Is Atheism Predicated Partially on the Belief in Evolution?
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.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John Kelly on -
Mariology came well after constantine. But you mean the trinity? Are you a oneness pentecostal then? What is your Christological orientation?
-
Permalink Reply by Michael on -
Well after Constantine but from the same evil tree. If a tree does not bear fruit curse it that it may die. The bible explicitly silent on the Godhead , we need not invent terms and doctrines and kill people if they don't believe in them. But by implication Jesus is the imperishable spiritual seed of God in his preternatural state but not divisible from God even as you are not divisible from the seed in your scrotum until it impregnates a woman. As it says in the book of Hebrews, "Levi being in the loins of his father Abraham, tithed unto Melchizedek"
-
Permalink Reply by John Kelly on
-
The bible was canonized hundreds of years after Constantine, and biblical canons from before Constantine don't match the final one. How do you know those documents are reliable at all? A lot of textual analysis shows that they may not be.
Even Origen in the 3rd century 100 years before Constantine called the authenticity of certain books into question due to the Greek problems they had.
-
Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on -
RE: "As it says in the book of Hebrews, "Levi being in the loins of his father Abraham, tithed unto Melchizedek"
Wow - if your god inspired the Bible, how could he let THAT pass? Any sperm not ejaculated in about 60-75 days, or somewhere in that time frame will be reabsorbed by the body. No way in hell that the sperm that created Levi, son of Abe's grandson, Jacob/Israel, could have existed in Abe's wrinkled old 100+ year old scrotum. Add to that the fact that the story of Abe tithing to Melchizedek occurs in Gen 14, which even the Catholic Church, in its footnotes to that chapter, in The New American Bible freely admits that that chapter was not written about the biblical Abraham, but rather was a story about an Arabic warlord who also, coincidentally, happened to be named Abraham, and the story was included into Genesis by the Priestly Source, about 650 BCE, and the details rewritten to imply that the hero was our biblical buddy, Honest Abe - you know, the one who married his sister, then told Pharaoh that she wasn't his wife --
-
Permalink Reply by Michael on
-
I accepted that Paul did not follow cunningly devised fables but spoke as he was moved by the Holy Spirit.
-
Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on
-
And we on this website accept the fact that spirits, holy or otherwise (except maybe those in bottles), don't exist.
-
-
Permalink Reply by John Kelly on
-
Archaeopteryx best quote of the day.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Suzanne Olson-Hyde on -
See what I mean Michael - a laugh a minute. Brilliant Archy
-
Permalink Reply by John Kelly on
-
It doesn't look any different from the writings of many church fathers.
Hippolytus of Rome (160-236): For in this manner he thinks to establish the sovereignty of God, alleging that Father and Son, so called, are one and the same (substance), not one individual produced from a different one, but Himself from Himself
Tertullian (ca. A.D. 150-212): “We have been taught that He proceeds forth from God, and in that procession He is generated; so that He is the Son of God, and is called God from unity of substance with God. For God, too, is a Spirit. Even when the ray is shot from the sun, it is still part of the parent mass; the sun will still be in the ray, because it is a ray of the sun--there is no division of substance, but merely an extension. Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as light of light is kindled.
Ireneaus (ca. A.D. 140-202), Bishop of Lyons. “Now it has been clearly demonstrated that the Word which exists from the beginning with God, by whom all things were made, who was also present with the race of men at all times, this Word has in these last times, according to the time appointed by the Father, been united to his own workmanship and has been made passible man. Therefore we can set aside the objection of them that say, „If he was born at that time it follows that Christ did not exist before then.‟ For we have shown that the Son of God did not then begin to exist since he existed with the Father always;
Melito (d. ca. 190), Bishop of Sardis: yet not renouncing the Sonship; being carried in the womb of Mary, yet arrayed in the nature of His Father; treading upon the earth, yet filling heaven; appearing as an infant, yet not discarding the eternity of His nature; being invested with a body, yet not circumscribing the unmixed simplicity of His Godhead; being esteemed poor, yet not divested of His riches; needing sustenance inasmuch as He was man, yet not ceasing to feed the entire world inasmuch as He is God
Justin Martyr (ca. A.D. 100-165), Christian Apologist. “And the truth is this that Jesus Christ alone has been begotten as the unique Son of God, being already his Word, his First-begotten, and his Power.
Now rather than dig through the Ante-Nicene fathers, I went to a singular source, but if you don't believe me, go ahead and look yourself at the source translations at CCEL.org. But no more of these Nicea changed it all, all to it we owe conspiracies. Nicea confirmed all the things the Church believed all that changed was the wording "homousia" and the elevation of Jerusalem to a patriarchate.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael on
-
The wording of the early church fathers does align with what I said. but later with three equal in one Godhead is stepping the line. God is the same before and after Christ with the exception that the Son has now been generated out of him as the head of the Christ body. the spiritual edifice that we help to buid if we are also generated out of God by receiving the rebirth and the Christ Mind.
-
Permalink Reply by John Kelly on
-
Michael, you will find some of the earliest of the earliest of the Ante-nicene Church fathers also wrote about Father Son and Holy Spirit...
But one of the things that I must mention, is that if you have a high IQ your weakness is that you can see potentialities that other people can't which makes you prone to becoming so absorbed in the internal consistency of your own beliefs that they begin to create an internal yet misguided sense of validation.
For example, many of the followers of that Harold Camping fellow had very high IQ, and felt that the mathematical models that could be drawn from the bible indicated that this all was secretly coded into the bible to be revealed at the right time. In reality, it was all a coincidence. See this article http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/5983/a_year_a...
It is a great article as it says "why you don't have to be crazy to believe something nuts".
But you really seem to be ignoring that it says that the Logos was the firstborn of all creation in Colossians 2, and that all things were made by him, and nothing that is made was not made by the Logos.
You may have heard a lot of stories about the early church, but you really need to read Justin Martyr's "The Dialogue with Trypho". It will explain how early Christology worked in around 160 AD. It is available on CCEL.org.In early Christianity, the Logos, became the Christ. But it was understood that all creation was formed by the Logos.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael on
-
Actually the LOGOS and the Word are synonyms, agree?. And this is apart of my Christology. But we can not speak of Christ's persona until he is generate out of God. In God he had no separate persona. As such I can not speak of two persons in one Godhead, let alone three persons in one Godhead. We know that LOGOS was god also, but this does not imply a separate person.
What's new today
Forum
Should illegal aliens in the US be denied medical care?
Started by Holo Gram in Ethics & Morals. Last reply by archaeopteryx 2 minutes ago. 18 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
Why Respect Relgion - A Post From FB.
Posted by Robert Karp on May 21, 2013 at 10:34am 3 Comments 1 Like
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
