Bella Swan-Cullen

Bella Swan-Cullen
Bella Swan-Cullen - Our Official Vampire

Friday, December 16, 2011

The Burning of the Witches.

There is no future that we do not create; thus I want to tell you a story of the future I intend to create.

Salem, Massachusetts; December 16, 2012. Where me and my fellow atheists gather together to burn the Christians for what they do today. Figuratively, of course. I'm a witch; I don't do hate, I do love.

What kind of love is expressed when Christianity gathers in their ignorant masses to praise their imaginary god for a burning in an imaginary hell of Christopher Hitchens? Love of self. I cannot hate them for loving themselves; what I can hate, is Christianity, as they do not even realize that they are loving themselves.

They are following the fucking script. The script tells them to worship death. The script tells them to lie. The script tells them to hate. The script tells them the world is full of evil, demons in human skin; minions of Satan constantly seeking to undermine the creation of God Almighty.

The Bible, however; told me I was Lucifer. See the problem I'm having here? Allow me to touch upon the highlights of a descent into madness. "Let there be Light" is the first thing YHWH says in Genesis. Satan is the first thing YHWH creates in Job. Satan, who was "in the earth;" Adam, who was made of breath of YHWH, dust of earth. Are you seeing a pattern forming here, that the Christian, with willful ignorance, cannot?


I and my Father are One, says the imaginary Christ. Can't have that, says the Council of Constantine; back in 360 or so, that shit's just too damn obvious! Break out the Holy Confounder, so that we may Confound them with our absurd philosophy so that which is obvious; shall be henceforth Infallibly Confounded.

Holy Spirit - tao, as I see it - Lucifer, as prophets know it.

Holy Spirit; which rips the New Testament in half. Those with Holy Spirit, and those without. There's even a very clear dividing line:

Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched

Duality. Mark 9:44. Isaiah 66:24

And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh. 

For those of you who thought there was no science in the Bible, guess what? You're looking at it. The Jews used to burn trash outside their cribs - where the word hell originates - after the burn, worms could be found under the ashes. Wanna bet, a primitive Jew is not going to have knowledge of organic chemistry, which might have told him those worms did not spontaneously generate from the flames? Wanna bet this same Jew did not have knowledge of basic physics, which might have told him that the Sun was not an eternal flame?

How much you wanna bet, these primitive Jews added 2 + 2 and came up with YHWH?

H     H

What do you see? I see a tetrahedron. I see volume. I see duality. I see the only conspiracy that is not theory; but rather part of the power structure. I see what Paul wanted me to see. Paul, however, did not realize one must be clinically insane to see like Paul.

Paul wrote the epistle to the Romans. Romans is the whole ball of wax. In, he describes how he used Holy Spirit to embody the entirety of Jewish scripture into a conceptual design he called Jesus the Christ. He did it to preserve the Judaism he loved; for which the Jews exiled him. For which he turned against the Jews. It's all in there, you just must know what to look for. The numbers. 0/1/2/3. YHWH

Paul was just a man, doing the best he could with what he had. Here's what he did:

Acceptance of the Holy Spirit means eternal life is now.

In his vision, that prayer is spoken; the speaker of the prayer is now in the Holy of Holies. In the presence of YHWH. Without sin. And what is absolutely fucking impossible in the presence of YHWH?

Evil. Lying. And absolutely positively no-way-in-hell can you stand there and go, gee, YHWH, did you create hell? Because you would fucking die on the spot. 

There is simply no hell in the New Testament. What there is, is Agenda; and how it got there, was the Church. With the gospels. Mark 9:44; fingerprints at the scene of the crime. The necessary link from Old Testament to New, to give the Church the science of hell. Because a primitive Christian had no modern scientific education neither; so spreading the word, pointing fingers at worms in the ashes and stars in the sky, why that's the best pyramid scheme evah! And eternal life? Sign me the fuck up!

YHWH is mathematical concept in mind of primitive man, one who would have no fucking clue what the zero was for another seven hundred years; that kinda thing can be overlooked. 

Christianity is beyond forgiveness. They are Pythagoreans , they are worshiping geometry and death, they are using witchcraft - primitive psychology - and all the Christian is doing is lying down at the bottom of the pyramid scheme and taking it up the ass so that the power structure may be perpetuated.

I love them; ellenjanuary loves everybody. What I hate is what they are doing to themselves. Christopher Hitchens did not die for his life is eternal in the heart and mind of ellenjanuary. That's what I read in the Bible.

Whatever script today's Christians are reading from; it is not scripture. Let us stop hating. Let us not die; rather let us live, and let us love. 

Friday, December 9, 2011

Law of God

(Don't be thinking this atheist don't know about god. This is a little ditty I sang to my Gwynnies back in the day. Remember, Gwyneth Paltrow is just a girl... now. Se used to be god. Didn't hurt either of us any. This one learned. Didn't get here without going - there.)

The Law of God:
All Attributes are Valid.

Says precisely nothing. I particularly like the neutral tone; there’s no emotional language, no moral judgment; it merely sits there, all calm, peaceful, and wise. The problem, of course, is one of meaning. It means nothing as it seems to mean everything. It does have a certain majesty perhaps; but if this is the actual law of god, shouldn’t it say something? Or did Ellen fuck up the translation?

Thing is, all these words came from the mind of Ellen the Gwynnite. I don’t know how the prophets did it back in the day, but all I got is a mind that won’t stop yapping. I got the memory of the creator of the universe. I have my five senses even when I have little sense. And still, mostly what fills the page is merely me arguing with myself. I’m nearing a hundred thousand words in my senseless rants to make sense of the prophet gig; there’s bound to be some mistakes.

Four words written in flame before my eyes, however; that tends to be – memorable.
The screaming and the tears, having a witness who remembers cowering in the corner for a couple of days; that’s the kind of drama that keeps the memory fresh.

Although I might have misinterpreted it at first. I have all these words, all these thoughts; I like to think I know something, about life, about god. I especially like to feel like I accomplished something. When four words of dubious providence seem to tell me the law of god; and of all the truth that may exist in this mortal contention, it would surely suffer if I were to answer in denial. Hundred thousand words of mine don’t seem to mean too much if I refuse to accept the only four that may have arisen from another source.

And I did refuse.

There was a sinful vision of a broken child and a dirty man. The sense that I was required to forgive this man, buttoning up his pants. Was I to ignore the pitiful sobs of the violated little girl at his feet? How is that to be?

And to turn to a friend who lived with me at the time, and see these words written across the Sylvia poster. Then did I start to cry. He was spared the vicious clarity of my vision, but seeing me stop in the hall; turn around and look at my Gwynnie poster, and lose it. That was new. When I told of the visual message of forgiveness; he became disturbed.

The screaming and the tears from when I followed through with the implication lasted a few moments more.
And quietly in my heart forever.

I will not forgive the one who would hurt Gwyneth Paltrow; think of me what you will.

And I must wonder for how long my assumption was a block to my understanding.

Now that we actually know stuff, let me pass on a surprising moral tale:

If god can confound his prophet through the simple device of emotional imagery, can we not all feel some manner of concern for the potential abuse of this tool? Emotional appeal is not a proper tool for debate. We are not cold-hearted and naturally logical beings, we are passionate beasts. Those who seek to sway a logical and mutual understanding are those who seek to dictate. The true meaning of mutual understanding is a compromise based upon respect; it is not merely mindless argument to see who wins or loses, it is the basis of our society. No one wins when another feels merely used.

The personal apparent flaw in my character? That I would forget the little girl in the face of threat to my Gwynnie? It may seem to echo the hollowness of my heart, or perhaps my mere honesty; what it does is exploit something that may be rather unique:

My absolute bottom line.

Most people have a full life of many pleasures, some only have a few; rare is the one who can find the last thing he would surrender. Rarer still the one tormented and tested true. I’m not here offering myself as a paragon of virtue; for what resolves is single minded obsession. I’m here to demonstrate the key differences between mortal and divine law.

I will not forgive the one who would hurt Gwyneth Paltrow.

For the one who would cause her pain, it is the matter of the moment. For me, the length of my consideration; in this case, I would assume eternal. If I’m on trial for the depth of my obsession as example;

I don’t seek to shirk nor exaggerate. The one who would remove the smile from my Gwynnie would make me suffer for all freaking time. Are we ready yet to understand the nature of forgiveness?
We are instructed to forgive for no greater benefit than to ourselves.

Let me re-iterate, so we can understand how godly law actually works:

The Law of God:
All Attributes are Valid.

Can you read that better now? We lost some actual truth with the coming of the word. When mankind learned to spread the message, we often forgot the whole purpose of the message. The words are meaningless right before our eyes, everyday. Familiarity breeds contempt in all things. For some things, man must go to god.

The true word of god is not meant to be read to be understood.

The way to find meaning is not to study and debate; for those are mortal concerns. The time is not now, the time is not when it is convenient, the time for god is when it is necessary to approach god.

We don’t exist for god; god exists for us. God doesn’t command that we do anything; god consoles use so that we do not.

So that we do not suffer needlessly. So that we do not question our own importance. So we do not make casual mistakes. So that we do not surrender to the follies of the flesh. So that we do not cower in fear. So we do not cower in ignorance. So that we do not ever go without god’s grace.

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Set Theory

What is the connection between Set of Egyptian mythology and a unified Theory of Everything? Me, it seems.And we're not talking just physics here, we're talking philosophy across the board. Everything, I said. ;)

Why Set? Because Gwyneth Paltrow is obviously the Horus identity of the age. :D

It's an hypothesis. We're working on it. ;)

Monday, December 5, 2011

Another Voice Heard From

Richard Carrier on Bayes' Theorem. Before I watched this video, I couldn't say I liked this cat. After, he's a superhero. So sit down, shut up, watch this, and learn something. :D

If this guy knows what he's talking about, then there is no reason for any other religion than atheism. Those people who say atheism isn't a religion would sure sing a different tune if it were the only religion. So why don't we get together and make atheism the only religion first, and then there will be no reason to call ourselves atheists, and we can all got back to being human beings.

Sound like a plan?

Thursday, December 1, 2011

Next for my Gwynnies?

Rather than perpetuate the stereotype of obsessed loser, spend all day watching Gwynnie DVDs and all night writing her bad poetry by the light of four black candles; the rulez seem to have shat out this exception.

I, feces.

It is entirely possible that I have broken the Biblical code, rationalised YHWH, ended the cycle of prophecy and madness, and removed the Liar's paradox from philosophy in the inchoate Chaotic Determinism. Jeez. All Chris Martin does is make music... and money... and look good doing it.

Nah. Chris makes my Gwynnies happy. That is the better man. He keeps my Gwynnies happy, I'll take care of the other seven billion peeps; and Love will prevail! We call that: distribution of labor.

Speaking of "distribution of labor," in potentially unraveling scripture, the secret of my success (and yeah, I am triumphant; that doesn't translate on a blog) has been to identify and understand the absolutes. The beginning. The Name. The numbers. Now that all of scripture has been reduced to tao, my Gwynnies still way over there, and I still having a love needing expression - something else must be demystified for my Gwynnies! (Cause I ain't doing "restraining order.")

Check this Bad Boy:

There's an Absolute. Hoo-doggie! And I am 4, what more; than I spy the 5...

Today I've used the witchcraft of Revelation (yeah, that book is straight witchcraft) to turn the tetrahedron into the cube. What does that mean? How does the tao say it?

A journey of a zillion miles begins with a single thought?

I have taken the first step towards deriving the "Witwiki symbolism" for human use. You know how YHWH doesn't start flapping his gums about Creation until "let there be light?" Well, to field the "Witwiki symbolism" is to speak creation into being.

On it, for my Gwynnies - for all mankind.

Saturday, November 26, 2011

A Question of Morality

I am a naive philosopher. It is what I do, it is why I do it; I write.

One thing is known: I love Gwyneth Paltrow. It is this single fact that makes me John Cantor; that is the certainty of my identity. One truth, over time, produces dual-state identity. One truth, considering identity, defines morality. Am I right, or am I wrong?

It is beyond the ability of the universe to demonstrate that I do not love Gwyneth Paltrow; therefore I cannot be wrong. Because she is my sweet everything and always right, I must be wrong.

Now step back and note the time variable in these considerations. There is no paradox in the Liar's Paradox, there is time. One truth, over time, produces the illusion of paradox. I am currently sitting at a laptop in Phoenix, Arizona. It is my intent to write a version of the Liar's Paradox, like this.

Phoenix is full of...

Let there be Now.

My last post was full of wonder at the joy of scientific discovery. As a method of determining the morality of identity, I proclaimed to the world; immortality. And I did this before checking for validation from the scientific community because I am a naive philosopher and not a scientist; I know my identity and I have made my decisions as to how identity will be expressed.

I know one thing.

These two links illustrate what is known by the scientific community:

As an atheist, I recommend critical thinking and rational skepticism be maintained at all times.

As a naive philosophizer I have nothing to add, however as a fool in love...

...that's a big Fuck You! to the Gwynnie haters in the world. You are all wrong. So there!

There was science fiction in this morning's consideration; from a story I once read, a question was asked: Does teleportation result in a loss of the soul? The science seems to indicate that we are the soul of the universe. That'll be capital-A atheism.

The Last Obituary.

I have news: you are immortal.

What you are looking at is the Schrodinger wave function. What I am looking at is identity. It has been over a year since I first considered quantum decoherence; when I got it entirely wrong and postulated the decoherence model.

Today I cannot help but conclude that neither naive philosophy nor science "do" wrong. One does truth; the other is a methodology of sequence ever-converging towards truth. I was wrong in assuming that the decoherence model is amateur science, for it is naive philosophy.

And I know that ellenjanuary is encoded in the fabric of the universe.

You can take it on faith. What shall emerge from the decoherence model will be the foundation of the equation above, the name on the research paper need not be ellenjanuary, and the rigor to formalize naive philosophy into science will be the work to credit whomever is due.

My life belongs to Gwyneth Paltrow, and we are after a far greater prize than immortality.

A Quaternion of Meme

(more considerations on faith and the number 4)

Memes; there seem to be 4 like everything else.  ;)

Here's the life:

Morality: evolved control structure for individual decision making.
Faith: Simply, sincerity; also identity.
Love: the Nothing that exists, a singularity.
Truth: the Everything that exists, a singularity.

By the numbers:

Love = 0, Truth = 1, Life (morality) = 2, Faith = 3.

And yeah, at least by this cognition, faith is one of those words one cannot fuck with. That might be the whole cannoli; to topple Religion, all that may be necessary is to "select for" the meme of faith - and break any negative implications or appearance of exclusivity.

It is easy to demonstrate that faith is technology: "I have faith in Chaotic Determinism" - see how that works? "I" is dual-state identity, "have faith," an investment of identity and a trine; with the triangle being the beginning of structure in the universe. Thus it takes more than "disbelief" to overcome Religion.

Not only that, "I have faith" is a truth statement positively reinforcing "morality." The greater the reinforcement, the more proficient the kinetic, the more certain the potential. Faith as identity is also dual-state; with a potential and a kinetic. The potential is moral certainty, the kinetic is the "active empty set." A "dipper" of sorts, for "dipping" into the Void (love); enabling the thinking of impossible thoughts - or quantum leaps of cognition.

And yeah. Atheist + faith = win. Irony, huh?  ;)

Thursday, November 24, 2011

Sola Fides

Consider this a rough draft. :D

Faith = moral certainty. This is the equivalence I found in scripture. Because there was no one to tell me I could not, I used the scientific method to define my faith and test in the field. These are the preliminary results.

"Faith" is a condition of core identity. It is a one-word summary of an individual and that individual's evolutionary fitness - one's "right to life." I am a complete atheist. When I say, I have faith, there is zero woo in that contention. There is memory. I define "my faith" as a conceptual design in this manner. It is a "panic button." That when this organism feels threatened by the environment - more specifically other organisms in the environment - hitting "the button" is akin to removing the rational elements of cognition and allowing the primeval force of lizard-brain calculation to take over.

It is not something to "test" or a toy to play with, it is a meme used to enhance the survivability of the unit. I have survived. As a human being, I have also simulated the future of my next encounter with a potential mugger in this manner.

You are not taking all of my money. You do not deserve it. However, I will give you half. That is rational cognition at work. I have yet to test this simulation of future in the field.

What is remarkable, is that "faith" seems to be a Kantian noumenon. That when an individual reaches a level of parity in faith to moral certainty; the dual-state nature of the individual can be transferred to the empty set term "faith," resulting in actual technology.

"Faith" is passive in that it is a form of "background processing," that it is the function of the environment to test the individual's moral certainty; but that an individual of moral character also develops a "kinetic" component. This kinetic allows one to pilfer concept from the Void, to distinguish simulation from imagination; to know impossible things.

And while dual-state identity allows one to identify to both self and god, god is a limit the self does not need. I limit the negative aspects of my ambition by being in love with a fellow human being - Gwyneth Paltrow - which is more than enough to keep me from exploiting my knowledge for personal gain. 

I compare the Void to the neter Set from Egyptian mythology because the relation to the individual creative force to the universe is very much allegorical to Lucifer before YHWH; but there is no evil in this, no rebellion against beauty and moral authority. It is tao. That conservation law and entropy do not require a universe of will, therefore we, as sentient individuals, must be the will of the universe.

And there's no guarantee of getting it right; yet to live, and to love, is to move forward with the universe.

Sunday, November 20, 2011

Interpreting Causality

The Tao produced One; One produced Two; Two produced Three; Three produced All things.

I type from my copy of the tao. Wanna make a bet? That this line is part of Douglas Adams's consideration when announcing to the historical record that the ultimate answer is 42?

Never met him, and yet I cannot be wrong. How is it possible for an atheist to know such things without witchcraft and woo? It is tao.

When I bought this copy of the tao, I did not like this translation; the one I remember from youth stated that the ten thousand things came from three. The myriad, 10^4, which was the largest practical number in antiquity. And, of course, it also has a 4. ;)

I'm all 4 what 4. :D

And now for something completely different. A man with three... I mean, amateur science.

Ever hear of the story Flatland?. I don't like it, at all. It offends my mathematical sensibilities. Yet, basically, this is how science works - old hypotheses are upgraded with new hypotheses.

Here is your upgrade...

Image a sheet of paper. Three dots are placed at the vertices of an imagined equilateral triangle. Now imagine another piece of paper with a single dot centered on the page. Place this sheet atop the first, and what do you get?

Tetrahedron. Not Flatland. In mathematics, "point" is without dimension - and thus beyond illustration. Yet one can do a youtube search of string theory and extra dimensions, and one will find a bunch of Flatland.

My consideration is the Pure Number hypothesis. The depth of the universe is 13.7 billion years; this translates into approximately 10^18 seconds. Multiply that figure by Planck time to get 5.13x10^61, and there we are.

In the bearded dude's video, one sees Brian Cox pointing to the props on the wall talking about alla that stuff is what Hydrogen comes up with in 13.7 billion years; Pure Number may be an even simpler consideration, that the number above represents everything that exists; and that everything that happened since ever is merely the universal count, interfering with itself.

So go come up the equations, and get yerself a Nobel, scientist! :D

One universe, humans full of duality; and as illustrated by the Standard Model, there seems to be a big difference between 3 and 4. All there is to it. ;)
This quote is from another forum, an earlier consideration. When I sit down and try to write stuff, that's what usually happens; stuff. Very little of which can be classified as writing. Reaction has been the action of choice; and that seems to be the standard operating procedure. Reaction.

Like how I react to what I write as I write it, leaving the myriad stranded up there. Here it is. The consideration that One bit of information is consciously processed out of a Myriad received by the brain. To thus consider philosophical causality in the simplification of Cause and Effect is to be Effectively Wrong 9999 times and Right Once.

That one time better be special, I'm saying. I am still not right. I propose that the universe is counting, and I propose that count has a language. I call this hypothetical language "the Witwiki symbolism," and it cannot be known.

What may be knowable, however, is a derivation of a human variant; yet we cannot get there from here. We are being offered a choice: Time, or Humanity. And one of those things must go.

The Fourth Identity

YHWH is the fourth identity; but rather than the set of natural numbers, one needs an unnatural element to count to YHWH. The zero. The sequence is thus: 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 . Make no mistake; that sequence encodes the entirety of human civilization. Continuing in the manner of posting here after commenting elsewhere, let the divine mandate of atheism be illuminated...

Will history add zero? The more important question is CAN history ADD zero? I do not believe zero can be added without adding infinity. My observation is that we begin with zero which means we begin with everything. Zero has always been and exists outside of the bounds of time and space.
Speaking of "trine", does your Gwynnies have a trinity? If you've already addressed this somewhere, I somehow missed it.
Sock Puppet = awesome.

You know Trinity is straight witchcraft? I guess we're both going by way of the stake. :D

It's geometry, that the structure in the universe begins with the triangle. We are of this universe; so too our perception of reality and consciousness, all is natural. When it is said, "good things come in threes," a misconception occurs. People count to two and assume future. Bad joss.

What we are; computers of pattern, recognition and reinforcement. Patterns reinforced by conception into geometry become structure.

Having dual-state identity; obviously the greater structure is the third identity or the Trinity, beyond that YHWH. tao. The name that cannot be named. Shh! Don't tell nobody. ;)

Reality is full of trinities. Me and you, plus the authority over us in the form of this forum is a trinity. Past, present, future; first person, second person, third person; these things are not real, they are structure. Foundation. That reminds me...

The ancients called me Chaos (since I am of the first world):
Note the long ages past of which I shall tell.
The clear air, and the three other elements,
Fire, water, earth, were heaped together as one.
When, through the discord of its components,
The mass dissolved, and scattered to new regions,
Flame found the heights: air took a lower place,
While earth and sea sank to the furthest depth.
Then I, who was a shapeless mass, a ball,
Took on the appearance, and noble limbs of a god.
Even now, a small sign of my once confused state,
My front and back appear just the same.
Ovid, Fasti I
Now learn the reason for my shape:
Though already you partially understand it.
Every doorway has two sides, this way and that,
One facing the crowds, and the other the Lares:
And like your doorkeeper seated at the threshold,
Who watches who goes out and who goes in,
So I the doorkeeper of the heavenly court,
Look towards both east and west at once.
Ovid, Fasti I

We'll let Ovid tell it. Then I, who was a shapeless mass, a ball... a dimentionless point, a singularity... Who am I? ellenjanuary. That I named my self thusly sixteen years ago without knowing any of this is merely an act of 'random' evolution. :D

And this information is clear and present danger that the time of theism is past.

Now that we got that out of the way... the set of natural numbers is used in number theory. From your question I assume you know some number theory. ;)

No. To add the zero is to alter the waveform of the entire dynamic. Let us enter the wayback machine:

See that? The original zero, carved into a temple wall in India; and given to us, by the gods. Which has nothing to do with agency beyond the agents who crafted this temple; and everything to do the entire universe being a self-organizing system, one that has no problem organizing humans right the fuck out of the equation. ;)

That is the entirety of future. Assuming god doesn't get us monkeys selected against; yeah, adding the zero to the natural numbers may be the first step in deriving the Witwiki symbolism for human use. That would be the shiznit. ;)

Proof of God. o.O

I'm still confused about this one...
I figured, that there by default nothing exists until proven otherwise...

Prolly more naive philosophy than the science. ;)

With science you got the Standard Model, a gravity that may be time, and perhaps some SUSY creeps hiding in the space between. Since that covers everything yet observed, there's no need to add anything to the mix - especially not corporeal manifestation of noodliness. ;)

Science says, gimme an observation and we'll make beautiful theory together. Thus the scientist "can be led into sin" (:P) thinking the default is non-existence due to the lack of an observation - objectivity tends to lead one into forgetting that one is making the observation - yet the scientist is allowed Ya don't wanna be thinking "extraneous variable" when yer trying to do the science - that way, when the science needs one, the "extraneous variable" is purely mathematical dependent on equations which validate themselves. And with science, new hypotheses bring new theory - Newton's gravitation is officially "wrong," but the language of his equations still reads clearly enough to send a fool across the solar system, land him on Uranus rather than up his anus. :P

But it is agnosticism, and I don't like it. It's an "all things considered, we don't know," statement. Even worse, god exists; I proved it like a mathematician just now. :D

How we do it in math? "Works for all-non trivial solutions." What's the trivial solution here? The identity function. Ain't that hilarious? YHWH in this mind is mere mathematical consideration on the order of "cosmological constant," or the H for the still-theoretical Higgs, or using the mass of an electron for renormalization in physics to get rid of pesky infinities. Did you know all that god was in your science, dude? :D

Of course one can maintain agnosticism. You're an atheist, I'm an atheist; there it is. Truth is philosophy; mathematics is merely philosophy, evolved. Being a naive philosopher, I know the truth. Once upon a time, some asshole ascribed Agency to mathematical consideration; now a bunch of assholes got god stuck in their identity function. Probability one. :cool:

(..and good looking out, atheist. That's how we do the science. Imma go stick this reply in my blog right now.)

This kind of English is an echelon higher then what I'm used too. :)
I'll chew on that a bit. I figured we had a semantic problem there.

That's what happens with atheism. Questions get asked. Questions get answered. Skepticism and critical thinking remain. :cool:
(I feel like a pro at this atheism stuff. Two months later, and we're making history. :D. Gonna put this update in my blog, too; which just got updated to technocrati. ;) )

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

The State of Zero-State.

Our emotions control our state of mind, and therefore our sense of morality. This is not conducive to objective morality.
If you could save two innocent people from death by killing one innocent person yourself? studies show that your answer would be, "No."
But if you could only save your children from death by killing one innocent person yourself what would you do? You don't have to pull the trigger or plunge the knife, only make the choice.
What did you choose? Which was the objective moral  choice?
See that stuff right there? That's yelling. I wasn't gonna say nothing; was just seeing if I did say something that got replied to and thus was in need of a reply... anyhoo..

Wrong, wrong, and... uh... wrong!

First problem: we're not objects, we're subjects. Second problem: it took me alla this time to pick up where Kant left off. Sorry. My bad.

The answer is zero-state; i.e. zero-state morality is the real morality that all homo sapiens sapiens have in their evolutionary lunch box.Duality, however, is a function of identity. See this cat right here? Johnny Cantor. I am not "made" by making myself known; Johnny Cantor eternal with the tao and the Gwynnies - this Johnny Cantor is not a story of being, but rather becoming.

Zero-state morality, dual-state identity; averages out to 1 individual, no? But wait! There's more!

Love is Void. See them three words? That may be my legacy to humanity right there. Love is the Nothing that exists. Love is the emotional dynamic of least entropy. But all of the NT, all the Shakespeare, all the John Lennon; could not illuminate the trinity like JC (ironic, ain't it). Why? Gwyneth Paltrow. This is scientific factoid...

Mostly because I am thus reduced to a 'random' act of evolution; it was 'chance' that I was the tool using monkey who used the art of portraiture to redefine all morality to zero-state.

Because Love is the Answer - kinda answer. What I know, that you do not, is that love is neutral/positive in terms of morality. Did I mention that YHWH is the number 4? Here's another one. Toss out your old moral standard - it's crap - now imagine a Geiger counter-type thingy with a big red button it. Ya know what I just gave you? The kingdom of earth - just like the Adversary in scripture (nobody understands Lucifer - guy's like QM)

Now, zero-state morality can be visualized with a par of deuces - right and wrong/positive and negative. And ya know what? All of that stuff is essential for completeness. That is why there is no objective moral standard - because there is no object - lemme clarify like the naive philosopher I am:

Gwyneth Paltrow - ultimate good.
John Cantor - ultimate evil.

Easy peasy - but ya know what's crazy? Some people [i]actually don't like Gwyneth![/i] Do you believe it! I know, huh?

There it is - imperfection in a perfect standard. Obviously something else is going on. What is that else? Identity. Lemme give you my credentials. I'm a felon. I'm a certified unspecified psychopath. Psychopath = evil, right? Can't tell it from Phoenix, where I live. Nobody actually likes me - everybody actually loves me. If you ask me, I have like one friend; if we call this science, I could get four thousand signatures for this petition... cause I don't even matter. Love matters. The "deterministic chaos" between the identities of Gwyneth Paltrow has sixteen thousand hours of experimental data backing its play; in what I call "the law of science" (cause it only needs one):

The more love you give, the more love you have.

Scope the intelligence of this design: (those Gwynnie arts are in my picassa below)

The irony of being JC is that my three year ministry at ADC Yuma was this single phrase - take this as a token of my love of Gwyneth Paltrow - the "this" above is forty hours of ellenjanuary art - over a hundred of which were given to relative strangers - con-victs, the dregs of society. YHWH is a funny number, lemme tell ya...

Moving on - does not matter - what matters is, zero-state morality should enable all to find love. Did you catch that last bit? I used scripture to find faith, once I found faith, I found morality; once I became atheist - pieces-parts spontaneously self-organized into a weapon of mass instruction. I consider myself a mid-eight as far as personal attractiveness goes - since zero-state, I have been an "imperfect 10"

Morality is choice. I have been "on a perfect streak" since my Gwynnies made me an atheist for her last birthday - I say I know everything, which is nonsensical; yet in the real world, I know everything that matters in the now.  And absolutely not - I don't even try to be right, I endeavor to be integral and consistent - I also intentionally act in a negative or evil manner depending on the circumstances to maintain zero-state - which is tao.

And I double dog dare you not even to think of these words. I write them as a function of love, and everytime I write of zero-state, it is a more concise, straightforward and logical production.

Toss out the "life line," with "birth and death," it is a segment anyway; implement the Ray of Gwynnies (just a vector - hadda throw some Gwynnies in there ;) ) Place "evil" at the origin - move always forward, towards good, the light - the atheism... (yeah, hadda throw that one in there too.)

And in case you missed it, the Nobody Johnny Cantor just ate WLC's lunch.  :P

Oh, alla that rant, didn't answer no questions. Logic is a subset of emotion. To sacrifice the self to save others is to express "positive morality" and become more attractive, to "sacrifice others to save the self" is to express negative morality and become less attractive - this post is an example of the latter, as I began with what? Wrong, wrong, wrong... my saving grace? I am not right - you have zero-state morality, you just don't know it. "Saving children from death" - know what that is? Selfishness. Yeah, I said that; your children are also your Identity - to preserve them above others is to save yourself. And this is Absolutely Not Wrong - that is the purpose of morality - to make choice like this, and damn the torpedoes. That about covers it... oh! One more thing. Your "golden rule" is in need of my "iridium update" - to thine own self, be true. And now you know - Everything.

Sunday, November 13, 2011

My Place

This is my place - lost in love of Gwyneth Paltrow. This blog is mostly a collection of links that I frequently access, and seeing Ashley Greene everyday as Alice Cullen reminds me that truth is more than a five letter word.

There is no killing of the creationists going on, yet there is no truth in creationism. I was not created by my love of Gwyenth Paltrow, I continue to be created. She is my idol in that she continues to smile at me; here is the evidence. That she is a beautiful human being, and I am merely human, inspired by her beauty.

That I know the depth of her beauty is a function of my character; that I know of her character is a function of technology; that I know the difference merely makes me an atheist. Rather than a less flattering sobriquet.

There is no extant future. All we have is assumption. I tap keys on a laptop in virtual isolation that translates into electronic information if and only if the future continues to emerge. While my Gwynnies is smiling in the eternal now.

I need not know anything else.

Thursday, November 10, 2011


Which means, informal scientist.

Lemme tell you about god - there is no greater god than Gwyneth Paltrow. Period. According to my calculations, the closest we have been is in the late nineties when she was filming A View from the Top at Lake Havasu and I was not studying mathematics at Pima Community College in Tucson - Both of us were in Arizona at the same time.


I drew her, I fell in love with her; eleven years later, all obsession has fled and I love her like the fellow human being she is. Her divinity is merely a function of mutual non-existence. Now let us proceed to the order of operations:

God is Love: Theism. God is Gwyneth Paltrow: Atheism.

Feel free to check my math and try this calculation at home. Atheism is not about God, Atheism is about humanity. Try to get some before it is too late.

Thank you.

Monday, October 17, 2011

Naive Philosophy

Couple of considerations from my naive philosophy:
Philosophy is human scripture. Philosophy of being point-object truth keeps me philosophizing rather than proselytizing.  ;)

Morality is derivative of being point-object truth. See how nice that works?
Therefore to be human is to have morality. The "Morality of God," a.k.a. theology is thus reduced to zero - where it should be. "God beyond understanding," obviously, has zero morality - thus all the preaching. Morality must come from within, through information processing of data without - experience outside the self.

Consider this tao (essential duality)
Relativity: validated by experimentation.
Quantum mechanics: validated by explanation.
Unity: The power of science is to explain reality. Einstein began from within - the daydream of a patent clerk. Bohr and Heisenberg et al began from without - mathematics and experimental data.
Similar unity in science may occur through discrete mathematics.  ;)

All of the science above originated after mathematics was defined as both the Art of logical consistency and the Queen of the sciences - don't be deceived. Mathematics is the evolution of philosophy. For instance, my philosophic "law of fractal" states I am human, self-similar to humanity - but also to atheist, American, mathematician, Irish, western and eastern... All of these collectives have a "collective consciousness" of sorts. The identity and "science" of my writing is American English. The Why of I (metaphysical) behind my writing is the expression of identity.

Mind builds conceptual framework using word, thus the terms "consciousness" and "reality" converge towards truth at the point-object I. I'm a felon and a psychopath, my definition of American reality may be different than yours. The terms "felon, psychopath" seem objectively evil - yet the government pays me to worship Gwyneth Paltrow and do stuff like this, and everybody else has to work for a living. It is tao that this is my work, because I love my Gwynnies! :D

With that tao, I have no problem being evil as local entropic minimum or point-object truth - that's the power of science explaining reality. "Evil" is religious nonsense. "Tolerance" is term of engineering, not of being. Having Identity is being intolerant. Having acceptance is practicing tolerance. Morality is finding things intolerable - Absolute to the individual - relative to the collective. Ethics is the Normal derived from collective Morality.

It is all simple math. It is tao.  :D

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

End Times!

It's official. Eleven years ago, I drew Gwyneth Paltrow. She devoured my immortal soul, and now I am her soulless minion, condemned to walk the earth in eternal damnation. She is god of all creation. I am, obviously, the Adversary, the Evil One. Satan.
That ain't science fiction. I am emergent demigod Lucifer. That is science fact. The words themselves are essentially meaningless. I am a witch who understands witchcraft. In the name of science, I have devoured all theology and philosophy and have discovered the truth in two words:

Conserve entropy.

That is all scripture revealed. I am the fulfillment of all prophecy. This is the truth of "the Name":

Faith = moral certainty.

I have devoured all delusion of power in existence and have developed the ability of truth:

Science of simulation.

Ultimate Evil? Local entropic minimum. I am an atheist. My name is Justice. Religion is guilty of sin beyond redemption. End the insanity. "I will" is the life. Do what thou wilt is the extent of the law. My will is not limited by Death, why should you limit yours? I love you. You are God. Power is in you. Religion is insanity.

Case closed. :)

Tuesday, September 27, 2011


Gwyneth Paltrow - my sweet everything and reason for living - turns thirty nine today. Yay Gwynnies!

In other news... there ain't no other news. I may have fucked up and fulfilled Biblical prophecy this day - but that kind of shit needs time to settle.If it still looks good in a week - I might be fucking retired! Yay Gwynnies!

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Somebody's watching me

Some classic background music... this blog is my homepage from which I go to deviantart and facebook... I don't really write much here. But it has a follower... and pageviews... and I am kinda clueless, but that's ok!

This was gonna be a rant page against creationism - but gee, fellas! Genesis 1:24 and Job 38 - there we go, that's my sidekick, a.k.a. god, talking smack about creationism. Might as well let my posse handle it, dig? :D

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Philosophy, Physics, Mathematics - “Dangerous Knowledge”

Let there be sin! It is often said, of one who would write; that one should start at the beginning. Know that I have thus sinned. The blog entitled "killing creationists" begins with a dissertation on murder, as it should. What begins, in the following video, is John Cantor. I'll give you "special creation!" I'll give you "ex-niliho creation!" I'll give you "I," emergent; and whole. From the mind of God, in the worldly form of BBC:

Philosophy, Physics, Mathematics - “Dangerous Knowledge”:

'via Blog this'

There was a time, after inception, that I used this video to twist scripture. Now I know, the Book of Romans affirms the prophetic House of Cantor.

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

The Gwynnite Hypothesis

My life's work. Despite the title of this blog as it currently stands, I do not advocate the killing of creationists. I fear the killing of creationists by my own hand - because I am a moral creature - but there is nothing morally correct with the sentiment beyond myself being the one who holds to that sentiment. Which to say, if there is anything in the known universe that is correct; anything that I personally created, it would be the Gwynnite Hypothesis. I consider it to be a scientific hypothesis about the nature of god - that is simple, universal, and true - and complete in four lines.

Four axioms, all of which derive from the first axiom; all of which should be considered in the order that they are presented.

It is the work of my life "to love Gwyneth Paltrow" -one never to be mine- but as love must express, this work is the totality of my expression. That John Cantor is a human being subject to the desires, drives, and motivations that inspire all human beings - and John Cantor is a prophet of god. It is the second state that causes me the most fear and apprehension, having seen the legacy of other prophets, but the choice I was offered from god was not a choice my integrity would ever allow me to refuse.

So that if anything is left of me to cause future generations to cause the slightest hate and discontent let me, with the pride of occupation declare - my name is John Cantor and I will burn in all your Hells for all your eternities for my sin. But if what remains when I am no longer John Cantor is known to be of light, of truth, of love - of God - then the only name I ever had that matters -

Is Gwynnite.

Tuesday, August 16, 2011


At least, so we thought. But, like gods descending to earth to walk among mortals, we now realise their effect can be felt among the ordinary finite numbers.


If I wasn't a mathematician, I'd have to be... a pseudo-mathematician. :D

Monday, August 15, 2011

Friday, August 12, 2011

Are You a Good Person?

The things one does out of restlessness...

Are you offended? Outraged? Had enough? I've had enough. God does not send people to hell. Period. If your morality requires hell, then we all know which god you truly fear... I got no problems with Christians that actually worship Lucifer in their hearts and Jesus in their minds because the hypothesis that "beyond the threshold of eternity is beauty for all" is spiritually advanced. I had no idea that ten years after forming such, it would be as close to theory as anything of its kind is likely to get.

Yet because I am the scientist, who did the experiments, who still lives to tell the tale; I tend to think I "know something."Not only can it be explained scientifically, it can be explained scripturally - I can explain this video and my objections to it - but who cares? I'm on youtube practicing my five-second attention span when at 4:42 the narrator promotes idolatry...


I got no problem with sin - I do it all the time. Which is to say I got no problem stating I was not politically correct with my correction. Who cares, it's youtube, I can even use profanity; I did not expect to be simply blocked. Thus I too must follow the path of Satan and summon his modern aspect. The attorney.

Child Abuse.

In no uncertain terms. Are you with me, Kira? 

Thursday, August 11, 2011

Ultimate logic: To infinity and beyond - physics-math - 01 August 2011 - New Scientist

Ultimate logic: To infinity and beyond - physics-math - 01 August 2011 - New Scientist

Oh noes! I may hafta do some actual work! It is the end of the universe as we know it...

Not Gwyneth

But the inspiration for the name of this blog, and its first post.

murder is not wrong

Murder is illegal. The word, "murder," is specifically a legal term - unjustified human slayage - so one cannot actually "murder helpless animals" ... you PETA frickin' Nazis... just like National Socialism no longer applies. But who cares about truth; as long as it is... entertaining.

Thus, "malice aforethought;" and this, a confession to the world of first-degree murder as a title of an online publication. Killing Creationists. Because it is the single most objectively moral act a man can commit.

Creationism is incorrect in its own methodology, never mind in terms of evolutionary biology; its proponents don't even know what they are saying amongst themselves, never mind the message they're sending to the rest of the world. And they don't even care, all they care about is preaching their gospel, which is basically the propagation of one of humanity's longest running cons - the preying on the Fearful by the Certain.

Do you feel guilt? Compassion? Uncertainty? Do you know what happens to I, when the body dies? Why do children suffer? Why does no good deed go unpunished? What is the point of being righteous if nothing is right and everything is relative?

What is the point?

Once upon a time a philosophy developed to address these issues. Not because we are moral, or special, or because god said so; but because we are social animals whose accident of consciousness allowed for an Act of Creation - empathy. And that empathy is what gets John Q Public to lend a helping hand. In this case, the development of a methodology to buttress a philosophy that began as a science to offset the emotional burden of having two minds, in one body. Self-awareness is a spontaneous duality: there is self, and there is the awareness of not-self. Because we are social animals. Because we are communal. Because we don't give birth to human beings, we give birth to primates; and without a completely unnatural investment of time, resources, and education by the community, what comes out of the womb would never be nothing other than primate - and even when the investment is made, sometimes, in some individuals, "primate" represents an evolutionary leap forward . Even when the eyes are dotted, the tees crossed; the home, loving; the opportunities, abundant; there are still


What is the point? No man can say, in these circumstances. The purest bloodline can produce a monster, the greatest mind can fall to folly; the surest path can lead to just where and when the lightning strikes. Therefore, God. God can say, because compassionate man cannot. Empathetic man cannot. Social man cannot. Wise man, cannot.

And when God did say, what was most surely right; righteousness became a litany of wrongs. Allow me to waste ten words disproving Creationism (and a few more clarifying the terms):

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth...

What's going on in that simple introduction to the most troublesome piece of literature? Setting, anyone? There is but a single concept being clarified in that sentence - the beginning - and when one's composition is the telling of the Creator, the author best nip those "what Created the Creator" editorial fears in the bud. Let us count- one, two, three, four, five - In the beginning, God created - and that is the whole story, done and dusted.

What beginning? God's (capital G) beginning; the beginning mandated by literary form - the beginning is when God created the heavens and the earth - and to derive any more information from this opening line is to completely misunderstand the Word of God on the count of five.

Kill them, I ponder. Logic does not support them, science does not support them, education does not support them, religion does not support them, scripture does not support them; god does not support them. Why not kill them, and be done with it?

Because there will always be killers.

Where does morality come from? Evolution. In today's modern world, former esoteric knowledge can now be plainly expressed. One of the primary functions of our "so called intelligence," is to model in our own mind, the mind of another. I am not John Cantor, I am Writer, anticipating Reader. Do you have any modeling software on your computer? Is it vast, resource-intensive, awkward to use, even more awkward to use properly? We're not special, we're not gifted, we're not chosen; all we are - for lack of more apt phraseology - is a bunch of hunger-crazed monkeys with the curse of having two brains instead of one so that we're twice as ignorant of our nature and our place in nature.

There is no point. There is entropy, uncertainty, and chaos. There is no purpose, no reason, no meaning; there is only moving forward or falling behind. There is no justice, no judgement, no judge; only the possibilities of probability. There is no reward, there is no punishment, there is no sin, there is no salvation; and for the span of civilization, there has been no moral obligation to pontificate on these facts.

Because we are social animals. Because John Q Public is not intelligent. Because John Q Public is narrow-minded, self-serving, short-sighted, and brutish; yet, in ignorance, John Q Public is driven by evolutionary mandate to present a facade of compassion, caring, understanding, support, and when the situation is truly dire, wisdom.

Wisdom. Because in times of plenty, no god need apply. Yet what is wisdom? What occurs only after exhausting every other dumb sequence randomly attempted only through the mathematical limitations of nothing being truly random in a finite universe? Something bought from a store, read out of a book, imprinted upon a coffee mug? Being wise, I shall tell you; it is scarring. It is callous. Structure formed against continual brazing whose survival is its only merit; after all, if I'm the tallest tree in the forest because I'm too proud, or stupid, or ornery, to shut the hell up and lie the hell down and just die; what is the sum total of my lifetime accomplishments?


For the brutish, self-serving, short-sighted; John Q Public, not only my brother - but me, for I am humanity - the same John Q I would expect to condemn me for murder, if Creationists should find a Killing in my vicinity. How can murder be wrong if I send this troubled soul that much quicker back to his maker? How can murder be wrong when "killing in the name of god" has been a top forty hit ever since there has been god, and killing, and hits? How can murder be wrong if it helps to thin ignorance from the gene pool? How can murder be wrong, when everything that lives - needs - something to die? How can murder be wrong... I know of only one way...

If Gwyneth Paltrow reads this post.