Is atheism predicated partially on the belief in evolution and the current prevailing views of science.
If so, then such a belief is subject to drastic changes as discoveries and theories
have recently arose that shatter the paradigm that is the foundation of such a belief:
Discoveries keep pushing back the inception of civilization, indefinitely back in time
Evidence of coastal civilizations existing during the ice age are arising in now inundated coastal region due to rising seas.
The concept of a missing link is no longer postulated as a bush of hominids lineages walked the earth. With what was once considered ancestors, actually being contemporary with postulated descendants. A bush of hominids actually existed as recently as 30,0000 B.C.E.
Though theories of evolution abound no working scientific model exists for the emergence of life.
Our very existence is interwoven with the anthropic principle. As such this has required scientist to postulate the multiverse to explain how the anthropic principle is mindlessly satisfied by nature. However this just substitutes one unfalsifiable believe for another.
In truth, Darwin's world has been shattered and the truth has become intractable. Even as we cope with dark matter and energy. Terms that falsely connote that we have defined them, when in fact they are no more apparent than God. As such new scientific theories continue to emerge based on the inadequacy of the standard model. This will continue into infinitum since, as God there is no means to detect these alleged entities with scientific instrumentation.
Michael, no. In the Witch of Endor case, an Elohim rises out of the ground, the Bible says "it was Samuel" (1 Samuel 28:12) and then Samuel, the dead spirit or Elohim, whatever you want to call it (those aren't synonyms) says "YHWH has done to you as he spoke by me, for the YHWH has torn the kingdom out of your hand and given it to your neighbor, David. " And then he goes back to being dead.
In the case of Moses, in that story, he reappeared with Jesus at the transfiguration that occurs in the story before the crucifixion. I said nothing of Enoch.
You said it couldn't be found in the bible. But it can.
Do not be misled, the soothsayer saw gods ascending out of the earth.
Soothsayers and fortune tellers have no powers to see the invisible. They do have the proclivity to be deceived by seducing spirits. And this spirit was went out earlier in the book of Samuel to deceive Saul as God ordered.
Now you are just ignoring the clear limitations set about by the specific wording of the text. The passage permits no wiggle room for Samuel to be a spirit here due to the precise wording it uses to describe the encounter in this story.
In verse 12 the bible says the woman saw someone. It says that Samuel was who the woman saw. It speaks in definite terms who the woman saw leaving no room for anyone else including a spirit.
Both sentences in verses 15 and 16 also start with the bible saying Samuel is speaking. Not "someone like Samuel".
There is no indication anywhere that the tormenting spirit is involved with the seance itself. There is not even the slightest indication that this is anything other than Samuel. It says it definitely was Samuel about 4 times. I don't think it can get any clearer.
There are many commentaries on this. I am not persuaded by your point of view. It goes against the teachings of the new testament that one with favorite spirits can conjure up the dead. Moreover it goes against the teachings the old testament. "The living know that they shall die and the dead know not anything". Constantine merged Roman Paganism with Christianity and invented the Nicene Creed. Consequently the Church is completely devoid of miracles and the true spirit of God. A person in the old testiment having an immortal soul is Greek-Roman paganism. Moreover such a concept is completely alien to Judaism.
There are dishonest commentaries that use mental gymnastics. Nowhere in the NT does it say that people can not conjure up spirits with evil means. You just made that part up.
Most commentaries do not have a problem with this. According to Baker Commentary on the Bible though, it was indeed Samuel. And Baker is very conservative.
You can't just hide behind commentaries. Look at the text itself. And you still haven't dealt with the Moses issue.
Heres another commentary. It is a problem text. You are just going to have to deal with it. Maybe you need to take the Beuken approach, but then you still have issues as I pointed out already.
(Vv 12–14) No ritual is recounted. Perhaps, as Beuken suggests, Samuel beats the woman at her own game by coming up as a prophet of the living God before she could conjure up a dead ghost. In any case, when the woman saw Samuel, she screamed and immediately recognized Saul. Disguise or no disguise, prohibition of necromancy or not, there could be only one person who would want to see Samuel in these troubled times. For the second time (v 12; cf. v 9) she asked Saul why he was treating her in this way. Even the witch rejected the anointed king. The king tried to reassure her by telling her not to be afraid even though his own fear and his trembling heart had brought him to this extreme action. “What do you see?” he asked (cf. Yahweh’s questions of Amos in his visions, Amos 7:8; 8:2). The woman expected an ancestral spirit or a ghost, but she saw a divine being (v 13). These gods were coming up from the underworld. The king pressed on, forcing the woman to lay out the worst news on the table. The erect (or old) man was wrapped in a robe (v 14), the standard garb of Samuel (1 Sam 2:19; 15:27). That was enough to convince Saul, and he fell flat on the ground in subservience to the word of the prophet.
Klein, Ralph W., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 10: 1 Samuel, (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, Publisher) 1998.
Actually, Genesis only tells us that Enoch "walked with god and he was not" - he may have been eaten by a lion for all we know, but in any case, he simply ceased to exist. Translated? Not so much --
Dragotron I feel the same. I look around at the world we have built and am amazed such a primitive, childish behavior still rules this planet. I really can't see the reason a god is needed to explain our existence. Im ok with it just being the eventual inevitable outcome of time and chance.
Scientist are not satisfied with your explanation and do not support it recently.
They rather believe that the Multiverse has resulted in you and in a universe requiring the anthropic principle to support your existence.
You leave me with the distinct impression Michael, that you really don't know what you're talking about - you've read a few words, then throw them out in no particular order, hoping they might make sense to someone.
I'm also aware that there's more than one of you posting under the same nom d'plum, just as there was the first time I encountered you on TA.
There is no belief, so patently absurd, that someone won't believe it! - some old Greek philosopher