"Meritocracy, Rational Enlightenment and Liberation from Jehovah/Allah/Christ/Satan:
The essence of Illumination, the secret religion of the Illuminati, is that it is possible for any human being to literally become God. Therefore, the Illuminati are wholly opposed to any religions that seek to alienate humanity from God and to create a master-slave relationship in which enslaved humans, on their knees, worship a tyrannical slave-master God who must be obeyed no matter what, even if he demands of people that they commit supremely horrific and evil deeds. The most depraved and immoral "God" to which humanity has been subjected is the God of Abraham, the deity worshipped by billions of Christians, Muslims and Jews. The defining event of Abraham's life, which is celebrated by all Abrahamists, is that God ordered him to kill his son and he willingly agreed. This consent to murder is, perversely and criminally, regarded as something great and wondrous by Abrahamists when in fact it should be defined as the ultimate immorality and evil. If killing your own innocent boy is "good" then what on earth constitutes "evil"? If Abrahamists don't hesitate to kill their own children, they certainly won't hesitate to kill yours - as history has so horrifically demonstrated.
Is it conceivable that the True God would order a father to make a human sacrifice of his own son, an act of irredeemable moral evil? Would any loving, moral father contemplate doing it for even one instant - or would he give his own life to save his son's? Would he not immediately conclude that the entity that gave the order was not God but the opposite: Satan? Who but the Devil would order fathers to murder their own flesh and blood to ensure their absolute obedience to his tyrannical commands? It's a category error to believe that God would order a father to kill his innocent son under any circumstances. It's quite simply a moral impossibility since it refutes all conceivable moral codes. Any person unable to see that is sick and evil, hence some three and a half billion Abrahamists must be classified as sick and evil.
The Islamic version of Abraham's sacrifice is even more horrific than the Jewish tale. Allah orders Abraham to kill his son Ishmael while "Shaytan" pleads with Abraham to spare the boy's life. Three times, Abraham violently drives Shaytan away with stones and at last gets ready to plunge a dagger into his son. That's all you need to know about the morality of Islam - Muslims support murder and reject those who plead for life (and call them "Satan"!). Ishmael's mother, Hagar, was present as Abraham made ready to kill their son, and lifted not one finger to intervene. This nauseating story of murderous parental hatred towards their innocent child is commemorated every year by millions of Muslims at their Hajj pilgrimage in Mecca, birthplace of Mohammed. "Shaytan's" heroic efforts to save the boy's life are disgracefully mocked in the ceremony of casting stones at the "Devil". But who is the REAL Devil? Who is truly acting immorally - the one who orders murder or the one who begs for life to be spared? How can there be any moral debate at all when the answer is so obvious - Muslims worship a murderer, not the God of Life. They explicitly reject the God of Life by casting stones at him. A Muslim wrote to us to say that Allah is the "greatest plotter". We're sure he is. He therefore manifestly isn't God. Why would God plot? Isn't he all-powerful? With whom and against whom would he plot? Does he plot against all those who say that morality excludes the possibility of anyone, God or human, ordering people to murder innocent children? The 9/11 terrorist hijackers were perfect Muslims, doing exactly the bidding of Allah - the God who orders the innocent to be slaughtered. If Islam forbade the slaughter of innocents, no one could consider 9/11 an Islamic act. But Islam enshrines the murder of the innocent. It's the focus of Hajj. Abraham is called the "first Muslim". Islam was founded on the basis of killing anyone in Allah's name, even your own children.
Shouldn't the tale of Abraham be the opposite of the one we are told about? An evil voice tells Abraham to kill his son and threatens him with terrible penalties if he refuses, and a good voice pleads with him not to. Three times the evil voice urges murder and three times Abraham rejects the wicked command, despite the terrible consequences he may suffer. The good voice then declares Abraham a noble and magnificent human being for heroically resisting evil, and declares that he should be emulated by the rest of humanity. Doesn't this version make perfect sense? The other version, the actual version, is insane, unless you're a Devil worshipper!
The infamous events, including murderous threats and actual murder, surrounding the publication of Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses go to the heart of the Islamic religion. Rushdie's book refers to a greatly disputed event whereby, according to some scholars, Mohammed acknowledged that Satan had appeared to him as the Angel Gabriel and dictated false verses to him, which were initially inserted in the official Koran and then removed (because they supported a more tolerant stance towards paganism). Of course, the question is then raised as to whether the whole of the Koran was in fact dictated by Satan calling himself God's angel. Mohammed himself feared that a demon had spoken to him on the first night of "revelation" and it was his wife who reassured him. Yet how could God's prophet be in any doubt about whether he was being addressed by an angel or demon? It's impossible. How could a "holy" man struggle to differentiate between the voices of good and evil? Was his wife therefore the true founder of Islam? But how could she reassure Mohammed given that she had no idea what had taken place between Mohammed and the "angel" since she wasn't there and didn't experience it? Women, in Islam, are in any case never considered reliable. Would the True God ever create a religion called "submission" - or would a tyrannical Devil establish such a master-slave religion which demands that human beings get on their knees to him? The answer is self-evident.
Abrahamists say that "God" was testing Abraham. So what was the test - to obey the most evil command of all without question? What kind of test is that? In fact, it was the Devil who was testing Abraham - and the test was to see if he was prepared to mindlessly and slavishly do ultimate evil simply to obey an order - just like the Nazis who were prosecuted at the Nuremberg trials for "only obeying orders" rather than accepting personal moral responsibility for their actions. Did Abraham show any consideration at all for his son? Did he assume moral accountability? Did he genuinely believe that slaughtering an innocent child was a "good" act? Or did he not think at all, but obey like a programmed machine, and is this not in fact what is required of all Abrahamists - never to think and to conduct themselves like dutiful automata? Look at Muslims - can they even be considered human, or are they just Koranic machines? Jews obey over 600 commandments - why? Do they despise freedom that much? As for Christians, they are so irrational they think the Creator of the universe was born in a stable to a 14-yr-old Jewish "virgin".
The companion piece to Abraham's sacrifice is the story of Jephtha's daughter. In this tale, a Jew burned his teenage, virgin daughter to death to fulfill an oath to Jehovah. Jehovah made no attempt to stop him. Why not? Because Jehovah is the God of Murder of the Innocent, the King Herod of deities. Abrahamists say that human free will is the cause of evil. They say that humanity should never have eaten of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and learned for themselves how to judge good and evil. They should have remained absolutely obedient to "God" and thus, like Abraham and Jephtha, agreed to slaughter their own children for Jehovah's sake. Why aren't these two diabolical men regarded as the very worst psychopaths? Why, instead, do three religions claim Abraham - the would-be child killer - as their patriarch and inspiration? Are they DERANGED?!
Are the billions of Christians, Muslims and Jews - Abraham's descendents - who infest and infect our world, nothing but robotic, irrational Devil worshippers who call their Satanic Lord, "God"? Did Abraham believe that it was an intrinsic "good" to obey any order given by "God"? Can a human being who obeys without question be regarded as human at all? In what sense do such people exercise judgment and moral choice? Are they not just programmed machines?
Abrahamism is the creed of absolute, mindless, slavish obedience to an infinitely powerful master. It is Hegel's master-slave dialectic at its most extreme, with "God" as the eternal master and humanity permanently on its knees, eyes fearfully cast downwards, shouting Allahu Akbar to prove their loyalty and devotion and thus avoid infinite punishment in hell. They are driven by utter terror of the punishment "God" will mete out to them for disobedience. This punishment can be both infinite in scale and eternal in duration. What loving God would ever terrorize his own creations with such monstrous threats and promises of limitless suffering? Does God enforce his will through Terror? Is that his trump card? Such a being is not God but the Devil.
Abrahamism is the supreme insult to human dignity and freedom. It stands in immortal opposition to the Enlightenment. It rejects reason and knowledge in every possible regard. There can be no glorious future for humanity until the wicked, mad Abrahamic past is obliterated. All Abrahamists are enemies of the human race, and followers of the cosmic Torture God, Satan.
Can any sane and rational person imagine a religion of love, compassion, kindness, forgiveness and peace being founded on the image of a father standing over his son ready to plunge a dagger into him at "God's" behest? How mentally ill and morally evil would you have to be to imagine that any benevolent religion could have such foundations, grounded in TERROR.
The God of Abraham is the Terrorist God, which is why so many of his followers are terrorists. The "War on Terror" ought to be the war against Abrahamism, the religion of the Devil himself.
Abrahamism is the biggest lie and fraud ever perpetrated against the human race. It was the Trojan Horse by which Satan had himself proclaimed "God" by billions of slaves, retards, cowards and the constitutionally superstitious and fearful. Half of the world has been controlled for thousands of years by the Abrahamic religions. If these religions are a source of good, why is the world so evil? Isn't the obvious truth that it's these religions that are the cause of human depravity? While they have manifestly failed to build a good world, they have succeeded spectacularly in creating an evil one. Isn't the rational thing to do to abandon failure and embrace a religion that actually works and tells the rational truth? Look at any picture of Abraham holding his dagger above his son's heart, ready to plunge it in to satisfy God's will, and consider the violent history of Abrahamism. 2 + 2 = 4, right?! If we don't understand the past we are condemned to repeat it. WAKE UP!
Reason versus Faith:
"Whenever we read the obscene stories [of the Old Testament], the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt or brutalize mankind." - Thomas Paine
Abrahamism champions faith. Faith means a strong or unshakeable belief in something without any proof. The insane person who is certain he is Napoleon is a person of faith. In fact, faith and insanity are the same thing. Why would anyone believe anything without proof? Billions of Christians believe that the Creator of the Universe was born in a stable to a Jewish virgin some 2,000 years ago. (The Jews themselves do not believe it.) Is that belief anything other than insane? It stands in absolute opposition to reason, logic, science and common sense, and even the Jews think it's stupid. Surely a claim so ridiculous must be backed up by irrefutable proof? But in fact it's backed up by no proof at all. It's just an assertion, a story in a book. Why would any sane person consider it true? And in fact no sane person would. If you believe in Christianity, you are saying that reason and science are wrong. You are rejecting everything solid, true and real in favour of a preposterous story.
Faith is quite simply an insane concept. Faith has no place in the rational world. Faith is a word that should be removed from the human vocabulary. It serves no positive function and is historically associated with extreme evil. It must be abolished.
Everything should be considered proven, provisionally proven, not proven, or refuted. At the very most charitable, the virgin birth of Jesus Christ would have to be considered not proven, and that is surely no basis for the most successful religion in world history. Science is based on evidence and reason and has wiped the floor with religion. In any contest between science and religion, science should be regarded as the default position and religion as being in severe want of evidence.
Believers should be stigmatised as stupid and mad - because that's exactly what they are.
Knowledge versus Superstition:
Enormous numbers of people still inhabit a world of primitive superstition. Superstition is of course a close relative of faith. Just like faith, superstition is ferociously anti-science and irrational. Superstition is defined as an irrational belief based on ignorance or fear and characterised by obsessive reverence for omens, charms or unseen forces.
Knowledge is the antidote to superstition. Superstition, like faith, must be driven out of the vocabulary. It must be stigmatized. There is simply no place for it.
Good deeds versus Faith:
Protestants have rejected good deeds in favour of faith (via the doctrine of justification by faith). Faith is consequently selfish and immoral and encourages scorn for other people and a refusal to help and cooperate with them.
We must have a world where good deeds are the basis of our moral code and faith has no role at all. Good deeds help others; faith helps no one. There is no moral justification by faith. Good deeds are the sole moral justifier.
Protestantism is an evil religion. Martin Luther, its sleazy founder, declared, "Reason is the Devil's whore." A religion that hates reason and good deeds is the definition of a Satanic religion. Protestantism must be eradicated.
Scientific Method versus Moralising:
The "Drugs War" has been going on for decades and shows no sign of being won. What's the point of this war? Is it all because some strident moralizers say that drugs are "wrong"? Well, their moralizing stance certainly hasn't accomplished any victory over drugs. Isn't it time to try non-moralizing tactics? Isn't it time to apply the scientific method, the most successful method in human history? Isn't it time to legalize drugs and collect evidence as to whether that leads to better or worse outcomes than at present? In fact, isn't it time to apply the scientific method to all aspects of the State and to eliminate moralizing entirely?
Let's make everything evidence based. Policies can be adopted, abandoned or amended not because they're morally "right" or "wrong" but because they are evidentially successful or unsuccessful.
Who are the moralizers? - the priest caste and the political preachers. Who needs these people? They have troubled the world long enough. Let them be gone. Let evidence and method replace these clowns.
Reincarnation versus Resurrection:
Resurrection is an absurd concept that makes people think their souls are created by God and are entirely under his control. In fact, souls are uncreated and eternal. When people understand that, they will realize that they are not subject to God at all. In fact, the logical conclusion of the doctrine of reincarnation is that everyone can perfect themselves and become God. Once you grasp that you are not controlled by God - that he can't send you to heaven or hell - and that you create your own fate and can send yourself to heaven because you yourself have become God then your attitude towards existence, God and yourself is transformed forever.
When everyone accepts the truth of reincarnation, it will revolutionise the world. Abrahamism will perish and everyone will start to work on the grand project to make themselves God.
YOUR FATE IS IN YOUR OWN HANDS - NOT ANYONE ELSE'S. GOD, STRICTLY SPEAKING, IS IRRELEVANT TO YOU, EXCEPT AS THE SHINING BEACON THAT DRAWS YOU ONWARDS AND UPWARDS TOWARDS YOUR OWN DIVINITY.
Eternity:
Anything that is eternal cannot have been created. All of the truths of mathematics are analytic, and that means they are eternal: they were defined before anyone was around to define them. They are immutable, perfect Platonic truths that are true now, will be true tomorrow and true an infinite number of years from now, just as they were true an infinite number of years ago. It is therefore impossible that any "Creator" created mathematics. It is equally impossible that anything at all gave rise to mathematics. Mathematics can have no predecessor or precursor.
Mathematics is the ONLY system that is composed of necessary, eternal truths. The "Big Bang" that gave rise to the physical universe is obviously not an event that belongs to eternity. All entities of this physical universe are equally uneternal, by definition. Nothing in this physical universe is more than 13.7 billion years old.
What and where were the laws of physics before the physical universe came into being? What laws were controlling the Big Bang as it happened? What laws caused it in the first place? Whatever controlled and caused the Big Bang must, of necessity, have preceded the Big Bang.
Existence itself can be controlled only by laws that are eternal, and that means that those laws ARE in some sense existence itself. They must be indissolubly encoded in the arche - the ultimate "stuff" of existence. We cannot separate the eternal laws of existence from the eternal constituents of existence. They are somehow the same thing.
So, what fundamental, eternal things can have the eternal truths of mathematics encoded in them?
Pythagoras, the first Grand Master of the Illuminati as a formal society, was the first human being to intuit the greatest idea in human history - one that can never be surpassed - when he announced, "All things are numbers." Numbers ARE mathematics. A universe of eternal numbers comes inbuilt with the eternal laws of mathematics: the constituents of existence and the laws of existence are one and the same thing. How else can everything in the universe "know" what to do in any situation i.e. how can "particles" know what behaviour to manifest whatever we do to them unless the full laws of existence that dictate every situation are already hard-wired into them?
What are numbers ontologically? They are eternal ENERGY WAVES. Once you grasp that the universe of numbers is one and the same thing as the universe of eternal, indestructible energy, Pythagoras's insight becomes a fundamentally scientific statement that no one would find controversial. (Number is the FREQUENCY of the wave: there are infinite frequencies, hence infinite numbers. Frequency IS number.)"
This is only an introduction, so don't hesitate to ask any questions.
The essence of Illumination, the secret religion of the Illuminati, is that it is possible for any human being to literally become God. Therefore, the Illuminati are wholly opposed to any religions that seek to alienate humanity from God and to create a master-slave relationship in which enslaved humans, on their knees, worship a tyrannical slave-master God who must be obeyed no matter what, even if he demands of people that they commit supremely horrific and evil deeds. The most depraved and immoral "God" to which humanity has been subjected is the God of Abraham, the deity worshipped by billions of Christians, Muslims and Jews. The defining event of Abraham's life, which is celebrated by all Abrahamists, is that God ordered him to kill his son and he willingly agreed. This consent to murder is, perversely and criminally, regarded as something great and wondrous by Abrahamists when in fact it should be defined as the ultimate immorality and evil. If killing your own innocent boy is "good" then what on earth constitutes "evil"? If Abrahamists don't hesitate to kill their own children, they certainly won't hesitate to kill yours - as history has so horrifically demonstrated.
Is it conceivable that the True God would order a father to make a human sacrifice of his own son, an act of irredeemable moral evil? Would any loving, moral father contemplate doing it for even one instant - or would he give his own life to save his son's? Would he not immediately conclude that the entity that gave the order was not God but the opposite: Satan? Who but the Devil would order fathers to murder their own flesh and blood to ensure their absolute obedience to his tyrannical commands? It's a category error to believe that God would order a father to kill his innocent son under any circumstances. It's quite simply a moral impossibility since it refutes all conceivable moral codes. Any person unable to see that is sick and evil, hence some three and a half billion Abrahamists must be classified as sick and evil.
The Islamic version of Abraham's sacrifice is even more horrific than the Jewish tale. Allah orders Abraham to kill his son Ishmael while "Shaytan" pleads with Abraham to spare the boy's life. Three times, Abraham violently drives Shaytan away with stones and at last gets ready to plunge a dagger into his son. That's all you need to know about the morality of Islam - Muslims support murder and reject those who plead for life (and call them "Satan"!). Ishmael's mother, Hagar, was present as Abraham made ready to kill their son, and lifted not one finger to intervene. This nauseating story of murderous parental hatred towards their innocent child is commemorated every year by millions of Muslims at their Hajj pilgrimage in Mecca, birthplace of Mohammed. "Shaytan's" heroic efforts to save the boy's life are disgracefully mocked in the ceremony of casting stones at the "Devil". But who is the REAL Devil? Who is truly acting immorally - the one who orders murder or the one who begs for life to be spared? How can there be any moral debate at all when the answer is so obvious - Muslims worship a murderer, not the God of Life. They explicitly reject the God of Life by casting stones at him. A Muslim wrote to us to say that Allah is the "greatest plotter". We're sure he is. He therefore manifestly isn't God. Why would God plot? Isn't he all-powerful? With whom and against whom would he plot? Does he plot against all those who say that morality excludes the possibility of anyone, God or human, ordering people to murder innocent children? The 9/11 terrorist hijackers were perfect Muslims, doing exactly the bidding of Allah - the God who orders the innocent to be slaughtered. If Islam forbade the slaughter of innocents, no one could consider 9/11 an Islamic act. But Islam enshrines the murder of the innocent. It's the focus of Hajj. Abraham is called the "first Muslim". Islam was founded on the basis of killing anyone in Allah's name, even your own children.
Shouldn't the tale of Abraham be the opposite of the one we are told about? An evil voice tells Abraham to kill his son and threatens him with terrible penalties if he refuses, and a good voice pleads with him not to. Three times the evil voice urges murder and three times Abraham rejects the wicked command, despite the terrible consequences he may suffer. The good voice then declares Abraham a noble and magnificent human being for heroically resisting evil, and declares that he should be emulated by the rest of humanity. Doesn't this version make perfect sense? The other version, the actual version, is insane, unless you're a Devil worshipper!
The infamous events, including murderous threats and actual murder, surrounding the publication of Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses go to the heart of the Islamic religion. Rushdie's book refers to a greatly disputed event whereby, according to some scholars, Mohammed acknowledged that Satan had appeared to him as the Angel Gabriel and dictated false verses to him, which were initially inserted in the official Koran and then removed (because they supported a more tolerant stance towards paganism). Of course, the question is then raised as to whether the whole of the Koran was in fact dictated by Satan calling himself God's angel. Mohammed himself feared that a demon had spoken to him on the first night of "revelation" and it was his wife who reassured him. Yet how could God's prophet be in any doubt about whether he was being addressed by an angel or demon? It's impossible. How could a "holy" man struggle to differentiate between the voices of good and evil? Was his wife therefore the true founder of Islam? But how could she reassure Mohammed given that she had no idea what had taken place between Mohammed and the "angel" since she wasn't there and didn't experience it? Women, in Islam, are in any case never considered reliable. Would the True God ever create a religion called "submission" - or would a tyrannical Devil establish such a master-slave religion which demands that human beings get on their knees to him? The answer is self-evident.
Abrahamists say that "God" was testing Abraham. So what was the test - to obey the most evil command of all without question? What kind of test is that? In fact, it was the Devil who was testing Abraham - and the test was to see if he was prepared to mindlessly and slavishly do ultimate evil simply to obey an order - just like the Nazis who were prosecuted at the Nuremberg trials for "only obeying orders" rather than accepting personal moral responsibility for their actions. Did Abraham show any consideration at all for his son? Did he assume moral accountability? Did he genuinely believe that slaughtering an innocent child was a "good" act? Or did he not think at all, but obey like a programmed machine, and is this not in fact what is required of all Abrahamists - never to think and to conduct themselves like dutiful automata? Look at Muslims - can they even be considered human, or are they just Koranic machines? Jews obey over 600 commandments - why? Do they despise freedom that much? As for Christians, they are so irrational they think the Creator of the universe was born in a stable to a 14-yr-old Jewish "virgin".
The companion piece to Abraham's sacrifice is the story of Jephtha's daughter. In this tale, a Jew burned his teenage, virgin daughter to death to fulfill an oath to Jehovah. Jehovah made no attempt to stop him. Why not? Because Jehovah is the God of Murder of the Innocent, the King Herod of deities. Abrahamists say that human free will is the cause of evil. They say that humanity should never have eaten of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and learned for themselves how to judge good and evil. They should have remained absolutely obedient to "God" and thus, like Abraham and Jephtha, agreed to slaughter their own children for Jehovah's sake. Why aren't these two diabolical men regarded as the very worst psychopaths? Why, instead, do three religions claim Abraham - the would-be child killer - as their patriarch and inspiration? Are they DERANGED?!
Are the billions of Christians, Muslims and Jews - Abraham's descendents - who infest and infect our world, nothing but robotic, irrational Devil worshippers who call their Satanic Lord, "God"? Did Abraham believe that it was an intrinsic "good" to obey any order given by "God"? Can a human being who obeys without question be regarded as human at all? In what sense do such people exercise judgment and moral choice? Are they not just programmed machines?
Abrahamism is the creed of absolute, mindless, slavish obedience to an infinitely powerful master. It is Hegel's master-slave dialectic at its most extreme, with "God" as the eternal master and humanity permanently on its knees, eyes fearfully cast downwards, shouting Allahu Akbar to prove their loyalty and devotion and thus avoid infinite punishment in hell. They are driven by utter terror of the punishment "God" will mete out to them for disobedience. This punishment can be both infinite in scale and eternal in duration. What loving God would ever terrorize his own creations with such monstrous threats and promises of limitless suffering? Does God enforce his will through Terror? Is that his trump card? Such a being is not God but the Devil.
Abrahamism is the supreme insult to human dignity and freedom. It stands in immortal opposition to the Enlightenment. It rejects reason and knowledge in every possible regard. There can be no glorious future for humanity until the wicked, mad Abrahamic past is obliterated. All Abrahamists are enemies of the human race, and followers of the cosmic Torture God, Satan.
Can any sane and rational person imagine a religion of love, compassion, kindness, forgiveness and peace being founded on the image of a father standing over his son ready to plunge a dagger into him at "God's" behest? How mentally ill and morally evil would you have to be to imagine that any benevolent religion could have such foundations, grounded in TERROR.
The God of Abraham is the Terrorist God, which is why so many of his followers are terrorists. The "War on Terror" ought to be the war against Abrahamism, the religion of the Devil himself.
Abrahamism is the biggest lie and fraud ever perpetrated against the human race. It was the Trojan Horse by which Satan had himself proclaimed "God" by billions of slaves, retards, cowards and the constitutionally superstitious and fearful. Half of the world has been controlled for thousands of years by the Abrahamic religions. If these religions are a source of good, why is the world so evil? Isn't the obvious truth that it's these religions that are the cause of human depravity? While they have manifestly failed to build a good world, they have succeeded spectacularly in creating an evil one. Isn't the rational thing to do to abandon failure and embrace a religion that actually works and tells the rational truth? Look at any picture of Abraham holding his dagger above his son's heart, ready to plunge it in to satisfy God's will, and consider the violent history of Abrahamism. 2 + 2 = 4, right?! If we don't understand the past we are condemned to repeat it. WAKE UP!
Reason versus Faith:
"Whenever we read the obscene stories [of the Old Testament], the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt or brutalize mankind." - Thomas Paine
Abrahamism champions faith. Faith means a strong or unshakeable belief in something without any proof. The insane person who is certain he is Napoleon is a person of faith. In fact, faith and insanity are the same thing. Why would anyone believe anything without proof? Billions of Christians believe that the Creator of the Universe was born in a stable to a Jewish virgin some 2,000 years ago. (The Jews themselves do not believe it.) Is that belief anything other than insane? It stands in absolute opposition to reason, logic, science and common sense, and even the Jews think it's stupid. Surely a claim so ridiculous must be backed up by irrefutable proof? But in fact it's backed up by no proof at all. It's just an assertion, a story in a book. Why would any sane person consider it true? And in fact no sane person would. If you believe in Christianity, you are saying that reason and science are wrong. You are rejecting everything solid, true and real in favour of a preposterous story.
Faith is quite simply an insane concept. Faith has no place in the rational world. Faith is a word that should be removed from the human vocabulary. It serves no positive function and is historically associated with extreme evil. It must be abolished.
Everything should be considered proven, provisionally proven, not proven, or refuted. At the very most charitable, the virgin birth of Jesus Christ would have to be considered not proven, and that is surely no basis for the most successful religion in world history. Science is based on evidence and reason and has wiped the floor with religion. In any contest between science and religion, science should be regarded as the default position and religion as being in severe want of evidence.
Believers should be stigmatised as stupid and mad - because that's exactly what they are.
Knowledge versus Superstition:
Enormous numbers of people still inhabit a world of primitive superstition. Superstition is of course a close relative of faith. Just like faith, superstition is ferociously anti-science and irrational. Superstition is defined as an irrational belief based on ignorance or fear and characterised by obsessive reverence for omens, charms or unseen forces.
Knowledge is the antidote to superstition. Superstition, like faith, must be driven out of the vocabulary. It must be stigmatized. There is simply no place for it.
Good deeds versus Faith:
Protestants have rejected good deeds in favour of faith (via the doctrine of justification by faith). Faith is consequently selfish and immoral and encourages scorn for other people and a refusal to help and cooperate with them.
We must have a world where good deeds are the basis of our moral code and faith has no role at all. Good deeds help others; faith helps no one. There is no moral justification by faith. Good deeds are the sole moral justifier.
Protestantism is an evil religion. Martin Luther, its sleazy founder, declared, "Reason is the Devil's whore." A religion that hates reason and good deeds is the definition of a Satanic religion. Protestantism must be eradicated.
Scientific Method versus Moralising:
The "Drugs War" has been going on for decades and shows no sign of being won. What's the point of this war? Is it all because some strident moralizers say that drugs are "wrong"? Well, their moralizing stance certainly hasn't accomplished any victory over drugs. Isn't it time to try non-moralizing tactics? Isn't it time to apply the scientific method, the most successful method in human history? Isn't it time to legalize drugs and collect evidence as to whether that leads to better or worse outcomes than at present? In fact, isn't it time to apply the scientific method to all aspects of the State and to eliminate moralizing entirely?
Let's make everything evidence based. Policies can be adopted, abandoned or amended not because they're morally "right" or "wrong" but because they are evidentially successful or unsuccessful.
Who are the moralizers? - the priest caste and the political preachers. Who needs these people? They have troubled the world long enough. Let them be gone. Let evidence and method replace these clowns.
Reincarnation versus Resurrection:
Resurrection is an absurd concept that makes people think their souls are created by God and are entirely under his control. In fact, souls are uncreated and eternal. When people understand that, they will realize that they are not subject to God at all. In fact, the logical conclusion of the doctrine of reincarnation is that everyone can perfect themselves and become God. Once you grasp that you are not controlled by God - that he can't send you to heaven or hell - and that you create your own fate and can send yourself to heaven because you yourself have become God then your attitude towards existence, God and yourself is transformed forever.
When everyone accepts the truth of reincarnation, it will revolutionise the world. Abrahamism will perish and everyone will start to work on the grand project to make themselves God.
YOUR FATE IS IN YOUR OWN HANDS - NOT ANYONE ELSE'S. GOD, STRICTLY SPEAKING, IS IRRELEVANT TO YOU, EXCEPT AS THE SHINING BEACON THAT DRAWS YOU ONWARDS AND UPWARDS TOWARDS YOUR OWN DIVINITY.
Eternity:
Anything that is eternal cannot have been created. All of the truths of mathematics are analytic, and that means they are eternal: they were defined before anyone was around to define them. They are immutable, perfect Platonic truths that are true now, will be true tomorrow and true an infinite number of years from now, just as they were true an infinite number of years ago. It is therefore impossible that any "Creator" created mathematics. It is equally impossible that anything at all gave rise to mathematics. Mathematics can have no predecessor or precursor.
Mathematics is the ONLY system that is composed of necessary, eternal truths. The "Big Bang" that gave rise to the physical universe is obviously not an event that belongs to eternity. All entities of this physical universe are equally uneternal, by definition. Nothing in this physical universe is more than 13.7 billion years old.
What and where were the laws of physics before the physical universe came into being? What laws were controlling the Big Bang as it happened? What laws caused it in the first place? Whatever controlled and caused the Big Bang must, of necessity, have preceded the Big Bang.
Existence itself can be controlled only by laws that are eternal, and that means that those laws ARE in some sense existence itself. They must be indissolubly encoded in the arche - the ultimate "stuff" of existence. We cannot separate the eternal laws of existence from the eternal constituents of existence. They are somehow the same thing.
So, what fundamental, eternal things can have the eternal truths of mathematics encoded in them?
Pythagoras, the first Grand Master of the Illuminati as a formal society, was the first human being to intuit the greatest idea in human history - one that can never be surpassed - when he announced, "All things are numbers." Numbers ARE mathematics. A universe of eternal numbers comes inbuilt with the eternal laws of mathematics: the constituents of existence and the laws of existence are one and the same thing. How else can everything in the universe "know" what to do in any situation i.e. how can "particles" know what behaviour to manifest whatever we do to them unless the full laws of existence that dictate every situation are already hard-wired into them?
What are numbers ontologically? They are eternal ENERGY WAVES. Once you grasp that the universe of numbers is one and the same thing as the universe of eternal, indestructible energy, Pythagoras's insight becomes a fundamentally scientific statement that no one would find controversial. (Number is the FREQUENCY of the wave: there are infinite frequencies, hence infinite numbers. Frequency IS number.)"
This is only an introduction, so don't hesitate to ask any questions.
![[Image: TL%3BDR.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=images.wikia.com%2Fadventuretimewithfinnandjake%2Fimages%2Fb%2Fb3%2FTL%253BDR.jpg)
![[Image: didnt-read-lol-chicken-gif.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=4.bp.blogspot.com%2F--ekR6jG4Iwk%2FTw4zvKN4RCI%2FAAAAAAAAAn0%2FIX-VBCUOUvs%2Fs1600%2Fdidnt-read-lol-chicken-gif.gif)
![[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQN0oLlpsjG0lXtcoRzRO0...xgsnvoSBBQ]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=t3.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcQN0oLlpsjG0lXtcoRzRO0MNAyW5vehjiHLkTXmaaxgsnvoSBBQ)
