's fault, so they have a place to point their finger, but giving enmity, hatred, resentment etc. any justification for existing is why they exist in the first place. Those who dwell in such things suffer themselves while perpetually blaming others. This is the original pathology: blame, and those who blame, might find over time that the following is always true:

The accuser is the accused,

*if*, and only if, there is enmity (towards/against another) present. Otherwise, it is possible to make a sound accusation towards/against another that is rooted in sound justification.

There is no sound justification for men blaming women for their own being raped. This is a product of the original sin itself, and to be found in even Abrahamic religions who holds Moses (ie. books of Moses) as inspired. Such people are themselves hypocrites, just as much as any/all who blame the victim.

The first victim of any "belief"-based ideology advancing a false assertion (to be "believed" in) is the "believer" themselves, as they are intentionally exploited. The problem is such "believers" will defend, with their lives if needed, that their "belief" (thus actions) is (are) in accordance to (a) god's will, when in fact it is not. This is how they suffer.

No. I'm advocating deletion because you are a hypocrite.

Based on your usage, it's not immediately obvious to me that you understand what the word 'hypocrite' actually means. Hypocrisy would be denouncing mainstream belief systems while advocating for an alternative mainstream "belief" system. Knowing what not to "believe" is not a mainstream belief system, it is the opposite of one.

But your attempt to mount an ad hominem attack is duly noted.

All you do is preach intolerance of mainstream belief systems without which you would have nothing to say.

...I am not going to come on a philosophy forum and talk about stuff not related to philosophy. I began with the problem 'from whence human suffering?' which lead me to the problem of "belief" such that:

i. Contrary to popular "belief", the Torah has 4 independent source authors J, E, P and D with a 5th R(edactor). Because the Torah opens the Bible, any/all "beliefs" which regard the Bible as the perfect word of god as delivered to a man on a mountain is certainly false. This is found by the work of Richard Friedman and elaborated by Yale U - they have videos on Youtube you can watch. Hundreds of millions of people "believe" an assertion that is certainly false. This has implications for both Judaism and Christianity.

ii. Contrary to popular "belief" the Qur'an is evolved from Syriac Christian strophic hymns that evolved over a very long period of time. The base layer (ie. rasm text) of the Qur'an was not only not Arabic (it was Syriac) it was not even Islamic (it was Christian). Additionally, contrary to popular "belief", Mecca did not exist at the time of Muhammad and the events described in the Qur'an indicate Petra (South Jordan) whereto all mosques built until 730 CE faced.

Between Christianity and Islam alone, hundreds of millions of people are dead and billions are presently "believing" assertions that are certainly false, contributing to their own internal state of suffering which "believers" "believe" is coming from somewhere *other* than their own "belief"-based religion which is based on a certainly false assertion.

If you want to hear me talk about something else, it is best not to talk to me on a philosophy forum that deals with philosophical matters, such as the root of human suffering.

As I said before, this is one of the few forums which puts up with such trolling activity.

...but do you understand you are the one trolling right now? Your replies:

#1

Divine Retribution !

#2

The question for me, is that following a paragraph like this, 'why only two deletions' ?

#3

No. I'm advocating deletion because you are a hypocrite. All you do is preach intolerance of mainstream belief systems without which you would have nothing to say. As I said before, this is one of the few forums which puts up with such trolling activity.

#1 is strictly a "troll" comment.
#2 is strictly a "troll" question.
#3 is strictly a "troll" personal attack.

You will find that the old Canaanite sacrificial rituals were all based on scapegoating the sins of the tribe onto a single animal/person "believing" the sins of the tribe will be reconciled. Christianity is an example of a Canaanite religion: scapegoating the sins of humanity onto a single man while "believers" "believe" their sins are paid for already.

The problem with enmity (Cain/Canaanite) is when a person is in a state of enmity (ie. dislike of another) they begin projecting their own nature onto others and accuse others of what they are themselves guilty of. In modern day terminology, this is called 'psychological projection'. It only happens with people who are in enmity.

In this case, the only trolling activity here is yourself.

The question for me, is that following a paragraph like this, 'why only two deletions' ?

Thank you for the comment - I'll use it to make a point.

The quality of the conscience can be measured by the quality of the questions it can address. Your question is a bad one because:

i. we (including you) still don't have a reason as to why they were deleted, and
ii. you are advocating for censorship based on... personal dislike?

This is a part of the problem - not part of the solution. If you don't like something, or someone, encouraging censorship reveals ones own latent intolerance and/or advocacy for fascism. If you don't like something, there are alternatives to censoring it, such as not getting involved - especially in matters that do not actually concern yourself at all.

Would you care to elaborate your rhetoric? I'd like to know what triggers people like you who advocate for censorship so all can read for themselves.

God no. This is a refuge from non-censorship, such as in public spaces like YouTube comment sections. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be a philosophy forum—the philosophy would be buried in masses of irrelevant and low-quality crap.

My use of the term 'censorship' is meant to apply to content that is relevant but controversial, as could be the case with my topics (still unknown). Youtube comment sections would be a different category entirely I think - perhaps 'crap'.

Moderation is fine if/when used properly, censorship is not because it is a part of the problem, not the solution. Removing topics without notice or explanation is not "philosophical" - it is something else entirely.

To be honest I'm not entirely sure there actually is a valid reason why they were removed that does not fit the category of 'censorship' and so I am anxious to understand the reason(s) given as to why they were removed (if any).

I am launching on Thinkspot when it goes public, and joined these forums to get a feel for receptivity of the views I'm advancing because of the implications they have for "belief"-based worldviews. If the site owner is going to censor them without explanation, it will have to be something that others need to be aware of because intolerance and/or censorship of criticisms of "belief"-based worldviews is why hundreds of millions of people are dead, and the site owner (if having anything to do with real philosophy) should understand they are not contributing to the solution, but rather the problem.

Sorry for the delay, I have been out and about recently.

Those a fair criticisms, but it seems to me you have an anti-religious ax to grind.

I understand the optics might suggest so: perhaps I can clarify so as to highlight my real motive.

In my own attempt to solve the problem 'from whence human suffering?' I ran into the problem of religious "beliefs". I compiled a list of assertions that are taken to be 'true' by various religious entities and tried them for their validity.

I found that there is a particular religious "belief" surrounding a particular book and a particular male central figure "mercy upon mankind" idol that serves as the highest "example" for humanity to be... exceeding problematic. Problematic to the degree of being the leading source of human suffering on the planet. Fundamentally I know this to be true, and feel I could exhaustively advance an argumentation that renders this 'true'. The problem is such "believers" place authority over truth rather than truth over authority and, despite even altruistic efforts, such arguments are met with slander and accusations.

Unfortunately, I find this same "belief"-based religion to be the *real* source(s) of both fascism/Nazism and socialism. It is all coming from one place, but being manufactured behind proxies by making people "believe" these are coming from somewhere else, such as Jews. It is not true and deliberately designed to take all attention away from the real source which is... again, another reason why "belief" is not a virtue. It can be an extremely detrimental vice that "locks" people in a perpetual cycle of blaming whoever they "believe" is responsible. It is possible to "know" who is responsible.

And so, the "ax to grind" is not but for the fact I find it to be the leading source of human suffering on the planet, which is actually the only thing I care about.

But to give you some benefit of the doubt, and as your screen name includes 'gnostic', what do you think 'gnosticism' amounts to?

The word 'gnosis' indicates 'knowing'. That is, as a stark contrast to "belief". It amounts to being able to "know" whether or not an assertion(s) is true or untrue, for example:

"Book Q is the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of god."
and/or
"Person M is the greatest example for all of humanity to emulate."

How is it different from 'mere belief'?

A belief can be anything, based on nothing. However a knowledge in/of something to be true/untrue demands the scrutiny of a specific assertion that can be falsified (ie. rendered certainly false). One can thus "know" if/when an assertion is true or untrue.

A gnostic will test such assertions (wherever possible) and evaluate what the implication(s) is (are) if a given "belief"-based claim is, in fact, certainly false. This is what I have done for the religion in question.

If over a billion people "believe" in a "belief"-based assertion(s) that are, in fact, certainly false, this overwhelmingly contributes to the problem(s) of 'from whence human suffering?' given their thoughts, feelings and actions are often guided and/or dictated by such "belief".

This includes waging wars against "unbelievers" for not "believing" in an assertion that is certainly false, while simultaneously claiming to be the ones being persecuted. It is an inversion - one that is not possible if not for "belief". Again, "belief" is the agency required to confuse good with evil, and vice versa. If not for "belief", if even granting Satan were a real "thing", people would not suffer "believing" assertions that are not true.

So, I find the problem to be "belief" itself, but also acknowledge that there is certainly a particular "belief" on the planet responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people via genocide.

Is it a form of valid knowledge, and if so, knowledge of what?

Knowledge of who, what, where, why, when, how and/or if *NOT* to "believe" in an assertion(s) on the basis of their being certainly false. This ensures one never becomes "bound to believe" something that is not true and allows for considerations of others who are themselves bound.

Do you think gnostics have beliefs, or do they have knowledge?

It really depends on the person and their discipline re: the use of the conscience. One can "know" the who/what/where/why/when/how and/or if *NOT* to "believe" a particular assertion(s) while having their own "beliefs" that are constantly being tried and subjected to scrutiny.

If he plays the automism card, then he ought to be challenged. He is after sympathy and special treatment for himself under the guise of autism. For all he knows, there could be other members of this forum on the autistic spectrum who don't wear it as a special badge and bring it up when challenged as an excuse.

Just to point out this is actually true - I experience sound(s) as shape(s), and so naturally reduce music and literature into the basic form(s) which gave rise to them before being elaborated by the composer. It has implications for how I read/understand religious texts, but I do not use this as any basis for any special consideration(s) that would shield from a scrutiny.

I feel anyone who is in a honest pursuit for truth should appreciate their own ideas being scrutinized and be excited to see how their ideas stand the analysis of others.

It's for this reason I wish to understand why my threads were deleted. I'd rather people rip the ideas apart than having content removed with no explanation. It's especially frustrating not knowing why it was removed in the first place.

Censorship is sweeping like a disease - very sad to see it plaguing a philosophy forum wherein one might hope for refuge *from* censorship.

For years I believed Positive and Negative were the main Duality of this world. Recently however, I begun believing Male and Female is the main deeply rooted Duality.
Male and female does NOT necessarily mean Man and Woman in this case. Including Neutral, everything we do or experience falls under one of these three categories.

It is good insight, especially the "neutral" designation which I find most important of all. If "God" is to be reconciled as "one God" it must necessarily reconcile the genders (ie. male and female) into a single cohesive whole (perhaps as in the yang and the yin), hence my own appreciation for the primordial Edenic state of one and one make one. I find any ideologies that stray from this 1:1 ratio betray nature/"God" entirely and are highly problematic.

Actually, the Hebrew word for 'GOD' (Elohim) I find contains this "marriage" of the two fundamental forces you are talking about:

el - bestowing ("towardness")
oh - conduit
im - receiving ("sea/expanse")

wherein 'el' and 'im' require each other, just as a sperm needs a medium (ie. water) within which to operate. To adapt to your analogy...

A Star is the symbol of the Female while a black hole is the male symbo; one is to give in abundance while the other is to take.
F attuned people are friendly and work together with other F people and is the modern style.
M is more about competing with everyone and everything demanding domination, older style.
In other words, what I theorize is a duality where the main point of it is De-evolution and Pro-evolution.

...I imagine the planets/stars as the bestowers (they have a "towardness" quality to them) and the expanse itself (perhaps with black holes as their conduits) within which they move is the receiver, and together they are one.

Extreme Male is wanting to be in power in exchange for beauty, some (very few) actually strive to be God or vampire even.
This stems from fearful old style of thinking. Capitalism, being in a less warm welcoming environment in exchange for more currency is also Male thinking.
Female however wants to experience and live with the flow of the universe instead, living a more relaxed beauty modern style of life, which makes more sense and is better.
Believe it or not, around 94% of our world is Female attuned, more than ever before, which is a really good thing.
We have more co operation now than ever before and life keeps (with some ups and downs) going and striving for more beauty in everyone and everything. Thank you.

When I consider the 25 920-year cycle, I find the high- and low-points (11 500 BCE and 500 CE resp.) to be the extremes to which humanity leans towards the reconciliation of the genders. That is, at the highest point the genders are reconciled and a golden age commences. As Patriarchy sets in, the male ego you allude to becomes dominant and women are treated as slaves to men rather than companions.

I find we are still in the overhang of dark ages Patriarchy: conquest and taking women as booty. It really is sickening to me but I understand why I was born here in this time and not another.

It was a good post thank you for sharing.

1. I know lots of Christians who say that other Christians are idolators. What about them and where are their emotions and their sin in this (as if it's any of our business)?

The problem with Christianity is it is itself idolatrous: utilizing a male central figure whose own individual conduct serves as a basis for a 'state' (ie. Christianity). The model itself is idolatrous, thus it effectively does not matter which Christian claims which. Islam is the same: Muhammad serves as the male central figure "mercy upon mankind" model for humanity. Imitating (dead) men and/or spilling blood over not accepting them as exemplary is whence idol worship is revealed.

It is the psychological/emotional/habitual attachments that adherents have to these idols that is stirred upon undermining the idols. If not for such attachments, adherents would not become polarized upon the undermining of the idols. This is why idols are to be avoided: people develop emotional attachments to them and are thus controlled via them. This is so very clear in Islam especially: criticisms of Muhammad are liable to trigger madness in Muhammadans because the conduct of Muhammad justifies their own. This involves marriage/sex with children, which is why Muhammad is protected. That anyone would resolve to spilling blood over criticisms of a strictly psychological figure reveals the depths of their "sin".

2. If one believes something better than all this, it ceases to be pathological. Your argument has failed because it claimed to be categorical. If you had made it weaker, it would be stronger.

If one "believes" something better, it means they are using the conscience to hold currently held "beliefs" to scrutiny with intention to evolve them into something better. In this case, it is not a pathology.

It is when an individual(s) does *not* allow for their "beliefs" to be scrutinized by themselves (ie. conscience) and/or others. The difference is fundamentally this:

TRUTH over/above any/all matters of AUTHORITY
*requires use of the conscience to scrutinize
vs.
AUTHORITY over/above any/all matters of TRUTH
*does not require use of the conscience to scrutinize

A "belief"-based model (incl. idolatrous models) necessarily involves use of the latter authority>truth (ie. "belief" in an authority figure/book) whereas a strictly altruistic pursuit that is concerned only with what is (un)true will default to the former and allow whatever is true to be the authority. The difference is use of conscience to graduate "beliefs" into "knowns" such that one is never "bound to believe" something that is not true, which satisfies the condition for a pathology. As such, "belief"-based 'states' that utilize "belief"-based assertions which are certainly false necessarily are pathological and, as I would argue, satanic.

3. Not all pain is caused by ourselves. The majority of it as I can see it, is inflicted on us by other people and by the universe, e.g earthquakes, meteorites.

I know the tendency is to think this way; in my experience, each is accountable for how they deal with their own suffering. That does not mean others do not play a role in the suffering of others, but I find ultimately one must take responsibility for their own internal state of being instead of attempting to associate it to outside causes. It is a difficult topic because there is much nuance begging to be explored, and much easier to point fingers. In particular, it begs the question whether or not suffering (ie. bondage) is a necessary condition for freedom (ie. liberation), which in short I have to argue that this is indeed true, and any/all suffering can/does serve a greater purpose if comprehended.

I am enlightened,

Clearly, you are not. An enlightened being doesn't claim they are enlightened and/or wear it as a badge - that's rather a way to tell one is not enlightened.

meaning I see the truth,

Clearly, you do not. I pointed it to you: you are projecting your own nature as if owing to others. This is the same thing as the "Biblical" mark of Cain: to till from ones own soil. Do not till from your own soil, dump it on others and then call them nothing but soil mounds.

and on this forum and this thread, I speak the truth,

Clearly, this is what you "believe". Some "beliefs" are rotten to the core. It has to do with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Once you eat, you are marked for death. There is another tree entirely whose fruits are ever-yielding and do not run the risk of being spoiled. I imagine this is the tree you are looking for: nothing but truths, truths and more truths.

and you're coming back with pseudo philosophical BS.

Could this be projection?

How can I be egoic if I am enlightened? If you want to question the veracity of this claim, call me out on a post and let's talk.

You can claim to be enlightened while not actually being enlightened. That is a thing.

Philosophy is a noble pursuit. It's so sad to see that a forum with this name is really just a bunch of men trying to outdo each other. Side stepping incisive statements of truth to try to score a point.

It's definitely present, but that is what the conscience is for. Rather than reacting, just filter out what is not needed. I myself find there are plenty of people on here I would thoroughly enjoy having a discussion with. I prefer people who disagree with me, and can do so without throwing a tantrum, because I think contrasting views can yield much in the way of pushing boundaries. I don't like boundaries.

And when Socrates knew that he knew nothing, we get you making this preposterous claim: "life has no intrinsic meaning. I find one can either choose to become something greater than they presently are, or suffer themselves while blaming others. It seems a lot choose the latter, but they don't understand they are doing it." Can you please explain to me how you managed to gain a greater insight than the great Socrates?

Well first, knowing that one knows not is in my name - a gnostic (what I know, I know) agnostic (what I do not know, I do not know). Knowing one knows not is the condition necessary to "know" anything, which is not particularly wise, only humble.

An example of the inverse of this would be a person claiming to be "enlightened" while accusing others of what they are themselves doing.

By the way, just the Torah alone has 4 independent source authors: J, E, P and D with a 5th R(edactor) thus, unfortunately, is not only "interpreted" by man... it is written and compiled by man. This might be a place to start with regards to your "enlightenment" by knowing what the Bible actually is and where it came from.

If you would like to discuss the book of Genesis, I have read it in Hebrew as I have spent much time learning the 'form' which gives rise to the 22 Hebrew letters. When viewed from 22 different angles, the 22 letters are derived such that a passage is actually a physical form which rotates from position to position.

Thanks I understand, it wouldn't be right for you to get involved at this point. I will wait for a reply and update as needed.

This forum is impossible... it's a load of guys trying to be more pedantic than the next.

It's just an ego-fest. And the ego is blinding.

And your closing sentence is completely wrong. It is when you are truly present that you find peace. Not the other way around.

Not intending to be mean, but I feel you are describing yourself here, given you are accusing others of being "pedantic" while attempting to correct another over an arbitrary statement.

Enmity leads to projection: it is like a mark that can be seen. It applies to people who have not themselves found peace and thus accuse others for/of their own internal 'state' of being.

Be peaceful and you will find the present. Presently, you are projecting and I think you would understand this if you were in peace. Whatever lens ones own eye has will be seen in/as others, and enmity is the trigger which reveals whatever this lens is.

On a separate but related to OP note, life has no intrinsic meaning. I find one can either choose to become something greater than they presently are, or suffer themselves while blaming others. It seems a lot choose the latter, but they don't understand they are doing it.

@jamalrob deleted at least one I found. So, you can PM him or he may respond here.

Can I ask two questions?

Is it possible to send me a copy/paste of the contents of the OP of both lacked posts?
Also, if/in doing so, is there anything you see in them that violates rules and/or does not align with the site in some way?

Apologies but I am having a hard time understanding why they were removed. I don't mind moderation and understand its need, but removing without explanation doesn't seem to benefit anyone.

W

The meaning of life is peace, and the only way to attain it is to be present in every moment... every second. You look forward and feel anxiety because you cannot control what isn't real. The past is equally mythical, and yet you look back and feel shame.

It is technically not possible to be anywhere else other than the present - if one means to say pay attention to the immediate present, this would probably be the same as *not* living in ones mind which can recall past impressions and/or imagine future ones. Besides, the past and future reside as a part of the present. Past, present and future are not three separate things, they are all one.

You tear yourself to pieces over 2 falsehoods, and in doing so you inhibit your ability to live in the present moment. This is the only place where you can find true peace, and therefore live in accordance with your soul and God.

I find peace naturally is the default state of being - one must at least be peaceful by their own nature to start making their own immediate surroundings more peaceful, including as an example unto others. It is the ones who "believe" that peace needs to be enforced externally in accordance with a "belief"-based ideology who are the barriers to true peace, despite calling themselves the purveyors of such.

I'll insert here again: "belief" is the agency required for people to "believe" that what is, actually is not, and what is not, actually is. In this case, it takes a "believer" to "believe" war is peace. This is precisely the nature of the "believers" - always inverting everything. "Belief" is the agency required to invert anything, hence why so-called Satan *requires* "belief". If Satan requires "belief", what "God" would use the same agency as Satan for "believers" to... know God? Isn't knowing (of) God better?

I find the true basis of peace in understanding (not "belief") such that one is no longer polarized and/or "set off" by anything they do not... understand.

Every single time you have a wobble, bring yourself back to the now. What are you doing? Where are you standing? Feel the ground under your feet, and the air in your lungs. There is beauty inside a prison cell, and solace within pain.

Be present and you will find peace.

It works the other way too:

Be peaceful and you will find the present.

Interesting - this is more or less what I had in mind while advancing solutions for the original sin and good/evil: apply them as (if) an axiom in order to see if they map out onto creation such that it describes what we see.

Unfortunately these threads were removed without explanation, though it would have been interesting to have discussed.

I find there are axioms that, when applied/understood, render a way of seeing the creation such that one is no longer polarized (ie. for/against anything or anyone in particular) and they are able to see things just the way they are without distortion. I'd like to discuss these but, again, my posts are being removed so am awaiting clarification as to why.

@jamalrob deleted at least one I found. So, you can PM him or he may respond here.

Thank you - request for clarification sent.

1. You can't demonstrate that everybody that believes in a religion is an idolater (that the head of their house is a liar) just because it is true for some of them. To get me to agree with the latter is easy. However it is not a sufficient condition to extend to significant exceptions. You could say "it is sad that so many . . ." which you can build an argument on, but you have not said this, so we are not able to reflect what might make somebody (of any religion or none) break out of that vicious circle.

It really depends on ones definition/usage of 'idolator'. I probably understand this word (and practice) much differently than most, especially in it pertaining to "belief".

I take 'idolator' in this context as one who adheres to a "belief"-based religion such that utilizes 'idol worship' as its modus operandi.

I take 'idol worship' in this same context as utilizing a male central figure which serves as a living model for all of humanity. This would include Jesus and Muhammad. The "test" as to whether or not one is worshiping an idol is one question: are they willing to spill blood over it? If yes: idol worship is happening.

The first step that must happen in the creation of an idol worshiper is to have them "believe" that what they are doing is somehow *not* idol worship. When a person becomes identified with his/her own "belief", whenever the "belief" is undermined, because they identify with/as it, they take it personally, which again, is idol worship. This is precisely what Christians and Muslims would "believe": their religion is not idolatrous. Spilling blood over criticisms of a dead man is idolatrous, and it is the "believers" who are in a vicious circle of worshiping books and idols.

This begs a return to: "belief" is not so much a virtue as "knowing" who, what, where, why, when, how and/or if *not* to "believe".

In either case, I find the testimonies required to join the idolatrous religions a necessarily false testimony contrary to the ten commandments, so it doesn't matter to me beyond that point. Testimony of a dead man can not possibly be necessarily true.

2. You need to be challenged about your category of so called "Abrahamic" and "Abrahamists" who have about as much in common as those in the phone book with surname beginning A, i.e the same as if their surnames were across several letters of the alphabet.

It is not about what they don't have in common, it is about what they do.

Those calling themselves muslim for example don't have Abraham, they have Ibrahim, much of whose life story is different from the other man's.

Which begs some questions: how did a Jewish man with a Jewish name evolve into an Arabic one? How are there two life stories attributed to this man? It should be obvious that if there was an Abraham (or Ibrahim), there could have only been one, so how is one to actually know?

Then Hebrews use a very cut down version of the concept of Abraham of Christians (assuming you can find any Christians with ideas that overlap at all), but sometimes with other conflicting additions, of all different kinds of meanings and connotations.

So, there is no such category of any meaningfulness.

Again one must ignore all of the noise and focus on what (certainly must) apply to all by collapsing them into their root and evaluating from there.

Furthermore, it isn't clear how your grouping of "A - brahamic / -sts" actually advances any of your arguments. Did you intend to confine your point to those diverse groupings only, and why - because people of all other belief systems (and none) are surely also of interest in the context of your thread title. You have not furnished reasons for the parameters of the information you present.

The central crux of the argument is "belief" is not a virtue - that "belief" is the agency required to confuse good and evil and there is at least one "belief"-based religion actively persecuting "unbelievers" on the basis of "unbelief" in an assertion(s) that are certainly false. Hundreds of millions of people are dead due to this single false assertion that is "believed" to be true, but is certainly false.

This is why one must understand gravity as it pertains to claims. What is the gravity of the claim,

We are in possession of the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant and final word of god.

especially if untrue? If one were the head of such a house, it would be known that such a house would fall should this central claim be proven to be certainly false.

This is the "boat" Islam is in - the Qur'an is evolved from Syriac Christian strophic hymns and evolved over a very long time. Just recently we learned that the historical "Mecca" "believed" to be the birthplace of Islam is actually Petra in South Jordan, and that Mecca did not exist in the time of Muhammad.

In other words, the Muslims are being deceived by their own leaders "believing" the deception that causes them suffering is coming from everywhere else. That is the problem with "belief" and why knowing what *not* to "believe" is necessarily superior.

The problem is, this particular religion is also the root of fascism and socialism, but it hides it extremely well by having people "believe" the problem is coming elsewhere (ie. from their adversaries) such as Jews. The fundamental pathology of this religion is psychological projection: perpetually scapegoating the crimes of its own house onto whoever their adversary happens to be, and this is all made possible by "belief". This pathology of projection is, I find, is precisely what is the mark of Cain. Those who are in enmity will perpetually accuse others of what they are themselves guilty of, and herein can be seen the mark.

It is a humanitarian crisis, but many do not see because they are distracted "believing" the problem is coming from somewhere else.

3. I was aware that numerical values were built into the wording of old manuscripts that had to be copied, as a double check on accuracy. The material was mostly passed on orally but at an advanced stage in training, practitioners were inducted into the art of preserving the content in recorded form. For example, Eliezer has value 318 and that occurs near the figure 318. The same was done in early Sanskrit. General literacy among Hebrews dates from the exile.

It might at a pinch be slightly interesting to know a little of how some people have got value out of lettering, in connection with the subject matter, but you have taken a very long time to introduce your two points. You could try harder to see which angle(s) we are interested in.

One can actually derive the basic 'framework' of creation by taking Genesis 1:1 (2701) subtracting 666x3 (adam kadmon + man + woman) leaving 703 which leaves an expression that reads in English "as like the original Adam and Eve". That is, when 666 (sex as a lust, sex as a desire, sex on the mind) is removed entirely from the equation, one returns to a pre-fall state. I am currently doing up another thread that derives the original sin and entrance of evil into the world. I have a lot of graphics that deal with all of this I made when doing this research, but it is on another hard drive that I have been too lazy to drop in this pc, but should have them by the weekend.

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

"Belief" is the agency required to confuse good with evil, and evil with good.

If god is all-knowing, all-knowing necessarily must include knowing all of who, what, where, why,
when, how, and/or if *not* to "believe" something/anything and why. This necessarily involves knowledge of good and evil:

good/evil motive (love/hatred)
good/evil intention (honesty/deception)
good/evil will (embrace/enmity)

as one who "knows" evil motives, evil intentions and evil will knows not to "believe" (ie. eat the fruits of) anything that comes from such evil. This protects one from becoming "bound to believe" in something that is not actually true.

Therefor, as one tends towards oneness with god (ie. all-knowing), one tends more toward knowing who, what, where, why, when, how, and/or if *not* to "believe" and why, thus never becoming somehow "bound to believe" good (god) is evil (satan).

I find this as the solution to the Edenic dilemma:

..........I AM..........
......../_____\........
.I believe...I know.

I know = tree of living
I believe = tree of knowledge of good and evil

wherein only the fruits of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (ie. BELIEFS) can be false (ie. poison; cause death) whereas truly (only truly) knowing is the way of the living - to truly know. Know what?

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

Christ consciousness does not come lest by way of knowing the suffering of others.

I recently posted about how this theoretically works, but it was removed without explanation.

It has to do with the nature of good and evil.

In philosophy there are a myriad of 'handlings' of knowledge. There are many, many different takes on what knowledge is and how it should be handled and how one achieves knowledge. So which of the various ideas about knowledge in philosophy do you consider a mishandling of knowledge and which philosopher or school is this associated with?

That is good - if there is attention paid to the handling of 'knowledge' such that there are takes and handles, perhaps the disciplines responsible for this attention to clarity will hold to serve while considering other possibilities.

As to the question - I am not aware of the various ideas about knowledge in philosophy: I only understand things in terms of what I call "first distinction" which is not from any philosopher or school. At best I can only offer a background as to how I arrived at it as a principle of governing all things.

I am bound to know the answer to the question 'from whence human suffering?' I am bound to know this, and in my own experience I tend to approach the understanding of things from an epistemological way (ie. top-down) on the basis of what gave rise to their existence in the first place, hence 'from whence human suffering'. In the past, this was an unconscious process - for example, one of my pass-times is playing the piano, and I would interpret pieces of music by reducing them into a single 'idea' that uses itself to express itself in as many ways as "humanly" possible that impart also the "feeling" behind the idea. For example, if you listen to the track 'Time' by Hans Zimmer (soundtrack: Inception) you will hear a two-syllable motif that repeats. I know the 'idea' behind the musical 'motif' is "wake up", and the "feeling" of the piece is to start subtly quiet and grow into a loud screaming horn. There is an element of 'design' such that it is obvious there is a conscious being responsible for its existence. How this relates to "first distinction" is my finding of the most principle distinctions being inside/outside (of ones self) and whatever is going on in the inside (as in writing a piece of music) shows up on the outside somehow.

I evaluate creation in the same way, and find there is certainly a 'design' element in creation, and myself am bound to know the designer because it is absolutely beautiful, elegant, awe-inspiring, beyond belief etc. I do not have the words to describe it, but do not mind endeavoring such that others can "see" it for themselves and stop suffering what they suffer, which happens to involve "belief".

How acute is your imagination? Can you imagine a boundless universe with the following laws:

i. There are only two forces which consume one another in perpetuity: evil and good, and
iii. The default 'state' is all-knowing; else: "belief"-based ignorance, and
iii. All suffering is self-generated and self-perpetuated (ie. suffered) as a product of ones own ignorance

And the rest is boundless: the default 'state' is naturally all-knowing, because that is what 'GOD' is often imagined as being. Anything short of this can be understood as "belief"-based ignorance.

"Belief" is the agency required to confuse good and evil. If philosophy can prove this true, it would probably overtake all other institutions on the planet in terms of correctly identifying the most prime source of human suffering: ignorance. The "belief"-based religions of the world will never get it, because they are 'bound to believe' whereas others are bound to know things.

I am also bound to know if world peace is possible - so far, the answer is 'no' based on how much "protection" humanity gives to each others' "beliefs" such that they should be respected. No "belief" that can be proven untrue should be "respected" - it should be the other way around.

But one thing is true: the top-down approach always wins. Philosophy has this in its bag, and it should apply it to the Abrahamic problem of good and evil such that it designates 'evil' as a product of "belief".

As far as my own epistemology, I notice that I use a number of different methodologies to arrive at what I consider knowledge. It seems to me other people do that also, though they seem to, generally, argue that route X is the only way to knowledge or knowledge is only Y, all the while acting like there are a number of ways to get to knowledge and a number of different kinds of knowledge. So I have no specific approach. I notice a more ad hoc approach in myself. And in general I am satisfied

Even if you replaced the words epistemology with 'conscience', it reads the same, and it is all the same true. People might believe *their* way is the only way - they are just confident because their way worked and produced the right result. As you point out, there are many ways to arrive at the right result, and this is so true it is ridiculous: like a point in otherwise boundlessness, another point has boundless ways to approach it from.

I am not concerned about philosophy's feelings or honor. I don't know what to say otherwise to someone who raises a number of concerns about knowledge and beliefs that philosophy misleads people about, when in fact the concerns are very carefully looked at within philosophy and are part of basic texts on philosophy, basic articles and essays on epistemology.

It is not intentionally misleading, it is due to a mishandling of 'knowledge'. It's the treatment of what knowledge actually is (or is not) that is itself problematic, rendering the enterprise of 'philosophy' fundamentally limited to/by that. That is not to say it is not useful: philosophy can be useful. But it is also limited. I understand this limitation, thus treat it with such limitation in mind.

Philosophy should not feel bad at all in this regard: religious approaches suffer the same. According to an Abrahamic model for creation, there are fundamentally only two trees at the head of it (speaking of "epistemology"): a tree of the living, and a tree of the knowledge of good and evil which "surely" causes death. It too fails to indicate exactly what this tree of knowledge is, but perhaps that is the point (ie. how does one truly 'know' anything? What is there to 'know'? How does one 'know' one knows, rather than "believing" to know? What is the agency of a true discernment? How best to discern?) - to use the conscience itself.

But to bring up again your reference to "epistemology" I am interested to understand your own understanding of what this is, or implies. I will keep my understanding simple:

From the top down.

And so my handling of the problem of good and evil starts with just that: it begins with good and evil, and all things are made possible by them, thus is relevant to any/all "philosophical" discussion that must at least grant there are people on the planet who understand creation as being headed by two inter-locked forces of good and evil. On the outside, they apparently consume each other. On the inside... what does one "believe" to know about good and evil? This brings up the 'GOD' problem, and I will be making a new thread that offers a solution such that solves for good and evil (that also takes care of the problems of "belief" and 'GOD') and it requires an understanding of 'knowledge' which is not exactly in line with how 'philosophy' handles it.

However if you were a "believing" Christian, for example, I would say to you that the solution for 'GOD' and/or good and evil requires an understanding of 'GOD' that is not exactly in line with Christianity - which a Christian might not like, because they are attached to their own institution. So again, this is not against 'philosophy' - it is *for* a different understanding of what 'knowledge' is and observing the entire 'context' with it.

What should I say to a person making accusations about philosophy that clearly show that person has not read or has forgotten fairly basic stuff. I don't think I am the only person raising similar concerns in the thread.

It doesn't matter - it is to no end. I don't find 'knowledge' in reading or remembering things others wrote down. In fact I find that people who are most attached to something that they "believe" in such to the point it defines who they "believe" they are, they are more likely to fall into the trap of enmity which results in them "accusing" others of what they are themselves guilty of, such as...

You can go boldly forward in part based on assumptions that are false, or you could consider the possibility that you don't know what you are talking about in this particular area. Up to you.

...this. This is exactly what 'philosophy' is - based on an assumption that is false. This will be fleshed out in the new thread that deals with the resolution of good and evil. Besides, if all 'knowing' is based in 'belief', nobody actually 'knows' what they are talking about, so I enjoy being on the same page as everyone else. Maybe we can come to some sort of understanding on what real 'knowledge' is and why it is important that it be distinct from 'belief'.

Maybe you will find something in the responses that follow which highlights the problem of treating 'knowledge' as 'belief'. I find it to be rather the opposite.

I think what you mean by "logic" here is known irrefutable facts.

I would say facts are facts that logic requires to make into 'knowledge'.

Couldn't I say that I don't know anything other than this fact (that I don't know anything (else))? Everything else that we know is based on some assumptions that we believe in. We could go run a bunch of scientific experiments that tell us all sorts of interesting things, but all of that is based on some assumptions.

You can definitely start there: 'I know nothing'.

If you are at least willing to admit 'I don't know' this is the condition required to know something. If one "believes" to know something, they will not seek to know it. It is like a "believer" who "believes" they already have the truth, so they stop searching for it.

This is just one of the many reasons why I repeat: belief is not a virtue.

The line between belief and established irrefutable facts is blurry.

It is also intentionally blurred by "belief"-based 'states' that wish people to "believe" something is true, when in fact it is not true.

I could believe that there is a god that is a purple stegosaurus swimming through the universe, but I think very few people would agree with me and I don't have much evidence to convince them. I could believe gravity pulls things down, and we could spend days or years dropping thousands upon thousands of rocks on the ground until we decide the evidence is strong enough to consider it an irrefutable fact that gravity pulls things down. But, still, those rock dropping observations are based on beliefs. The difference is that the claim of gravity pulls things down is a lot more convincing than that of the purple stegosaurus god.

One can have a "belief", and one can have reason to "believe". I am more interested in the "reasoning" part - I want to understand how it is reasoned. If the reasons are sound, the "belief" may be too sound, and perhaps true, but that does not mean "belief" is a virtue. How one reasons something can be virtuous (ie. chess players who calculate moves in relation to an adversarial player 'know' the weaknesses of that player) and a choice made based on this reasoning can itself be virtuous (ie. checkmate) but this doesn't make playing chess particularly a virtue unless learning/understanding what moves *not* to make next time to produce a better result. I find 'knowing' a better move comes with looking for a better move.

It should be less about the "belief" itself and more about the reasoning. I find the extent to which one relies on (ie. attaches themselves to) a "belief" the less they rely on reasoning for themselves. I find people who are less 'conscience' reason less, and prefer to have things that (at least seem to) work just be given to them. The point I emphasize is not to "believe" anyone or anything on the grounds that a "belief" may not be true.

This is a problem of how conscience one is, but I find interestingly that what one refers to as 'conscience' is actually the condition necessary to access what is referred to as 'GOD' - that is, 'GOD' actually has nothing to do with "belief" at all, and rather "belief" is the agency required to CONFUSE good with evil. Because "belief" is required for this, 'knowing' who/what/where/why/when and how *not* to "believe" is necessarily superior to "belief" and has much more to do with 'GOD' than "belief" does.

Perhaps better stated: instead of trying to understand what 'GOD' *is*, rather using the process of elimination (via the conscience) to determine what 'GOD' *is not* yields a necessarily more accurate result because it actively avoids falling into the trap of not "believing" something that is not true. If the conscience is used properly, what one is left with is either *nothing* or *whatever 'GOD' is*.

This is the approach the new thread will take: start with good and evil, and eliminate what 'GOD' is by virtue of being able to 'KNOW' what 'GOD' is not.

The good thing about this is nobody has to "believe" me, or in me, or even like me. They can hate me and see it for themselves unless they are themselves a barrier (ie. trying to protect a "belief" they want to be true).

(Response to the first post, the opening post.)

I believe I am a man. -- what's the virtue in this?

I believe you are a woman. -- there is no virtue in this belief

I believe there is a god. -- no virtue to be found. It's nice if you are a fellow believer or if you are the particular god concerned, but virtue? In the action? I see no virtue. It's no more viruous than tying your shoe or taking out the trash.

I believe there is a proof that renders the statement "belief is not a virtue" true. The proof is finding even just one example when belief is not a virtue. That does not make all beliefs unvirtuous, but shows that some beliefs are not virtuous, while others may be.

You highlighted something very important. It is already generally accepted that:

Belief is not necessarily a virtue,

But the statement:

Belief is not a virtue,

Some people attempt to undermine it by claiming some "beliefs" can be virtuous. The problem here is between 'belief' as an agency and "belief" as a particular. In the former, 'belief' is taken as an agency: the person does not know, therefor "believes". In the latter, "belief" is taken as an object: the person has a particular belief in/of (x).

The point of the argument is that the particular is actually unimportant - it is the agency of "belief" that is not a virtue, therefor there is actually no such thing as a virtuous "belief" - it is better to say there are virtuous people whose "beliefs" reflect their own virtuousness. I'm sure this is related to the body being a lamp and each person being a light unto the world, therefor discernment of what is good (ie. virtuous) and evil (ie. inverse of virtuous) is needed to never become subject to evil.

This may include "believing" evil is actually good - hence the problem of "belief", it is the agency required to confuse good with evil. There is an alternative, which is knowing what *not* to "believe".

Unless you are saying you are infallible when deciding 'known A' is true, then it may turn out to have been a belief that was not true.

It does not *only* apply to me, it applies to anyone. But yes - implicit is the assumption "I know..." is not being mistaken as "I believe I know..." (or equivalent) rendering "I know...(x)" and (x) actually is false. In such a case the "I know..." was wrong. But this is precisely what I am equating to the Abrahamic good and evil dilemma: if one eats from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they will surely die. Please bear with me - I will be starting a new thread on this soon so will address it there.

This whole section shows that you have not read much epistemology. Nothing you say here about the problems of belief, faith, the difference between beliefs that are not knowledge and knowledge is even slightly controversial in philosophy.

Oh, well, please send my apologies to "philosophy" for not treating it as an authority on any real matter whatsoever. It may be pleased to "know"... whatever that means.

You're tilting at windmills.

It is not meaningful to me.

Now of course you don't have to take on philosophy's use of the terms. But 1) this will cause confusions in philosophy discussions, here for example in a philosophy forum and 2) your final separation of belief and knowledge entails an implicit claim of infallibility.

I do not take on "philosophy"'s use of terms - I define my own pertaining to my use only if not commonly understood. I'm still waiting for it to "know" what those terms are, because I "know" the global crisis is related to a language(s) problem(s) - that is, people not having respect for language, words and their use.

Like, you know, "believers" who call "unbelievers" racists for being critical of a "belief"-based religion which divides humanity between "believers" and "unbelievers" wherein the former are persecuted by the latter MEANWHILE vast numbers of "believers" "believe" the OPPOSITE is true, and "unbelievers" are persecuting "believers"? How is this possible?

If satan requires "belief" in order that "believers" "believe" that:
"belief" is a virtue, and
that satan is god (equiv.: evil is good)

...who calls themselves "believers"? And this is the problem philosophy faces - no distinction between one who is in a state of "knowing" (ie. what not to believe) and "believing". Is it unaware that "knowing" and "believing" can be in regards to yes/no questions? Such as:

Is the Torah the perfect word of god?

You can go many places from here, but will find that the Torah is a body of four independent source materials (as in: J, E, P and D) which were later redacted with a fifth. This finding rules out the "belief" that it was... delivered to a man on a mountain? And because the Torah is the beginning of the Bible, we now have a biiiiig problem with the West and Judeo-Christianity: it was built on false claims. Of course it stands to reason it will fall: but by the hands of who?

Is the Qur'an the perfect word of god?

Here we go again - more "perfect" books. What is this idol worship nonsense? The Qur'an is evolved from Syriac Christian strophic hymns which were:

i. not "Arabic" they were Syriac, and
ii. not "Islamic" they were Christian"

that grew into an attempted compendium of the Bible, but oddly incorporating a lot of non-Biblical content esp. from Judaism.

How many people "believe" the Torah/Bible/Qur'an are divinely inspired? What is the weight of the gravity of their "belief" being "dead wrong" (as the early Genesis account might have it) being they are themselves waging the war, instead of making peace? What if it is actually true that the ones who call themselves purveyors of "peace" (never-mind the internal wars... genocide of hundreds of millions) while essentially claiming a book and a man are not to be surpassed in any way?

Ummm, hello? Who is worshiping idols now? These people reading books and imaging idols are doing just that: worshiping books and idols.

It's inversion: "believers" are liable to "believe" the opposite of what is true. Only being in a state of "knowing" who/what/where/why/when/how *not* to "believe" guards from becoming bound to "believe" something that is not true. This I find "knowing" which is actually an absence of "belief" that might otherwise be acting on the being if not otherwise knowing of what not to "believe".

But I'll leave you to it. It seems to me you are basing your beliefs not on the evidence.

Okay... it seems to me the "belief"-based religions are doing what you think I am doing, which is basing "beliefs" not on the evidence? Why is the House of Islam still teaching Muslims Islam was formed in Mecca when all of the Mosques built up until 730 CE had a Qibla facing an entirely different city in South Jordan? Where did the pilgrimage used to happen and when did it actually change? Where did the Qur'an actually come from? Where did Muhammad come into the picture historically? What time did his life biographies become available (before being redacted)?

These, and many more, all have gravity. Muhammad is now probably a more powerful male central figure idol that male idol worshipers imitate and use to justify their own behavior. In reality, that blood is spilled over criticisms of him should be enough to any half-conscious being that they worship this man.

But why focus on the person at all? Would not the more sound one be whoever is last to resolve to personal attacks? I understand arguments are made by people, and some people are sound in their arguments, some are unsound, but why not put whatever "energy" there is into just undermining the argument itself, and if this is easily done, find a way to get others looking in the direction that they might need to look to see where they are themselves in conflict. Perhaps this is wisdom, and if so, I am lacking myself (though not entirely... patience is a virtue, but not at the expense of ones own sanity) because I hardly have patience with people who attack people instead of ideas. I know people who identify with their own idea/belief (which I think is a problem that needs to be addressed globally) feel personally undermined when the idea/belief is undermined, but this is (perhaps) precisely why people like me exist: IDGAF who calls who what, or who is right who is wrong, I care about knowing what is true and/or untrue insofar as it comes to knowing what not to "believe".

But SERIOUSLY (only half) I argue that the entire state of "being offended" is indicating "idol worship". Surely someone who elevates their own personal feelings above all other peoples' and/or matters they govern or are governed by (given the immensity of the cosmos) is... very focus-on-the-personish. I know the expression ad hominem exists to denote this, but I choose focus-on-the-personish because that is exactly what idolatrous religious institutions do: focus-on-the-person. Which model man will it be for you, Jesus or Muhammad? Whose character appeals to you? See how they are dressed by the scholars - exemplary idols for all of humanity, for all of time.

Some "beliefs" have immense gravity to them - the same some idol worshipers have immense gravity to themselves that they identify with their "belief" so much that even a slight utterance against their male-central-figure preacher-turned-genocidal-warlord idol sets them off into "offense" mode wherein there is enmity and sin knocking on the door. Who elaborates their pride such that ones enmity grows into desire to cause pain - to spill blood, of even ones own brother!

I find enmity and desire to spill blood the elaboration of evil itself and the various "beliefs" one has to justify it. And there you will find the man-gods who favor sending imitable idols to the world to show humans how to obey live.

Wake one, wake all - the problem is "belief". I am doing my best not to sound "mean" or whatever, but if people stopped worshiping books and idols, peace would actually be a real possibility, Presently, it is not because a "problem" is trying to impose itself as the "solution" to problems it itself is manufacturing (first tragically by accident due to an insane man, over time on purpose) to justify itself as the "superior" 'state' which is actually the *real* root/seed of fascist Nazism and hatred/genocide of non-Muslims/Jews. But I can't mention the "belief"-based religio-political ideology directly because they are fascists and kill people who undermine their 'state' which happens to be based on "belief" which happens to be not a virtue.

I think that leads to all sorts of confusions. Knowing what not to belief would still require a belief.

Yeah... this is not coherent to me. Not to say it is not: if even only to me and no else, it is just not coherent to me.

Which is why in philosophy, knowledge is considered those beliefs that are supported by strong justification. If you have strong justification for not believing X, then you believe and know that X is not false or not justified.

With no offense intended to philosophers, and based on my own experience (I was in a living relationship with a B.A. in philosophy) I find the institution of 'philosophy' as lacking in the department of creating safeguards such that prevents severing what is practical (ie. useful) and not practical. It is not practical to define all knowledge as "belief" insofar as pursuing a true understanding of what "knowledge" actually is, if anything meaningful.

I hope for the sake of humanity, philosophy as a common practice shifts its attention toward clearly defining what "knowledge" actually is - I find it has a self-imposed boundary condition that would not otherwise be there by virtue of its treatment of such stuff.

From a Western sciences perspective, philosophy's handling of "knowledge" might as well be a "theory" - supported by strong justification (ie. a bed of evidence). If considered the same, a "theory" can be necessarily false based on certain conditions, such as a central taken-to-be-true (regardless of the circumstances giving rise to it) as not actually being true in the reality. This is where I find philosophy falls: once detached from the reality, it loses its efficacy and ultimately will always fall short.

It would mean you have evaluated evidence and reached a conclusion. And the process you went through to do this is considered well justified.

If you changed "evaluated evidence" to "used the conscience" this would be distinct from belief: it is possible to "believe" something never subjecting it to scrutiny (ie. conscience, evaluate evidence, test for validity etc.) it just sustains itself and can solidify and be made immovable (stubborn). Now if you take the "well justified" part, I find this to be the method used. Tried, tested and true - universal "well justified" methodology that acts as a model for any/all effective inquiry.

I find there can be "knowns" that need not "beliefs" supporting them - if philosophy as a school treats knowledge as necessarily requiring "belief", I'm afraid it may be just as severed from any meaningful attachment to the (un)reality as attention received by others regarding (matters pertaining to) it.

On the street people often use 'belief' to mean things that are not supported by enough evidence, something like faith. But this leads to absurd things like one does not believe what one knows. One knows it. And since we re fallible what we know today may turn out to have actually been merely a belief. Evidence may come in to change our minds.

In some religious buildings, "belief" can also mean things that are not supported by ANY evidence, therefor things like "faith" (established upon "beliefs") serve in its place. Else: knowledge of the evidence that clearly undermines the "belief" - to which they would not be bound - had they known (of) the evidence available to them, accomplished by way of the conscience having the ability to inquire, investigate, learn, discern and eventually graduate a "belief" into either a known of that which is true, or a known of what (ie. claim, worldview, belief etc.) not to "believe" by virtue of it being known to be untrue.

And this is where I think philosophy is dead: mishandling of what knowledge is. I am not unsympathetic - I understand how difficult the problem of "knowledge" is, as even theism denotes the problem of "knowledge" (of good and evil) as central to human conflict. The idea there is that there are fundamentally only two forces present ever-exchanging: good for evil, and evil for good. There is something to this, but it is not as it seems to many I find. I have contemplated this problem for approx. 4 years now, and just recently discovered how good and evil can be reconciled such that only good (being) remains. This solution I will make a new thread for... it is good that I visited the philosophy forums and am bouncing between religion and philosophy - reconciling them will be easier now that I understand how they are both trying to point at the same "thing". Both have problems, but both are a part of the solution - it will be a matter of how mature people can be regarding the topic.

Beautiful response.



And again... your reference to fear here struck me here, I hope you do not mind it serving as a basis for what follows.

Fear of god is the beginning of wisdom.

This interests me as it is woven into the structural fabric of Abrahamism (ie. the religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam along with all derivatives therefrom) and discerning the validity of this has implications for the respective faiths.

The notion that fear is the beginning of wisdom frightens me (pun). I have been meditating on this for the past few weeks, keeping in mind my adherence to the rejection of "belief" in and of being a virtue. When I am in meditation, I passively parse whatever I feel needs to be "resolved" (ie. something exists in conflict) and search for questions to ask about whatever 'it' is. In this case I found the question:

Is it better to suffer fear, or to understand it?

This begs the question:

Is suffering fear necessary for understanding it?

and the same could be asked of bondage: is it necessary to understand freedom? What is the opposite of fear? Would that be... courage? Suppose one is courageous due to an erroneous "belief" that, if suddenly known to be false, would immediately undermine such courage? It seem difficult to find a word that describes... absence of fear entirely, but perhaps a better question would be to ask:

If one finds themselves in a state of fear, how does one overcome it?

Here I find 'understanding' to be the basis of any/all such conflict resolution. I find in order to address any problem, one must *understand* exactly what the problem is: the who, what, where, why, when and how. The agency of doing this is how I understand 'conscience' - simply, ones own (in?)ability to inquire. I find therefor a measure for the conscience: the quality of the question it can address reflects the quality of the conscience addressing it. Thus better questions (questioner questioning) leads to better understanding, leads to wisdom, leads to better ability to properly discern between...

...well, the Hebrew words are "tov and ra" often translated good and evil respectively, but I find there are perhaps better: purity and impurity respectively. This is the most fundamental (ie. the mystery of the two trees) followed by discernment between light and darkness as called into being by Elohim (translated 'GOD'). Interestingly, the work of Stan Tenen reveals that Genesis 1:3 is actually describing a form which has mirrored symmetry as a fixed property when applied to the same torus field that he found Genesis 1:1 itself to describe (a contraption of a self-perpetuating torus field whose seed is in itself).

Sadly, it's too difficult to discuss such ideas given people's immovable attachments to "belief"-based gods and subsequent need to: justify their worship of these gods (and therefor justifying) themselves and whatever actions their gods has sanctioned for themselves, and against others in the case of "believer" vs. "unbeliever" religions. This is why life bores and depresses me: people are unwilling to face the unreality of their "beliefs" and choose to spill blood, which is pure ignorance and stupidity. I find people who identify with their "beliefs" are bound to become offended once their "belief" is undermined - a property I find consistent with "believers" further rendering "belief" of having no intrinsic virtue in it, hence my arguments. I would take it further and say that "belief" and "idol worship" are actually the same psychopathy, but this would offend too many doing a thread about it rather than tucking it here in the middle of a response-turned-rant.

The implications I find are thus (having not forgotten about fear which will follow):

If one reverse-engineers the Edenic creation account to discern qualities/characteristics the Elohim must necessarily have, one may find these:

i. Both male and female
ii. Has image and likeness
iii. Knowing of "tov and ra"

and so any considerations I give to the "'GOD' of genesis" necessarily involves these; else seems hypocrisy should one be a so-called Abrahamist. It is for this reason I immediately reject that 'GOD' is a man. This alone is probably the reason for the dark ages as a whole: patriarchy and removal of the status of the woman as equally divine. I find the original sin to be the blaming of women, by men, for the iniquity of men. I find thus a gradual degradation of humanity that progresses by turning the scapegoating of the sins of humanity onto a single man (Christianity) that further degrades into installing a polygamous dictator warlord who took the kingdom of heaven by force (though not according to the "believers") as the greatest model for all of humanity, and his word is equivalent (ie. imparted by) god directly. I know not to "believe" these - not because I "believe" anything special of myself (I know I am, ultimately, nothing) or that others are stupid (though stupid people are a real thing), but because I questioned the claims of the Abrahamic religions to try to understand the global conflict - as in, I am so bored I looked at geopolitics and asked what they were lying/fighting about.

And yet, I maintain, all of this is due to "BELIEF" and ones willing to "BELIEVE". The alternative is knowing who/what/where/why/when and how *not* to "believe", which includes matters relating to...

...FEAR, the prime component used by the institutionalized god-man-religions of the world. One must thus fear god in order to become wise. I return to the question:

Is it better to suffer fear, or to understand it?

If one uses the conscience (ie. who, what, where, why, when and how) and inquires about fear, they can use either their own fears, or understanding what others might be afraid of and why. Therefor, understanding fear *itself* rather than simply ones own fear has a bearing on knowledge of good and evil as it relates to questions such as:

Who is using fear to exploit others? How and why?

And these leads one closer to the root of evil: being able to recognize that so-called "fear of god", rather than being the beginning of wisdom, is surely the beginning of madness. Understanding who is afraid along with the "sum" of all of their fears (esp. if being protected by a single "belief"-based lie that, if/when exposed to the slaves of the house, they would fall to shock, turn on their own leaders and destroy its own house).

That is not an irrational fear - that kind of fear is real, and I know better than to have fear in such a god (especially one which is made victorious with terror) knowing the real fear is the fear of the evil house using fear to control "believers" of the lie. If I fear anything, it is not knowing. Personally I hate not knowing and when a problem catches my attention, I won't leave it until I either solve it or at least understand it well enough to see there is a deeper problem which caused it.

If the head of ones own house is a liar (ie. a "belief"-based lie, such as in a book and/or a man) the servants who serve this house, if even being themselves good and righteous, still they serve a lair and the lairs' lies. This is why I find "belief" is simply not a virtue - it doesn't matter if the person is of good nature, this good nature can be exploited indefinitely by liars who make such "believable" people "believe" their work is done for good, but in reality the head of the house is a liar and the work has served the liar and the lies, and those that worship them.

This happens: otherwise beautiful people, who do things from the goodness that is in them, they "believe" their deeds go towards goodness. The sad reality is, while whichever house they attend appears to them decorated with virtue and righteousness, the head of the house is a liar, and lies to them. And yet, they believe.

I therefor find the mystery of the two trees culminating into thus:

either one is bound to know,
or one is bound to believe

and while some "beliefs" are pleasing to the sight, and appear good for indulging, there are certain "beliefs" that surely lead to nothing but perpetual suffering, pain and ultimately (real) death. And those are them who are bound to believe, and yet do not know the alternative: to become bound to know.

I am bound to know the source of human suffering - but this says nothing for its solution, as this I do not know is even possible yet.

A beautiful response, thank you.



Another beautiful response - thank you for sharing this.

I'd like to know how you have found those meanings. I find a lot of value in the pictographs (according to this chart), and what I see in this, the one "consuming the lot of seed" - so the satan is a destroyer, the one bringing the end of all chance that life has to grow.

I have a few books on the Hebrew letters themselves, one of which is 'The Hebrew Letters' and gnosticteachings.com provides a pretty good course on mystical kabbalah that evades much of the dogma. The work of Stan Tenen helped me out as well with the understanding of how the Hebrew final letters actually describe different parts of a torus field (final nun), and his work is breathtakingly beautiful, I recommend his book - it is like a gem, but his site has nearly all the content.

I think of the word as deriving from "fidelity" - which is "replication true to the original". So an infidel is someone who has not replicated the original [faith] accurately. They have distorted the faith, they are corrupting the faith.

I really appreciate this definition - "replication true to the original" because it lends itself to the notion that 'models' whose 'example' runs contrary to the Edenic state of one and one making one (1x1=1) is by its own nature 'infidel'. This involves religious "belief"-based models built on (justifying) polygamy.

How is one to "return" to paradise (whence allegedly fallen), if one does not understand what paradise was/is? Is not a man and woman in a garden, given freedom to eat from any tree but one, enough for them? What has made them "believe" they are entitled to more than one woman? A warlord conqueror who "takes the kingdom of heaven by force"?

This all lies in my argument: "belief" is not a virtue for it being the agency required to confuse good and evil. That is: the more one is willing to "believe", the more susceptible to 'satan' they are (ie. confusion of good and evil; bound in an ongoing state; suffering).

Convincing people who "believe" rather than think to anything can be problematic. You may construct your proof only for it to be unreasonably rejected. What's your plan B?

The observation and question are good - reminds me of Mark Twain:

“When I, a thoughtful and unblessed Presbyterian, examine the Koran, I know that beyond any question every Mohammedan is insane, not in all things, but in religious matters. I cannot prove to him that he is insane, because you never can prove anything to a lunatic — for that is a part of his insanity and the evidence of it.”

-Mark Twain

I have never seen a challenge to Islam as a 'state' on the premise that "belief" is not a virtue and one is never made virtuous by their "belief". This actually reveals (via discovery perhaps) the root (ie. structure) of any/all supremacism/fascism - taken as a body or state empowered by ones own "belief" that it is superior to all others. This is probably due to others "believing" something else, say Christianity. I see them both as "belief"-based idol worship: taking a male central figure "mercy upon mankind" as an model (idol?) for themselves to imitate/emulate, so I'm not sure Plan A has had a full go yet. Perhaps if "believers" somehow understood that "belief" is the very agency required to confuse good and evil in the first place, they would question their "beliefs" and understand that whatever knowledge of good and evil is that makes one "like" god is in knowing good and evil. I find this to be knowing what not to "believe".

I think it's safe to disregard Satan. There is no proof that such a thing exists. The same applies to God.

I think this is unsafe. I agree there is no proof that such a 'being' exists, because as you say there is no proof. The same applies to god. But suppose rather than satan being a 'being' that (does not) exist(s), satan is a 'state of being'. For example, if taking the meanings of the Hebrew letters as (I can explain how these meanings are derived if important enough):

shin - expression (psychology/emotions/instinct)
tet - bind
nun (final) - ongoing state

satan can be understood not as a thing or being that exists, but rather a state of being wherein the life of a "satanic" being is:

an expression of being bound in an ongoing state

wherein:
'expression' is a resulting choice/action of ones psychology (thoughts), emotions (feelings) and instinct, and
'bound' is any psychological/emotion/habitual attachment to a belief, idol, ritual etc. The 'ongoing state' denotes that it is unresolved (ie. a source/cause of conflict/suffering not understood by the being).

In other words, if one "believes" something that is not true, the person is invariably bound to whatever effect(s) resulting from the false "belief", according to what it is and what its implications are. For example, if a person "believes" a book is the perfect word of god thus imbuing the text with the highest possible authority (ie. god's word), ones "expression" of being is modified/dictated by their "belief" which exists in an ongoing state. If such a person "believes" it is expected of them to wage war against others who do not "believe" the same thing as they do, this will invariably manufacture ongoing conflict.

If this is true, any "belief"-based religion that makes a false "belief"-based claim is necessarily 'satanic' if taking the above understanding of satan as a 'state of being' rather than a "thing" or "being" to be meaningful. This is why I find the implications of proving:

"Belief" is not a virtue.

as necessarily true, of immense gravity. If so, one is never made virtuous by their "belief" regardless of what the "belief" is. I find knowing who/what/where/why/when and how *not* to "believe" is the same thing as conscience - being able to discern between what is right and/or wrong, and reminds me of the first day of creation.

You don't need to guard yourself from your emotions. All you need to do is understand them and not let them take control over you. Emotions are like silly children - you need to show them who's the boss.

Not guard against the emotions themselves, guard against falling into sin which subjects one to ones emotions. What you proposed is the way to do it - understand them instead of be controlled by them. The earlier part of the sentence is referencing the people who are exploited by them by others - intentionally working up hatred, outrage, "offended" etc. Obviously this works on psychologically/emotionally vulnerable people who are suffering something and looking for someone or something to blame.

I find blame to be the original sin - in the end I have a feeling there is a universal axiom that holds nobody has anyone/anything to "blame" for anything, at all, ever, except for themselves. After all, if I were to design a free-for-all boundless existence wherein anything is possible, I would have established right from the get-go that any/all suffering is brought upon by ones own self, therefor understanding the self is the undoing of suffering and bondage.

But hey, that's just me.

IMO best way to repel negative emotions is to analyze whether they are justified. If so, take action aimed at resolving the problems that gave rise to those negative emotions. If they are unjustified, just disregard them and focus on other things.

It's sound - the idol worshipers could take this advice and stop spilling blood like animals over criticisms of a book/man without trying to blame others. This pathology of blaming others (scapegoating) seems deeply seeded in the Abrahamic religions.

sin is defined as disobedience toward god, or gods.

Placing the actual existence of god aside, even if granting true, might the "disobedience" come by way as a product of dwelling in negative emotions? As in: one must first be dwelling in negative emotions in order to "sin", regardless of the god(s). Here I don't find it defensible that "sin" is ever a particular act in and of itself, but rather some acts can come from a place of sin since the person is themselves dwelling in it.

I recall the story of Abram requiring him to "get out of the land of his kindred" as Ur was governed by the moon goddess Sin - I understand this as indicating the necessity for one to depart from their negative emotions before god can even do anything with them, else as with Sarai and Pharaoh she was passed off as his sister (I take to be emotions) rather than his wife (I take to be spirit) and when the house mixes with emotions it becomes plagued. Mistaking the emotions for spirit seems a problem many become plagued with (you see it everywhere), and such a confusion seems bound to lead to suffering. Emotions, while obviously felt and experienced, are not necessarily always rooted in reality and can be manufactured, as in the case of theater. People are obviously exploited through their emotions, which further leads me to suspect that guarding against being subject to ones own emotions is the closest thing I can find to "obedience" to any god.

"What knowing feels like..."

I find knowledge is in knowing the who, what, where, why, when and how *not* to "believe" (in) something by virtue of either: being not necessarily true, or certainly not true.

A hypothetical that has application to the real world:

Person A "believes" book Q is the perfect, unaltered word of a god. They "believe" their 'state' empire has preserved it without blemish and it unreservedly reflects true revelations by god, to a man, through an angel. The entire worldview of person A is constructed upon this "belief" and thus relies on it exclusively.

Person B "knows" book Q is *not* the perfect, unaltered word of a god. They are acutely aware of certain information/facts which undermine and/or render the claim regarding book Q necessarily false, thus have "knowledge" of who/what/where/why/when/how and if not to believe.

I feel the difference is a matter of conscience. Whereas person A has not subjected their "beliefs" to scrutiny, person B has actively used the conscience (ie. asked the who, what, where, why, when, how and ultimately if) and tried the claim, tested if/where necessary, and finds something to either be necessarily true or necessarily untrue.

I find ultimately the quality of the conscience can be determined by the quality of the questions it is able to form and pursue. A good conscience asks good questions that derive meaningful answers that advances their understanding, allowing them to ask even more meaningful questions.Those who are bound to "believe" without subjecting the "belief" to scrutiny via (con)science do not use the conscience in this way, if at all.

I would denote the "dark ages" as the "age of belief" and say humanity is due to drop "belief" as a viable basis of existence. This "believer" vs. "unbeliever" division that has existed is essentially the most principle division over the past few thousand years responsible now for the deaths of hundreds of millions.