We Need to be 'Multi-Planet Species' For Human Race to Survive : Nasa Chief


The administrator of Nasa has said a manned mission to Mars is paramount for the survival of our species, as the agency unveiled its plans to place humans on the Red Planet by 2030.
Charles Bolden, head of the US space programme, said the mission was "feasibly, affordable and necessary" for the human race, even if the "challenge is huge".
Bolden outlined three "stepping stones" on the path to Mars, which included "lassoing" an asteroid and introducing it into the moon's orbit by 2015, growing plants in space and using 3D printers to carry out maintenance on board.
Presenting the three-stage approach at the Humans to Mars summit, he told The Times: "If this species is to survive indefinitely we need to be come a multi-planet species, we need to go to Mars, and Mars is a stepping stone to other solar systems.
Bolden stated that the International Space Station will be used to explore different technologies in deep space, such as whether 3D printers can be used to carry out repairs.
The Nasa chief also said the agency would determine whether plants can provide reliable food supplies. The experiments will provide valuable testing for technologies essential to longer manned missions.
Another phase involves a plan to lasso an asteroid by 2015 and redirect it into the moon's orbit, where astronauts on board the new Orion space vehicle will conduct test missions on the asteroid.
The Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, which has been dubbed the next generation of spacecraft for missions to Mars and the moon, is set for its first unmanned flight in December to test its shields. The spacecraft will embark on crewed flights in 2021.
The final phase will involve a lengthy manned mission to Mars, which is expected to last between two to three years. The longest period spent in space to date was 803 days, undertaken by Russian cosmonaut Sergei Krikalyov.
Nasa stated its ambition for the future: "Developing planetary independence for exploring Mars, its moons and other deep-space destinations."
Bolden added that to succeed with their plans, the agency needed increased funding from the White House: "We will go out and probably manoeuvre around the moons of Mars, and then figure out, OK, how do we finally get down to the surface of the planet with human beings? We think with some increases in Nasa's budget, we're gonna be able to get to Mars in the 2030s."
If Nasa's 2015 budget is approved by Congress, Bolden said America would be sending astronauts back into space by 2017 using private rockets rather than the Russian Soyuz capsule.
Earlier this month, Nasa announced it would be cutting ties with Russia in light of its actions in Ukraine. The agency said it would continue to collaborate with the Russian space agency on International Space Station operations.
Bolden also revealed more projects under development. According to the Wall Street Journal, Nasa is spending over $3 billion annually, approximately one-fifth of its budget, developing a powerful new rocket, advanced capsule and deep-space exploration technologies.
Developments include Nasa's Solar Electric Propulsion System, which creates thrust by accelerating ions and is intended to reduce fuel mass, decrease travel times and permit larger payloads.
BY international busnise times
Continue Reading.... Résuméabuiyad Related Posts with thumbnails for bloggerEfadaBlog

Jesus Not Coming Back : Admits Vatican


“Jesus Not Coming Back By The Looks Of It” Admits Vatican


A SPOKESPERSON for the Vatican has officially announced at 08/04/2014 that the second coming of Jesus, the only son of the God, may not happen now after all, but urged followers to still continue with their faith, regardless of the news.
Cardinal Giorgio Salvadore told WWN that this years 1,981st anniversary is to be the Vatican’s last in regards to waiting for the Lord to return to Earth.
“We just feel Jesus is not coming back by the looks of it.” he said. “It’s been ages like. He’s probably flat out doing other really good things for people somewhere else.”
Nearly two thousand years ago, Jesus promised his disciples that he would come again in chapter John 14:1-3 of the bible: “There are many homes up where my Father lives, and I am going to prepare them for your coming. When everything is ready, then I will come and get you, so that you can always be with Me where I am. If this weren’t so, I would tell you plainly”
The Vatican defended Jesus’ broken promise, claiming “he was probably drinking wine” at the time when he made the comments.
“Having the ability to turn water into wine had its ups and its downs.” added Cardinal Salvadore. “We all make promises we can’t keep when we’re drunk. Jesus was no different.”
The church said it will now focus attentions on rebuilding its reputation around the world, but will keep an optimistic mind for the savior’s second coming.
Continue Reading.... Résuméabuiyad

I’m An Atheist, And I’m Proud To Say It


proud atheist

The transformation that I speak off is that I have now become an Atheist, and am proud to say it.
Many of you reading this may believe that being an Atheist is “Evil” and unjust, however I could no longer associate myself to the Activist movement while trying to pretend to be conservative in heart.
Some of the reasons why I have become an Atheist are: 
  • I simply cannot bring myself to believe that there is a “man” up in the sky, who watches everything we do and say, and then punishes us for the things we do wrong. Sorry, but who made up the myth that there is a man up in the clouds and where was he when the Nazi’s were ripping the gold out of the mouths of the Jews during WW2?
  • I am yet to see any evidence that there is a God and that there are such beings who call themselves Angels.
  • The Catholic Church, to which I used to belong, has caused more harm than good, especially here in Australia where they have raped and stolen the innocence of 10’s of thousands of children over the last 100+ years. There was a recent case where a local parish priest was charged with raping a teenager. The majority of the community were concerned for the priests’ welfare, however, no one cared or spoke about the impact of the alleged actions of the priest that were inflicted on the innocent girl. Only religion can trick people to care for the popular, and ignore the weak.
  • I cringe at how religious organisations try to preach their acceptance of everyone, when in fact the opposite is the truth. People who are religious claim that religion brings us all closer together, but, for those who don’t conform to the accepted norms of religion, then they are ostracised. Here I am speaking about Homosexuals. What a fucking joke it is how we as a society treat homosexuals. It is a proven fact that there is a portion of Humans (just like wild animals) who are attracted to the same sex. To all the religious bigots out there, wake up and smell the roses
  • I despise the way religious organisations force their fundamental beliefs on Children. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate for our society to allow for children to be taught religion when they turn 21, or any other arbitrary age of reason? Let children make a choice for themselves because there is no such thing as a Christian or Muslim child, only a child who is conceived form Christian or Muslim parents.
  • I can’t convince myself that a God exists. Over the last 3000+ years, not one single instance or event that could be regarded as religious has ever been proven. We seem to be a society that continues to peddle middle age myths without any thought or reason.
  • The world we live in is not black and white, but rather a minestrone soup of greys. I cannot convince myself anymore that there is a God who has created this world and continues to watch us. He (or it) is either unbelievably incompetent, or doesn’t exist. I support the latter.
In conclusion, I don’t care for what you believe in and am of the view that we all have the right to believe in whatever God we choose to. However, when it comes to converting children and how governments adopt religious policies, I cannot sit back and say nothing.
From here on, I will continue to fight the good fight, and will continue to report on events that affect us all. Our government and world leaders need to note that the world is changing and that we as a global community will no longer stand for the perpetual death and destruction they continue to support.

 and here another things to Be loud and proud

Published on Sunday, October 20th, 2013
By Globalist Report
Continue Reading.... Résuméabuiyad

Did Jesus Exit?


Mitt Romney is a lying sack of human excrement. Which is one of the reasons why he lost the election.
Among MR’s many moral failings was his promotion of a racist religious tradition: Mormonism. MR grew up in a publically and openly racist Mormon church. As a young man he went to France to encourage French citizens to join his then openly and publically racist Mormon church.
But MR is not the only believer in the USA who comes from a racist church background. The largest Protestant denomination in this country is the Southern Baptist Convention:
The Southern Baptist Convention issued an apology for its earlier stance on slavery. The issue had split the Baptist church between north and south in 1845. But a century and a half later, in 1995, Southern Baptist officials formally renounced the church’s support of slavery and segregation. 
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112329862
viewed 8/17/13
To my knowledge, the Mormons have never issued an apology for the racism that was the accepted belief and practice in their church for most of the history of their existence:
Most Protestant denominations, however, gradually apologized for their past racism. In contrast, while Mormon leaders generically criticize past and present racism, they carefully avoid any specific criticism of past presidents and apostles, careful not to disrupt traditional reverence for the church’s prophets.
(Why Race Is Still a Problem for Mormons:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/opinion/sunday/racism-and-the-mormon-church.html?_r=1&)
I grew up regularly attending Methodist and Presbyterian churches. I don’t recall any open or public racism in the churches I attended, but there was at least one clear but subtle bit of racism that was passed on to children in Sunday school: pictures of Jesus as a tall, blond, white, European-looking male:
Fake and Real-Jesus
Most American Christians should be somewhat skeptical about what they learned in Sunday School, because most American Christians were indoctrinated in Sunday School with this subtle bit of racism: Jesus was a GOOD GUY, so he must have looked like a white European male NOT like a 1st century Palestinian Jew (as in the picture on the right).
But the canonical gospels indicate that Jesus was Jewish. Now there are a couple of different meanings of the word “Jewish”, and Jesus was portrayed as being Jewish in BOTH senses of the word. He was portrayed as being an adherent of the religion of Judaism, and he was portrayed as being a descendant of the Hebrew people.
The question at issue now, in this series on the oldest sources of the canonical Gospels, is whether Mark, Q, L, and M all represent Jesus as being (a) an adherent of the religion of Judaism, and (b) a male descendant of the Hebrew people.
I will start by examining the Gospel of Mark. It is very clear in Mark that Jesus was an adherent of the religion of Judaism. It is also fairly clear that he was represented as being a male descendant of the Hebrew people.
Jesus prayed to Jehovah, the God of the Jewish faith, and he encouraged others to do so. Jesus was familiar with the Jewish scriptures and quoted or referenced passages from the OT in support of various religious and moral beliefs that he held. Jesus often visited Synagogues, and he observed the Sabbath, even if somewhat less rigourously than some other Jews of his time. Jesus made a pilgrimage to the temple in Jerusalem, and he observed the Passover, which was a religious ritual in Judaism. All of this, and more, is how the Gospel of Mark represents Jesus.
Mark very clearly represents Jesus as an adherent of the religion of Judaism:
Jesus and Jewish scripture: Mark 1:40-44, 2:23-27, 4:10-12, 7:5-13, 10:2-9, 10:19, 11:15-19, 12:9-11, 12:25-27, 12:28-31, 12:35-37.
Jesus and Synagogues: Mark 1:21-22, 1:37-39, 3:1-5, 6:1-4.
Jesus and the Jewish Temple:Mark 11:11 & 11:15-19, 12:35-37, 13:1-2.
Jesus and Passover: Mark 14:12-26.
Jesus and the Sabbath: Mark 2:23-28, 3:1-5.
Jesus was Baptized by a Jewish apocalyptic preacher (John the Baptist): Mark 1:4-9.
Jesus and the Messiah: Mark 8:29-30, 12:35-37, 13:20-23.
Jesus and Prayer: Mark 1:34-36, 6:45-47, 11:24-26, 14:31-40.
Mark also gives a number of indications that Jesus was a male descendant of the Hebrew people:
Jesus spoke Aramaic (not Greek, not Latin): Mark 5:41, 7:34, 14:36, 15:34.
Jesus was called ‘Son of David’ (meaning he was a descendant of King David): Mark 10:46-52.
Jesus expresses negative sentiments about ‘gentiles’(which suggests that he himself was a descendant of the Hebrew people): Mark 7:24-30, 10:41-44.
Jesus grew up in a small town with a synagogue in Galilee (which was presumably dominated by descendants of the Hebrew people): Mark 1:9, 1:24, 6:1-4, 10:47-48.
People supposedly argued during Jesus’ lifetime about whether Jesus was the expected Messiah of the Jews, but no one objected that Jesus was NOT a descendant of the Hebrew people. If Jesus had been Greek or Roman or African or Egyptian or Persian, that would have been one of the first and loudest objections made to the idea that Jesus was the Messiah. But there is no indication in Mark that such an objection was ever raised to this idea.
That Jesus is represented as a male is indicated first and foremost by the fact that his name was ‘Jesus’ or rather ‘Yeshua’, which is usually translated into English as: ‘Joshua’. Joshua was a famous male military leader of the nation of Israel. Just as ‘Joshua’ is a boy’s name in English, so ‘Yeshua’ was a boy’s name in Aramaic.
That Jesus is represented as a male in Mark is also indicated by his being called ‘the Son of Man’ (14:62) and ‘son of David’(10:47) and ‘the Son of God’(1:1), ‘my Son’ (by God himself, 1:11), and ‘son of Mary’(6:3) as well as ‘brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon’ (6:3).
Note that the Greek word for ‘son’ can also mean ‘child’. However, there is a different Greek word for ‘daughter’ which is only used of female offspring, and the Greek for ‘daughter’ appears in at least seven different verses in Mark, and is never used of Jesus. So, the fact that the Greek word for ‘son’ is consistently used of Jesus, and the Greek word for ‘daughter’ is never used of Jesus, indicates that the Greek word for ‘son’ in these cases probably means ‘male offsrpring’ not just ‘child’.
Also, the Greek word for ‘brother’ is a (slightly) different word than the Greek word for ‘sister’, so the fact that Jesus is called a ‘brother’ of James and Joses…etc (as opposed to being called their ‘sister’) is a clear indication that Jesus was a male.
Finally, the Messiah was expected to be a ‘son of David’ (Mark 12:35-37), that is, a MALE descendant of King David. So, if Jesus had been a woman, then in the sexist and patriarchal Jewish culture of that time, this would have been a loud and frequent objection to the idea that Jesus was the Messiah. The fact that there is no mention of such an objection in Mark is evidence that Mark and his fellow Christians believed Jesus was a male.
by Bradley Bowen
Continue Reading.... Résuméabuiyad

An Honest Conversation





When is the last time you had a truly honest conversation about religion, in which no topic was off limits and the existence of God was not regarded as axiomatic? For most Americans, the only truthful answer that can be given is "never". Politics and religion are the two things we are not to discuss in polite company, and we are much more likely to relax that "rule" with politics than with religion. Our discourse on religion tends to range from nonexistent to highly stunted, and for this we are paying an unacceptable price. We have unwittingly given rise to the conditions under which fundamentalism thrives, and a healthy dose of consciousness raising is in order.

For the most part, the adverse effects of religion, which I touched , are the result of fundamentalism. Most moderate (and liberal) believers would agree that fundamentalism is a bad thing, but by failing to discus religion in an open and honest way, moderates shelter fundamentalists from any serious intellectual challenge and give them relatively free reign. This is not surprising, as moderate believers have already acquiesced to the foundational pillars of fundamentalism -- in the case of fundamentalist Christianity, that there is a singular God, the Bible is his word, and faith in God is a virtue1. Once those ideas are accepted, the only additional element that fundamentalism requires is the belief that the Bible means what it says. Moderate Christianity is an intellectually bankrupt position that cannot survive contact with the first few pages of the Bible2. This gives rise to deep (though probably subconscious) insecurities; thus moderates don't want to talk about their beliefs, lest their insecurities be exposed. Moreover, moderates hold a weak hand with which to challenge any religious claim to which they do not subscribe, as those who live in glass houses ought not throw stones. Their way out is to discourage skeptical inquiry, promulgate the idea that it is uncivil to challenge religious beliefs, and console themselves with wishful thinking about fundamentalism being rare and impotent3.

I understand that honest conversations about religion are difficult. In many circles, to broach the subject is to break a taboo. Thus I suggest starting by having the conversation with yourself. If you are a believer, raise your consciousness to the real reasons why your identify with your particular religion. If you are an agnostic, raise your consciousness to the reasons why you continue to hedge your bets. Chances are, they have little to do with truth.

I have already touched on two reasons why we believe, profess to believe, or at least fail to fully disbelieve. First, most of us are taught, from as soon as we are old enough to understand the concept, that God is a fact, and many of us never closely examine that alleged fact. Second, we fear the possible adverse consequences of rejecting our religion. We may fear the loss or weakening of family ties and friendships, social ostracization, loss of self-esteem, and a crisis of identity. We may be reluctant to give up the comforting feeling that a higher power is looking out for us. We may not want to face the fact that a deceased loved one is really gone forever, nor want to come to terms with our own mortality. We may fear that without religion, society would collapse into chaos. It should go without saying that whether or not these fears are well-founded, they do not give the slightest reason to believe that any religion is true.

1Similarly, agnostics contribute to the problem by dignifying those positions as reasonable, even if they do not personally hold them.

2Here, I am assuming a moderate who believes in the scientific story of the development of the universe (beginning with the Big Bang and segueing into evolutionary biology) but believes that God was ultimately behind it all. I am aware that apologists have put forth various attempts to square the circle with the highly discrepant account given in the Book of Genesis. They amount to nothing more than pathetic rationalizations, as I explore in The Senseless Center.

3Polls tend to show that about half of American Christians are fundamentalists, or about 40% of the overall population. For example, a 2001 Barna Research Group poll reported that "41% of adults strongly agree that the Bible is totally accurate in all that it teaches", which meets my definition of fundamentalism. Seehttp://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran4.htm.

by  ERIC ROSS - UNITED STATES
Continue Reading.... Résuméabuiyad

God Explains Nothing




When theists are asked to justify their belief in God, they often respond that God is required to explain some facet of reality that they consider otherwise unexplainable. God explains where the universe comes from, where life comes from, where morals come from, or why there is something rather than nothing. Since science lacks the answers to these questions1, they claim, we must look to religion. Enter God, stage left.

This line of reasoning is, of course, a logical fallacy known asargumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance), and sometimes called the "God of the gaps" fallacy. The argument's fault lies in the implicit assumption that the God explanation gains automatic credence by virtue of humanity's general ignorance on the subject (or, as is often the case, the personal ignorance of the one advancing the argument). The existence of anything can only be established via direct evidence, and the argument from ignorance offers none.

Ignorance, of course, goes a long way toward explaining why religions exist in the first place. The major religions of today were born in an era when life and death phenomena such a weather, disease, and natural disasters were completely unexplained. Thus myths developed to explain what was then a complete mystery, and those myths grew into religions over the course of generations. Viewed from this perspective, "God of the gaps" has a long and inglorious history -- we now understand weather, disease, and natural disasters (to name just a few) without reference to the supernatural. Nevertheless, gaps in our collected knowledge remain, and probably always will; it is a sad commentary on human rationality that many of us tend to cling to any explanation, however inadequate, rather then accept that we simply do not know.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam is closely related to what Richard Dawkins has dubbed the "argument from personal incredulity". This argument, most often deployed by fundamentalists, states that while, for example, the development of life does have a scientific explanation, it is simply too incredible to be believed. This argument can take forms ranging from the uninformed and willfully ignorant ("I just can't see how something as complex as the eye could have just formed itself") to the philosophically ridiculous ("When I consider the miracle of birth, I just can't believe there's no God"). Needless to say, reality is wholly independent of one's capacity to accept it. The argument from personal incredulity has nothing worthwhile to say about the truth, but does say a great deal about the intellectual laziness of the person making it.

Even were arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity logically valid, they would still suffer from another fatal flaw -- the God explanation always regresses to the very problem it purports to solve. If God explains how the universe (or life) came to exist, how did God come to exist? If God is the source of morality, where did God get his morality? If God explains why there is something rather than nothing, why is there God rather than nothing? God is a cheap answer, a pseudo-explanation fit only for those who are unable or unwilling to think critically. A general rule of science (not to mention common sense), known as the principle of parsimony or Occam's razor, states that we should favor economy of explanation. Thus we can dispense with any hypothesis that simply adds complexity and raises new questions, while lacking any real explanatory power in the final analysis. That seems to describe the God hypothesis quite well, as God explains nothing.


1Science does, in fact, have a great deal to say on these topics, as I will explore in future posts. Intellectually honest religious people tend to emphasise that scientific knowledge on such subjects is inadequate or incomplete; dishonest ones tend to ignore, misrepresent, or remain ignorant of the state of scientific knowledge.

by  ERIC ROSS
Continue Reading.... Résuméabuiyad

Be loud and proud. Reason prevails.


Be a Proud Atheist


We Are Atheism Campaign from the Richard Dawkins Foundation. 


This is your chance to finally be heard. This is our chance to stand up, speak out, and be counted. We want to provide a platform for atheists around the globe to see that they are not alone. Atheists come in all shapes, sizes, ages, and backgrounds. The only thing that we all have in common is that we don’t see any credible evidence to believe in a god. It’s ok to be an atheist, and we want the world to know. 
  • Provide an outlet for atheists to feel comfortable to come out of the closet.

  • Always let visitors know there are other people out there that are non-believers.

  • Help people find other atheists like them in their state, city, and even neighborhood.

  • Give access to local, national, and international organization to become involved in the secular community.

  • Empower people to start their own organization in areas that does not already have one.
We are not just here to let you watch movies; these are real people living real lives as atheists. We want the world to know we exist and we will not be ignored. We will stand up, speak out, and be counted.


Continue Reading.... Résuméabuiyad

"Easter" Resurrections - A Shortlist of "Saviors"


Egyptian hieroglyphs on the wall
Even after I had shed the superstitions instilled in my childhood, I believed a man named Jesus once roamed the Middle East.
Though not the supernatural offspring of any god, I figured he was a drifter who became popular because he was both a ladies’ man – really hot and super sweet, and a man's man – a guy who liked his wine and told good jokes. He was also perhaps a little on the schizophrenic side and had the accompanying delusions of grandeur that can go with it. And those twelve male apostles trailing faithfully after him, well you probably know where I’m going with that one.
Turns out I was wrong on all counts.
Searching for Evidence
Ever since I was a child one of my joys in life was to seek out information in search of the truth, so my natural course of action was to begin some fact-checking on this man who was said to have coaxed the skies into drizzling food, turned water into an alcoholic beverage, cured the blind and lepers, rehabilitated the dead, etc.
Why was a man capable of performing the most astounding miracles known to civilization not mentioned other than in the Bible and derived religious writings? Why did none of what would have been his contemporaries, even the most prolific writers, even hint at his existence?
Although there are thousands of historical records, artifacts and writings of that period referencing notables like King Herod, there is no indication of anything as heinous as a mass murder of male infants writers of the New Testament claimed he ordered. Pontius Pilate is also recorded in history, but no word of anything that would have been akin to the trial of the century in prosecuting a talented and charismatic celebrity as Jesus was rumored to be.
Some will refer to the New Testament to prove Jesus existed, but that was written centuries after he was said to have lived with no eyewitness accounts and besides, not only does this Iron Age tome make numerous references to unicorns (as in the KJV version – conveniently changed in translation to ‘wild oxen” for American Standard and New International Version audiences),(1) but to offer as proof a book that only affirms itself is known as circular reasoning, a logical fallacy that cannot be taken seriously.
Others will point to the Shroud of Turin as proof that Jesus lived, but radiocarbon dating revealed the cloth’s origins to be between 1260 and 1390 CE.(2)
So how did these claims about his existence and exploits begin, and why do so many people still buy into them?
After all, as scientists like Bill Nye and Victor Stenger have asserted, it is only reasonable to expect extraordinary claims to be backed up by extraordinary evidence.  
Crucifixion = Crucifiction?
What I eventually did discover was there is indeed evidence for the origins of the Jesus legend, but the origins of that evidence are anything but mystical.
The smoking gun appeared while I was surfing the web, in a fascinating excerpt from a book by Gerald Massey. In it, this lay Egyptologist concluded the Jesus story was just one of the last of a long line of sun gods and god men found in religions peculiar to that part of the world.(3)
Apparently his findings were not unique. Many historians, philosophers, secular and church leaders before – and after – Massey had reached the same conclusions.
Forking over the References
So where are these references to these similarities, many will demand in a fist-pounding moment. After all, “extraordinary claims,” and all that…
And it does turn out the origins of the Jesus story are extraordinary – though not in a mystical sense but in a sense that the Old and New Testaments are teeming with tales mirroring narratives of earlier religions. The Catholic Encyclopedia refers to these similarities as “exact counterparts”(4) and claims, as in the case of the Krishna tales, they were hijacked from Christianity – never mind the fact that Hinduism, as well as the other myths cited in this section, predated Christianity by many hundreds or thousands of years.
Egypt was a cultural hub with a vast reach, hence the commonalities with religions featuring Krishna and Buddha.
The table above is incomplete, with parallel features each belief system has to the biblical Christ numbering literally into the hundreds. But my focus here is mainly on a handful of those pertinent to the resurrection story.
Question marks indicate that I was unable to locate the reference at this time. For example, Krishna was said to have walked on water, but I was unable to footnote this conclusively from the sources I used for this blog. Note that since these are mythologies, not real histories, there is typically more than one version of a story associated with the protagonist in question.
In The Christ Conspiracy, the Greatest Story Ever Sold (Adventures Unlimited Press, 1999) author D.M. Murdock, then writing under the pseudonym Acharya S., catalogues over three dozen “saviors and sons of god” that “predate the Christian myth,” which have most of the above stories in common.(22) This “incomplete list” includes
•    Mithra – Persia/India
•    Attis - Phrygia
•    Dionysus/Bacchus – Egypt/Greece
•    Zoroaster/Zarathustra - Persia
Wait a minute, many will say, I was never taught Dionysus had these “savior” attributes in school! But what counts is that the masses at the time believed this god man to be real along with his associated legend. The records of this are submerged under centuries of meticulous censorship, and this blog has hopefully made the task of locating them easier.
old egypt hieroglyphs carved on the stone
Why the Similarities?
It has become general knowledge that Christianity’s celebrations of what is now called “Christmas” and “Easter” are merely continuations of celebrations spanning back thousands of years originating in the worship of the sun and other celestial bodies.
In their power struggle with the Pagans, Christians co-opted their celebrations to make the transition to Christianity easier and their bid to bring the populace under one religion thereby consolidating power.
It’s easy to see how the sun and celestial bodies became revered in most parts of the world. The sun with its life-giving force was indeed the savior of mankind. And constellations were a way of monitoring the seasons, which people depended upon for their food supply.
It is less well-known why specific dates targeted for festivities appear to be universal – at least to that section of the globe. December 25 was one such date because it came three days after the winter solstice (solstice means “sun standing still”), when it became noticeable that the days were getting longer again and winter was releasing its grip. A multitude of cultures all over the world celebrated the winter solstice – with those in the Middle East particularly having their sun gods and god men born on that day.
Cultures around the world also celebrated another date in connection with the heavens, one that is still known today in Japan as Vernal (Spring) Equinox day, or what Christians call “Easter.” According to the historian Bede the English name “Easter” comes from a Pagan celebration of the vernal equinox. It is generally held to have originally referred to the name of the goddess, Ēostre.(23)
Equinox means “equal night” and when night and day are roughly the same lengths. It was symbolic of the changing seasons and signaled spring was officially in play and food supplies would soon be restored.
Various Christian cults celebrated the vernal equinox at different times around its original date of March 20 or 21 until 325 CE when Pope Gregory XIII in The First Council of Nicaea(24) changed Easter celebrations to the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox in a push to bring the sects together.
The number twelve is more than just the favored number of disciples in mythology, it is another indication of Christianity’s astrological, better termed astrotheological, origins. Twelve appears to symbolize the 12 hour divisions of day and night, in addition to the months of the year and corresponding zodiacal signs. If you’ll take a look at Genesis 49, where Jacob calls on his twelve sons, you’ll see the twelve described largely in terms of the zodiac.
Bribing the Gods
The sacrifice theme associated with the cross is also not unique. Ancient cultures around the world offered sacrifices to the god(s) to entice them into doing their bidding. Sacrifice, whether it be by the Aztecs or the Egyptians and later cults in the Levant (Including Israel and Palestine), typically necessitated presenting the god(s) with a valuable offering. And what can be more valuable than a human life? Presenting a freshly picked dandelion just wouldn’t carry as much weight.
In the Eastern Mediterranean and surrounding regions sacrifices commonly occurred around the vernal equinox, though this did not entail handing over the neighborhood virgin but rather the sun god or god man in vogue, who could rise again, typically after a period of three days. This recovery from death occurred not on a Saturday (Saturn day) or a Monday (Moon day) but on a Sunday.

Censorship’s First Steps
Christianity’s correlations to earlier myths are voluminous and found in historical artifacts, writings, books, articles and reports that could engender a whole new sort of World Book Encyclopedia – so why are so many Americans still ignorant of this information and why are scholars illuminating the Pagan origins of Christianity still sometimes considered “fringy” or “controversial?”Although modern right-wing Christians no longer have the luxury of slaughtering the opposition and rampaging through the streets leaving trashed Pagan relics in their wake, their efforts have had an enduring impact as illustrated with the Serapis connection. After the Council of Nicaea, Christians were given the green light to ramp up censorship, leading to a “centuries-long orgy obliteration millions of texts, setting civilization back at least 1000 years.”(25) It is probably also one of the reasons roughly one-third of the world still holds Christian beliefs.
A big coup was the annihilation of artifacts relating to a sun god/god man hybrid named Serapis, who was the immensely popular entity around the Roman Empire, even extending into Britain, before and after Jesus was said to be born.(26)
Serapis (Egypt circa 3 BCE-4 CE) was apparently the long, dark-haired, bearded prototype for the Jesus Christ character. Writes author Thomas Doane in Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions “There can be no doubt that the head of Serapis, marked as the face is by a grave and pensive majesty, supplied the first idea for the conventional portraits of the Savior.”(27)
Serapis also appeared to serve as a blueprint for the adventures of the later Jesus incarnation. He was said to be born of a virgin (Isis), considered a savior, lead souls into the light and raised the dead.(28) He was also identified with the cross(29) and an empty tomb after burial.(30)
Variously named IE, IES, Ieud, Judas, Joshua, Jason, Iesous, Iesios, Iasios or other variant, which signified a healer, Serapis was apparently created to roll the various savior cults into one.(31)
The records show he also went by the name of “Christos” and “Chrestos.”(32) In a letter to Servianus around 134 CE, Emperor Hadrian wrote, “The worshippers of Serapis are Christians, and those are devoted to the God Serapis, who…. call themselves the Bishops of Christ are devoted to Serapis.”(33) Another translation of this letter substitutes “Christians” with “Chrestians.”(34)
Although the mystery of both Isis and Serapis are today still part of Masonry, a Christian-based cult, there is a relative dearth of information concerning Serapis. A rabid mob of Bible-thumpers helped see to that in 385 CE when they destroyed the temple of Serapis as well as the Serapeum, a branch of the famed library of Alexandria.
Why did Christian emperor Theodosius the First order this destruction “… if not to destroy the evidence it contained of the spurious nature of the Christian religion and its heathen philosophical origin?” asked editor J.M. Roberts, in his book Antiquity Unveiled.(35)

Censorship Comes of Age
Widespread attempts to extinguish the evidence concerning the mythological roots of the Christianity continued over the years but on a much more subtle basis, “via the world’s greatest forgery mill.”(36) And this mill had its work cut out for it since there was a plethora of evidence to censor.
Much of this comes from the one country religious fanatics have not been able to get their hands on to any large extent – Egypt – which was a dominant power in the area for centuries and difficult to colonize and pillage to the same extent as other countries by the Christian Europeans.
The discovery of the Rosetta stone by Napoleon’s troops in the early 1700’s was one such artifact not destroyed. This ancient translation guide helped scholars decipher Egyptian hieroglyphics and brought to light something that had puzzled Europeans for centuries – why the images on Egyptian monuments and tombs depicted many of the major stories of both Old and New Testaments – only these inscriptions had been created thousands of years before.
The debate over the existence of Jesus began almost at the onset of Christianity, since the similarities to earlier stories were noticed, but it later became confined to hierarchical circles of which the public was largely unaware. At a gathering for the ecclesiastically elite in the 1500’s, Pope Leo X is quoted as saying, “What profit hath not that fable of Christ has brought us.”(37)
If you take a look at many websites today, it will be ardently rationalized why this quote did not come from the Pope, and there are many other ways the public has been successfully kept in the dark.
Hiding tell-tale evidence also meant taking advantage of the fact that these ancient cultures had for millennia been exchanging and borrowing information, much of it orally, which lead to an amalgamation of gods and their stories. The Old and New Testaments are not immune to this, as can be seen in aspects such as the hundreds of contradictions found on those pages.
This came in handy to ideologically-driven mythologists, who would pick and choose which version of a myth to acknowledge and which to ignore. The answer was a no-brainer – recognize the one with the fewest associations to the Christian account.
The movement to set apart these half-breed superheroes from the biblical edition also entailed substituting verbiage such as
•    “parthenogenesis” for “Virgin Birth”
•     “demi-god” for “Son of God”
•    “lord” rather than “Savior”
•    ruling over the “netherworld” rather than over “Heaven”
•    “rising up” instead of “Resurrection”
Other ways of downplaying Christianity’s Pagan foundations include acts of omission, hefty editing, tip-toeing around or vaguely alluding to the similarities, and of course flagrant censorship. The aftershocks for those who dared make too much of the resemblances included censure by Christian apologist colleagues, shunning by family and friends, having their reputations demolished and getting the ax at work.
Out of Censorship’s Reach
One scholar’s work seemingly untouched by the sweeping hand of censorship is where I also finally found a good, reliable, centralized source of references. Comparative Mythologist D.M. Murdock is independent which is key – it allows her the freedom to state the results of her research candidly without fear of losing funding from a major institution or benefactor.
She was a contributor to the phenomenally popular Zeitgeist documentary (Part I), which cast a spotlight on the research exposing Christianity’s Pagan origins. It is therefore not surprising she would attract some negative publicity and in this regard Murdock is in good company, joining the legions of other researchers in this field that were maligned, disparaged and demonized, typically by overzealous Christian detractors.
Just as the standard fare of criticisms have been leveled against her – “she’s wrong” – so too have kudos from scholars such as Dr. Robert M. Price, The Pre-Nicene New Testament: “I find myself in full agreement with Acharya S/D.M. Murdock... I find it undeniable that... many, many of the epic heroes and ancient patriarchs and matriarchs of the Old Testament were personified stars, planets and constellations...” Pastor David Bruce, M.Div, North Park Seminary, Chicago apparently agrees: “I've known people with triple Ph.D’s who haven't come close to the scholarship in Who Was Jesus?”
There are many more where that came from but I had to see for myself, so I read through my first Murdock text Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection with a judgmental eye. What I eventually realized after moving on to other texts was that there was no other scholar to my knowledge that has organized such massive amounts of data from and about that area of the world to the extent Murdock has.
Whether it be original language of ancient texts with an assortment of translations provided by a myriad of credentialed authorities, or data collected from excavations and artifacts analyzed in the lab – Murdock has managed to order this information into thousands of well-written and grammatically immaculate footnoted pages.
Just Enough Evidence
In addition to double-checking information, my background in journalism also calls for me to be as objective as possible, but being objective doesn’t mean conjuring up data to counterbalance actual facts – which is what would have to be done since there is no historical proof the biblical Jesus Christ existed. None.
Some scholars of Egyptology and comparative mythologies say nothing in the Jesus stories were original with all biblical accounts merely plagiarisms of earlier mythologies. To that I wouldn’t be able to testify. But my research did leave me with the impression that it’s as if the word “Jesus” was largely cut-and-pasted over the names of other mythological gods preceding the tale.
We will never know the entire scope of correspondences due to the scrupulous destruction of the evidence, but enough of it remains to have influenced our present.
Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Thomas Paine have all remarked on the likenesses the Jesus story had with those of earlier “saviors,” with Paine, in his treatise Origin of Freemasonry, concluding “The Christian religion and Masonry have one and the same common origin: Both are derived from the worship of the Sun.”
This is possibly a reason why the Founding Fathers, many of them not Christian but Deist, felt the need to incorporate into the Constitution the prohibition against government-sponsored religion by way of the very first sentence of the First Amendment.
These days, Christianity’s ties to Paganism as well as the archaeological disproof of all four foundational stories of the Bible are being made public to a greater extent and perhaps just some of the many reasons why secularism continues to grow and outpace all other ideologies not only in the US but the rest of the world.
To the doubting Thomases, before you issue a knee-jerk criticism of this blog, I invite you to launch your own investigation, looking elsewhere than mainstream books and modern encyclopedias. Also check out the references below and take the time to peruse the photos found in the Murdock books referenced.
Because with all the awe and wonder life has to offer, doesn’t the seeking and uncovering of truth count right along up there with the rest of it all?
Continue Reading.... Résuméabuiyad

Atheism and Homosexuality



New Testament Illusion
During a delusional period of my life laboring as a Christian minister, I was fond of preaching about the “amazing” grace of God revealed in the New Testament, contrasting it against the backdrop of the unforgiving law of the Old Testament.  The Old Testament was nothing more than a hard task master that had led us to the love of Christ.  On my journey out of extreme religious fundamentalism, it was not surprising that one of the first stages I reached was waking up to the absurdity of the Old Testament. One would have to be delusional to believe the god portrayed in those books was in any way loving, good or even rational.
However, the true absurdity of the New Testament was a harder nut to crack.  For cafeteria Christians who cherry-pick their way through the Bible, much of the “good stuff” is found either in the Old Testament books of Psalms and Proverbs or in the twenty-seven books of the New Testament.  There is a stubborn illusion of an abundance of “good stuff” to choose from in the New Testament.  Even many agnostic Christians hold tightly to the supposed moral values taught in these books, clinging tenaciously to this last bastion of hope against a bleak world of moral relativism.
The New Testament presents a challenge, as much of it is written as personal correspondence to individuals and local churches of the time period. They include typical greetings and acknowledgments along with some specific instructions meaningful only to the individuals being addressed.  Trying to pick up where a relevant train of thought begins and ends is difficult at best and so most Christians tend to read it in a disjointed fashion, if they read it at all.  Casual readers mentally break up the text into sections that make sense to them and scan over the rest, basically disregarding the context and logical thought flow intended by the author.
If we wish to really see the New Testament in its full absurd glory, we first have to respect the author’s linear progression of thought and any attempted use of deductive reasoning, permitting them to fully develop their arguments.  The original authors did not write in short proverbial phrases as is commonly quoted in churches today, but instead they were written as cohesive semantic units with each point building on the strength of its predecessor.
Even  as nonbelievers, we play into the mental defenses of believers if we disregard context in our criticism and lazily offer up simple challenges about perceived contradictions and injustices. We unintentionally provide those we are trying to help with ample apologetic wiggle room. Instead, if we stay true to the original context, we can more effectively challenge core illusions about the Bible shutting off their mental escape routes. A great example of this is an argument laid out by Paul in Romans 1:18-32.
Paul’s Syllogistic Reasoning
Paul begins this particular discourse with the claim that God is now showing us that he is very angry with certain individuals.  So, what’s new?  In an ironic twist, Paul is going to demonstrate that in this instance humanity’s bad behaviour is not the source of God’s anger. Instead, it is God’s anger that is the source of humanity’s bad behavior. Whoa, what? Now, this should be interesting.  (vs18)
Paul begins to lay out his case by asserting the crime committed was the denial of an introduction to the one true god of the Old Testament - YHWH.  More specifically, they denied  “God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made.”  (vs19-20)
Now Paul was not claiming that everyone has an innate knowledge of God’s existence, as some presuppositionalists ignorantly believe, but simply that we can clearly see God and what he is like in nature; a classic argument from design. However by including God’s invisible qualities, and considering the proliferation of polytheistic religions in the 1st century that Paul is addressing (vs23,25), Paul is actually arguing for something far more logically indefensible: namely that a specific god, YHWH of the Hebrew Old Testament, is clearly revealed by nature.  This non-sequitur move from the visible world to a god’s existence to YHWH’s specific existence reminds me of a William Lane Craig fallacious leap from a “possible first cause” to “Jesus is God” to “we need to be saved”.
Paul then states, by denying YHWH’s existence these individuals, let’s call them YHWH-deniers, were rendered incapable of appreciating YHWH.  Due to this new ungrateful state of mind, the YHWH-deniers’ epistemology became dysfunctional, useless and thus they became simple minded fools.  (vs21-22)
Pausing the progression of his argument, Paul drives home the reason YHWH’s anger is justified.  These YHWH-deniers had exchanged the plainly obvious knowledge of YHWH’s existence for a lie. They experienced pleasure from the things that they could see, touch, and feel in the real world instead of enjoying the presence of the invisible and silent YHWH.  Really?  This is worthy of great wrath? (vs25)
Paul then moves on to show what YHWH does when you ignore him -- it pisses him off. In his anger, YHWH took away his kind, fatherly protection from these ungrateful YHWH-deniers and “gave them over” to their natural animal instincts.  Apparently YHWH had been holding back the evil natural instincts he had created in them.  Without YHWH’s restraining assistance, the women who “belonged” to the men turned into lesbians and the men turned gay!  Oh my, this is starting to feel more and more like the familiar misogynistic, homophobic Old Testament. (vs 24,26-28)
After YHWH allowed them to turn homosexual, because that is what all humans naturally want to be if it weren’t for YHWH holding us back, YHWH also “gave them over” to a “depraved mind” and they became pure-evil-greedy-low-life-scum! Desiring their neighbors resources, they murdered each other, fought with each other, deceived each other, and took pleasure in each others suffering.  They started gossiping and spreading false rumors, and they even became YHWH haters!  Hold up a minute ... YHWH-deniers somehow hate YWHW whom they deny exists?  Who are they hating? (vs 29-30)
But wait ... there’s more!  After pissing off YHWH they became disrespectful, arrogant, boastful people who when running out of ways to do bad things invented new ways to do bad things!  Horror of horrors, they started disobeying their parents!  Because children of believers in YHWH don’t disobey their parents? Oh …  the offspring of YHWH believers are killed if they disobey ... duh. (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) They became senseless, faithless, heartless, and ruthless people. Hmm… why does this seem to describe some Christians I know? Are they secretly YHWH-deniers?  Double agents? (vs30-31)
Paul finally concludes his argument:  Even though the YHWH-deniers actually know YHWH, and know according to his good laws people who behave this way should be put to death, they continue to behave like evil beasts anyway and cheer on others who behave the same way. Notice this final non sequitur Paul just slid in here.  Now the YHWH-deniers not only know of YHWH’s existence and his divine eternal power, but they also know his good laws and that they are applicable to their behavior.  All from just watching a sunset?  (vs32)
Fallacious Logic of a Fanatic
Let’s dig into this a little deeper.  The common misguided notion that a naturalistic worldview will lead to gross immorality is nothing new.  Christian apologists today are fond of saying that they can’t see how on a naturalistic worldview there is a basis on which to ground morality. Is it strange how often they offer their lack of imagination as an argument?  But even they are not so arrogant as to say this means all atheists are immoral.  Instead, they argue morality is innate in all of us because God placed it there whether we believe in him or not.
Paul is having none of this weak soft-pedaling apologetic that an individual can be moral even while denying YHWH’s existence.  For Paul, the evil in this world is a direct result of humanity denying YHWH’s existence and YHWH allowing us to run unfettered with our naturalistic urges.  He doesn’t offer the modern apologist wiggle room to play nice and pretend that there is some innate sense of right and wrong guiding the moral atheist.
When we look at the visible world, Paul believes it should clearly introduce us to an invisible creator “without excuse”. (vs20)  Even if we grant this premise, it doesn’t follow logically that we can see the work of a lone creator who is eternally powerful. History shows us it was more intuitive to ascribe unknown natural forces to a collaboration of temporal gods who shared power in the creation and maintenance of the observable world.  In spite of his last assertion still needing further justification, Paul blazes ahead by adding a meaningless tautology about YHWH’s divinity: By revealing himself as YHWH through nature, YHWH has revealed he does indeed have the nature of YHWH.  Sounds like some “woo woo” logic only a new age guru would appreciate.
Is Paul seriously claiming this one specific god whom a small ancient tribe worshipped is “clearly seen”?  What statistical magic is he employing to equate a miniscule quantity with “clearly”?  If nature clearly revealed a specific god, then why are religious beliefs not convergent?  Why do religions spring up from central charismatic figures like Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad and not from within the general population?
Paul’s first premise is the only slightly defensible point of his whole argument and I only grant this for his original audience in light of the scientific ignorance of that age.  The rest is just plain absurd in any age.  YHWH is so pissed off because people deny his existence that he turned heterosexual humans loose and they just naturally turned into homosexuals?  YHWH is once again holding people accountable for the supposed evil they are doing even though he is the one who “gave them over” to their natural desires which he created in the first place (vs24,26)? Why didn’t he just get over his hurt little ego and just make himself … oh ... I don’t know … visible …  instead of throwing this Old Testament worthy childish temper tantrum?
A Long Shadow
Finally, in spite of what apologists would have us believe, homosexuals are apparently atheists, or at the very least unbelievers in YHWH, who have been turned over by YHWH’s anger.  I am sure this would be news to Christians in the LGBT community.  Do they secretly deny the god they publicly profess?  All atheists are ignorant, immoral, evil beasts, incapable of restraining our passions without YHWH’s kind assistance.  Even here in the pages of the peaceful New Testament, atheists and homosexuals deserve death, because the God of the Old and New Testament just wouldn’t have it any other way. (vs32)
How have so many atheists become leading intellectual thinkers, scientists, engineers, and innovators if they are just simple minded fools embracing a dysfunctional epistemology? (vs 21-22)  For any moral atheist or YHWH-denier who also happens to be heterosexual, does this mean they really didn’t need YHWH’s restraint?  Or does reality just reveal Paul's argument is nonsensical and serves no purpose other than to give us a window into the mind of a 1st century fanatic? As we respectfully let the author speak for himself and lay out his argument in full, the conclusion is pretty clear.  Considering Paul is the leading author of the New Testament and possibly Christianity’s chief architect, I believe his fallacious reasoning must cast a long shadow over the ideology he helped create.
“ … people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” Hosea 4:6
by Atheist Republic's
Continue Reading.... Résuméabuiyad