Rant on "Belief"
Is "belief" a virtue? Please feel free to share your views on "belief".
I find "belief" to be the agency required by what is referred to as "satan" to confuse people into "believing" such: whatever "good" actually is, is really evil, and whatever "evil" is, is actually good - like an inversion. I find "belief" therefor to be like chains that enslave people to something that is not actually real and, as it happens, the reality is actually the opposite. How potent can a god be if it requires "belief"? Is it not the goal of "satan" to make people "believe" that satan is god? In what possible scenario would "belief" be a virtue if so? To indulge in the very thing satan needs to confuse? This is why I do not grant for a moment that "belief" is any kind of virtue.
There is an alternative to "belief". It is to "know". This is a kind of knowledge; likened to the same as knowledge of good and evil: knowing who/what/where/why/when/how and if *not* to "believe". This kind of knowledge would protect a being from ever becoming 'bound to believe' something that is actually not true. "Belief" is thus the agency required for this, as it is for any person to become confused regarding what is right and what is wrong - to "believe" one did the right thing instead of the wrong thing, and to "believe" one is working for a "greater good". This is ignorance: a product of a false "belief", like a fruit that merely looks ripe and good for indulging, but in reality it is deadly over time. Ifind this to be the Edenic mystery: "beliefs" can appear as a ripe fruit that demand indulgence, but their real substance is the manifestation of death over time. This is a false "belief".
Can one imagine what it would be like for a "believer" to "believe" that "belief" is the highest virtue one can have, only to learn in the end that their "belief" was/is actually not true? This is the reality for many: people irrationally fear the unreality of their "belief" as they would otherwise be free in knowing what no longer to "believe" and why. It is a kind of madness that can be seen clearly in Judaism, Christianity and Islam - that fear of god is the beginning of wisdom, one must be bound to "believe" in something; a so-called mercy upon mankind idol such as Jesus or Muhammad. From the eyes of the author, this presently is the putrid patriarchal state eroded into from the simple and pure Edenic one: one man and one woman sharing a garden being given leave to eat from any tree they so desired... except for one tree that "surely" causes death.
I find this tree of knowledge of good and evil to just as surely be "belief" itself and people who indulge in this practice of "belief" are not a part of the solution at all, but rather the problem itself. The problem is "belief" itself, and these "beliefs" happen to be the very idols that people protect and spill blood over if challenged to a degree they deem uncomfortable (ie. "blasphemous"). Secretly, though humanity doesn't seem able to comprehend this generally, this so-called "blasphemy" is actually the seed-root of socialist-fascism: the idea that certain "beliefs" are not to be challenged. This invariably leads to the erection of male central figure dictator military commanders who use the entire power of a state to commit genocide as a "final solution". The strikingly resemblance between Muhammad and Hitler here is something even the late Dr. Carl J. Jung picked up on. It is true that Judeo-inspired Islam is the root of fascist-Nazism and should be obvious enough through the deeply embedded antisemitic and military intolerance of "unbelievers" in Islam. The goal of the believers, therefor, is to make "believers" "believe" that "belief" is a solution to something, rather than the problem itself. And this is just what "belief" is: a problem, not a solution, and is rooted in the "belief" that a book is perfect and can not be surpassed, a religious figure is exemplary and can not be surpassed, and a "belief"-based ideology is perfect can not be surpassed. This is totalitarian, which is promptly scapegoated onto "unbelievers" and bought up by the "believers" who dwell in hatred and "us vs. them" mind-traps that keep them subdued in conflict "believing" they are on the side "against evil". In the case of the Edenic mystery, and the global conflict, the solution of good and evil is in knowing the problem itself: it is belief.
The Middle-Eastern war is, has been, and always will be rooted in this:
"believers" vs. "unbelievers"
and the former persecutes the latter - not the other way around as the "believers" would have people "believe". There is a lot of other-way-aroundness when it comes to considerations of good and evil, as prolonged "belief" in something untrue ultimately lands as an inverse, such as people "believing" war is a means to peace. People who rely on "belief" almost invariably are drawn to sin - dwelling in emotions which prevents reason, rationale, and the conscience from managing what should otherwise be a simple understanding of something that challenges a deeply held "belief". This sin is in (and of) fear, guilt, hatred, anger, resentment, envy, "us vs. them" and religiously becoming "offended" and/or "outraged" and is precisely how "believers" are controlled by the religious Patriarchal Man-Idol States: controlling people through emotional/psychological attachments to religious idols which would not exist if not for the idol worship itself (ie. "belief" in these as authorities) in the first place. Because Islam is comprised of "believers" it is too-fitting to use Islam as an example for what idol worship really is. There is such a reverence for Muhammad in Islam that some extreme Muhammadans will openly spill blood over any mockery of the man - if even done to illustrate his inadequacy as a model for the living (being dead) and having been polygamous while alive, upsetting any possibility of "peace" through a simple balancing of the genders which correctly reflects nature (ie. 1:1 instead of 1:4 or 1:9). This is precisely what reveals the idol worship of Islam: that "believers" will spill blood over this dead man and imitate his polygamous life as it suits their own, just as Muhammad's Allah invariably suited his own (ie. his lower organ) while he cut down his political adversaries.
Eve giving the fruit to Adam reflects the lower organ commanding the higher organ wherein the brain only works to satiate lustful endeavors. This is, in reality, what Muhammad(ans) and his Islam is a product of - patriarchal and self-serving while reducing women into a commodity/accessory: slaves to the wills of their husbands as they fight their jihad. The original sin of Adam blaming Eve "it is this woman whom thou hast given me" for his own iniquity is contained in the wearing of the hijab/niqab by the Muslim women: wearing the iniquity of the men as they are blamed, by the men, for men sexually objectifying and abusing them. The sexualization of children (instigated by Muhammad's relationship with a nine-year-old A'isha) is permanently embedded in Islam just as it is permanently embedded in the life of Muhammad, thus ever-serving as a global precedent for pedophilia on the planet, a behavior the House of Islam would endeavor to any length to confuse "believers" into "believing" pedophilia is somehow *not* an Islamic problem. One can know it is - it takes "belief" to "believe" it is not, and this is how "belief" suits those who make it to be whatever serves themselves.
Unfortunately, the House of Islam is a house of mastery in deception: turning "believers" into people who "believe" the problems of the world are due to Jews, Christians, Atheists, "unbelievers", "infidels" and perpetually scapegoating the problems that plague Islam onto anything that is not Islam to keep attention off itself. It does this militarily by suppressing criticisms of itself and branding critics as "racists", "bigots", (usually "white") supremacists (demanding that people acknowledge such a thing exists, which I find it does not), and even "Islamophobes" (a term that better describes themselves for irrationally fearing criticisms of Islam, the Qur'an and Muhammad). In reality, the Jew is the scapegoat for the Muhammadan, and the House of Islam will scapegoat the iniquities of its own House onto Jews and other "unbeliever" adversaries to take attention off of itself. This projection really defines Islam: accuse the adversary of what one is guilty of, and this is the mark of the beast that I see in people who try to blame others for what they themselves are guilty of. The accuser is the accused. This rather Canaanite mark of scapegoating and projection is deeply embedded in the Middle-Eastern religions that culminate into the monstrosity that is Islam, which includes Christianity itself in the scapegoating of the sins of all of mankind onto a single man, and includes Judaism with the notion that fear of god is the beginning of wisdom. Fear of god is not the beginning of wisdom - it is the beginning of madness. Understanding fear is the beginning of wisdom. Is it better to suffer fear, or understand it? It is the opposite of what people "believe" it is just as much as Islam is the opposite of what real "peace" is: it is upside-down and backwards because this seems to be the nature of excessive "belief": inversion.
In my view the agency of "belief" is what inverts perception such that people will "believe" over time that what is evil is somehow good and/or justified, often by a god. "Believers" use books and idols to justify what would otherwise be depraved behavior, and as long as they do not (have to) feel guilty, they will indulge and "believe" whatever suits their own ends, such as others can be "sacrificed" to "pay" for the "sins" of the tribe. This is Canaanite, and this seems to me to be the common characteristic of the Middle-Eastern religions of Judaism/Christianity/Islam which is dragging all of humanity into a "belief"-based war.
I should hope humanity chooses to demote "belief" as a viable 'state' and replace it with a model (preferably not a book or a man) that promotes the pursuit of truth itself as the highest authority, rather than any "authority" acting as the truth. This inversion of "belief"-based authority over pursuit of truth seems to define the dark ages - we need less "belief" and more "knowing" what not to believe.
I find "believe is not a virtue, as one can "know", via conscience, who, what, where, why, when, how and if *not* to "believe", and this is necessarily superior to "belief".
I find "belief" to be the agency required by what is referred to as "satan" to confuse people into "believing" such: whatever "good" actually is, is really evil, and whatever "evil" is, is actually good - like an inversion. I find "belief" therefor to be like chains that enslave people to something that is not actually real and, as it happens, the reality is actually the opposite. How potent can a god be if it requires "belief"? Is it not the goal of "satan" to make people "believe" that satan is god? In what possible scenario would "belief" be a virtue if so? To indulge in the very thing satan needs to confuse? This is why I do not grant for a moment that "belief" is any kind of virtue.
There is an alternative to "belief". It is to "know". This is a kind of knowledge; likened to the same as knowledge of good and evil: knowing who/what/where/why/when/how and if *not* to "believe". This kind of knowledge would protect a being from ever becoming 'bound to believe' something that is actually not true. "Belief" is thus the agency required for this, as it is for any person to become confused regarding what is right and what is wrong - to "believe" one did the right thing instead of the wrong thing, and to "believe" one is working for a "greater good". This is ignorance: a product of a false "belief", like a fruit that merely looks ripe and good for indulging, but in reality it is deadly over time. Ifind this to be the Edenic mystery: "beliefs" can appear as a ripe fruit that demand indulgence, but their real substance is the manifestation of death over time. This is a false "belief".
Can one imagine what it would be like for a "believer" to "believe" that "belief" is the highest virtue one can have, only to learn in the end that their "belief" was/is actually not true? This is the reality for many: people irrationally fear the unreality of their "belief" as they would otherwise be free in knowing what no longer to "believe" and why. It is a kind of madness that can be seen clearly in Judaism, Christianity and Islam - that fear of god is the beginning of wisdom, one must be bound to "believe" in something; a so-called mercy upon mankind idol such as Jesus or Muhammad. From the eyes of the author, this presently is the putrid patriarchal state eroded into from the simple and pure Edenic one: one man and one woman sharing a garden being given leave to eat from any tree they so desired... except for one tree that "surely" causes death.
I find this tree of knowledge of good and evil to just as surely be "belief" itself and people who indulge in this practice of "belief" are not a part of the solution at all, but rather the problem itself. The problem is "belief" itself, and these "beliefs" happen to be the very idols that people protect and spill blood over if challenged to a degree they deem uncomfortable (ie. "blasphemous"). Secretly, though humanity doesn't seem able to comprehend this generally, this so-called "blasphemy" is actually the seed-root of socialist-fascism: the idea that certain "beliefs" are not to be challenged. This invariably leads to the erection of male central figure dictator military commanders who use the entire power of a state to commit genocide as a "final solution". The strikingly resemblance between Muhammad and Hitler here is something even the late Dr. Carl J. Jung picked up on. It is true that Judeo-inspired Islam is the root of fascist-Nazism and should be obvious enough through the deeply embedded antisemitic and military intolerance of "unbelievers" in Islam. The goal of the believers, therefor, is to make "believers" "believe" that "belief" is a solution to something, rather than the problem itself. And this is just what "belief" is: a problem, not a solution, and is rooted in the "belief" that a book is perfect and can not be surpassed, a religious figure is exemplary and can not be surpassed, and a "belief"-based ideology is perfect can not be surpassed. This is totalitarian, which is promptly scapegoated onto "unbelievers" and bought up by the "believers" who dwell in hatred and "us vs. them" mind-traps that keep them subdued in conflict "believing" they are on the side "against evil". In the case of the Edenic mystery, and the global conflict, the solution of good and evil is in knowing the problem itself: it is belief.
The Middle-Eastern war is, has been, and always will be rooted in this:
"believers" vs. "unbelievers"
and the former persecutes the latter - not the other way around as the "believers" would have people "believe". There is a lot of other-way-aroundness when it comes to considerations of good and evil, as prolonged "belief" in something untrue ultimately lands as an inverse, such as people "believing" war is a means to peace. People who rely on "belief" almost invariably are drawn to sin - dwelling in emotions which prevents reason, rationale, and the conscience from managing what should otherwise be a simple understanding of something that challenges a deeply held "belief". This sin is in (and of) fear, guilt, hatred, anger, resentment, envy, "us vs. them" and religiously becoming "offended" and/or "outraged" and is precisely how "believers" are controlled by the religious Patriarchal Man-Idol States: controlling people through emotional/psychological attachments to religious idols which would not exist if not for the idol worship itself (ie. "belief" in these as authorities) in the first place. Because Islam is comprised of "believers" it is too-fitting to use Islam as an example for what idol worship really is. There is such a reverence for Muhammad in Islam that some extreme Muhammadans will openly spill blood over any mockery of the man - if even done to illustrate his inadequacy as a model for the living (being dead) and having been polygamous while alive, upsetting any possibility of "peace" through a simple balancing of the genders which correctly reflects nature (ie. 1:1 instead of 1:4 or 1:9). This is precisely what reveals the idol worship of Islam: that "believers" will spill blood over this dead man and imitate his polygamous life as it suits their own, just as Muhammad's Allah invariably suited his own (ie. his lower organ) while he cut down his political adversaries.
Eve giving the fruit to Adam reflects the lower organ commanding the higher organ wherein the brain only works to satiate lustful endeavors. This is, in reality, what Muhammad(ans) and his Islam is a product of - patriarchal and self-serving while reducing women into a commodity/accessory: slaves to the wills of their husbands as they fight their jihad. The original sin of Adam blaming Eve "it is this woman whom thou hast given me" for his own iniquity is contained in the wearing of the hijab/niqab by the Muslim women: wearing the iniquity of the men as they are blamed, by the men, for men sexually objectifying and abusing them. The sexualization of children (instigated by Muhammad's relationship with a nine-year-old A'isha) is permanently embedded in Islam just as it is permanently embedded in the life of Muhammad, thus ever-serving as a global precedent for pedophilia on the planet, a behavior the House of Islam would endeavor to any length to confuse "believers" into "believing" pedophilia is somehow *not* an Islamic problem. One can know it is - it takes "belief" to "believe" it is not, and this is how "belief" suits those who make it to be whatever serves themselves.
Unfortunately, the House of Islam is a house of mastery in deception: turning "believers" into people who "believe" the problems of the world are due to Jews, Christians, Atheists, "unbelievers", "infidels" and perpetually scapegoating the problems that plague Islam onto anything that is not Islam to keep attention off itself. It does this militarily by suppressing criticisms of itself and branding critics as "racists", "bigots", (usually "white") supremacists (demanding that people acknowledge such a thing exists, which I find it does not), and even "Islamophobes" (a term that better describes themselves for irrationally fearing criticisms of Islam, the Qur'an and Muhammad). In reality, the Jew is the scapegoat for the Muhammadan, and the House of Islam will scapegoat the iniquities of its own House onto Jews and other "unbeliever" adversaries to take attention off of itself. This projection really defines Islam: accuse the adversary of what one is guilty of, and this is the mark of the beast that I see in people who try to blame others for what they themselves are guilty of. The accuser is the accused. This rather Canaanite mark of scapegoating and projection is deeply embedded in the Middle-Eastern religions that culminate into the monstrosity that is Islam, which includes Christianity itself in the scapegoating of the sins of all of mankind onto a single man, and includes Judaism with the notion that fear of god is the beginning of wisdom. Fear of god is not the beginning of wisdom - it is the beginning of madness. Understanding fear is the beginning of wisdom. Is it better to suffer fear, or understand it? It is the opposite of what people "believe" it is just as much as Islam is the opposite of what real "peace" is: it is upside-down and backwards because this seems to be the nature of excessive "belief": inversion.
In my view the agency of "belief" is what inverts perception such that people will "believe" over time that what is evil is somehow good and/or justified, often by a god. "Believers" use books and idols to justify what would otherwise be depraved behavior, and as long as they do not (have to) feel guilty, they will indulge and "believe" whatever suits their own ends, such as others can be "sacrificed" to "pay" for the "sins" of the tribe. This is Canaanite, and this seems to me to be the common characteristic of the Middle-Eastern religions of Judaism/Christianity/Islam which is dragging all of humanity into a "belief"-based war.
I should hope humanity chooses to demote "belief" as a viable 'state' and replace it with a model (preferably not a book or a man) that promotes the pursuit of truth itself as the highest authority, rather than any "authority" acting as the truth. This inversion of "belief"-based authority over pursuit of truth seems to define the dark ages - we need less "belief" and more "knowing" what not to believe.
I find "believe is not a virtue, as one can "know", via conscience, who, what, where, why, when, how and if *not* to "believe", and this is necessarily superior to "belief".
Comments (98)
Hello fellow philosopher!
Your concern, to me, has a real simple answer. Most sciences require inductive reasoning to discover things. Intrinsic to that mental process, is a component of belief. Or in its absence a sense of wonder.
Otherwise ask yourself, what carries one to move the hypothesis (or any human idea) forward? A Belief of some sort?
To argue against that, the only thing you're left with is a sense of wonder. What is wonder? Why do we have it?
Here's an Existential question: what if we didn't have belief and wonder? What would that look like?
Now, shall you be patient to believe, or be ardent to cast lots?
Hello.
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:
Perhaps to evolve beyond what we presently are? How does one evolve if/when "belief" is the very thing that is binding?
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".
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.
You are smart enough to know that indeed this is a rant, but I would suggest another question, what is behind your rant?
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).
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.
I voted yes because of how I define belief as compared to faith.
Faith is more or less a hope, not a belief without evidence or proofs.
One believes something based on something. If the belief is based on faith it becomes garbage.
If one believes based on observed evidence, then I see no problem with that.
That switches the conversation to what is being observed, as compared to what is just assumed by faith without facts.
Facts lead to belief, not faith.
Faith closes the mind. It is pure idol worship.
Faith is a way to quit using, "God given" power of Reason and Logic, and cause the faithful to embrace doctrines that moral people reject.
The God of the OT says, “Come now, and let us reason together,” [Isaiah 1:18]
How can literalists reason on God when they must ignore reason and logic and discard them when turning into literalist?
Those who are literalists can only reply somewhat in the fashion that Martin Luther did.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”
This attitude effectively kills all worthy communication that non-theists can have with theist. Faith closes the believers mind as it is pure idol worship.
Literalism is an evil practice that hides the true messages of myths. We cannot show our faith based friends that they are wrong through their faith colored glasses. Their faith also plugs their ears.
Regards
DL
I apologize and understand however it's called tough love.
Post-modernism/existentialism in part for illustration purposes was a result of the realization that certain philosophy before it became too extraneous, superfluous and redundant. Ironically enough the birth of existentialism primarily came from The Book of Ecclesiastes.
Anyway, the missing piece here is the element of faith. Think of it in a secular way. Faith in one's belief to carry a scientific idea forward or faith in carrying the sense of wonder or will to know forward to me is all the same. I don't understand the need to parse it.
Sure the psychological concern of superiority I would share with you. But don't let that manipulate yourself. It's all about the Psychology of Being. And that's a title of a book by the way...lol.
. .
My intention is not to disparage you. I just caution about overthinking something. So if you take inductive reasoning out of that explaination I gave earlier, you're left with the human sentient element of motivations people have to puff themselves up. So don't take the fact that some knuckleheads out there consider themselves Superior personally, just because they have a different belief system or some pathology they're unaware of.
So yeah you're right, in that context, it would not be a virtuous thing. Ethically they would be using it incorrectly
I don't know what to think of your ideas, but the OP is very well written and pretty clear, given the complexity of your ideas.
Quoting A Gnostic Agnostic
Until you wrote this, I didn't get that you are making a distinction between belief and the virtue of belief. You also make a distinction between belief and knowledge that I don't agree with in this context.
Quoting A Gnostic Agnostic
I think this is what lead me astray. Are you only talking about religious belief? On the forum, we talk a lot about beliefs of all kinds and how they relate to knowledge.
Quoting 3017amen
I don't want to put words in @3017amenn's mouth. I'm not sure he is talking about the same thing I am, but I had the same thought. 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.
In these sorts of discussions it is usually assumed that the belief that is being questioned must be connected with some form of religion. What tends to be overlooked is the fact that most of the things we consider we know, are actually beliefs as well.
if we are to take a critical stance towards religious beliefs, why not all beliefs?
If so, I would imagine our friend would label himself a Gnostic Christian.
Remember that one can be Gnostic to any religion. There are even Gnostic Muslims.
Gnostic, more or less, just says that one is a free thinker and esoteric ecumenist and likely a naturalist.
Regards
DL
This.
Regards
DL
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 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.
Sure I think the answer to that question is that people have all sorts of intrinsic fears.
From time to time I study my own fears and what motivates me to do certain things as a result of same. Self-awareness is critical there... it's a dynamic not static journey .
On the plus side I take negative behavior and turn it around and use it as a teaching moment of how not to be... So it's reverse inspiration!!!
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.
Belief is not a virtue, but a necessity. There are so many things we cannot know (objectively), but feel we need to know, that we guess, and we guess our guesses are correct: we believe. Those unaware (or frightened) of our ignorance may shy away from 'belief', but in the real world it is a universal part of everyday life.
Quoting A Gnostic Agnostic
Yes! :smile: And it's as necessary as breathing too! :up:
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.
Sure! Maslow embraced Eastern thought in his Christianity. Meaning the yin and yang of fear and wisdom!!
Ha, I know I love to talk about religion! As the late George Harrison once said: everything else can wait but the search for God cannot wait.
Hmm.
Gnostic is the root word of agnostic so I just read gnostic agnostic as basically two words that mean the same thing. Agnostic is the starting point that leads to Gnosis IMO.
Agnostics will seek god till/when they find god and when they do, they will then graduate their label to Gnostic. We remain perpetual seekers but are on Jacobs ladder where the term agnostic does not really fit as we have decided to seek god. God defined as the best rules and laws we can follow to live a good life with.
God is not important. Only his teaching are. Give this a quick listen. It is enlightening IMO.
https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2
Belief based on facts has merit. No?
Quoting A Gnostic Agnostic
It is well known that Christianity and Islam are fascists given their inquisitions and jihads.
Regards
DL
I think this refers more to faith than belief as faith has no facts whereas I define belief as based on facts.
Other than that glitch, I think we are close in thinking.
Regards
DL
Indeed.This Gnostic Christians says ----
I keep a bible in the house even though I think this quote quite correct.
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
? Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
Then again, I am a Gnostic Christian and know how to read the filth in it.
Said of Gnostic Christian versus Christian bible reading practices.
“Both read the Bible day and night; but you read black where I read white.”
William Blake.
I would take this further and advise you to read any scriptures from as many POV as is within you. Question everything including yourself.
The bible, if read as a book of wisdom, does have much wisdom though.
You just have to read it the way Gnostics do and revers a lot of the Christian morals.
Christians call evil good while Gnostic Christians call evil, evil.
I E. Gnostic Christians think that bible God, the demiurge to us, is quite immoral for thinking that torturing King David's baby for 6 days before finally killing it is good justice. Gnostic Christians think that evil while Christians think that a good form of justice.
Which group do you think is right?
Regards
DL
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:
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.
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.
Quoting A Gnostic Agnostic
History is filled with people willing to spill blood over historical claims.
In fact, I'd argue there is no difference between believing religious scripture and historical accounts.
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.
It seems that if we choose to be critical about beliefs, that has a lot of implications about the things we think we know.
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.
Quoting A Gnostic Agnostic
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.
Regards
DL
I do not think the two have equality the way you seem to wish.
No history book offers supernatural and unlikely creatures like talking serpents and donkeys.
Historians stay in the real world while the religious hide behind a supernatural shield.
A historian will argue his points with facts while the religious argue their points without facts.
Religions also praise and adore a genocidal character while historians tend to think such characters are moral monsters.
I agree with the historians and not those of such poor morals that idol worship a genocidal god.
Regards
DL
Yes it is true. It is also true that the historical claims suit a particular religious worldview.
I'd argue against this in good spirit.
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:
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 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 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?
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.
Quoting A Gnostic Agnostic
That is no different from what a person who reads religious scriptures would say.
Quoting A Gnostic Agnostic
Many people were killed over criticism of Hitler. This just introduces another form of belief. Ideology.
Quoting Gnostic Christian BishopWell, some do, though even those only to a certain degree. Quoting Gnostic Christian BishopA historian will posit certain things, their evidence may or may not be good and their facts may or may not be facts. And religious people have written history books and many religious people use facts in their arguments and descriptions.Quoting Gnostic Christian BishopMonsters are often heroes in histories. There have been some trends in the West to challenge monsters, but the history of history is plagued by the sanctification of monsters.Quoting Gnostic Christian BishopHistorians don't agree with each other so this may be hard to do. Howard Zinn or Thomas E. Woods. You'll have a very hard time agreeing with both of them on a host of issues.
Historians do tend to use different methods than religious people, when the texts in question are history books and scripture.
But then that makes sense, since they have quite different purposes, with some overlap.
I meant to imply that historical claims (ie. "facts") can be manufactured or manipulated to suit a particular ideologically-driven worldview.
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...
...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.
Yet, many history books contain inaccuracies, politicized sentiments or even indoctrination. History is written by the victor; a common axiom. Thus there is just as well a chance you're reading fairy tales while reading a history book.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
Historians stay in the past. An important distinction. Unverifiable, and in that sense imaginary. Even the most well intentioned historian or archaeologist could be completely wrong in their conclusions about the past, not to mention those with an agenda.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
Not necessarily true. Historians, different from archaeologists, tend to base their theories on secondary sources. Written accounts and texts. Are those facts? I think not.
My point is that whether one reads a religious text or a historical text, one is believing written words. What people then do with those newly found beliefs is a different matter.
Thanks for correcting my misunderstanding.
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.
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.
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.
It is: Allah is the greatest of all deceivers. It is in the Qur'an.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
I've had my say. You've had yours. I'm comfortable leaving it at that. I'll leave it up to other posters to say more if they think it's needed.
I always imagined a newspaper headline of 'Obama takes out Osama!'.
Abbottabad
(About a Bad)
The specter fled to Abottabad,
Having done a whole lotta bad,
His courier’s bin laden with what OBL had,
It being their way or no way—how sad.
No phone, internet, or even any trash
Was the giveaway to what the mansion hath,
And even in the nearby counter-terrorism’s path,
The Jihad of Evil courting the goodly wrath.
SEALs swept into the heart of the storm
Coptering into the hilltop’s guarding swarm,
In a foreign land, the tempest ID’d by the CIA,
And so the leader and his men live no more today.
A shot to the head and he was dead,
And to evil the end, as to all in his stead,
Whether clerics or just plain terror led.
The backup Chinook replaced the fallen stealth,
Perhaps too new of a aircraft to sustain its health.
Osama rules nothing now, as he’s not to be,
Rotting at the bottom of the Arabian sea.
'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.
:up:
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.
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.
So, what is your point then? If rationality is permissible as a means to belief then all so-derived objects should be acceptable; this is implied by the logical nature of your OP.
Do you have an issue with particular types of beliefs? Religion appears to be in your bad books. Even some political ideology make an appearance in your rant. Could it be that the problem isn't belief per se but some varieties of belief with particular emphasis on the mode (irrationally) of arriving at such beliefs? I don't know. Please clarify.
That said, I sympathize with your position. A simple, probably false, reason is that truths, the essence of rational beliefs, are morally neutral or morally indifferent. Truth doesn't imply good but of course the converse is true. So having a true belief doesn't have to benefit the moral fabric of society and, in fact, may be harmful. Are you making moral claims here? Is your rant a moral criticism of beliefs?
This I read with childish wonder. I mean it makes sense within the context of beliefs being a source of the world's problems and Satan is the personification of problems. You mean to say that the true God did nothing what the Bible, Quran or the Torah says but that, in reality, these are the works of the Devil intended to generate, sustain and perpetuate the world's sorrows and that belief is the means of achieving this. Could I have more on that? 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:
"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".
Am I right if I say the above statement summarizes your thoughts?
If yes then I should have read your post more carefully. It makes sense when you contrast belief with what NOT to believe. I guess I needed that explanation from you.
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?
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 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.
Food for thought. Thanks.
Regards
DL
True, but those writings will always be disputed by other historians.
Quoting Coben
I agree. Historians look for accuracy in their usually peer reviewed writings, while the religious just want to justify their mostly immoral thinking and unethical actions.
Regards
DL
This.
Though I would say faith based, but again, no argument.
Regards
DL
This is why approaching any text, we are to try to not be for or against when beginning reading.
That is also why reality, as some say, is a collective hunch.
Science, historians and others who do not idol worship, will adjust their views as new information is found. Religions ignore new findings if they go against their dogma. They easily hide behind their supernatural shield.
Regards
DL
More than welcomed buddy.
Regards
DL
And then you classify the religious writers, it seems, as intentionally justifying what they consider immoral and unethical. Or if you are saying they argue for their own version of ethics and you disagree with it, that's not really in the same category as what you are saying about historians.
Ok.
Belief is the problem.
I'm probably going around in circles here so humor me.
What name would you give to the message of your OP and all that you've said?
"Belief"?
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?
However, you don't want us NOT to believe what you're saying here. You want us to believe you.
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.
Yes, but you do not see historians killing each other over their views the way the religious do.
Quoting Coben
Historians tend to report what they think are facts and may speak of the conditions they see arising from political systems, but they do not usually debate the various forms.
I do not see religious bias as the same as the bias historians have. One is based on nothing whie the other is based on facts.
Quoting Coben
Scriptures are not important at all to intelligent people who are not raised outside of a religion. They see them as myths. Some will have a worthy message and some will just be garbage.
If scriptures were important, even to the religious, the religions would not keep changing the wording of the already plagiarized or forged documentation.
Quoting Coben
Sure. They try and fail, as indicated by the shrinking numbers ot theists.
Quoting Coben
What I disagree with is religions hiding behind a supernatural shield which kill debate and is like arguing with brain dead children.
Historians are way more honest and way less hypocritical.
Regards
DL
Technically we all are: that is what time is (a circle) so I'm with you regardless.
I'm not sure I understand where you are coming from here.
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.
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.
I'm still not entirely understanding what you are looking for in terms of this word. Can you try to clarify?
I read the other thread you started asking for a logical perspetive for what you've been saying. If I think of anything I'll post :up:
The idol house is as the mosque, a shrine.
And chime of striking bells service divine;
Gueber’s belt, church and rosary and cross,
Each is in truth of worshiping a sign.
I don’t much mind what Idol they adore,
Nor what structures all the more they implore;
But, when they state it all as truth and fact,
This misleads, at best, and’s dishonest more!
The ancients found themselves here of nowhere,
Yet to fathom earth, fire, water, and air,
Asking why life was not square, as unfair,
So invented the Bad Role Model’s Care.
They looked unto their calamities,
Their powerful rulers and enemies,
Toward their olden family structure’s way,
Of strict father, and mother with no say.
The Christian concept of reward and punishment
Handed out by an omnipotent, omniscient God,
Is derivative of the family experience,
The child and parent, a conception of our world.
This Father Notion they based on themselves,
As the best answer that was ever delved:
The demanding Male Mind who was called ‘God’,
An idea for some to this day, well trod.
Answers were needed for them to persist:
They extended the Notion with more myths
And legends into lore layered upon,
Inventing all the scrolls of scripture on.
‘God’ brought both fear and comfort in those days,
Making people better through fearsome ways,
Although worse for some—the unchosen tribes,
Protecting their notions, as taught by scribes.
A wasteland of superstition plod,
Instantiates a meaning for ‘God’.
Emotion e’er sets up a firm blockade
When thoughts fired more build a stockade.
A hundred trillion stars and countless shores
Were built to light their universal nights explored;
Forty million other lower species too, the All-Might
Placed about our world, merely for their delight!
A trillion lights shine through, of depths of the deep,
Stars afire, with us the souls from their keep.
Man oft spouts the ‘truth’ of a Creator,
As did proto-men, near the equator.
Scrolled into scripture, ‘God’ brought rapture,
Enough for sad hearts to wholly capture;
Yet, there can’t be First Complexity’s shove,
As there wasn’t such to make the Thing of.
There were various modifications,
Yet the Creator concept remained one;
But natural understandings progressed,
Leaping ahead of the dogmatical rest.
Thousands of years came to pass, in stories,
But then we solved much of the mystery,
Irrefutable now, as gone beyond—
Utterly not of God’s magical wand.
The basis is forever, no creation—
Energy being the primest potion,
And Entirety is seen that it can be
No way but than it is, eternally.
Claims of Revelation in Genesis
Of all of Nature’s species made, as is,
Have been demolished, obliterated,
By evolution and data liberated.
Nature finds no requirement for a ‘God’,
Growth naturally forming in the sod.
The organic ‘comes of the mud and slime,
Formed within billions of years of sweet time.
A surprising decision on your part. :gasp: The prefix "a-" means not or without. The implication seems to be that any word you choose can be converted to its approximate opposite by adding the "A-" prefix. So I don't think they are "two words that mean the same thing"! I can't understand how you would. :chin:
I know you think this. But that was not my point. My point was to say that what religious people say in lay exchanges is not as important as scripture. I'm not a fan of the various scriptures, but that's neither here nor there.Quoting Gnostic Christian BishopTry and fail is different from intentionally trying to mislead. Further there is not a shrinking number of theists, there is shrinking percentage of theists.Quoting Gnostic Christian BishopThis slid away from the issue the issue what you quoted from me was focused on.
Huxley combined the Greek prefix a-, meaning "not," with gnostos, "known." It can be used as a noun or adjective, and it can also refer to uncertainty about questions other than the existence of God: "Some philosophers remain agnostic as to whether people have free will."
Quoting Pattern-chaser
I am French and think analogically.
Gnostic Christians are perpetual seekers so as to not become idol worshipers and agnostics are also on the fence/seekers, as they seek the ultimate answers just as we do.
I do not see much of a difference as agnostic and Gnostics do about the same thing and hold many of the same beliefs. We are closer to agnostics than we are to other religions that are idol worshipers.
Being a self educated Frenchman, I do not usually argue the meaning of English words with an English guy.
Regards
DL
Yes, like a supernatural realm that somehow do not match the supernatural realm of other religions and are demonstrably myths.
Regards
DL
The sin of misguided pride.
What lie are you referring to?
Show it or be seen as a liar yourself for accusing without showing what you accuse of.
Regards
DL
Indeed.
My religion says that it is not only my duty to try to grow my religion, but that it is also my duty to fight evil.
I do more of the latter because few want to become adherents to any religion given the garbage mainstream religions and all the harm that they continue to do to society with their foul homophobic and misogynous teachings, not to mention calling their evil gods good.
If you ever want to try to stick to the issues, instead of speaking about me, I am here for you.
I like to keep this following in mind.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt
BTW, you are mostly off the mark, and if you are going to be that far off on your critique, next time get the G D quotes or shut the fuck up.
Regards
DL
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 [s]obey[/s] 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.
Dear @Gnostic Christian Bishop, there is a Great Evil destroying our homes, our livelihoods and ourselves. This Great Evil is humans. Please fight them for us, and kill them all if you can. Amen. :monkey: :monkey: :monkey:
Stupid is as stupid writes.
Regards
DL
???
Knowledge is a qualified type of belief: it's belief for which we have some justification and which we judge to be true.
I can live with this description.
Why the question marks?
You seem to understand and agree with what I put.
Regards
DL
That's a patently absurd claim. And bringing up examples of false historical accounts doesn't support it.
Are you swearing at me?
I am French and cant even pronounce that without slapping myself with my own tongue; tabarnac de calisse.
Pardon my swearing. ;-)
Being barely educated is a bitch.
Let's KIS.
Faith, something based on nothing concrete.
Belief, something based on something but not proven. Close to " I think so and think it true.
Knowledge, something based on facts that are provable.
I have faith that my thing will grow longer before I die.
I believe this passionately based on my desire and bio feedback science
I know it will not happen because there is no evidence for such a thing and I am already too long for most women.
Regards
DL
No, it's because I have the required critical thinking skills, whereas you do not. There's an obvious difference between believing, say, Matthew 14:22-33, about Jesus walking on water, and believing historical accounts about prisoners being locked in a dark chamber for several days in Block 11 of Auschwitz concentration camp. And that's just one example of many. Your statement is false, and obviously so.
epistemology = épistémologie
epistemologist = épistémologiste
My guess is most native English language philosophers would understand the French pronouciation, so should you be cornered on the street in a discussion of knowledge, just go with the French version and no one will complain.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
You could break it down like this. The problem with 'facts' is that what fallible humans consider 'facts' can change. The problem with provable, is that proofs are restricted to closed systems, like math, say. Empirical knowledge cannot be proven. Though one can be incredibly confident in some of it. Even in science, things that seemed proven turned out not to be true.
But you can decide, of course, since you are an épistémologiste, as we all are, that this is how you break things down and define them. I don't think it's the best way, me also being an épistémologiste with his own experiences and take.
Alors, vous êtes Québécois. J'ai vécu de belles expériences en provenance du Vermont, dérapant par-dessus la frontière. On entend dire que les gens vont être prétentieux, mais j'ai toujours été traité si merveilleusement.
As far as I am concerned, in both cases one is reading words and choosing to believe them or not.
Indeed. :up: Well done for getting this far! :smile:
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
Humans are consistently evil toward every other living thing in the world, and also to the world itself. [And very often to other humans too.] Now it's time to practice what you preach....
First of all, beliefs aren't chosen. I don't know why this category error is so prevalent.
Secondly, the obvious difference between believing the one compared to believing the other consists in how gullible you are. The religious text is about an implausible supernatural event, and the historical account is of a plausible natural event. You'd have to be really gullible to believe the former, whereas the latter is reasonable to believe.
Because knowing isn't an alternative to belief, it's a qualified type of belief.
I disagree, but this is a different topic.
Quoting S
Well, this is a mess.
Firstly, gullible, plausible, reasonable, are all subjective terms and cannot form the objective distinction you seek to make, unless further specified.
Secondly, not all theists are gullible. Similarly, atheists are not necessarily not gullible. Similarly, not all religious texts are implausible (i.e. a man named Jesus probably existed), and not all historical accounts are plausible (i.e. Herodotus's claim that the Persians numbered over two million at Thermopylae).
Your statement is an ill-disguised "They are stupid and we are smart!", and this will not do.
And only an idiot would dispute that it's gullible to believe that Jesus walked on water. Are you an idiot? Serious question.
Also, you've committed the unforgivable of sin of using "i.e." when you should have used "e.g.".
I'm still waiting.
And do come with something tangible rather than insults and opinions.
What are you waiting for? This has been a case of mission easily accomplished. That you've decided not to accept the obvious isn't really my problem, it's yours.
"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.
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".
Québécois. Non.
Ontarien. Oui.
Quoting Coben
Nous avon les deux caractéristique qui se balance.
Regards
DL
I have been at it for years.
Regards
DL
I agree.
Regards
DL