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".