You awesome atheists, please let me know if this is all agreeable to you! I would love anyone’s feedback actually! It is just a disproof of the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU) and Christianity, where the CTMU is exposed as a dangerous (new) kind of religion which calls itself a theory-of-everything super logic but is just super-twisted, half-baked super logic. The CTMU is an attempt by religion to adapt to the true coming of logic, to fight back.

The disproof of Christianity and the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU), which is authored by Chris Langan:

The self-claiming but false scientist Chris Langan messed with the wrong person. I am Brandon Clifton, previously a popular blogger for the CTMU. And I finally have a disproof of Chris Langan’s theory of reality (the CTMU), which goes along with Christianity in going down humanity’s trash can of inhumane waste.

First problem with the CTMU: it claims that absolute truth is knowable by any single, individual person. That is completely false. Absolute truth cannot be known by any one person, but in extended analysis CAN be known by all people as a whole. The reason is dead obvious: everyone is different; no one has the same perspective on what reality is unless you are some copy of someone else, but even then, you would be different to the extent of your positioning in physical space-time. To note: the global grammar/global syntactic operator of the CTMU would not be a singleton but rather (according to the CTMU’s wording) a multiplex unity of global grammars that co-operate. So, the CTMU is syntactically invalid, even on its face.

Second and final problem with the CTMU: it chooses its interpretation of reality in terms of only one person, not in terms of all those that are possible (and so contains horrific assumptions on what things mean and should be like). But of course, this was always just Chris Langan’s interpretation (what he only FELT LIKE putting down on paper), sadly put. Everyone views up and down differently, but if people would just cooperate and therefore coexist, we could turn all wars upside down into people working together, regardless of everyone’s differences. Even though the CTMU is super extensive in terms of mathematical mappings, it is still totally wrong according to the real truth which is both syntactically correct (and so has form that is pluralistically unified instead of in divisional anti-unification like in the CTMU) and semantically correct (interpreted correctly via plural unity instead of interpreted incorrectly via divisional anti-unity like in the CTMU). Of course, this makes it so that the CTMU is just religion with the appearance of logic by using words and ideas that seem to originate from logic … but don’t actually. It is what it is, in other words: religion that is strengthened by not only lying about what is true about the world, but lying about what it is in identity (to clarify, it isn’t logic). The CTMU is just religion trying to adapt to the coming of true logic in humanity’s evolution. Thus, the CTMU is utterly misleading to people, especially to those who don’t know much about logic but want an understanding of it … even though they are actually misled and dragged into a situation of where they are required by the CTMU to reject truthful logic and accept what was actually just religion the whole time.

So make this known as finally disproving the CTMU. Now, after all this time of me looking into the CTMU, it is Chris Langan VS Brandon Clifton over validity. And with this, I win.

Now, on to Christianity (I hope this doesn’t get me killed someday; but I don’t really care about that considering what I might eventually accomplish with this):

Christianity = God over the world. –> Yes, not so bad at first look. But God = horrific self-entitling assumption-making dictator. And that is because all of Christianity’s morals can be questioned and disregarded through logical invalidation, obviously. Plus, the requirement of Jesus Christ (as God in human form) dying to save humanity from sin equates to God sending Himself to death in order to … have humanity instead of humanity being in the hands of evil (which doesn’t make sense except for in the sense that God wanted to buy the equivalent of Himself, thus making the cost of His self equal to His self’s death) … and to clarify, He is equivalent in religion to humanity in terms of cost since He would have to die to have humanity - if that even made any sense. (It doesn’t too: a God who wanted life would have chosen life. And God doesn’t owe evil anything special in terms of what He truly wants since everyone has freedom of choice over self-identity, so God had a choice of life or death where it wasn’t actually affecting humanity’s existence.) And as a result, religion is like this: God must die to live, falsity must be accepted to have truth, evil must win over true good. That’s sick and retarded, simply put, but has been sadly believed in for thousands of years by vast amounts of people.

…So God is a horrific dictator

…and sadly, (like I just said) major parts of humanity follow God [to be like Him], [to want what He truly wanted and wants (the death of the self)], and [to self-deny the ability to question anything and everything one desires to. And so, they, therefore, believe in … nothingness combined with hate (LOL hypocritical theists in contrast with atheists)].

Finally, it should be known that to not question the moral superiority of God, good or not, is to also not really know what God’s declared morals really mean. And thus, anti-scientific people are a-moral by definition, which is true just by looking at many keywords’ definitions in the ENGLISH DICTIONARY about it, FOR GOD’S SAKE!

Morals should be like this: generally relative in truth value. That’s because every specified moral, as opposed to all morals in conflation with each other (which yields contradiction due to difference), is dependent on situational context as for whether it applies to any certain situation. For example [feeding a dog is good] is a moral. But it isn’t always applicable and so can be invalid in certain situations. Proof: feeding a dog, too much, is bad … and feeding a dog, when it’s hungry, is good; that’s one case where such a moral is invalid in one situation but is valid as a moral in the latter case. Every moral is sensitive in situational context, whether one is willing to think about it or not. And the logical philosophy behind such thinking is my own, named [Ethical General Relativity]. It is the truest philosophical theory of ethics that there ever was. And it is the proof over religion that religion is invalid.

If people want to know it though, I hope to end Christianity someday, or at least that the essence of my kind of philosophy will eventually catch on and end it, along with every other religion. Some people might see me as Satan or as Satanic. But even though I just might be the ultimate opponent of religion, my name isn’t Satan, and I’m not Satanic. But I have the knowledge to challenge religion and to hopefully be able to eliminate it.