Can an Atheist believe in eternal life for the body or spirit? You bet!

 According to research on cells, even from a long time ago, some cells renew themselves indefinitely!

This was shown in experiments with cells from rabbits being isolated and a nutrient solution added and changed everyday for many years. Only when the solution was not changed were these cells aging from taking in their own wastes. With a very short time of this toxification, the cells died.

Whether the cells could have died that quickly from lack of food, versus the toxification is yet to be confirmed, but the hypothesis of the scientists running the experiment was that it was overloading the cells with their own waste that killed them. So their belief was that not helping the human body detox of what we put in our bodies and because of what is in our environment, that may be what's killing us. (Or we would possibly be eternal!)

As a matter of fact only one woman's cells have been the standard for testing for a long time. The cells have self replicated without dying so many times over, that if put together, it is estimated that they would weigh about 50 million metric tons, which is about as much as 100 Empire State Buildings! They called her "the woman with immortal cells". Sadly, they were apparently not detoxing properly in her body (like they were in the test tubes that were changed daily) as she died young of cancer.
Source
Source

So, you are basically being a martyr to your choices and circumstances being in the body and time you are in, whether you like it or not. What are these choices and circumstances you might ask? I'm sure I don't know them all, but I have discussed some both obvious toxins we need to detox from (like junk food, pesticides and herbicides or radiation) and not so obvious ones. (Like fluoride, vaccinations, whole grains that are not processed, dyes in food, many oils, chemicals in our body products, furniture and even clothes!)

Come with my imagination though to a time when all they had was good food and a clean environment. What killed those people? Or did they live long lives? Strangely, we tend to associate the past with shorter lives, not longer. . .why would that be? There could be a few explanations for that: they were all dying in wars, famines or natural disasters.

What about before religion, which spurned most of the wars? (I believe there was such a time.) That would leave mostly only natural things to kill them off. . . So when was there no war? Quote:
"What is interesting about Ancient Egypt is the fact that it's time line ran between 3150 BC an 31 BC but the Ancient Egyptian wars did not occur until half way through their existence."

"While it is known that the early Ancient Egyptians did send out raiding parties to nearby countries for the looting of precious metals, animals and people to keep as slaves.[or was it a tribute paid to them as gods over them?] These did not turn into full blown wars."

This lack of equality is I believe because the ancient Pharaohs/gods were the presumed masters. The Egyptian pharaohs/gods I believe were actually the half children of the Ancient astronauts/aliens that the world's religions all sprang from. (More on this in my series on them starting here.) The Egyptians of that time believed that pharaohs were go-between people (to the gods) that were half-man and half-god.
Source

This race of dark skinned people, the Nubians (who were manufactured to be slaves according to the ancient texts of the Sumerians) apparently had no technology, and no writing until much later. . . when they adopted their culture, writing and other things from the Egyptians, Also later they apparently started interbreeding with them, but as is typical in history, we can trace the breeding to be completely one sided. In other words, the slave masters did as the Bible described in Genesis 6.  "When the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” The same thing happens with any slave race, the woman are "taken", likely against their will.


 It was said in the ancient Sumerian texts that the slave race of these "gods" was simply created to dig for gold and precious metals. . .which was to be brought back to their planet to grind up and repair their atmosphere. It was said to be a planet with a lot of gold on it, and for this reason, the people from there also evolved to shine. (As referenced to a lot in the Bible as well.) Ironically, the name "Nubia" or "Nubian" is thought may originate with an ancient Egyptian noun, nebu, meaning "gold".


Back to the lack of wars though: The wars that eventually did happen were for he purposes of dominating and controlling the neighboring races of the [slave] Hittites and Cannanites who eventually rebelled. Which I suspect was the cause of all "war" until they disappeared and left their children in charge to squabble about history, eventually changing it enough to make it into a religion. As humans are still prone to do even today.
Source
Source

Anyhow, at this time before war, the physical body could theoretically live forever, or at least a very long time. In the time before the Bible was written down, the belief in the gods was recent history that everyone knew, because the chosen ones actually walked with the gods! Adam, Eve and Enoch were said to walk and talk with "God" in the Bible (Which was actually plural "gods"). The book of Enoch goes into much greater detail of what most would call an alien abduction today.

 If we take the genealogies and stories seriously, these men in the Bible lived many hundreds of years before the flood! It is often theorized by Christians that the reason it seemed to change was more exposure to the sun with a much lessened atmosphere/"canopy of water". The real question: Is there any evidence of these stories being true? Were old men found in these areas, at that time? Actually yes!

Did you know that like how reptiles continue to grow throughout their lives, we have a few things that grow the longer we age too? We have a brow bone that protrudes and a jaw that grow longer, Do you know what they speculate that a very old face would start to look like? An ape. Could this be the confusion between our ancestry? It is understandable, but when there is only a slight look of an ape in the face, yet with all the even superior technology we know they had, the uprightness they stood with, the language ability we now know they had, and most importantly a blood type (RH-) not found in any primate (much less on this planet!), it seems that people should recheck their presumptions about the origins of humans.

So not only do at least some people's cells have the possibility of being eternal, we also have sculls showing that our ancestors did live around 800 to 100 years old, according to projections based on how fast those bones grow in humans now.

What about the "spirit" that people associate with "God"?
" The Ancient Egyptians believed that the pharaoh's spirit [the part of them that was said to be "God"] could live for an eternity, which means forever. They believed that the pharaoh would become [only] a god after he died, so pharaohs were buried in a tomb with many treasures which could be enjoyed in their Afterlife." (Mind you, as spirits are not known to need abstinence or generally be able to move things, not surprisingly the tombs when opened did not looked touched.)

Socrates said that "the actual practice of learning to leave the physical body and live in the spiritual body. . . is called "dying."

Egyptians did not call their ruler a "pharaoh" before 1554 BC during the 18th dynasty. Before that, pharaoh meant "Great House" in Egyptian and referred to the palace of the king.

Could this be what later evolved to be the belief that the spirit of "god" dwells within God's children?  The body is known as God's "temple" in the Bible, which could also be translated as "great house". So is the human body just a vessel for the alien spirit? When the vessel dies, the spirit of "god" being much longer living (even believed to be eternal) would then live on. . . possibly passing on to another "temple" or "vessel". . . possibly not. The spirit would then just be in a state of waiting to move on. 

Considering there is a lot of evidence for reincarnation, and ghosts living loose among us, this seems very likely to be the case. It's my theory for now anyhow. Besides, if life after death is as good as we're told by the religious, why do ghosts remain here and for what purpose?

 It's not the only link with my theory though: we also have the "witness of the Spirit" spoken of in the Bible. This is that feeling we get that we know a person, even though we have hardly met. Is the ancient alien/"god" part of us, reincarnated in it's eternal "cells", communicating with itself divided and living within humans! (Some people, possibly because of their bloodline as "Children of God" being a bigger draw to the alien spirit. . .I don't know, but kind of spooky!) 

We may have a god parasite!
Source
Source
How might this "spirit" of the larger "gods" (literally translated "tall men") manifest in our smaller human bodies? Ever heard of our energy fields? Some people have larger ones, and some smaller, but all extend out from the body. This is a fascinating new science that use to be only in the realm of the mystical "quacks" but is gaining legitimacy, being talked of and researched by scientists more and more. A scientist and well renoun author was recently talking on the Opera show with Dr. Oz about energy medicine and this field around and in the body, from a scientific basis.
Source

Historically, this is a well known and practiced medicine who's basis is in the "spiritual" part of the body. There are skeptics of course, most of which will deny even the existence of this inner force, and yet anyone who is honest can see and feel the effects of this force. When you walk into a dark room, can you feel a presence in the room at times? How about when someone stands too close to you in a crowd? You may feel they are touching you although they are not, you may feel uncomfortable or anxious although there is no threat, you may even feel emotions that aren't your own - all of these feelings are due to your energy which comes out a little way from your physical body coming into contact with the other person. It's not as odd as it sounds.

When someone is close that you don't like, can you feel the negative energy? When someone is a needy, self centered or manipulative person, do you feel a suction of your energy force being around them? When someone is even looking at you (focusing their energy in your direction) do you feel their eyes on you even before you look at them? Depending on your sensitivity, and how big your and their energy field is, this can be felt nearer or further away.

How do we know the human energy field really exists besides intuition or imagination?

"Knowledge of the human energy field comes from ancient texts [like the Sumerian text, which literature has things like knowledge of the planets that was not known by common man for many thousands of years after.] and metaphysical literature, as well as what is observed through “high sense perception”. High sense perception is a term coined by Barbara Brennan to refer to the phenomena of “clairvoyance” — the ability to see that which lies beyond the reach of physical sight. The human energy field can be perceived in a number of different ways by use of what could be considered to be more subtle aspects of the 5 senses. Clairvoyance or “subtle sight” is only one way. People who are sensitive to the energy field may also hear it (clairaudience), sense it kinesthetically (clairsentience) or even have experiences of subtle smell and taste. Different people sense it in different ways, although some feel that everyone is capable of developing all types of subtle sense perception." 

Source

People can be stingy with their energy, as they have found it regularly drained from them. These are people, like me, that don't like hugs. Even the quiet presence of someone is a distraction to me, and I find I must be alone to give focus of my energy to anything fully. Some people I believe are more likely to be like this if they have a large energy field (which I have been told I do) because they get the effects of energy draining people from a further distance away. . .which causes it to happen more often. 

This larger energy field is evidenced in a large "personal space", and not liking physical touch, unless intentionally to heal. (Like a massage.) Perception is as good as intention here it seems to me, as those who you perceive don't like you, cannot heal you, nor can those who don't like you, pass on healing energy to you. 

Thoughts that are healing can actually be passed as energy from a distance, and thus the justification of prayer, which with intense "intention," thought, or "good vibes" can actually cause a reaction from a far. (Most times it has as much effect as praying to a horseshoe though, as the prayer is selfish or insincere.)

"Thoughts and actions can have severe consequences on our health, not just our own but those we direct our thoughts at." This is why doctors are confounded with miraculous healings. There is no denying the fact that how we think can change our health, but it is sketchy how this works on others, as we often don't even know who is sending good vibes our way. 

 Communication from this spirit of others is generally felt with an inner 'knowing' or thought popping in to your head, they may appear in dreams or provide a 'sign' relating to the information they want to impart. They may simply want to let people know they are near, safe and well and are felt by a cold shiver or goose bumps, or a breeze. These can be called ghosts, the spirit of God, or what have you, but we are talking of the paranormal here, and I think it's the alien spirit/parasite. 

Source

Whether for the good or bad though, this spirit is longer lasting then our bodies, and when we die our "energy field" leaves the body. When exactly does it enter into the next one? 

It is said by those who can see this energy field that the fetus while in the womb of the mother has no spirit. The spirit does goes in and out of the fetus, as if checking it out though, until it is born. As soon as the shoulders are out of the canal, a weak aura starts to appear. (Could this explain the light at the end of the tunnel that people see as they are dying?) 

The spirit has now to stay within the confines of the body after it is born. They say that depending on how content and willing the spirit is to reincarnate into that body, the child will live or die. This may correlate to the high rate of infant mortality (SIDS) in the first few months.

Source

So to recap:

• Cells could theoretically live forever if treated right.
• Our bodies in the past, before wars, have apparently, based on bone growth and the projection of time, lived as long as the Bible claims they did before the flood.
• The ancients believed in their leaders being gods.
• Later in the history, the children of the gods were believed to be having a "spirit of the gods" within that was released upon death. 
• By the 18th Dynasty the "gods" seemed to have left, and the name "pharaoh" came about, along with the belief in them being half god.half man.
• Pharaoh is translated "Great house", a similar concept to that in the Bible of God dwelling within the person who was his child. 
• This spirit or energy field within is larger, like the "tall men" or "gods" and seems to divide and reincarnate, just like cells.
• This spirit can be called energy, or our "force", "the witness of the spirit" or our "personal space".
• This spirit or energy is healing to the physical body if shared around physically or even mentally it seems.
• This spirit or energy leaves us when we die.
• The spirit or energy goes into a baby as it is being born. . .thus the light at the end of the tunnel.

And the process starts all over again. I believe that would be the definition of living forever. So the kingdom of heaven is within us, as Jesus said. We will be eternally living through people in the future as he is living in us now. Yes Jesus is basically "in my heart." So this is Fascinating stuff, "EH?" Does that make me a Christian all over again?! 

What's the harm? (In being religious.)

Those who don't think there is any harm in being religious are either blissfully ignorant from being in a very liberal religion in the past, or are in religion now, because there is no question in the harm of religion. Granted, it may seem harmless because some feel it is comforting, like the belief in Santa bringing you presents on Christmas morning. . .the problem comes when you are told that good things only come to those who are good. Unlike with God though, "Santa" is hardly ever known to actually give out the coal to the "bad" little children.

It is a messed up person indeed who believes that everything that happens to them, good or bad, is a direct result of their actions. If you are rich and sheltered, you may find "God" is pretty laid back, and good to you. . .unless you find yourself in an accident, have a spouse leave you, a family member die, your house burn down, etc. Then you have a choice:

1.  believe God doesn't know,
2.  believe God doesn't care, 
3. believe God is teaching you a lesson or
4. believing that he is making you an example for others, so you can show off your faith and how it "works". 

Let's just say you are a good and moral person, who always tries to please God, when out of the blue something terrible happens. . . you will find the first two choices horrible, and with any common sense or self esteem, you will believe the third to be wrong as well. So that leaves you with the fourth option, being an example of the right way to react in a tragedy. That isn't likely to build up your ego or anything. . ."Look at me, God must love me more, as those whom he loves he chasteneth."

That was the BEST case scenario mind you, besides turning away from believing God is real. The rest involve justifying a continued belief in a cruel God. Which other then destroying your self worth, because God doesn't care about you in your mind, it also makes you very judgmental when the tables are turned and someone else, or even a whole city or country, has a catastrophe.

What this comes down to is really being childish and superstitious. It is a childish belief that all things have a purpose for instance. We grow up around man made things that all have a purpose in the mind of the Creator. Then we go out into the world and say, "Why is there a tree?" "Why does my body grow?" "Why do I feel the way I do?" "Why did the creation of the universe happen?"  "Why" questions are nearly always childish and demand over simplified answers to complex problems. Yet, as adults we still often revert back to our childishness and ask the "why" questions, especially to our kids. "Why did you hit your brother?" "Why are you acting so foolish?" I mean really, what kind of answers do we expect back?!

So, how else is a religious belief harmful? Many people feel that God is the only thing keeping them from going out and murdering and raping people. This is statistically a farce, but yet I have heard this very thing stated by a family member. If you truly have so little self esteem, and think you are that depraved as a human under the curse, then please don't change to be an Atheist on account of me!! It is that mentality that leads those who rebel against religion (but without knowledge) to ditch all morality. Thus we have the depressed, uneducated, homeless, drunks and druggies, and those "Christians" filling our jails. These are Christians who believe that God is constantly beating them over the head, but they are getting him back, or at least not following where "he" leads. (Unfortunately, the conscience is mistaken for God, and in bitterness they harm themselves and those around them in their spite against this imaginary "friend.")

Also, the more desperate a person gets, the statistically more likely they are to believe in a god. It may do little harm for well educated, wealthy people to believe in God, but when the poor and uneducated believe, they are less likely to act, and more likely to just pray. There is a saying among the more action oriented Christians though that goes like this, "God helps those who help themselves." So, if you work hard, and are a successful person by pulling yourself up by your boot straps, it is God that still gets the credit?! In other words, you will reap what you sow. (No God is needed in this equation.)

So while not everyone subscribes to this lazy, complacent attitude of "waiting for God's will to be revealed", or just praying when there is a need you could actually do something about, it is much more likely to find the doers and advocates as well as the humanitarians in the non religious crowd, then the religious. . .at least in my experience.

Depending on your knowledge of the Bible, your sex, gender identity, sexual orientation and age, you will feel more or less accepted and equal to those around you as well because of your beliefs. As you can't help most of those things, except by faking it, religion will alter your perception about yourself, and your ability to accept your true self. Also making it less likely for you to believe others will accept you either. As your actions are intricately tied to how you feel about yourself, it is much more likely for a person with religion induced low self esteem to act out in immoral ways. . .and this is very evidenced in the jail rates of the religious, vs. irreligious.

If you believe that all mankind is born in sin, you are more likely to try to control that sin nature in yourself, depriving yourself of pleasure deemed as "sin" to your crowds reading of the Bible. (Self love, too much money, gambling, alcohol, leaving a spouse, TV, the internet, the theater, cards, etc.) You will also likely try to (out of love and sincerity of course) control the sin nature in others too.

You will be the one to let your poor needy baby "cry it out", as you were taught that they are just selfish by nature and trying to control and manipulate you. It will naturally follow that you will be a disciplinarian who is harsh with your kids, because that picture was given you by your "Heavenly Father".

As a "godly" husband you cannot accept your wife, as you have a job to present her to God as a spotless bride. By your title as her "spiritual head" and "leader", you are by default the responsible one if she acts unsubmissive or acts out in any way. She is not accountable for decisions she makes without the responsible male agreeing to it, according to the Bible. Leading the males to be domineering, and the females to stop trying to take responsibility for themselves.

Speaking of responsibility, a Christian will be less likely to protect the earth, as it is just going to burn when they are taken to Heaven they believe. Of course, some will read into the Bible the opposite in that, like in the garden of Eden, when we were supposedly told to "tend the garden", it meant "the world." And don't think of "planning" to save the world even if you believe that though, because you are told to "take no thought for the marrow". . .and that the heavenly father takes care of even the lily of the field. (Which means that presumably, you won't need to.)

Many religious folk use this reasoning, and that "the end is near" to excuse away not getting a job or planning for their future. This is a real shame, as they find it comes back to haunt them, and then they have the choice of who to blame, or what to do when that strategy doesn't seem to work out.

There is also the fact that classically with a rise in religion, the culture becomes closed to science, progress and free thought. When you believe that your book has every answer that pertains to "life and godliness", it is a closed book on new things. Plus, there is even a fundamental denial of their being anything "new", as the Bible say that "there is nothing new under the Sun." Even now, a discussion of science that would contradict religion (Like my entire blog) will literally get you the death sentence in 13 countries around the globe! Glad I live here in the "land of the free".

So let;'s go over this again, how does religion harm the individual?

• They believe all good and bad are brought on them by their actions.
• They believe they are at best an "unprofitable servant." Horrible for self esteem!
• They also believe themselves to know the truth, be "God's child (and if they are a male especially, they are responsible to share their truth with you.) and have God always on their side. Talk about encouraging pride and arrogance!
• It encourages a child-like thinking, (something the Bible even claims when it says you must become "as a child. . .") in asking stupid questions, and belief in invisible friends.
• It makes people feel they are dependent on God for their morality, (again no self esteem) and thus they give it up if they get hurt while still believing.
• You will have a negative view of your world.
• You will deprive yourself of harmless fun activities you are told are wrong.
• You will have issues taking responsibility for your actions.
• You will believe your lack of planning and responsibility is good and that God will always take care of you. . .leading others to have to pick up the slack for "God".
• The mind becomes closed to new info, and science. Curiosity is killed, as all answers are already known. . .

How does religion effect and harm others?

• You will try to control or evangelize others out of fear for their soul. If you succeed you spread the parasite, if you don't, you often lose the friend or their respect for pressuring them.
• Judgement is inevitable as well as not truly accepting anyone but yourself. So friendships will often be lost, and every time is justified as "persecution" or not fitting in the "world".
• Having control of yourself and others as much as possible (like conservative religion demands) will usually lead to issues with abuse in your family and with your friends if you deem them less godly then yourself. (Very sincerely though!) 
• Prejudice against different races, lifestyle choices, and those who do not share your beliefs are taught in the Bible and practiced by still a lot of religions.
• Most wars have been fought over judgment and prejudice. The attempt to control others also stems from self righteousness over being right about religion. Countries with little religion have peace and little crime. (Even with free use of guns like in Norway.) Countries with lots of religion have constant war, crime (Even with guns banned!) and legal abuse of those who are different. Even families turning on each other! Not really surprising though as even the progressive Jesus said that "Father will be divided against son and son against father; mother against daughter and daughter against mother; and mother-in-law against daughter-in-law", and "A brother will betray his brother to death, a father will betray his own child, and children will rebel against their parents and cause them to be killed."
• Countries with lots of religion tend to have a low regard for education, and progress.

If you doubt any of this, look it up, there is a mountain of evidence that I didn't even bother to site this time because it would just seriously bog this post down. If you still don't think there is any harm in religion though, check it out for yourself! I'm just getting it out here to make you think. I hope you've found as I have though, that religion is something to be fought tooth and nail, and the abuse (especially to our impressionable children) not just taken "sitting down". We live in an enlightened world, not in the dark ages after all. Peace to all.

All things equal, are the non-religious actually happier then the religious?

So, I'll admit, the evidence strongly points to Christians being happier then Atheists in America. Which would suggest that Christians have "the joy of the Lord", and the virtue of contentedness. . . BUT, studies now show that while religious people (at least in the United States and other religious countries) are statistically happier on average than non-religious people, the key variable does not appear to be religion itself. Instead, it is the social connections that religious life facilitates that make people happy.
Source

Some could say that the Atheists and Agnostics who go to a social "church" or club-like groups should then be on par with the religious church goers.  I would disagree though. . . until the non-religious can be accepted in a dominantly religious society, they cannot be truly on par socially. Ideally though, if they could be accepted, instead of the most distrusted group in the country, (based on ignorance and presumption alone) I propose that they would be even happier then the religious!
Source

Across the world, The Freethought Report 2013 unfortunately shows not only distrust though, but extreme prejudice and persecution. (Which is difficult to be happy while in.) One of the people doing the study said, "there are laws that deny atheists' right to exist (13 countries have a death penalty for being an Atheist), revoke their citizenship, restrict their right to marry, obstruct their access to public education, prevent them working for the state...." And even if not "on the books", in America it was polled that 55% of people would not vote for a well qualified person for president just because he was an Atheist.

Even criticism of religion or even academic study of the origins of religion is frequently treated as a crime, not just in Muslim countries, but across most of Africa (the most highly Christian places in the world) atheists face severe or systemic violations of their rights to freedom of conscience.

 While the US is not a great place to be an Atheist by any means, the country has thankfully had some recent improvements, despite the continued dangers presented by the religious right. Even earning an "honorable mention" in a study of the top 8 countries to live in as an Atheist! This may be partially due to the fact that the number of self-identified "religious" Americans has dropped from 73% in 2005 to 60%, according to a recent poll! Americans also may tell pollsters that they are religious, but apparently either they have a very loose definition of "religious", or are a closet Agnostic, based on their actual church attendance.

 So, how can an Atheist, amid all their prejudice and persecution, be happier then if they believed the dominating and socially accepted belief of being a Christian, in this Christian country of America? Well, they can't easily be yet, but all things being equal, we could theoretically compare the community and acceptance that Atheists do have in say, the most Atheistic country of the world (Norway), with what they could have here in the States. To be fair. . .

So, Norway scores the highest in the Legatum Prosperity Index, which is based on a study of 142 countries comprising 96% of global population. Nations are analyzed and ranked on 89 indicators in 8 categories. Though money alone doesn't bring happiness, all of this is a pretty good indication of contentedness.

Source

"There’s a strong correlation between the happiest countries in the world and the least religious countries in the world, and along with Sweden and Denmark, Norway rates at the top of both lists." 

Source

Source

In many Scandinavian countries, including Norway and Sweden, the number of people who report believing in God has reached an all-time low. This may have something to do with the way these countries have established governments that guarantee a high level of social security for all of their citizens. Aaron Kay and his colleagues ran a study in Canada which found that political insecurity may push us towards believing in God.

 As a further note of interest, Norway has the lowest rate of antidepressant use in the industrialized world from all the stats I read, 57 people out of 1,000 use antidepressants. They also have a much lower obesity rate then us. . .which we lead the world in!

No doubt the increased health also correlates with the low crime rate and overall safe feelings of it's citizens. . .or maybe it's the fact that guns are used in most households! The nation of about 4.9 million residents reports one of the lowest per-capita homicide rates in Europe.

"A mountain of evidence demonstrates that stable, egalitarian economies correlate strongly with higher rates of atheism."

Atheism flourishes in nations where people demonstrate high levels of commitment towards a socially just government and shared economic benefits. If you have faith in your nation, your gun and/or your fellow citizens, putting faith in your invisible friend or religion as well, might seem rather pointless. 

So, correlation or causation aside, it seems obvious that the more well educated, wealthy, crime free and stable the country is, the more happy they are. . . and the more likely they are atheistic. While the more religious the countries, the more the opposite is true. So can we say it is the Atheists that are happiest, or just a fluke, evidenced in many different countries of the world? I personally see no cause to doubt that Atheists are far more happy and content, as they aren't full of superstition and fear.

 I personally feel happier with my life in general and my marriage too since becoming an Atheist. . .that said, if I were not married to a (now) Atheist, and generally presumed to be a Christian by strangers, as well as have few judgmental Christian friends left on Facebook (this has been a process) and go to a mostly Atheistic church, I would feel much less happy. Community is everything with how happy you are people, so. . .have you hugged your friendly neighborhood Atheist today?

False flag operations. . .for better or for worse.

This may be hard to believe, but the government actually stages terrorist attempts on it's own people! This is called a false flag operation, or a black flag operation.

• Pearl Harbor was one of these times- 3000 dead and declassified government documents reveal it was neither unprovoked nor a dastardly surprise attack.

Source

Military officials have confirmed that the government at least planned to stage a phony attack other times as well, and always to justify war.

•  Operation Northwoods for instance was a proposal put together by the Joint Chief of Staff, designed to kill Americans to provoke a war with Cuba. Operation Northwoods was never officially accepted as it was rejected by President John F. Kennedy.

Please read the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. Source

Not surprisingly, we see a chain of "conspiracies" that happen next against that well loved president of the people (and his family). It is now a well known fact that the assassination of JFK was not just done by one man with an issue, instead, there is strong evidence linking the deed to the CIA! The corporate media is still pushing the myth that JFK was killed by a communist lone nut named Lee Harvey Oswald. But most of the American people are not buying it. Since the early 1990s, a strong majority of Americans has believed that JFK was killed by a conspiracy, and that the CIA had a hand in it.
The American people are right.

Overwhelming evidence confirms that the JFK assassination, like the assassinations and overthrows of so many of the world's best leaders, was a CIA operation. Bobby Kennedy his brother suffered a similar fate by getting too close to the truth, and being a good guy.

Source

(Of course, small groups are regularly taken out as well, if they are deemed troublesome or uncooperative. -Those like the Ruby Ridge family, or the cult in Waco, TX .- The government in those cases got away with murdering men, woman and children because of the people owning and using guns. While guns may be our right to own, it seems more often then not, that "those who live by the sword/gun, shall die by the sword/gun." 

Pacifism is said to be "the wimps way out", and "not protecting your family", but if you have ever heard the stories of a pacifist group like the Mennonites in war time, you will know that it takes two to fight. Those who refuse to take sides get passed over by both sides most often. My hero is Dr. Who, a wise OLD man who hates guns. I guess I show my pacifist Canadian blood on this point "eh"?)
 

I hate guns and I hate war even more! So more on the all out war I promised in my last post;
have you ever heard of the "conspiracies" at the Gulf of Tonkin?

•  On August 2, 1964, the destroyer USS Maddox engaged three North Vietnamese Navy torpedo boats. A sea battle resulted, in which the Maddox expended over two hundred and eighty 3-inch and 5-inch shells, and in which four USN F-8 Crusader jet fighter bombers strafed the torpedo boats. One US aircraft was damaged, one 14.5 mm round hit the destroyer, three North Vietnamese torpedo boats were damaged, and four North Vietnamese sailors were killed and six were wounded; there were no U.S. casualties. But the second Tonkin Gulf incident was originally claimed by the U.S. National Security Agency to have occurred on August 4, 1964, as another sea battle, but instead may have involved "Tonkin Ghosts" (false radar images) and not actual NVN torpedo boats. In other words, they lied about this encounter, and Vietnam apparently never even fought back after being attacked two days before!

The outcome of these two incidents was the passage by Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which granted President Lyndon B. Johnson, (the one who took over from Kennedy) the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by "communist aggression." 

The resolution served as Johnson's legal justification for deploying U.S. conventional forces and the commencement of open warfare against North Vietnam. This has recently been declassified and now mainstream media exposes the fraud. Whereas in 1964 the CIA used the NY Times and other mainstream media to spread the lie. Ultimately, 58,000 Americans died, hundreds of thousands were maimed and wounded and over 1.500.000 Vietnamese (conservative estimate) were murdered in Vietnam.
Source

Source

After that war people literally went crazy from what they were made to do and see. This led to the opening of many government run or supported insane asylums. They were around before then for sure, but they boomed at that time, as it was seen as a huge money maker.

These "hospitals" or "homes" would not just take care of these people, but make big money off of further torturing and testing with them. Science needed test subjects, and while grave robbing was the preferred method of getting dead flesh, many times they needed alive subjects who were not deemed normal. (Or even fully human with a "soul".)

Now, I believe in the basic goodness of man, and I think everyone intends well, including our often misjudged leaders. They inevitably have to consider the whole and are likely consequently as in the past, still thinking along the lines of eugenics to help mankind out. In order for the evolution, and even survival of humanity, they may feel we need to grow in some ways, while shrinking in others. Growing in perhaps intellect or talent, while only allowing breeding of the best of the best, and encouraging the rest to die out, or actively killing them. No one wants to kill or have war just for the fun or likely even the money of it though, least of all those fighting it! So how can those in charge inspire the right people to do their dirty work, and "kill two birds with one stone?"
 A wise man once said:

"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.

As war is a money maker, and a great population controller of the violent, naive and stupid who are drawn to fighting out of patriotic pride and bigotry, the government takes every opportunity to send us to war, even like I said before, setting us up. Some notorious recent ones I will mention now.

There is the Oklahoma City bombing, for which there exists a significant body of evidence of a shadow government operation. Not surprisingly it was used as justification for the enactment of the very provisions lawmakers had previously been found most constitutionally troublesome. . . the resulting 1996 Antiterrorism Act.


And now, the biggest false flag and conspiracy of them all…9/11.

Many well known and respected senior U.S. military officers, intelligence services and law enforcement veterans, and government officials have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report or have made public statements that contradict the Report. Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11.

Over 1,500 Engineers and Architects have showed the impossibilities of the commission report. I have read attempts at debunking this "conspiracy", and each one has neglected to mention any key evidence, and instead point to how hard it would be, or how much we should trust the government. I challenge anyone to try to debunk these points of evidence:

1. Near Free-fall Collapse of three buildings (WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7)

The laws of physics don’t lie. Even after a plane struck around the 90th floor of WTC2, there was still 80+ floors of completely intact, steel-framed structure below the damaged area. How would 80+ floors of intact steel-framed structure provide zero resistance to the “collapse”?

2. Molten Metal Pools, and chemical evidence of “Nano-Thermite”

There are many statements from firemen and other officials indicating the presence of pools of molten metal below all three collapsed buildings. The problem here is that according to the “official theory”, those fires shouldn’t have ever come anywhere near the temperatures required to melt steel into pools of molten metal.

Incendiary explosives in general, and nano-thermite specifically would have done that though.

3. Pulverized Concrete, Lateral Ejection of massive steel columns

If the buildings all truly collapsed due to damage from the airplanes and fire alone, then the “official theory” is a gravity based collapse. If so, then how do you explain the fact that virtually all of the concrete in all three buildings was pulverized into fine dust? Would gravity do that?

How do you explain that massive multi-ton steel columns were ejected with incredible force and embedded into buildings as far as 600ft away? Would gravity do that?

4. Building 7 Collapse

How do you explain the perfectly symmetrical, nearly free-fall collapse of WTC Building 7 neatly into it’s own footprint at 5:20PM on 9/11? It was not struck by an airplane. It had been damaged by falling debris, and there were a few pockets of fire that had been burning on a few floors of the building.

5. Missing Plane at the Pentagon

Immediately after the impact at the Pentagon, CNN Reporter Jamie McIntyre stated unequivocally “after my close inspection, there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon”.
Lots more evidence and testimonies here.

And have you heard that the anthrax attacks -- which were sent along with notes purportedly written by Islamic terrorists -- used a weaponized anthrax strain from the top U.S. bioweapons facility, the Fort Detrick military base? Indeed, top bioweapons experts have stated that the anthrax attack may have been a CIA test "gone wrong"; Also evidenced in this article by a former NSA and naval intelligence officer; and this statement by a distinguished law professor and bioterror expert (and this one). And it might be coincidence, but apparently being warned, White House staff began taking the anti-anthrax medicine before the Anthrax attacks even occurred.

The Anthrax scare had nothing to do with Islamic terrorists. This was instead said to be the work of a high-ranking ex-freemason and ex-CIA agent by the name Weston, who left freemasonry because he thought that his rank in freemasonry should be higher than it was. After he left freemasonry and the CIA, he was no longer involved with the laboratories that experimented with the Anthrax spores but kept a close touch with old associates still working there. They are the ones who provided him with the spores. He and some of his associates had a bone to pick with the American establishment and the September 11th events gave them the opportunity to start the scare.  The attacks occurred one week before the passage of the freedom-curtailing Patriot Act which was the motivating factor for 9/11. 

Just like with The Oklahoma City bombing ending in the Antiterrorism Act, 9/11 ended in the patriot act. "The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened". - Josef Stalin

With these new laws they are taking more power to do anything they want, saying it's in the best interest of the whole. If this continues they will be able to have the power to force vaccinations, fluoride, GMO's, toxins and more ways of population control on us. They already have the power to kill (or imprison for life) suspected terrorists, or trouble makers. Just this week I read of a 15 year old who after lighting a roll of TP in his highschool, was convicted and charged of being a terrorist.

Source

 This is not the only case of this either. . .leading many to believe the government is just desperate to fill the jails. Recently I read that that is exactly the truth! Prisons have sometimes 20 year contracts with the government to stay 90% full or more or they can sue and fine tax payers millions!! All incentive to lower the crime rate disappears as taxpayers just have to foot the bills as it does.

Source

The war on terror was just another ploy like the "war on drugs" that the government made out as a threat so they could fill up the jails.

The term was popularized by the media shortly after a press conference in June 1971 by United States president Richard Nixon where he declared drug abuse "public enemy number one." War on Drugs was started by the Nixon administration as a means to suppress political dissent. After all, it was mainly people on the Left who were opposed to the Vietnam war, who were vocal about personal freedom and the use of drugs back then as now.
Source

Most disgusting is the very politically motivated war on Marijuana, a drug that does very little, if any harm. . .and a lot of good! Up until 1883, and for thousands of years before, Cannabis/hemp/marijuana was the largest agricultural crop in the world! The majority of fabric, lighting oil, medicines, paper and fiber came from this plant.
Source

Being that it does no harm, and is used by the individual usually at home, there arises a need for the government to spy on us in order to fill their jails. Unfortunately they can and do spy on us through our phones, cameras, computers, etc. Most people know that, but don't realize that they also have their spies. . . These come in the form of doctors of all types, social workers, counselors, cops and likely others too. These truly believe they are doing what's right to tattle on the private American who uses Marijuana, doesn't vaccinate, or has non-typical methods of schooling or discipline for their child.  I personally am very wary of befriending people with this mindset as they have been known to see things that aren't there, and have people unfairly jailed or their kids taken away. Once you foster a mindset of suspicion, and self righteousness, you see what you want to see I find.


Did you know that the Government spies on what it considers "rebellious people or groups"? A covert program called COINTELPRO has a mission to “expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize” rebellious people and groups. (COINTELPRO even now has PETA and members of Greenpeace on its "terror" watch list)

So, while the government has slightly changed their tactics, things have really not changed much, it is still all about money, justifiable control of the mainstream idiocy and power.

What about the future though? Is the US gullible enough to keep falling for these tactics? Will we evolve and be enlightened with more knowledge? Or with the economic pressure, will the poor get poorer, having less time to live and learn, and only time to work? Will the rich just get richer, and control the media and government more? Will we stand for any more of these false flag operations that have a new law taking away our rights at their heels?

Republican U.S. congressman Ron Paul said "a contrived Gulf of Tonkin-type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran".

The former assistant secretary of treasury in the Reagan administration, called the "Father of Reaganomics", who is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service, has said: "Ask yourself: Would a government that has lied us into two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran shrink from staging "terrorist" attacks in order to remove opposition to its agenda?"

General Tommy Franks stated that if another terrorist attack occurs in the United States "the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government".

Daniel Ellsberg, the famous Pentagon Papers whistleblower, said "if there is another terror attack, "I believe the president will get what he wants", which will include a dictatorship.

The former UN Weapons Inspector, an American, who stated before the Iraq war started that there were no weapons of mass destruction is now saying that he would not rule out staged government terror by the U.S. government.

And a member of the British Parliament stated that "there is a very real danger" that the American government will stage a false flag terror attack in order to justify war against Iran and to gain complete control domestically.
Source

Some would even claim that a war is oncoming without an incident. . ..
Source

Either way, if our president calls for war, he has only as much power as his peons give him. If good people rebel, he will have only the bad or stupid people to fight his battles, and then the wars won't happen, or we will make the leaders happy when they do and take many casualties.

 In the end we all have a choice; no gun can be blamed for the crime done with it. We can take back this country, but not by the power of force. After all, "the pen is mightier than the sword." And so I write on.. .

Would the American government poison their own people? Conspiracy or truth?

Now I'm not into tin foil hats and fear tactics at all, but I hate to say, there are a lot of "conspiracy theories" that are confirmed to be true! That term "conspiracy" is a little like the one "cult." When saying a religion is a cult, simply because it is an unaccepted religion in mainstream society that simply puts your stamp of disapproval on it. (When the truth is, they were all cults once, and one is not above another except in how harmful it is to the minds or bodies of it's followers.)

  If a theory of belief, whether conspiracy or religious based was untrue though, it would die with education coming in. The good news is, generally, it does. The true "conspiracies" seem to stand the test of time. As the ones who hold onto it have nothing to gain from sticking with it, and often lots to lose. Not to say that plenty of people don't stubbornly stick to their guns without an education in what the opposition thinks, (and thus spread ignorance) but when you see people falling away from a belief, and people changing sides, that is when you see evidence of an education.

Some would ask though, "should we research and expose the truth, or live in ignorance, as it is "bliss". . .?" Well, as my blog is all about research in things that will change your life, I think this may be another area that could do just that. I don't want to convert anyone into a paranoid kook, (much more likely if you are religious minded in the first place I've found) but I do think it is important to be informed about the facts of our surroundings and history. So go back to the "roaring 20's" with me and see what the government was doing then.

"As the '20s roared, alcoholism soared. Booze was banned, but speakeasies were everywhere. Few people followed the law, so the Treasury Department started enforcing it differently—by poisoning the watering hole.




Most liquor in the 1920s was made from industrial alcohol, used in paints, solvents, and fuel. Bootleggers stole about 60 million gallons a year, redistilling the swill to make it drinkable. To drive rumrunners away, the Treasury Department started poisoning industrial hooch with methyl alcohol. But bootleggers kept stealing it, and people started getting sick.

When dealers noticed something wrong, they hired chemists to renature the alcohol, making it drinkable again. Dismayed, the government threw a counterpunch and added more poison—kerosene, gasoline, chloroform, and higher concentrations of methyl alcohol. Again, it didn’t deter drinking; the booze business carried on as usual.

By 1928, most of the liquor circulating in New York City was toxic. Despite increased illness and death, the Treasury didn’t stop tainting industrial supplies until the 18th amendment was repealed in 1933."

 The idea of the poisoning was to scare people into giving up illicit drinking. Instead, by the time the Prohibition law ended in 1933, the federal poisoning program, by some estimates, had killed at least 10,000 people.

Source

Later- The Government wanted to develop drugs that could manipulate Soviet spies and foreign leaders—essentially, a truth serum. 

The CIA’s massive mind control experiment, Project MKUltra, had about 80 MKUltra labs where the CIA toyed with drugs like LSD and heroin, testing if the substances “could potentially aid in discrediting individuals, eliciting information, and implanting suggestions and other forms of mental control.” The CIA tested LSD and barbiturates on mental patients, prisoners, and addicts. It also injected LSD in over 7000 military personnel without their knowledge. The CIA Director Allen Dulles complained that there weren’t enough “human guinea pigs to try these extraordinary techniques.”

In the 1960s, during Project 112 and Project SHAD, military personnel were exposed to nerve agents like VX and sarin and bacteria like E. coli without their knowledge. At least 134 similar experiments were performed!!

In the late 1980s, the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce released a damning report called “American Nuclear Guinea Pigs: Three Decades of Radiation Experiments on U.S. Citizens.” The report spotlighted Operation Green Run, a military test at a Washington plutonium facility. There, in 1949, managers purposefully released a massive cloud of radioactive iodine-131 to test how far it could travel downwind. Iodine-131 and xenon-133 reportedly traveled as far as the California-Oregon border, infecting 500,000 acres. It’s believed that 8000 curies of radioactive iodine floated out of the factory. To put that into perspective, in 1979, Three Mile Island emitted around 25 curies of radioactive iodine.

The report showed that the military planned 12 similar radiation releases at other facilities.

The government sponsored smaller tests, too. 

• In the late 1950s, mentally disabled children at Sonoma State Hospital were fed irradiated milk. None gave consent.
•  In Tennessee, 829 pregnant mothers took a vitamin drink to improve their baby’s health. The mothers weren’t told the “vitamin” was actually radioactive iron.
•  In Massachusetts, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission fed 73 mentally disabled children oatmeal. The secret ingredient? Radioactive calcium. (Officials told the kids that if they ate the porridge, they would join a “science club.”)
•  From 1960 to 1971, the Department of Defense conducted whole body radiation experiments on black cancer patients, who thought they were receiving treatment. Instead, the DOD used the test to calculate how humans reacted to high levels of radiation.
•  In 1957, Operation Plumbob saw 29 nuclear explosions boom in America’s southwest. The explosions, which 18,000 soldiers watched nearby, released 58 curies of radioactive iodine—enough radiation to cause 11,000 to 212,000 cases of thyroid cancer.

 Through the 1950s alone, over 400,000 people became “atomic veterans.” 

Then came fluoride. Fluoride is a poison. It's between arsenic and lead in toxicity.

 Ironically, it is also full of lead and arsenic. The process for getting fluoride ensures it's contamination with them, just adding to the problems with our water! LOOK IT UP.

 (There is often confusion about the naturally occurring fluoride and the other stuff, but from what I have read, they are not the same.) 

Fluoride (even the synthetic kind) may not be "toxic" in minute quantities, but it is a CUMULATIVE poison. Also, it just loves cartilaginous tissue and bone. It also loves the pineal gland, (also called the mystical "third eye") which it calcifies, rendering it nearly useless. Most people’s pineal glands are heavily calcified by the time they are 17 years old, so much so that they show up as a lump of calcium during an MRI.

This is a very important area of our brain connected to our sleep, our ability to think (like our IQ) and even our spirituality. Which is one reason it has been nick named, our "God organ". It is said that we are made more docile and sheep-like when the gland is malfunctioning. 

Source

 Of course the damage is done over many years of exposure, and most people only notice fluoidosis (or white spots on the teeth) at worst for the side effects. (Which can come on with only one visit to the dentist at the wrong time, as attested to by one daughter of mine.)

Amazingly, the FDA has never even approved fluoride as a drug, not that those they approve are safe though. . . The FDA says there is no proof that fluoride is safe or effective, and that it is a drug, not a mineral nutrient.

Dentists also know nothing about it's safety or effectiveness, they only parrot what they've been taught and woe to any dentist who deviates from the dental hierarchy -- can you say yanked license?? The ADA makes a bundle off of fluoride products -- can you say conflict of interest?

It's, at the very least, ignorant for MDs and DDSs to prescribe fluoride drops or tablets for kids. First of all, it's specifically contraindicated for children under 6 months. Further investigation would reveal that most people--kids included--get MORE than the recommended amount of natural fluoride in their daily beverage and food intake.

Decades ago, fluoride used to be released into the air through the smokestacks of phosphate mining operations, but this resulted in the widespread death of cattle and plants on nearby farms and ranches. To stop the deaths, phosphate mining companies installed "wet scrubbers" that captured the toxic fluoride chemical vapors, which they then needed to pay to haul away to a toxic waste dump.

While consumers might think that deadly fluoride chemicals captured in these wet scrubbers were then disposed of as hazardous industrial waste, the surprising truth is that they were claimed to be a cure for cavities and sold to cities and towns to be dumped into the local water supply.
  If you want to hear more, there is a short documentary on Fluoride

  here. And to decalsify check out the suggestions here.

Now the powers that be seem to realize that they can't get away with forcing babies or grown ups to take poison, mind numbing, controlling or otherwise. . . so they have had to figure out a way for people to take it willingly, even asking for it as they did with fluoride!! 

A lot of folks, on a basic premises of trust of the goodness of the government, don't question what they tell us is good for us, from the food pyramid (telling us what to eat) to the vaccines and drugs they push, it is all a government conspiracy to poison the naive and stupid!  (I've already blogged somewhat on vaccines here.)

It's not always about the sly poisonings of the Americans though, sometimes it is straight out warfare! Don't believe me? Read on,  it will shock you what is now known about the past and present doings of the government, in "False flag operations. . .for better or for worse."

Music, intelligence and lifestyle. . ."Oh the irony of it all."

Let's talk about music, a past passion of mine that I have neglected as of late I must admit. (Mostly due to motherhood. . .) I grew up heavily involved in music though. I was born into a musical family that sang and played instruments for a living. We made 6 tapes/CD's and a video while traveling 11 months of the year from the time I was 6, until I went away to college. I then married a music major who has since been involved with being a music pastor and leading numerous choirs over the years, including one now at our "church". So the subject of music has always been close to my heart.

I hope you are all aware of how music effects you, but I suspect most have no idea. This is a fascinating subject that my husband and I have discussed and researched a lot over the years. According to our research, music comes from the root word "muse", as it's intention is to make you think. So in a perfect world, the psychological effects of music would simply be to make you think.

We have probably all heard of the studies on music with babies, leading to a boom in classical music baby CD's like "Baby Einstein" not long ago. Though this music is calming, and helps you concentrate, some have speculated that it isn't the music that necessarily makes a person smarter, but their genetics. Yet there is a definite connection to smart people and this music.

I could propose that it's not as much the music as the intelligence of the person that draws a person to the type of music they like. This in turn calms and helps their brain. "What came first, the chicken or the egg?" is what it inevitably comes down to. (Though that is a really silly, creation-belief-based-question, you get the idea right?)

It has been said that "Our thoughts are the seed from which the plant of our lives will grow. As that plant (our individual life path) grows, it is affected by many things, one of the largest influencers is music. The influence comes on both the conscious level by the words, and subconscious level. . ." (Which I believe to be the music or rhythm/beat/notes.)

On the flip side of these positive brain building effects, our thoughts and emotions as well as actions can be influenced negatively but unhealthy music. We see that heavy rock/metal, rap and country music (and probably others) because of it's beat alone it has an energizing, angering and depressing tendency on the actions, emotions and thoughts. This is seen in the group behavior of those listening to it in concerts, as well as parties, stores and at home. Studies have shown that depending on the music played in stores and restaurants, the people rush and wolf their food or act leisurely and calm. Consequently we can tell that this fast and rocky music is in turn stressful to the mind. Many people finding it even causes an immediate headache. How can you tell that music like this is stressful to the body?

The effect of stress is that:

•  your heart beats faster, 
• your blood pressure increases 
• you breathe faster, pumping maximum oxygen and energy-rich blood to your muscles. (And away from your skin and extremities
• Your liver releases more sugar into your blood ready for action.

Chronic stress additionally leads to:

•  sexual dysfunction, 
• increases your chances of getting sick,
•  often manifests as skin ailments. 

All this is due to the "fight and flight" response, which we can be stuck in. Our adrenal glands release adrenaline (also known as epinephrine) and other hormones. One of which is the "stress hormone called cortisol. Raised levels of cortisol for prolonged periods can hurt your immune system and decrease the number of brain cells as well! In the short-term cortisol presumably helps the brain to cope with the life-threatening situation. However, if neurons become over-loaded with calcium they fire too frequently and die – they are literally excited to death. When the brain is thus stressed it does nothing good for brain development like calming or classical MUSE-ic, in fact, it actually kills brain cells! Without cortisol though you would die – but with too much, too often it makes your brain cells die and thus making it more vulnerable to damage such as strokes, ageing and additional poor response to stressful events.

(In fact, when you are stressed out, and riled up with the wrong type of music, it causes a chain reaction with many of your hormones! Stress depletes progesterone as well, and that causes an estrogen dominance, which causes poor responses to stress -think moody PMS- weight gain, inflammation, adrenal fatigue. . .
 In evolutionary terms though, this is a remarkable system that has helped our species survive under attack, but exposing ourselves to this stress long term could literally be the death of us.)

Personally, I would classify a loud, repetitious, driving beat in music just obnoxious noise. Ironically, a noicy environment has the exact same effect on people. "Noise at home or school can affect children's ability to learn. Compared to kids from quieter neighborhoods, children living near airports or busy highways tend to have lower reading scores and develop language skills more slowly. Bad moods, lack of concentration, fatigue, and poor work performance can result from continual exposure to unpleasant noise"

"Included in noise-related problems are high blood pressure, peptic ulcers, cardiovascular deaths, strokes, suicides, degradation of the immune system, and impairment of learning. Noise is also associated with an increase in aggression and a decrease in cooperation."

Knowing the effects of music, good or bad, now let's analyze this topic a little deeper. . .Who chose our music preference as a child? Wasn't it preprogrammed in us from childhood, consequently effecting our thoughts, emotions, actions and health?

At some point we do seem to veer away from our parent's choices and choose our own music though, in a similar way that we choose our friends. We likely don't suspect the importance of our choices and how either will mold us, but they do. The real question is, do we originally get drawn to the music because of how we feel, or does the music of our culture, work environment and peers change us to feel like or mirror the music as we leave home? My experience is leading me to the latter.

I have seen in my own life how a life of mostly country gospel/bluegrass music made me look, act and sing like a cowgirl. Then I went to a conservative college, where it wasn't even allowed! They not only confiscated music that wasn't approved, but they had a strict and lady-like dress code and a certain way they taught the girls to act like a "lady". So I learned to dress, walk, and attempted to talk and sing "classically". . .all of which ironically went with the music they predominantly played. This point in my life led me to being a thinker, more organized, caring to impress people with the way I dressed and acted. . .but I also got proud of how I acted, and my crowd and also became analytical and skeptical about everything.

Next, probably because of too much thinking, we left even the somewhat mainstream belief of this fundamental and classical lifestyle, for an even more extreme and narrow life and music. Plain in every way, our music was without style, frills, mics or instruments. Even the ones I grew up playing I was told to get rid of as I would supposedly have pride in my abilities with them. . .  (So I gave them to my parents, who have since thankfully returned them.) The clothes were very plain and old fashioned, and my hair was put up in a head covering. No make up was allowed either. How I decorated my house, the car we had, and even my husband's job was constantly checked on. This no frills life was so typical of the music we listened to there.

Leaving that life behind, both my husband and I naturally took our own paths both in music and somewhat style. (Influenced by our upbringings, choices and somewhat just what we were always drawn to.) Not both reaching the same beliefs until much later, where we have mostly settled upon soft pop, and classical music to influence us.

Here I want to mention though that as my wise friend said, "No one is a victim of life. We all make choices and are responsible for the influence we follow."

  I have no shame in admitting that I've always liked a mix of Oldies, bluegrass, pop, (love songs) and classical music, whereas my husband, because of his past work environments, is a lot more into Pop, but with some classical still, while dabbling in doing some professional opera and renaissance as well. Our styles of clothes are, depending on the day, also a mix of those looks. So, in my experience, even when we aren't controlled by peer pressure from a religion or others, our music and lifestyles are closely tied. This connection is harder to peg though the more diverse the choices in music, nonetheless, I find it easy to tell what kind of music many people like, just by the way they dress and walk or talk.

 Once I thought that my theory on music might be wrong, and that there was no connection to the style and the music. . .but then I found out that secretly the person had been listening to that music I pegged them for listen to, but knew they couldn't listen to. Alone in his truck as a trucker he had been slowly changing and letting it mold him for years. He was the only one to stand out in the cult I was in, as everyone else was listening to nothing but church music. (He was quickly excommunicated after that. . .) So as a friend said, "Be careful of whose influence you admire, [especially music] you may end up thinking like them and acting and looking like them." In this case, it was probably a good thing, in some others, not so.

So, interesting as this is, I have a point in bringing up the connection to music with intelligence (brain health) and lifestyle: because it also opens up our minds to different beliefs. We can see this in the typical music of the churches of today. Funny thing, in the time since we have moved to Virginia we basically went to a few of our old classic Baptist churches (to mostly humor the family that moved with us) before going our own way and finding a church that would accept our differing beliefs of the time, the Unitarian Universaist church. We have stayed there through many belief changes for both of us over 3 years or so. In this time our extended family, who started out believing and living the same as us, went back to their music that led them to the cult to begin with. Probably consequently, they have hardly stayed 6 months in a typical christian church before getting disgusted. Why did they leave? Music. The music was "offensive" and "worldly". Now they are in a small church that is not "perfect" doctrinally, and very conservative and traditional, but has "good" music that is not "dishonoring to God".

 So, if you are drawn to classical/traditional/high church or calm meditative music, your options in this city (with a church on every corner) are down to the tiny extremely conservative fundamental type churches,  (that I've never heard of a member not excusing away, ashamed or embarrassed of their churches judgmental bigoted or wrong beliefs, consequently they are now almost extinct) or (surprise!) the most liberal church in town, full of Atheists and Agnostics. Mine.

What do these both groups have in common that would drive them to the same music you ask? One very cookie cutter in their style and music, (if not beliefs and lifestyle), and the other one quite varied in their style, thoughts and even beliefs, while their lifestyle and music choices are generally, at least partially, very conservative. Could it be the music preferences of both show them to be the thinkers, and they all consequently have a problem with mainstream idiocy, including the immorality, irresponsibility, sheep-like behavior and music?

One group believing what they are doing to be just God's way, while the other believes the lifestyle and music choices are just self serving and common sense. Could it be that the thinkers in life go one of 2 ways:

1. they dig in their heels, and practice their religion consistently and historically, away from the mainstream inconsistencies and hypocrisies, by putting on blinders to new research. 
2. Or they question religion with an humble and open mind, until they find answers and consequently most become very liberal and open minded Christians or leave religion all together! 

This ties into my other posts: Anti-mainstream = "s-marter then the av-er-age bear" and also this one: Religion is for sheep, cults are for rebels.

It's a pretty good theory anyhow.
Source
Source

Too much exercise will make you fat!

I had a friend who believed that her obesity struggles would resolve with a gym membership and an hour of strenuous exercise every day. . .but with no diet changes. (And there was rarely a fresh fruit or veggie in it!)  I have found this to be a commonly held belief and something very driven and determined people lean towards. . . seeming to be gluttons for punishment. The truth is, "to lose weight just through exercising is very difficult. You would have to exercise at high intensity for three to four hours or more a week. . .The idea that exercise, and running in particular, will lead to weight loss, is a common misconception."

At first trying this method my friend claimed that she did lose some weight, (probably water weight) but she quickly found it again, and more then ever. Presuming as most would, that it couldn't have been the one thing she believed she was doing "right", she got discouraged and quit.

Many people unlike her though, don't even begin to lose weight with lots of exercise! Either way it is a discouragement to your weight loss plans to try so hard and end up the same weight or gaining weight in the end. Lack of weight loss, or even weight gain isn't always a instant reaction to over exercising though, sometimes it takes years! Classically people who were very athletic people in their youth end up overweight. I come from a very athletic family, and this is the pattern I have seen.

If this is the case, why does this happen you could ask? One of the obvious justifications for the weight gain from the very start is the fact that exercise turns your fat into muscle, which is heavier. This can be encouraging, but the moment you stop, that muscle is converted into fat, and probably more then you started with!

Another reason you will likely gain weight, or at least cancel out the weight loss, is that exercise causes you to be hungry. A study, from the University of Massachusetts, found that not only does exercise increase hunger by increasing levels of insulin and leptin, (both appetite-stimulating hormones) but it also found that women are affected more than men.

Most people, feeling this hormonal effect of hunger, and the need for energy giving glucose in particular, feeling justified to have -and crave- a little treat, they usually go for a sweet drink or carbs (both of which digest as a sugar) after a vigorous workout. (What they are probably feeling is actually thirst, and drinking water after a workout is often what is really needed.) 

Sadly, while it can take an hour to burn off 400 or 500 calories, and takes just two minutes to eat that many calories. You might be surprised to see that 500 calories looks like. (Check out a sampling here.) You need a deficit of 500 calories a day to lose a single pound, and as exercise will just increase the desire and need for food, it is a vicious cycle.

Yet another reason why pushing yourself to exercise hard is a bad idea is that it increases our levels of cortisol, the stress hormone, which leads to a decreasing amount of progesterone, causing an estrogen dominance, leading to tummy fat. Also the body often goes into a state of "self preservation", which is characterized by slowed metabolism, fat preservation, decreased thyroid function, and for woman, anovulatory menstrual cycles and infertility, as well as other symptoms . . . Mind you, these symptoms are largely related to dieting or nutrient deprivation, (such as low fat diets) that often naively accompany any intense effort to lose weight with exercise.

Thankfully, you do not have to torture yourself with strenuous exercise or skip food and go hungry to lose that 500 calories worth of food a day. Nor do you even have to keep track of calories at all. Those who fixate on the numbers tend to miss out on some of the best super foods: like the good fats. Nuts, avocados, coconut oil, eggs and butter have all been demonized for their caloric content, but are actually great for you, (depending partially on the source) and will even help you lose weight!

This is because most people are fat because they are malnourished, not because they are eating too many calories. (Just the wrong ones.) And as exercise only increases the need for nutrients, you will need to have an increase in good food, or you will only get more deficient! (And consequently get fatter!) So while quality food is the main player in any weight loss plan, it is important not to downplay the benefits of exercise. The part it plays in weight loss has long been overstated, but it has a crucial role in our physical health, in fighting disease, bone loss and in our mental health. You just need to eat more good food and lots of water while doing it, or you might as well skip it. . .as you won't be doing your body any favors.
Source

Presuming you plan to keep to whole foods and water to hunger though, it is a great thing to be active. If you don't get enough activity in your day with spurts of running after kids, gardening, or some other heart pounding work, this is a fine routine I stole:

1. Warm up for three minutes
2. Exercise as hard and fast as you can for 30 seconds. You should feel like you couldn't possibly go on another few seconds
3. Recover for 90 seconds
4. Repeat the high intensity exercise and recovery 7 more times

As you can see, the entire workout is only 20 minutes. 

 Dr Mercola recommends and calls this a Peak fitness routine. I for one will try to do this, as well as roller skating, gardening and normal life with 5 young kids, and most importantly, eating healthy food. Doing this I have no doubt that I will lose my bit of baby weight in a timely fashion as usual, and I know you can do it too.

I had a dream. . .

 No I'm not speaking of the speech from Martin Luther King Jr. (That plagiarizing, womanizing, often drunk hero of civil rights. . .or didn't you know? History has a way of glamorizing people after they die.) Literally though, I had a dream! In a similar way that his was though, it was a hopeful one. I dreamed that everyone learned and understood how life started on this planet because of how science has basically replicated the process.

 Scientists have now done experiments to replicate the beginnings of life with the basic elements being heated and cooled and dried up and wet, in the order we see to have happened in the far past, seen by the geological evidence all around us. In other words, in the environment of that time, from the basic elements found on the earth (that were formed in the older stars and planets of the universe that died and exploded, sending their dust or gases here) life just happened naturally!

 Amazingly, Scientists have made RNA, the precursor to DNA by leaving nature alone in the environment of the time. DNA we know evolves on it's own because of selective breeding for survival, to form all the life we have today. Meaning that all living organisms we now have or ever did have, did and can come about naturally, without a design or creator. When you think about it, that should not come as a surprise, as there are many design flaws in much of nature. . .the human body being no exception!

The natural outcome of this knowledge should now be the death of religion and the belief in a creator of all things. . .because if any life can start that way, it stands to reason that it all would have, no matter where it started. Now isn't that a more logical start of life then a word from God? (Which is the equivalent of someone speaking "abracadabra" and the object magically appears.)

 Furthermore, even aside from the belief in God's role of creator of the universe and life on the earth, his existence as a supposedly eternal being is also called into question. It stands to reason that if something alive (RNA) could start from dead elements, then we could also say that any "God" would only logically have been formed by using this same process (though likely on another planet) as well.

Of course, if God did get born or created from this same slow process, on another planet, then he would also have to die like all the rest of life. Also, if he had created "children" here with his genes, (like was described in all the ancient texts) the DNA of these "creations" would have to be much older then the rest of life on this planet, with a unique bloodtype to the types found on this young planet. . .which not surprisingly is exactly what scientists have recently found! The DNA of man is older then this planet, and the RH- in human blood is found in no other living plant or animal that we know of yet! Together this information confirms that by definition some humans for sure have alien blood. (Something ironically even Jesus claimed, when he said repeatedly that he was not of this world.)

 So even if a so called "God" (or what others like me would call an Ancient alien/astronaut) was able to harness the science of DNA from the RNA to start this earth's plant and animal life from scratch, (in the same process as scientists are doing today instead of genetically modifying and splicing DNA they already had from their own planet, as most believe the aliens did,) we still cannot say that the origin of life is mysterious and magical anymore. Religion is officially dead and the Evolution of life is now proven to be a fact! (Sorry to burst your bubble. . .really.)

source
Source

Source

Source

Source