God(s)

[nothing]

Beliefs are thoughts, that is correct. What is to believe about one's own existence?

Why bring up evil and good?

One can either know themselves, or believe themselves (to be something they are not).

Because the problem of good and evil is due to belief:

A believes B is evil.
B believes A is evil.
C known neither know from which tree they eat.

False, a solution to a problem is merely the problem existing in a new variation. A problem is a deficit by nature and grounded in some localized portion of reality being analyzed.

If a problem exists in a new "variation" it is not a solution - it is still a problem.

Conflating problem with/as solution is the same retarded situation as religion conflating belief with knowledge.

For example the problem of why A leads to the answer of B. B upon analysis becomes a new problem which leads to C. Etc.

It's the same problem - the A -> B -> C is merely a local progression that is being mistaken as "something new" according to the progression.

The nature of the problem is strictly an analysis nothing more or less. Each answer, as a new context is simultaneously true and false in the respect it exists as a variation of the original question but is false as a context that exists in an of itself.

Considering "why A?" may lead to B or C, "why A" requires an expansion of context to determine which answer is true.

For example

What color is the sky? May lead to blue, white, black, gray, green, etc.

What color is the sky during a storm? May lead to different variations of the possible answers above.

Each question results in a set of contexts that shrink when the question expands in context. But the question always leads to a set of contexts which must be chosen.

The right questions to the right problems tend towards the right answers. The sentiment "seek and ye shall find" is not merely metaphorical: it is practical. If the conscience is able to ask the right question, the answer will be inside of the question itself.

Inference is this: two are made one once they satisfy a conjugate relationship. The only step needed by the being is to "flip" it over.

Belief thus has the ability to invert perception such that it is 180-degrees upside-down rendering any/all accusation(s) made by such a disoriented being as satisfying the condition the accuser is the accused. In other words: the problem-of-all-problems relating to war/suffering collapses back into this, thus A -> B -> C is irrelevant as it is local only.

[Eodnhoj7]

Beliefs are thoughts, that is correct. What is to believe about one's own existence?

Why bring up evil and good?

One can either know themselves, or believe themselves (to be something they are not).

Because the problem of good and evil is due to belief:

A believes B is evil.
B believes A is evil.
C known neither know from which tree they eat.

False, a solution to a problem is merely the problem existing in a new variation. A problem is a deficit by nature and grounded in some localized portion of reality being analyzed.

If a problem exists in a new "variation" it is not a solution - it is still a problem.

Conflating problem with/as solution is the same retarded situation as religion conflating belief with knowledge.

For example the problem of why A leads to the answer of B. B upon analysis becomes a new problem which leads to C. Etc.

It's the same problem - the A -> B -> C is merely a local progression that is being mistaken as "something new" according to the progression.

The nature of the problem is strictly an analysis nothing more or less. Each answer, as a new context is simultaneously true and false in the respect it exists as a variation of the original question but is false as a context that exists in an of itself.

Considering "why A?" may lead to B or C, "why A" requires an expansion of context to determine which answer is true.

For example

What color is the sky? May lead to blue, white, black, gray, green, etc.

What color is the sky during a storm? May lead to different variations of the possible answers above.

Each question results in a set of contexts that shrink when the question expands in context. But the question always leads to a set of contexts which must be chosen.

The right questions to the right problems tend towards the right answers. The sentiment "seek and ye shall find" is not merely metaphorical: it is practical. If the conscience is able to ask the right question, the answer will be inside of the question itself.

Inference is this: two are made one once they satisfy a conjugate relationship. The only step needed by the being is to "flip" it over.

Belief thus has the ability to invert perception such that it is 180-degrees upside-down rendering any/all accusation(s) made by such a disoriented being as satisfying the condition the accuser is the accused. In other words: the problem-of-all-problems relating to war/suffering collapses back into this, thus A -> B -> C is irrelevant as it is local only.

You do know you will not succeed with making some esoteric system to negate beliefs right?

You place too high an emphasis on knowledge.

[nothing]

You do know you will not succeed with making some esoteric system to negate beliefs right?

You place too high an emphasis on knowledge.

Yes, as it is not in my interest to "negate beliefs" - this has been an assumption of yours for some time, despite my attempts to clarify. However it does not fit your internal narrative, thus you selectively overlook it to continue the ad hominem.

Your placing too little emphasis on knowledge is implicit in your own conflating it with belief - not unlike the lunatics of religious fundamentalism. Further, attempting to undermine an attempt to address global human suffering indicates your being just as much a part of the problem as any, rather than any solution. As indicated: once enmity sets in, the boundary is local and the person can not see past it. It relates to having no conscious knowledge of ones own ignorance.

[Skepdick]

A believes B is evil.
B believes A is evil.
C known neither know from which tree they eat.

The exact same problem emerges with any juxtaposition you use.

A knows B is ignorant.
B knows A is ignorant.
C knows neither know from which tree they eat.

Adjust your own argument with any two dichotomies/tensions in the human vocabulary.

[Skepdick]

Conflating problem with/as solution is the same retarded situation as religion conflating belief with knowledge.

This is a false dichotomy. One man's solution is another man's problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution

It goes without saying - you don't know what a 'problem' is.

A's solution is B's problem.
B's solution is A's problem.
C knows neither know from which tree they eat.

[nothing]

The exact same problem emerges with any juxtaposition you use.

A knows B is ignorant.
B knows A is ignorant.
C knows neither know from which tree they eat.

Adjust your own argument with any two dichotomies/tensions in the human vocabulary.

The example you provided is identical to mine.

Any/all belief-based ignorance(s) exists in, and/or by way of, belief-in-and-of-itself.
Therefor belief is a fixed component of any such belief-based ignorance.

This is a false dichotomy. One man's solution is another man's problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution

It goes without saying - you don't know what a 'problem' is.

A's solution is B's problem.
B's solution is A's problem.
C knows neither know from which tree they eat.

That man's "solution" was a problem-in-and-of-itself: male central figure orator warlord who amasses power via oration, weaponizes it against his political adversaries, signs "peace" tries only to subsequently violate them, and eventually turns the 'state' into a genocide machine.

It goes without saying: neither Adolph Hitler nor Islam's Muhammad (same archetype as described above) knew what a 'problem' they were: their own belief-based ignorance had them believing their genocide was the will of a god. Hundreds of millions of people are dead and women are being abused daily because of one belief in one man-made book regarding one dead idol warlord Muhammadans routinely perform blood sacrifices over (ie. spill blood over ridicule of the man: see Charlie Hebdo).

When one man's "solution" is hundreds of millions of others' suffering/death, it is not a "false dichotomy".

One man's solution is another man's problem? Are you sanctioning genocide?

To attempt to indicate what Hitler did was a "solution" is just as sick as any Muhammadan worshiping Hitler as they do their idol Muhammad. Unfortunately, it takes a believer to believer Islam is somehow *not* the roots of: Nazism, fascism and socialism rooted in patriarchal swinery.

[Skepdick]

The example you provided is identical to mine.

Well, it's only 'identical' if you see belief and knowledge as different words for the same thing.

Q.E.D

Any/all belief-based ignorance(s) exists in, and/or by way of, belief-in-and-of-itself.
Therefor belief is a fixed component of any such belief-based ignorance.

Indeed you seem to be agreeing with me.

You call your beliefs 'knowledge'.
I call your beliefs "beliefs".

At least one of us is closer to the truth than the other...

That man's "solution" was a problem-in-and-of-itself.

That's exactly what I said. A's solution is B's problem.

The fact that you believe in "things in themselves" is a problem-in-and-of-itself.

One man's solution is another man's problem? Are you sanctioning genocide?

No. I am stating a fact. Why are you straw-manning me with your question?

To attempt to indicate what Hitler did was a "solution" is just as sick as any Muhammadan worshiping Hitler as they do their idol Muhammad.

Whether it was a problem or a solution largely depends on who you ask.

The Jews say it's a problem.
The Nazis say it's a solution. That's why they called it the "Final solution".

For the record: I have no intention to signal any virtue to you, so you are welcome to believe whatever it is you wish to believe about my moral character

Unfortunately, it takes a believer to believer Islam is somehow *not* the roots of: Nazism, fascism and socialism rooted in patriarchal swinery.

Exactly like it takes a believer to believe they have any knowledge?

You seem to have a significant struggle with the normative/prescriptive distinction.

From where I am looking all forms of universal prescriptivism (manifesting as various forms of authoritarianism/socialism/fascism etc) are the roots of the patriarchal swinery. All social hierarchies are the same beast.

But that's probably a truism because I am arguing from an anarchist/libertarian view.

[roydop]

Once Truth is EXPERIENCED, it is known.

A person who has been to Paris knows it exists based upon experience, whereas a person who has read a bunch about Paris has a different type of knowledge about Paris. I suggest that to experience something is a more comprehensive understanding.

Truth/Reality is a STATE, not an intellectual understanding. Conceptualization is exactly NOT truth. A belief is a "dot" in the convoluted collection of thoughts and sensations created and connected by the mind to project the ego (an individual, separately existing Self).

Truth is the state of thought free Awareness. If you could abide effortlessly in/as such, you would KNOW. Then thoughts would be seen as the distraction/deception they are, and they would be dropped.

But almost no one can abide in/as thought free awareness for more than a few seconds.

And this is why we're delusional, and fucked.

[Skepdick]

Once Truth is EXPERIENCED, it is known.

How do you know that it was Truth you EXPERIENCED?

Could it not be Reality which you EXPERIENCED? For one can say: Once Reality is EXPERIENCED, it is known.

Could it not be Facts which you EXPERIENCED? For one can say: Once a Facts is EXPERIENCED, it is known.

Could it not be Experiences which you EXPERIENCED? For one can say: One an Experience is EXPERIENCED, it is known.

Could it not be The Universe which you EXPERIENCED? For once can say: One The Universe is EXPERIENCED, it is known.

Could it not be God which you EXPERIENCED? For once you can say: Once God is EXPERIENCED, it is known.

Truth/Reality is a STATE, not an intellectual understanding.

How many different states does Truth/Reality have? How many of those states are understandable/accessible by us?

[nothing]

Well, it's only 'identical' if you see belief and knowledge as different words for the same thing.

Q.E.D

Are you insane?

Knowledge negates belief. Between the two, only a believer can suffer belief-based ignorance.

Indeed you seem to be agreeing with me.

You call your beliefs 'knowledge'.
I call your beliefs "beliefs".

At least one of us is closer to the truth than the other...

I call my knowledge, knowledge, and my belief, beliefs.
I can discern between the two. At best, an outside observer
can only believe one believes, rather than knows.

That's exactly what I said. A's solution is B's problem.

The fact that you believe in "things in themselves" is a problem-in-and-of-itself.

From the perspective of C, both A and B are a problem, which makes C a potential solution to both A and B.

I know black holes exist.
I thus know the gravity of any matter, if sufficient, can collapse in on itself.
I know a torus field is a "thing in itself" and the human body relies on one.

No. I am stating a fact. Why are you straw-manning me with your question?

"One man's solution is another man's problem" allows for: genocide as a viable "solution".

Genocide is not a solution - it is a problem.

Whether it was a problem or a solution largely depends on who you ask.

The Jews say it's a problem.
The Nazis say it's a solution. That's why they called it the "Final solution".

Hence: justification of genocide as a viable solution.

For the record: I have no intention to signal any virtue to you, so you are welcome to believe whatever it is you wish to believe about my moral character

It is invariably implicit.

Unfortunately, it takes a believer to believer Islam is somehow *not* the roots of: Nazism, fascism and socialism rooted in patriarchal swinery.
Exactly like it takes a believer to believe they have any knowledge?

Such a person would not be able to distinguish between the two.
Knowledge contains no degrees of uncertainty - it is known.
This works for negation of belief "I know not to believe ..."
Belief contains one or more degrees of uncertainty where in the general expression "I don't actually know ..." is equivalent.

You seem to have a significant struggle with the normative/prescriptive distinction.

From where I am looking all forms of universal prescriptivism (manifesting as various forms of authoritarianism/socialism/fascism etc) are the roots of the patriarchal swinery. All social hierarchies are the same beast.

But that's probably a truism because I am arguing from an anarchist/libertarian view.

The expression taken from your reference:

whoever makes a moral judgment is committed to the same judgment in any situation where the same relevant facts obtain.

is obvious (to me) true, as less would satisfy the condition 'the accuser is the accused' which is equivalent to biblical mark of Cain - to draw from ones own nature and accuse others of ones own. This is the most religious element of Abrahamic religious such as Christianity/Islam which are essentially businesses whose currency is blood.

In any worst case scenario, the opposite of any particular belief can be true, which is the defining characteristic of any egregiously ignorant 'state' as with Islam: to believe war is peace, infidelity is fidelity, a polygamous pedophile is the greatest example for all of humanity etc.. The most ludicrous beliefs on the planet are total inversions of truth, thus trying the inverse of any proposition might immediately find the opposite to be true, and seeing Islam with such eyes makes one realize Islam is just this: absolutely backwards and upside-down pathologically blaming others for their own crimes against humanity. It is the same fundamental degeneracy as Liberalism: ones own personal feelings are the most important thing in the universe, and to hurt them is the greatest crime in/of the same. Neither the Liberal nor Muhammadan knows that their personal feelings need to have a secondary status next to the pursuit of whatever is true and/or not true. Such small-identity snowflakes adopt this from the Muhammadans and the worshiping of their idols: their own emotions and it's everyone else's fault! This is the screechy swine nature that infects nations (hence: China designated Islam as being a tumor / cancerous).

In the next 50-100 years approx. half of humanity is going to commit suicide. People will not be willing to live under the Islamic rule once the genocide machines get up and running again. I'm just curious if Islam is will come in the open and do it, or try to hide behind a proxy like cowards as they did with Germany. Islam is behind it all while blaming "Jews" who are actually themselves. The day that Islam runs out of scapegoats, is the same day it collapses: it religiously relies on scapegoating their own genocides on others.

[Skepdick]

Are you insane?

It is the opinion of many, but I do not share it.

Knowledge negates belief. Between the two, only a believer can suffer belief-based ignorance.

If the knowledge which negated your belief was itself negated was it ever really 'knowledge'?

Is that which you call 'knowledge' immune to negation? That sounds like a religious dogma to me...

I call my knowledge, knowledge, and my belief, beliefs.

And I call everything that's in your head "beliefs".

I can discern between the two. At best, an outside observer can only believe one believes, rather than knows.

That is precisely what I said!

You draw a distinction - I don't.

You call some of your beliefs 'knowledge' - I don't call any of your beliefs 'knowledge'.

I call all of your beliefs 'beliefs'.

From the perspective of C, both A and B are a problem, which makes C a potential solution to both A and B.

D sees a problem with A,B and C.
E sees a problem with A, B, C and D.
F sees a problem with A,B,C,D and E.
G sees a problem with A,B,C,D,E and F.

Ad infinitum.

I know black holes exist.
I thus know the gravity of any matter, if sufficient, can collapse in on itself.
I know a torus field is a "thing in itself" and the human body relies on one.

You seem to believe very many things. What do you use all those beliefs for?

"One man's solution is another man's problem" allows for: genocide as a viable "solution".

It "allows" for (nor "prohibits") nothing.

I am not using language prescriptively - you are.

I am merely describing the fact that whether any particular thing is a "problem" or a "solution" is contingent on one's perspective.

Whether you approve or disapprove of any particular perspective is but a matter of opinion. I don't care about your opinion - and you shouldn't care about mine either.

Genocide is not a solution - it is a problem.

According to C Genocide is genocide.

According to A it's a solution.
According to B it's a problem.

In this argument you aren't C. You are B.

Hence: justification of genocide as a viable solution.

I am not justifying anything. I am pointing out what happened.

You are the one who keeps ending up on the wrong side of the is-ought gap.

It is invariably implicit

It isn't - because I explicitly stated that I will not signal virtue. It is not my intention, and it my best effort to make statements devoid of personal value-judgments. If you are reading any into it - be certain that you are projecting.

You are interpreting the absence of virtue-singling as absence of virtue. By another name it's a fallacy: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Such a person would not be able to distinguish between the two.
Knowledge contains no degrees of uncertainty - it is known.

To the believer that is indeed the case - they are absolutely certain of their 'knowledge'.

It's another way of saying 'dogmatic'.

is obvious (to me) true, as less would satisfy the condition 'the accuser is the accused' which is equivalent to biblical mark of Cain - to draw from ones own nature and accuse others of ones own.

Indeed - I am accusing you of doing exactly that.

I have it in my nature to be a hypocrite (and I do not deny it) - it takes one to know one indeed.

What I deny is that I am being a hypocrite in this particular instance.

[roydop]

Once Truth is EXPERIENCED, it is known.

How do you know that it was Truth you EXPERIENCED?

Could it not be Reality which you EXPERIENCED? For one can say: Once Reality is EXPERIENCED, it is known.

Could it not be Facts which you EXPERIENCED? For one can say: Once a Facts is EXPERIENCED, it is known.

Could it not be Experiences which you EXPERIENCED? For one can say: One an Experience is EXPERIENCED, it is known.

Could it not be The Universe which you EXPERIENCED? For once can say: One The Universe is EXPERIENCED, it is known.

Could it not be God which you EXPERIENCED? For once you can say: Once God is EXPERIENCED, it is known.

Truth/Reality is a STATE, not an intellectual understanding.

How many different states does Truth/Reality have? How many of those states are understandable/accessible by us?

Until YOU abide in/as effortless thought free Awareness you will continue following thought/delusion.

The answer to your questions lay in abidance in/as thought free Awareness.

[Skepdick]

Until YOU abide in/as effortless thought free Awareness you will continue following thought/delusion.

The answer to your questions lay in abidance in/as thought free Awareness.

I am Aware enough that I see right through all the narratives.

[nothing]

If the knowledge which negated your belief was itself negated was it ever really 'knowledge'?

People are not born into a state of all-knowing.

Is that which you call 'knowledge' immune to negation? That sounds like a religious dogma to me...

Knowledge being immune to negation is incoherent: knowledge is not the presence of anything, it is the absence of it.

Let *A = any theoretical being
Let +A = any body of belief-based ignorance
Let -A = the body of knowledge negating any/all belief-based ignorance associated with +A
Let the root of +A be all-believing evil is good (ie. satan)
Let the root of -A be all-knowing-negating-belief (ie. god)

As one approaches -A, they simultaneously depart from +A such that any/all suffering/death associated with the belief-based ignorance is alleviated.



It takes a believer to believe evil is good (without the need to define them, which, if done so incorrectly, immediately collapses a being into A/B instead of C).

And I call everything that's in your head "beliefs".

i. It is your own belief, thus the belief problem is local to you
ii. My knowledge is not in my "head" - mind is not being, thus not knowledge

That is precisely what I said!

You draw a distinction - I don't.

*edit* I'm circling-back from the end to highlight 'the accuser is the accused' is actually your own projection/accusation throughout.

It's the other way around: I draw a distinction, you do not.

You call some of your beliefs 'knowledge' - I don't call any of your beliefs 'knowledge'.

I call all of your beliefs 'beliefs'.

This is all your own belief. It is an impasse either way.

D sees a problem with A,B and C.
E sees a problem with A, B, C and D.
F sees a problem with A,B,C,D and E.
G sees a problem with A,B,C,D,E and F.

Ad infinitum.

It's the same as +A approaches -A. In either case, "sees a problem" is a form of (ac)knowledge(ment) that is distinct from mere belief: to acknowledge ones own belief may not be true. This is a valid knowledge: to know one knows not to any degree of certainty.

It is possible to know that if satan exists, satan would certainly require belief, and an all-knowing god (if one exists) must necessarily know that. If god and satan exist, and are antithetical, an all-knowing god would be the negation of belief/satan. Belief and idol worship are actually one-and-the-same, but it goes too deep for the idol worshipers.

You seem to believe very many things. What do you use all those beliefs for?

The properties (ie. "laws") of the cosmos map as "laws" that act on any/all social fabrics esp. science, language, ethics, logic/physics etc. To know the "laws" of the mundane matters of creation has application to all scales if the laws are, in fact, universally applicable.

Thus, once again, they are markedly distinct from "belief".

It "allows" for (nor "prohibits") nothing.

I am not using language prescriptively - you are.

You used a definite *is* - I respect language because it points back into the fabric of creation itself. If you are going to state the above, while omitting:

I am merely describing the fact that whether any particular thing is a "problem" or a "solution" is contingent on one's perspective.

This is the same as the Edenic warning - do not believe to know good/evil, otherwise it becomes a matter of perspective and there is no more universal ground. This has a practical application to Judaism/Christianity/Islam. The being becomes grounded in their own idolatrous beliefs, and they develop the "us vs. them" mentality which leads to suffering/death. The point being made is: entanglements of A/B nature are ignorant of C, which is to *not* eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the first place, which requires knowing the problem-in-and-of-itself. In this way, A and B are lacking something C definitely has: knowledge of the problem of belief-in-and-of-itself.

When a problem believes itself to be a solution, you get things such as Islam. They militarily enforce their belief-based state killing "unbelievers" for not "believing" something that is not true, thus invariably violating the very law they themselves claim was/is inspired by their own god. The whole House is upside-down in perpetually believing evil-is-good. They do not even respect the Edenic state of 1x1=1 ad infinitum viz. 'honor mother and father', which is an equilateral triangle - a form of perfect fidelity. Islam is just about as far away as one can possibly get from such a 'state' for their own being based on an infidel model of a (dead) man.

You have a group of people belonging to an infidel 'state' calling other people infidels. I do not have to "believe" the text indicates that from Adam's own rib was derived one Eve - it would take a believer to believe themselves entitled to more than one woman.

Whether you approve or disapprove of any particular perspective is but a matter of opinion. I don't care about your opinion - and you shouldn't care about mine either.

I don't care about opinions or beliefs - I care about whatever is true / not true, and especially don't care for people who try to justify that such can not be known to a certainty. I know not to "believe" that.

According to C Genocide is genocide.

According to A it's a solution.
According to B it's a problem.

In this argument you aren't C. You are B.

In this example B is correct - C is stating the obvious.

One need not "believe" genocide is a problem - it would take a believer to believe it is not one.

I am not justifying anything. I am pointing out what happened.

You are the one who keeps ending up on the wrong side of the is-ought gap.

You can not derive an ought from an is.
You can derive an ought not from an is.

One can know genocide is a problem because it exists.

It isn't - because I explicitly stated that I will not signal virtue. It is not my intention, and it my best effort to make statements devoid of personal value-judgments. If you are reading any into it - be certain that you are projecting.

You are interpreting the absence of virtue-singling as absence of virtue. By another name it's a fallacy: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You are reading into my meaning of 'it is invariably implicit'. Notwithstanding, such a fallacy can only exist if there is, in fact, an absence of evidence.

To the believer that is indeed the case - they are absolutely certain of their 'knowledge'.

It's another way of saying 'dogmatic'.

Hence, belief is the condition required for such a state: it re-enforces itself. It is a problem because people identify as their own belief such that if/when the belief is undermined as being false, they invariably take it personally and start whining and squealing. Truth can never succumb to this problem: what is true, is acknowledged and there is simply no attachment. Again: this relates to what real (real) idol worship is: people who identify by way of their own thought/belief patterns and systems. It is obvious to me that Muhammad suffered the same: he believed himself into a certainty that he was a messenger of god such that if/when faced with evidences he was certainly not one (by the Jews) he started cutting their heads off. This is Islam, and the root of the global conflict - the whiners and squealers incessantly whine and squeal over such ridicule of such a swine man, because that is their nature that proves itself true day after day after day: whining and squealing. It is the same pathology as the geopolitical Left because Islam has infected it with their divisiveness while blaming any/all others for the same (ie. accuser is the accused is always true in/of Islam).

Indeed - I am accusing you of doing exactly that.

You're accusing me of the crimes of Muhammad?

The pathology is your own as indicated above - it is your own accusation against me. Mine is against belief-based ideologies such as Judaism/Christianity/Islam who ignore the most basic precepts established by their own "god". That is hypocrisy - to kill unbelievers for not believing something that is not true.

You accuse me of genocide against "unbelievers"?

I have it in my nature to be a hypocrite (and I do not deny it) - it takes one to know one indeed.

Admitting to being a hypocrite does not in any way alleviate the burden of it.

What I deny is that I am being a hypocrite in this particular instance.

One who is themselves in denial would.

[Eodnhoj7]

If the knowledge which negated your belief was itself negated was it ever really 'knowledge'?

People are not born into a state of all-knowing.

Is that which you call 'knowledge' immune to negation? That sounds like a religious dogma to me...

Knowledge being immune to negation is incoherent: knowledge is not the presence of anything, it is the absence of it.

Let *A = any theoretical being
Let +A = any body of belief-based ignorance
Let -A = the body of knowledge negating any/all belief-based ignorance associated with +A
Let the root of +A be all-believing evil is good (ie. satan)
Let the root of -A be all-knowing-negating-belief (ie. god)

As one approaches -A, they simultaneously depart from +A such that any/all suffering/death associated with the belief-based ignorance is alleviated.



It takes a believer to believe evil is good (without the need to define them, which, if done so incorrectly, immediately collapses a being into A/B instead of C).

And I call everything that's in your head "beliefs".

i. It is your own belief, thus the belief problem is local to you
ii. My knowledge is not in my "head" - mind is not being, thus not knowledge

That is precisely what I said!

You draw a distinction - I don't.

*edit* I'm circling-back from the end to highlight 'the accuser is the accused' is actually your own projection/accusation throughout.

It's the other way around: I draw a distinction, you do not.

You call some of your beliefs 'knowledge' - I don't call any of your beliefs 'knowledge'.

I call all of your beliefs 'beliefs'.

This is all your own belief. It is an impasse either way.

D sees a problem with A,B and C.
E sees a problem with A, B, C and D.
F sees a problem with A,B,C,D and E.
G sees a problem with A,B,C,D,E and F.

Ad infinitum.

It's the same as +A approaches -A. In either case, "sees a problem" is a form of (ac)knowledge(ment) that is distinct from mere belief: to acknowledge ones own belief may not be true. This is a valid knowledge: to know one knows not to any degree of certainty.

It is possible to know that if satan exists, satan would certainly require belief, and an all-knowing god (if one exists) must necessarily know that. If god and satan exist, and are antithetical, an all-knowing god would be the negation of belief/satan. Belief and idol worship are actually one-and-the-same, but it goes too deep for the idol worshipers.

You seem to believe very many things. What do you use all those beliefs for?

The properties (ie. "laws") of the cosmos map as "laws" that act on any/all social fabrics esp. science, language, ethics, logic/physics etc. To know the "laws" of the mundane matters of creation has application to all scales if the laws are, in fact, universally applicable.

Thus, once again, they are markedly distinct from "belief".

It "allows" for (nor "prohibits") nothing.

I am not using language prescriptively - you are.

You used a definite *is* - I respect language because it points back into the fabric of creation itself. If you are going to state the above, while omitting:

I am merely describing the fact that whether any particular thing is a "problem" or a "solution" is contingent on one's perspective.

This is the same as the Edenic warning - do not believe to know good/evil, otherwise it becomes a matter of perspective and there is no more universal ground. This has a practical application to Judaism/Christianity/Islam. The being becomes grounded in their own idolatrous beliefs, and they develop the "us vs. them" mentality which leads to suffering/death. The point being made is: entanglements of A/B nature are ignorant of C, which is to *not* eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the first place, which requires knowing the problem-in-and-of-itself. In this way, A and B are lacking something C definitely has: knowledge of the problem of belief-in-and-of-itself.

When a problem believes itself to be a solution, you get things such as Islam. They militarily enforce their belief-based state killing "unbelievers" for not "believing" something that is not true, thus invariably violating the very law they themselves claim was/is inspired by their own god. The whole House is upside-down in perpetually believing evil-is-good. They do not even respect the Edenic state of 1x1=1 ad infinitum viz. 'honor mother and father', which is an equilateral triangle - a form of perfect fidelity. Islam is just about as far away as one can possibly get from such a 'state' for their own being based on an infidel model of a (dead) man.

You have a group of people belonging to an infidel 'state' calling other people infidels. I do not have to "believe" the text indicates that from Adam's own rib was derived one Eve - it would take a believer to believe themselves entitled to more than one woman.

Whether you approve or disapprove of any particular perspective is but a matter of opinion. I don't care about your opinion - and you shouldn't care about mine either.

I don't care about opinions or beliefs - I care about whatever is true / not true, and especially don't care for people who try to justify that such can not be known to a certainty. I know not to "believe" that.

According to C Genocide is genocide.

According to A it's a solution.
According to B it's a problem.

In this argument you aren't C. You are B.

In this example B is correct - C is stating the obvious.

One need not "believe" genocide is a problem - it would take a believer to believe it is not one.

I am not justifying anything. I am pointing out what happened.

You are the one who keeps ending up on the wrong side of the is-ought gap.

You can not derive an ought from an is.
You can derive an ought not from an is.

One can know genocide is a problem because it exists.

It isn't - because I explicitly stated that I will not signal virtue. It is not my intention, and it my best effort to make statements devoid of personal value-judgments. If you are reading any into it - be certain that you are projecting.

You are interpreting the absence of virtue-singling as absence of virtue. By another name it's a fallacy: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You are reading into my meaning of 'it is invariably implicit'. Notwithstanding, such a fallacy can only exist if there is, in fact, an absence of evidence.

To the believer that is indeed the case - they are absolutely certain of their 'knowledge'.

It's another way of saying 'dogmatic'.

Hence, belief is the condition required for such a state: it re-enforces itself. It is a problem because people identify as their own belief such that if/when the belief is undermined as being false, they invariably take it personally and start whining and squealing. Truth can never succumb to this problem: what is true, is acknowledged and there is simply no attachment. Again: this relates to what real (real) idol worship is: people who identify by way of their own thought/belief patterns and systems. It is obvious to me that Muhammad suffered the same: he believed himself into a certainty that he was a messenger of god such that if/when faced with evidences he was certainly not one (by the Jews) he started cutting their heads off. This is Islam, and the root of the global conflict - the whiners and squealers incessantly whine and squeal over such ridicule of such a swine man, because that is their nature that proves itself true day after day after day: whining and squealing. It is the same pathology as the geopolitical Left because Islam has infected it with their divisiveness while blaming any/all others for the same (ie. accuser is the accused is always true in/of Islam).

Indeed - I am accusing you of doing exactly that.

You're accusing me of the crimes of Muhammad?

The pathology is your own as indicated above - it is your own accusation against me. Mine is against belief-based ideologies such as Judaism/Christianity/Islam who ignore the most basic precepts established by their own "god". That is hypocrisy - to kill unbelievers for not believing something that is not true.

You accuse me of genocide against "unbelievers"?

I have it in my nature to be a hypocrite (and I do not deny it) - it takes one to know one indeed.

Admitting to being a hypocrite does not in any way alleviate the burden of it.

What I deny is that I am being a hypocrite in this particular instance.

One who is themselves in denial would.

I saw the coloring book picture with the satanic symbol...and then I realized....ROFL!!!!