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.
It seems my guess was a good one. The same level of accountability as an engineer, especially when safety issues are concerned, is what is expected here. There are a number of other science and engineering professionals here.
But, no, atheism as a philosophy existed BEFORE any of theories you mentioned in your original post existed. They only provide some handy argument. Atheism is based on logic and rules of evidence. It's adherents require accountability among themselves and from others when making claims.
In order to make your arguments even begin to stick in these forum you have a first step you must accomplish: You must objectively prove the existence of the Christian god. Atheists haven't rejected any god (or gods) - they just never had evidence there is anything to accept in the first place. Provide substantial evidence and this groups vast analysis and reasoning skills will be applied accordingly. Until then, any argument that depends on a deity's existence to support it will be doomed to fail.
God revealed that it is impossible for the blood of bulls and He-goats to take away sin. However it is still a commandment of God only applicable to the Hebrew people, since they are the original oracles of God. When God makes commandents that have only ceremonial value it is indicative of a higher spiritual truth to come. And blood forshadows the outpouring of the blood and Spirit of his Son, which was to come. Being anointed by someone elses blood outside of Christ would also foreshadow spiritual rebellion. This is why there is a big prohibition on drinking blood in the Old and New Testament
Was this answer to me, Michael? It is etiquette to name to whom exactly you are addressing an answer. I am just assuming this is the comment to me, and you did not answer my last question. But, onward and upward.
Why did god reveal it is impossible for the blood of bull and goats to sin.
This is the all omnipotent, loving, knows everything there is to know, man who made the universe, and he is now making rules, stupid ones that don't mean anything, to boot. What the? How do you pick what is ceremonial and what is not? Who does the choosing?
Being anointed by someone elses blood outside of Christ - what on earth does that mean???? What has any of your answer to do with a woman's fertile cycle, prey tell.
Your answer has NOTHING to do with my question. When you can't answer a question, just say so, instead of making something up. I won't think any less of you :)
Won't because you can't or because you would respect the integrity?
Suzanne, he technically answered the question accurately, he just did it in a vauge way.
The way that it works is that it was really popular before the first century to find a "deeper meaning" in passages. The literal meaning, on the other hand, begin to play a secondary role. It is thought that Plato's ideology about the world of forms was an important catalyst for the commonality of such thinking all over the ancient world. Over time, some people in the Jewish settlements decided that the perceived "deeper meaning" was the "real meaning".
It was this line of thinking through which Christianity was made possible and it permeates the entire basis of Christian teachings and text. (A common fact that is overlooked when interpreting the words attributed to Jesus). Even the prophecies attributed to Jesus from the OT depend on this kind of view of the OT in order to have any application to Jesus Michael is quoting a book that deals heavily with this ideology, the book of Hebrews. It uses passages from the OT with simple statements and then draws major deeper meanings out of them. Another argument in the book is why it isn't possible for sacrifices to work. It argues that many cult practices of ancient Israel such as blood sacrifices for sins did not actually work, but rather they were representations of what would work in the future.
It argues that the OT law was just a shadow and that the shadow is cast by the true form. In the book of Acts, (ch 15) a historical tradition is claimed to have been established that Paul, Peter, and James and many others gathered in Jerusalem during a conflict where the Jews there were arguing that all non-Jew converts needed to follow all the laws of Judiasm. The apostles and the council decided that the non-Jew converts should not have to follow the law beyond abstaining from food offered to idols, sexual immorality, strangled animals, and blood. The universal interpretation of the "abstain from blood" is the ingestion of blood.
Later writings in the Pauline corpus call even these requirements into question, by stating that eating meat offered to idols is okay unless it makes someone feel like they are doing something wrong. This leads some to think that the requirements were to help iron out conflict rather than a religious taboo. It seems Michael is taking this passage as meaning "drinking blood" as in the pagan ritual practice. It isn't the first time I have heard a Christian argue this, but my guess is the original passage meant "no rare steak for you, all your meat has to be boiled and gross".
This passage is interesting because it conflicts with Pauline teachings and is in a Pauline book (though not written by Paul). This could be indicative of either a shift in thinking over time, as we know the apostles weren't infallible, or it could be a later Pauline break with the Jewish Christian community.
I am posting a link to Acts 15 for you so that you can take a look at it in a decent translation.
Suzanne, he technically answered the question accurately, he just did it in a vauge way.
Technically right or not, from the bible's point of view - it is misogynistic, and this particular verse was really perverse to me. As opposed to the treatment of Native American women - the point of this exercise was how religions are afraid of women, and will put them down, whenever possible. When Michael says: This is spiritual", that is my point - the usual cherry picking. I love it when Michael said 'Paul didn't follow cunningly devised fables", when, they are mostly fables. A modicum of truth, sometimes, then a fable coming from that. How can a xian tell?
'Decent translation - what makes a 'decent' translation'.
It seems Michael is taking this passage as meaning "drinking blood" as in the pagan ritual practice.
It was good that different people discussed "Philosophy - but with so many people discussing 'meanings' and coming to diffferent conclusions, and whatever version they are reading - they lives their lives by it, when in fact, it is only an interpretation of a fable.
How does that extrapolate to the female cycle? All females should read this link -
I must admit - I put this topic in here to shock him :D
The three religions Judaism, xiantiy and Islam hate women.- and it is that simple.
The best 'Interpretation' of the bible is http://www.in-his-own-image.com/
Well, thank ya there, Little Missy - thank ya vera much --
Suzanne, I disagree with the feminist perspective that it was about being afraid of the power of women. I see all interaction with blood in the OT as ritual taboo, and I think your angle about social justice for women is a better one than that Michael was cherry picking verses. I am confused why you are still insisting he is picking verses, when his sacred texts tell him he is not to follow those verses.
Also, a decent translation is different in that it allows for problem texts instead of trying to hide them.
Does the bible indicate the men injured on the battle field are 'unclean' and should not enter the temple until fully 7 days until after their wounds have healed? Does it reference a bloody nose? Does it mention coughing up blood?
If all of those things are stressed just as much as the menstrual cycle, then I suppose a charge of misogyny is out of line. On the other hand, I don't recall a lot of old testament verses about equality of women and all that sort of jazz.
Heather, I do not dispute the misogyny, I disputed the feminist contention that the men were afraid of the power of women.
I contend the misogeny was so great that women weren't even contemplated as a threat. Unlike the feminist perspective that women were feared, I contend they were largely disregarded.
As for the issues with blood I am referring to the priestly laws. All of the laws about blood are taboo laws. Though male discharge is also considered unclean. Battle wounds are not addressed.
Why an unobservable group leaves out certain things and includes others at that point is a matter of pure speculation. The point is that a blood taboo fascination is present in the cult practices of the ancient Israelite priesthood. On the other hand, nothing really suggests a fear of women.
Of course this ancient civilization was misogynistic. To think it was because they feared women, is to really undermine how misogynistic they actually were.
Ok, I see your point there. I think there is an underlying fear behind misogyny in general but not so much a fear of the 'power of women' as the precarious nature of masculinity.
John gives a more ellaborate explanation below. Sorry that I was too terse.