Month: June 2016

Herein we will consider when and why certain personages became Atheists. We will parse these into Statistics, Influential Atheists, Ex-Catholics, Ex-Hindus and Hoi Polloi Atheists. As of now, I list the tales of 107 Atheists. You can find them all at the When and Why They Became Atheists Project page.

These examples are taken from Quora.

Julio Mario Díaz:
He “grew up in a very catholic country, and in a catholic home” so we have the ex-Catholic stereotype, “started questioning religion when around 8 y/o; those stories just didn’t seem real to me” so we have the very young age stereotype and “In my teenage years told my friends and family I was an atheist” so we have the teen rebellion stereotype.

Main points:
8-teen.

Sadly, he merely asserts that in college he study “engineering, loved science; specially physics. So naturally my skepticism grew” but we are not told how or why.

Yet, then at 23 yrs old he “began to question my beliefs again. Many hours spent reading about philosophy, religion and spirituality, made me realize how closed minded I was being. The ego you need to have to be totally sure that your beliefs are correct and other people’s beliefs are not. And now I see theists and atheists as no one being more correct than the other. It’s better to be happy than to be right.”

So, he appears to have written an answer to the question about becoming an Atheist even if it was for a period of time only and now we know not how he categorizes himself. However, consider the ego he needs to have to be totally sure that his beliefs are correct and other people’s beliefs are not such as his claim that theists and Atheists are more correct than the other.

Mike Delms:
Mike was “born and raised as a Catholic” well, he may have been raised as such but was not born as such. He “went to a Catholic school…My religious views began to change towards agnostic and eventually atheistic when I was in grade 2.”

Main points:
2 yrs old.

He was preparing for first communion and due to the Catholicism, he was told, “my teacher was telling us how we will be eating the body of Christ. I remember asking why? And how is that possible since he’s been dead for 2000 years. I did not understand this ‘tradition’ and it never sat right with me but they would continue to lead me to believe that it was the ‘right’ thing to do.” Firstly, “never sat right with me” is not an argument or evidence but merely a subjecting non-standard. Secondly, let us pause and note that the same basic question was asked 2,000 years ago. Jesus stated, “my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven…they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life…The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven…[Jesus said] I am that bread of life…the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” And here comes the question, “The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day…Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?” and due to this, “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him” (see John 6). Now, this was within the context of comparing the mana which came from heaven during the time of Moses with the true bread which came from heaven as Jesus. Again, due to Catholicism he was told, “we will be eating the body of Christ” and it was a “tradition.” Well, Catholic tradition is that the bread literally becomes the body of Jesus (oh yeah, “under the appearance of bread” so, go figure). Yet, when it comes to the eucharist, communion, etc. the fact is that the last supper was the Passover meal which is highly symbolic and Jesus was giving a definition to the symbols: the bread represents His body and the wine, His blood. In fact, within the discussion quoted above Jesus stated something that Catholics tend to ignore when teaching their tradition about Jesus’ literal body in the guise of bread, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” or in a more modern translation, “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.”

Thus, His literal physical flesh profits nothing since It is the spirit that quickeneth / It is the Spirit who gives life thus, His statements were spiritual aka symbolic: for details, see here Roman Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist, part 4—The Issue of John 6:63.

Now that we have another example of how Catholicism’s false doctrines lead to rightful skepticism, let us get back to Mike and go from one stereotype, ex-Catholic, to another one, rebellion against mommy, “I went home and asked my mother…‘who should I love more Jesus or you?’ She thought about it for a few seconds and replied that God was higher than any human and that included herself. To this day this is one of the saddest things I have ever heard. To me, my mother was everything, and now she was telling me that I should love this man/God more than everyone. I refused to accept her answer and I couldn’t believe that the most powerful, intelligent and caring person I knew (my mother) would accept that there is someone (Jesus) who is above her.”

In this case, the mom gave the right answer and yet, the emotionally, logically, theologically, philosophically, etc. child did not concludes something to the likes of since “my mother was everything” she is “the most powerful, intelligent and caring person I knew” and since she was telling me that I should love this man/God more than everyone” then I can trust her and God must be very special indeed. Rather, he had a childishly emotive subjective reaction and “refused to accept her answer” which is not an argument or evidence as is “I couldn’t believe” as this is subjective incredulity. You get the straight up child’s view of the parents when the child “couldn’t believe” that “there is someone (Jesus) who is above her” as he, as a mere child, viewed mommy as the highest, the ultimate, a god.

Mike notes that “After that day I began to notice how it is nearly forbidden to question anything the bible, my teachers or priests said about God and heaven.” Now, in Catholicism it may be nearly forbidden to question but biblically it is encouraged (see Acts 17 wherein Paul interacts with the Bereans and they are praised for double checking that which he claimed, as one example).

Note that Mike complains that “Every time I asked a question about heaven and hell I would be given an answer straight out of the bible. I began asking the priests and my teachers to give me a personal answer but they never could, because they have never died and gone to heaven or hell.” This is good little kid “logic” but not adult logic. For example, every time I asked a question about slow, small step by step, incremental, species to species evolution I am given an answer straight out of a textbook. I ask the teachers and professors to give me a personal answer but they never could, because they have never witnessed it.

Mike then states, “Their answer would come from a book written by a man 2000 years ago who was still alive at the time and had also never been to heaven or hell.” This is confused as he claims that the Bible was “written by a man” which it was not, it was written by 40 authors, “2000 years ago” which is a logical genetic fallacy and then seems to imply that the one man who wrote the Bible has never been to heaven or hell and therefore, must not have known and maybe could not have known anything about it.
Thus, this denotes a shocking level of ignorance about the Bible and I mean even as a document. Back to my statement above what if I stated “The evolutionist’s answer would come from a book written by a man, Darwin, 157 years ago who was had never witnessed slow, small step by step, incremental, species to species evolution”?

Mike “remember[s] thinking ‘oh my God none of these adults really know what happens!!’ It was this realization that adults didn’t have all the answers but still loved to tell you how to live that made me an atheist.” Would Mike now conclude “‘oh my Nothing none of these adults really know slow, small step by step, incremental, species to species evolution happens!!’ It was this realization that adults didn’t have all the answers but still loved to tell you how life progresses and that God is irrelevant that made me an theist.”

Moreover, he notes, “I was young and only understood tangible ideas and I remember thinking religion is the only subject where my teachers don’t have to prove their answers.” Again would he write, “I was young and only understood tangible ideas and I remember thinking evolution is the only subject where my teachers don’t have to prove their answers”?

He then betrays ignorance of the differences between something like math and theology (or evolution) in writing, “In math class I could take 2 pairs of apples and make 4, in science you could look at the planets/stars in the sky, in history you could see real documentary footage but religion, well that was all based on word of mouth and instead of empirical truth they revered faith. Faith?”
If in math class he could see that 2+2=4 since math is a “hard science” as it were. Via astronomy one “could look” (even if cosmology and cosmogony are mathematical and philosophic). In “history you could see real documentary footage” even if that “real” documentary footage was “based on word of mouth and instead of empirical truth” which Mike merely asserts. Yet, evolution is a theory which is supposed to be about biology and it is a worldview-philosophy whereby one interprets (or, reinterprets and misinterprets) evidence and thus, is not a hard but a soft science.

Mike focuses on what he claims is faith in continuing the thought above, “…they revered faith. Faith? Faith is not tangible, faith cannot be measured, faith is…blind. In grade 6 I chose to never accept knowledge that was based on blind faith and could not be proven” (ellipses in original). Of course, this is an Atheistic re- and mis- definition of faith. No idea or concept is “tangible” so that is a nonissue. Faith is more akin to reading a science journal paper and if it is cogent then leaping to the logical conclusion that its resulting claims must be accurate. Would Mike state, “I chose to never accept knowledge that was based on blind faith and could not be proven such as slow, small step by step, incremental, species to species evolution”? Also, “I chose to never accept…” is a personal preference.

Lastly, he states, “Religion was societally placed higher than anything else but required the least amount of proof, this made no sense to me and still doesn’t.” Again, would he write, “Evoluiton was societally placed higher than anything else but required the least amount of proof, this made no sense to me and still doesn’t” also “made no sense to me” is a subjective non-standard.

Lastly, he notes “I am not a forever atheist, I am an atheist until someone can prove that God is empirically true, until then I will continue to live my life based on real truths (science) and not blind faith.” He falsely dichotomizes theism vs. science and then thinking that his views are scientific (even though they obviously are not) he demands scientific empirical evidence for God which means that he wants sense based or physical evidence of a being that is traditionally know to not be known via senses and is not physical. Thus, Mike was confused at 2 yrs old and remains so on various levels.
So, does Mike state, “I am not a forever non-evolutionist, I am an non-evolutionist until someone can prove that slow, small step by step, incremental, species to species evolution is empirically true, until then I will continue to live my life based on real truths (hard science) and not blind ‘faith’”?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Twitter: #atheism, #atheists
Facebook: #atheism, #atheists

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page.

I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

The Disclosure newsletter for March 2016 AD, Vol 20, Issue 6 notes, “Until recently, scientists were unable to figure out what the rest of the DNA molecule did…Arrogantly, they thought that if they didn’t understand what it did, it must not do anything. It must be random ‘junk’ left behind by evolution.”

With reference to The ENCODE Project Consortium paper, “An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome,” Nature, September 6, 2012 AD, pp. 57-74 it is noted, “The authors of the paper seem clueless as to the obvious damage this report does to the theory of evolution. They believe completely in evolution…”

To the Nature article a certain Steven Pelech wrote the following comment (#49966):

There appears to be strong evolutionary pressure in multicellular organisms to retain excess baggage so as to simply make sure that the important parts are retained. There are countless cases of this ranging from the extensive remodelling of embryos during early development, to the hundreds of thousands of superfluous phosphorylation sites in the proteins encoded by the human genome. At the levels of gross anatomy down to the molecular, there are so many examples of inefficiencies in biology.

This is typical evolution story telling at its best, or worst or most usual actually. What, actual science is causing our favored worldview philosophy (evolution) trouble well we can’t have that can we?!

Let us now reverse everything that has been authoritatively asserted regarding this particular issue and claim, based on imagination, that “multicellular organisms…retain excess baggage” aka “junk” because even though it is junk excess baggage is it not junk excess baggage since, or so it is merely authoritatively asserted without evidence, it plays a part in ensuring that “important parts are retained.”

This is simply incoherent and is illogical and ill-bio-logical.

This is why, as I have noted since evolution is a theory about everything it is a theory about nothing. You see, now you are supposed to believe that evolution causes organisms to discard junk excess baggage except when it causes organisms to retain excess baggage.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #Evolution, #Science, #ENCODEProject
Facebook: #ENCODEProject, #Science, #Evolution

Christianity ————-

Atheism

————-

World Religions and Cults

————-

Science

————-

Movies & TV Shows

————-

Fringe-ology

(Transhumanism, Aliens/UFOs, Occult, Conspiracies) ————-

Misc. and Resources

(Nazis, Communism, Crusades, Morality / Ethics, Abortion, Rape, Homosexuality / Trans, Audio, Books, Debates, Videos, etc.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is part of my ongoing series on the Serpent Seed of Satan theory. In view is the supposed gotcha question posed by Serpent Seed of Satan theorists to the effect of that the story of Eve eating of the fruit of the forbidden tree really means that fruit means sex and tree means Satan. The question is just what realizing that they were naked have to do with literally eating a fruit from a literal tree. See, they would say, it is all symbolic.

Let us consider relevant portions of Genesis 2 and 3.

Adam and Eve “were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed” and so the first mention of nakedness is prefill and with reference to shame: as of yet, in this case lacking shame.

Eve “saw that the tree was…a tree to be desired to make one wise” keeping in mind that this was “the tree of knowledge of good and evil.”

Eve “took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.”
Reread as per the serpent seed of Satan theory, this reads that Eve had sex (took of the fruit thereof, and did eat) and gave (encouraged?) the very same thing to Adam so that he too had sex with Satan (gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat).

Some serpent seed of Satan theorists who want to deny that Adam had sex with Satan especially so as to claim that Cain and Abel were superfecundationed twins (twins with two different dads, see Zen Garcia on Eve’s desire for the Angel of the LORD) claim that since fruit means sex then it just means that Eve gave of her fruit/sex to Adam so that he had sex with her.
Yet, sex with his wife Eve was not forbidden to Adam, was not a sin, would not have brought about a curse on him, would not make him responsible for the fall, etc. Also, the text is clear that she took from the tree (which serpent seed of Satan theory claims was Satan) ate fruit (sex) and took from the very same tree (Satan) and gave fruit (sex) to Adam. Thus, this is not only ungrammatical but illogical and il-theo-logical.

As a side note, if the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is really Satan then what is the tree of life? One could just invent the idea that it is symbolic of God but now you realize how this stuff is just being made up on the spot, as we go along, based on nothing but seeking to puff up and protect a preferred theory.

Thereafter, “the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked.” This is when serpent seed of Satan theorists claim that the eating of fruit of the tree was a sexual event since we are directly thereafter told that they were naked. Well, they were naked all along however, it is when “the eyes of them both were opened” that “they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.”
The opening of the eyes does not seem to imply that since their creation their literal eyes had been literally closed. Rather, it was specifically the eating of “the tree of knowledge of good and evil” which was “desired to make one wise” that they seem to have gained the knowledge of good and evil and so now they seem to have recognized that being naked had not only good connotations but also evil ones.

Well, in order to literally attempt to cover up that which they had done they take it upon themselves to sew “fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.”

Next they “heard the voice of the Lord God, hid themselves and Adam states, “I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.” Recall that the first instance of referencing nakedness was in relation to shame which they did not feel but apparently, now they do which is why they cover themselves and hide.

God asks them “Who told thee that thou wast naked?” and “Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?” so that the specifically the knowledge of being naked is that which is directly correlated with having eated form “the tree of knowledge of good and evil” which was “desired to make one wise.”

Well, the blame game ensues with Adam stating “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” This further strengthens the point about Adam having had sex with Satan if serpent seed of Satan theorist were consistent as Adam specifies that “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat” which would mean: Eve gave me of Satan, and I did have sex with him.

Then we see that God rejects their works based atonement, as it were, in that rather than being covered by their fig leaf aprons, “the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.”

Thus, there is no great mystery here and certainly not one only resolvable by the serpent seed of Satan theory.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #serpentseed, #cain, #seedofsatan
Facebook: #serpentseed, #cain, #seedofsatan

Herein we continue, from part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7, considering the “Devil” in text generally termed the Apocrypha, Deutero Canonical, Pseudepigrapha, Gnostic Texts, etc. (see my article on the Apocrypha here). The fuller complete result consists of quotations of those sections within the text that refer to Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Devil, Satan, demons, serpent and dragon. The point is not to elucidate these references but to provide relevant partial quotations and citations. See my section on Angels in general and in apocryphal texts here. See my section on Cherubim and Seraphim in general and in apocryphal texts here.

Devil in Acts of Thomas – 200-225 AD
42 I know and am persuaded that both devils and spirits and destroyers are subject unto thee and are filled with trembling at thy prayers: pray thou therefore for me and drive away from me the devil that ever troubleth me, that I also may be set free and be gathered unto the nature that is mine from the beginning, and receive the grace that hath been given unto my kindred.

44 And the apostle said: O evil that cannot be restrained! O shamelessness of the enemy! O envious one that art never at rest! O hideous one that subduest the comely! O thou of many forms! As he will he appeareth, but his essence cannot be changed. O the crafty and faithless one! O the bitter tree whose fruits are like unto him! O the devil that overcometh them that are alien to him! O the deceit that useth impudence! O the wickedness that creepeth like a serpent, and that is of his kindred! (Syr. wrongly adds a clause bidding the devil show himself.).

46 …the devil wept…the devil vanished out of sight: only when he departed fire and smoke were seen there: and all that stood there were astonished.

47 And the apostle seeing it, said unto them: This devil hath shown nought that is alien or strange to him, but his own nature, wherein also he shall be consumed, for verily the fire shall destroy him utterly and the smoke of it shall be scattered abroad.

64 …the devils came upon them again and threw them down…for the devils throw them down wheresoever they find them, and strip them naked.

73 Now the captain’s wife and her daughter were sore borne down by the devils, so that they of the house thought they would rise up no more…And the apostle said…call the devils and say to them: Judas Thomas the apostle and disciple of Jesus Christ saith unto you: Come forth hither: for on your account am I sent and unto them that pertain to you by race, to destroy you and chase you unto your place, until the time of the end come and ye go down into your own deep of darkness.

74 But unto thee I speak, devil, and to thy son that followeth with thee: for now am I sent against you.

75 And straightway the woman came forth with her daughter, both like dead persons and dishonoured in aspect: and the apostle beholding them was grieved. especially for the girl, and saith unto the devils: God forbid that for you there should be sparing or propitiation, for ye know not to spare nor to have pity: but in the name of Jesus, depart from them and stand by their side. And when the apostle had so said, the women fell down and became as dead; for they neither had breath nor uttered speech: but the devil answered with a loud voice and said: Art thou come hither again, thou that deridest our nature and race?

76 And the devil said: I beseech thee, give me leave to depart even whither thou wilt, and dwell there and take commandment from thee, and I will not fear the ruler that hath authority over me.

77 And when the devil had said these things and yet more the apostle said: Jesus commandeth thee and thy son by me to enter no more into the habitation of man: but go ye forth and depart and dwell wholly apart from the habitation of men. And the devils said unto him: Thou hast laid on us a harsh commandment: but what wilt thou do unto them that now are concealed from thee?…the devils vanished away: but the women lay cast upon the Earth as if were dead, and without speech.

81 I beseech thee, let these souls be healed and rise up and become such as they were before they were smitten of the devils.

104 And as I came by the way I saw wonderful and amazing things: and here also many did hear the wild ass and concerning that devil whom he drove out, and healed my wife and daughter, and now are they whole; and he asked no reward but requireth faith and holiness, that men should become partakers with him in that which he doeth: and this he teacheth to worship and fear one God, the ruler of all things, and Jesus Christ his Son, that they may have eternal life.

148 Do thou then grant me, Lord, that I may pass by in quietness and joy and peace, and pass over and stand before the judge, and let not the devil (or slanderer) look upon me; let his eyes be blinded by thy light which thou hast made to dwell in me, close thou up (muzzle) his mouth: for he hath found nought against me.

158 And for the gall which thou didst drink for our sakes let the gall of the devil be removed from us.

170 Now it came to pass after a long time that one of the children of Misdaeus the king was smitten by a devil, and no man could cure him, for the devil was exceeding fierce.

160 Let not Satan, then, enter you by stealth and catch away your thoughts: let there be in you no place for him: for he is mighty whom ye have received. Look for the coming of Christ, for he shall come and receive you, and this is he whom ye shall see when he cometh.

In the next segment, we will consider Epistula Apostolorum aka Epistle of the Apostles, The Acts of Peter, From the Ethiopic Text of the Apocalypse of Peter, Latin Life of Adam and Eve aka Vita Adae et Evae and Revelation of Moses.

Zen Garcia then reinterprets the text of Genesis 3:

So Eve eating fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and then sharing with her husband Adam the same fruit, essentially means that her having desired the angel and then repeating the act of sexual intercourse with her husband would result in the birth of both Cain and Abel. Also it adds that Eve has gotten a (man from the angel of the Lord) which we know that Satan was in fact an angel of the Lord and was counted among the sons of God in Job. This makes complete sense when one considers it in that light.

Well, it “essentially means” no such thing as the text is clear; the fruit event differs from the “knew Eve his wife” event. Do you begin to discern just how many things one just rework, retell, reinterpret, etc. in order to make the text say that which it does not?
Zen notes that “it” (apparently the Targum) “adds that Eve has gotten a (man from the angel of the Lord).” This is interesting because traditional theology identifies “the angel of the Lord” as a Theophany or Christophany; a pre-incarnate appearance of YHVH or, specifically, Jesus. Zen interprets the angel of the Lord to be Satan because “Satan was in fact an angel of the Lord.” Note also that the Targum seems to imply that Cain was “the Angel of the Lord” as it stated “I have acquired a man, the Angel of the Lord” not “I have acquired a man” from “the Angel of the Lord” but more like “I have acquired a man” and that man, Cain, is “the Angel of the Lord.”

Indeed, Job 1:6 states, “…the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them” and Job 2:1, “the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.” Note that the text does not state that Satan is one of the, specific, “sons of God” but that Satan came with the “sons of God.”
In fact, Job 38:6-7 notes that when YHVH “laid the corner stone” of the Earth, “the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” Thus, there are different categories of being within YHVH’s administration, as it were. In fact, Satan is not an “Angel” at all but, as per Ezekiel 28, he is a Cherub; Cherubs and Angels are different just like humans and bovines are different even though both are Earth dwellers.

For my whole Serpent Seed of Satan series including my discussions with Zen Garcia, see see here. In the next segment we will consider Cain’s bloodline – seedline.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #serpentseed, #satan, #zengarcia
Facebook: #serpentseed, #satan, #zengarcia

Reason for home schooling #9,857: your kids will not be RFID chipped

Focus is being placed upon schools in Texas which are mandating that public school children are to wear a clipped badge which includes a tracking radio-frequency identification (RFID) chip.

There is always the beneficial selling point to such things such as that your kids cannot get lost or kidnapped without you being able to track them or, as the school’s PR is selling it; the chips will curb truancy—in other words, the kids are guilty until proven innocent.

These RFID chipped badges, which have no off button, are not solely for school use but are to be taken home. That’s right kids, now pedophiles will be able to track your movements with a Pringles can. They can determine where you are, when you are there, your route to schools and back home and, of course, determine when they are alone.

Teachers are also using the oldest trick in the book and rewarding kids with candy for wearing their badges: well done citizen!

Children are being threatened by being told that without the RFID chips they will not be able to access the school’s library, the school’s extracurricular activities and, surely, eventually school itself.

Of course, kids are relating that those who want to go off campus for whatever reason simply hand their badges to a friend to hold for them. So, what is the next logical step? Students will not be asked to/told to wear them: they will be implanted.

Oh come on, of course this makes sense and is beneficial after all, if they are implanted then when they are kidnapped by the pedophiles who track them will not be able to simply take their badges off and toss them out the car window (no, they will have to cut them out of their bodies).

Well, here is a new world idea: why not just make all children wards of the state and give their bio-organic-genetic-materials-producers (aka “parents”) temporary guardianship?

Fair is fair so, here is another idea: teachers and all school administrators should also have to wear RFID chips and give parents access to a webpage where their movements can be tracked.

This way, parents will know when the teachers/admins are alone with kids in some backroom, where they go during their lunch hours (liquor stores, strip clubs, etc.).

After all, if you are not doing anything wrong you should not be opposed to having your every movement tracked—right?

Spy Chips has compiled large amounts of info pertaining to this case in particular and various other chip related tracking system in general.

Ultimately, if this is really merely about ensuring children’s safety it is an admission by the public schools that, and this will be surely shocking, they are incapable as performing a task as simple as keeping your children safe when they get paid by your tax dollars to do so. They are admitting failed management.

Pull your kids out of these indoctrination-reeducation-misinformation camps now!!!!!!!!!

Go to Facebook and “like” the page Students Against RFID Tracking

The Inquisition was premised upon political intrigues.

As The Jewish Encyclopedia notes (1906 ed. Vol. XI, p. 485),

It remains a fact that the Jews, either directly or through their correligionists in Africa, encouraged the Mohammedans to conquer Spain.

Also, note that Henry Kamen conducted research on the Spanish Inquisition and found that 2,000 people were executed over a 350 year period—that is just over 5 people per year. That certainly is 2,000 too many yet, nowhere near the over the top exaggerations about which “everyone knows.”
Specifically, he notes,

…during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries fewer than three people a year were executed in the whole of the Spanish monarchy from Sicily to Peru, certainly a lower rate than in any provincial court of justice in Spain or anywhere else in Europe [p. 203]

In his review of Henry Kamen’s The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision, Richard L. Kagan (professor of history and director of the Program in Iberian and Latin American Studies at Johns Hopkins University) noted:

…for centuries it [the Inquisition] had been associated primarily with the persecution of Protestants… following an initial burst of activity against conversos suspected of relapsing into Judaism and a mid-16th-century pursuit of Protestants, the Inquisition served principally as a forum Spaniards occasionally used to humiliate and punish people they did not like: blasphemers, bigamists, foreigners and, in Aragon, homosexuals and horse smugglers…

an all-powerful, torture-mad Inquisition is largely a 19th-century myth…

Philip J. Sampson has a great and detailed section on the Inquisition in his fascinating and very informative book 6 Modern Myths About Christianity and Western Civilization

Herein we will consider when and why certain personages became Atheists. We will parse these into Statistics, Influential Atheists, Ex-Catholics, Ex-Hindus and Hoi Polloi Atheists. As of now, I list the tales of 107 Atheists. You can find them all at the When and Why They Became Atheists Project page.

These examples are taken from Quora.

Arunav Sanyal:
Grew up in a “moderately religious family. My father is devoutly religious (has strong faith in the trinity of hinduism and generic stuff like astrology). My mother not as much but used to be quite religious at least in my formative years. My brother is agnostic” and in the end, Arunav asserts that “there can be no god.”

Arunav “liked to question almost everything” and, for example, asked, “Why do we view people from different religions with disdain?” to which I would ask, “To whom are you referring by ‘we’?” Hindus in general, you family in particular, who?
Arunav “was often told not to ask questions to elders, they know best, its been like this for centuries etc. It didn’t appeal to me” and it does not appeal to me either. In fact, my experience is hearing pastor after pastor after pastor outright stating during sermons that we are not to take their word for anything but search things out for ourselves.

Main points:
No age given.

Arunav fell for the mistaken notion that, as some term it, science is taking over God’s job or rather, explaining how things occur naturally which were once thought to be the supernatural work of God, “In high school…I read history and beliefs of ancient cultures. Something struck me. They associated god with things they don’t know. For instance Greeks considered lightning to be Zeus’s anger. Its now a well explained phenomenon.”
Arunav fails to note that there are different levels of, sorts of, forms of, kinds of explanations; for example, science can tell us something about how but never why in any ultimate sense on both accounts.

Arunav had been taught to “pray to god every night” but “came up with a simple argument – why would an omniscient god care about me?” Well, that is not an argument, that is a jumping to a conclusion. He further wrote, “What purpose would it serve that deity? To me praying seemed like futile and redundant.” Well, what it seems like to Arunav is not relevant as that is subjective and emotive.
Well, some millennia ago, Psalm 8 asked “When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained, that You are mindful of him, And the son of man that You visit him?” Well, the fact is that Arunav non-argument is a non sequitur since there is no logical reason to conclude that it is inconsistent of fallacious that an “omniscient god care about me.” For details on this issue and the Psalm, see Atheism and the Cosmic Insignificance of Humanity and Everything.

We then run into a one, two combo of Atheist fallacies and stereotypes, “Then I read about the crusades and the generic communal tension amongst hindus and muslims. This was the first time I viewed religion with disdain. I was convinced it has caused more suffering than anything else in the world.”
Firstly, Arunav instantly jumps to condemnation without a premise (Arunav seems to tend to jump to conclusion rather than arguing to them) and secondly, merely asserts, without evidence (another mere conclusion), that “religion” (generically) “has caused more suffering than anything else in the world” when the fact is that statistically Atheists mass murdered more people in a mere few decades than all religions in all of history put together, see Find it Fast – Fast Facts: on religious wars.

Arunav also concludes that “praying is a selfish activity” which means that those who pray are being judged as being selfish even though people pray for the benefit of others all of the time.

We encounter a stereotype in the statement, “I came into acquaintance with people who were immoral and selfish but who were also devoutly religious” and while this is shameful, Atheist do not seem to mind that they will come into acquaintance with people who were immoral and selfish and who are also devoutly Atheistic. If you think that in the former case they are supposed to have a set of ethics in the in the latter they do not you are right.
In fact, Arunav states, “The fact that many theists claim that religion is the basis of morality held no value in my mind.” Well, that which Arunav holds as valuable is not relevant. The fact is that while some people may term it as that “religion is the basis of morality” I am unaware of this. Rather, it is God’s very nature and essence which is the basis of morality or rather, ethics, see Ethics vs. Morality which is an article and video combo.
An interesting thing about how Atheists constantly jump directly into fire and brimstone condemnation without a premise is that they are reacting to God’s ethics code written within them but since they do not want to acknowledge God they jump directly into fire and brimstone condemnation without a premise. So, “that religion is the basis of morality held no value in my mind” yet, Arunav refers to “My hatred for religion” due to, for example, “discrimination on its basis. Dalits (lower caste hindus) being treated like s[***]. Temples saying ‘only hindus allowed’, ‘menstruating women are impure’. Misogyny promoted in the name of piety” it is just a list of observations and not actual condemnations, they are unfounded emotive assertions.

Arunav states that it was a “game changer, I learn’t about occam’s razor, the newtons laws, the theory of evolution and finally the theory of probability. I found these concepts infinitely more intuitive than an arbitrary god. You could say I am a devout follower of occam’s razor.” Well, simply listing the terms Occam’s Razor, Newton’s laws, evolution and probability is mere elephant hurling as they are merely labels and we are not told how they benefit the Atheist in the least bit—more jumping to conclusions. Also, as soon as Arunav wants to argue for the multiverse in a desperate attempt to do away with God they will just as quickly do away with Occam’s Razor. So abused, misused and misunderstood is Occam’s Razor that Arunav actually concludes that “there can be no god” because “A god is too complicated and arbitrary” yet, all of these claims are merely assertions based on jumping to conclusions. In fact, traditionally God has been thought of as a mind and a mind is simple even if it entertains complex thoughts.

Yet, in any case they continue by noting, “Atheism is so much simpler. I am ready to accept the fact I don’t know how some things work but I don’t attribute random reasons to it.” Well, if they want to argue that a concept is simpler than a being they may have a point yet, this is not scientific and is comparing apples and the laws of thermodynamics.

Arunav also fell for the Richard Dawkins about appealing to “luck” to explain how the entire universe and life came about in stating, “The moment I lead on eyes on the theory of probability I had an epiphany. Luck is probability taken personally. Plain and simple” whatever that means. Actually, some Atheists seem to employ the term “luck” when they admit something is a miracle but are ashamed to admit it.
Recall that Arunav claims “to accept the fact I don’t know how some things work but I don’t attribute random reasons to it” but then again they do appeal to “random reasons” which they term “luck”—oh, but, of course, “luck” is “probability taken personally” so…there’s that.

Arunav then seems to end in an all over the place manner in stating, “To me god is a weakness in humanity. I admit, if I am in a plane that is about to crash, I will also get my faith back in god.”
They then decide to take another pop-shot to the effect that “my unfortunate theist brethren” are “in a cage” as Arunav has “necessary cojones to accept ‘I don’t know the answer to your question but humanity is working on it.’” Yet, this is merely a pop-Atheist one liner de jour. Arunav then merely asserts “People can’t handle being exposed to the insignificance of their existence, so they make god a defense mechanism” to which I can just as easily asserts “People can’t handle being exposed to the significance of God’s existence, so they make Athiesm a defense mechanism.”

The final statement denotes that Arunav’s hatred of religion has become militant lunacy as it is noted, “I dream of a world free of all religion…Humanity hasn’t” as of yet, “reached that phase in evolution in which we can completely disregard god.” Well, if religion was gone then people would still do exactly what they do but for other reasons: think of, for example, the decades old phenomena of Atheist churches and Atheists mass murdering 200 million people in a mere few decades and you get the picture.

Neeraja R Venu:
“I was brought up in a not-so-religious family” her name and reference to “I was never made to read holy books or fast during festivals as a child” makes me think she had a not-so-Hindu background.
She notes, “I cannot remember an exact point of time in the past, but I had become an atheist long before I realized that I had. It was a gradual transition, and I must have been around 15 or 16 when I started acknowledging the fact that I had stopped believing in this so-called ‘higher power’ or whatever.”

Main points:
15-16 yrs old.

A common theme is:

As a little kid, I always used to ask difficult questions about spirituality and wanted to know the reason behind every blind superstition that I came across. Most of the time, I was told that some things ought not to be questioned, but that was the answer that made me even more curious.

Good point.

She notes, “it could have been some of the Communist literature that I had read in my mid-teens that strengthened my resolve to stop believing. I was inspired by the stories of Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara and Fidel Castro” it is fascinating that she was inspired by violent oppressive mass murdering thugs.

She also claims, “I don’t preach my belief, or the lack of it, because then atheism would be just like any other religion.” Well, for many reasons, such as that very many Atheists preach their Atheism, it is just like any other religion. For example, the Michael Newdow claims that Atheism is a religion (see video embedded here and Matt Dillahunty admits to being an Atheist missionary (see video here).

Neeraja then definer her particular “Atheism” (tinged with a Hindu flavor?), “Atheism is a state of being, a state of silently existing as a passive observer of the myriad ways in which religion is grossly misinterpreted and practised.” She also notes that “The concept of ‘God’ is a beautiful one, but I’m sometimes amused by people who can blindly believe in his existence, and who simply leave all their problems in the Divine Complaint Box, without realizing the fact that they are the makers of their own destiny.”

I supposed we could say that we are amused by people who can blindly not believe in His existence, and who simply leave all their problems in the random evolution Complaint Box. As for being makers of their own destiny well, in an Atheist universe you can do that and so did Adolf Hitler.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Twitter: #atheism, #atheists
Facebook: #atheism, #atheists

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page.

I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Let us consider what is prayer and why pray if God already knows what we need/are asking for?

Some think that prayer is tantamount to an Amazon wishlist the advertized title of which is, “Get what you want”—reminder to self: sign up for an Amazon wishlist :o)

Yet, the primary purpose of prayer not asking for stuff; it is expressing appreciation, thanksgiving it is communion, communication building and sustaining relationship with God through the Messiah Jesus. The fact that we ask, or are asked, questions such as why bother praying if, as the Bible states it, “Your Father knows what you need before you ask him” (Matthew 6:8) shows that when it comes to the Bible, to God, to biblical Christianity the spiritual warfare is on and our minds are its victims.

How so? Because the issue is so very simple and we would not ask wonder about such things in any other context.

Examples:
My wife knows that I love here therefore, I will no longer tell her that I love her. If she asks why I no longer do that which was an, at least, daily habit I will simply say, “Well, you already know it, right!?”

I am helping you fix your car, you are underneath, I am handing you the tools. I already know that you will need the thingamajig when you get to the whatchamacallit. So, why did I not hand you the thingamajig already since I already knew that you would need it? Why wait until you ask for it? Because giving it to you before you needed it would have cluttered up things and because it was previously unnecessary.
Also, what if you get to the whatchamacallit, ask me for the thingamajig but I say, “No”? What? That is right, I say, “No, actually; in order to fix the whatchamacallit you should not use the thingamajig but a doohickey” or “No, actually; before getting to the whatchamacallit you need to deal with the thingamajob.”

We engage upon relationship with God through prayer and know that when and if we ask for something God will say yes, no or wait (see Atheism, EvilBible.com and Jesus Lied for a consideration of the issue of God’s responsibility in answering our prayer).