Genesis and Science: 2014

Atheism

Romans 10:14 "They Cannot Learn Without A Preacher"

"Christians have never been able to establish any hermeneutic that can be independently verified...There is literally nothing to stop a Christian from interpreting the Bible in whatever way suites their biases"

The most amusing, is when people listen to a preacher teach a blatant falsehood, straight to their faces about the simplest verse or concepts. People are so brainwashed, they do not believe they can trust their own brain to comprehend a reading of "the Holy Bible". As if there's something so sacred, spirit daddy alone can understand and explain it. People won't read the scripture them self using critical reasoning and attention to detail. Much less, an original opinion, that goes against "what we've always heard it means".They are dependent on spirit-daddy who stands behind the pulpit to explain a simple sentence. People shake their heads in agreement, as though under some kind of hypnotic trance. And from that point on, they continue to cite that misinterpreted verse, generation after generation, never questioning. They can open their Bible, and see the verse with their own two eyes and yet they still read it through the filter of misinterpretation because that's how they heard it read once in church, or how their neighbor interprets it... but if you actually read the verse, it says something entirely different. Things like this, will test your sanity! All because a preacher in the past read it that way. How many times have people repeated, "Spare the Rod. Spoil the Child"? as though it were holy writ from the Bible? The phrase “spare the rod, spoil the child” comes from Proverbs 13:24, “He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him.”

Discipline does not mean beating the crap out of your kids. The verse in the Bible emphasizes to correct and teach in a loving manner. Fundamentalist thumpers (with an agenda) misinterpreted out of their own prejudice, and extrapolated it to mean, regularly beat your kids senseless. And from time forward the lie became the truth. The way theists interpret, as well as outside systems of belief.

Preachers are infamous for taking a verse from the bible, reading it within the context of their peculiar doctrines, and then the incorrect verse becomes the accepted version. Nobody reads with new eyes, open mind, free from doctrinal rhetoric. In that hypnotic state, induced by mainstream preacher-speak, it is impossible for people to read plain English. "But nobody is saying that." Ha, do I need approval to call a spade, a spade?!

They stumble over the greatest simplicities in this manner. And the funny thing is, as many times as preachers have mislead people in this way, to the point of widespread misinterpretation of the most simple scriptures, people STILL continue to believe and teach the lie, that it is impossible to understand the Bible, without a spirit-daddy at the pulpit, reading scripture for you.

Romans 10:14 "...and how shall they hear without a preacher?"

How can they trust a preacher?! You can't trust preachers. I trust ME and me only to correctly read English, Hebrew, or whatever for myself.
I read the Bible (past tense) and when I did I came away realizing that 75% of the things I was taught about what the Bible said was a lie. I've seen so many times, controversies would erupt on television or elsewhere on theology.. and when I went back to the Bible, to the verses in dispute, I learned the Bible didn't even say what they're saying it does.

Matthew 15:13 "if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit."

CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG, BUT...

even the verse Romans 10:14 "...and how shall they hear without a preacher?"

Has often been construed, by religionists, to convince people of the importance that they *must* attend a church, as well as discouraging personal study by reassuring them that they can not properly read, comprehend or correctly interpret scripture on their own for lack of some intermediator, "for only he knows the will of God." Therefore, they need a preacher, mediator, an interpreter.

I had that very thing said to me, again and again, by those seeking to convert me to their religion or church, when my own conscience was telling me, "I do not want to attend a church which teaches false doctrines.". When they looked at my library of theology books, disparagingly they pursed their lips and sneered, "You cannot learn without a preacher." and citing Romans 10:14 as the authority by which they speak.

But that is NOT what the verse is conveying in its true context. You could not walk into a Barnes & Nobles bookstore in AD 56 and purchase a Bible. Romans was written in a period when people didn't have access to modern printing presses or books. So, logically, how would people hear without a preacher?

Today, in our modern day, with millions of Bibles readily available what excuse remains for the continuation of this evil lie.. this false teaching which sprang up from simply "mis-reading scripture," and since it served the pulpit very profitably, this lie was spread far and wide. Purposely taken out of context and used as an excuse to badger, berate, manipulate and otherwise shackle people into attendance of their church. A lie which has been perpetuated, generation after generation after generation and until people start speaking the truth, such a lie will continue to be propagated in churches, around the world.

When do people learn to read what is written in such plain language, in black and white? and question EVERY THING the church has taught them?

In light of the obvious, are Christians, in modern time with availability of a public education system, ILLITERATE, and need a tutor to read to them?

This makes me question not only the lack of availability to printing presses and books, but the question of literacy of the "Hearers" during the era in which Romans was written.

Literacy and Culture in Early Christianity
Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts
Gamble begins his first chapter with an intriguing quote from Origen. Perhaps the greatest biblical scholar of the early church, Origen was defending the scriptures from the accusation of being literarily lackluster. He did not defend the gospels as masterpieces of literature, but rather argued,
It was not any power of speaking, or any orderly arrangement of their message, according to the arts of Grecian dialectics or rhetoric, which was in them the effective cause of converting their hearers. Nay, I am of opinion that if Jesus had selected some individuals who were wise according to the apprehension of the multitude, and who were fitted both to think and speak so as to please them, and had used such as the ministers of His doctrine, He would most justly have been suspected of employing artifices, like those philosophers who are the leaders of certain sects, and consequently the promise respecting the divinity of His doctrine would not have manifested itself; for had the doctrine and the preaching consisted in the persuasive utterance and arrangement of words, then faith also, like that of the philosophers of the world in their opinions, would have been through the wisdom of men, and not through the power of God. (Against Celsus 1.62)

Origen goes on to quote Paul’s response to his cultured Corinthian despisers (1 Cor 2.4-5). Similarly, Acts portrays the apostles as “unlettered and uneducated”

My Source goes on to say:

"..Still, it is important to recognize that “literacy,” was both extremely rare and widely varied. It was rare in the sense that most people could not read. It was varied in that “literacy” could describe one’s ability to read a simple text aloud or the skills to compose lengthy texts.
The typical estimate of literacy, broadly defined as “the ability to read or write at any level” (4) was only about 10 percent of society at large. The lack of any widespread educational system meant literacy was limited to the elite."

Mark Twain Sympathy For The Devil

There are bigger fish to fry than Agnostics and Atheists.

"But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it most?"
~ Mark Twain

Matthew 19:26 "Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Then I say, PRAY for Satan to be forgiven so that all evil may be vanquished.

The Lord teaches us to forgive our enemies but can God forgive his?

Matt. 17:20 "And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you."

Do you believe Satan can never be offered redemption or receive salvation?
Have you prayed for the redemption of the Devil?
Who prays for Satan?
Agnostics and Atheists are just tiny souls. Why waste time on the little fish? If Satan is redeemed, ALL of mankind may be saved.
Is this piteous lost soul condemned to spend all of eternity in the abyss because Christians lacked faith and failed to utter a prayer in behalf of his salvation?

Do not say, it is impossible. "... with God all things are possible ... "

The Prodigal Son and Satan (salvation, unpardonable, hell, eternal)

A conversation, found here.

Why doesn't the classic parable apply to Satan???
It should. That's how I view the whole concept of Satan.

Because Satan didn't/doesn’t come back to god and ask for forgiveness?

But what if he did?

He can't. he commited the unpardonable sin, he rebelled with a full knowlege of the glory of God in its fullness.

THE UNPARDONABLE SIN?

So, as the Quest Study Bible puts it, “Jesus gave the solemn warning in these verses to people whose hard-heartedness placed them on the brink of disaster. Blasphemy against the Spirit evidently is not just a one-time offense; rather, it is an ongoing attitude of rebellion – a stubborn way of life that continually resists, rejects and insults the Holy Spirit. This is what makes it, in effect, an eternal sin (Mark 3:29). Blasphemy against the Spirit is not unforgivable because of something done unintentionally in the past, but because of something being done deliberately and unrelentingly in the present.”

Therefore, Satan CAN be redeemed.

But you, Christian, will not pray for his salvation, and his eternal d*mnation will be to your own discredit.

Additional Articles

If Satan Repented, Would God Forgive Him?

Theism and Atheism = Mental Illness

Today I Googled "Superiority Complex"... trying to narrow down that annoying attitude... you know the one... observed regularly coming from Atheists and Theists... their precious "Patent Packaged Truths". Views, arrogantly... boastfully... without an ounce of humility, that would only be espoused by inferior people that hide behind "something bigger than their self" hoping to give their self some sense of superiority.

Atheism and Theism, is the easy ticket to bragging rights... to a big fat nothing. I have a friend who complains about Theists boasting they will be the only ones in heaven. And all of it is a simple case of damaged brain cells doing the talking, along with Atheists who claim they're "so intellectually superior" because they're an atheist. Hogwash!

ATHEISM & THEISM (see this link: What is a Superiority Complex?)

"...A superiority complex is a psychological disorder in which the affected individual experiences an exaggerated feeling of self-importance. He or she feels superior to other people and displays a general disregard for the thoughts of others. Individuals with a superiority complex often exhibit a sense of grandiosity. They typically maintain a feeling that they are better or more important than other people, and often fail to take the opinions or desires of others seriously. This disorder may also be referred to as narcissism or megalomania."

Superiority Complex = Mental Disorder... Like this little person below who _arrogantly_ and very erroneously equates his precious religion of atheism to the monopoly on "science lessons" to teach all those "inferior theists"... yes, superiority complex... a mental disorder... and what social contribution?? Hatefully agitating in droves, hacking up forums with bigoted anti-religious rants?

UncleMejija said: I'm an atheist who ignores religious people almost completely, and so I have the clear sight to see the anger and overreaction most atheists harbor toward religious folks. The militancy of atheists is what's most disturbing. Let religious people relicize in peace.
dunre646 said: you mean the ones that ask questions and give science lessons?
UncleMejija, Mar 26, 2012: The ironic part is that most atheists couldn't pass high school chemistry. Just as dimwitted, yet ten times more arrogant about their omniscience.

Science lessons?!?

From what? A baseless philosophy like Atheism that is not remotely based in science because it offers no substantiating evidence for itself?! What would qualify these atheist clowns to "give science lessons"?! Somebody is not only arrogant but delusional as well!

Seriously, "The ironic part is that most atheists couldn't pass high school chemistry." was the opinion of an atheist, I copied and pasted.

Amen. An Atheist with a working brain.

BEWARE THE UNDERLYING SUPERIORITY COMPLEX WHICH IS A SERIOUS MENTAL ISSUE!!! (actually, it may be a hidden inferiority complex say the shrinks)...

My head swims reading this diagnosis for superiority complexes, its all there, what attracts people to religion.... I have seen these behaviors in atheist hovels and can think of equally disturbing examples among ardent theists,

ATHEISM & THEISM:

"...A superiority complex is a psychological disorder in which.... he or she ..... disregard for the thoughts of others....."

Amen. Rudely shatting upon freedoms of others; the right of worship, or lack thereof, under laws that protect the freedom of religion for all.

Many Atheists... and Theists.... genuinely believe that those who do not agree with their religion(s) and do not think the same way they do, are irrelevant non-people. They lambaste their enemies (?? sprinkled with a touch of paranoia??) with scathing insulting ridicule and condemnation.

This mental disease borderlines on a god complex.

See the full article on the mental disorder "Superiority Complex" at this link.

Agnostic: What did Hebrews mean by fruit? They didn't have microscopes to see fungi reproduction. And "fruit" is being used extremely loosely by microbiologists who study fungi. It just means that the fungi cells organize themselves into bodies that act somewhat like "seeds" that can fly away and spread new colonies of fungi.

Science/Genesis: Oh my God, are you serious?!
FRUIT. A general term for "fruit". Fruit of the Loom, Fruit of the Womb... etc.
Fruiting Fungi produce edible products.

What is a Mushroom? - Encyclopedia of Life
http://eol.org/info/453
Encyclopedia of Life - Defining mushrooms
All mushrooms are fungi, but not all fungi are mushrooms. For those fungi that produce them, the mushroom plays a similar role to a flower or a fruit in plants.

Growing & harvesting
A mushroom is actually the fruit of a much bigger fungus which grows under the ground. The entire organism consists of an extensive network of tiny fibres which produce fruiting bodies so the fungus can reproduce. These fruits are the mushrooms that we see above ground, and some species of mushroom are edible. Mushrooms grow in the wild in autumn, but can be cultivated year round, by recreating autumn conditions at any time, allowing us to enjoy fresh mushrooms all the time. Learn more about how mushrooms are grown here.

Fruit of the Fungi
http://www.fruitofthefungi.com/

In 2007, our adventures led us to the amazing world of mushrooms. We found that gourmet mushrooms are an ideal local product. Mushrooms are difficult to transport while maintaining quality. The established food system cannot compete with the taste, texture, or shelf-life of a fresh picked gourmet mushroom. We promise to deliver only the highest quality mushrooms that we would be proud to serve to our own family. As you enjoy our site and learn about our products, we hope that you will feel as we do, at home. Come visit us at the farm or market and give our ‘fruit’ of the fungi a try.

God Bless,
KC & Kristi Mangine

Mushroom Families
http://www.allaboutmushrooms.com/mushrooms.htm
Mushrooms are also unique within the Fungal Kingdom itself, because they produce the complex fruiting body which we all know as 'The Mushroom', all of the mushrooms are placed in a division called 'Eumycota' meaning 'The True Fungi'.
The True Fungi are what we all know as mushrooms. They are divided into other groups depending on the structure of their fruiting bodies and various other macro and microscopic characteristics.
So, what are mushrooms? A mushroom is but the fruit of the fungal organism that produces them, just like an apple tree produces apples to bear seeds to ensure the continuation of it's species, so the fungal organism produces mushrooms that carry spores to ensure the continuation of it's own species.
Therefore, the mushroom is the reproductive organ for the fungus.
This means that by picking a mushroom we do not harm the fungus itself, because the main body of the organism lies underground in the form of a network of minute threads called 'Hyphae'.
When two compatible hyphae meet they join together to form another network called the 'Mycelium' which grows quietly and unseen under ground for most of the year until the conditions are right for fruiting and that's when we get to see mushrooms.
Unfortunately, mushrooms are very delicate things, they do not last, some have a life span of less than a day others may survive one week, and a group of tougher mushrooms may last months but they have a tough woody texture.
Most fleshy mushrooms do not last, and this makes researching them very difficult.
Since we do not know where they are till they fruit, we only get a few days to study them each time, and this is seasonal.
You may ask why we don't mark the spot they fruited so they can be studied more next time? Good idea, but mushrooms are funny things, you may see a mushroom on a patch of your front lawn this year, but it may not fruit again for several years, or it may fruit again next week, or you may find a completely different kind of mushroom in the same area.
Each Mushroom carries within it millions or even billions of spores, to the extent, that in the case of some kinds of mushrooms grown commercially, workers have to wear dust masks to protect themselves from the spore dust and breath easily.
Only a few of these spores manage to survive and grow into a mycelial network producing new mushrooms . To make life even more difficult, two compatible spores have to meet to be able to produce mushrooms.

Here's more.

"FRUIT".

'nuff said.

Mushroom Information and Educational Projects with Mushrooms
Mushroom Facts

The Mushroom

What is a mushroom? Mushrooms are not plants! Recently it has been discovered that they are more closely related to animals. But at one time, Fungi, including mushrooms, were believed to be close relatives of plants so much of their nomenclature (names for parts of the mushroom) are close to the names used for plant parts. It is the fruit (like an apple) of the mushroom "body" and contain mushroom "seeds" called spores. The body of the mushroom in called mycelium and its individual parts are microscopic. Since the body of the mushroom is usually dispersed over a relatively large area it is rarely noticed. In nature some species of mushrooms may have a body that spreads over hundreds of square miles!

Mushrooms are fungi, and are usually placed in a Kingdom of there own apart from plants and animals. Mushrooms contain no chlorophyll and most are considered saprophytes. That is, they obtain their nutrition from metabolizing non living organic matter. This means they break down and "eat" dead plants, like your compost pile does.

The body of the mushroom stores nutrients and other essential compounds, and when enough material is stored and the conditions are right they start to fruit - produce mushrooms. It is a hidden kingdom. The part of the fungus that we see is only the “fruit” of the organism. The living body of the fungus is a mycelium made out of a web of tiny filaments called hyphae. The mycelium is usually hidden in the soil, in wood, or another food source. A mycelium may fill a single ant, or cover many acres. The branching hyphae can add over a half mile (1 km) of total length to the mycelium each day. These webs live unseen until they develop mushrooms, puffballs, truffles, brackets, cups, “birds nests,” “corals” or other fruiting bodies. If the mycelium produces microscopic fruiting bodies, people may never notice the fungus.
Most fungi build their cell walls out of chitin. This is the same material as the hard outer shells of insects and other arthropods. Plants do not make chitin.
Fungi feed by absorbing nutrients from the organic material in which they live. Fungi do not have stomachs. They must digest their food before it can pass through the cell wall into the hyphae. Hyphae secrete acids and enzymes that break the surrounding organic material down into simple molecules they can easily absorb - this is composting. Recent scientific studies have sown that Mushrooms Slow Climate Warming In Northern Forests.
Mushrooms are nutritious: They are a good source of B vitamins, especially niacin and riboflavin, and rank the highest among vegetables for protein content. But because they are low in fat and calories, Western nutritionists mistakenly considered them of no food value (a fresh pound has only about 125 calories). Yet in dried form, mushrooms have almost as much protein as veal and a significant amount of complex carbohydrates called polysaccharides. Shiitake mushrooms are among the most delicious & very nutritious.
Mushrooming up over night? If the body is spread out and microscopic, how do mushrooms grow so quickly? There are two basic reasons: 1) Since they store up compounds between fruiting and most fruit once a year, they have a lot of reserve available to support the mushroom. 2) Mushrooms develop differently than plants or animals do. Plants and animals grow through cell division - to get bigger they have to produce more cells. Cell division is relatively slow and requires a lot of energy. The mushroom body also grows by cell division. However, the mushroom fruit does not grow by cell division. Just about as soon as it starts to develop, a mushroom has almost the same number of cells that the mature mushroom will have. The mushroom increases in size through cell ENLARGEMENT! This means that the cells can balloon up very rapidly. Very little energy is required, basically the cells just enlarge with water. So a mushroom can increase in size as fast as water can be pumped into its cells. Almost overnight a mushroom can go from a pin head to a large mushroom.

BTW, this is not about the Bible.
This is all about atheist' arrogance -- predictably, the more ignorant they are, the more ARROGANT and OMNISCIENT they get over their stupid atheism religion.

THE PROOF of their mental illness is in their DELUSION OF GRANDIEUR when they boast Atheism is "Science".

Ironically, I don't know of any theists who go around claiming they are Scientists because they're Creationists?!?!?! o_O
Even Jon Sarfati has an actual degree (chemistry). Jesus. He's got credulous readers, but the readers don't go around boasting the claim to be scientists themselves!
I have seen examples of creationists who get a diploma mill certificate, then try to distort science into saying something it doesn't but creationists aren't so bold to claim "creationism is science".

Atheists make that mistake all the time because they're delusional in their superiority complex.

(The Unknown God Acts 17:23) God's existence can not be proved or disproved. The Bible says so.

A reader questioned,

"A person who believes the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved is a ?"

An atheist "feels" (emphasis: emotion) they feel, the existence of god has been disproved. But such a thing has never been accomplished. As long as there are believers in god(s), then those gods surely do exist, at least in the minds of the believers.

That reader nailed it.

I do not believe the existence of god can be proven or disproved. I have no clue what that makes me. Perhaps a thinker... a realist.. an acceptor of obvious truth? I see things in black and white, for what they are, as they are written.
Theists feel they can "prove" the existence of god whilst Atheists feel the existence of god have been disproved. What god are they speaking of? Not the Biblical God obviously.

And where do Agnostics fall into that classification? Perhaps somewhere along the lines of, "holding no belief that god, can be proven or disproved". Which is in fact the truth, but for very different reasons than my own rationale.

One must ask, "Which god is in question?" Assuming one is questioning evidence or lack of evidence for the Hebrew God? Well then we must go to the source: The Bible.

Isaiah 45:15 : Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Savior.

Psalm 44:24 : Why do you hide your face and forget our misery and oppression?

Isaiah 8:17 : I will wait for the LORD, who is hiding his face from the descendants of Jacob. I will put my trust in him.

Does this mean the Bible teaches that God is the prodigal absent parent? No. Quite the opposite. God is omniscient and that presence is all consuming.

Hebrews 4:13 : And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

For this cause, leads me to believe many Christians are not true Christians, or at least closet Atheists. They may attend church, but play the devil the other 6.9 days of the week... those jaw-dropping things they do behind closed doors. Obviously, they do not truly believe Hebrews 4:13 and have no fear of the God they claim to believe exists.

Proverbs 25:2 : It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.

Daniel 12:9 : He said, "Go your way, Daniel, for these words are concealed and sealed up until the end time.

Matthew 16:4 : A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.

So, Xtians will go on (equally as confused in their confidence as Atheists are to have patent, packaged "truth"), yet according to the Hebrew scriptures, the teachers had a very different God concept to offer their listeners.

Acts 17:23 : For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To The Unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

Oh how Atheists and Theists do proclaim to patent, package "know everything of God". But scripture declares the mysterious being to be unknown. This demand for "empirical and tangible evidence" flies in the face of Biblical teachings, both old and new testaments. Both Atheists and Theists are misguided on the basics of Biblical-Christian doctrines as taught by the prophets and Jesus.

Hebrews 11:1 : Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

THE UNKNOWN GOD, INDEED!

A simply false mythological teaching by Xtians, reinventing the Hebrew God, into a god styled on the gods of the Greeks or Romans... complete with a worldly throne, and human frailties. (anyone who denies this, should read up on God's wrath when the Hebrews reinvented God, with the "Queen of Heaven" as his consort. But earnestly, how many Christians actually bother read their Bible to form an original opinion?

Xtianity, over the centuries has reconstructed a "god" concept of their own invention, made In the image of Man, though not based on any Biblical scriptures.

God is stripped of his omnipotence in the Old Testament and reinvented as a small, frail, "king" in the physical form of a man. Zeus sits on a throne, and true to the Zeus myth, has lightning bolts and an electrical magic show about the throne, in a distant heaven, and oblivious to affairs of man.

However, David, the King of Israel, who should know a helluva lot more than modern Xtians about "who" and "what" the Hebrew God is, had a very different impression of God's size, shape, form and mass.

1 Kings 8:27 But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?

2 Chronicles 6:18 But will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth? behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built!

So which false prophet and lying preacher started spreading the nasty little myth that God's physical form is identical to the Greek God Zeus?

The Mythical Greek God Zeus who sits in Valhalla God's Throne

The Mythical Greek God Zeus who sits in Valhalla... Mount Olympus or whatever. To the Xtians its the "Third Heaven" like the Greek mythology. The Indians had the "Great Hunting Ground".

Oh well. It matters not. Xtians do not care about knowing the truth of "The Unknown God," since they worship false polytheistic idols like the silly Egyptian-Babylonian serpent-deity "satan," and if the ancients Hebrews had their way, the consort, the "Queen of Heaven" would be portrayed alongside Jehovah to this day.... oh wait, wait, wait!

Jeremiah 7:18, "... the women knead the dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven; and they pour out drink offerings to other gods, that they may provoke Me to anger!"

Could ongoing "Mary Worship," be that same old ancient idolatry, reinvented?

Once people began to worship the mother more than the child, Babylonian priests felt forced to issue an edict deifying the mother also. After the passage of still more time, "her son's birth was boldly declared to be miraculous, and therefore she was called ...the Virgin Mother." (p.76) "The highest titles were then bestowed upon her. She was called the Queen of Heaven. In Egypt, she was styled Athor, i.e., the Habitation of God to signify that in her dwelt all the 'fulness of the Godhead'". (p.77) From this pagan beginning, the story of the Virgin Mother (Queen of Heaven) spread throughout the world.
VIRGIN MARY AND PAGAN GODDESS WORSHIP

These people who call themselves Judeo-Xtian, do not know who the Hebrew God is. Their impressions and concepts are derived from Idolatries, not actual scriptures. Therefore, how can they truly know God??

What the %@!& is it with Snake Worship in Christianity?

Xtians will still say they're "not worshiping snakes" like gods. But I see snake worship going on here. So do scholars...

What is this obsession Xtians have with snakes? Perhaps out of their sexual repressions there's some subliminal love-hate relationship going on with the phallic symbolism, that is, a penis in their hands.
No, I mean really. Snakes often represent the phallic in dream language!

Freud and Snake Dreams For Freud, founder of psychoanalysis, the snake is primarily a phallic symbol representing the penis and sexual drive. A Freudian interpretation of a snake dream emphasizes your relationship to sexuality and male figures in your life.
According to Freud, the snake is symbol for the penis. The meaning of a snake in a dream is associated with sexuality, and as an extension, with male figures in your life, or how you experience your own manhood, relationship with men or your male energy if you are a woman.
http://www.snakedreams.org/freud.html

READ MORE: Reality show snake-handling preacher dies -- of snakebite
(CNN) -- A Kentucky pastor who starred in a reality show about snake-handling in church has died -- of a snakebite.
Jamie Coots died Saturday evening after refusing to be treated, Middleborough police said.
On "Snake Salvation," the ardent Pentecostal believer said that he believed that a passage in the Bible suggests poisonous snakebites will not harm believers as long as they are anointed by God. The practice is illegal in most states, but still goes on, primarily in the rural South.
Coots was a third-generation "serpent handler" and aspired to one day pass the practice and his church, Full Gospel Tabernacle in Jesus Name, on to his adult son, Little Cody.
The National Geographic show featured Coots and cast handling all kinds of poisonous snakes -- copperheads, rattlers, cottonmouths. The channel's website shows a picture of Coots, goateed, wearing a fedora. "Even after losing half of his finger to a snake bite and seeing others die from bites during services," Coots "still believes he must take up serpents and follow the Holiness faith," the website says.
On Sunday, National Geographic Channels spokeswoman Stephanie Montgomery sent CNN this statement: "In following Pastor Coots for our series Snake Salvation, we were constantly struck by his devout religious convictions despite the health and legal peril he often faced.

Satanic Phallic Worship
From Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th Edition ©1929
Tribute In Stone of Primitive Phallic Worship

Ophiolatreia: An Account of the Rites and Mysteries Connected with the Origin, Rise, and Development of Serpent Worship in Various Parts of the World, PRIVATELY PRINTED. 1889.
Enriched With Interesting Traditions, and a full description of the celebrated Serpent Mounds & Temples, The whole forming an exposition of one of the phases of Phallic, or sex worship.

Sex and sex worship : (phallic worship) a scientific treatise on sex, its nature and function, and its influence on art, science, architecture, and religion--with special reference to sex worship and symbolism (1922)
Author: Wall, O. A. (Otto Augustus), 1846-1922
Subject: Phallicism; Sex; Sex and history
Publisher: St. Louis : C. V. Mosby company
Book contributor: University of California Libraries
Collection: cdl; americana

Also available on Google Books.

Agnostic Response: I read about the case of the serpent handler dying.
And yes, there's serpents mentioned in the Bible.

Fact of nature, chimpanzees go ape sh*t whenever they see even a rubber snake. We have a lot of chimp in us. If we had evolved from chickens, then our Satan would probably be a hawk, because young chicks cower beneath their mom whenever even the fake shadow of a hawk appears on the ground near them.

Charles Darwin and Judit Polgar: "Religion doesn't make a difference"

Why Atheism does not make for increased intelligence:

Very profound revelation from Science!

"The neocortex, unique to humans, is strongly associated with language, reasoning and attention."
God on the Brain: The Neurobiology of Faith

Horses, Cows, Apes, Cats, Lizards, Rodents, et cetera, are Atheists. They do not possess the human brain to remotely conceive of a "God"'s existence. Only an idiot would try to preach of God to a horse, gorilla or insect. To even conceive in one's mind of "God" requires a neocortex (irregardless of what that "God" may be and whatever one's personal conclusions may be) require the neocortex (reasoning center of the brain).

So therefore, it is in itself evidence God, as a concept accompanies higher intelligence.

However, as Polgar concludes, "Religion does not make a difference..."
For as science has shown, "...These findings emphasize that intelligence in vertebrates does not necessarily rely on a neocortex but can be realized in endbrain circuitries that developed independently via convergent evolution." Abstract rule neurons in the endbrain support intelligent behaviour in corvid songbirds

Circuitries in the brain are determining factors in intelligence, not one's religious belief or belief about God (the neocortex).

Judit Polgar: "Religion doesn't make a difference"

Judit Polgar is alleged to have an IQ of 170
The strongest female chess player in history, Polgar beat Bobby Fisher to become the youngest Grandmaster ever at 15 years, 5 months -- chess.com asserts she has an IQ of 170.
Polgar's father educated his three daughters at home with chess as the central subject. Judit is an International Master and her two sisters are Grandmasters.
The experiment belied the assumption that women were naturally weaker players, and strengthened the nurture over nature argument.
Age: 35
Nationality: Hungarian
Job: Chess Grandmaster, mother
The 19 Smartest People The World Has Ever Seen

"Religion doesn’t make a difference..."

If chess is implemented in schools as a mandatory subject, what are the advantages and benefits to society in general?

Chess is a language. Chess doesn’t make any distinction between a girl and a boy. Religion doesn’t make a difference, nor whether you’re rich or poor. You can also socialise with your parents and grandparents. Chess teaches you critical thinking, the ability to focus, logic, how to think ahead, a respect both for rules and for your opponent – and there are many more ways in which chess helps children and society.

Judit Polgar Interview

On that note... Religion doesn't make a difference. Although Judit Polgar is listed as Jewish. So please Atheists, get a life!!!! Obsessing on negative issues indicates some deeper emotional issue that should be addressed with a psychiatrist. No really. Obsession on NEGATIVE things leads to high blood pressure, weakened immunity and other unwanted health problems unless one is suicidal and wants to kill themselves at an early age, but that too is classified as mental issue. Every time I witness Atheists obsessed with stamping out religion, it is disturbing. I would say of all people I have ever acquainted or known of, Agnostics are the most happiest people. They are resigned to accept they cannot form an opinion on the "unknown" and don't care about it either, as they have many other enjoyable activities to engage in, friends, family and happiness.

I doubt Atheists got that. The words roll off the brain like water on a duck's back. They presume Judit Polgar's words, "Religion doesn't make a difference..." is inciting them to hack up forums with anti-religious rhetoric vandalism and hating on the religious. No, Atheists! Polgar meant what is written in black and white, please, *reading comprehension engaged* : "Religion doesn’t make a difference..." Judit Polgar means Religion is indifferent, irrelevant, a non-issue... caput... casper... nada... it does not make a difference... like totally, try to live and let live...

Polgar speaks more like an Agnostic (her words are spoken as one who is chilled out, relaxed, happy, enjoying her life), not filled with angst and obsessing over stamping out the lifestyles of others, but very focused on enjoying her own life, and having a truly worthwhile life beyond their keyboard warrior campaign against the religious), and just don't care about religion. Period. Indifferent. Irrelevant. They have a life beyond obsessing over things they cannot explain, and prefer channeling all that mental energy into sharpening their chess game.

Speaking of what makes high intelligence? Well, Judit Polgar defeated Bobby Fischer, the famed world chess champ. Fischer had Asperger's Syndrome and also born Jewish. So perhaps his genius was a result of one or the other, Jewish birth or the autism spectrum disorder (Asperger's Syndrome is typically symptomatic of highly focused interest on one specific topic of interest) in Fisher's case, he was absolutely, unequivocally obsessed with Chess.

And a moment to consider Bill Gates, the computer industry innovator and founder of Microsoft who was notably diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome as well. Well, its apparent Non-Belief and Religion, as Polgar put it "...doesn’t make a difference..." But being born with Asperger's Syndrome, or on the Autism Spectrum, like Temple Grandin who believes in God, can make one exceptionally intelligent and focused on their game, like Polgar, Gates or Fisher.

Atheists bedeck themselves in stolen plummage. Charles Darwin, like Judit Polgar shared the sentiment that "Religion doesn't make a difference." Darwin is credited with revolutionizing science, well, it wasn't his Atheism to thank... Nooooo, but you can thank his Autism!!!

Charles Darwin had autism, leading psychiatrist claims
Charles Darwin probably had a form of autism called Asperger's syndrome which is related to creativity and originality, a leading psychiatrist claims.
by Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor, 12:01AM GMT 18 Feb 2009
Darwin, the author of On the Origin of Species which sets out the theory of natural selection, had an extraordinary attention to detail but had difficulties with social interaction, according to Prof Michael Fitzgerald of Dublin's Trinty College.
Prof Fitzgerald believes that Darwin, who was born on Feb 12, 200 years ago, was suffering from a behavioural disorder.
Today he will tell the annual meeting of the Royal College of Psychiatrists' Faculty of Academic Psychiatry, and says Darwin was probably suffering from Asperger's syndrome.
Prof Fitzgerald said: "It is suggested that the same genes that produce autism and Asperger's syndrome are also responsible for great creativity and originality.
"Asperger's syndrome gave Darwin the capacity to hyperfocus, the extra capacity for persistence, the enormous ability to see detail that other people missed, the endless energy for a lifetime dedication to a narrow task, and the independence of mind so critical to original research."

On that snippet, Atheists are left scrambling to rationalize in their mind how their view on religion makes a difference... but instead, there's only a big fat blank... what? Atheism failed to make them one wit wiser!?! envious, disillusioned and disgruntled because, Sorry! Intelligence is governed by brain cells and their circuits... not one's silly personal "belief about religion!" Without those brain cells, you wouldn't even have a belief!

Despite the lack of a layered neocortex and fundamental differences in endbrain organization in birds compared with mammals, intelligent species evolved from both vertebrate classes. Among birds, corvids show exceptional cognitive flexibility. Here we explore the neuronal foundation of corvid cognition by recording single-unit activity from an association area known as the nidopallium caudolaterale (NCL) while carrion crows make flexible rule-guided decisions, a hallmark of executive control functions. The most prevalent activity in NCL represents the behavioural rules, while abstracting over sample images and sensory modalities of the rule cues. Rule coding is weaker in error trials, thus predicting the crows’ behavioural decisions. This suggests that the abstraction of general principles may be an important function of the NCL, mirroring the function of primate prefrontal cortex. These findings emphasize that intelligence in vertebrates does not necessarily rely on a neocortex but can be realized in endbrain circuitries that developed independently via convergent evolution.
Abstract rule neurons in the endbrain support intelligent behaviour in corvid songbirds

Asperger's Syndrome is a genetic "disorder" that often leads to abnormally high intelligence, and unimitable focus on one or more pet topics, and sometimes lends to what people may call "absolute genius." So Atheists!!! please stop stealing the glory away from Asperger's Syndrome, and bedecking the glory on that silly philosophy of atheism! It's worthless philosophy.

Opportunities to sharpen one's innate human potential, one's talents and gifts, make a difference. Education makes a difference. Religion does not. Freedom makes a difference.

Atheists really sooooo need to get a life and "get over it." Hike a mountain or walk the beach! Go to a park and meet new people. Try even going to some Universalist denomination church... meet people, make new friends, if its even remotely possible, TRY to enjoy life! By God! Find some interest to constitute a life beyond the internet!!! Restore a classic vehicle, or produce a fine piece of art, record an upbeat, inspirational song that will inspire others toward positive thoughts. Take a vitamin C. Exercise. Do something with your life, instead of obsessively hacking on people who have a spiritual outlook, that's THEIR life, not yours to dictate! Then again, perhaps some are so militantly religious in their atheism, for good or ill and having ZERO LIFE BEYOND ATHEISM (*ack* Oooo, so religious!! *ack* *ack*) they can't live beyond eating, sleeping, and crapping the religious thunder, obsessing on religion until its a sickness, because they have no boasting rights in any other topic or area of their life... or perhaps its just that certain atheists sub-consciously and secretly love and admonish those little Demigod-slash-Demagogue dictators?

Thought-provoking to ponder.

The evolution of intelligence (as the research concludes) is not restricted to humans. Through convergent evolution, birds have acquired and possess an innate intelligence. Dolphins are often praised as highly intelligent. Numerous animals exhibit traits that outdo humans on many levels in regard to "intelligence".

However, dolphins and crows lack the human neocortex. They also lack a belief in God. They lack the "new brain," "modern brain" or "human brain" and through it, the neocortex, humans are able to grasp, wrap their mind around and understand the God concept. It is PHILOSOPHY.

INTELLIGENCE itself is removed, unrelated to a belief in God one way or the other, and INTELLIGENCE has nothing to do with a lack of belief. So whilst a mentally retarded person can often understand the basic concept of "God is love," or a genius Cattle expert like Temple Grandin confirm her belief in God, or a dumb animal that is born and dies atheist due to its inability to conceive of God's existence, or be it the highly intelligent Stephen Hawking that claims he is atheist... the neocortex offers only one advantage in this regard. It enables the human to grasp the concept of God.
An animal cannot.
Intelligence itself is irrelated to such beliefs as it relies primarily on brain circuitry.
Conversion to atheism will have zero effect on ever increasing one's IQ or altering their brain circuitry; their human potential, their fate, their path in life or otherwise, to any significant degree. Some are born to become chess grandmasters, a prodigy of musical arts, talented painters, gifted writers whilst others genetically predispositioned to never succeed at making any signficant achievement throughout their entire lifetime, irregardless of their religion or their lack of belief. All the access in the world will not make them one wit more intelligent; creative, innovative, reasoning outside the box. Genetically speaking, they are predispositioned at birth to excel to an IQ of 75, or an IQ of 100, or an IQ of 120 and less common, an IQ of 170 as is claimed of Judit Polgar.

The same region of the brain that makes it possible to grasp the God concept and for the human to reason the existence of God, is the same region that makes it possible for an atheist to still grasp the God concept and to "rationalize away" why God does not exist in his/her own mind. However, all this philosophizing does not contribute to any increased intelligence. To assume it does, is a delusion. It is empty words, as even the religious would admit, most God concepts are supposedly to be about a "personal relationship" with God vs. a mass movement. Therefore to each his own opinion on the matter of God and religion. Live and let live.

Intelligence is determined by brain circuitry, and not exclusively attributed to the neocortex. Asperger's Syndrome, which likely gifted Charles Darwin with the brain wiring necessary for acute attention to detail and hyperfocus on specialized areas in zoology and biology from which he derived his theory, is a case study for neuropsychology, NOT the philosophy of Atheism. As for Atheism, Charles Darwin only expressed his LACK of interest in it! Religion was of no interest to Charles Darwin.

There are many creatures, far more gifted with wit and intellect far above that of humans, gifted at solving puzzles or abstract thinking, which relate directly to their high intelligence.

The neocortex (exclusive to humans) enables people to reason, and that includes the unique ability to conceive the God concept.
The neocortex itself, is not responsible for intelligence, it is merely what makes us "human."

Therefore, philosophize as they may,
by night or by day,
NOT one wit intelligent or wiser,
have they through Atheism ...been made!

Atheism can not make them more intelligent, no more than converting to Atheism could ever predisposition them to possess the skill or intelligence to beat Judit Polgar in a chess match!!!

Why Atheism Is Irrelated to Science

Today, I thought I'd scout out some comments on the web to see if I were alone in my observations + "getting it". Were there any others out there, bright enough, intellectual enough, who notice the elementary school emotional level antics of atheists... not much better than wee little thuggies in the school restroom, waiting for somebody to walk in to bully them.

Just post on a forum, and watch the thuggies pour out in droves, sporting their "highly evolved intellectualism" ... keyboard warriors. These little toughies must be confronted one on one, not in groups, to successfully expose just how inferior their working knowledge of science really is. High and mighty toughies. Oh, they are atheists, therefore they boast to have their little badge of intellectual superiority, just like the scarecrow received his ThD of Thinkology... and yet, the scarecrow is by far more intelligent and scientific in his reasoning than most atheists I've acquainted!

I clicked through on a funny little thread, and ironically, it was an Atheist who (not an Agnostic, nor a Deist or Theist) stepped up to the plate to state things as they truly are, so let's read on :

UncleMejija said: I'm an atheist who ignores religious people almost completely, and so I have the clear sight to see the anger and overreaction most atheists harbor toward religious folks. The militancy of atheists is what's most disturbing. Let religious people relicize in peace.
dunre646 said: you mean the ones that ask questions and give science lessons?
UncleMejija, Mar 26, 2012: The ironic part is that most atheists couldn't pass high school chemistry. Just as dimwitted, yet ten times more arrogant about their omniscience.

You have got to love the way he used that word, "Omniscience" with Atheism!

Here is an excerpt from Atheist, serial killer, mass-murderer Ted Bundy.

TED BUNDY : "... the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable value judgment" that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these "others"? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal,..."

Oh the gasps and awe of his enlightened "intellectualism"...

You can read the entire quote at this link.

He sounds oh so enlightened, does he not? Such ostentatious verbiage,

"Philosophers are wonderful people. The less they understand of a thing, the more words they make over it ... As Spiller remarks, they possess the most extraordinary talent for bringing the simplest things into the most boundless confusion, and they water and plaster over the simplest ideas and opinions with such a mass of high-sounding, apparently learned, but in reality empty and unintelligible words and phrases, that a rational man loses his senses over it.
-- LUDWIG BUCHNER, Force and Matter, p. 257.

But what Atheists and even Theists are failing to understand, is that Atheism, as was Ted Bundy's Atheism, was based on PHILOSOPHY. It was not based on the EMPIRICAL MATERIAL REALM. Science deals with empirical facts. Atheism is merely worthless, baseless philosophy.

I was involved personally in such a discussion with one of these Atheists some months ago. The atheist, attempting to make their self sound to be intellectual, claimed that they did "not believe in anything". They literally argued, they had no beliefs.

What an interesting claim! I asked them, "So you believe in nothing? Does that include not believing the sun will rise tomorrow?"

They concluded, to their own chagrin, "No" they did not "believe the sun will rise tomorrow."

Another, former atheist who just happened to be reading confirmed the way the reply was written and how he perceived the comment, was absurd, ridiculous... one who claims they do not believe the sun will rise tomorrow, has taken their argument to extremes, and out of the realm of rational thinking... needless to add, out of the realm of empirical science.

Precisely and why?

Because Atheism is PHILOSOPHY. Atheism is not Science.

I have consumed about forty years of my pilgrimage in two or three corners of the world, seeking the philosopher's stone called truth. I have consulted all the adepts of antiquity, Epicurus and Augustine, Plato and Malebranche, and I still remain in ignorance. In all the crucibles of philosophers,there are perhaps two or three ounces of gold, but all the rest is caput moyuum, insipid mire, from which nothing can he extracted.
-- VOLTAIRE.

It cannot be maintained that philosophy has had any very great measure of success in its attempts to provide definite answers to its questions. If you ask a mathematician, a mineralogist, a historian, or any other man of learning, what body of definite truths has been ascertained by his science, his answer will last as long as you are willing to listen. But if you put the same question to a philosopher, he will, if he is candid,:have to confess that his study has not achieved positive results such as have been achieved by other sciences.
-- BERTRAND RUSSELL, The Problems of Philosophy, p. 239
I am not concerned with philosophy as such, since it seems to me to lead to no agreed and substantial results.
- JOSEPH McCABE, Life and Morals in Ancient Greece and Rome, p 36.
I consulted hundreds of students of mine, asking for their frank opinion. I accosted my colleagues, -scientists and philosophers. I went about the town, gathering information. One truth has been found, as a result: that we, professional philosophers, neither study nor teach problems of real worth and significance to our contemporaries. The ideas, or concepts to be more precise, we are concerned with are largely dead or empty.
-- PROF. RALPH B. WINN, College of The City of New York.

Yet many Atheists continue on unabated in the delusion, that this philosophical pseudo-intellectual drivel, Atheism, is somehow a form of Science. Atheism as science is a farce, only equivalent to their counterparts, "creation scientists".

Further in the thread, another atheist comments. (I'm sure they believed they were providing a witty, thought-provoking comment, however, I found the information quite old-news, boring and lacking in substance:

planes crashed into buildings by religious militants: 2
planes crashed into buildings by atheist militants: 0"

To which, let me remind others of a few facts:

Number of women slaughtered by one Atheist butcher, Ted Bundy, 30+ something. (Bundy confessed to 30 murders but authorities believe the true number of victims totaled over 100.)
Number of women slaughtered by creepy, twisted chauvenist pigs who claim to believe in God, but don't really believe that strongly because they've never had a prayer answered, never feared "God" while they were on their killing spree, so they seldom or never pray anyway, never bother going to church but called "xtian" anyway by those who don't know any better... (for instance, bring in the fake preacher, Jim Jones, a sworn Atheist and card carrying member of the Communist Party). Or perhaps some of those con-artists who falsely claim to "get jesus" after conviction hoping that a facade of religiosity will lend them a little credibility and a "get out of jail free card"... 100's....

Number of mass graves dug by Atheist Militants throughout Ukraine, Poland and elsewhere in the former USSR to bury 10,000's in a fell swoop (Communists) : dozens.
Number of gas chambers constructed by Atheist Militants (Communists): dozens.
Massive Manmade Famines to liquidate millions and organized by Atheists: Dozens. (See the Ukrainian Holodomor and Atheist Josef Stalin).

Another person, farther on in the thread states:

"Both sides have their angry zealous militant segments. Personally I just try to avoid talking debating religion in real life"

To which the Atheist with the working brain, states:

"To an extent I agree, they have a lot of noisemakers on their side as well. And so let's continue having both sides yelling at each other and making fun of each other, and I'm sure everything will turn out for the better."

Another concludes,

"...I hope you people aren't like this off the internet. Picking fights about religion and trying to undermine those around you, because if you are then LOL @ you. Life is too short to be worrying about who is right and who is wrong."

So, I wondered if I were the only person on the internet that sees the IRONY, of how atheists boast, brag, spewing hubris of their "great enlightened minds" yet, when it comes right down to it; delivering the goods, the best they can do is blather a few juvenile simpleton insults.

But again, back to topic:

BUNDY : "... the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable value judgment" that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these "others"? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal,"

Ted Bundy's Atheist mind was filled with Philosophical ramblings. What did Voltaire and other great thinkers in history say of Philosophy?? They concluded Philosophy has benefited fields of science, the humanities and otherwise, nothing! They fill books with rambling thoughts, and explain a lot of nothing substantial.

This is quite similar to an dispute that spawned between myself and another Atheist who argued, using philosophy not that much unlike Bundy's that based on such "value judgments" there was "nothing wrong with speeding," Yes, I suppose if you lived in a gravity-free environment in space without a risk of crashing into space junk or rogue meteorites, speeding would be indifferent. But such a hypothetical situation is only possible in the realm of Philosophy, not true Science. If you live in a world without trees, potholes, speed limits, police equipped with radar and tickets, then hypothetically, speeding might be considered perfectly moral.

However, the SCIENTIFIC MIND, takes a survey of REALITY, his own surroundings, empirical reality... and calculates how much it can get away with, without having one's lifestyle cramped.

COMMON SENSE tells me, if I speed, I might get away with it, one time. I might get away with it two times. And I might even slip by, without getting busted three times. But I'm less likely to get away with it the fourth, fifth and sixth time. Science and Mathematical Probability tell me, that it is not a matter of "If" I will get caught, but a matter of "When". Applying the Scientific Method, my hypothesis stands like this: "If I choose to speed, I might get caught and ticketed for several hundred dollars... my insurance policy rates will possibly skyrocket... in the REAL WORLD... the final outcome, such as in the event of a crash and killing somebody, may be far, far worse." But Atheists do not reason from empirical science, their "value judgment" is based in the PHILOSOPHICAL REALM, just like RELIGION. It seems REAL WORLD CONSEQUENCES never apply to their value judgments. Such as not believing the sun will rise tomorrow? Believing it is perfectly fine to mass-murder? Believing it is perfectly moral to speed; drinking and driving?

So, all their meaningless rambling... what does one say to all of it?

"Philosophers are wonderful people. The less they understand of a thing, the more words they make over it ... As Spiller remarks, they possess the most extraordinary talent for bringing the simplest things into the most boundless confusion, and they water and plaster over the simplest ideas and opinions with such a mass of high-sounding, apparently learned, but in reality empty and unintelligible words and phrases, that a rational man loses his senses over it.
-- LUDWIG BUCHNER, Force and Matter, p. 257.

Never cease amazement with how the human mind can justify and rationalize the most absurd and illogical of beliefs. Atheists scoff at creationists, for their refusal to embrace empirical fossil evidence and how the creationists delude themselves into denying what they can see with their own eyes; fossil layers that speak to gradual evolutionary progressions over millions of years. Yet, Atheists themselves are hypocrites because in their "highly enlightened state of philosophy" they refuse to acknowledge scientific facts and natural laws that establishes the FACT that the sun shall rise tomorrow, indeed. Or, for another Atheist, their philosophy enables them to rationalize why it is perfectly moral to drink and speed. Bundy's atheism helped him "think freely" and rationalize in his own mind why it was perfectly moral to murder.

Most of us have enough sense to know, if we kill somebody we will be arrested, and we will go to jail, we just might be executed.

So, Mr. Theodore Bundy sought the answer to this burning question:

"...I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited....I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these "others"? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human..."

Jan 24, 1989 - Ted Bundy, the notorious serial killer, died today in the electric chair after a night of weeping and praying, just as the sun rose over the north... (L.A. Times)

Ah, the mysteries of the Universe! Perhaps Ted Bundy at long last "figured it out" for himself using his "highly intellectual mind" as he was having his psychotic self escorted to the electric chair. It is reported he was weeping and praying the night before his execution. And why? Because he did not want HIS RIGHTS, molested. Ted Bundy wanted people to respect HIS rights, his person, but he chose not to play the game by society's rules. Got to follow society's rules. Scientists follow rules. Science is filled with laws. That's simply how society works.

LAWS AND RULES. Constitutes but one further evidence against Atheism. The philosophy of Atheism is not founded on Science (empirical evidence, substantiated facts). Some atheists make a diligent attempt to sound pseudo-intellectual, yet much rambling does not constitute SCIENCE. Science seeks to define set and predetermined natural laws rather than outright defiance of such laws. Or, as the case with some Atheists, the outright disregard and trade off of law in lieu of one's personal philosophy, in an attempt insane attempt to redefine reality itself --in spite of law and social norms. Atheists do not seem to like laws. Atheist philosophies often tend to minimize the importance of law, minimize the inappropriateness when breaking laws or, simple rejection of law, empirical facts, etc, altogether.

LAW (from SCIENTIFIC LAWS and THEORIES)
1) An empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing; rule (Lincoln et al., 1990)

2) A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present (Oxford English Dictionary as quoted in Futuyma, 1979).

3) A set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement. (Krimsley, 1995).

WAS TED BUNDY A SCIENTIST? Perhaps any kind of "genius," by any stretch of the imagination?

All of Bundy's "Philosophical" nonsense was his downfall. He was in short supply of common sense and the same is true and quite typical of many Atheists.

Another example of illogical reasoning which Atheists have mocked and scoffed, was the mentally disturbed person who took a leap of faith into a lion den and presupposed God would protect him. He was protected by the Zoo's security only. How was this insanity in reasoning and judgment any worse than Atheist philosophy which suggests, it is moral to mass-murder (Ted Bundy), it is moral to drink and drive, it is perfectly "scientific" to deny all established empirical scientific facts, and shamefully profess, "I do not believe the sun will rise tomorrow". How are these absurd, insane conclusions about the empirical world intellectually superior compared to the absurdities pointed out in any other religion?

In light of Bundy's atheist philosophical ramblings, it becomes so apparent... these atheist philosophies are no where based in SCIENCE; that is, using "Empirical Evidence" to prove a thing in reality. Real world facts and figures are discarded in lieu of whimsical fantasies and philosophical delusion.

As I said, I asked an Atheist who made the absurd claim they did not believe anything. I asked, "You don't believe in anything? Well then, do you believe the sun will rise tomorrow?!"
They replied, "No".

The "Sun" and its patterns are EMPIRICAL. SCIENCE. Yes, the sun WILL INDEED (FACT) rise tomorrow. More than a simple hypothesis and greater than any "theory". It is established fact, demonstrable and repeatable. The sun SHALL rise tomorrow. This is not a matter of faith, yet the atheist was so desperate to philosophize why they "don't believe anything" they desperately deny scientifically established facts.

So, where are they deriving the notion that atheism is even remotely related to science?!

The process in which a conclusion is reached by an Atheist, is impossible to reconcile by all reasonable standards, with science, e.g., The Scientific Method. No scientific authority has proposed any reason for not believing, theorizing the sun will not rise tomorrow. Not one credible, peer reviewed document to substantiate their nonsense, not as much as a Farmer's Almanac, to support their absurd notion that "the sun will not rise tomorrow." But that's Atheism!

Will the sun rise tomorrow?
Science says "YES".
Yet, an Atheist would say, "I don't believe the sun will rise tomorrow."

On that note, Atheism is unrelated to science.

And the Atheist who claims it is merely "subjective values" which dictate his choice to drink and drive, has a true problem to reconcile atheism as a "rational thinker" with his casual disregard of science and empirical facts. We know there are certain laws of physics, that dictate the faster you drive, chances dramatically increase of getting killed, killing somebody else, or at least, getting blue-lighted and ticketed.
Empirical science.
Much, much more than a mere hypothesis. It is against the laws of civilized society.
But science, the material realm, empirical facts, such as stop signs, speed limits, road laws, radar guns, are tossed out the window with increased "Atheist enlightenment." Not through Science, but through whimsical philosophical fantasies.

And Ted Bundy. Complete and casual disregard for the EMPIRICAL realm. His Atheism helped him to "evolve to such a degree in his enlightened thinking" that he no longer understood what was wrong with murder? He could not grasp the simplest concepts that even elementary school children seem to understand? That if you commit crimes that are empirically written into empirical statutes on empirical law books and those who choose to break those empirical laws will get themselves brought before an empirical judge and jury and get handed an empirical verdict and sentencing. Death penalties are an empirical fact. If he didn't understand why it was wrong to trample on the rights of others? Then why was he so upset when they escorted him to the electric chair? According to Bundy's philosophy, it's pleasurable to kill others. So he should have been having a party the day he was executed. But instead he was weeping. His Atheist logic didn't hold up to the empirical.

ATHEISM REQUIRES A TOTAL DISCARD OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE and basing "value judgments" on whimsical philosophy. Discard of empirical laws. Discard of the material realm, and dwelling in a state of delusions and wishful thinking.

How is this any different from any other religion?

If Atheism were rooted in "Science" then WHY do Atheists feel such need to cast off all empirical, established facts, and replacing with philosophical wishful thinking so they might unleash their inhibitions? Such stupid decisions ultimately get made, and therefore find themselves arrested by police, ticketed, locked in prison or worse and that's all the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE I need, their belief system does not work for logical, rational, reason-minded people who prefer to make their lifestyle choices based on sound judgment.

Atheism is PHILOSOPHY, detached from all things empirical.
Therefore it is not science.

An Agnostic Responds: Atheism is a philosophy if they think they can prove what the ultimate explanation is for the cosmos, life, everything, but other kinds of atheists simply admit they don't think there's adequate proof of the Christian deity, the Biblical God, biblical inspiration, etc.
Atheism can also be a relative term, it can also mean simply that you don't believe in the god I do.
Like when Christians were called atheists for not worshipping the emperor or offering him incense.
Or when Christians called Thomas Paine an atheist, though he was a deist.
I think science involves not taking the words in any book as ultimate, but relying on first-hand observations and experiments and drawing analogies via those to find more connections in nature. If scientists took the words and writings of Aristotle as ultimate then we'd still believe in Aristotle's hypotheses concerning how nature and gravity work, which have been shown to be wrong via experiments.

Genesis/Science: Atheism is merely a non-belief in existence of God.
WHO... what imbecile, made the extrapolation that it (atheism) is remotely representative of "Science"?
I have noted, Atheists tend to veer far off course from what is "empirical science" and into areas Science doesn't even permit debate, therefore such suppositions about the unknown are reduced to useless, worthless philosophical ramblings and nonsensical blathering.
Even the official definition of Agnostic, "...believes that nothing is known or can be known....or of anything beyond material phenomena..."
I sincerely APPRECIATE the writings that YOU DO, that are legitimately critical on issues of matter of fact about the Bible, such as Biblical error, Biblical fallacy, etc. Those topics are legitimately fair game for debate. You seem to have an innate ability to discern between 1) addressing the issue, and 2) attacking the person.
Yet far too often, Atheists are caught in discussions, outside the realm of simple "non-belief in God," and outright scathing, seething hatred of those who do not bear their philosophical views. Views which are far, far outside of the realm of science and all legitimate beliefs. Going so far as to behave as bad, or worse than any theist, as they pretend to possess an almost "psychic insight" with their great, "omniscient grasp of the cosmos" and "mystically enlightened on matters of the unknown," all of which is outside of the material realm and yet they boldly proclaim to possess "ultimate patent and packaged truth" on the spirit realm.
How odd. Only "religious" people... zealots... fanatics... do that. I have read the writings of numerous scientists, and not one of them ever claimed to have made a single discovery, for good or bad, pro or con, positive or negative on the matter of God's existence.
Do Atheists possess some insight knowledge, superior to that available to Science? I am highly skeptical when Atheists claim they have some "enlightened insight" about God, which, scientists have not been privy to. Frankly, they have merely proven to me just how ignorant they truly are.
The "conclusions" of Atheists t'was not derived by any scientific means, I can assure you of that! Yet, they call their pseudo-babbling rants, "Science" because they are simply just that ignorant and fail to even understand what science actually is.

ag·nos·tic
noun
"A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

Which is far better still than the idiot atheist, who made the public claim they "believed nothing," necessitating an outright denial of the sun's established patterns of sunrise and sunset. In contrast to those atheists who proclaim "sunrise is merely subjective," the Farmer's Almanac has sunrise and sunset, down to a science with the precise hour and minute the sun will rise and set. This science has been established, as matter of fact, dating back to the time of the Egyptians, perhaps even earlier. So, on what empirical foundation would an atheist claim, "I do not believe the sun will rise tomorrow." Not one credible scientific authority has made such an extraordinary, absurd claim in any scientific publication or journal. No scientist has claimed that they expect the sun or earth to shift course due to a rogue meteorite or any other cosmic force. Absurd claims are made by Atheists, without as much as a single scrap of empirical evidence to found them! Yet, how quickly they ridicule a pseudo-babbler who claims "the earth is flat". Please enlighten me just how a belief in a flat Earth is any more absurd than an Atheist who boldly proclaims "I do not believe the sun will rise tomorrow"?

Both claims are non-scientific and equally absurd drivel.

An Agnostic Responds: I think science involves not taking the words in any book as ultimate, but relying on first-hand observations and experiments and drawing analogies via those to find more connections in nature. If scientists took the words and writings of Aristotle as ultimate then we'd still believe in Aristotle's hypotheses concerning how nature and gravity work, which have been shown to be wrong via experiments.

Genesis/Science: I wish to further elaborate on what you have stated above, because I know how Atheist trolls behave, and evidently, based on their behavior, also, think. In their wee, tiny minds, they read "...I think science involves not taking the words in any book as ultimate..."
Picture Atheist, opening Bible, flips through pages with no reading comprehension involved. At best, he has memories of sunday school, 15 years ago... a couple verses he remembers, here or there, perhaps learned from a bumper sticker, however, beyond that, no real working knowledge of the Bible. Unlike a minority of Atheists such as Robert M. Price (a PhD in the New Testament).
Picture Atheist, closing Bible and tossing it.
Picture Atheist, booting computer and logging into troll youtube or another forum.
Picture Atheist, stalking theists and reading post by theist.
Picture Atheist, seeking anything in the theist's posts, that will provide half an excuse to personally attack theist and cyber-bully with a barrage of venom-filled menacing, mean-spirited bigotry.
Picture Atheist, posting lies about how "he has read the Bible," and "proven all things."
Picture Atheist arrogantly boasting his self-declared intellectual omniscience to all the world! Self declared in his religiousity, his "all knowing"-ness.
Picture Atheist cyber-bullying; ridiculing, harassing and berating others who do not share his narrow world view.
Picture Atheist chuckling in his delusion of superiority.
Picture Atheist typing insults, playing the part of a delusional keyboard warrior, how his atheism is only possible because of his great omniscient intellect. Although his true achievements in life have consisted of MAYBE completing a GED, delivering pizzas, playing Wii or XBox... and joining fellow thuggies who cyber-bully theists.

That is not science.

Anyone can criticize a book. It does not take science, to attack theists and ridicule a book. Even children in primary school don't always, 100%, like the "Curious George" Monkey Series. Not all children always like watching Sesame Street publications. Not all children want to watch Barney. Barney books will have a fair share of critics among preteens. This hardly qualifies one to say, "All critics of Barney are scientists!"

Farrell Till I suppose would have had the knowledge to approach the Bible in a truly "scientific manner" for critical analyses. Till, (B.A. English and M.A. English), who would've applied scientific principals. However, so have Norman Geisler and other experts trained in Theology. They also seem to arrive at different (subjective) conclusions. Farrell Till was educated in the English language, and made extensive studies of scripture... however, in the brief interactions I had with Till, I don't recall even him, ever making such an absurd proposition to boast providing anyone or myself with as much as one scrap of "empirical evidence" for the non-existence of God. He did tend to tear into scriptures, but that's not disproving "God's existence" through science.

Atheism is a personal and philosophical non-belief in God's existence. Since an individual can not use any established scientific method to determine the existence or non-existence of God, this confirms "Atheism" is not Science. It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God, using scientific methods or science itself. Therefore, Atheism, as a belief, is not founded in Science.

An Agnostic Responds: I agree, "bullying" is the opposite of being calm, rational, or scientifically minded.
Neither are bullies worth your time.

Science/Genesis: How true.

An Agnostic Responds: As for the "God" question, it gets tricky because there's a wide spectrum of different definitions that could apply to an "infinite Being," or "ultimate Being-ness," whatever the heck "God" is.
I would say that Christians, Hindus, atheists, anyone, can practice science. That's the beauty of it.
As for differences in religious or philosophical beliefs, it looks like those differences will remain, just as have remained since the days of the earliest religions and philosophies.

Genesis/Science: By the same token, when Atheists claim they don't believe in God one must wonder, "Which God?" What kind of God are they denying exists?
I'm sure its not the same one I believe exists.
Einstein's definition of "God" and Gandhi's God and the Pope's gods and mine, are all different.

Right?

Dark matter and dark energy are empirical ... well at least, theoretically.

"...At its most general, pantheism may be understood positively as the view that God is identical with the cosmos, the view that there exists nothing which is outside of God..."
Pantheism

Since dark energy and dark matter are empirical, I believe it is the "material" or matter stuff, "God" is made of.

When Atheists deny the existence of MY God they must deny the existence of matter and substance in the empirical realm, because dark matter and dark energy are part of the "God" I believe exists.

My God exists.

References & Further Reading

Essays of an Atheist: Futility of Philosophy by Woolsey Teller. Woolsey Teller does a radical job of slicing, dicing, and making mincemeat of philosophy.

TIL that a rooster in Basel, Switzerland was sentenced to burn at the stake

An Agnostic wrote: "That really happened? Hilarious!"

Genesis/Science: Not hilarious for the poor chicken.

"TIL that a rooster in Basel, Switzerland was sentenced to burn at the stake for committing the "heinous and unnatural crime of laying an egg".
(news.google.com): The Spokesman-Review - Sep 12, 1938

Rooster Who Laid an Egg and Burned at Stake

Studies on the Relation of Gonadic Structure to Plumage Characterisation in the Domestic Fowl.--III. The Laying Hen with Cock's Plumage
F. A. E. Crew
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Containing Papers of a Biological Character
Vol. 101, No. 712 (Jul. 1, 1927), pp. 514-518
Published by: The Royal Society

Switzerland, 1471; the setting is Basle, a city of adamant religious and God-fearing folk who had it out for a rooster. Apparently any rooster that was found to lay eggs was practically “aiding and abetting” known sorcerers in the area of Basle who were known to perform Satanic rituals using combined ingredients in potions including the yolkless egg of a rooster and other classic witch lore: newt eyes and frog toes and such. In light of the purportedly evil and black market magic potion crafting, the rooster was tried before a Swiss judge and found guilty if laying an egg that was defiant to nature. As a sentence, this rooster was burned at the stake because it was believed to possess an evil soul akin to the likes of Satan. The kicker argument that won the case for the prosecutor was that while the animal may have involuntarily laid an egg, in the gospel Matthew, there is mention of the Devil possessing animals. At the point this was mentioned, the cock’s doom was sealed and it was expediently burned at the stake.
List O’ Ten True Cases of Animals Brought To Court

Here's an excerpt from Sex-Change Chicken: Gertie the Hen Becomes Bertie the Cockerel (Under the right circumstances, a hen can actually transform herself into a rooster).

"Sex reversals do, in fact, occur—although not very frequently," states a 2000 report published by the University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. "To date, however, spontaneous sex reversal from male to female has not been reported."
That's because the mechanics of this biological phenomenon seem to work in only one direction. Normally, female chickens have just one functional ovary, on their left side. Although two sex organs are present during the embryonic stages of all birds, once a chicken's female genes kick in, it typically develops only the left ovary. The right gonad, which has yet to be defined as an ovary, testes, or both (called an ovotestis), typically remains dormant.
Certain medical conditions—such as an ovarian cyst, tumor or diseased adrenal gland—can cause a chicken's left ovary to regress. In the absence of a functional left ovary, the dormant right sex organ may begin to grow, according to Mike Hulet, an associate professor at Penn State University's department of poultry science.
"If the activated right gonad is an ovotestis or testes, it will begin secreting androgens," Hulet told Life's Little Mysteries. Androgens are the class of hormones that are largely responsible for male characteristics and are normally secreted by the testes. "The production of androgen would cause the hen to undergo behavioral changes and make it act more like a rooster."
The hen does not completely change into a rooster, however. This transition is limited to making the bird phenotypically male, meaning that although the hen will develop physical characteristics that will make her look male, she will remain genetically female. So while the hen will no longer lay eggs, she won't be fathering any offspring, either.

Who Said Hens Can't Crow?

"She lays eggs."

Additional Links

Oh Hell Thee Satan Ye All Powerless and... Dickless one!

Yes, in this case, I pulled out the big kahuna, "Dickless". I will wait for the little man with red horns to come calling. Let's see just how powerful he really is.

The xtian theory with the satan myth is, he's so filled with arrogance, with ego, that he tried to exalt his throne above God's (of course we know that only happened with Zeus and the Titans in Greek mythology) but let's test this theory, all the same.

Ted Bundy the Atheist vs. Satan Worshippers.

Jesus! I get so sick of these stupid documentaries that make it sound like satan worshippers are any more evil / dangerous than murderers that have no religion. Geraldo anyone??

Just heard end of one episode on a boy who killed his parents, and beheaded his father's dead corpse to use the head in a ritual.

#1 The cop said he became "more religious" after the satanic killing took place in his home town, and admitted that he learned of satan through his own faith.

You know what's really ironic?
The Xtians are responsible for this foolish myth of Jesus being lead to a high mountain and the Persian god, the Adversary appears to Jesus, and says he will give him all that he sees with his eyes if Jesus will just swear his allegiance to him. Jesus refuses. Why didn't Jesus say, "Hey Satan, everyone you make a deal with, ends up in jail bro.. no way!"

Because that's all I've ever seen. They all go to prison. Except if you're George Bush at the Bohemian Grove performing mock sacrifices to Molech, a Canaanite deity. The myth in the Bible of Satan trying to lure Jesus into a bum deal... it lies, it makes false promises to credulous believers that if they make a deal with the devil they can have fame, fortune, worldly glory... and never bother to correct it, that "Satan does not have all power."

"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth."
(Matthew 28:18). The "devil" (aka evil xtian idolators) spread the lie that satan is all-powerful. Yet these same idolatrous fools are amazed when some gullible kid starts worshiping satan.... its all part of the idolatrous con job xtian belief system, but everyone who is stupid enough to follow this path end up broke and destroyed (when the truth is, they're already broken people and that's why they turn in desperation to satanic worship), and they end up in prison.

The "sacrifices to satan" where is this learned? only what Xtian theology has taught them in regard to what satan wants of them! The source for knowledge of satan worship comes directly from the Bible, and out of the mouths of preachers, priests and false prophets.

The boy who was just on I.D. Channel got 40 something years and put in prison. What Xtian lied to the child, assuring him that he could ever have "power" bestowed from Satan?
Satan lies? No. The Bible lies on this matter. It never corrects itself. Stupid idol worshipers!

BTW, he was raised as a Catholic and served as a choir boy until his freshman year in high school. Ah yes... and let me mention... the superstition-laden xtian freaks... they came out in droves soon after... out of the woodwork proclaiming, they've "....sensed something very evil in town." If its not their wild imagination working overtime, then perhaps they really are "sensing something evil" because God is just that pissed off they don't actually read their Bible more critically and exercise their god-given rational thinking abilities they were born with, but never bothered to use them while blindly consuming religious mythology and idolatry.

I am free!!! I don't believe in the bogus mythology of Satan.

I don't live with the bondage that xtians do, laying down in fear of satan and his minions. I do fear my fellow man... the living, because they're so damned ignorant.

So goes Geraldo and other sensational headline tabloids, "...Oh, he was "sooooo evil... pure evil... soul-less" as if they could telepathically transmit some insight into their own from the mind of a sociopath? Yes, "he was pure evil" they said of one of the idiots they profiled on this show. And, I'm left asking myself, "How did they conclude that?" Perhaps evidence, after the fact??? They overdo the "I looked in his eyes, and there was nothing there."

B.S. They need to get a grip. Superstition is working overtime on THEIR mind and playing TRICKS on THEIR eyes! You cannot look into somebody's eyes while you're awake and learn a thing!!!! This is a FACT: There are cold-blooded killers and they can look you straight in the eye and lie, and people never suspect a thing... just as George Bush lied to the whole country about WMD's and they never suspected a thing.

Stupid conservative religious right wing!

So exaggerated is satan's power... as if a satan worshiper were really ever so much more evil than any other who was deemed criminally insane............Ted Bundy was not religious at all. I suppose that makes him pale in comparison with "The Human Vampire" or this or that pathetic occult murderer???

"Satan" is pretty damn wimpy with all the facts taken into consideration.

And what about Jeffrey Dahmer? He wasn't sacrificing his kill to Satan, he was keeping all the prey for himself. There were no "ritualistic sacrifice" in Jeffrey Dahmer's case. Dahmer figured his victims were better in his own belly, than offered up to the whimsical spirit world. Later, he confessed he was Atheist. So, where's Satan?!?! And was it Satan who sikked Christopher J. Scarver on Dahmer behind bars? If it was, then the Bible fails to ring true, because Satan vs. Satan, and the kingdom falls.

Satan was no where to be found in Ted Bundy's vocabulary. Ha! Can you imagine that? .... when Ted Bundy was butchering all his victims, Satan was out of the loop and didn't rush in to get his piece of the action, claim for himself the fame and glory of Ted Bundy's blood-lust.... surely Satan's arrogance couldn't resist the temptation, like with (later retroactive confession) satan worshiping, schizophrenic Son of Sam.

That Satan B.S. is way overcooked.

Satan worshipers? All powerful? Nada. I've seen pathetic misfits, desperate to have a little fun in this drab life, selling their pitiful souls for hope of tasting a better life... because Xtians are GUILTY OF TEACHING THE HOGWASH IN THE FIRST PLACE, this ridiculous belief that "satan can give you power"... Why, according to scripture, no, Satan cannot. Ye Christian Art LIARS! (Matthew 28:18-19 (King James Version). So says scripture! Xtians can blame themselves for satanic worshipers who murder -- after all, who exposed them to this foolish mockery of an idolatry in the first place?! and its often xtians who are so hateful and mean-spirited to make this life so super crappy for others, that any young person would be so damnably desperate enough to want to turn to "satan"... and those individuals, reared in the xtian faith, turn in DESPERATION to satanic occult worship... all because they have no true friends, no control over their life and in a last ditch effort to gain some relief from the loneliness, isolation and pain in the world xtians created for them, they turn to the only world they've had shoved down their throats since birth... the spirit world where they presume they can have some power.... A BIG FAT LIE OF LIES!

And if its "Satan," the power behind these murderous misfits... then WHY THE HELL CAN'T ALL POWERFUL "Satan" mastermind a huge slaughter like another Ted Bundy or Dahmer, or is "satan" just that damned dickless and pathetic? And yes, I emphasize "dickless" for the record.

But Satan's many faithful believers, those "good christian people" superstitious as they are would not dare utter such a blaspheme against their precious dragon-snake deity, in their polytheistic religious hysteria belief system... for fear the devil might come calling on them!

Why? Because to challenge that red, snake-dragon shape-shifting pointy tail MYTH OF MYTHS, the Persian "Adversary"... the Babylonian dragon Tiamat, "satan"... satan is liable to have his arrogant ego bruised and seek to destroy you. I fear nothing from the myth. It lost its power when I discarded "satan" and quit believing in the nonsense.

No xtian would have dared made such great utterances as I have. Satan would strike them dead! What a belief system... to live in the shadow of fear. But I do not fear satan, because satan is an impotent myth... as worthless as any idol carved in wood or stone, and from whence the myth arose. Wood and stone.

I dare utter such things because I do believe in God and I do not believe God, a loving God, would allow evil to befall me for uttering ... Truth.

The filthy xtian idolatry of satan saps glory away from God.

If educated and reason-minded Christian men of science like Louis Agassiz found it plausible to embrace the concept of a supernatural entity at work in nature, then the possibility is good enough for me.

Science Fact: "The Sun and all the planets were formed at around the same time, depending on when you define the birth of the sun. Before the Sun became as it is today it was a proto sun, which had all the elements it has now but it just had not started the nuclear reaction which fuels today's sun. As the sun started to form from the debris of the dust/particle cloud so did all the planets."
The entire commentary (link).
The Earth is not Young, but the Sun's nuclear reaction, is... based on fossil evidence, a wee 500 million years old.

Astronomers Discover Coldest Star Ever [VIDEO]

But what about Stromatolites and photosynthesis 3.5 billion years ago?

That's covered here in full.

Had there been any sunlight, it would have never reached the surface of the Earth, anyway.

I profess my innocense of the crime of Bibliolatry, however, I am scathed with certain Atheists who've somehow came to the conclusion their deconversion (which soon lead to blasphemous attacks on people of faith and anti-religious tyrades) supposedly equal a one size fits all, "patent truth"(TM), or even worse, a "scientific truth." Only the religious minded are under the delusion they advance their creeds by deception and claims to possess a monopoly on "absolute truths". Not unlike their counterparts Theistic Fundamentalists, who also believe they monopolize some sacred "Truth of Truths"(TM)... yet in my years acquainting both extremes, not much appears to be about an actual search for greater truths, understanding or knowledge. Rather, hatred and bigotry tend to be the motivating factor behind their many senseless squabbles.

Straight from Scripture Commentary:

See the King James Hebrew-Greek KeyWord Study Bible, AMG Publishers, 1991 for yet another reprint of this century-old LIE. This EVIL lie has been told and retold by theologians, biblical scholars, preachers and priests to paralyze brains of the religious, so that they may continue unabated generating billions in tithes and donations from the faithful, never again to question the dishonest anti-Darwinist rhetoric, so the church can continue fighting to stamp out truth and enlightenment. These men within the hallowed halls of the establishment of organized religion, just as those priests, the murderers of Jesus, are the enemies of God because "God" can only be found on the side of what is proven to be TRUTH. And I present the truth here vs. their evil lies that have deceived millions.

Prototaxites, A Fossil Fruiting Fungi, 'Tree'
Scientists discovered this fossilized, non-photosynthetic, fruiting "tree," and call it Prototaxites.

They said it couldn't be done, but here it is, thanks to modern science and praise to God for revealing the truth about the fossil record. Still waiting on evangelicals to address this fossil discovery and begin owning up to their wretched LIES and DAMNED LIES for over a century... if it looks, waddles and quacks like a tree... its probably a tree.
"The various attempts to join together the biblical account of creation and evolution are not supportable by the various gap theories because the order of creation is in direct opposition to the views of modern science (e.g., the creation of trees before light.)"
Source: King James Hebrew-Greek KeyWord Study Bible, AMG Publishers, 1991

Yes, finally, trees exactly as described in Genesis, before, and without sunlight. And no, it's not another lame hoax. (Short) and (Long). See, Prototaxites, Fossilized "Fruiting Fungi," 'Tree'.

Also see Evolution of the Earliest Plant Organisms, specifically the "Fruiting Fungi" which fits an identical description,
1. Has fruit with "seed" (spores) inside itself, and
2. Can survive without sunlight (exactly as described in Genesis). Such organisms would have certainly existed during the Vendian/Precambrian.
3. For a long time, scientists presumed or presume a giant "mystery fungi" was a tree, a conifer, to be precise... and some have now described it as one of the "Fruiting Fungi".

Also, see "Fruit Trees Before Sunlight".

I Challenge All with this Thousand Dollar Question:
Please engage brain and point out where either term, "Create" or "Design," even appear in this text of Genesis?
Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth (tender) grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Genesis 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Still Waiting...

When you Atheists or Fundamentalist Xtian Darwin-haters can squeeze "creation" or "design" out of any of those verses which imply natural selection, let me know.

And yes Atheists... please spare your sermon. Don't preach to the choir. I know all too well what you believe.

Just because people become familiarized with Atheism, hardly means they are so blown away... so mesmerized with "The Truth"(TM) and taken in by a few persuasive argument fallacies that they automatically deconvert and lose faith. That they didn't accept your religion, hardly constitutes a lack of understanding. Perhaps it's just that Atheism is that unappealing. *The Shock* *The Awe* -- how could everyone not see things your way? They're just in denial. (Sound familiar?) Every religious adherent is *in shock* and *in awe* when others do not want to buy into their brand of religion and they fail to convince potential converts. Just as my views might not interest you, well, perhaps I am fully understanding your views and yet, Atheism still remains just that unappealing. Mainly because of the hateful attitudes and blatant lies that often accompany "The Truth"(TM). Any religion that has that extent of negativity in it can't be good for anyone's emotional well-being. Meanwhile, I fully understand why most people will not subscribe to my views. Foremost, it requires a minimal amount of knowledge of several scientific fields of study and secondly, reasoning that requires "thinking outside the box". Lastly, I'm not proposing to have any "One and Only Truth(TM)". Just presenting scientific facts whilst challenging long-held cherished falsehoods as well as faith in people to exercise critical reasoning and make up their own minds, and whatever conclusion people may arrive at is fine with me.

Documentary from "The Soviet Story,"

Jim Jones was a Communist

The religious establishment and their twisted evil twin, anti-religion baiters said it couldn't be done, yet...

TREES INDEED!

Vegetation, Herbs and Trees Before Sunlight.
Oh well, I guess that dashes arguments of Atheists and Science-Hating fundamentalists to little itsy bitsy pieces.
(and more found here)

Karl Marx Created Adolf Hitler
Darwin's theory did not create Hitler as some have accused, nor did Hitler's Socialism have anything to do with Jesus Christ or Christianity. Besides Eugenics programme in early American history and over 27 states which had sterilization laws on the books before the time of Nazi Germany, Hitler derived his version of Communist ideologue, "National Socialism" directly from the Socialism of Karl Marx, advocate of the most malevolent version of toxic Atheism, and author of The Communist Manifesto which lead to the bloody death toll of at least 100 million in the 20th Century alone and the killing continues ...
See Anti-Communism

For more information on Communism, and the ghastly death tolls:

The Black Book of Communism

Harvard University Press Communist regimes around the globe are responsible for a greater number of deaths than any other political ideal or movement. It takes a brick of a book to provide the crushing scope of this murderous ideology, that killed tens of millions in the 20th Century and that will continue to kill.

And while we're on the subject, let's set the record straight about Jim Jones, another evil, toxic atheist and Marxist-Leninist.
"How could I demonstrate my Marxism? The thought was, infiltrate the church."
- Jim Jones, founder of the murderous "People's Temple," a disgusting Atheist and Marxist degenerate camouflaged under the guise of being "A man of God".
Carried out to the instruction as Marxist Revolutionary Vladimir Lenin, founder of the USSR, stated a necessity to infiltrate the Church, because the religious will '"swallow anything" if it is wrapped in religious terms.'

Hitler, Messiah, Anti-Christ
Like Atheist Stalin, Hitler wages a war against people of all religion.
(See Commentary Link.)

Communists murdered 100 Million over the past century.

Communist party members are Atheists.

And no, sorry, but Joseph Stalin was not a Christian because he attended seminary once and Christianity did not turn him into a butcher. George Bernard Shaw was no Christian either when he openly supported Hitler and mass genocide by gassing.

“I’m an atheist and I thank God for it.”
- George Bernard Shaw

Atheists know this doesn't look good when they attempt to convert people to Atheism, and people are aware of the death tolls under Communist regimes so Atheists will do mental cartwheels to conveniently deny history or come up with some other lame twisted argument fallacy to explain away the atrocities committed by Atheists, such as, "Communists worship the state," I suppose therefore they're not Atheists?? Hogwash! Enough of the silly grammar school semantics!! That's not what the Communist Party is saying, Atheists!! To become a member of the ~~Atheist State Religion~~, ooops, I mean Communist Party, you must be a sworn Atheist. No exceptions!

Darwin was never the problem. ATHEISM was the problem!? No wonder Christians rejected Darwin's theory after people like George Bernard Shaw and Karl Marx latched on to it like the parasites they were!

I believe in the religion of Love which the Prophet Jesus Christ taught.
So, Atheists! Looks like that agenda to convert the world to your religion of atheism has alas backfired. Your hate propaganda has turned people off. People as a whole are still as spiritual as ever, if not more so. Oh, don't delude yourself, people understand very very well what you believe, and I know all too well what you believe with your religion of hate. Whatever side you're on, I'm not there!!!

My favorite Atheist, Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam, whose wonderful song "Jeremy" brought attention to the anguish of kids who deal with school bullies vs. my least favorite

Mr. Brian Warner, aka Marilyn "Who Needs Fred Phelps?" Manson? guilty of regularly bullying and abusing his employees, both physically and mentally. THE VIDEOS ARE DISTURBING. Just "boys being boys"? or more age old ignorance that leads to a society of bullies. Most people have heard about the evil antics, but remain oblivious to the level of inappropriate bullying and ruthless violence even band members apparently have grown weary of.

Saving the best for last.

Sorry 'tis not Atheist that I can tell, but it is Alice in Chains. My favorite band of all time, brazenly questioning religious dogma and rhetoric.

And not to forget my commentary on the meaning of Soundgarden: Black Hole Sun A must read... or at least, a must-listen!

This blog was published quite a good number of years ago. I have came to a very different conclusion about Genesis ... as well as Evolution:
"Scala Naturae of the Bible, Charles Darwin and Ancient Greek Philosophy".

Genesis in the Ancient World
"One of the first evolutionary theories was proposed by Thales of Miletus (640–546 BC) in the province of Ionia on the coast near Greece followed by Anaximander (550 B.C.) who speculated that life evolved from the water; lower forms of life, in a very primitive precursor to evolutionary theory."

"All things are possible until they are proved impossible and even the impossible may only be so, as of now."
-Pearl S. Buck

ag·nos·tic
noun
"A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

Atheism is a personal and philosophical non-belief in God's existence. Since an individual can not use any established scientific method to determine the existence or non-existence of God, this confirms "Atheism" is not Science. It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God, using scientific methods or science itself. Therefore, Atheism, as a belief, is not founded in Science.

Worthy Quotes By Atheists

With Commentary Follow-Up: WHY Atheism Is IRRELATED To Science

"The ironic part is that most atheists couldn't pass high school chemistry. Just as dimwitted, yet ten times more arrogant about their omniscience. [...] so let's continue having both sides yelling at each other and making fun of each other, and I'm sure everything will turn out for the better."
— UncleMejija (Yes, an Atheist... with a working brain)

For more on this issue, see "Theism and Atheism = Mental Illness."

Paul preaches about the "Unknown God," which translates to "Agnostic" (as depicted by Gebhard Fugel.)
< Greek ágnōst (os), variant of ágnōtos not known, incapable of being known ( a- a-6+ gnōtós known, adj. derivative from base of gignṓskein to know) + -ic, after gnostic; said to have been coined by T.H. Huxley in 1869.
n.
1870, "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known" [Klein]; coined by T.H. Huxley (1825-1895), supposedly in September 1869, from Greek agnostos "unknown, unknowable," from a- "not" + gnostos "(to be) known" (see gnostic ). Sometimes said to be a reference to Paul's mention of the altar to "the Unknown God," but according to Huxley it was coined with reference to the early Church movement known as Gnosticism. (Source)