Human thinking tends to be convoluted and lead nowhere in particular. I prefer computer thinking, like:
"if(//condition to be met) sin=1; else sin=0;" and everything is clear.
For example, there could be a program taking 2 parameters: criteria for something to be considered a sin, and then an item to be checked for sin-like qualities. It would return bool (1 - sin, 0 - no sin).

I'll have at it.

if(//state=belief) possibility of "believing" evil is good (equiv.: satan is god) =1, else=0
if(//state=knowing; non-belief) possibility of "believing" evil is good (equiv.: satan is god) =0, else=1

If satan requires "belief" would not avoiding "belief" entirely be the preferred state to avoid being bound by satan?

See I understand the word satan as "expression of being, bound in an ongoing state" wherein a bind, defect, vice, error etc. is recurring or repeating in an ongoing state and remains unresolved, causing internal pain and/or suffering. I find emotions to be what "feels" the pain/suffering, but also what feels the pleasure/ecstasy. What ultimately determines this? This problem relates to the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and those who eat from it ultimately are "sinners": they are polarized in some way that manifests through/as negative emotions which affects their behavior, thus "karma" (ie. doing, action).

For example, "belief" in something that is not true is necessarily satanic if granting the above definition. A person is "bound to believe" and their behavior reflects a worldview that is not actually what the reality is. It seems to me one is necessarily bound to suffer this over time, in some form, hence also finding ignorance (ie. falsely held "belief") to be the root of suffering. This could be likened to a child learning that Santa Clause is not real after having "believed" there is a real mystical reward system in place, and later learns that it is actually a device used to control the behavior of children. If one imagines the gravity of, say, a billion people erroneously "believing" that a book and a man is the perfect man and final word of a god which instructs them to wage war against "unbelievers" would this not generate perpetual war against "unbelievers" who do not anyway "believe" something that is not true?

Along these lines of thought I would define the following:

"knowledge" is taken to be a conscious 'state' of an ongoing understanding of who/what/where/why/when/how *not* to "believe" based on, well, "knowns".

"belief" is taken to be an unconscious 'state' of an ongoing "belief" in something based on, well, "beliefs".

I went over to the logic part of the forums and was told:

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

Which I am having a hard time understanding, because I don't understand how knowing a claim is not true is *not* a kind of knowledge that has nothing to do with "belief"... it is a rejection of an established "belief" on the basis of it not being true, thus "knowing" what not to "believe" based in a working knowledge that a "belief" is necessarily not true.

This relates back to "belief" in that a person who "believes" something that is not true, is bound to "believe" and thus creates the satanic 'state'. If such a person understood the bind, they would not suffer it.

This is how I find that understanding fear is superior to suffering it, and the conquering of fear is such that fear is never a factor in/of ones life.

Understanding things seem superior to suffering them, and I find understanding to be the real basis of peace, rather than... belief in books and idols.

All knowing is belief but not all belief is knowing.

This is not coherent to me... where does it come from? Is this held as an axiom? If all knowing *is* belief, what does this say of ignorance? Is ignorance not required for a "belief" to even be possible? Can "knowing" not be the opposite of "belief" in that knowing what not to "believe"?

If ignorance is required for a "belief",
and "belief" is required by satan
in order that "believers" "believe"
that "belief" is a virtue, and
satan (evil) is god (good),

...does it now follow that
"belief" is not a virtue before
knowing who/what/where/why/when/how and if
*not* to "believe"?

Does this not juxtapose knowledge (knowing what not to "believe") and belief? Is this not what distinguishes knowledge from "belief"? How can all knowing be "belief" when knowledge of what not to "believe" exists?

Those who have used inquisitions and jihads to kill freedom of religion and thought are the ones who today cry and scream of injustice when their ideology is question or tried to be denied them. Hypocrisy at it's max in this.

Yes - I link it to the general idea that "Canaanites" (ie. mark of Kain) attempt to scapegoat the iniquities of their own tribe/house and accuse their political adversaries of the same while whipping up dumbed-down emotionalist "believers" into attacking their own state "believing" the problem is coming from their own state rather than another. That is precisely how Islam fights their jihad - project and scapegoat.

Now is it obvious why I am undermining "belief" entirely? It takes "believers" to "believe" the problem is the solution and the solution is the problem. Islam is just this and is a humanitarian crisis which is going to wipe women off the face of the planet. It's already got people confused over what a woman is (ie. if one merely "believes" they are a woman, they are one and must be treated as one) because the House of Islam does not want anyone noticing where the "real" women are going... to the Mullahs of the House of Islam. It's all very sick but most people don't understand what is actually going on and the gravity of it. Anyways....

Indeed. People forget how Catholicism helped Hitler, also a fascist, as his banker and helper.

I had journalist Benjamin Fulford tell me that he has two sources which indicate the historical Muhammad was actually handled by the Vatican. If this is true (I don't know if it is - I keep pushing him to pursue those sources but he seems reluctant) it obviously would implicate the Vatican as complicit in... pretty much everything humanity has been suffering for a long time, including Islam. I personally know and understand the Qur'an is not what is being claimed... like, at all. It is actually almost absurdly the opposite it is embarrassing, and this is exactly why I feel that the House of Islam is hiding behind the Vatican as much as they can and turning them into a scapegoat as they did/do the Jews.

This scapegoating is really at the root of evil, and "belief" seems to be the fuel that keeps it going. There needs to be a global political 'state' that rejects "belief" as a basis for existence. Rather than authority over/as truth, we need truth over/as authority. I find "belief" necessarily inverts this, and should be discarded.

Generally, in philosophy, it is idea that may have any degree of justification. On the street 'belief' tends to be contrasted with knowledge. In philosophy knowledge is a rigorously arrived at subset of beliefs. You'll find discussions justified true belief, for example.

But we must keep in mind we are dealing with the virtuosity of "belief".

If even granting knowledge is arrived at as a subset of "beliefs", this still does not make "belief" a virtue.

Can it not also be said "knowledge is arrived at as a subset of falsifying "beliefs" which renders one knowing of what not to "believe"?

For example can not knowing not to "believe" something and the reasons why not be a kind of knowledge?

That's a belief. If you come to think that is true, it will be a belief you have. And I am guessing you believe it, to some degree, already.

I think at best it can be said it depends on from whose perspective one is looking. From your perspective I understand "that's a belief" but from my perspective it is not a "belief", it is a knowledge. I do not find coherence in the general notion that "knowledge" requires "belief" outside of knowing (of) a particular belief(s) to be false and the reasons why.

As a practical example: I know not to "believe" that either the Torah (implied: Bible as it begins with the Torah) or Qur'an are the perfect unaltered words of (a) god, contrary to the claims held by the respective 'states'.

The who/what/where/why/when and how I know this if this is obviously important, but not here. What is important here is this is in response to a "belief"-based claim asserted as true, but is actually in reality false:

we are in possession of the perfect unaltered word of god

which serves as the basis for "belief" in the institutions themselves. It is for this reason that I am interested in undermining "belief" itself (as a cohesive agency) because it is the agency required to confuse "believers" into "believing" something that really is, is really not and something that is really not, really is. If not for "belief" such a confusion can be avoided, and in its place a knowledge of who/what/where/why/when/how *not* to believe.

What has belief to do with truth? Until you're clear on that you're not going to get anywhere. And you write in categorical terms when your observations are better expressed provisionally and existentially. Some instead of all.

It's a good question: the relationship between "belief" and truth. I will borrow from Christian paradigm to keep the Christians entertained.

Take an equilateral triangle pointing upward and place "I am..." on the top, "I know..." and "I believe" as the two bottom as derivative of the more basic state "I am...".

When one is in a state of "belief" in say (x), they can either choose to retain the belief without subjecting it to conscience scrutiny (ie. attempting to prove it false or inferior to an alternative) or subject it to scrutiny based on 'knowns'. If what is 'known' is not sufficient to graduate the "belief" to either:

i. I know... (x) is true
ii. I know... NOT to "believe" (x)

one must go and 'know' whatever is necessary to graduate the "belief". If one chooses not to do this, well this is essentially denying the use of the conscience and I understand this the same as Jesus stating "those who deny me deny the father". If a person does not use their conscience to graduate "beliefs", they are not conscience and likely "believing" something instead, which requires no conscience.

Belief is sometimes a matter of choice as, for example, a basis for understanding or facilitating something. And sometimes it's the presupposition of an argument. And your "which," what does that mean? And how do you know that something is not true? I grant what I think is your argument in some and for some cases, but you've expressed it in universal terms - which makes it false at best, or meaningless.

I express it in universal terms because I think it is wrong to treat "belief" as a potential particular or object. "Belief" is treated as a universal agency in the statement "belief is not a virtue"... one can also say "belief is not a viable agency...". It is one thing to say "belief" is necessary, which I am willing to grant. But that something is "necessary" does not make it a virtue. In the case of the above, the conscience is what I find "beliefs" are to be subjected to in order to graduate them to a knowledge: of what is true/untrue, or who/what/where/why/when/how not to "believe". This is how I find truth and belief are related: one starts from a place of "belief" and graduates it to a place of knowing.

I don't think it's coherent to say that someone can be in a state of confusion without knowing that they are.

Really? Hmm... interesting. I understand deception as something that rather relies on the person not knowing they are confused. In fact I find that exploitation of people through "belief" systems rather relies on their confusion and unaware of being confused, in the same manner idolatrous religions employ use of idols while the adherents are confused about what is idol worship while worshiping idols.

confused adjective
con·​fused | \ kən-ˈfyüzd

Definition of confused

1a : being perplexed or disconcerted
b : disoriented with regard to one's sense of time, place, or identity

Well, if you are undermining someone's belief...

...no, not someone's belief. Belief itself as an agency and/or 'state of being'.

See, the "belief" itself matters not - not a particular "belief", but the agency of "belief" entirely.

That "I know..." is superior to "I believe..." if granting "I know..." is actually known and is not mistaken via "I believe I know...".

using a process that includes logic (or does not for that matter) you are trying to reach a conclusion and demonstrate that other people should draw the same conclusion. That conclusion is a belief. If I want to undermine your belief in God, say, or that water is two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen, I will present some premises to demonstrate something else is true, or I will try to demonstrate that one of your premises is incorrect. If I succeed you will now believe something else, including perhaps that your premise X is not true. You will also believe my argument makes sense. You would like also believe now or already that this or that type of deduction is correct.

If taking 'consciously' as knowing the who/what/where/why/when, how and if ...

is there a logic that could defend the following as true:

Belief is necessarily not a virtue over consciously knowing what not to believe.

and/or is this statement already obvious enough to grant as self-evident?

No. 'Being' implies continuity, whereas 'belief' implies segmentation.

I agree 'being' implies and necessarily indicates continuity.
I do not see 'belief' implying or necessarily indicating "segmentation".

Can one not be "bound to believe" in an ongoing/continuous state? What if one "believes" something that is not true, and they persist in this in an ongoing state?

Necessarily? How so? After all, presumably your mother loves you....

I don't understand what part you take exception to.

If one "believes" something that is not true, this is due to ignorance which begets suffering. As such there is a correlation between ignorance and suffering ie. ignorance is suffered.

I find the problem of 'evil' is the blaming/scapegoating of ones own internal state of suffering as being caused by an outside agent, when in reality it is the one who is ignorant who suffers themselves. I find this to be ignorance: blaming someone else for ones own fault (in ignorance), which is what I find the original sin of Adam to be in the Abrahamic mythology which...

And there is the whole topic of "belief," accepting something for the sake of argument, that is fundamental in rhetoric. Think it through some more - never mind your "technical abilities" - and see if you arrive at any new and different conclusions.

...all relates to the problem of "belief" and the superiority of "knowing" who/what/where/why/when and how *not* to "believe" which, rather than ignorance, is the opposite of it: knowledge. Thus one who is closer to the truth suffers less and less, until there is no more suffering as one is not bound by anyone or anything. There is a math equation in here somewhere probably: as ignorance is lifted, binds are lifted as they approach boundlessness. The opposite of boundlessness is bound, which is what one who is "bound to believe" is... bound.

I find therefor that knowledge of good and evil is the same thing as knowing who/what/where/why/when, how and if *not* to "believe" which is what protects one from becoming bound (to "believe").

If you are using belief as it is generally used in philosophy - that is anything one believes to be true, regardless of the justification (iow scientific conclusions and folk beliefs and religious beliefs are all under the category of beliefs, just there are differing degrees of rigor) - then that is where my confusion is coming in. If someone used logic to undermine belief, that process would include both relaying beliefs and drawing conclusions - that is, more beliefs.

If you mean belief in the pejorative sense - which is generally not the meaning in philosophy - that's a different story.

I am interested in:

If someone used logic to undermine belief, that process would include both relaying beliefs and drawing conclusions - that is, more beliefs.

In what way would the process include relaying beliefs and drawing conclusions?

GA, I'm a Christian Existentialist (some people refer to it as being 'Spiritual' if you like). Ethically/morally, when someone uses the term 'evil', that's a euphemism for 'lack of perfection' to me. I don't 'believe' in a sentient Being called Satan.

I think of our temporal nature and finitude, as all part of the tree of life extended metaphor. Meaning, it removes the ethical/moral notion of an external belief system (Satan) and associated paradigm's. I don't try to make sense of that. So in your context of struggling with that 'belief system', when say a far-right Fundy talks about Satan and his attributes and/or his nature it begs the questions of : who/what/where/why/how does he know this...

There are a lot of terms here I am either unfamiliar with or don't share an understanding with, so I will just clarify what my understanding of Satan is so there is less confusion.

I understand Satan as comprised of three parts:

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

I understand the Hebrew language is comprised of 22 letters which are derived from a single 'form' that, when rotated and viewed from 22 different angles produce the letters. Each of these letters imparts a basic meaning related to the hand position. As such I find 'Satan' to be any expression of being bound (to "believe", for example) in an ongoing (ie. unresolved) state. So this is not a sentient being, this is a state of being that is an expression of a bind(s) in an ongoing state.

As such a "belief" system which advances a "belief" that does not reflect the reality is necessarily satanic, because adherents become bound to believe something that is not true. This is how I see "believers": bound to believe.

Our temporal nature and lack of perfection obscures our judgement ( in all domains personally/professionally/vocation-wise etc. etc.). And morally/ethically, we take on our own responsibility for our own actions and recognize that intrinsic value; we don't say 'the devil made me do it'.

You've heard the term 'existential angst' right?

I am not following the "lack of perfection" expression you are using. I observe a lack of conscience obscures judgement more so than anything else, as a lack of conscience is essentially what is required for a "belief" to have power. The alternative is knowing what not to "believe" which requires using the conscience to question/challenge "beliefs". Unfortunately this is what people are attached to: beliefs and how I find "belief" and 'idol worship' to be related, if not the same.

Sorry, you've lost me. 'Belief' is not 'a property'. Its a noun implying a state of mind characterized by confidence in an idea without sufficient observational evidence.

Can "belief" not be a 'state of being' rather than a 'state of mind'? Suppose the way one thinks is the way one feels, and the way one feels is the way one behaves, thus a "belief" that affects the way one thinks/feels/acts has bearing on ones 'state of being'? As in one who is in a 'state of belief' as opposed to a 'state of disbelief'?

I am having trouble with "belief" implying a state of mind rather than a state of being.

Should that observational evidence be specified, and should that observation fail, then belief is logically undermined. The 'God/Satan' scenario already assumes these to be meaningful concepts, prior to belief statements about them. Their proposed relationship with each other might be part of that 'meaning', but 'belief' in such a relationship beyond 'a story' is a separate issue.

Is it possible to construct a scenario such that observational evidence is specified, fails and belief is logically undermined?

I find not only does Jesus (and Muhammad) qualify as idols, I find both Christianity and Islam require a necessarily false testimony (as contrary to the biblical ten commandments) in their respective required testimonies. In effect, one can not become a Christian/Muslim without violating the testimony commandment - like a mark. One must testify on the basis of a crucifixion and resurrection which happened 2 000 years ago and the other must testify of a man who has been dead for 1 400 years. Isn't the point of a testimony commandment not to bear witness of things unseen and not witnessed? Isn't that the point of not falling into an idolatrous cult that requires a testimony and "belief" in a book or idol? Isn't this what is supposed to shield one from taking up idols and bowing to them etc.? What are these people doing taking these testimonies?

I know the "believers" say life is a test... I'd hope for their sake it is not. I find even many atheists naturally follow the ten commandments more closely because they intuitively know not to go around killing people. Idol worshipers seem to have problems in this department - spilling blood over books and idols.

It seems to me any male central figure that serves as a model for humanity is an idol. It takes "belief" to have idol worshipers "believe" that what they are doing by imitating a model man is somehow *not* idol worship. If they are willing to spill blood over it, they are worshiping it, and this relates to fascism and military protection of "belief"-based 'states' (ie. forcibe suppression).

1. Belief is unnecessary for goodness
2. Belief is necessary for evil
3. If belief is unnecessary for goodness and necessary for evil then belief isn't a virtue
So,
4. Belief isn't a virtue

Logical argument:
G = belief is necessary for goodness
E = belief is necessary for evil
B = belief is a virtue

1. ~G premise
2. E premise
3. (~G & E) > ~B premise
4. ~G & E from 1, 2 conj
5. ~B from 3, 4 MP

I ask others: does it hold?

No. There is no 'logic' which undermines belief in 'God' unless that belief gives 'God' essential properties which can be empirically tested or observed and that test 'fails'. That is because 'logic' must assume 'truth' of chosen axioms and cannot evaluate that truth. (Godel's incompleteness theorem, although mathematical in intent, has been extrapolated to most general systems, such that the 'truth' of at least one axiom cannot be deduced from the system itself)

When it comes to "essential properties" I find that "belief" is an essential property for one to "believe" that 'Satan' is 'God' (equivalent: evil is good). If there is a property (ie. "belief") that evil requires in order to sustain itself, but truth does not, I find it to be "belief". Else: knowing who/what/where/why/when and how not to "believe" which I intuit there must be a logic that exists which spells this out.

Ok.

Belief is the problem.

I'm probably going around in circles here so humor me.

Technically we all are: that is what time is (a circle) so I'm with you regardless.

What name would you give to the message of your OP and all that you've said?

"Belief"?

I'm not sure I understand where you are coming from here.

You've offered us another word, "knowing" which, if I understand you, is better than "belief", the issue here.

This makes sense to me only when you qualified "knowing" with "what NOT to believe". Am I following you?

Yes - knowing who/what/where/why/when/how *not* to "believe" which demands use of the conscience. I find that whereas "knowing" demands use of the conscience, "believing" demands not the conscience because one does not necessarily question what one "believers" especially if they are "bound to believe" which is technically a 'satanic' state.

However, you don't want us NOT to believe what you're saying here. You want us to believe you.

No... I don't want anyone believing what I'm saying, or me, or in me at all. I do not wish for anyone to "believe" anything but rather ask themselves the question(s) to/for themselves and see if they can see it for themselves. I would rather a person look by themselves, see for themselves, and walk away independent without relying on a "belief" in anyone or anything whatsoever.

It is not about who is right or wrong, it is about what is right or wrong. People who focus on individuals rather than the things that are imparted is related to what is at the core of idol worship. If something anyone says is true, that it is actually true (if it is) is what makes it true, not who said it.

For example I find Christianity and Islam to be fundamentally idolatrous - they both utilize a "mercy upon mankind" male central figure that serves as a model for living unto adherents of the respective ideologies. I understand this as idol worship, and I understand that "believers" who "believe" in these figures (not to mention spill blood over them) are idol worshipers (if even unknowing they are) and are fundamentally "bound to believe". However that does not mean all of the teachings associated to Jesus are untrue or lies: there is much that can be understood without adopting the idol of Jesus.

My question doesn't hurt your position. I think you've made your case as far as I'm concerned. I just want to know the word, if not "belief", you use to describe what it is that you've discovered and wish to convey to us.

I'm still not entirely understanding what you are looking for in terms of this word. Can you try to clarify?

I'm having difficulties following you. The only thing I can gather from your statement is the concept of logical necessity relating to Cosmology and causation; I guess you could say it is 'neutral' in some sense.

But this business about satan/virtue, etc. etc. I'm losing you.

Should it not follow that if satan *requires* "belief" to confuse "believers" into "believing" that "belief" is a virtue, thereby allowing one to become confused and "bound to believe" that satan is god? Is one not better off avoiding "belief" in the first place? Is "knowing" (rather than "believing") the who/what/where/why/when and how *not* to "believe" necessarily superior to "belief"?

Would an omnipotent god know this? Why would an omnipotent god require and/or rely on "belief" at all if this is what satan requires in order that "believers" "believe" satan is god?

There's a difference between the phenomenon of confusion--of someone saying, "I'm confused," and saying that someone else is confused. The latter doesn't amount to the person in question feeling confused.

That is a good point - but I feel this is a part of the intended deception. For example, if a religious institution relies on 'idol worship' to bind adherents to a "belief"-based 'state', it must first "confuse" people into "believing" that 'idol worship' is something they are themselves *not* doing, when in reality they are worshiping an idol. I understand this begs a definition/understanding of 'idol worship', but this can come later. What is important for now is that the "believer" does not actually know/understand they are themselves confused.

This is exactly the predicament 'idol worshipers' are in: they do not understand they are worshiping an idol because they are confused regarding idol worship itself. This also applies to "belief": a "believer" might "believe" that their "belief" is a solution to a problem, rather than the problem itself.

I am looking for a logic that designates "belief" as an inferior state as compared to, say, "knowing":

"I know..." (who/what/where/why/when and how) *not* to "believe"
is superior to
"I believe..."
which may not be true.

When we say that someone else is confused, what we usually have in mind is (a) the idea that they should be conforming to some extent to conventional concepts, and (b) per those conventional concepts, they're getting things wrong in some way, mixing them up, not making distinctions, etc. And sure, we could have in mind that they're misidentifying something.

But "one being in a state of confusion" is someone saying "I'm confused." Not someone else thinking that the person has something wrong.

It seems a frame of reference problem: one who is confused need not necessarily know/understand or feel they are confused. I think a part of confusion is in the being unaware one is themselves confused. However, one who is not confused can see others who are themselves in a state of confusion, but not knowing of this.

I did find the post a bit hard to understand, but it seemed the problem with belief might be exacerbated if people rationally or otherwise tried to get people to belief things, as here you were asking the rationalists to come and do.

I do not want anyone to "believe" anything - I just invited people to use their knowledge and understanding relating to logic as I assume it is superior to mine, and try to frame the problem I am after in terms of logic. Part of the reason for this is to avoid emotions as the religious "believers" seem to place their emotions before just trying to work out what is true and/or untrue. I do not ask anyone "believe" anything: whether it be from me or anyone else. I am looking for logic that undermines belief entirely.

In any case this seemed like a call to come and argue something in relation to belief. If they are rationalists, it seemed to me they might mount an argument, this being something leading to people being persuaded, which would, it seems, in this case, persuaded to have a belief about belief.

I think we are going too far: I am only interested in a logic that undermines "belief" as a viable state which pays no special attention to emotions as there are just too many barriers.

Wouldn't the rationalists be playing into Satan's hands if they try to get us to believe that belief is bad and that their process for reaching this conclusion is rational? Wouldn't it be better to take a more cliche Zen approach and hit people when they seem to be believing something?

I don't understand anything you are saying there, unless it's just rhetoric. "Belief is not a virtue" does not necessarily render belief "bad". It should just mean that: it is not a virtue. Anyways, if "belief" is not a virtue is the point, where is the "get us to believe" point coming in?

Confusion occurs when someone isn't sure what's the case and especially when there seem to be dissonances in the information at hand.

Could one not confuse good for evil and evil for good based on a "belief" that one is the other, and the other is the one?

Aside from that, what you're looking for has nothing to do with logic, really. Logic is about "what follows from what" given certain assumptions, definitions, rules, etc.

Well this was the general idea of:

If: satan requires "belief" to confuse people into "believing" satan (evil) is god (good)
then: "belief" is not a virtue over knowing what not to "believe".

To tie this into:

In the context of Religion, you could say belief would be 'less of a virtue' when making a priori statements about a Deity.

In this case, god would be associated with the ability to "know" everything *not* to "believe". One can argue here "belief" is a necessity, which can be granted barring it is neither a virtue, nor something bad or evil, just neutral. But that it is not a virtue is the point, because only satan would try to make "belief" a virtue by virtue of requiring it to have people "believe" satan is god.

So treating "belief" as an object (x) and stating satan "requires" (x), therefor (x) is not a virtue. The alternative is knowing (conscience: who/what/where/why/when and how) not to "believe" which renders "belief" absolutely impotent. It should follow from here that any "potent" god would need not rely on "belief" at all, therefor "belief" in a god is unsound.

Am I right if I say the above statement summarizes your thoughts?

It summarizes them only with regards to the problem of "belief" and, in this case, the conscience because I find the conscience is precisely the thing required to "know" what not to "believe" in the first place. I find therefor "I believe..." and "I do not know..." as equivalent, which summarizes my thoughts on "belief". For example one may as well say "we are do-not-knowers!" just as easily as they say "we are believers!" but those who are confused don't understand the difference between knowing and believing.

To put in global perspective: the recent Nike ad "Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything." is a terrible message and invites people to sacrifice everything they have for what they "believe" in. This sounds like a virtue, right? What if "belief" is not actually virtue?

I wonder though if you want us to believe you? How do I know, apart from individual psychological tendencies resonating with what you say, that you're not one of them who wish to achieve the same ends as, using your terminology, Satan? In others you'll have to convince the flock you're not the wolf in sheep's clothing since you are accusing some from being one.

Can you do that?

I do not want anyone to believe anything - I am stating that "belief" is a part of the problem, not the solution. I understand the term "Satan" as "expression of being bound in an ongoing state" which is precisely what a "belief" in something not true and/or unreal is. "Belief" is therefor the agency required to make someone "bound to believe". I am stating "belief" is not a virtue - but that includes not "believing" someone is making a claim they are not. I am not special, I have binds like others, but one of them is not "belief" because I understand the problem of "belief" and know it is a problem. When something is understood rather than suffered, one is no longer bound by it. It is like this way with fear, hatred etc. and any bind that exists. Understanding it looses it.

To be honest I am more interested in understanding the problem 'from whence human suffering?' and I find "belief" to be at least involved. I see "belief" as "the Great Satan" (no it is not the United States of America) that vices the planet and keeps the "believers" in "us vs. them" mentalities "believing" either are on the side of good fighting against evil. I reject this - as surely as eating the fruits causes death, so too I find do the "believers" die for their idols in wars.

The problem is the religious institutions of the world are built on claims that are not true in which people not only vehemently "believe" are true, but are willing to give their lives for. This is the reality of idol worship. I would rather see that end - I think humanity is sick from it.

I’m simply querying the relevance of Islam to the text.

I'll follow up with another in case it is not clear below.

Islam is relevant to everything because it is waging a war against "unbelievers" for not "believing" something that is not true. If not for this problem, world peace would be possible. Islam is not a solution to peace, it is the problem to peace. It does not understand this and perpetually accuses others of being the problem, but that is the nature of scapegoating.

Don’t worry, I’m certainly able to - but when there is the perspective of a woman in the text, I often choose not to - and I shouldn’t have to reject the perspective of a woman in order to not be ‘limited’. I should ask if you are able to put yourself in the perspective of a woman - if you were, then you wouldn’t be writing about women in this way...

I am just sensing resentment here, so my response might reflect that. I am wondering why you are reluctant to try to understand from both the man and woman's perspective? It shouldn't matter what one is themselves, human is human and the human experience involves the relationship between the two and how they become one.

Just because there is a man in the text does not mean the man should not read and understand from the perspective of the woman. As I mentioned earlier, this is not only a good thing, but practically the point. It was Adam's inability to understand from the woman's perspective what he was himself doing.

Following-up from above, Muhammad and A'isha are a good example of this: whereas A'isha indicated that she has never seen anyone suffer like the "believing" woman, Muhammad's Islam was the cause of the suffering. Islam favors men such that they are the sole beneficiaries of the system, because it is a mirror-reflection of the life of Muhammad: waging war against unbelievers, and this is what Islam is bound to do while blaming others for war-mongering. The reality is inverse to what a "believer" sees it as because they have been lead to "believe" that what they see is not coming from their own house, as it is, and it is the same from the perspective of a single 'being' to an entire 'state' such as Islam.

The problem is Islam "believes" it is a solution, which is the problem itself. As is "belief" and the reason I repeat ad nauseum: "belief" is not a virtue.

This I agree with.

As I’ve mentioned before, I’m in agreeance with much of the Gnostic viewpoint in general. But when you declare this an interpretation ‘in modern day’, then I have to call hatred, oppression and bias as I see it. Between you and GCB, I have to say, it’s not a favourable impression of Gnosticism in practice.

Well, if one is looking for hatred, oppression and bias, one may want to look towards the House of Islam, because that is where much of it is coming from. The hatred is against the Jews and so-called "infidels", the oppression is "believers" militarily waging war against "unbelievers" and the bias is the House of Islam perpetually attempting to blame others for the atrocities its own leaders are committing. That is the reality the "believers" do not see because they either "believe" in Islam or "believe" Islam is not the problem. It is the problem - the idol of Islam did the exact same thing Adolph Hitler did which was commit genocide against Jews. What 'gnostic' would really argue that there is *not* a connection there? Certainly not this one - the connection is simple: male central figure orator military commander who weaponizes the state against his political adversaries and uses it to commit genocide against Jews. One has to be a "believer" to that this is all coincidence. Islam blames the crimes of its own house on Jews - rather pathologically.

I think your sweeping criticism of the very idea of belief as the wellspring of all ills is true but not all the time. Perhaps you address that by drawing the distinction between belief and knowing. Can you clarify it further for my benefit? Thanks.

I can make attempt.

Two statements:

i. "Belief" is necessarily not a virtue, and
ii. "Belief" is not necessarily a virtue

are different. Statement ii. satisfies "but not all the time".

Regarding i., because "belief" is the agency required to confuse good and evil, one must inquire as to whether or not there are alternative states to "belief". It should be obvious that there are many, including "I know...", "I hypothesize...", etc. Because of this, all that is needed is to demonstrate that there is a superior 'state' to "belief" rendering "belief" necessarily not a virtue and i. true.

The superior state is "knowing" who/what/where/why/when/how *not* to "believe". This actively prevents one from becoming "bound to believe" something that is not true insofar as the conscience is used to parse between what is "true" and what is "untrue". This I liken to the first "period" or "yom" (ie. day) of creation itself: distinguishing light from dark. The same is necessary for any being: learn to distinguish between what is true and untrue.

In response to:

As you already know knowing and belief seem difficult to distinguish to the extent required for me to get what you want to convey in your OP. For me knowing implies that the knower now has a belief. Many wouldn't find knowing a belief problematic insofar as it's achieved through rational means, weighing the evidence and so on. I'm quite sure this isn't what you mean because your OP is an argument crafted to convince the reader of a point which is another way of selling a belief to him/her.

"knowing implies that the knower now has a belief"

I don't grant this as necessarily true, and find it confused. One can know what not to "believe" on the grounds of discovering a "belief" is not true (I know x is not true thus believing x is somehow true is unintelligent and stupid, wherein x is literally anything someone could merely want to be true because it suits and/or justifies their own existence). One could supplement this knowledge by understanding motive for deception (if there is any) and this is related to knowledge of good and evil: being able to distinguish between what is "good" and "evil". The agency required to ever confuse these is "belief" which renders "belief" without virtue.

A rhetorical way of understanding this is technically "believers" are in the devil's playground. Knowing what not to "believe" is like knowing what playground not to go to because it is infested with evil child predators who go after young children due to satiation of sexual lust.

This happens in churches and mosques - "believers" "believing" and the children are abused by sick men. This is why, in relation to i. above, I argue "belief" is necessarily not a virtue because it is the thing required by evil men to cover their crimes against humanity. This what "belief" empowers, because it is the currency of deception and evil.

The alternative is knowing what not to "believe".

Sorry, but this is deflection. Stop using the example of Islam to paint yourself as the ‘good’ guy. The religion of Islam is no more ‘evil’ than Christianity. This story is not a response to Islam.

You correctly identified what you are yourself doing: deflecting (away from Islam).

I am not painting myself as the good anything: that would be Islam painting Muhammad as a good guy and having Muslims "believe" he is the greatest example for all of humanity. In reality he was a genocidal warlord whose Qur'an is actually evolved from Syriac Christian strophic hymns which are neither Arabic nor Islamic and Muhammadans that "believe" it is the verbatim word of a good are "believing" something that is not true, not to mention that mosques built up until 730CE are facing nowhere near Mecca. Besides...

The religion of Islam is no more ‘evil’ than Christianity.

...both Christianity and Islam are "belief"-based states which spread by the sword. Any 'state' which forces a "belief" system onto others is 'evil' - that includes what Christianity did, and that includes what Islam did and still does. Do not try to indicate that Islam and Christianity are in the same boat: Christianity actually had an enlightenment and stopped persecuting people for ridiculing Jesus. Islam never did this: it still spills blood over criticisms of the central idol Muhammad.

Again, deflection. As a woman, I don’t put myself in the perspective of Adam - so what would you say is the story’s message for me?

If you're a woman who is unable to put yourself in the perspective of a man, that is a limitation you have. The whole point is Adam and Eve can see past each others own limitations which is how they grow together.

This is not a story where the reader is meant to ask himself: Do I blame/shame or protect women? If it were, then we wouldn’t have to wonder what would have happened if he took responsibility.

It may not be to you - beauty is not the only thing in the eye of the beholder. But this is a part of the beauty of creation: whatever one finds beautiful is beautiful for all intents and purposes.

This is a story where we are to look at the situation we’re in, and ask: where we would like to be in our relationship with God (however we understand the concept)? We can’t wish to be unaware of our fragile selves interacting with the world - we can’t un-eat the fruit, and we’re past pointing the finger of blame. Whatever we suffer, we’ve brought on ourselves, whether God is a ‘being’ or not.

That's better than most do: a lot are still trying to blame an historical Adam unaware that each is their own.

So we cannot ignore our relationship with the physical world, but we should really be paying more attention to - and seeking to connect and collaborate with - what we don’t yet understand about the universe. Whether we call it God or Gnosis or something else is irrelevant. It exists, and it has much to teach us, if we’re humble and courageous enough to learn.

It is not about ignoring the physical, it is about transcending it, which is precisely what spirituality is. A person who only experiences the physical creation is not spiritual - they may be conscious (to a certain degree) and be animated, but not necessarily spiritual.

It is related to Adam and Eve once again: a person who lives for the physical sensations related to sex are more likely to fall into evil in pursuit of it. This is the temptation: Eve gives the fruit to Adam. The lower organ commands the higher organ, which should be the other way around. There are dimensions of sex that transcend just the physical sensations which is related to actual transmutation of energy "knowing good and evil".

'Atheists', said Albert Einstein, 'are those who still feel the weight of their chains'. It's written all over your rant.

I am not an atheist and would place atheism in the same category as theism: both asserting what is not known to them.

But I appreciate the clever attempt to brand me an atheist without actually knowing.

I find it amusing how a story with a naked man and woman must be about sex. There’s exegesis, and then there’s apologetics...

It's not that it must be, it's just that it is. There is no apologetics needed to discern that sex is a fundamental necessity and can be approached from two ways: in a shared will arrangement in which both are willing, and in an unshared will relationship wherein one forces the other. This establishes the dichotomy of good and evil wherein a man places more importance on the satiation of his lust than consideration for the well-being of the woman.

It is the people who are ashamed of the topic of sex that manufacture suffering for themselves and others.

Adam said his actions were caused by Eve’s actions, and Eve said her actions were caused by the serpent’s behaviour. All three were ‘punished’ in their own way. Why single out Adam’s culpability or scapegoating here? Oh, wait -

Adam was the one asked whether or not he ate from the tree. As you correctly pointed out, all three were punished. You see, a reader is supposed to use their own conscience and put themselves in the perspective of Adam. You ate from the tree. God is asking you if you ate from the tree. What is your response?

Adam could have taken responsibility and not brought the woman in and all, or he could have blamed the woman. What would have happened if he took responsibility?

See knowing good and evil is in the act of sex. That is what the story is about, but it is written in a way that is sensitive for immature audiences who can not handle the topic of sex because it involves evil. It involves men who "take the kingdom of heaven by force" and treat women as Adam did:

Seriously? In modern day? I realise that it may sound like you’re sympathetic to the woman’s position here, but trust me when I say you’re a long way off. Adam is not the only one here responsible for their decision/action.

Personally, I find it very difficult to liken this story to a rape situation - unless you portray the woman as an empty, passive receptacle being enacted on by all other characters. Is that really how you see women?

Pay attention:

unless you portray the woman as an empty, passive receptacle being enacted on by all other characters. Is that really how you see women?

This is exactly how the religion of Islam (ie. Muhammad) views women. If a woman is raped in Islam, it is her fault as the man blames her for what she was wearing, or how she was eating a banana etc. The men who blame/shame women for their own iniquity is what is evil - and they take the kingdom of heaven by force, because they can not get it any other way.

That is the power of "belief" - when you eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, you "believe" to know it, which requires "belief". "Belief" is the agency required by "satan" (ie. the agency of confusion) to confuse good and evil (ie. right and wrong), which comes thus by way of "belief".

It is for this reason that "beliefs" although they may appear pleasant to the sight and it is desirable to be wise with knowledge of good and evil, over time they *surely* manifest death. If/when a person "believes" something that is not true, and this is in an ongoing state, this is the same thing as "satan": expression of being bound in an ongoing state, which is what "believers" necessarily are. The alternative is knowing what *not* to "believe" and the rest is any other tree one desires. That is the point: creation (incl. sex) is boundless, and the only boundaries that enter are the ones Adam and Eve invite due to their own ignorance. This ignorance is "belief" in things that are not real and/or true, which would not otherwise exist if Adam/Eve were knowing of who/what/where/why/when and how *not* to "believe". The boundary is invited by themselves by their own ignorance.

You provide a broad brush caricature of Islamic religious belief. You compare Muhammad to Hitler. You say the "House of Islam is a house of mastery in deception." You say Islam is the "root of fascist-Nazism." You start making a broad statement about the fact that belief is not a virtue, but it quickly turns into a gripe against Islam. You are not just criticizing specific Islamic religious or social practices, you are condemning an entire religion. I stand behind my judgment that your post is anti-Islam.

To me, that is a statement of fact, not judgment or condemnation of the things you've written.

Let me go one by one, as it is obvious to me you take exception with my critical views of Islam.

You provide a broad brush caricature of Islamic religious belief.

Muslims self-identify as "believers". The point of the OP is to indicate that "belief" is the agency required to confuse good and evil, which is how we have "believers" "believing" that a book which evolved from Christian strophic hymns that were written in the language of Syriac is verbatim the perfect word of god. I'm sorry if the religion of Islam doesn't like being brushed broadly, but dividing the human race between "believers" and "unbelievers" is about as broad a stroke as one can make, and that division is made by the House of Islam - not me. The House of Islam should stop condemning humanity for what it itself is guilty of: broad brush against "unbelievers" on the basis of not "believing" something that is demonstrably not true.

You compare Muhammad to Hitler.

Both are male orator central figure dictator warlords who weaponized the state against their political adversaries and used the power of the state to commit genocide against Jews. If both didn't have so much in common, they would not be compared. I find much reason to suspect the House of Islam does not like the comparison because it sheds a negative light on Muhammad for being genocidal, but that is the reality. Muhammad was a genocidal warlord, and "belief" is the agency required to "believe" evil is good.

You say the "House of Islam is a house of mastery in deception.

It is: Allah is the greatest of all deceivers. It is in the Qur'an.

You say Islam is the "root of fascist-Nazism.

It is: it forcibly suppresses criticisms of itself and attempts to slander and smear critics as being "racist", "bigot", "Islamophobic" etc. which are actually states that describe the "believers". This is the problem with people who are perpetually in a state of enmity: they accuse others of what they are themselves ie. the accuser is the accused. This is the principle pathology of Islam: scapegoat the iniquities of Muhammad and/or the House of Islam onto whoever the adversary is. In this case, Muhammadans will blame fascist-Nazism on Jews and white people. This is because the House of Islam is itself racist, bigoted and Islamophobic as it has an irrational fear of criticisms of Islam.

You start making a broad statement about the fact that belief is not a virtue, but it quickly turns into a gripe against Islam.

Tell the House of Islam to:

i. Cry a river
ii. Build a bridge
iii. Get over it

I don't care about others' feelings when we are talking about reality vs. "belief". That Muhammad and Hitler both committed genocide against Jews is a reality, as uncomfortable as that may be to the House of Islam. It deserves no special protection from scrutiny, and if it "believes" it does based on a book that has them "believe" they are superior to everyone else, well there is the problem.

You are not just criticizing specific Islamic religious or social practices, you are condemning an entire religion.

I equally condemn all "belief"-based religions that hold "belief" to be a virtue. I condemn Islam because the central claim upon which Islam is constructed is false: no, the Qur'an is *not* the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of god contrary to what Muslims are lead to "believe". I know this assertion is false and understand Islam to be constructed upon a completely false assertion.

Also, if even granting there is an Abrahamic god, the shahada is a false testimony contrary to the ten commandments and Islam is most certainly a heresy to anything that can be considered Abrahamic.

I stand behind my judgment that your post is anti-Islam.

It is a good thing your judgment is not a moral authority - the House of Islam will hide behind accusations of others being "anti-Islam" when Islam is the 'state' making "belief"-based assertions that are wildly not true while persecuting people for scrutinizing them. I understand you are trying to smear me as someone who is "anti-Islam" but Islam is a problem, not a solution.

To me, that is a statement of fact, not judgment or condemnation of the things you've written.

To you is not actually what matters - what matters is what is true and untrue, and the assertions being made by the House of Islam are not true, and therefor deserves no special protection. Muhammad is most certainly not the greatest example for all of humanity - his "example" involves polygamy, pedophilia and genocide. This is just about as evil as it gets, and Islam requires "belief" which is the agency required to confuse good and evil.

That all mosques built up until ~730CE are facing Petra and not Mecca is a fact potent enough to undermine the entire historical basis of Islam itself. What is "believed" to have taken place in Mecca (which did not exist at the time of Muhammad) actually transpired in and around Petra. With a deception as big as this, it stands to reason why the House of Islam would have a phobia of criticisms of Islam, although at this point it is not a phobia. It is a rational fear.

This problem of "hate speech" is yet another problem of projection and scapegoating: people who themselves hate accuse others of hating.

If a person who worships lies (ie. "believes" something that is not true) hears a truth that undermines their "belief", they will hate the person speaking the truth and accuse them of hate speech because it is how they themselves feel: hatred.

The bigger problem is who is allowed to define what is "hate speech". Once people who hate facts that undermine their "beliefs" get power, you get something like Islam and/or Nazism.

It is coming back on the planet again because the problem never left. The problem is humanity failing to understanding where Nazism comes from and why.

I find the word 'Elohim' (translated "GOD") to be comprised of three components:

el - towardness
o - conduit
him - sea (as in: expanse)

which I find are the image (male: phallus who bestows) and likeness (female: ovum which receives) qualities that give rise to Adam and Eve made in the image and likeness of Elohim, and the conduit through which they operate and interact with one another, which fundamentally reduces into the reproductive organ. Thus "GOD" I would define as:

the activity of the reciprocation of bestowal and reception in perpetuity

and this is how knowledge of good and evil is attained.

Some, maybe. Certainly not all. Simple example; China claims Taiwan and the South China Sea on the basis of her historical empire. That has nothing to do with religion.

I meant to imply that historical claims (ie. "facts") can be manufactured or manipulated to suit a particular ideologically-driven worldview.

That is no different from what a person who reads religious scriptures would say.

It certainly can be: a person reading a religious scripture may be doing so to justify to themselves (or others) why the ideology they subscribe to permits the action of beating of women whom men fear disobedience of, for example. There is certainly a difference between advancing (justifying) such a model on the basis that one "believes" Muhammad is imparting a message from a god and reading it to understand what it is attempting to advance and have others "believe". There is a discernment present in the latter not present in the former because a "believer" has adopted Muhammad as a model for others to abide by. This brings up the problem of idol worship again which...

Many people were killed over criticism of Hitler. This just introduces another form of belief. Ideology.

...Islam is a "belief"-based ideology that similarly results in suffering/death due to criticisms of a male central figure. It is not different from fascist Nazism - it is the very seed of it.

Yes. My definition of believe says that belief is fact based and a believer in something will be able to give you the facts that led to his belief. If he cannot then all he has is faith.

I understand and it is the same - my only contention is that "belief" does not necessarily require facts, only assertions. If you replace 'fact' with 'assertion' in your definition, it would resemble mine. In this case, all a "believer" ever actually has is a state of not knowing (ie. ignorance).

I agree.

In fact, we are close on this topic, save the definitions of faith and belief.

I am esoteric ecumenist enough and use analogous thinking enough follow your thinking with that one caveat in the background.

We have no real argument here so allow me to pick your brain.

You will know that Gnostic Christians hold no supernatural beliefs. I wonder if you can explain something to me that I am not sure on.

Gospel of Thomas.
1. And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death."

2. Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]"

Can you explain # 1?

Can you explain this part of # 2?

"and will reign over all."

I have claim forcing my apotheosis and understand the rest.

I might not be the best person to ask as I have not read the Gospel of Thomas. It sounds like it is related to the negation of the effects of time, as I understand time as an agency that is always present which reveals whatever is true/untrue... over time. I also understand time as a circle (ie. 24-hour day, 365.25-day year, 25 920-year great year etc.) and because circles have area, time is spacial, hence space-time within which everything is embedded.

It seems to me in order for one to taste death, they need to continue eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil which allegedly causes death. Perhaps it has something to do with the principle of polarity as to how when and individual is themselves internally polarized, this is what produces the illusion of there being an external polarization acting on the internal, rather than the other way around. The rest part reminds me of Noah after he constructs the ark, but I understand that whole Noah ordeal as something very different to what others do. I understand Noah's ark as the general understanding (ie. construction) of the tree of life and how it is the "vessel" of life as one "rows their boat" through the stream of life, merrily or not, life is but a dream - but the "dream" of life is manifest and one experiences. Perhaps never tasting death means never fearing death? Perhaps reigning over all is to reign over all possible forms of suffering?

History is filled with people willing to spill blood over historical claims.

Yes it is true. It is also true that the historical claims suit a particular religious worldview.

In fact, I'd argue there is no difference between believing religious scripture and historical accounts.

I'd argue against this in good spirit.

When reading a history book, aren't we believing the words of the writer? And doesn't that writer believe events happened a certain way? So we are believing the beliefs of the writer! There's even a good chance that the writer of the book got his beliefs from someone else's beliefs.

I don't know about others, but I am most certainly not "believing" the words of the writer. I am reading them and understanding at least what they are attempting to advance as a viable model which explains what we see. As to the writer "believing" events happened a certain way, they may believe so, or they may be true witnesses and thus not "believe" but know and impart what they know. The "belief" element enters upon a person who reads it and decides whether or not to "believe" something and, if so, to what degree.

There is a good chance the problem of "believing" someone else's "beliefs" is exactly what the problem is on the planet - "belief" in what others who are now dead have said "believing" they were receiving messages from an angel that nobody else could hear or has heard from since, and hundreds of millions of people are dead with an "us vs. them" division still present.

The difference between "religious" belief and "historical" belief is nobody will spill blood over an assertion George Washington was a pedophile warlord because, even if true, nobody regards him as being the final prophet of a god and greatest example for all of humanity. In religious belief, "believers" will spill blood over an assertion that Muhammad was a pedophile warlord because they do regard him as such, and it satisfies two elements of his character attested to even in Islamic literature: he had a sexual relationship with a nine-year-old child and he was a military commander who committed genocide. The difference is exactly what my question purports:

Are they willing to spill blood over it?

If people started spilling blood over criticisms of Adolph Hitler, Adolph Hitler would be an idol that is worshiped by idol worshipers. In fact I would argue that this is already true, because the House of Islam regards Hitler as having done the greatest work a being can do: commit genocide against Jews. It is what Muhammad did. It takes a "believer" to "believe" this is just a coincidence and the two have absolutely nothing to do with one another. The association is not a coincidence - Islam is a fascist 'state' that manufactures genocide machines while attempting to scapegoat its own crimes on Jews. The key factor here is scapegoating: related to the original sin of Adam scapegoating his own iniquities onto Eve and evolved into Canaanite scapegoating of the sins of the tribe into/onto ceremonial sacrificial offerings.

I find that Adam tried to blame his own iniquity on the woman. He was asked a question by god regarding his own conduct, and he could have either taken responsibility for his own decision/action or scapegoated the problem onto the woman who handed him the fruit. He chose to scapegoat the problem onto the woman.

In modern day I see this as men who blame women for their inability to control themselves (ie. when a woman is raped it is her fault). The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is taken here as the sexual reproductive organ and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as sex.

I find the word 'Elohim' (translated "GOD") to be comprised of three components:

el - towardness
o - conduit
him - sea (as in: expanse)

which I find are the image (male: phallus who bestows) and likeness (female: ovum which receives) qualities that give rise to Adam and Eve made in the image and likeness of Elohim, and the conduit through which they operate and interact with one another, which fundamentally reduces into the reproductive organ. Thus "GOD" I would define as:

the activity of the reciprocation of bestowal and reception in perpetuity

As such I find the general sentiment of the "punishment" of Adam and Eve being "unjust" as fundamentally wrong with no offense intended. If a person, rather than taking responsibility for their own actions, scapegoats the blame/shame associated with the act onto another person, this is about the worst thing I find a person could possibly do, especially when the other person is the victim of the act itself. Blaming the victim of a crime for the crime having happened is terrible, and as in the case of Adam and Eve, it reveals how Adam degrades Eve which naturally upsets what would otherwise be the two of them in a garden "knowing" good and evil, which is what the Elohim do anyways. As such I find when two human beings are in a shared will relationship (ie. both share a common will) they can become "like" Elohim and know good and evil and become "like" gods. I find this to be a thing to live for: to live as gods.

When ones "negative" (ie. evil) is acted on, but the other takes it not as "negative" but as "positive" (ie. good) one who bestows negatively is being received positively by another. This is knowing good and evil, and knowledge of good and evil is learned here in this exchange.

There should be a punishment for people who abuse this practice: justifying things like rape on the basis that the woman dresses like a whore, or eats a banana the wrong way and looks like a whore doing it etc. this is the rot of the mind of depraved Men. Because man is the archetypal bestower, women are the archetypal receiver such that all transactions good and evil are bestowed by the man (either good or evil) to the woman. Thus evil men bestow in evil and take the kingdom of heaven by force (ie. rape) and good men are at least knowing this is evil.

Belief based on facts has merit. No?

If someone has reason to "believe" in something, I'd rather them forget the "belief" part and give me their reason instead. The reason is: "belief" can merely be a projection of what one *wants* to be true because it suits their own desired worldview, and they will creatively choose/adapt the "facts" to suit their projected/desired worldview. For example "god is love" might suit the worldview of a person who is themselves deprived of feeling love. Likewise, ones religion can be a religion of "peace" if they are themselves deprived of peace - and the pursuit of it reveals the opposite to be true, just as "belief" is not a virtue and required by satan to confuse.

This problem becomes most obvious in religion wherein a "fact" is not actually a fact, such as a book has never been altered and remains in its original form. This not-a-fact "fact" contributes to the degree to which one "believes" in the god/deity (really: 'state') that is built on a false "belief" based on a false assertion taken as 'true' but is actually false. This is the power of "belief": it can overtake what real "facts" are and people begin denying the reality. Denying reality in favor of a "belief" is madness.

It is the disease that is in Liberalism, and the same disease is found in (actually as) Islam: "belief" overtakes reality such that the reality is rejected and substituted with a "belief"-based one that adapts to ones own desire at that time. This is the same pathological nature of Muhammad adapting Allah to suit his own desire at that time, hence the contradictions in/of the Qur'an which Muslims vehemently "believe" do not exist, but do. The expression "liberalism is a mental illness" has an equal: "Islam is a mental illness" because both empower "belief" over reality. In the reality, the first victim of Islam is the "believing" Muslim who "believes" their suffering is coming from somewhere outside of Islam.

A'isha allegedly stated "I have never seen anyone suffer like the believing woman" and, if true, confirms to me beyond any reasonable doubt that she was much more intelligent than Muhammad was. 1400 years later and she is still right.

Do you consider there to be a difference between believing religious scripture and believing the text in a history book?

Yes there is, but it is subtle and difficult to talk about because there is an element of *personal attachment* involved that applies to some, but not all. For example some "believe" in scripture and/or the idols associated, and thus they have a personal emotional/psychological attachment to them. If they face something that undermines the practicality of these attachments, they may take it personally and endeavor to dismiss close consideration which does undermine it.

For the two examples you gave (wherein I'll take as (x) and (y) respectively) (x) may have accessory figures, such as male central figures often imbued with fantastical qualities acting under a god-inspired mission, which add a level of attachment that would not otherwise exist in the case of (y). In the case of (y), a person who is reading a history book may be doing so to scrutinize it for any/all inaccuracies, such as whether or not it is even a preserved text as claimed. Emotional/psychological attachments to figures related to the text(s) is essentially what distinguishes "history" from "religion" in that the latter adopts a political worldview as it relates to god (ie. either a "believer" or an "unbeliever" in whatever the 'state' holds as god's "truth") which is the political elements of Christianity and Islam. In both cases, both rely on male central figures which are touted as being a 'mercy upon mankind' and serve as a model man for the empire. The point of my argument is it is possible to "know" who/what/where/why/when/how *not* to "believe" which *is* a virtue because it eliminates there ever being a possibility to becoming 'bound to believe' something that is not true. For example:

The word "Satan" in its original Semitic form is written shin, tet, nun (final), the characteristics of which I understand respectively as expression of being (shin) bound (tet) in an ongoing state (nun final) rendering a rough English translation of "Satan" as:

"an expression of being bound in an ongoing state"

which is the natural 'state' of any "believer" who "believes" something that is not true. I understand, therefor, the "father" of the "house" to be the most principle "belief" and/or "object of faith" a being carries as their own "father". For some people, their "father" is a lie - they "believe" in things that are not real, which requires "belief" as opposed to "knowing" what not to "believe".

I find knowledge of good and evil and "knowing who/what/where/why/when/how *not* to believe" as the same "thing" that is not actually a thing, but more an equation:

understanding
(begets)
wisdom
(begets)
truth

or in the reverse: the truth of the way of life. Christians "believe" this is a man. This is the idol worship I am talking about, and whereas a Muhammadan might enjoy my saying of the Christians they worship a MAN, the Muhammadans do the same with their Muhammad calling him a mercy upon mankind like the Christians their Jesus. And it is two rivaling idols as their worshipers. Where is this "us" vs. "them" actually coming from, if god is supposedly "one"? I say stop worshiping books and idols, because that is what Christians and Muslims are doing without UNDERSTANDING what idol worship actually is.

I propose the 'idol worship test'. It is very easy, just one question does it:

Are they willing to spill blood over it?

If yes: they are worshiping it.
If no: they are not worshiping it.

Understanding fear is superior to suffering it - this is precisely the grounds upon which I understood that the Judaic expression "fear of god is the beginning of wisdom" is confused. Understanding fear is the beginning of wisdom, as it is with all things, including peace.

It wouldn't make sense if there were not people who "believed" that "belief" *is* a virtue, but they do. Religious institutions indoctrinate people into "believing" that, no matter what, this is a test of ones faith (which requires "belief"). You are ultimately correct: it is absolutely neutral like breathing in reality.

I take gnostic as 'knowing' thus 'a gnostic agnostic' means "what I know, I know, what I do not know, I do not know" and for me the rest is "belief" which has no virtue in it at all.



Yes, all "beliefs" should be scrutinized to no end. If you attempt to scrutinize certain "belief" systems involving books and male central figures, people who worship these things start becoming filled with enmity and desire to spill blood, which is precisely what distinguishes Kain from Abel. It takes "belief" to "believe" ones prophet/god is insulted by utterances of their true nature. In reality, the one who worships is insulted, hence the enmity and desire to spill blood. Asia Bibi is a good example of this: men who desire to spill the blood of a woman for "insulting" their male central figure idol.

I appreciate your response.



Thank you for your response - I do not take things personally anymore, as I find this would be ones own personal fault before any further considerations be made about anything perceived on the outside of (a) being. I still question whether or not one is truly a separate "I" or if one merely "believes" to be distinct from the whole. The "belief" element affects everything, but subtly - this is why I find the Biblical serpent to be just that: "belief". What is one willing to "believe"?



Regarding "belief" - I do not distinguish "belief" in any way, it is one thing to me, religious or otherwise. The statements "I believe..." and "I do not know..." are technically equivalent, because if one "believes" something, they do not actually know what the "believe" is true... they just "believe" it is. That is the reason for the distinction between "I believe..." and "I know..." as they are a dichotomy only if/when the "I know..." is actually a known, and not "believed" to be known and confused. This is why I tied "belief" to confusion and find that confused people are "believers" of something that is not true.

I am not good with logic, but I know many others here may be, so something like:

If:
i. satan requires "belief" in order to confuse "believers" into "believing" that "belief" is a virtue, and if
ii. satan requires "belief" in order to confuse "believers" into "believing" that Satan is God,
Then it necessarily follows that:
iii. "belief" is not a virtue over knowing what not to "believe".

This defeats "belief"-based states that require "belief" in something as opposed to "knowing" it.

"Your posts have a lot of anti-Islamic content, e.g. comparing Muhammad to Hitler. Are the other monotheistic religions different? Do your feelings come from personal experience with Islam. Calling yourself "Gnostic Agnositc" gave me the impression that you come from Christianity."

What do you mean by "anti-Islamic" content? I don't understand this - Islam, as a "belief"-based state has every right to be criticized as any. That it shields itself from criticisms behind labeling others as "anti-Islamic" or "Islamophobic" is a part of the fascist nature of "belief"-based states such as Islam.

To answer your question: yes, Islam is different from other monotheistic religions. It claims to be in possession of the "final" revelation and Muhammad is the "final" messenger whose conduct is exemplary for all of humanity. This makes it different from all others - it imposes itself as the final/only "solution" to humanity just as Adolph Hitler attempted to do: male central figure fascist dictator warlord who weaponizes the states against his political adversaries and constructs a genocide machine against Jews/unbelievers. Both Hitler and Muhammad did this - the House of Islam cowers from the association because there is a relationship between Islam and Nazism that results in the same: socialism, fascism and genocide. This happens to be an ongoing problem, so Islam will not be enjoying any special treatment given it, like "belief", is a problem, and not a solution.



Thank you - the object of the "belief" doesn't matter to me, I know it does to others because they probably wish to protect their "beliefs", but I see all "belief" held as virtue to be problematic.

"Believers" persecute "unbelievers" for not "believing" things that are not true. This is fascism - forcing a "belief"-based state on an "unbelieving" populace that does not wish it requires force.

I don't mean to take the wind out of your sails and respect your trying to rigorously think this through. However you may be overthinking it.

Using the reasoning you provided for a lack of belief you said, is a desire to know. The desire to know is a sense of wonder.

I did not provide reasoning for a "lack of belief" anywhere - that "belief" is not a virtue does not mean lack of a belief. I understand "belief" has a utility, but the point is it is not a virtue. That "belief" itself is "believed" to be a virtue is a problem. One can have a belief, but when it is made into a virtue it becomes problematic as there is a state superior to "believing", which is "knowing". This includes knowing what not to believe, which requires conscience (ie. self-inquiry).

You are smart enough to know that indeed this is a rant, but I would suggest another question, what is behind your rant?

I don't understand the question - can you be more specific? Also the rhetoric isn't serving any purpose - trying to make another seem unintelligent reveals the opposite to be true.

Hello.

what carries one to move the hypothesis (or any human idea) forward? A Belief of some sort?

No - it can be just the opposite, a rejection of "belief" replaced with a desire to "know" no matter what the truth happens to be. For example, a "belief" can either stagnate and become "protected" as in the case of religion, or it can be challenged and replaced with another "belief" or "known" which is more reasonably sound. Subjecting "belief" to what is "known" seems to me to be imperative when it comes to evolution and certainly addresses the wonder problem:

What is wonder? Why do we have it?

Perhaps to evolve beyond what we presently are? How does one evolve if/when "belief" is the very thing that is binding?

Here's an Existential question: what if we didn't have belief and wonder? What would that look like?

That "belief" is not a virtue should not mean it should be abandoned. It means it is not a virtue - that no person is made virtuous by a "belief" they hold. Right now, as has been going on for thousands of years, people are judged based on whether or not they hold a certain "belief". In reality, "belief" is not a virtue and those who "believe" something and judge others for not "believing" in the same thing are not virtuous for doing so. However, "belief"-based religious institutions would have people "believe" that "belief" is a virtue and those who do not "believe" are inferior. The point is: "belief"-based religious institutions are the root of socialist fascism because they empower "belief" over knowing who/what/where/why/when/how *not* to "believe".