Posts Tagged ‘Jesus’

Christianity’s Jesus Is Evil

September 17, 2017

All Religions Calling For Human Sacrifices Should Be Outlawed

The Romans believed so, under the Republic. However, after Rome degenerated into tyranny, Roman leaders from Constantine to Theodosius, embraced a religion which called, in semi-disguise, for the mass-killing of “unbelievers”. Thus “unbelievers” rather than “barbarians” became the enemy of civilization. (And right away, Roman emperors welcome all sorts of barbarians in the armies… even the Huns!) Here is Jesus allegedly speaking:

Luke 19:27: But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.

Islam copied all this New and Old Testament violence, on steroids (for example explicitly recalling in the Qur’an that the Bible Old Testament called for a “rain of stones” on homosexuals; so the Qur’an does not order to stone homosexuals, it just says that the Bible orders to do so).

By the way, when a professor from a prestigious US university pointed out, in 1961, that there were barely disguised cannibalistic elements in the Catholic mass, he was thrown out of the university. Yet, Jesus asks to eat his body and drink his blood, there is little ambiguity.

No greater love than loving the cross? Torture What You Love, Love What You Torture. That God has a rather tortured mind. Tortured, thus torturing. In any case, quite a nice religious symbol for tyrants to brandish!

Can we tolerate ideologies which celebrate mass violence and mass murder against classes of individuals who are what they are for biological reasons, or because they practice freedom of thought, or from non-ideological identity? No. Because mass murdering violence invites much more of the same as defense, and before you know it, one will have global mayhem.


Al Frommi, in a comment on Aeon, agreed in general with me about Islam, yet made a nuanced (all too kind) interpretation of the Bible. Then he objected to my use of Luke 19;27.

In the case of Islam we should remember most Muslim think they are holier than any body. They put themselves in God place, and proceed to judge and punish depriving people of their God giveen free will. [Part of this comment has been censored by Aeon for contravening Aeon’s community guidelines] They think we are not going to do research on the matter. God punishment of homosexual, is God’s to do not for humans to impose. And God punished them with homosexuality. Not for man to re-punish. The real sin is described in Romans 1: 18- 23 and also Read: Romans 1:26-32

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; ( who were those who didn’t accept the knowledge of God. The Romans & the Greeks & the Jews of that time.)

Now, Luke 19:27 is a quote from the Bible that is an illustration said in the form of a story which Jesus was telling his disciples & here is the complete illustrations: Luke 19:

12 So he said: “A man of noble birth traveled to a distant land to secure kingly power for himself and to return…

Dear Al Frommi: OK, my bad. I was reading Luke pretty fast, and I failed to notice, before Luke 19;11, that Jesus was telling a bedtime story about a king, and, although Jesus was speaking in the first person, it was supposed not to be him, talking, but that king. However, the fact one could make such an honest mistake is, per se, a problem. And the overall reason is that Jesus, as depicted by various Gospels, is viciously nasty of the murderous type, as the rest of this essay will make clear.

Indeed violent, extremely injurious and even lethal threats are found in the New Testament. The degree of violence is on a par with the Qur’an, written six centuries later, or the Old Testament, written five centuries earlier. Such a level of cruel, often lethal violence is plenty enough to instill the mood that the divinity (here Jesus) is murderously insane… Thus Jesus’ most significant teaching may not be “love”, but that it is OK, not to say real cool and holy, to be murderously insane in the name of religion.

Problem with tyrannical god: Love is a caress, death terminal. After all, everybody can love everybody everyday, all over again, but killing is done only once.

Here is a sample of Jesus murderous insanity, just in (some of) the gospel of Matthew:

Those who bear bad fruit will be cut down and burned “with unquenchable fire.” 3:10, 12

Jesus strongly approves of the Hebrew god law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old testament. 5:17

Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any woman commits adultery. 5:29-30

Jesus says that most people will go to hell. 7:13-14. Those who fail to bear “good fruit” will be “hewn down, and cast into the fire.” 7:19

(If that reminds you of that constant admonition in the Qur’an, that’s no coincidence!)

“The children of the kingdom [the Jews] shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 8:12 Jesus tells a man who had just lost his father: “Let the dead bury the dead.” 8:21.

Even the beasts are not exempt. Jesus sends some devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the waters below. 8:32

Cities that neither “receive” the disciples nor “hear” their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. (see Gen 19:24). 10:14-15

Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few “prophecies” in the Bible that has actually came to be true, as Christians of various creeds killed each other, as early as the Fourth Century). “Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.” 10:21

Jesus says that we should fear God who is willing and “able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” 10:28

Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has “come not to send peace, but a sword.” 10:34-36

(This is a statement similar to Luke 19;27, but, this time, Jesus attributes it to himself!)

Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn’t care for his preaching. 11:20-24

Jesus will send his angels to gather up “all that offend” and they “shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” 13:41-42, 50

Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (See Ex 21:15, Lev 20:9, Dt 21:18-21) So, does Jesus think that children who curse their parents should be killed? It sure sounds like it. 15:4-7.

And so on. This was just an appetizer, in some of Matthew alone.

This mood of mayhem is why the Crusade against the Cathars killed 5 million (total, including one million in France alone). At the end of the Sixteenth Century, there was seven religious wars in France alone. The famous massacre of the Saint Barthelemy alone, which was just prior, in 1572 CE, killed up to 30,000 (most of them Protestants).

Oh, and during the First Crusade, Frankish writers and historians themselves, related that Muslim children were roasted and devoured, by the Franks themselves, as part of their holy Crusade (after all, Jesus asks his followers to do just that, to himself… So why not to third parties?)

But the worst was probably the systematic destruction of books, library, intellectuals and thinking which the Christian fanatic launched in 363 CE, with the explicit support of Roman emperor Jovian. That brought the near-collapse of civilization.

All preaching of a literal reading of Abrahamism should be outlawed. And believers should be remembered that the holy texts are just allegory, if not outright fiction.

This, by the way, is how to fundamentally handle Fundamental Islam, also known as “terrorism”. Just outlaw the preaching and public literal interpretations and applications. In particular, all countries with an official religion, especially when it influences the secular law, should be told by those who think, to cease and desist. (Tunisia 90-year-old president wants equality of man and woman in inheritance, contrarily to the present, Islamist Tunisian law, which makes man above woman.)

Jesus is a prophet of Islam. Some texts in Islam holy script say that those who insult prophet Jesus should be killed (the law of killing those who “insult” Jesus was applied in Pakistan, an Islamist State, in the last few years). Hence Fundamentalist Muslims order to kill those who dare to say that evil is evil. When will Western Intellectuals rise as one, and condemn those who condemn, to death, those who condemn evil?

And how could one condemn those who brandish thermonuclear fire, if evil is a protected notion?

Patrice Ayme

Jesus, From Good To Bad

March 13, 2015

Talking too much about god is not viewed as serious philosophy in Europe anymore. However, just look at Charlie Hebdo, Putin, or the CIA accusing Julian Assange to have kissed a consenting woman wrong to see the error of the ways of ignoring how imbeciles think.

Ignoring Hitler was not profitable to higher intellectual types, let’s not repeat the mistake.


“Evidence”, in law, history, and much of science, is all about establishing in what “universe” (in the sense given in Logical Treatises) the logos of the debate is going to live.

Informal Bayesian analysis is used all the way to do so. It is informal, because it depends blatantly upon subjective elements (so does all and any logos).

It can be fraught: some used it to “prove” the existence of Jesus, or its opposite.

I wrote against the historicity of Jesus, for decades. In the USA, this makes you less appreciated than if you wrote against the car. But Jesus is central to tolerating the plutocratic order (strangely enough, as the Gospels clearly despise wealth).

Thinking Out Of The Box Works, Even For Gnus.

Thinking Out Of The Box Works, Even For Gnus.

Carrier is a historian not infeodated to Christianism. In the USA, an entire propaganda is directed against these people, calling them “Gnu Atheists”.

I just consulted Carrier’s (very recent) work:

Carrier’s arguments about the inexistence of Jesus, the person, are purely logical, and similar to those I long published. However he misses more general arguments which I used. First observation: at the time, Jesus-like characters were a dime a dozen.

Some of the Jesus look-alike, who really existed, violated the law, and were tried and executed (we have the historical records). Some died in Rome, some in the Orient.

Before I pursue the general theory, let me insist a bit using more arguments against the existence of Jesus the person.

It is often say that Tacitus speaks of Jesus (however, Josephus, the top Jewish general, writing 39 years earlier his gigantic history of Judea, did not).

Tacitus wrote the Annals in 109 CE. That was 45 years after Saint Paul spent some time inventing Cristus in his golden prison in Rome (I say). According to me, Saint Paul was exfiltrated from Rome (for the same reason that he was brought to Rome in the first place, to escape execution in Jerusalem).

Saint Paul obviously had very high contacts inside the Roman state (his exfiltration from Judea was already quite a risk for Rome. Four years after Saint Paul’s writing, the first Evangels/Gospels are written by supposed “eyewitnesses” of Cristus (although Josephus, who was in the best position to know everything, was not in the know).

Many top Romans obviously felt Cristus was a better deal than those pesky Jews. And presented a golden opportunity for a universal religion (as all religion had a top god, it could be identified to the one of Jesus).

Indeed, by 300 CE, Christianism had extended massively a Romanitas of sorts, well beyond the Roman LIMES (the military border). (It is even rumored that at least one emperor was a closet Christian during the Third Century).

We know, from various documents, that very high officials in Rome, were engaged in the Christian conspiracy, early on. (Some declared they would write Gospels during their retirement…)

The idea of Christianism was not too bad, at first sight: it was to reintroduce the Republic, through the “Christian Republic”, a sort of sea monster that kept on reappearing until 1789…

As early as the Eight Century, the Venetian Republic blossomed under the wings of the Franks (Charlemagne no doubt saw himself as the new Augustus… Or more exactly, DAVID).


Last, no least: the Annals were discovered by religious people, in religious establishments. In various Abbeys, Monasteries, and Monte Cassino. Rumors of forgeries are as old as their discovery. Are the “Cristus” passages authentic?


A good way to understand the root of a flawed reasoning is to understand the logic that exert psychological pressure to produce that lie. There was a need for a Jesus character, so plenty of Jesus characters were produced, by the general logic in attendance.

What was that logic?

Jewish faith was Judeo-centric. It had a great strength: an undivided god. Many religions recognized a god of the gods, but having no god but god was simpler, and less subject to contradictions, while being more sympathetic to a state led by just one “Prince” (Princeps).

A message more oriented towards all people, not just Jews, and normal human ethology, that is, with more love than Rome experienced, fit the species better.

Hence a full century before the alleged Jesus, there was another, just like him in his philosophical message, but this one gentleman was fully historically documented, in Alexandria.

The logic wanted a Jesus, so Saint Paul produced it (with several caveats in his writings which basically recognized he made Jesus up, and those caveats were produced by me, long ago, and Carrier, more recently).

When Laplace furthered “Bayesian” analysis, he was interested by some games of chance.

When philosophers produce truth, they do not blindly parrot gnu logic. Gnus are herd animals, travelling by the millions. Gnu Christians have stampeded all over civilization for 17 centuries.

How does new philosophy produce new truth? By pondering why gnus do what they do.

Why did Saint Paul want Jesus to be? Why was the “Jesus” message welcomed by the empire? Emperors and bishops who governed the empire in 400 CE, had interest to eliminate the logics those questions called for.

New truth is produced by introducing new facts, which break the universe the old logic rested on.

The best way to do that, is through a meta-logic making the old logic a special case (as General Relativity did to Classical Gravitation).

Arguably, Jesus was just the meta-logic towards a more human society, which the Roman Empire was sorely in need of.

Having a reason for Jesus the myth, makes the historical Jesus less likely. It explains the frantic anxiety of those fragile types who are afraid they cannot cuddle with their idol anymore.

What sort of reasoning is this? Having a different

reason for a hypothesis can make axioms that led to this hypothesis superfluous. This is not properly speaking what came to be called “Bayesian” (a recent term) analysis. But it is related.

When Laplace presented his book on Celestial Mechanics to Napoleon, the tyrant retorted: ”I do not see God in your book.” Laplace retorted: “I did not need this hypothesis.”


December 26, 2014

Systems Of Moods Overwhelm Systems of Thought.


Are we born with “instincts” such as “care”, and the like? Or do we learn? I believe we learn (much of this being fast learning, and, mostly, subconscious). How does that work? Well, it would work from General Topology informing neurogenesis.

French philosopher Foucault baptized himself historian of systems of thought, when he got a professorship at the prestigious Collège de France in 1970. (Collège de France, the ultimate think institution, is five centuries old.)

I have gone one further, by introducing Systems of Moods. Why moods? Emotion Primes Reason. However, rarely does one emotion rule alone, but for ravenous hunger, abject terror, and other animalistic crazes. Instead, when we meditate ponderously, we are usually ruled by moods.

What’s a mood? It’s a cocktail of emotions. Systems of Moods are articulated with their own logic. Pascal discovered this, when he said “Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison n’a pas”.

Why and how does the “heart” have its own logic? The answer has to do with where does logic come from? Logic is basically about arrows, implications: ’if A, then B’.

Where do these “thens”, these implications, come from? When one says:’I have a bad feeling about this’, one reasons out of a mood: the forest is suddenly too quiet, or a bird made an alarm sound… And suddenly all of one’s senses are in full alert.

Sets of moods will tend to topological relations. Instead of the one to one relations of logic or category theory. Topology, the logic of places, can bring to bear relationships that are much more general than ‘if A then B’. Relations such as: ’if A is close to B while C is close to D, when closer to A than B, then…’

This topo-logic can be embodied by neurohormones, neurotransmitters, and the neighborhoods they create (neighborhood is here used in the exact mathematical, General Topological sense). This no idle theory: it’s known that dendrites, and other neuronal structures, tend to grow in some directions, depending upon these chemicals. That means that the neurological relations of linear logic are built from the emotional and neurohormonal calculus.



I am going to use an example that arose from my adventures at a philosophy website. It’s rather complex, so let me give an abstract first: a philosophy professor drew a correct conclusion, yet the EXACT OPPOSITE conclusion is also valid. How is that possible? It is because, once some moods and emotions are rolled out, logic can go one way, or the other.

So much for the old hope that determinism and logic (in the conventional sense) rule all.

The example was extracted from Scientia Salon, a site run by university philosophers.

Philosophy professor Gregg Caruso considered polls on the behavior of USA citizens (that’s called “experimental philosophy”). Verdict? The relationship between believing in Free Will and believing that low lives dug their own fates, seems strong in the USA.

Gregg wrote: “juries — eager to preserve their belief in a just world — are already inclined to see the victim … as other than innocent… just one unfortunate example of the pernicious nature of belief in a just world… since, of course, if the world is just, then people must have brought these circumstances upon themselves. This blaming of victims (in defense of belief in a just world) has been established by numerous studies… the stronger the belief in a just world the greater the likelihood of blaming victims for their unfortunate fates.”

Any society rests on logic. The logic does not have to be all-embracing, it just has to be effective enough to support the social organization. Gregg’s general thesis is a good antidote to the present logic dominating the USA. Yet a USA social truth does not have to be a truth of human ethology.

And it is not, as egregious cases in non-USA based history and geography show.

The Nazis believed the less Free Will, the better: “society’s needs come before the individual’s needs” (Adolf Hitler). So did the followers of Stalin. So do, to a great extent some of the Muslim religions (so called “branches” of Islam). All believe(d) that individual Free Will had to be eradicated. Islam comes from aslama “he submitted”.

All believe(d) that the world could be made just through the application of strength, and the Will of God, the General Secretary, or the Guide.

Now, if I abstract the examples above (Stalinism, Nazism, Islamism), I can rephrase the grand conclusion of Gregg, into its complete contradiction. Below I just changed “Free Will” into “NON Free Will”:

…belief in NON free will, it was found, by studying the historical examples above, is associated with just world belief, authoritarianism, religiosity, punitiveness, and moralistic standards for judging self and other. While these considerations do not prove belief in NON free will is mistaken, they do indicate that the putative pragmatic benefits of believing in NON free will and desert-based moral responsibility are bogus.

Gregg showed that in the USA to doubt Free Will would allow society to progress. History, in many other places show that rejecting Free Will led to horrible societies.

How come Gregg’s informed logic and concrete polls can be turned on its head? What is going on?

The answer is from the theory of systems of moods. The reason that the logic can be turned on its head is that what truly matters are the mood and subjacent emotions.

Example. The Nazis posed themselves as victims of an unjust world (big, bad, rich, hypocritical, Indian exterminating America; Versailles Treaty). Germans, all over, were oppressed minorities. Only surrendering Free Will would be bring back justice and stop the punition they were submitted to.

Strong emotions, bound by strong logic, make strong medicine. Yet, the logic is secondary. It could go whichever way. This is what the apparent truth of both Free Will Skepticism, and the truth of its exact opposite, my pernicious anti-thesis (just an observation, too), demonstrate.

Foucault suggested that power laid in discourses, more than anything else. I agree. Yet, beyond that, power lays in the raw emotions, and the moods they blossom into. The exact nature of the way they get organized is an afterthought.

Here is an explicit example: Christianism and love. Christ said that to love was the commanding commandment. Fine. However, read what he exactly said:

“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

What’s the strongest emotion here? Jesus says it himself: loving obedience to “the Lord”. He puts it first. However, obedience is not the most prominent feature of human ethology (raw love probably is, next to the survival instinct). Thus the implied logic is the violence one has to exert to do something unnatural, obeying a so-called “Lord”.

In the end, Jesus’ primary emotion holds in just one word: “Lord”. Jesus is a plutophile: loving a “Lord” is the first law.

He, and others, can put whatever logic they want after that to embellish the ugliness, and comfort the horror. It does not really matter. The overall mood flows from there, one concept: “the Lord”. The rest is just rearranging the chairs on the sinking Titanic of Jesus’ make belief goodness.

Patrice Ayme’

Was Jesus Christ Immoral?

December 25, 2014


Instead, Forget Abraham, Resist, Crush Infamy, and Save the Little Children.

Jesus is an imperial Roman fabrication. Not only his mythology was cut and pasted from pre-existing religions, but even His birthday was displaced from one side of the Sun to the other. This 6 months translation made it coincide with the Winter Solstice and the Saturnials, the feast and celebration of the Greco-Roman empire which lasted weeks.

No philosopher of note has considered Jesus since Nietzsche noticed that the crucifix was a sex symbol for frustrated Christians. So why do I bother? Well, the USA is pervaded by God, and Jesus is his son. That would be OK, except that the GDP of the USA is growing at an annual rate of 5%, whereas Europe, and even Germany, has been stagnating with zero percent growth since 2008.

Both facts are related, but I will not get into that for this essay. Another point is that a version of the remarks on Jesus’ morality was censored on a philosophy website, because the moderator, a professional philosopher, and self-declared atheist, viewed it as “unduly offensive”.

Real philosophers offend the baffled and uncomprehending masses with true ideas they cannot swallow yet.

In the West, for more than a millennium, “Jesus” was viewed as the paragon of morality. Instead I will propose the exact opposite, by analyzing carefully what may be Jesus’ most famous saying. It made “Jesus” into the whetstone on which Nazism, among other evils, was sharpened.

I already pointed out that Jesus had homicidal tendencies: not only did this rabbi make explicit threats, but he said he came to impose the “Law” the Old Testament.

Said Old Testament depicts a God drunk on power, mass homicides, and a passion for torturing to death little children, so as to humiliate or punish their parents. It is hard to find a more despicable character in the history of ideas. The Biblical god can do whatever He pleases and call that divine.

The local plutocrat, our local lord, made in God’s image, was then morally justified to behave just as he wished all along. Hence the dealing and pushing of Christianism onto the mystified masses by plutocrats, from Constantine to Putin.

Jesus said: [those who] serve other gods … thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.” [Bible New Testament; Dt.13:6-10]

A Christian, Elizabeth Carter, was not thrilled with the unconventional picture of Jesus I gave. She commented (Dec 5, 2014):

“Christ taught us not to resist evil but to turn the other cheek.

He said that if you choose to live by the law of Moses you will be judged by the law of Moses…

Jesus was crucified and did not resist the evil that was being done to him at all. Christians were told to follow Him.”

The statement “Christ taught us not to resist evil but to turn the other cheek,” is the epitome of immorality.

Jesus, even if he existed, was a savage of 2,000 years ago who repeated like a parrot what rabbi Hillel The Elder said a century before. Even the conservative Edmund Burke, 250 years ago, came to realize that Jesus was morally evil. Said Burke: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Ironically this idea is central to the French Revolution, which Burke hated. In the French revolution, good men decided to do something about plutocracy… And the struggle is not over. Voltaire’s “IL FAUT ECRASER L’INFAME” got it right, and got the whole world rolling in the correct direction.

What did Chris thought he was achieving with turning the other cheek? Looking somewhere else? Indicating that punishment, cheek slapping, should be pursued, until morale improve, or one passes out?

Or was Christ, by turning the other cheek to evil, teaching us to collaborate with evil? Or, to put it more crudely, and to the point, to collaborate with Auschwitz? Let Him get to the oven first. With my most sincere contempt.

The hundreds of extermination camps the Nazis set-up all over Germany could function only because, like Jesus, the average Christian German decided to turn the other cheek and look somewhere else. Some extermination hells, such as Dachau, were in full view, a few kilometers from Munich. An outraged American general forced the whole local population of good Christian Germans to visit this place of extermination. The honorable German citizens put their finest clothes, and grimly contemplated what their hellish culture of cheek turning allowed to happen.

Jesus is distinctly less popular in Germany now. He had told the Germans to avert their eyes, and not fight evil. Jesus was wrong as wrong could be. All over Europe, he does not cut the saintly figure he used to.

Christians were told to follow their love boy, Jesus, and his dad. Germans were told to follow their “Guide” (Fuhrer).

Evil’s face could be that of a hungry lion, or that of a thug, or a rampaging dictator. Turning the other cheek only encourages it. The mythical Jesus Himself, when confronted with a few merchants in the Temple, not really an outrage in my opinion, got very angry, and physically violent, as he threw them out.

Thus the alleged acts of the mythical Jesus make no emotional sense: if some fast buck artists soil the Temple with their wares, He attacks them, but if some dictator puts a child in the oven, He turns the other cheek? Insignificant is outrageous, and outrageous, is insignificant?

Is it this perverse logic which allowed hungry Crusaders to roast and eat little Muslim Children?

(This evil culinary fact is well documented through direct eyewitnesses and participants; one would assume that, as good Christians, the Crusaders just turned the other cheek, so they could munch better…)

Essential to Jesus’ “teaching” is that one should not resist infamy. The very fact lover boy Jesus did not resist his own crucifixion, as Christians say, is the very proof that, either he deserved it, or he was of the lowest moral sort.

Or maybe he was a masochist who wanted to be crucified, because that gave him a sexual kick, to rub his buns on rough wood.

And his followers are even worse. I mean what are these creeps going to do when some monsters come to torture a child? Turn the other cheek? Not resist? Celebrate Abraham, who bound his own son, to slit his throat, because he was in love with his boss? That’s clearly worse than gay marriage, it’s gay murder.

How much more despicable can one be?

Those “Christian” ideas ought to be buried in the mental rot to which they belong. They are precious only in the sense that they laud the exact sort of systems of thought and moods we should avoid like the mental plague they are: lethal and contagious.

To have made a religion out of collaboration with infamy, is not just inhuman, absurd, demented, and an insult to our true creator, biological evolution. It should outright be made unlawful to teach it as non-fiction. And frowned upon, submitted to the severe punishment, as non-assistance to children in danger. Some demons will laugh: ‘No wonder Christians love the cross so much: deep down inside they know they all deserve it, being the lowest of the low’.


Happy Birthday, Christ. Should you have truly existed, as the Good Lord, no doubt you taught the exact opposite of many of the words plutocrats such as emperor Constantine put in your mouth.

Patrice Ayme’

Logos, Neurology, Stoicism, Christianity, Higher Morality

November 21, 2014

My statement:


Brought the observation: ”I’m afraid I can’t imagine what this means.” (Massimo from Scientia Salon.) Others have asked for more details. Here they are.

The statement was admittedly abstruse. It is supposed to mean that the Logos as speech is a representation of the Logos as more complex brain processes. (Here the word representation” is used in the mathematical sense, more general version: this is a new example of philosophy using fresh mathematics!)

How does this representative mechanism can be suspected to work? (I already wrote this, but this version has more definition).

Stars Inside. By Varying Myelin, Oligodendrocytes Act As Meta Controllers (2014)

Stars Inside. By Varying Myelin, Oligodendrocytes Act As Meta Controllers (2014)

Suppose we have brain “elements” X, Y, Z (to simplify, say X, Y, Z are neurons, but they could be organs in the brain, like the amygdala, or the geometric structure of some neighborhood in the brain, whatever… yes, here “neighborhood” is used as in General Topology, another mathematical field).

Yes, “brain elements” is an allusion to “elements of reality” as in the Einstein-Podolski-Rosen paper on non-separability in Quantum Mechanics.

Then suppose we have the situation X > Y, and Y > Z.

X>Y means that the brain element X acts on the brain element Y. In the simplest case, “>” are axons. But the first “>” does not have to be of the same nature as the second “>”, which could be, say, some neurohormone or transmitter, such as Nitrous Oxide, or even a burst of oxygen and sugar in an area of the brain, thanks to some gateway neuron.

This innocent sounding remark allows to incorporate all three forms of the Logos defined by Aristotle. Aristotle distinguished the Logos-as-reasoning, from the Logos as Pathos, and the Logos as Ethos.

Pathos implies emotion, sensation… Ethos judgment on these.

The Logos done in my most general way incorporates all these, logic, pathos and ethos, because it allows for emotions: a relation between Y and Z can be through, or about, neurohormones or neurotransmitters.

Logos in that most general X>Y way even includes some forms of interactions we can’t even imagine, such as Quantum Effects… which show up in magnetic field vision in birds, whose simplest explanation is something having to do with spintronics, a type of Quantum Mechanics scientifically elucidated, but not yet incorporated in technological devices.

Then X>Z. Now there will be some meta-structure attached to all these relations between brain elements: I feel that the brain is all about different levels of “meta” piled upon each other. The structure of axons allow for this.

Namely if an axon (say) is active between Y and Z, another neuron, higher up in the meta-structure, can know about it (axons have varying level of myelin along themselves, and could be none; this differentiated activity of oligodendrocytes was observed in 2014).

The “meta” simplification works this way: whereas we started initially with three objects (X, Y, Z) and two relations (X>Y and Y>Z), that can be reduced two just two signals (X>Y and Y>Z) going to say, just one meta neuron.

Thus, aware of all these activations, higher meta neurons can then communicate the whole thing to the Broca or Wernicke speech area will convert all this in a speech.

Then we get something like : x>y & y>z & then x>z, where now “>” is just the verb “implies”, in plain speech, or a hand gesture. Thus a potentially very complex and variegated Brain-Logos activity has been simplified into Speech-Logos as usually interpreted.


Speaking of my preceding essay, and my observation that Christianity had to make the Logos into god, Massimo observed that: “The Stoics were talking about Logos / Nature / God / Zeus well before Christianity.” Indeed, pretty much something the imperial cooks of Christianity had to do . Christianity is a vast salad, artfully mixed with plenty of goodies.

Massimo also said: “The rest of your [essay] is interesting … but I fail to see what it has to do with Stoicism.”

It has to do with the Logos, recognizing its centrality in Stoicism. The best path to stoicism may be to talk calmly about a situation until it goes away. Talk it to death, so to speak.

Any short Logos, say 500 words, will miss many perspectives. But a good new perspective can pick in depth, where no pick has gone before.

Massimo opined that: “there is more value in Zeno and his followers than in Jesus”:

Indeed. Basically Jesus’ teeny-tiny Logos goes only that far.

Jesus is in love with one man, his dad. He also loves love. Nice, but such a ridiculously short a Logos can’t fill an entire universe. We need a bigger boat to handle that enormous ocean, and its giant sharks.

By making the Logos into God, one can talk like Jesus, love mummy, and daddy, and love itself, but also say much, much more, thus become like Jesus’ own dad.

There is indeed more value in all-encompassing complexity… As long as one is not a person with feeble mental capabilities. Persons who are not smart at all are better served with just a few instructions, the way Jesus had it (if one just picks the crème de la crème of what Jesus said, and not the mud of his mud). People at large are also best served if those who are rather stupid love their dad, and love. And stick with this, not trying to go beyond.

Christianity is a religion for the herd (consult Nietzsche for more on this, including sexual interpretations of the cross). Masters used something more robust (Nietzsche again, following meekly the more exuberant Marquis de Sade). Roman generals, under the Republic, before the Greek Stoics became prominent, were masters of stoicism. Stoicism on the largest scale is pretty much how the Roman Republic grew.

The Republic went down when too many in the Roman elite quit Stoicism for Greed (thus bringing along Plutocracy). It was sadly pathetic. Without forbearance, no exuberance!

Patrice Ayme’

Gods, Imagination, Machinations

May 26, 2013

Why did they create God? Answer: to feed the imagination. Discuss.

God socialist AH: And to build society.

Patrice: True, society needs a common mind, common logic, hence common gods, or, more generally, common myths, powerful enough. Nietzsche added: one interpretation of the gods for the commons, another for the lords.

Catholic fanatic Evelyne LF: God is not created, HE is…

A Hr First of all, what makes God a “He”? Why the masculine fixation on God?

Evelyne L F: Exact, maybe it’s “She”. Jesus is the Son of God, but God can be “SHE”.

Patrice: Or maybe it’s a bird. More exactly, a hummingbird. As with the Aztecs:

I Fly, Fear Me

I Fly, Fear Me

A H: Secondly, which God are you referring to that is not created? Yahweh, Allah, Jesus, Shiva, Zeus, Mithra, Brahma? Evelyne Le Formal: GOD is GOD !! One of 3 firsts for what I believe !!

Patrice: To each tribe its own god(s). The French, like Rome, shall make do with a republic, to incarnate the tribal ideal, without further ado. Amen. My preferred god is Huitzilopochtli (pictured above). He exposes best superstitious religion for the criminal absurdity that it is. Huitzilopochtli ordered the Aztecs to call themselves Mexicas. A unity trick. However his obviously bloody tendencies gave all the pretext the Conquistadores needed to annihilate most of the tremendous Mexica civilization. Huitzilopochtli turned into death of his world.

Alexi Helligar There have been many many gods that have been created by humans. Why evidence outside of the Bible (which is a collection of stories and not evidence) is there that Jesus is any less an expression of human imagination than any of the rest?

A is A. This is true. It is symmetrical and symmetry is what I believe!!

Patrice: The sacred writings of Judeo-Christo-Islamism make clear that they are all referring to the exact same “God”. Using the word “Allah” is craftily alienating, as if “Allah” were different from Jesus’s dad. When the French talk about the god of the Americans, in French, they call it “dieu” in French, not “god”, or “dios”.

Alexi Helligar The belief in God is an empty vessel. Because it is empty people fill it with whatever they imagine. This, I think, is the core of Patrice’s comment. Of necessity, despite its critical importance in building society, imagination is a random and chancy process. This is why the belief in God leads to so many random and chancy actions, many of which are not rational and, in fact, very destructive. The mere belief in God (because God is essentially Imaginary) is not enough to filter sense from nonsense.

Evelyne Le Formal: Jesus is not an expression of human imagination, it’s historic !! He was an human boy ! But, you can doubt, if you don’t believe, than he is the son of God !!

Son Of God: Cute Yet Fake

Son Of God: Cute Yet Fake

Alexi Helligar: History is also imaginary.

Evelyne Le Formal: Cesar, Neron, Ponce Pilate imagination ? No, history !!

Patrice: We have extremely detailed records, from various sources, on the first two gentlemen. They are among the better known human beings, to this day. Incontrovertible proof of the existence of Pontius Pilatus was also found, such as an engraved inscription bearing his name in stone. Proofs of Jesus’ existence have been presented. They were all proven to be fake. A famous fake was the textile from Turin. Both the historical record and Carbon 14 date tightly concur about the date of fabrication of that shroud (part of it pictured above), in the 13C.

Imagination has to be fed, to provide the mind’s logic with what is called a universe. In particular, the mind can be fed the concept of omnipotence, most convenient to dictators. Monotheistic God, having no other gods around to hinder him, is omnipotent, by definition.

Christ is NOT, not at all, an historical figure, just a creature of the imagination, found in Saint Paul’s own mind, as he readily admits. Saul was a practicing Jew born a Roman citizen, from a born Roman citizen father, and a feared Roman prosecutor.

Saul wrote the following in 66 CE. “Now as he was going along and approaching Damascus, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?’ He asked, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ The reply came, ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But get up and enter the city, and you will be told what to do'” (Acts 9:3-6). Somehow, that led Saul to change his name into Paul.

Evangels were written later (starting in 70 CE). Half of the New Testament stems from Paul and the people whom he influenced. Thirteen of the 27 books in the New Testament have been attributed to Paul. Half of the Acts of the Apostles deals with Paul’s life and works. Tellingly, some of Paul’s students claimed to have met Jesus in person (something Saul/Paul did not dare do).

The record of the arrest, trial and execution of several messiahs at the time of mythical Jesus is well recorded. None of them Jesus. One of these messiahs was condemned, and burned, in Rome. Another, the vicious Simon, was whipped to death in Rome. In all cases, thousands of the best and brightest were watching.

Jewish general Josephus, in his enormous work on the “Jewish war”, covers extensively the religious madness in Israel at the time, and its fanatical madmen. He never mentions Jesus. (The fact that Josephus mentions Jesus, in another work, 20 years later, seems to me a forgery: at some point the growing Christian community realized that they better make Josephus bear witness; the earlier work could not be that easily modified.)

Reading the Bible carefully, one can see that Jesus, would have been born towards Spring, four years or so before what became the official date. The story of Jesus is even more a product of the imagination than viewing Jehanne d’Arc as a good fanatic.

Conclusion: Christ, as a boy abandoned by his dad, is a myth. There is ZERO historical evidence of Jesus’ existence.

There is much more evidence for the existence of the much older Zarathoustra (a real, alive Babylonian philosopher/prophet). Or Buddha (an Indian prince). And Muhammad is, of course, a real historical figure. There is even direct evidence for king David and his son Salomon. Although they are 12 centuries older than the mythical Christ.

Yet, it’s easy to reconstruct what happened: the growth of myth from Saul’s inspiring vision to getting to view, quickly, the vision as fact. In the midst of a war-butchery, the Jewish war of 70 CE, that killed a million (that would have been roughly the proportional equivalent of ten million today), that’s not very surprising.

Religion was a huge business in imperial Rome. All religions were welcome in Rome, as long as they did not disrupt public peace, and did not call for human sacrifices. One could not make one’s religion popular without a great myth attached.

As it was, Christianism was able to grow quietly. Christianism was increasingly made similar to, not to say plagiarized from, the much older religion of Mithra, which was popular in the army. Christians made much of persecutions later (to justify their execution of millions). However, persecution, if any, was light. During Marcus Aurelius’ twenty year reign in the late Second Century, only six “Christians” were executed in Rome.

Around that time (180 CE), we know of the case of several high Roman politicians who announced that, during their retirement, they would write an Evangel.

At the beginning of the Fourth Century, emperor Galerius persuaded his three imperial colleagues to engage in forcing the Christians to pledge obedience to the empire. About 3,000 were executed, total, before Galerius, ravaged by cancer, rescinded the edict.

By then, though, Christianism was a state within the Roman state. Constantine decided to co-opt it, as part of his further fascization of Rome (311 CE). He even chose what the exact doctrine of Christianity: “Catholic Orthodoxy” ( that is “universal common opinion”).

The divisions of the empire that the church had used for its own governance (diocese) were even adopted as the new divisions of the empire. By 400 CE, the “founding father of the church” discovered, among other things, that it would be best to make Jesus’ birth coincidental to the enormous celebrations of the winter solstice known as the “Saturnials”, and to adopt all the traditions attached to it, from gift giving to cutting an evergreen and decorating it (a tradition documented in Greece, among other places, a full millennium earlier).

And then next came a real life philosopher-king, Clovis. Clovis threw the Goths out of Gallia, and built much of what became the Imperium Francorum spanning the core of Western Europe.

More importantly, Clovis renovated Western civilization with a Franco-German, Greco-Roman, Humano-Christian mix. Clovis recreated Christianism in a way compatible with the vision of the Franks (who had helped Constantine conquer the empire, but had stayed extremely hostile to religious fanaticism, attempting a whole succession of coups and civil wars, until Clovis was able to become the new Constantine, as far as north-west Mid-Terra was concerned.

A crucial part of the new mythology was made of continual references to contemporaneous (or quasi-contemporaneous) saints.

And what of nowadays? Recent generations have been imprinted to feel that greed and fame were all the mythology they needed. No wonder revolution, the economy, and minds themselves are running out of steam. Exactly as intended.


Patrice Ayme

LUKE 19:27

March 31, 2012

Don’t Ask What God Can Do For You, Ask Who You Can Kill In His Name?


Recently Abrahamism demonstrated its mighty hold on the minds of those who want to commit horror. A 23 year old French Muslim killed three French paratroopers, one of them from Martinique (someone whom  American (unconscious) racists would call “black“). The other two paratroopers were Muslims, as it turned out (one of them a Franco-Moroccan).

One of the unarmed Muslim paratroopers who was treacherously assassinated was called Mohammed, just like the killer. Then this criminal, Mohammed Mehra, killed three children, and a dad protecting his two sons, at a Jewish school. He benefitted from the help of other Muslim fanatics. Dozens got arrested. All indications are that Mohammed Mehra was just a little creep. He was arrested many times for various exactions unrelated to religion. There is a video of him, laughing to no end, beaming with an angel face, after making a rodeo with a BMW.

More children were wounded, but they survived the horrible wounds. It is useful to peer into the horror. Not by voyeurism, but to see how deep hatred can go.

One of the children, a seven year old girl, was hit in the shoulder by a .45 colt of the U.S. Army (!). The Muslim fanatic, filming the assassination with a camera strapped on his belly, chased her, grabbed her by her pony tail. Then he brought the gun to her head, and fired. But the gun jammed. Instead of listening to Allah’s hint, still holding onto her, he got another gun he had, released the safety, and killed her.

This sort of violence, I claim, is intrinsic to Abrahamism (“Judeo-Christo-Islamism”). It’s what it was made for, and by. It’s no coincidence that Islam created the greatest empire ever seen, in a few years: by the sword, for the sword.

The lunatics are getting agitated. In the extract below, published in the electronic version of a newspaper read by millions, a fanatic ponders about my case:

Mr. belal zakaria asks me in the Wall Street Journal, whether Satan is hiding behind me. Here is Mr. Zakaria’s quote, complete with savage grammar, Saturday, March 31, 2012:

  • @patrice ayme
  • Who is hiding behind you like satan (also a light in wavelength and angstrom) misleading using and Abraham with illicit comment of Mental illness of Abraham? The following abraham proof of prostration given 1400 yrs like moon splitting Surah Moon …
  • In all muslim prayers, Muslim seek refuge from misleader 5/times per day world wide for reason Obvious.”

Is organized superstition a mental illness “for reason obvious”?

Abraham is the mythical founder of Judaism. He is famous for agreeing with a voice in his head telling him to kill his son. Hence Abraham is the founder of Christianism five centuries later, and Islamism, another six centuries after that.

Muhammad got advice about founding Islam from several Christian family members, including his cousin, a professional Christian monk, who told him he had obviously encountered the Archangel Gabriel in the desert. That’s how the whole Islam (“Submission“) thing got to roll…

Submission to whom? That is the question. Well, to the boss. Abraham was the ultimate sucker: to please his boss, he was ready to kill his son. The Abrahamists adulate him for that. Bosses, naturally, founded a religion around the idea.

Once a French catholic girl told me:”Christianism is the religion of love.” For her it was a fact, not a theory. She overlooked three things:

1) love has long existed, since there are brainy animals, and they breed. Thus, those who need Christianism to love may be mentally diseased.

2) Millions were killed in the name of Christianism. And not just by Christians roasting Muslim children for sustenance in the Middle East, or wadding, knee deep in blood in Jerusalem (both facts related by the best Christian eyewitnesses). No, millions were killed by Christians, in Europe, killing Christians who, they believe, did not believe correctly. By the way, I am (formally) a Christian, so, if I get killed by an Abrahamist, it will be more of the same: I did not believe correctly, according to my own co-religionists.

The civil war  in Syria is, first of all, a religious war between fanatics. Between Abrahamists. So far, 10,000 killed and counting. Assad’s dictatorship rests mostly on the (legitimate) fear for their lives some sectarians such as Christians and Alawites have of the (majority) Sunnis. When the Arabs invaded the area, it was entirely Christian. Then there were massacres, and oppression. Some of these massacres were between some particular Muslims (“Sunni”), and the partisans (“Shia”) of Ali (hence Alawites). This is what happened in the last 13 centuries.

3) In the Bible’s Old Testament, there are many calls to murder. And so it is, more discreetly in the New Testament. Here is Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ, indeed, a prophet of Islam, ordering to kill non believers. [Actually, a more careful read shows Jesus was supposedly telling a bedtime story, from a “distant land“. Al Frommi called my attention to that apparently nullifying factor; however the murderous tendencies of Jesus are in plain, unambiguous display in other parts of the Gospels, see: “Christianity’s Jesus Is Evil“.]

Luke 19:27: But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.

How loving is that?

When people say that Jesus is love, they, either, did not read the Bible, in which case they talk for sure about what they certainly don’t know, so they are liars. Or, then they think slaughtering those who do not believe the way they like is cool.

In the later case, Abrahamism, as most other mass superstitions, would be a mental disease induced to better exploit the naive in a systemic fashion by making them goose step behind the notion that their superiors even know how the universe works.

Organized superstition is organized stupidity. The way Abrahamism originally had it, it’s organized stupidity with evil intent.

Stupidity is a force against which the gods themselves contend in vain. It is also, in the case of Abrahamism, organized calls to murder. In the case of the Bible and the Qur’an, there are many clear appeals to murder (you can go the site below to read the quotes in the Qur’an:

I never got around listing the same for Christianity, from lack of time.

Some have followed these calls to murder, for centuries, killing millions. There are also appeals to peace, true. But that’s irrelevant, once you are dead. The truth is, Christianism was imposed by emperor Constantine, viewed by a saint by the catholic Orthodox, and who viewed himself as the “13th apostle”. Among others, he killed his nephew, ordered his son executed (without bothering to give a reason), and boiled his wife (no reason either).

If Nero had founded a religion, the same ones would be probably worshipping that. (Nero assassinated his mother, but she was a well known plotter, had basically reigned as an Augusta, and poisoned her husband Claudius. So she was not that innocent. Constantine, by killing the righteous for no good reason, was more Satanic, on the face of it, thus better qualified to found the world upside down, as the Cathars noticed.)

Now, predictably, some of the fanatics roll out people who made a scientific career who were themselves fanatics. Salam, a physics Nobel, was an example (some said he did not deserve his Nobel, BTW). He called the Qur’an “the most beautiful book that ever was“. I guess, complete with the call for the destruction of the unbelievers.

One who is often rolled out: — John Polkinghorne, Professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge.

That Christian fanatic famously wrote that:

“only in the media, and in the popular and polemical scientific writing, does there persist the myth of the light of pure scientific truth confronting the darkness of obscurantist religious error.
No progress will be made in the debate about religious belief unless participants are prepared to recognize that the issue of truth is as important to religion as it is to science.
People who tell you that ‘Science tells you everything you need to know about the world’ or ‘Science tells you that religion is all wrong’ or ‘Science tells you there is no God’, those people aren’t telling you scientific things. They are saying metaphysical things and they have to defend their positions from metaphysical reasons.”

Against stupidity and criminality, the gods themselves contend in vain.

Science is about what is true. Science cannot yet prove when people are lying. Science says nothing, globally, about superstition. At least, so far. We have no proof, yet, that those who really believe that god tell them to kill somebody are mad. The secular law does not treat them as criminals, early enough.

The only adverse relationship between superstition and science is that the same form of critical intelligence that built science, if applied to superstition, shows that it is wrong.

For example: twins have different fates. Exit astrology.

For example: that hearsay from some analphabetic epileptic in the desert, 14 centuries ago, with a chip on his shoulder from his analphabetism, and living from his wife’s business, is enough for a proof of a theory of the universe stretches the imagination of all, but the most stupid.

For example: people go on their knees, and evoke Jesus. But there is no record of his life (at a time when there were plenty of records, and at a time when there were the record of the execution of several Jesus like characters, in the same region).

Enormous histories like that of the Jewish general Josephus, written 7 years after Saint Paul’s writings, evoke plenty of pseudo-prophets, but not Jesus. On the usual strict criterions of objective history, Jesus never existed.

And in the first Christian writings, Saint Paul writes, black on white, that he “never met Jesus in person, except inside his own head”…It’s a hint if there ever was one..

Whereas mass superstition is organized stupidity, science is organized intelligence.

But, to practice science, one does not need to be particularly intelligent. And to be famous in science, one can just be lucky, or, like Einstein, present a lot of other people’s work as one’s own.
So professor Polkinghorne can say whatever he wants. There were very bright people goose stepping murderously behind Hitler. Including several Nobel Prize Laureates (Lenard), and super smart young mathematicians (Teichmuller an example). Locally intelligent, globally stupid. Certainly abject and criminal.

And what was Nazism? Why was Nazism so keen to kill Jews, and how come it succeeded so well? Well, just look at the history of Christianism, and at the belts of the SS: “Goot Mit Uns!” God With US! was written there. The first century of imperial Christianism was little more than a massacre of everything, and everybody non Christian.

Nine years after the last SS was killed in combat for his fanatical cause, the U.S. Congress adopted the motto of the SS. Amen.


Patrice Ayme