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.

Views: 4061

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

My wife is 56, to be respectful of biblical law, would a rented tent and chickens be ok? We lots lots of firewood, but I could put together a pile of thermit maybe. With the amount of chicken flesh indicated, does the bible ask or suggest a environmental impack statement before the event? Can I invite pagan friends for the event? Can we do this on a cloudly day, or must it be blue skies? I might be able to scrap together a Unitarian minister, does this work, or must I find a Rabbi?

My family is far behind biblical law follow through, but my family did see fit for the foreskin thingy before I had clue what was going on. If 'God' does not want the toasted and dead birds when we are done, it is ok not to waste them by feeding them to our joyful puppies? Do you think the big guy would mind? Just asking.....

@ Sorry James, but the bible specifically says doves OR pigeons, so one does have  choice there, but I would think you would have to own the tent, as it would be used every month. But the birds would present a problem, needing soooo many. So, during a woman's cycle, hundreds would be needed. Then if every woman needed hundreds, I just hope the birds breed enough to cover demand. We will just have to let Michael answer, I would like to know what he thinks, and how this could be arranged. Maybe he knows of dove breeders or maybe even pigeon breeders. I hope so.

I also wonder if these priests just like the smell of burning animals - it seems they like sacrificing and burning. Personal choice, I don't like the smell of anything burning :).

The sacrifice thing, only if it is a slave or concubine.

Suzanne you have got me laughing. i can't wait to see the response by Micheal on how to deal with this dilemma. to just add a little, during the sacrifice will demonstrations be allowed for those against animal cruelty.

No risk - onyango, Michael won't answer, never does. How can anyone justify this - he just doesn't have the intestinal fortiude to answer :) 

The answer to his original question is  - NO! off he goes on a tangent, and he was getting boring - soooo! The big mistake he made was tangling with Heather.


The fuel for magical thought is the rush achieved by making new connections - no matter how unconnected.  Keeping a magical thinker on one topic is like cutting off the oxygen to the magical part of their brain.

But doves and pigeons are such beautiful creatures, why should beauty in the world be reduced? Even chickens can be wonderful, in the yard, and outside the garden. It just does not seem that a wise god would want us to kill anything, but a some crazy nutjob human might! Maybe someone in the deep biblical past, failed to keep out the crazy prose from the nutjob neighbor down the road? Or the scribe got some bad smokes while transcribing his download from 'God' that day? Does 'God' have a very good WIFI connection, or just a high noise to signal ratio? If you are just writing down what you 'hear' as a scribe, how does this work?

Sorry, 'making sense out of non-sense', is not always very useful...   

James, am asking myself, what language was he using and how did the scribe understand that this is now god and not his long dead grandpa appearing in his dreams. and is god using the same scribe or different scribes. do they share notes? then does he cross check for typo errors, spelling mistakes, bad grammar or how does it work? 

Some of your conversation in this thread shows a knowledge of history, but your spelling, grammar and lack of accountability for broad claims is destroying any credibility you might have earned. I can allow that English (in any of its variants) might not be your primary language, but if this is not the case then your educational level comes into question. You've been exposed to some complex concepts and you've formed an interest - keep it up! Some of the members of this forum can be a bit harsh in their criticisms, but don't let it get you down or put you on the defensive. Just learn how to argue a point. And any scientist or engineer, be ready to accept the idea you are wrong - but be sure to insist on those saying that can give substantial proof. And be sure to understand that before you start bashing well established models and scientific systems (which undergo a great deal of peer review an nitpicking!) that you can back such claims. Otherwise you just come off as a "crackpot"

. I don't agree with your arguments, but others here have done an excellent job of rebuttal, so I won't do it myself. Just pay attention to their complaints about your presentation and argument and deal with those logically. Don't fall into the trap of "Because I said so" or "It feels true, so it must be true." 

Granted, being and engineer precipitates in English being my second language.

I should take ESL classes. "All my life I wanted to be an enganeer now I are one."

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 :)



An atheist has to be a moral/ethical relativist

Started by Unseen in Philosophy. Last reply by Davis Goodman 5 seconds ago. 105 Replies

What would happen if humans grew up without a context.

Started by Melvinotis in Art. Last reply by Austin Weekly 2 hours ago. 50 Replies

Objective thinking

Started by Austin Weekly in Small Talk 3 hours ago. 0 Replies

So you know

Started by Unseen in Small Talk. Last reply by _Robert_ 4 hours ago. 8 Replies

Blog Posts

Out of the fog

Posted by Belle Rose on March 1, 2015 at 6:27pm 1 Comment

Kids Logic

Posted by Mai on February 28, 2015 at 5:33am 7 Comments

Services we love!

Advertise with

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service