CHAPTER: EIGHT, Part 1 (of

8. The Start of Philosophy and the  Christians’ “Proofs  of the Existence of God”


Hans Atrott

 (This is no translation of  the exposition in German:

"Die Konstituierung der Philosophie durch Parmenides -  

 Die heraklitäisch-eleatische Antinomie und die „Gottesbeweise“ but an additional exposition. The German text was written in 1995/96 and this one in 2011/12).


The Christians’ buffooneries (dubbed: proofs) on the existence of (theistic) “god” were already confuted before they came up – in fact, by the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides (540-480 B.C.E). The cognition that 


·       firstly, there is nothing outside of being, and

·       secondly, that (a) god is not needed in order to maintain the existence of the being, oh yeah, that even no god is possible, marks the outset of philosophy.


Like they claim to be the "top experts in sexuality" prescribing couples how to behave in the marriage bed, those boasters – being experienced in raping little children -- similarly are "experts in philosophy. Braggarts are the "experts in everything," even in those matters, they do not know at all since the last want to pose as "the first" (see: Mt 20:16) at any price. Swanks are obsessed with taking “the first place in everything" (Col. 1:18). Christianity and philosophy -- this only is buffoonery of braggarts and criminals strutting as “philosophers” after having killed the last philosopher.  In the year 529, the “Christian” phony “philosophers” indeed massacred the last (female) head of the Academy founded by Plato So, they switched off the light of knowledge in order to swank on the stage (of philosophy) which they had been cleared for almost a millennia. If philosophy is forbidden -- what the Christians, frankly, or secretly try doing so as long as this abomination has been existing, even Mafiosi -- not knowing the first things of philosophy -- can pose as "great philosophers." Each name the Christians try fobbing off as such a "philosopher" only is to judge in that way.

Click on the picture

Strictly speaking, that what the concerned label as “Christian theology" only is a spoonerism of Neo-Platonism, a school of philosophy, which predominately is coined by philosopher Plotinus (205-270 C.E.) who charged his disciple Porphyry (232/3-304) to debunk Christian criminality not only as such but also as superstition. By the way, Porphyry's book "kata Christianos" ("Against the “Christians") was the first one Christian terrorism burnt. Those who burn books also burn humans. The top bestial ones among them demonstrably even do so while the latter are alive. They only burn the books because they cannot burn those who have another belief or confute them. Everybody should remember this fact when the Christian Mafiosi or their henchmen restart burning copies of the Koran, the Holy Writ of Islam... Those are the indications that the Objektivationen of perfidy and criminality, i.e. perfidy and criminality have become human bodies, still are as dangerous as they always have been.

Philosopher Celsus (about 178)[1] and ancient Jewish accounts[2] report that Ben-Pandera learned sorcery in Egypt when this ridiculous dummy of “god” – for a Jew – shamefully drudged away as a servant in Egypt. Insofar, a context between the Christians’ skills of bluff (dubbed: "wonders") and ancient Egyptian magic is evident. Porphyry correctly realizes that “Christian” sorcery is part of the common bluff of the desert. I.e. Christianity has nothing to do with the philosophy like the Mafia in Southern Italy has nothing to do with serious business. What the Christians pretend as “philosophy” is nothing but the frothiness of impostors, mountebanks and charlatans purportedly keeping something they do not have.

Many philosophers -- though admittedly, a minority of them -- deem Plotinus the greatest philosopher of humankind, hitherto, even exceeding Plato and Aristotle. Admittedly, this is (still) a minority’s view. However, the author shares it. The knowledge about the importance of Plotinus who was born in Egypt and taught and died in Italy is suppressed by the “Christians” hoodlums wanting to “take the first place in everything” (Col 1:18). However, they know about the greatness of Plotinus but do not admit it because “the sick needing a physician”[3] and no physician can help[4]) “humbly” and “modestly” desire to pose at the first (see: Col 1:18), at the very expenses of the Commonwealth, i. e. as social parasites. The „Christians’“ Augustine writes:

“… in particular by Plotinus, the face of Plato, the purest and brightest in philosophy, lit up after the expulsion  the clouds of error.. This Platonic philosopher (Plotinus) has been judged being that alike to Plato, so that we must assume that both had lived together. On the other hand, there is so much time in between, that one must believe Plato was resurrected to life by him (Plotinus)."[5]


By the way, in history of philosophy it is not unusual that some philosophers look like twins of mind, even if separated by centuries like it apparently is the case between Plato and Plotinus.  It is reason that produces such “twins”.  If the greatest philosopher judges those coveting to “take the first place in everything” (Col 1:18)  as buffoons, criminals and charlatans, only burning of books or murder can help the latter. In such situations the perfidious help themselves by putting upside “down” in downside “up” so that the nerds n’ jerks can take “the first place in everything” (Col 1:18). Plotinus’ disciple Porphyry (232/3-304 C.E.) writes:


“At the time of  his (Plotinus), there were numerous “Christians” ... they led many astray, while  they properly were hoodwinked themselves  and taught that Plato was not penetrated to the depths of the spiritual essence.”[6]


Allowing the last or “the sick needing a physician”[7] and no physician can help[8] to strut as “the first” (Mt 20:16), in particular, as “upholders of moral standards” in filched plumes is not free of charge but is to accept with poisoning and destruction of humans’ social existence, which is based on good faith and fair play. The “Christians” replace them by a foul mouth and foul play.[9]  Unlike the outward appearance of the miscarriage of nature[10] the “Christians” try fobbing off as Satan’s son, pardon, “god’s son” being as ugly as Satan and the sin, the outward appearance of Plotinus was a very, very sour grape to the limping cripple with the dubbed: “Jesus Christ”:


"While he (Plotinus) was speaking his mind visibly came to light and irradiated with his brilliance even his face, always being attractive by the sight, at such moments he downright was beautiful...”[11]


Obviously in both cases, the mind manifested itself by the outward appearance. The “Christians” have to keep silent about the outward appearance of Jesus the Antichrist is terribly horrid by accident. Who says something else, that one first should study the “Christian” doctrines on Satan?

Plotinus greatest achievement is his success in solving apparent antinomies, e. g. that one between Plato (427- 347 B.C.E) and Aristotle (about 384/3 – 322/1 B.C.E), especially the one between Parmenides (about 540 – 480 B.C.E) and Heraclitus (about 544-483 B.C.E). The latter antinomy marks the constitution of philosophy as we are going to expound, now. Plotinus was the first philosopher who designed one interdependent ontology (the science of being) that Plato and Aristotle (still) do not have, yet. Those who say something else do not know what of Plotinus they attach to Plato and Aristotle. Already this fact (of the first sophisticated ontology) makes Plotinus an Olympus among all the philosophers. So, what is Plotinus’ philosophy about? What is the significance of the triumvirate of Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus in the firmament of spirit?


Both, the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle aimed at solving an antinomy dominating the then topics of science but, which also presents the foundation of philosophy. Due to its importance, we need to go into greater detail here.



The  Heraclitan-Eleatic Antinomy


Already, its name furnishes evidence that the comprehension of this antinomy is not very profound, yet. Rather, this antinomy should be called Heraclitan-Eleatic Antinomy. For about more than two and a half millennia, there were philosophers representing the starting point of philosophy. However, the one did not support the other, but they contradict each other, in fact, that tremendously so that one, at the first glance, can speak about an antinomy, i.e. an irreconcilable and insurmountable contradiction. One can also say that at the start of philosophy, there were two philosophers whose contradiction seemed to block any progress of philosophy. The one side, we have Parmenides (540 – 480 B.C.E.) and the other one Heraclitus (544 - 483 B.C.E.). However, like male and female, they will constitute the philosophy. That what seemed to block emerging philosophy, right at the very outset, will enable it.


It is an unlikely "couple." Of both, Parmenides, by far, is the more important, the more important one, the much more profound thinker, but without the "test tube" (Heraclitus) philosophy would not have progressed. In general, Parmenides is the much more significant one. Anyway, he is the peak of pre-Socratic philosophers. He does not only observe precisely, he also is very keen-minded while keeping richness of intuition.

First Step: Parmenides thinks about the conditions of the possibility as well of being as of nothingness. This question (on  the conditions of the possibility of something)  Kant  more than two millennia later called transcendentality. However, this notion does not mean  a two-  or three-story world (heaven, earth and hell) as  “Christian” impostors claim wrongly. Transcendentality is the query about the conditions of the possibility of a matter.

Parmenides puts the questions about the conditions of the possibility as well to the one of being as the one of nothing. This is the way of precise philosophical thinking what more than two millennia later Scottish-Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant called a priori or transcendantality:


“A priori synthetic judgements are possible when we apply the formal conditions of the a-priori intuition, the synthesis of the imagination, and the necessary unity of that synthesis in a transcendental apperception, to a possible cognition of experience, and say: ‘The conditions of the possibility of experience in general are at the same time conditions of the possibility of the objects of experience, and have, for that reason, objective validity in an a priori synthetic judgement.’"[12]


 Things do exist if reason says that there are conditions of their possibility to be. If reason says there are no conditions of the  possibility of its existence, then they do not exist even if our senses – and often an insufficient mind  wants to gull us into believing that there is something that, in truth, is not. Kant later called this “revolution of the way of thinking” an expression that later even became coined as  Copernican turn” of philosophy by the followers of Kant[13]. However, this might be such a new innovation with regard to “Christian” carnivalism (dubbed: “theology," “scholasticism” etc.) but not concerning ancient Greek philosophy. This “Copernican turn” of philosophy was not introduced by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) but by Parmenides. On this condition, Parmenides comes the conclusion that the being is necessarily and the nothingness does not exist since there is no condition of the possibility of nothingness.



2.2 the only ways of inquiry there are to think:
 2.3 the One, that it is and that it is not possible for it not to be



Second Step: Parmenides now proceeds to realize the capability of the identity of being. This mean that matter has the capability being that what they are, for instance, that one cannot differ between a cat and the ability of being a cat. Without the capability of being a cat, there is no cat. Differing between a cat and the ability of being a cat only is a distinction of the brain (by concepts, i. e. tools of cognition) but not a different matter in being.

     For the same thing is for thinking and for being.

... for the same thing can be thought and can exist

... for ‘to be thought’ and ‘to be’ are the same [thing].[15]


6.1 That which is there to be spoken and thought of must be. For it is possible for it to be,

6.2 but not possible for nothing to be.[16]


Here, sometimes historians of philosophy try putting the great Parmenides next to “Christian” Anselm of Carnival, Aosta or Cant(erbury) that what the brain imagines that also is existing. For instance, if one can think scelus quod cogitari non potest, i. e. a crime,one cannot think more, then this crime does exist. Pertaining to “Christianity” this certainly is correct but not concerning an anthropomorphic god. Let us put the question: why would Parmenides reject the existence of a theistic “god”? He would refute such a god on account of two truths: Firstly, unlike  Christian” carnevalists, Parmenides correctly would say that there is no possibility of creation out of nothing (creation ex nihilo) since this nothing (nihil) is not thinkable and secondly, such a god neither is possible nor needed. This is what Parmenides says in the quoted fragments 6:1 and 6:2: there are conditions of the possibility of being and non-conditions of the possibility of a nothingness. In fragment three, just quoted before, he says that being something also means being capable of being something. This is what the author calls capability of identity and on account of the capability of identity there a) is no theistic god needed and no place for him in the being. The theists do something the author once read in a book of Albert Einstein (1879-1955), some decades ago. Einstein presented a comparison the author kept in mind due to its impressiveness. Giving the gist, Einstein said that the theists present sham-solutions. They have two boxes of matches, a big one and a smaller one. The big one presents “god” and the smaller one our world or universe. Now, the theist delivers sham solutions for each problem by shifting them to the big box. For instance, the infer  the angle at the small box from their contrived big one, this side from the small box from the corresponding one of the big (god), e. g. they declare the human potencies from god’s omnipotence, science of the humans from the omniscience of “god”, highness among humans from the High Most (“god”) etc.  The fear of many humans to admit that their knowledge consists of many giant black holes successfully is repressed but the problems and the ignorance stays as before and often become dangerous since there hardly is more a dangerous individual being ignorant while fooling itself keeping “inerrant” and “absolute” truths. The perfidiously “humble” “Christians” are conclusive evidence for that.


In contrast with  “Christian” carnevalism (dubbed: “theology”)”... for ‘to be thought’ and ‘to be’ are the same [thing]” does not mean that everything the brain of a human contrives does exist but the identity of being and capability of being or as Scottish-Prussian philosopher Kant couches it: “The conditions of the possibility of experience in general are at the same time conditions of the possibility of the objects”.[17]


Recalling Albert Einstein, we already mentioned that the theist only shifts the problems from the matters that are to recognized, i.e. small box of matches, to “god," the same box of matches but only bigger if not giant. If they fantasize about god, the attach to him that what is attached to the entire being, namely, a capability of identity they call “aseity”, i.e. being able to be that what he is by himself and out of himself. The theists limit capability of identity only to that what they call “god." However, this is only to apply to serious theism like Judaism and Islam but not to “Christianity." Pertaining to “god” – as far as he only is a dummy for “Christian” criminality – the “Christians” firstly, attach a rivaling “son” to god[18] and by differing a “holy spirit," the (Christian) carnevalism takes the capability of identity (dubbed: “aseity”) from god. Comparably the “Christian” goofs n’ goons want to puff up towards their prey (dubbed: sheep) instructing them that there is a cat and “the capability of a cat” or a dog and “the capability of a god."  Differing between a “holy spirit” and “god” means indeed differing between god and the capability of being god…


The attempt at the (almost) perfect crime means to make it invincible (being perfect means being invincible) by attaching the instigator of abomination of “Christianity” to “god." Now, if we only have two items, we have the dualism like the one of the god and Satan. In fact, the annotated passages prove that in “Christian” carnevalism we have a concealed rivalry between Satan and god, pardon, between Ben-Pandera (whom god curses, see: De 21:23, like he curses Satan) and that what Ben-Pandera desires to be: “god." Even if one reads the wording of the fake of “declaration of repentance” of March 12, 2000, the “Christians” even there try threatening their god that even the repentance about their incredible but real criminal record only is performed as such inasmuch god recognized the instigator of criminality of “Christianity”  as his co-god. Several times, there verbatim is couched: “We ask this through Christ our Lord”[19]. I. e. if god keeps to his promise cursing the hanged (see: De 21:23), the “Christians“ have nothing to repent. In addition, here on has to take into account that in the Bible (dubbed: “Old Testament”) the Lord is god, i.e. calling someone else the “Lord” than god means saying to god: This is what we (“Christians”) place instead of yourself! In “Christianity” “god” only is a framework (dubbed: “trinity”) of passing their foremost felon from the death row off as “god." Differing the holy spirit from god means differing the capability of being god from god. For instance, comparably  Christian” Satanism could contrive that there is a stone and the capability of being a stone. The one is “good” and the “other” evil and so the evilness and goodness are fighting in the deadly stone… Trinity is a product if Mafiosi desire to strut as great philosopher and the philosophers are jailed or murdered (by the Trojan Horses of “martyrs for the truths”…). 

Before someone comes up with any proof of an anthropomorphic “god," he or she first should confute what Parmenides proved: the capability of identity. The “proofs for god” are based on this presumption (that there, firstly, is a being and secondly, a capability of being that being) they imbecilely do not see, and that does not exist. I.e. the “Christian” proofs of their fake of “god” already were confuted before they came up, about more than one and a half millennia, ago.


Now, we have to put the question how Parmenides gets the cognition that being and being capable of being are only to differ by terms but not concerning the matters. By answering this question one can see what an outstanding genius Parmenides was.  Here, we have to scrutinize what we already quoted from the fragment:6. German Uvo Hoelscher[20] translates from  fragment: 6 “Entweder ist es, oder ist es nicht” (Either it is or it is not”). What we quoted from the English translation of fragment 6 (“For it is possible for it to be, but not possible for nothing to be.”) has the same meaning.


  8.7…I will not permit you to say

  8.8 or to think from What IS NOT; for it cannot be said or thought

  8.9 that it IS NOT. What necessity would have impelled it

  8.10 to grow later rather than earlier, if it began from nothing?[21]


Parmenides says: of course, we have to question if there firstly, are the conditions of being and nothingness. If the premises for the first are given but the one for the nothingness are not extant. Consequently, the being must be. However, if it is, it is completely capable of itself.


8.11 Thus it must either fully be or not.[22]

8.33 for it is not lacking ; if it were , it would lack everything.[23]


Now, philosophy is born. These two phrases only of a few words are the birth of philosophy. Parmenides says that if the being is extant, it must be completely capable of its identity, or it could not exist, at all. If it lacked only a bit, it could not exist, at all. By the way, modern physics has proven this cognition of Parmenides, indeed by the doctrine of the perseverance of energy. Whatever happens in the whole universe, the amount of energy neither decreases nor increases. Each change in the whole universe only is a change of one transformation of energy to another one. However, the quantity of energy always is the same. We cannot test it, however, it is to assume if the energy only lost one-millionth of a gram, the whole cosmos would collapse. If the being is, then it necessarily is wholly.


A distinction between a thing and the ability to be this one, on which, as I said, all theisms and "proofs of God" finally are  based, is due to lacking brain. The philosophy then began with the recognition of the capability of the identity of  being. By this  cognition philosophy came into being.


There is no difference between an atom and the capability of being an atom. There is no difference between a molecule and a molecule's capability of being such a molecule. Analogously, there would be no difference between a god and the capability of being god-like Mafiosi presuming to strut as “philosophers” are used to hissing out if differing between god and a “holy spirit," i.e. between god and the ability of being god, what the “Christians” would-be philosophers call “holy spirit." However, there is a difference between god and dummy of "god." The latter, firstly, is cursed by god (see: De 21:23) and secondly becomes ushered to the gallows instead of the throne of Israel... What a pretty creep n’ crook of “god” hanging on the gallows or become cut off his evil head… If Satan or the Antichrist shams being “god," they even presume the “capability” of correcting the failures of "god" (see: 1Co 15:24-28)...

The matter is those Mafiosi attempting the (almost) perfect crime want to use “god” as a framework to pass the instigator of theirs, i.e. Ben-Pandera (dubbed: Jesus “Christ”) off as god. Then, we would have two gods. One the one hand, god (whom the “Christian” address as “father”) and Ben-Pandera (dubbed: “son," “son of man," son of Satan, “son of god," Antichrist and “Christ” etc.). However, the number two stands for dualism. Apparently, even in this number (of two) it would turn out that an adversary of god is posed above g Satan according to the „Christians’“ own “doctrines” want to be like “god” (see: Isa 14:14). Veiling the dualism between god and Satan, respectively his Anointed One (Greek: Christos), the "Christians'" foremost humbug or his early fellow terrorists have to add as much to the number of two, until the reach a number which again present a unity according to numerology. The number three is the next one after one keeping the meaning of a unity.

Therefore, the cross  terrorists contrived a difference between god and  the capability of being god (dubbed: “holy spirit”) in order to camouflage the dualism between god and Satan, respectively, god and Ben-Pandera.  Those things are not unusual if Mafiosi boast of  being “great philosophers”…  Saying it unambiguously: In “Christianity”, the term of trinity shall camouflage the dualism between god and Ben-Pandera (Satan) with which even the „Christians’“ fake of  “Holy Writ” is teeming.[24]  In the same way, one foolishly could construct the quadrity of “god”: father, son, omnipotence and omniscience… God is omnipotence and omniscience and therefore that is nothing to differ from god like spirit is not to differ from god. God is holy spirit… In addition, as the Mafiosi attempting the (almost) perfect crime differ between god and a “holy spirit” as different person (Greek: hypostases), one could also claim that father and mother are three persons: First the father, secondly the mother and thirdly four legs… Of course, impostors wanting to “take the first place in everything” (Col 1:18) put their nonsense in a Trojan Horse of top ridiculousness, pardon, “philosophy”…  The only purpose for the “differentiation” of god and the ability of being god as a single person  is to get a number presenting a unity in numerology, which is three.  This neither has something to do with religion and with philosophy, not at all.


Later, Plotinus will say later that being means being so and being capable of being so, i. e. that what it is. However,  Parmenides initially puts the  question of how being is possible, at all, and why nothingness does not exist. The problem is how the one being can diversify, i.e. how one becomes many, will be the main subject of  Plato, Aristotle and  Plotinus. The latter will give a plausible answer. However, later details about this.


Third step: Parmenides puts the question how being is possible at all and why there is no nothingness. Since the conditions of the possibility of a nothingness are not given:


6.2 “But nothing is not. These things I order you to ponder”[25] -


 There never could have been a creation out of nothing (creation ex nihilo) and since being is identical with the capability of being there is no place for a “theistic” god. In contrast with already mentioned Scottish-Prussian philosopher  Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), German philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762 - 1814) sees that having destroyed “philosophy” as a protection money zone of  “Christian” Mafiosi, modern philosophy took up the line that started with Parmenides:


“"Hence, it is no wonder that after bogus "nature" has become (true) nature to us, (true) nature seems to be bogus "nature“ and after having beheld all things upside down at first, we are used to thinking that things that are righted are inverse. Now, this is an error that certainly will disappear over time, since  we deriving death from life, and the body from the spirit, but not vice versa, as the modern, we (modern philosophers) are the true successors of the ancients, but we only see clearly that what remained dark to them, however, the afore mentioned philosophy (Christian scholastics) really is a progress at all in time, but only a farcical interlude as a little appendage to complete barbarism.”[26]


By wording that we (modern philosophers) deduce death from life, Fichte correctly see that according to the ancient philosophers starting with Parmenides being is the first that ever existed and death as a kind of nothingness stems from being. Fichte correctly sees that the allegation of a creation ex nihilo finally derives being and so even human beings from death, which here is another term for nothingness. This German philosopher even was indicted for atheism in the country of the latter holocaust, i. e. Germany. This means, being no goof confusing “complete barbarism” as “peak of philosophy” was punishable in Germany and often is it today, even if the “Christian” dastards and German clumsy oafs preventing to make themselves a laughingstock do not charge the enemies with atheism today… The perfidious always have their pretexts and if not, then they cry to themselves that crime was “law” and law was “crime”…! The latter is very true (criminality of) “Christianity." To this quotation of Fichte, we are going to refer in another significant context.


At present, we can record by the words of Fichte that Parmenides was founder of ancient and modern philosophy deriving death from life and not life from death (ex nihilo).


Those who presume to confute this knowledge that the universe was created or is going to perish first should prove that the energy of the universe can diminish or extend before talking big about unfounded speculations. The universe was before our galaxy came into existence and will be when our galaxy will be no more…


Hereby, indeed the “Christian” “theists’” contrived “proofs of god” already were confuted by Parmenides and not first time by Scottish-Prussian Immanuel Kant, indeed one and a half millennium before Anselm of Carnevalsbury and some other “Christian” mugs n’ nuts came up with them. One can talk a lot if the adversary is muzzled (Baruch Espinoza). Parmenides did is incomparably more profound and keen minded as Kant. We already mentioned that this was the foundation of philosophy and below, we are going to demonstrate in greater detail why this judgment is conclusive. We do not want to mention that the “Christians” never succeeded in proving that god is a deceiver goading his purportedly chosen ones into implacably lying about their terror and terrorism for about two millennia… In place of thinking about an “ens quod maius cogitari no potest” (a being one cannot think greater)  and saying that it is existing because goofs in their limited brain can think it,  Christian Anselm and his  “Christian” mucks n’ shmucks should have thought about a “scelus quod maius cogitari non potest” (a crime one cannot think more). This crime indeed is existing and Anselm as his fellow shifters n’ tricksters are the optimization of it…


At present, in addition let us record that Parmenides cognition that being also means capable of being is proven by modern  empirical science, namely, by  the uncontested law of the preservation of energy which neither can decrease nor increase whatever occurs in the whole universe. Therefore, no god is need since the universe has its power of existence if the earth is revolving the sun or has perished with  the whole solar system or even without entire galaxy. Even if   “big bang” was the start of the universe, who says that before this “big bang” innumerable “big bangs” had been and are going to come…? 




Fourth Step: Until now, the sensible certainly cannot see any problems to which they could not consent, not to mention an apparently insurmountable antinomy. However, this is what we are going to expound, now. Parmenides already anticipates that what more than two millennia later the already mentioned Scottish-Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) claimed as his very invention and his immortal fame in philosophy. As already mentioned, Kant wrongly deems that before him, philosophers directed their comprehension (concepts) to reality and he believes having introduced the “revolution of the way of thinking” that reality has to comply with our cognition (notions) what his followers even called the “Copernican turn” in philosophy. Regarding “Christian” “scholasticism” which only is a boasting of some criminals wanting to pose as great philosophers, Kant might be right but regarding ancient philosophy, Kant completely is mistaken. The “theologians” foster a notion of truth as “adaequatio rei et intellectus”, i.e. truth purportedly is an adjustment of the matters and mind. To that way of “thinking” Kant might be “revolutionary” but not to history of philosophy, which had been occupied for about one millennium by “Christian” phonies and impostors. We already pointed out that Parmenides – besides Heraclitus – founded the philosophy. This would not have happened if this great ancient philosopher had the concept of truth as “adaequatio rei et intellectus”.

On the contrary, much more than Immanuel Kant, even at the expenses to make himself a laughing stock Parmenides unshakably keeps to  this way of thinking that all the matters of reality have to comply with our comprehension or they do not exist.  He already sees what centuries later Aristotle (384 B.C.E. – 322 B.C.E.) will couch in the following way that “lack is the cause of movement”. Parmenides now considers if lack is the cause of all movements and being does not lack anything since otherwise it would lack everything, then there cannot be any movement, no generation, no perishing, oh yeah, any change in the world, at all. If the senses, i.e. experiences, tell us something else, it  only can be an illusion.


8.3 …that Being is ungenerated and imperishable,
8.4 Whole, unique, immovable, and complete.
8.5 It was not once nor will it be, since it is now altogether.”


In order to exist being has everything otherwise it would not be since it would lack everything. Each movement in the world is due to one lack at least, if not more. So, Parmenides thinks: Why should there generating, perishing and any movement in the being if it already has everything what it could achieve by such changes? By the way, this also is a refutation of the existence of a heaven, unless everything that should happen, there is nothing but an illusion… However, again comparing him to Kant one must say that the latter hardly can compete with Parmenides pertaining his so-called copernican turn in philosophy…


8.6 one, continuous. For what origin would you seek for it (when changing)?
8.7 How and whence did it grow? I  (Parmenides) will not permit you to say
8.8 or to think from What IS NOT; for it cannot be said or thought
8.9 that it IS NOT. What necessity would have impelled it
8.10 to grow later rather than earlier, if it began from nothing?


Parmenides cannot see any premise of the possibility of the being why it could and should generation something, how could be a perishing or any movement and that what is not thinkable does not exist for him. The being does not lack anything and consequently, there cannot be any change since the latter is based on lack. Therefore, being completely quiescent and even no diversity is possible.

8.26 But motionless in the limits of mighty bonds

  8.27 It is without beginning and never-ending, since coming into being and perishing…

  8.29 Since it remains the same and in the same, it lies by itself.[29]



 It neither became generated nor can it perish (see: fragment 8:3) and therefore bring forth any diversity (see: fragment 8:6). So, the things of reality only can be illusions. This inference: each movement or any change in the world is only a representation of mind with no reference to reality or as Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 – 1860) couched it in his exposition: “The world as will and representation." 

The founder of philosophy keeps that strict to his cognition that each sensual reception, i.e. experience, only is to accept in as much as it complies with logics that he ran the risk of becoming laughable. Who really can contest that individuals become born and do die or that there seasons of summer and winter, etc. ?

 Now, before pointing out the antinomy and its later  solution by Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus, let us record Parmenides’ power of penetration, at present:



 This founder of philosophy already anticipated the first doctrine of modern thermodynamics, i.e. the perseverance of energy.
· Parmenides anticipates that what about two millennia later Immanuel Kant deems to be his very invention. The founder of philosophy says: If my senses, i.e. experiences, show me becoming and perishing but reason teaches me that such occurrences are impossible, then not experiences determine reason but vice versa.


·       He differs already between terms as tools of cognition and the matters which the concepts shall conceive. The main figures of  Christian” “scholasticism” were unable to do so. Movement, generation, coming up and perishing become mere terms to Parmenides to which nothing corresponds in reality.



Heraclitus‘ Contradiction to Parmenides


The claim that there is no movement, change, becoming and perishing, etc. in the world defies each observation and even could be subject to mockery. At that time, there was another philosopher, a tad earlier, to Parmenides, the already mentioned Heraclitus (535 – c. 475 B.C.E). At his time, he likely was more renowned and venerated than Parmenides. The one does not mention the other one but philosophers got aware of the antinomy of both.

He said the contrary of Parmenides: There should be no movement in the world? Everything is moving, all the time.


“ everything flows and nothing stays fixed.”[30]


 One even cannot step two times in the same river…


55(91) It is not possible to step twice into the same river.

56(12) Over those who step into the same river ever different waters flow. [31]


As pointed out, due  to  “Christian” barbarianism only fragments of those works are extant since the “Christians” could not bear someone else taking the first place in something. Therefore, the cross  terrorists deliberately wanted to uproot their preys from their culture, already as a trick to camouflage their inferiority and to extinct the wisdom debunking is it as that what it is: depravity, perfidy and foul play (criminality, respectively, terrorism). As far as those sayings of Heraclitus still are extant they are taken from a kind of gathering of aphorism of this philosopher, i.e. remarks of wisdom to a variety of topics among which is one on nature. Anyway, by far one cannot speak about a personal dispute between both philosophers. A complete concoction is the allegation that Heraclitus had in mind to counter Parmenides. Nevertheless, the expressions of both philosophers constitute the antinomy, regardless if both already saw it or not.  Consequently, as each contradiction, an antinomy at least consists of two parts. We have the  statements of:


1.)   Parmenides: Being is motionless and quiescent (see: fragment 8: 26) and of 

2.)   Heraclitus: Nothing stays. Everything is flowing. There is nothing permanent except change.


Before, we are going to point out what impact this antinomy had on philosophy, respectively, how  later distinguished philosophers like Plato, Aristotle and  Plotinus tried solving this contradiction, we first want to find out why the original scripture of Heraclitus is  not extant any longer.


Excursus: Why the Heraclitus Book is not extant, any longer


In General one can read in other books that we sadly do not keep the expositions of Parmenides and Heraclitus, any longer… However, the author of this book does not confine itself to this statement. It is true that the writings of Parmenides and Heraclitus are not extant any longer. However, whom do we owe this destruction of our foundation of science and culture…? We already pointed out that, in particular, the Mediterranean area and Europe have been suffering from a terrorism attempting the (almost) perfect crime with aiming at “taking the first place in everything” (Col 1:18). It is no natural catastrophe that we do not possess Parmenides’ and Heraclitus’ scriptures any longer but only in that way as far as it is quoted by other authors, i.e. as fragments. The lack those important cultural pillars of the occident is due to an organized crime, a terrorism which the white race either joins as accomplice or nourishes because – if they can – those terrorists kill everybody defying to bow them. In disguise of a religion wanting “to take the first place in everything” (Col 1:18) those (almost) perfect criminals stopping at nothing, at least at no murder, terror and mass-murder.[32] The ancient Mediterranean Pagans had a huge library in Alexandria Egypt keeping several hundreds of thousands books in its shelves. It is unimaginable that the books of Heraclitus and Parmenides – already in ancient times mentioned as very significant ones by renowned philosophers -- were not in the shelves of the largest and top important library of the ancient world. The terrorists wanting to take the first place in everything (Col 1:18) could not bear being unable to hold a candle to great philosophers and at the instigation of “Christian” bishop-terrorist Theophilos his fellow “Christian” Satanists and terrorists destroyed the library and hereby wanted to deprive the whole Mediterranean area and so also Europe its cultural heritage. The name Serapeion (Latin: Serapeum) derives from the ancient Pagan god Serapis. The library was burnt down by the cross terrorists in the wake of the “Christians’” terrorism on Pagan religion. It fits the context that the cross terrorists also closed the Academy Plato once founded in the year 529 and, of course, massacred its last head, a female philosopher. For about eight centuries, philosophy was closed and introduced by Islam in Southern Europe since Andalucía became Islamic and the Muslims fostered science, in particular, even the scriptures of Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus, which were presumed successfully destroyed (by conflagrations on Pagan libraries by the cross terrorists). The reader correctly read that people in Europe and America can read the great philosophers of humankind only due to Islam and would be deprived to their works like they are deprived of the scriptures of Parmenides, his disciple Zenon and Heraclitus.

The Impact of Parmenides and Heraclitus on ancient Pagan Philosophy

The antinomy between the Elean philosophers, in particular, Parmenides and Heraclitus is not to understand in that way that both philosophers did so like politicians of different parties combat one another in order to gain the office they are running for. As far as the works of both philosophers still are extant, it is to state that Parmenides and Heraclitus both rightly were self-confident. The still extant fragments of Heraclitus show him as a very keen-minded philosopher producing wise aphorism worth reading for one’s edification even today. His contemporary fellows in philosophy Heraclitus, mostly disparaged. Not everybody titling himself a philosopher at that time as today was, respectively is a Parmenides, Socrates or Plato. Anyway, we have to record that there is no knowledge today that Parmenides mentioned Heraclitus nor the latter the former.

Wide off the mark are the allegations of Marxists that first was Parmenides saying there is no diversity of beings and no movement and afterward came Heraclitus opposing and “correcting” him. Heraclitus was before Parmenides. It is said that later philosophers detected Parmenides and Heraclitus as the thesis and anti-thesis about change in reality. They detected that the one is the very reverse of the other and so coined the antinomy according to the two name: the school of Elea and that one of Heraclitus. For example, Plato (428/427 - 347 B.C.E.) rightly was very impressed by Parmenides.

He speaks with veneration about Parmenides, and his philosophy is not to understand without the Parmenides. Plato even dedicates one of his dialogues to Parmenides in which he points out the importance of this philosophical predecessor to him. In this dialogue already philosopher Aristotle (384 B.C.E. – 322 B.C.E.) is mentioned but no Heraclitus. So, at present, we have to record that this antinomy does not exist because two philosophers disputed each other but because later philosophers detected that saying of both are the very contradictions about an utmost significant matter.

In the already mentioned dialogue “Parmenides," Plato also reports that Parmenides was ridiculed for this thesis that there is no change in reality. He defends Parmenides by the statement that scrutinizing the antithesis to Parmenides makes the opposition to Parmenides still more laughable than they deem Parmenides to be:


“The truth is, that these writings of mine were meant to protect the arguments of Parmenides against those who make fun of him and seek to show the many ridiculous and contradictory results which they supposed to follow from the affirmation of the one. My answer is addressed to the partisans of the many, whose attack I return with interest by retorting upon them that their hypothesis of the being of many, if carried out, appears to be still more ridiculous than the hypothesis of the being of one.”[33]


Here once more, we can see what poor Immanuel Kant’s and his stalwarts’ knowledge, respectively, comprehension of ancient philosophers like, for example, of Parmenides and Plato, was when boasting about a “revolutionary was of thinking” or even of a “Copernican turn” of philosophy by claiming that everything the senses mediate to us, i.e. experience, has to comply with the notions of our brain and not the reverse way (“adaequatio rei et intellectus”). Parmenides said to himself: Even if my senses (experience) tell me change and diversity of reality but my reason said that they are impossible, then my brain decides what is and no sensuality. Kant only is a weak copy of Parmenides, who was determined even to contest any movement, change and diversity of reality because that what the senses informed Parmenides did not comply with the standards of his brain. This admirable attitude enabled the birth of philosophy.


However, Plato and Aristotle saw that on the one hand Parmenides is right but on the other also Heraclitus. Already is fact that there was a time there was no Parmenides on the globe and a small period he was is for each sensible one evidence that Heraclitus is not wrong when saying that everything is changing. Even the fact that there demonstrably was a time on this planet humans had not the knowledge provided by Parmenides is evidence for Heraclitus that everything is changing. However, the foundation of logic Parmenides provided is tremendous, either. First, Plato and later Aristotle saw that philosophy had to solve this apparent Heraclitan-Eleatic Antinomy.


Now, the solution Plato, Aristotle and later the great Plotinus provided would be a book of its own and volumes of their own. In this chapter, our concern “only” is to demonstrate

1.)   firstly, that the „Christians’“ proofs of their fake of “theistic god” already one and a half millennium became refuted before they became contrived (and not by Scottish-Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant 1824-1804),

2.)   secondly, that also the „Christians’“ folly of trinity is complete nonsense evenly confute about 15 centuries before some Mafiosi -- desiring to strut on the stage of “great philosophers” they cleared before – concocted them and

3.)   thirdly, that (criminality of) “Christianity”  is something very alien to European thinking that by utmost violence, one can also say: terrorism, was imposed on the Occident that has nothing to do with European thinking like the economic Mafia as nothing to do with serious businessmen and businesswomen.


Not by accident, the “Christians” closed the Academy which Plato founded in the year 387 B.C.E., in the year 529 and switched off the lights of brains for about the same period as this Academy existed. As already mentioned, then the “Christians” started a fake of “philosophy” as they executed a fake of “theism” since they could not compete with Islam while repressing philosophy, thoroughly. Even at the start of the 14 century, the pope-terrorists still tried prohibiting to read the works of Plato and Aristotle. As we are going to spell out below, he had a good case for doing so…


Plato divided the phenomena of reality into two hypostases – as later Plotinus (204/5–270 C.E. ) called it, i.e. in ideas and (physical) matter. Idea verbatim means: to look like. The author of this book thinks that a genuine English translation of Plato’s notion of idea – a word that changed its meaning because of lack of comprehension – is peculiarity. They are responsible that a being this one and not something else, i. e. for all the features (specifications) of a being or why something is that and not something different from that. The ideas accomplish themselves in the matter. While the former stay quiescent, the change comes into being due to the (degree of) accomplishment of the ideas in matter. The ideas are the patterns, and the phenomena of reality are a copy to the ideas which never can become the same as the ideas since they exist in an otherness: the (physical) matter. So-to-speak the death of living beings is withdrawal of the idea’s being in an otherness, i.e. the (physical) matter. The phenomena of reality never can become the same with their patterns (their ideas) because they are mixed (afflicted) with an otherness: the matter excluding to become the sameness with the ideas. In the dialogue Plato dedicated to Parmenides, the former lets one of the figures express:

“In my opinion, the ideas are, as it were, patterns fixed in nature, and other things are like them, and resemblances of them—what is meant by the participation of other things in the ideas, is really assimilation to them.” [34]

Resemblances only are possible of the one (idea) in an otherness which the idea tries adapting to itself. Aristotle (384 B.C.E. – 322 B.C.E) adopts Plato’s solution of the Heraclitan-Eleatic Antinomy. However, he calls that what Plato's idea names “morphe” (verbatim: form, figure, shape) and matter (Greek: hyle). These are different terms with the same respective meaning. Therefore, in philosophy one speaks about Aristotle’s Hylemorphism.  The latter means Aristotle’s solution of the Heraclitan-Eleatic Antinomy, i.e. the division of all the being in morphe (peculiarity) and hyle (matter). For example, referring to German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 –1860) the author of this book often uses the German term of “Objektivation” or plural “Objektivationen." By this term Arthur Schopenhauer also means an idea that has become a physical matter. For instance, if the author calls the “Christians” Objektivationen of perfidy, then he means the idea of perfidy that has become physical objects, which one can seize in time and space. As far as humans are concerned, one also can speak about embodiments. This is an advancement of Platonism and Neo-Platonism (e.g. the philosophy of Plotinus).


 However, it is not clear whether Plato and Aristotle regard hyle as an everlasting physical matter comparably to an everlasting “sail” in which the ideas embody or whether they only regard it as a principle of otherness. A principle of otherness, for instance, means something comparable to male and female. Males and females relate as otherness one to another one but not in no totally alien way. If the matter (hyle) “only” is a principle of other ness, this even would mean that (physical) matter could become spirit and spirit matter. In particular, regarding Aristotle, it is to assume that he certainly conceived those hypostases “only” as principles. He realized that being in reality, e. g. to live, means presenting oneself in an otherness. For instance, if the author writes this book, he also represents himself in an otherness. In this case, the otherness as well are the letters as the readers. Finally, Plotinus unambiguously made clear that those hypostases only are logical distinctions and that there never was a time the One was without ideas and hyle in which the former (ideas) embody. In addition, it is to say that neither Plato nor Aristotle can say how the ideas come up. Aristotle speaks about a nous (brain) as a kind of pool all the ideas. However, this problem how the ideas can come up from, Plotinus first time plausibly explained. Therefore, he is to call the first ontologist (philosophy of the being). However, this is not our topic, here.

Now, somebody could object that one hardly can believe in the capability of identity. One often experiences deficiencies about that what one wants to achieve and one really achieves, respectively, fails to achieve. Somebody wants be an Albert Einstein but always experiences himself as a poop copy of this scientist. However, the problem is less the capability of identity but the pursuit of wanting to be someone else one is not.  Somebody wanting to be Albert Einstein, of course, always experiences that he is no Albert Einstein. One of the very follies of the past and today is that people do not want to be who they are but always some else whom they have chosen as a model. Even here, the author assumed the implementation of “Christian” follies in the Western brains. In particular, if somebody makes his mark among the German clumsy oafs, the first question, the latter have to the former is: Who is your model? This query presupposes that each German as a matter of course does not want to be who he or she is but someone else. Wanting to be oneself those Christianized clumsy oafs regard as “hybris”, “arrogance” and “superciliousness” – all the features that belong with their “Christian” robotizers programming them according to their perfidies. It is a matter of course that one always will experience oneself as insufficient, if not a failure of a flop if one wants to be someone else one is not.

Since the ideas are eternal Plato does not only see a an “existence” after death but also one before the individual’s birth. He says that before we were born we precisely would have chosen the life we are going to live when leaving the womb of our mother. Everything what we experience in our life is a recollection (Greek: anamnesis) of that what we have chosen before we became born. Perhaps, here Plato seemed to make himself laughable like Parmenides did so when contesting any variety and movement in reality. Could somebody really have chosen the life being burnt by the “Christian” perfidious terrorists at the stake while being alive… In addition, those are hundreds of millions those dastards n’ bastards massacred in that bestial way![35] Another example, could someone really have chosen a life ending up drowning in the sea, for example, after the Titanic hit an iceberg? Could somebody really have chosen a life ending up in the German bastards’ NS-concentration camps?


Even if a choice sub specie aeternitatis is not to compare with the judgment in one’s life, here one has to do something similar as Plato and Aristotle did towards Parmenides, who also seemed to be ridiculous due to his tremendous brain. In modern time, already often mentioned philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872), Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) and Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) expressed themselves in a similar way. Feuerbach says:


"Our perfection (as humans) consists of nothing  else but of  the development  and  the development   is  nothing else but  the awareness  and elucidation (i.e. awareness of that), what (manner of persons)we are.”[36]


Like the ancient philosophers, Feuerbach does not say that the meaning of the individual’s life is to get the ticket for a life hereafter as theism claims but, first of all, each individual is the meaning of the life of his own by experiencing, respectively, getting aware of his own nature, e.g. abilities, emotions, sensibility, traits and intellect. This means that there is no one meaning of life, but each individual keeps the one of its own. The individual is the its own meaning of life. Logically, there are individuals experiencing themselves as very, very bad ones, in fact, that evil and depraved that they have difficulties to admit the truths about themselves. If the awareness about themselves becomes very disastrous, they even want to get rid of themselves desiring a new identity what they mostly call “salvation."


“Intelligent Design” no proof for God


Especially, in the U.S. A. “Christians” cannot bear their defeat that science – in modern times starting with Charles Darwin -- has proven the evolution of the ideas (species). Being committed to their top credos a. “lying at any price”[37] b) “not wanting to know what is true”[38] and c) “that truth not be conceded its right at any point"[39] they want to fancy humans as a “state” within the “state” of nature. The “Christians” never could gobble a turkey on “Thanksgiving Day," beef or a chicken if they were not similar to those beings. Otherwise, it would be similar like eating stones. On this condition, a “Christian” even would be unable to find out that the barking dog is ferocious if the “Christians” would have a similar psyche containing very much ferocity… This is only possible because similar is realized by something similar! However, the top failure of this thinking is that even “intelligent design” is no evidence for a god! The premise of those “creationists” is that if there is intelligent design, then it only can be god. This presupposition is not given. There is even thinking without consciousness, i.e. “intelligent design” without god. The notion of “thinking without conscience” is not that hard to understand. Again, by an example, we want to make this notion comprehensible. For instance, if one reads the latest researches how male and female humans chose their sexual partners, the scientists claim the smell of males, respectively, females being a very important part. They argue that the sexual partners hereby check how to improve their immune system. The sex partners like the smell of their counterparts that improve the immune system for the off-spring. Now, nobody of the sex partners says to his or her sexual counterpart: I want to see how you smell in order to see if the immune system of our offspring improves. They only smell each other and become excited or not since here it is about “thinking without consciousness." Everything, even the theists call “instinct” is nothing but an intelligent design without consciousness, i. e. without god! It even is to question if feelings at least to a large extent are thinking without consciousness, i.e. “intelligent design." Let us recall the example with the smell and human production of offspring. The lady and the man consciously do not think that the targeted partner improves the immune system for the offspring. They only feel well when smelling each other. Feelings do not grow on trees! Furthermore, when Charles Darwin observed that some birds on the Galapagos Islands adapted their beak flagon to the sort of fruit from which they nourished themselves, the birds consciously did not think: how do we have to adjust our beak to this fruit in order to get it easier? Like the smell of human sexual partners, it was and is thinking or intelligent design without consciousness, i.e. without giant or a god… Another impressive example is the birth of marsupials. For instance, when a kangaroo is born it is about 1 cm. Hardly, it is born it immediately knows to creep into the pouch of the mother which is a distance of about half a meter. Zoologists say that it is led by the smell of the mother. However, does the mother consciously think to guide the offspring by the smell? There are many scents. How does the little worm know the meaning of the smell? Some wiseacres say: that is instinct. Who objects? However, what is instinct? The answer: unconscious thinking. In addition, the “miracles” with the kangaroo continue. If the circumstances are good, e. g. sufficient food available, the (female) kangaroos gets another baby without being mated by a male, once more. Does the kangaroo consciously think, one already fertilized egg I keep back, first I want to see if good or hard times are going to come…? There is unconscious thinking, and the peak of thinking is conscious thinking.


The intelligent design is not made by a god but by the one or the ideas being capable of their identity. Being capable of one’s identity means having the ability and hereby intelligence of presenting oneself in an otherness. So, capability of identity is an intelligent design without god. The latter “only” could be the end but not the start of the development of the one (or as Plotinus calls it: hen) in the otherness (hyle). I.e. before, trying to prove a theistic god, the theists, firstly, should disprove what they never considered and already could read in the works of Parmenides: the capability of identity! One can also couch it that way: Theism comes up where there is ignorance of the capability of identity.

Refutation of a Trinity of “God” by Plato, i.e. already Centuries before the “Christians” contrived it

As long as philosophers were allowed to exist and teach, they “Christians” had good case to exterminate them and to burn down libraries, e.g. the “Serapeion” in Alexandria keeping very undesirable knowledge that could harm the success of the very dangerous criminals. Mafiosi as “philosophers” only can exist if the philosophers are muzzle, jailed or massacred. Western philosophy even today suffers from the “Christian” Mafia, today. For example, in the already mentioned dialogue “Parmenides” Plato, respectively, Parmenides furnish(es) evidence why a god cannot be a trinity. This is no trifle since, in particular, already “Christian” folly of trinity – and not only this one but this one conclusively and completely – excludes abomination of “Christianity” from philosophy and hereby the „Christians’“ hostility on science. The author already mentioned that the “Christians” only give up that strict prohibition of philosophy due to its competition with Islam fostering science and especially philosophy.
Genuine theism like, for instance, Judaism or Islam does not have that problem with the One since they (can) say the One is our god. Therefore, the author already said that the theist separate the problem of cognizing the fundaments of nature and beings to god but do not solve the problem by the assumption or belief in god. However, theism a priori is no antagonism to philosophy. Islam realized it and, in contrast with “Christianity”, fostered philosophy. As far as the „Christians’“ preys in very “Christianly” enslaved countries, even in Italy, can read to works of Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus, they owe it to Islam and not the “Christian” firebugs and terrorists. The „Christians’“ lunacy of trinity is a complete different problem as far as one can call a folly a problem. For instance, the evidence of capability of identity is a direct bomb to the “Christian” lunacy of trinity, in fact, not only sinde there is no need of a good but a refution of the „Christians’“ concoction of trinity differing god and the capability of god, i.e. the so-called “holy spirit”. However, not only in this regard this folly of trinity is a sufficient hindrance for philosophy if those Mafiosi succeed in dominating the societies (countries). Those things occur if Mafiosi tamper with philosophy…

We already pointed out that those dastards differ between god and the capability of being god (“holy spirit”) in order to avoid the number of two standing for dualism ( e.g. that one of Satan and his Christ on god). The number 3 again symbolized a unity, and somehow the Christains must get it. Those who contrived this trinity – evidently Ben-Pandera himself – did not know the first things of philosophy. Ben-Pandera (dubbed: Jesus “Christ”) only knew how to unleash one’s depravity and criminality by sorcery and perfidy! He only knew how to perpetrate the (almost) perfect crime.


Mt 28:19 NRSV

19“… in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,[40]


Partly, the creeps n’ crooks use their invention of a “Holy Spirit” as a separation from god to camouflage their shame and lies:

Mt 1:18 NRSV

18… When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.


Here is “Holy Ghost” serves as lie covering the shame of an adultery of an engaged girl with another man, namely with Joseph Pandera, who is to differ from her fiancé Joseph, the carpenter. Hand on heart, was she the only girl of all women in the world referring to the “Holy Spirit” in order cover the shame for a “cuckoo in the nest”…?
The best evidence is that he threatens extreme punishment in order to prevent that this rubbish, he contrived becomes discussed.

Mr 3:28-29 NRSV

28  "Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven for their sins and whatever blasphemies they utter;

29  but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin" —[41]


Here, the “god” of the (almost) perfect crime is that much enraged by the poorness of his “philosophy” so that the fails to see that we do not need any “vicarious suffering” and “vicarious hanging” on the gallows or cross since everything, but his “gadget” of “Holy Ghost” is going to be forgiven, anyway… In addition; he fails to prove by what authority he can say what is going to be forgiven and what not. This is to see in the context that he, firstly, cants his shame and disgrace of being a death penalty by claiming that some sins will be remised, anyway and some (e.g. against the “Holy Ghost”), not at all. In addition, this crook desires to tell us that he has to hang on the cross, although the Bible (dubbed: “Old Testament”) which purportedly proves all the lies and deceits with which the “Christians” come up informs us:


“…he who hanged is accursed of god” (De 21:23)!


Who wonders that the “Christians” implacably lie about their criminalities for millennia? Their whole terrorism is based on the brazen lie that somebody whom god curses, e.g. Satan or is Anointed One (Greek: Christos) god places as rivaling co-god to himself... Who more is a liar than the ones palming a miscarriage of nature[42], mind and morals which god curses off as a “god”…? It is a general trick that deceivers try keeping their concoctions untouched by such threats so that the duped do not dare to think about it and hereby debunk the blather n’ baloney the crook rants.

Jesus’ and the "Christians" folly of trinity is of the same ignorance as the following one of this fake of “omniscient” trinity of impostor, crime-Christ and felon from the death row. Let us recall:


“For the earth does not move. Were it to move, it would fall. But it neither moves nor falls…”[43]


Do not make me laugh…! This is the “wisdom” of creeps, crooks n’ impostors wanting “to take the first place in everything” (Col 1:18), even by an unscrupulous foul mouth, i.e. perfidies, and ruthless foul play…!

In Latin language, the “Christians” call the contrived diversity of god “personae” and so most languages of today, e.g. in English: persons. However, in Greek, they do not use this word but pompously as ridiculously want to connect to the great Plotinus and call their club of carnival “hypostases." Diversity of three of billions of persons only is possible if to the one (sameness, in this case: god) with an otherness. This means that the original “sameness” is not only longer the same since it is afflicted with an otherness and regarding “god," this otherness means being tainted with defects.

Parmenides says:


8.22 “Nor is it (the One) divisible, since it is all alike.”[44]


Hereby, trinity of a theistic god conclusively is confuted.  Here, we should spell out why the “Christians” deny that the refutation of their corresponding folly. Only those people admit the truths who are able to bear them what the “Christians” cannot do (see: Joh16:12 and Nietzsche[45]). Truths are things for people accessible for them.  “Christian” robotizing (dubbed: “education”) means to become non-accessible to the truths and only amenable to lies serving the megalomania and lust for powers of the “Christian” Mafiosi! Liars are no liars since they admit lying but because claiming their lies as truths. In particular, in the Western World the humans are robotized to believe this concerns all the liars but the “Christian” ones. This exception is not given! “Christians” train their prey in favor of themselves that they, firstly, do not lie and if doing, so they, firstly, would announce to lie and if everybody knew that a “Christian” lie is going to come, they would lie but never with any announcement of lying. Since the “Christians” do not tell that they are going to lie, they, consequently, do not lie… This is the very belief of the “Christian” prey for which some of the caught goofs even would die. A small question: When did the “Christian” a) say that they implacably lie or b) announce that they are going contumaciously to lie when they lied about the bestialities they committed, until the perfidious “martyrs of the truths” admitted having impudently lied, on March 12, 2000? So, one neither can say that the “Christians” do not lie nor that they announce their lies, in advance as the goofs are used to believing… The homo stupidus is the best ally of the homo scelestus! From perfidious “martyrs of the truths” no truths are to expect… Therefore, it is completely in vain to try convincing the Objektivationen of perfidies of the truths. The Mafiosi rather die for the profitable (criminal) business. That is the readiness for “martyrdom” of theirs!

Parmenides’ cognition  also is expounded in Plato’s dialogue “Parmenides”:


“Neither otherness nor sameness can be attributed to the one, in reference to itself or other;

And if the same with other, it would be that other, and not itself; so that upon this supposition too, it would not have the nature of one, but would be other than one?

It would.

Then it will not be the same with other, or other than itself?

It will not.”[46]


A god keeping other parts is afflicted with an otherness and that means with non-divine essence. Even if the “Christian” sham to refer to Plotinus, whom they never understood already because they do not want to know the truths in favor of their beneficial lies, it is to say that Plotinus does not explain “god” by the otherness (hyle) but the world, for example, the existence of humans, too. The “Christian” Mafiosi here compare apple with oranges.


If the one is, it cannot be many, and therefore cannot have parts, or be a whole, because a whole is made up of parts…[47]

If one is, he said, the one cannot be many?


“Anything which becomes the same with the many, necessarily becomes many and not one.”[49]


There neither is a club of god nor a stock company of god composed of several partners, associates or stockholders. Consequently, the “Christian” Mafia had a good case to get rid of the philosophers and murder to the last (female) head of Plato’s Academy of Plato in order to threaten each philosopher to impair the success of the „Christians’“ perfidies. A century before, the “Christian” unleashed their trinity of depravity, perfidy and criminality on Pagan famous female philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria. Completely committed to their perfidies of “love” and “love to the enemy," the “Christian” Mafiosi tore her body to pieces with glass fragments and exhibited them in one of their toilets (dubbed: “church”), at the instigation of the local “Christian” bishop-Mafioso and very “saint” of the church of the trinity of Satan, the beasts n’ priests… Atrott is an “evil guy." He does not do what philosophers should do, today: to sham as if nothing had happened and to lie the terrorists on science and civilization as their “constructors”… The author of this book is “evil” since he does not comply with the lie that the “Christians," always confess being very, very sinners. However, if it is about their sins, they have committed none but pretend being unable even to hurt a fly, at least for two millennia…! Finally, “Christianity” is about unleashing one’s depravity and criminality by perfidies (dubbed: “god’s word of salvation”)… Wanting to veil the garbage of their folly of trinity, the “Christians," even claim that the limping miscarriage of nature [50], Ben-Pandera, as well was “god” as “human." So, if we start to resort to sorcery, in place of logic and reason, the skies are the limits (for the liars and deceivers)… So, why not claiming Ben-Pandera as a trinity of “god," “human” and an animal, for instance, as an devil of Tasmania? The top objection against this trinity would be that the cruelty and bestiality of the “Christians," e.g. as perpetrated on female philosopher Hypatia – it is the perpetration of a “saint” of the church of Satan! – even would insult the devil animals of Tasmania! In addition, Hypatia by far was a single case of the cross terrorists’ and Mafiosi’s “love to the enemies”… Therefore, the “Christians” are not only the scum of humankind but that one of all beings, or as they are used to saying: of all the creations of “intelligent design”… The top forms of life, e. g. the top marsupials and mammals even have more love and morals than the “Christians” – the very faking experts of “love” -- have…
So, let us record: “Christian” “Trinity“ for two reasons is refuted by philosophy:

1.     Firstly, it differs between god and the capability of being god (in order to camouflage the dualism of Satan, pardon, Christ and god).
2. Secondly, another person means an otherness in addition to god. However, god is not god if consisting of something else than god, i.e. of an otherness.





[1] See: Celsus in: Origen contra Celsus, 1:28


[2]  For instance, Shabbath 104b, quoted according to Gustav Dalman, ibidem


[3] See: Mt 9:12, Mr 2:17, Lu 5:31-32, Lu 19:10


[4] See: Mt 7:17-18, Lu 6:43, Joh 8:34


[5]  Aurelius Augustinus, contra academicos, 3:41, translation from the Latin by my own: adeo post illa tempora non longo intervallo omni pervicacia pertinaciaque demortua os illud Platonis quod in philosophia purgatissimum est et lucidissimum, dimotis nubibus error. is emicuit, maxime in Plotino, qui platonicus philosophus ita eius similis judicatus est, ut simul eos vixisse, tantum autem interest temporis ut in hoc ille revixisse putandus sit.”,_Augustinus,_Contra_Academicos_Libri_Tres,_MLT.pdf,  last call: 02/06/2012


[6] Porphyrios (Porphyry), Ueber Plotins Leben und über die Ordnung seiner Schriften (On Plotinus‘ life and about the order of his writings), in: Plotins Schriften (Plotinus’ scriptures), uebersetzt von ( translated by) Richard Harder, Hamburg 1958,  Bd. (vo.) Vc, 16: 80 Translated from the German by my own. German text: “Es gab dort zu seiner Zeit zahlreiche Christen ... sie führten viele in die Irre, und waren doch nur selber irregeführt, und lehrten, Platon sei nicht bis in die Tiefe der geistigen Wesenheit vorgedrungen.“


[7] See: Mt 9:12, Mr 2:17, Lu 5:31-32, Lu 19:10


[8] See: Mt 7:17-18, Lu 6:43, Joh 8:34


[9] See: The Christians’ criminal record of their crimes and terror as disclosed on 03/12/2000, ibidem


[10] See:  Hans Atrott, Jesus’ Bluff – The Universal Scandal of the World, PublishAmerica, Baltimore,  2009, chapter: 11 (Jesus’ Physical and Social Inferiority and its Impact on his Views); p. 149ff


[11] Porphyry, loc. cit., 13: 68 Tranlation from the German by my own. German text: „Während er (Plotin) sprach, trat sein Geist sichtbar zutage und bestrahlte mit seinem Glanz selbst noch sein Antlitz; immer anziehend von Anblick war er in solchen  Augenblicken geradezu schön...“


[12] Immanuel Kant, The Critique of pure Reason, translated by J. M. D. Meiklejohn, BOOK II, Analytic of Principles,  Chapter: 2, Section: 2 (Of the Supreme Principle of all Synthetical Judgments),  electronically published:, last call: 02/07/2012


[13] In his  Preface to the second edition of  The Critique of pure Reason”, he speaks about “Revolution der Denkart“, i.e. revolution of the way of thinking. The expression “Copernicanian turn” is not to find in this writings, however, it correctly reflects the claims of Kant.


[14] The Poem of Parmenides “On Nature”

" First Group - Richard D. McKirahan - Philosophy before Socrates, pp. 151 - 157.
" Second Group - Leonardo Taran - Parmenides, relevant text throughout the book.
Third Group - Arnold Hermann - To Think Like God: Pythagoras and Parmenides. 
  The Origins of Philosophy, pp. 155-162 (amended).
" Fourth Group - Hermann Diels, Walter Kranz (DK) - Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, pp. 227-246.

The book of Parmenides only exists by fragments today. The figures before the quotation are the numbers of the fragments. Electronically published:, last call: 02/07/2012


[15] Parmenides, fragment: 3, ibidem


[16] Parmenides, fragment: 6, ibidem


[17] Kant, ibidem


[18] See: Mt 28:18 (all authorities in heaven and on earth purportedly are given to Jesus Antichrist whom god curses , see: De 21:23,  and not to god). See also:  Mt 16:19, Mt 24:35, Lu 4:6, Lu 10:22, Joh 6:48,  Joh 8:18, Joh 11:25, Joh 14:6,  Joh 16:15,  1Co 15:24-25, 1Co 15:28  etc.


[19] See: The „Christians“’ criminal record from March 12, 2000, ibidem


[20] Ed. Uvo Hölscher,  Parmenides, vom Wesen des Seienden (on the essence of the being), die Fragmente (the fragments), Frankfurt 1969

[21]  Parmenides, fragment: 8, ibidem


[22] Parmenides, fragment: 8, ibidem


[23] Parmenides, fragment: 8, ibidem


[24] See: Mt 28:18 (all authorities in heaven and on earth purportedly are given to Jesus Antichrist whom god curses , see: De 21:23,  and not to god). See also:  Mt 16:19, Mt 24:35, Lu 4:6, Lu 10:22, Joh 6:48,  Joh 8:18, Joh 11:25, Joh 14:6,  Joh 16:15,  1Co 15:24-25, 1Co 15:28  etc.


[25] Parmenides, fragment: 6, ibidem


[26] Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Anweisung zum seligen Leben (instructions to to the blessed life, ed. Fritz Medicus, Hamburg, 1970 , p. 35, translation from the German by my own, German text: " Es ist daher gar kein Wunder, wenn, nachdem die Unnatur uns zur Natur geworden, die Natur uns erscheint als Unnatur; und wenn, nachdem wir alle Dinge zuerst auf dem Kopfe stehend erblickt haben, wir glauben, die in ihre rechte Lage gerückten Dinge ständen verkehrt. Dies ist nun ein Irrthum, der mit der Zeit wohl wegfallen wird: denn wir, die wir den Tod aus dem Leben ableiten, und den Körper aus dem Geiste, nicht aber umgekehrt, wie die Modernen – wir sind die eigentlichen Nachfolger der Allen, Dur dass wir klar einsehen, was für sie dunkel blieb; die vorher erwähnte Philosophie aber ist eigentlich gar kein Fortschritt in der Zeit, sondern nur ein possenhaftes Zwischenspiel, als ein kleiner Anhang zur völligen Barbarei.“

I did not find any English translation of this scripture of Fichte in the internet but only the German text keeping a misspell. presenting the quoted scripture of Fichte in German by referring to: Johann Gottlieb Fichtes sämmtliche Werke (complete works). Band (volume) 5, Berlin 1845/1846, p. 425,: “…wir sind die eigentlichen Nachfolger der Allen“ Correct is: “… wir sind die Nachfolger der Alten“ and not: „Allen“! see:,  last call 02/06/2012


[27] Parmenides, fragment: 8, ibidem


[28] Parmenides, fragment 8, ibidem


[29] Parmenides, fragment 8, ibidem


[30]Heraklictus quoted according to: Without naming an author, Panta rei, one: 02/11/2012


[31] Giannis Stamatellos, Heraclitus of Ephesus,  1997-2006, electronically published:, last call: 02/11/2012, the digits give the numbers of the fragments


[32] See: the  „Christians“’ criminal record as presented on March 12, 2000

[33] Plato, Dialogue Parmenides, 128, quoted according to: Plato, The Dialogues of Plato translated into English with Analyses and Introductions by B. Jowett, M.A. in Five Volumes. 3rd edition revised and corrected (Oxford University Press, 1892), electronically published:, lat call on 2012/02/17 – In the following quoted as “Plato, Parmenides” with three digits

[34] Plato, Parmenides, 132, ibidem


[35]  See: The „Christians“’ criminal record of March 12, 2000, ibidem


[36] Ludwig Feuerbach quoted according to:Marcel Xhaufflaire, Feuerbach und die Theologie der Säkularisation, München 1972, p. 196 (Xhaufflaire refers to:  Feuerbach, Gesammelte Werke, Leipzig  1846,Bd. X, 361) Translation from the German by my own. German original: "Unsere Vervollkommung  besteht in nichts Anderem als in der Entwicklung, und die Entwicklung in nichts Anderem, als in der Verdeutlichung und Verklärung dessen, was wir sind." 


[37] Nietzsche, Antichrist § 47


[38] Nietzsche, Antichrist § 52 (Kaufmann)


[39]  Nietzsche, ibidem (Kaufmann)


[40] See also: Joh 20:22


[41] See also:  Mt 12:32, Lu 12:10


[42] See:  Hans Atrott, Jesus’ Bluff – The Universal Scandal of the World, PublishAmerica, Baltimore,  2009, chapter: 11 (Jesus’ Physical and Social Inferiority and its Impact on his Views); p. 149ff


[43] The Dialogue of the Savior (Jesus “Christ”), Translated by Stephen Emmel, Selection made from James M. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library, revised edition. HarperCollins, San Francisco, 1990, electronically published:, last call 02/24/2012

[44] Parmenides, fragment 8, ibidem


[45] Nietzsche, Antichist (Christianity means “lying at any price“, “not wanting to know what is true” or to care “that truth not be conceded its right at any point”.


[46] Plato, Parmenides, 139,  ibidem


[47] Plato, Parmenides, 137,  ibidem


[48] Plato, Parmenides, 137,  ibidem


[49] Plato, Parmenides, 139,  ibidem


[50] See:  Hans Atrott, Jesus’ Bluff – The Universal Scandal of the World, PublishAmerica, Baltimore,  2009, chapter: 11 (Jesus’ Physical and Social Inferiority and its Impact on his Views); p. 149ff


Athens avarice beauty  BrainChristianity Consciousness   foetusFriedrich Nietzsche gene replicationgenes genius God hormonesHuman human societyhypocrisy illusions intellectJesus lies life love mankindmarriage money mother nature, reality Religion Selfishnes,  superstition Truth, war , perfidy, hypocrisies, Christian phonies, Jesus is fake,

Parmenides, Heraclitus, God, Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Porphyry, The existence of god, the outset of philosophy, Heraclitus, Leibniz,  Immanuel Kant, Hegel, Fichte, 2nd doctrine of Thermodynamics, doctrine on the perseverance of energy, religion and Mafia, religion as camouflage for crimes, Christianity and philosophy, Anselm of Canterbury, Thomas Aquinas, Aurelius Augustinus, German idealism, ontology, nothing and otherness, hen, nous, psyche, emanation, idea, hyle, materia,  matter, nous, hylomorphism, Aristotle and Christianity, Plato and Christian sect, Islam in Andalucía, The philosophical impact of Islam on the occident, Avicenna, Averroes, Monades, the invincible organized crime, religion as criminal arm, onset of philosophy, polytheism, monotheism, how being comes into existence, how one becomes many parts,