If someone has reason to "believe" in something, I'd rather them forget the "belief" part and give me their reason instead. — A Gnostic Agnostic

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.

This problem becomes most obvious in religion wherein a "fact" is not actually a fact, — 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

When reading a history book, aren't we believing the words of the writer? — Tzeentch

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

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

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

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

I'd argue against this in good spirit.

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

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

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

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

Are they willing to spill blood over it?

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

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

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

I agree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you explain # 1?

Can you explain this part of # 2?

"and will reign over all."

I have claim forcing my apotheosis and understand the rest.

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

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

It is also true that the historical claims suit a particular religious worldview. — A Gnostic Agnostic

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

I am reading them and understanding at least what they are attempting to advance as a viable model which explains what we see. — A Gnostic Agnostic

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

If people started spilling blood over criticisms of Adolph Hitler, Adolph Hitler would be an idol that is worshiped by idol worshipers. — A Gnostic Agnostic

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

No history book offers supernatural and unlikely creatures like talking serpents and donkeys. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

No, but many history book makes a genocide disappear. A negative hallucination. And many a history book hallucinates the absence of the horrible aspects of an economic system. There is no reason to priorities positive hallucinations over negative hallucinations....

Also known as scotomization. Both terms are used to denote the failure to perceive an object or stimulus that is present in the extracorporeal world and lies within the subject's range of perception. The term negative hallucination is used in opposition to the term *positive hallucination, which denotes the perception of an object or stimulus that lacks an appropriate source in the extracorporeal world.

Historians stay in the real world while the religious hide behind a supernatural shield. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Well, some do, though even those only to a certain degree.

A historian will argue his points with facts while the religious argue their points without facts. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

A 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.

Religions also praise and adore a genocidal character while historians tend to think such characters are moral monsters. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Monsters 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.

I agree with the historians — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Historians 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

No history book offers supernatural and unlikely creatures like talking serpents and donkeys. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

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.

Historians stay in the real world while the religious hide behind a supernatural shield. — 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.

A historian will argue his points with facts while the religious argue their points without facts. — 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.

I think we are straying from the point.

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.

Remember that one can be Gnostic to any religion. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Thanks for correcting my misunderstanding.

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. — A Gnostic Agnostic

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.

Not to overly simplify, but it seems obvious that conflicts arise over disputed beliefs about something, not necessarily religion, but something. It might be a belief over who has the right to land, to resources, to slaves, to citizenship, to civil rights, or to whatever, including who one ought worship. We can no more silence religious beliefs than any secular ideology. But I do agree, should we all calm our passions and mute our beliefs, we will end conflict. The potted plant has yet to wage war.

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

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

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

You provide a broad brush caricature of Islamic religious belief.

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

You compare Muhammad to Hitler.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell the House of Islam to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Radical Islam isn't getting as far as it used to; drones take out the suspected night and day.

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.

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. — A Gnostic Agnostic

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

'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.

Patience is a virtue.

Now, shall you be patient to believe, or be ardent to cast lots? — Shamshir

:up:

I'm afraid I don't follow you all that well.

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?

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 — A Gnostic Agnostic

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

I can make attempt.

Two statements:

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

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

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

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

In response to:

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

"knowing implies that the knower now has a belief"

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

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

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

The alternative is knowing what not to "believe".

The alternative is knowing what not to "believe". — A Gnostic Agnostic

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?

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

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

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

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

Can you do that?

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

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

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

Perhaps never tasting death means never fearing death? Perhaps reigning over all is to reign over all possible forms of suffering? — A Gnostic Agnostic

Food for thought. Thanks.

Regards
DL

No, but many history book makes a genocide disappear. — Coben

True, but those writings will always be disputed by other historians.

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. — 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

...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. — A Gnostic Agnostic

This.

Though I would say faith based, but again, no argument.

Regards
DL

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. — Tzeentch

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

Thanks for correcting my misunderstanding. — T Clark

More than welcomed buddy.

Regards
DL

True, but those writings will always be disputed by other historians. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

And religious people dispute each other around the nature of God, for example.

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. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

It sounds like you are comparing current historians in Western countries - especially when they are not challenging things like capitalism, where the peers may be just as biased, as one example - with religious writers further back in history. Current religious writers are often peer reviewed and also know they run the gauntlet of secular criticism. And further are not so important as say scripture.

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.

"Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything." — A Gnostic Agnostic

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.