The No Challenge Theory (Misunderstanding of Science)

Misunderstandings of Science

The No Challenge Theory

The no challenge theory is a projection of pride onto scientist by creationist. Creationist are an egotistical lot that believe that it is self evident that the whole universe was designed for the sole benefit of humans and that human beings are living proof of a perfect God.

With all this hubris about humans it is interesting as well as amusing that they also see all humans as sinners and imperfect. But according to them we were designed perfect but exercised our freewill so are now sinners and the flaw in our design is by our own choice.

It is like a perfectly designed robot with a self destruct switch. Activating this switch doesn't turn the robot off or make it explode. The switch simply initiates a self destruct sequence called sinning. Although the robot has no freewill and can only do what is programmed to do it is given the illusion of freewill in the following way.
The designer gives the robot the choice to activate it's own self destruct mechanism or to continue to accept its programming.

 If activated this robot will no longer have to follow its programming but any alteration in the programming will result in the robot's self destruct sequence. Here is the key. The entire perfect program initiated by the designer is dependent on that switch remaining neutral. So the second it is activated the activation itself is an alteration in the original program.

So now we have a perfect design by a perfect creator and life begins with complexity. First there was nothing. Then there was creation with no steps in between. Nothing could have evolved on Earth because everything alive simply appeared in all the complexity we see now from nothing.

But these creationist say that life arising from non life is impossible.

That simple organisms evolving into more complicated organisms by natural selection is also impossible.

According to creationist science denies complexity in biology. To quote The Politically Incorrect Guide To Science...

“Ever since Darwin , the tendency has been for scientist to regard biological systems as simpler than they really are. (That is why it is not so difficult to believe that they were assembled over millions of years by trial and error.)”

But how do creationist know anything about the obvious complexity of biological systems? From studying biology!

A branch of science! Does the bible describe biological systems? Does theology offer evidence for the complexity of organisms?

Finally is natural selection considered trial and error?
First we must ask what is trial and error? One method of trial and error is random. That is no actual method is used at all. If science used this method we would have no technology beyond mechanical devises. We would have no computers, X rays, MRI Scans Microwave Ovens etc. We would still be using leaches in hospitals.

Clearly the method of randomly putting various objects together to see if we can get anything useful out of them is not the scientific method used to advance technology.

Anyone that knows the history of computers for instance knows that it was natural selection not random trial and error that allows today's computers to be so good at what they do.

Our technology evolved over a period of about a hundred years or so from trial and error but it wasn't random. We used what we knew about physics and mathematics to select what methods to use. In the same way over millions of years simple organism evolved into complex organisms through a process of natural selection. Whether this selection was guided by gods, faerie, aliens, or DNA mutations the evidence is still out.

But using Occam's Razor we can rule out spontaneous creation from nothing.

Or even Jealous Angry Gods having a tribal turf war.

Appeal to ignorance does not advance knowledge!
The appeal to ignorance argument goes something like this. Not only do we not know exactly how life evolved but we may never know every intricate detail.

So you should accept a primitive document put together before science was even in it's infancy about magical jealous angry beings that created our world out of nothing for their own amusement.

Even though there is no evidence of these beings existence any more than myth based on ignorance. And even though there is no evidence of spontaneous creation of anything out of nothing since the beginning of time.

Even if you take all this into account you must accept the following. If you do not know the answer you should accept the most popular answer based on emotions passions and ignorance.

Again to quote The Politically Incorrect Guide To Science

“They do not know how the body is assembled into an organism of 100 trillion cells, starting with a single fertilized egg, when all the cells contain the same DNA-the same genetic instructions. “


Again creationist use the same arguments against genetic engineering as they do against evolution. If we don't know exactly how it is done then God did it. They focus on cloning because that science is in it's infancy.

They can not claim that medical science has not advanced or produced technology based on our understanding of biology or genetics. If Science were ever to be able to give us immortality then the game is up. Religion will have nothing to sell. Without fear of death religion is nothing. Science has greatly weakened the threat of disease and death and religion has fought this advance of civilization every step of the way.

The idea that science gives man the power of God because the mystery of life is simple and therefore no challenge is the essence of the creationist misunderstanding of science.

This no challenge theory of science does not hold up in any branch of science including biology or genetics.

Science unlike religion is not based on an arrogant deity.

Am I saying that God is arrogant? No I am saying nothing about what God is or isn't. So far there is no evidence for a God of any kind let alone whether such a deity is arrogant. Religion invented a God based on man's pride specifically related to the importance of his creation.


This assumes both that man is a creation by a perfect God and the assumption that petty emotions such as jealousy and anger make this God no less perfect.

Remember arrogance means unjustified pride or confidence. So the religious concept of God can make this God full of pride or even jealousy and anger as long as all these petty emotions can be justified. This system of justification is known as Apologetics.

Since creationist worship their own ego and call it God they assume that the scientific method is based on the same ideology which I call the no challenge theory. For the creationist there is no challenge to answering all the questions of philosophy and science because if you get stuck all you have to do is use God in a sentence.

Since human beings are God's special creation then all you need for a little insider trading in the mystery of all that is ...is to be part of the “one true religion”. Once you are one of the elite,the religious cult of creationism, then you are one of God's special pets.

You do not need to think anymore for any other reason then the entertainment value of debate. Because now all is “revealed” to you. With revelation no thinking is required.

By contrast the scientific method is based on doubt and reasoning. Because of doubt and ignorance we must use what knowledge we have to draw up theories and then we must watch these theories evolve and be replaced with no faith to keep them alive. Theories in science must be proven. Not just once but over and over. Faith must never enter into it.

The most simplistic explanation of life is first there was nothing then out of nothing life was spontaneously created out of nothing with not only all its complexity but built in meaning as well.

Talk about no challenge. A snap of theologians fingers and all is explained with the simple idea God did it. Nothing else need be said.

Science has always been a challenge. The no challenge theory of science is based on the assumption that since religion is as easy as make believe based on a child like desire to get what you want without having to work for it, then science must work the same way.

Science has spent centuries bringing us advances in both knowledge and technology. Theologians by contrast have been using the same arguments since religion began and have not advanced civilization one bit since the dark ages. Any advancement in our society by religion was totally dependent on freethinkers and heretics.

The reason for our advancement ironically is because the no challenge theory can only be applied to theology not science. Theology is the only example of no challenge theory in practice. Theology has spent most of its history defending the no challenge theory. That life is simple and all you need is a God to snap his fingers and everything falls into place both life and the meaning of it.

They then must assume that science must work on the same principle. Only when science does this it is hubris. But the truth is religion is based on The No Challenge Theory and it is hubris. Science on the other hand has had to struggle which is why it has advanced or evolved and why religion is still stuck in the dark ages with only Theological Fluff known as Apologetics  to defend it.

The Book of Genesis certainly doesn’t talk about trillions of cells or of biological complexity. This is because today's religions were taken from primitive creation stories such as the Epic of Gilgamesh in Babylonia. These stories were invented when we had no idea of the complexity of life.

Now that science reveals more and more just how complex life is the creationist who once claimed God as a simple creator must change their tune and call God a designer of complexity. Then they have the audacity to suggest that it has been science holding us back by finding no challenge in the complexity of life when science is what opened our eyes to this complexity in the first place.

Designer Genes

Designer Genes  

• Theological determinism is the idea that there is a god who determines all that humans will do, either by knowing their actions in advance, via some form of omniscience^[5] or by decreeing their actions in advance.^[6] The problem of free will, in this context, is the problem of how our actions can be free if there is a being who has determined them for us in advance.
• Biological determinism is the idea that all behaviors, beliefs, and desires are fixed by our genetic endowment and our biochemical makeup, the latter of which is affected by both genes and environment.

Compatibilism tries to reconcile Determinism with Moralism. In order to evaluate the truth of this statement you must choose a starting point. The difficulty of this is very telling. If you are an atheist perhaps you read the writings of Daniel C Dennet on Compatibilism. Then you might question how Determinism can possibly lead to Moralism. It is true that without Compatibilism it is not possible to get to Moralism from Determinism. That is there is no direct link between Moralism and Determinism.

But the science of Behaviorism and religion of Theology both have the same goal of Social Engineering. And not surprisingly they both posit Determinism as the cornerstone of their ideologies. But if determinism is accepted as true then even though both Science and Theology have achieved half of their goal of getting rid of our pesky belief in freewill they are left with the paradox of no possibility for morality. The worse fear of Behaviorist and Theologians is a society where justice can not be established with punishment and reward.


Theology starts with a God which is all powerful. If this is our starting point then Freewill is not possible. The only difference between Theology and Behaviorism is a debate on what is the First Cause. Everything has a cause in physics. So being mere machines we must behave in relation to external causes that can be traced back to the beginning of the Universe. The moment the Universe began there was a chain reaction that led directly to the formation of planets and ultimately to life on Earth. This whole chain was predetermined by the initial cause which science postulates as The Big Bang and theologians postulate as God.


Leaving aside the question of whether there was a first cause or not we are still left with a big problem.

That is the problem of how a Determined Universe can manifest conscious beings with freewill. The answer is simple. Determinism and Freewill are incompatible. So you must choose between one view or the other. If you choose determinism you must give up moralism and most moral philosophy. This would not be a problem except that the Punishment/Reward Ideologies of both Theology and Behaviorism are undermined . The goal of both theology and behaviorism is control. The first step in instituting this control is to get rid of the idea of freewill as being possible.


It is easier to get people to obey God if they believe that disobedience is impossible. So religion attacks the human beings they want to control two fold. One they put in their head that God is all powerful. Resistance is futile. Two they argue we have freewill and are responsible for all our actions and will burn in Hell if we disagree with the current Church in power. In order for any Church to maintain power said Church must maintain an interpretation of the Bible based on fear. Of course freewill is not compatible with God's will. But this is a problem for theologians not me.


No will is done that is not God's will. Every time people try to resist the authority of the church they are punished by the church. This is God's will. But what of those who escape justice? They must fear a Justice beyond this life. In short they must fear God. So those that get away with going against the church must harbor fears that go deep into the psyche that trip them up. This will lead to self destructive behavior out of guilt and fear. This will lead to their eventual capture by the authorities or to them creating self fulfilling prophecies out of paranoia. Nobody wants to take Pascals Wager on. "What if there is a God to punish you but you don't believe? " so most people behave as they are told to. 

Finally if all else fails and people find out there actually is injustice and some escape punishment both by God and the Church then there must be a final Justice. So if a man says I disobeyed and the church never caught me. Also I lived a life where I got rewarded instead of punished. That is I had a good life that had more pleasure than pain. Then there must be an answer to this injustice. And the answer is you will pay after you die in Hell.


So what do we do as a society when Theology fails to control the masses? We must create another punishment/reward system that is inescapable even to the Atheist or Agnostic.


At this point I must digress into what I believe the goals of Theology and Behaviorism are. Obvious crimes such as murder or theft can easily be punished by the State with no need to appeal to a higher authority than consensus. We in society do not want murders and thieves moving freely in our society with no consequence. So we make an agreement with our government that they can punish crimes after a fair trial that establishes guilt without a reasonable doubt. This is in no way dependent on Theology or Behavioral Moralism.


At no point in this writing am I implying that Theology or Behaviorism are systems of thought that wrongly punish such obvious crimes. There is no motive to convince people they have no freewill in order to bring crime down in society. Determinism was invented theologically for the same reason it has been pushed in scientific Behaviorism. Theology/Religion was not invented to slow down crime but for mind control. 

The crimes that Theology and Behaviorism were invented to curtail are thought crimes. The ideologies goal inherent in both disciplines is to decrease original thinking or questioning of authority. The goal in both Theology and Behaviorism is obedience or compliance. This is the reason that both ideologies are centered around Determinism. This is why both are concerned in eliminating any idea or belief in freewill.


Determinism is not a scientific concept but an ideological one invented by religion and substantiated by science until Einstein toppled the Newtonian mechanical Universe. The first spiritual people known as shamans did not see the Universe as mechanical but organic and alive. Then came Pagans with their magical rules. Then Christianity with a rule giver and watch maker. And finally Newton and his analysis of watches. But Quantum Physics toppled determinism. 

And so determinist and defenders of tyranny have tried to argue for the absence of freewill in both the determined world view and indeterminacy of quantum physics. That way they are covered whether quantum physics create an indeterminacy in our brains or not. They have even tried to argue for Compatibilism between Determinism and Freewill. Just as the Theologians before them did. They want you to pay for your crimes of immorality even if you are not free.


In history when religion or psychology held the most power questions of morality hardly ever came up outside of elite circles. But in recent history both Pluralism and Cultural Relativism have gained power that rival the powers that be. If human beings have no freewill then what right does the Church or the State have to punish people for any crime? The whole liberal philosophy of rehabilitation has come out of this one question. Instead of punishing we should use scientific behaviorism to predict peoples behavior and prevent bad behavior by conditioning, Those who already have committed crimes
need to be rehabilitated.


Again the real goal here isn't to eliminate crime but to get society to accept behavioral modification and brainwashing as moral. Churches and Governments want to be able to control and oppress individual thought. In order to do so they must establish that this is a situation where oppression is justifiable.


So in order to justify treating people as having no worth beyond how well they function in society Determinist must find a behavior that we all condemn. The Criminal element is a threat to us to it is OK to modify their behavior and control and oppress them not only with prisons but the mind control of behavioral modification. They are puppies that need to be trained to not pee on the rug.


This is where Theology and Behaviorism part ways. Religion was built solely on the Reward/Punishment paradigm with the focus on Punishment. For Behaviorism the lack of freewill does not present a problem in this regard because behavior modification is the goal and whether this is done by punishment or rehabilitation the goal is achieved. Religion on the other hand wants people to fear and obey an all powerful God. Without fear you may question whether God is all powerful. When you ask if you have no freewill then how can a just God punish you? Theologians will tell you because you have freewill. It is your choice whether to obey or not.




The problem manifest differently for theologians then for behaviorist. Theologians could not answer the questions of Evil or Freewill.




If God is all good then how could he create a Universe with Evil in it? If God is all powerful then how can we have freewill? So they took the easy way out and avoided answering either question by answering one question with the other. Why is there Evil in the Universe? Freewill. When you read a freewill answer to Evil you will be blown away with the beauty and consistency of their answer if you ignore the obvious problem. That is how can there be freewill in the first place if nothing is done without God's will? And if God's will is the only will that is done then how can there be Evil in our Universe? Their answer is Compatibilism. The Universe is predetermined (designed) by God but part of the design is our freewill. That God gave us freewill because he is good. But this begs the question and was only put forth as an answer to shut up the skeptics and control the rest.


The problem manifest for Behaviorist when the whole system is challenged.


When us pesky Philosophers ask why be moral at all? What is morality without freewill? But even more deeply what is there to rehabilitate? How can you mold the individual when there is no individual? And the straw that broke the camels back... Why do we need civilization at all? If Civilization is an illusion why go to so much trouble maintaining this illusion?


All arguments in moral philosophy are focused on what constitutes progress towards a more just society. Not only a more more just society but one that balances justice with freedom of the individual. It is reasonable to believe that with out both happiness is not possible. Without freedom there is nothing to fight for. Since religion and governments need wars to gain more power they must convince us that freedom is worth fighting for even if they exist to take all our freedoms away. Governments love to point to other governments and say look they are more evil so our evil is OK just as some children like to justify being bad by pointing to their siblings and say but look what he did.


If all individuals are predictable automatons then civilization is not possible. You can not design a civilization of obedient servants if you can not establish there is a such thing as civilization. Unless the definition of civilization is a society of individuals that cooperate in accumulating knowledge in order to advance technology. Then we must define technologies purpose as using the scientific method to prolong life and increase the comfort of the majority of individuals in society.


The problem is technology is a trickle down theory. It first benefits the rich. Then the rich eventually trickle down a tiny bit to the consumer and make them more comfortable for a price. But what about the majority of individuals who work but get little reward beyond being alive to work? You must allow an infrastructure of a welfare state for the poor so they too can benefit from technology such as free healthcare or transportation. 

You need taxpayers to support the system so those who can not become rich or even middle class must be made a little comfortable. You can not set goals let alone define a moral society if there is no motivation of an individual. Enter behaviorism. Individuals are motivated by preprogrammed DNA. Science would have us believe the program was designed by chance in a trial and error program called evolution. The circular reasoning goes that if it works it will survive. And that which survives obviously works. If something is extinct it was out evolved.


This reasoning breaks down on several levels.


For instance were dinosaurs out evolved?


Many scientist believe that dinosaurs were destroyed by a great meteor. Let us suppose that meteor hit when the dominant species was mammals. These mammals would not of survived either. It seems that at least in one case the survival of a species did not in anyway depend on survival of the fittest. Because there is no species "fit" enough to survive a meteor of that magnitude. If we are to argue that that what can survive the most extreme conditions is the fittest of all animals and therefore superior then the cockroach could be argued superior to man. Do we follow the morals of cockroaches? Do we base civilization on the superior model of the anthill? I am not arguing against the reality of evolution. I am arguing against Social Darwinism as a basis for morality.


Social Darwinism teaches that social groups that have the most survival level are superior to those groups that fail to influence society enough to be the basis of it's political structure. By this definition religion is superior because inquisitions and crusades have survival value. In other words religion has survived this long by tyranny and violence therefore those are desirable traits to a social group's survival. This is why ideologies use some of the same tactics as religion to increase their survival rate. Apologist will argue religion is not to blame for oppression because there have historically been secular movements that also ruled by oppression.


In logic there is a form of reasoning called fallacies. Fallacies are arguments that are inherently flawed and can not lead to truth statements. One such fallacy is known as tu quoque. Which is Latin for you too.


Religion apologists often argue that religion is not based on violence and oppression of ideas because they can give examples of secular movements based on violence and oppression of ideas. So the argument goes that is human nature to seek power and to oppress through violence and persecution and can not therefore be laid at the feet of religion. But this nature of human beings is magnified and focused by ideological thinking. And dogmatic thinking such as that which is found in religion which is the extreme version of ideological thinking. So the fact that similar ideological thinking can fuel oppression and violence in secular movements for power does not indicate the innocence of religion. On the contrary it strengthens the arguments against religions innocence in historical oppression.










The idea that man is superior to all species on the planet was first put forth as the doctrine of the major religions. Scientific Behaviorism is simply one of the major religions that uses Social Darwinism based on evolution to scientifically justify this hubris of man. But this hubris is both deceptive and disingenuous. Because if we are all predictable automatons then where in lies our superiority to other animals? If the dominator model is a true basis for society then how is man superior to any other predator that dominates it's prey by violence? Can we really argue a basis of morality from this?


According to definitions of mental illness an individual is mentally imbalanced when they are a danger to themselves and others. By this definition most politicians are mentally ill. But again there is a conflict of definitions. How can you argue both that violence and oppression is a survival trait and that mental illness is being a danger to oneself and others? Where is justice or morals to be found in this paradigm?


There answer is simple Scientific Behaviorist and Theologians want us to believe that freewill is not possible. But acting as if you had freewill is desirable for the benefit of society as a whole. So both theology and behaviorist postulate what is known as Compatibilism so they can have their cake and eat it too. The major problem of behaviorism is that it postulates that both determinism and indeterminism invalidate freewill. The major problem of theology is that apologist must argue against both indeterminism and moral nihilism.


The solution that both Apologist and Behaviorist accept is Compatibilism. The theologians argue that even though God's will is the only will and we are are designed and there is a master plan we still have freewill. The behaviorist argue that even though we do not have freewill we should behave as if we do .
The goal of both is the defense of moralism.


We are designed by our genes and God designed our genes and therefore us. But whether we are genetic machines designed by chance or by God we should behave as if we have freewill. The problem is that the word"should" is not compatible with design. And the word free is not compatible with predictable. Because we have freewill we are not by nature predictable. So science helps politicians to
social engineer us to be predictable. That is we are manipulated by brainwashing techniques in order to make us more predictable. All human action is not needed to be predictable. Only ones that influence power. For instance voting. Most people in this country vote a straight ticket. But there are those that are independent. The goals of politicians are twofold here. Decrease incentives to be independent and make the few that stay independent more predictable.


So many brainwashing techniques are used from inducing fear of the wrong party getting in to mocking those who do not vote. Also politicians continue to search for emotionally charged "issues' to motivate the independent to vote a straight ticket or at least be predictable in the way they do vote. For instance many independents are that way because they are split on social issues versus fiscal issues. Many independents who are fiscally conservative are socially liberal. They want the government to stay out of our wallets and our bedrooms. These independents would classify themselves typically as Libertarians. This works in favor of social engineering. Because unlike a complete independent a Libertarian belongs to a party with a well defined platform and is therefore predictable.


If behaviorist really believed we were genetically predetermined automatons then social engineering would not be necessary. You do not need to modify behavior if all behavior is inherently predetermined. And there is no point to designing better and better Utopias if individuals have no freewill.




The truth is that we do have desires and we are capable of being happy as well as miserable. And predictability does not prove determinism because the predictability is not inherent but a product of social engineering. Our genes may be consistently predictable and may produce a majority of human beings with extreme complexity and ability to survive. But according to Social Darwinism either there would be no flaws in our basic human design or those traits perceived as flaws are OK to eradicate and we are only arguing over the means necessary. Religions argument was for ethnic cleansing like that of Hitler only they did this to Heretics so it was OK.

When violence become unacceptable then other forms of oppression were emphasized such as stigmatizing those with unpopular viewpoints. Finally Behaviorist and Theologians have found something they can agree on. In the theology of religion those who question the status quot are heretics.
In the theology of liberalism those with unpopular viewpoints are called deniers instead of heretics.

This is all about money power and marketing. Whether this be the selling of designer jeans or designer genes the goal is to make labeling more important then thinking and to make original thinkers to appear the fools because they do not fit in. So by all means if the genes fit wear them. I for one do not fall for labels and I am more then my genes. Sometimes my genes don't fit. I wear them anyway. Other times I go naked. I am the behaviorist and theologians worse nightmare. I am a philosopher and original thinker.

The Soul of The Atheist

Can An Atheist Have A Soul?

Click above link to go to original post and the replies I received.

Forums: Atheism, Religion, Philosophy

Email this Topic • Print this Page

 I would like to hear from atheist that reject all forms of spiritual ideas. Most Atheist I encounter are very comfortable debating or disproving Judaic-Christian mythology as well as Muslim belief etc I do not belong to any religion or have any theological beliefs myself.

So to make my question clear I want to know what philosophical reasoning leads most atheist to reject all spirituality even when the spiritual ideas presented are stripped of religion or theology? If atheist applied the same type of reasoning to quantum physics that they typically apply to the idea of a soul or reincarnation the exploration of physics beyond Newton would come to a screeching halt.

That was my original post on the message board above 

The Soul of  The Atheist Continued

URL: http://able2know.org/topic/152812-1

Wow after visiting an atheist message board  and reading their replies to the topic of the soul  it has occurred to me maybe atheism is a religion. I have been an atheist ever since I was a child in rejection of religion. When my mom brought me to church I found nothing taught there made sense or felt right. I was reading about mythology since I was 11 maybe before. The stories told to me like Noah's Ark seemed nonsensical. The more I studied mythology the more I found things in it that had things in common with religion like the virgin birth. I was told by everyone I knew that I was going to go to hell for not believing this tripe. I denied having a soul that could go to hell. In fact I denied anything supernatural. To me once you proved one supernatural phenomena you proved them all.


So I rejected the soul because it was supernatural. But this went against my intuition and after several spiritual experiences I turned once again to philosophy and found that the only difference between the soul and the mind was one was immortal. So I looked deeper and found there was another issue called dualism. Is the mind just a side effect of the brain? Finally in Buddhism I had to confront the question "Who am I?"  To say I am my name was absurd. I could have any other name and I would still be me. I could change my name today and I would still be me no different than I am right now. Believe it or  not I had the same problem with saying I am my brain.

Many people say they are their body and if their body dies they cease to exist. But what they really mean is they are their brain. This is because as far as science is concerned thoughts occur in our brain. So we are saying we are our thoughts. If science could show that the heart generated our thoughts then we would think that I am my heart instead of I am my brain. It is where thoughts appear to originate that clarifies who am I ? But where does music come from ? Radios of course! Just as our brain receives thoughts a radio receives music. Whoops. How do we know our brain isn't  like a radio? Because our brain isn't receiving thoughts but generating thoughts. So thoughts are just an algorithm based on learned language?

Who chooses what thoughts are spoken and which ones are just thought? When you observe a child try to manipulate an adult for candy or an addict attempt to manipulate someone for drug money you can almost believe that you are observing a machine fulfilling a directive to achieve a certain response. But what about you? What about me? Are we response patterns to stimuli manipulating symbols to achieve  predetermined goals? Are all addicts hopeless? Are all children candy pursuing robots who will one day grow up to become addicts if not of drugs then of money or what money can buy? Seriously? If I see religion as an addiction what hope is there for a cure if we are all soulless robots without awareness?  Let us look deeper. If we are soulless robots we may need a higher power to change our programming. Maybe a 12 step program that updates our operating system. Of course if  religion is an addiction how will a 12 step program cure those who need help?

I looked to anthropology to explain to me why man as a whole tended to need religion. What I found was as science advanced religion became less necessary because things that people didn't understand became more understandable and easier to explain. I had experiences that science couldn't directly answer but I denied my own experiences knowing

1. That accepting theses experiences as real would bring me into accepting the supernatural
2. That if I wanted to continue to live free of the sickness of religion it would be best if I had support by other atheist.

In other words I joined the atheist religion in order to avoid all the others. So I  clung to "THE KNOWN" that is "What can science answer?" What has science studied or tested and found to be true. The fact that I was attacked by demons in my sleep had to be ignored because demons are supernatural and I would have to accept the christian devil therefor all Christianity.

Then I began to question this. If I could question religion because of my experience why couldn't  I question my experiences outside the context of the accepted religions? Science would just laugh at the question. So I looked into the older religions. And sure enough I found descriptions of the soul that had nothing to do with God or salvation. In fact my research into the devil found that Christians made him up borrowing from The Persians. Later they borrowed from the Greeks god Pan.

So for a while I experimented with paganism. But again although paganism seemed more balanced with both God and Goddess it made me feel that I belonged to another religion based on various mythologies. Worse than that it gave me no answers to psychic attacks beyond magic.

In fact when I met pagans most of them seemed to belong to Wicca. They were witches and believed that Christians revised all that Wicca taught in order to created a new religion. These Wiccans had no interest in anything except accumulating power. They did this by casting spells. Again I have no interest in accepting supernatural especially people obsessed with power. This why I turned away from Christianity from the beginning. From here I learned that pagans were simply people that made a religion out of mythological gods and stole all their other teachings from Shamans.

So I started studying shamanism. I needed some explanation for whether I had a soul independent of worshiping gods or casting spells. I do not believe gods are real or that magic is real. But I realized that I am psychic in some ways and science like religion again let me down when I tried to figure out what to do about this. So although I am still very enthusiastic about science and even agree with what most atheist and scientist say ( I agree with most of their beliefs and reasoning.) I still believed that I had a soul and only religion seemed to support this belief. But my belief in a soul is not a religious belief that I came to by faith so I had to reject religion. My understanding of religion still left me without a soul worth having. So where to go when religion and science both dead end into a form of nihilism? I still had to accept eventually that I was having experiences that were neither understood or accepted by either.

For instance when I was 16 I was diagnosed with a chemical imbalance that caused depression and suicidal tendencies. Religion would have me pray to an invisible man in the sky and fight demons with faith in holy books. Science would have me physically addicted to pharmaceuticals for the rest of my life. I knew in my soul that neither would work. In shamanism I found that all illness was caused by imbalances in the soul. Now science would say this is ridiculous and biology proves this otherwise medicine wouldn't work. But medicine isn't a discipline invented by science. Shamans were first called medicine men and for good reason. The herbal medicine that shamans used to treat illness is the basis of scientific medicine.

"For thousands of years, healers have used plants to cure illness. Aspirin, the world's most widely used drug, is based on compounds originally extracted from the bark of a willow tree, and more than a quarter of medicines found on pharmacy shelves contain plant compounds. Now Western medicine, faced with health crises such as AIDS, Alzheimer's disease, and cancer, has begun to look to the healing plants used by indigenous peoples to develop powerful new medicines"

From Tales of a Shaman's Apprentice: An Ethnobotanist Searches for New Medicines in the Rain Forest

Anyway to make a long story short using shamanism methods of rescuing pieces of the soul in dream work vision quest etc I was able to completely cure this imbalance in myself. I also found out that these so called demons that attacked me in my sleep were simply what shamans called http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R815x4BIsjU Fliers.

Through Shamanism I was able to shut out fliers in dreams shield myself from my empathic abilities so that they didn't overwhelm me and cure my chemical imbalance by recovering my soul energies. And I did all this without casting spells or calling on God(s) .

What does science have to say about this? Well science says that either I never had a chemical imbalance in the first place or I am still chemically imbalanced and I am in denial of this. Now I can not prove my soul directly. But I can prove science wrong on both counts. I indeed had a chemical balance and it was diagnosed and treated. The pharmaceuticals applied had effects both beneficial and harmful.

Since my body and mind resisted the synthetic or inorganic pharmaceuticals of man I quit taking them. Instead of making things better for my state of mind they made them worse. True I wasn't depressed all the time but they created a whole new set of problems. As the effective dose was raised my ability to think clearly and quickly diminished and my dreams were more open to attacks.

Science would say this was all hallucination and call these hallucinations an unwanted side effect. Religion would just have me pray.But medical science would simply suggest that I change pharmaceuticals(Prescribe me different drugs) .And this is exactly what they did. I was switched to a new drug Prozac.On Prozac I had very psychotic thoughts.My soul warned me of this. And now I believed in a soul. Because I accepted my soul as awareness independent of my mind based on thoughts I actually observed fliers at work. Fliers are inorganic beings and pharmaceuticals are synthetic. Therefor they work well together. But as a soul I could distinguish between awareness of my actual mind/soul from thoughts encouraged by fliers.

  But because I knew I was not my thoughts but that I was and am my soul I was able to distance myself as a soul and see the psychotic thoughts for what they were  ..fliers. I quit Prozac started practicing shamanism and never had depression or psychotic thoughts again. Ok sometimes I still observe fliers but they have lost all power over me and stopped attacking me in my dreams.

Most atheist I met during this process and now that it is all over... admitted to being agnostic about God. But now like in my past encounters atheist are continuing to claim that they can prove the soul doesn't exist. Or at least they are claiming that science doesn't presently support the existence of the soul.

But before Einstein science couldn't prove the existence of the quantum nature of reality. Quantum Reality wasn't measurable or observable. So only Newtonian Physics were accepted. Even Einstein himself doubted quantum physics would ever have any real basis in science.

The same reasons he doubted that quantum physics described the nature of reality seems to me the same reason atheist doubt that there will ever be scientific evidence for the soul. Einstein said "God (Nature) doesn't play dice". In other words he rejected the new science of quantum physics because of nonlocality or spooky action at a distance and more importantly what QP would do to determinism. After reading some of the post on this board I realize he need not have worried.

The religion of determinism is alive and well in science just as it is in religion. Anything that would allow for freewill or the soul in quantum physics is explained away. And yet the problems that Einstein encountered in quantum physics are still with us today and not completely explained as the religion of determinism would have us believe.

These problems include

Quantum Probability & the Measurement Problem

Quantum physics is defined mathematically by the Schroedinger equation, which depicts the probability of a particle being found at a certain point. This probability is fundamental to the system, not merely a result of ignorance. Once a measurement is made, however, you have a definite result.

The measurement problem is that the theory doesn't completely explain how the act of measurement actually causes this change. Attempts to solve the problem have lead to some intriguing theories.

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
The physicist Werner Heisenberg developed the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which says that when measuring the physical state of a quantum system there's a fundamental limit to the amount of precision that can be achieved.

For example, the more precisely you measure the momentum of a particle the less precise your measurement of its position. Again, in Heisenberg's interpretation this wasn't just a measurement error or technological limitation, but an actual physical limit.

Quantum Entanglement & Nonlocality
In quantum theory, certain physical systems can become "entangled," meaning that their states are directly related to the state of another object somewhere else. When one object is measured, and the Schroedinger wavefunction collapses into a single state, the other object collapses into its corresponding state ... no matter how far away the objects are (i.e. nonlocality).

Einstein, who called these influences "spooky action at a distance," illuminated this concept with his EPR Paradox.

And yes...
Quantum Consciousness
In attempts to solve the measurement problem in quantum physics (see above), physicists frequently run into the problem of consciousness. Though most physicists try to sidestep the issue, it seems that there is a link between the conscious choice of experiment and the outcome of the experiment.

Some physicists, most notably Roger Penrose, believe that current physics cannot explain consciousness, and that consciousness itself has a link to the strange quantum realm.

It is an irony the atheist on this board use measurement in science as a proof that the soul doesn't exist considering the measurement problem in quantum physics is about consciousness.

Again most atheist are I have met are agnostic on the question of whether God will ever be proven to be a reality. Not the Christian concept but something else that meets the definition of a creator or intelligent force behind creation. But when it comes to the soul they are certain it doesn't exist. Of course if you study theology like I did you will see that almost any accepted understanding of God is compatible with determinism. If the soul were ever proven to exist it would have to be a completely free entity capable of influencing or even creating on some level the reality we live in. Quantum Physicist, Atheist , and Christians resist this for the existential nausea this creates in them where the words "condemned to be free" is realized not just a life sentence to them  but an eternal one.

If awareness has existed forever and always will then not only are we in Hell but we are in Hell of our own creation and are responsible for every piece of suffering in our world. No wonder man submits to the fliers or inorganic beings shamans say control him. No wonder the religions of man including atheism are based on in determinism. Compared to how reality might actually be I can see why most atheist find nihilism so seductive.

To Be or Not To Be

Why cant the Bible make up it's mind?

It is my contention that the Bible can not be clear or non contradictory on subjects like the soul and freewill because the writers had a sinister agenda. 

1.To get people to believe that the soul is a substance that God can create and destroy at will rather than immortal by nature

2.That obedience is Love esp out of fear

3.That God sanctions only one religion and will recreate your soul later after you cease to exist if you behave according to man made religion. 

Also that God is Jealous and Angry and wants us to obey out of fear. The Bible view of this God is he sanctions human sacrifice and suicide. So humans would no longer have to sacrifice animals let alone each other God came down in human flesh to commit suicide. 

This is suppose to be selfless and prove divinity of Jesus as God. But it assumes that blood sacrifice to the Gods was good but if you reject all other Gods the Biblical God will wash away sins with blood. 

This assumes the scapegoat principal of washing away sins with blood is desirable and even spiritual. That animal sacrifice up to that point was good

 (Some Jewish Theologians still maintain it is good and will even be rewarded in the future with temples for this purpose. )

But this new God is better than the other Gods and should be worshiped as the one true God because he sacrificed himself so we wouldn't have to sacrifice animals anymore. 

Why not just tell people I do not accept blood from animals and you need to do is pray to me? 

Because Jewish/Christians invented death. And Christianity at least claims that  the only way out of death is their religion. 

Before Jewish and Christian religion no other religion believed in death. Any religion before taught the soul was immortal by nature and most taught reincarnation. 

Before the Bible was written even Christians believed in reincarnation. The Jews were divided equally between those that believed the soul ceased to exist and that the soul reincarnates. 

No Holy book is completely clear on this matter as you will see. Because they are written by man. And not only does man not know anything ultimately but the books themselves were written by politicians with ulterior motives to control the masses by social engineering.

The Great teachers like Socrates and Buddha and  Jesus never wrote anything down. They knew that writing can be manipulated by translation and interpretation by accident changing the meaning or on purpose to serve an agenda. 

That is why as a writer I will probably give lectures in person with a question answer section at the end just like any other writer that ask the deep philosophical questions. 

Writing is good for getting ideas out there. But if you want to teach it is best one on one or in person before a small audience. At least in a blog people can comment and I can respond. If Jesus had a blog he could of cleared up misunderstandings of people who thought he claimed that he was a Biblical God or even supported the Bible as the word of God before the book was even written. 

There is a REASON that there is no Book of Jesus written by Jesus in the Bible and why Jesus never signed or endorsed the Bible.  And that is because the Bible was written by man not God and after Jesus died. Jesus did not endorse religion anymore than Socrates or Buddha nor did he write anything down. Like Socrates and Buddha he did not want his teaching distorted for a political (religious) agenda. 

The only way that Jesus claimed to be God was to tell people that we are all God. Jesus was a mystic pantheist. Jesus taught us we are all gods (God) . Socrates taught us to question the Gods (Religion Aka Politics) and Buddha refused to answer the question. All there responses were by the same motivation. So that we would seek within and not look for God (The Source) outside of ourselves in man made religions.

I have made clear that the Bible is wrong about the nature of God in my post Free at Last. This page will try to list all the contradictions in the Bible about God, Freewill, and the Soul

Man will resurrect

1 Corinthians 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Man will die and turn to nothing

Ecclesiastes 3:18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.
19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.

Man has no soul because he is a sinner

Ecclesiastes 8:8 There is no man that hath power over the spirit to retain the spirit; neither hath he power in the day of death: and there is no discharge in that war; neither shall wickedness deliver those that are given to it.

Since all men are sinners they have no souls and therefore will turn into nothing

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:Ecclesiastes 3:18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.
19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.

Man Has a Soul and Sinning Has Nothing To Do With It

26For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? 

John 8
1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. 2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. 3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

God/Jesus didn't teach reincarnation

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Jesus God DID teach reincarnation

John 3

 1There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

 2The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

 3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

 4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

 5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

 6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

 7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

 8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

 9Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?

 10Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

 11Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

 12If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

 13And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Karma is real not sin

. 26For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? 27For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

One Last Thing

Ok I went to a website claiming that Evil can not be eliminated at the source namely the human mind. This is just begging the question but I will indulge the author here is what he says...


"Ultimately, efforts to prevent evil do not prevent the source of evil - the human mind.
Eliminate evil and keep free will?

However, there was no way to eliminate all evil through changing the "laws of physics," since it originates within the human mind. So, the only way to eliminate all evil is to actually restrict the functioning of the human mind - in other words, restrict free will. So, all claims by atheists that God could prevent all evil choices, but allow free will are specious. In reality, the atheists' "solution" has taken away human free will and turned human beings into robots. Although it solves the problem of evil, it destroys the primary reason why God created the universe in the first place - to allow free will beings the choice of loving or rejecting Him.2 God finds such a "solution" unacceptable (Why create a universe in which its primary purpose is unattainable?). However, this kind of evil-free universe does exist for those who want it and choose it in this universe. It is called heaven."

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/evil_free_will.html

As you can see he is begging the question. Let me clarify. He makes the following claims.

1.An Evil Free Universe is not possible because man has freewill and the nature of a mind with freewill is that it is capable of Evil.

2.God has a mind and the nature of that mind is one with freewill yet God is incapable of Evil

3. There is an Evil free universe called Heaven and by exercising obedience to God you will go there by choosing with your freewill to obey God which is love

4.God which is love can not demand obedience because you can not get to love of God or others without choice

Honestly if you can not see the contradictions I am not sure I can help you. I already addressed these contradictions in my post Free At Last  but that was in reference to the Bible.

 I claimed that if you accept the Bible then you will be stuck with these contradictions and this man proves it with his arguments which I already demolished.

He also claims that God is incapable of Evil and yet can not explain Isiah in which God says nothing is done not by his will and that God creates Evil. Mistranslating the Hebrew word for Evil as calamity doesn't solve the problem. The 10 commandments forbid killing and that is what calamity means here that God kills. Also if all is God's will than not only is God the source of Evil but man has no freewill. Freewill to Christians is man's ability to obey or disobey Gods will. And it is already predetermined by Gods' will what every man will do in any given situation. Again I already addressed this. Last but not least the Biblical God has not only killed humans many times he has repented of this Evil and changed his mind sometimes. Usually as in the case of Abraham it is because man has obeyed God out of fear.

12He said, "Do not lay your hand on the lad or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me." (Gen. 22:11-12)

Evil is based on obedience. Since Abraham obeyed God and was willing  to sacrifice (kill)
his son out of FEAR God has his angels stop him. Killing is ok just not disobedience.

Not only is the biblical God capable of Evil but Evil is only defined as acting against Gods' will. This means that God is good can only be understood as God does what he wills including Evil and Evil is seen as Good as long as God wills it.
That is

Evil: Causing pain and suffering to other sentient beings by mans will

Good Causing pain and suffering to sentient beings by Gods will in order to teach man to follow only Gods will in which case God will repent of his Evil

 Jonah 3:10      And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

It does no good to debate what types of Evil there are. Evil as killing or destruction etc

If God is incapable of doing Evil he either is not free to do so or defines what is Evil by whether it is his will or not.

Obviously Christians must say God is free so they are only left with Evil is defined as which is not willed by God. By that definition a man that saves someones life and prevents torture from happening against Gods will is Evil.(This CHRISTIAN reasoning led to the Inquisitions and the Crusades)

God on the other hand drowning and killing every living creature on the planet or torturing a man in an everlasting Hell for being the wrong religion is good. (For more examples Go To Evil Bible website http://www.evilbible.com/)
Of course if you do not want to follow a God of Evil you can throw away your Bible.

"This God, according to the Bible, is directly responsible for many mass-murders, rapes, pillage, plunder, slavery, child abuse and killing, not to mention the killing of unborn children.  I have included references to the Biblical passages, so grab your Bible and follow along.  You can also follow along with on-line Bibles such as BibleStudyTools.net or SkepticsAnnotatedBible.com.


    It always amazes me how many times this God orders the killing of innocent people even after the Ten Commandments said “Thou shall not kill”.  For example, God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21).  God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there.  He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3).  He orders another attack and the killing of “all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses” (Joshua 6).  In Judges 21, He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married.  When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife!  Just about every other page in the Old Testament has God killing somebody!  In 2 Kings 10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church!  In total God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered.


    The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9).


    This type of criminal behavior should shock any moral person.  Murder, rape, pillage, plunder, slavery, and child abuse can not be justified by saying that some god says it’s OK.  If more people would actually sit down and read the Bible there would be a lot more atheists like myself."


For more insight into what true freedom and love means read Free At Last on my blog. Even the Bible admits there is no fear in love. So in order to follow the true God of Love you must ironically throw away the Bible. The problem is Christian define "love" as obedience. So to keep the Bible as truth you would have to accept Love as

John

18There is no fear in obedience; but perfect obedience casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. 

But if you read John from the beginning of that verse "God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. 17Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. 18There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. 19We love him, because he first loved us. 20If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? 21And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also. "

There is no reason to obey only to love. This scripture contradicts the whole rest of the Bible.

If God is Love then there can be no Hell for non Christians to go to because that would be something to fear.

Of course John also says that
 15Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God

But it is still unclear as to what this means. So I can not confess it. The Jews who wrote the Old Testament invented the Biblical God and even they question the divinity of Jesus because the Bible doesn't support it!

http://whatjewsbelieve.org/

The Bible doesn't even support Hell!
http://www.judeochristianity.com/hell.htm
http://ecclesia.org/truth/hell.html

Or Does it?
http://www.av1611.org/hell.html

If you are still confused then admit it is religion with all it's deceptions about God and contradictions about good and evil, freewill hell etc that confuse you then reject religion as a way to God and you will be truly free.

For those that are to dense to understand Isiah says God is responsible for Evil  here is more evidence
( Remember All powerful means Everything that happens is willed by God including Evil that is why the Bible does not deny this)

Proverbs 16:4 (NIV) The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, EVEN THE WICKED FOR THE DAY OF EVIL

Job 9:23 (NIV) When a scourge brings sudden death, God mocks the despair of the INNOCENT.

Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood.  (Jeremiah 48:10 NAB) 

Exodus 4:11 (NIV) The Lord said to him, “Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the Lord?

2 Kings 6:33
And while he yet talked with them, behold, the messenger came down unto him: and he said, Behold, this EVIL is of the LORD; what should I wait for the LORD any longer?



Isiah
5I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

6That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.

7I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
 
From there Elisha went up to Bethel.  While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him.  "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!"  The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord.  Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces.  (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)

The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for your children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived.  Even if your children do survive to grow up, I will take them from you.  It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone.  I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre.  But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered."  O LORD, what should I request for your people?  I will ask for wombs that don't give birth and breasts that give no milk.  The LORD says, "All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them.  I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions.  I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels.  The people of Israel are stricken.  Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit.  And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children."  (Hosea 9:11-16 NLT)

If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins.  I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted.  (Leviticus 26:21-22 NLT)

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword.  Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes.  Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes.  For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off.  The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows.  They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.  (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)

  This is what the Lord of  hosts has to say: 'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt.  Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban.  Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.'   (1 Samuel 15:2-3 NAB)

Infanticide:

1 Samuel 15:3 God commands the death of helpless "suckling" infants.  This literally means that the children god killed were still nursing.

Psalms 135:8 & 136:10 Here god is praised for slaughtering little babies.

Psalms 137:9 Here god commands that infants should be “dashed upon the rocks”.

The murdering of children:

Leviticus 20:9 “For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.”

Judges 11:30-40 Jephthah killed his young daughter (his only child) by burning her alive as a burnt sacrifice to the lord for he commanded it.

Psalms 137:8-9 Prayer/song of vengeance “0 daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.  Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.”

2 Kings 6:28-29 “And the king said unto her, What aileth thee?  And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him today, and we will eat my son tomorrow.  So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son.”

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 “If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.  And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.”

Judges 19:24-29 “Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.  But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go. Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man’s house where her lord was, till it was light. And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold. And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered.  Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place.  And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel.”  To put it very bluntly this poor, young lady was murdered by her mate for being raped.

Exodus 12:29 God killed, intentionally, every first-born child of every family in Egypt, simply because he was upset at the Pharaoh.  And god caused the Pharaoh’s actions in the first place.  Since when is it appropriate to murder children for their ruler’s forced action?

Exodus 20:9-10 God commands death for cursing out ones parents Joshua 8 God commanded the deaths of 12,000 men, women, and children of Ai.  They were all slain in the ambush that was planned by god.

2 Kings 2:23-24 The prophet Elisha, was being picked on by some young boys from the city because of his bald head.  The prophet turned around and cursed them in the Lords name.  Then, two female bears came out of the woods and killed forty-two of them.  You would think that God could understand that sometimes the youthful make childish jokes.  Calling someone “bald head” is far from being worthy of death.

Leviticus 26:30 “And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.”

1 Samuel 15:11-18 God repents of having made Saul king since Saul refused to carry out God’s commandments (i.e., Saul refused to murder all the innocent women and children.)  At least god realizes what an immoral, murderous pig he is on this one.

I Kings 16:34 Laying the foundation for a city using your firstborn child and using your youngest son to set up the gates.

Isaiah 13:15-18 If God can find you, he will “thrust you through,” smash your children “to pieces” before your eyes, and rape your wife.

Jeremiah 11:22-23 God will kill the young men in war and starve their children to death.

Jeremiah 19:7-9 God will make parents eat their own children, and friends eat each other.

Lamentations 2:20-22 God gets angry and mercilessly torments and kills everyone, young and old.  He even causes women to eat their children.

Child abuse:

Genesis 22:9 & 10 “And they came to the place which God had told him of and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.  And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.”  It matters not that god let Abraham get out of murdering Isaac.  To put a knife up to your son’s throat is child abuse.

I Kings 3:24-25 “And the king said, Bring me a sword. And they brought a sword before the king.  And the king said, Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other."  This test was of course given to see who the real mother of the child was.  Christians view this king as a wise man.  I look upon his suggestion with far more revulsion then I give accredit to Susan Smith.

Proverbs 13:24, 19:18, 22:15, 23:13-14 & 29:15 God commands repeatedly that you beat your children.

Matthew 19:29 If you really loved Jesus then he insists that you abandon your wife and children for him.  Only that way will he allow you to go to heaven.  (That is if you meet his other hefty requirements, don’t slip through the loopholes, and ignore the contradictions.)

Mark 7:9 Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law.

The Dark Bible    Slavery However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.  (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

 The following passage describes how the Hebrew slaves are to be treated.

    If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years.  Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom.  If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year.  But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him.  If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master.  But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children.  I would rather not go free.'  If he does this, his master must present him before God.  Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl.  After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.  (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

    Notice how they can get a male Hebrew slave to become a permanent slave by keeping his wife and children hostage until he says he wants to become a permanent slave.  What kind of family values are these?

    The following passage describes the sickening practice of sex slavery.  How can anyone think it is moral to sell your own daughter as a sex slave?

    When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.  (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

    So these are the Bible family values!  A man can buy as many sex slaves as he wants as long as he feeds them, clothes them, and screws them!

    What does the Bible say about beating slaves?  It says you can beat both male and female slaves with a rod so hard that as long as they don't die right away you are cleared of any wrong doing.

    When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.  If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.  (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

    You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.

    Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.  (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

    Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.  If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful.  You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.  Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.  (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

    In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn't know they were doing anything wrong.

    The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it.  "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly.  Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given."  (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

Women's Inferior Status

Back To Table Of Contents

Burn the daughter! Cut off her hand! Expose her breasts! Female births get penalty Female inferiority God's OK on abortion Jesus will kill children Kill the witches! Moses' mass murder Rape my daughter Raping and killing Silence the woman! Stone the woman "Virgin" mistranslation Virgin's worth Wives, submit yourselves! Women shall not speak Women's sorrow Rip up pregnant women The wicked woman