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.
Heather you conclusion is very elementrary and shows a lack of knowledge of the new testament. The apostles were not deluded persons adhering to ancient superstitions. We read about miracles whereas they observed them. Miracles close the mouth of the foolish. My regret is that the Emperor Constantine imposed Orthodoxy by the sword and persecuted and martyred the true oracles of God, even as the Emperor Nero crucified thousands and set then on flame on Vatican hill to give light to Rome
The apostles should have written about the miracles they witnessed then - because all we have are passed around stories. Again, Jesus was a Jew - unless you have a secret historical document that reveals his Atheist side.
So thousands gave up on Vatican hill, without witnessing miracles or interacting with prophets and those regenerated out of the Holy Spirit? It is one thing to painlessly blow yourself up, but it is another thing to be crucified and set on fire like sheep going to slaughter. This is the sign of martyrs generated out of God. This why God has sent Rome strong spirits of delusions such that it presents itself as a fount of truth, but in actually it is drunk with the blood of the saints as prophesied in the book of Revelation. She has caused the whole world to drink from her cup of abominations, having the wrath of her fornications. Mystery Babylon the Mysterious Mother of Harlots and of every abomination. In the courtyard of the Vatican stands the Mizpah, the image of offence, an Egyptian standing image. This symbolizes how deluded the church is. and it is complete with a pantheon of saints to pray to, replaciing the Roman pantheon of Gods, but in actuality more of the same. This why upon the head of the beast she rides is written blasphemy.
I've witnessed 'miracles' in church growing up - until I finally gained the confidence to admit it was all bullshit. People were very superstitious back then and the most ridiculous campy show could pass as a miracle. No educated people ever bothered to put pen to paper to describe such miracles, however - a very good indication that they were no more astounding that what I've seen at pentecostal church.
In the end, you are left with Jesus being a Jew, believing in Yahweh, and believing that Yahweh was pleased by the aroma of burnt animal flesh. You sure do like to dodge that, don'g you? That's ok, I'll keep moving it back to center stage.
@Michael - RE: "The apostles were not deluded persons adhering to ancient superstitions."
To which apostles do you refer, Michael? In the Pentateuch, it is stated that before a judge, if two men tell the same story, it must be presumed true. In the Gospels, we have four persons, telling basically the same story, so we HAVE to assume that their story, about the life and death and resurrection of Yeshua (Jesus, for all of you Greek-speakers out there) is true, right?
Now in the first gospel, The Gospel Of Michael, Michael is the Greek name of Levi, the tax collector, which the New Testament relates was actually there, so we have one witness, right? It doesn't matter that those witnesses are dead, because under the law, dying confessions are admissible, and we must assume that if these guys really believed they were going to heaven or hell once they'd died, we have to assume that they were telling the truth.
But the second Gospel was The Gospel of Mark; Mark was not an apostle, and there's no proof that he was actually there at the time, so his testimony must be disregarded, leaving the witnesses at three, but still more than the two required.
Then we come to The Gospel of Luke, who also wasn't an apostle, wasn't there, and so his testimony, as well, must be discounted and omitted from acceptance for consideration.
Then we come to The Gospel of John - now John was the son of the fisherman, Zebedee, as was his brother, James. John was definitely an apostle, and in fact, was one, along with his brother, who were invited to join Yeshua and become "fishers of men."
So we at least have two witnesses to the Yeshua story, right? Not so much. You see, Matthew told the story of how Yeshua was strolling along the beach near the Sea of Galilee, spied Peter, Andrew, James and John, and invited them to come with him, promising he would make them "fishers of men," but James, in his testimony, said it didn't happen that way at all, that Yeshua was strolling along the Jordan river, was spotted by John, who waded across to talk to him. Yeshua invited him to spend the night with him, and the next day, they came back and picked up James, Andrew and Peter - no mention whatever of "fishers of men." So when you have two conflicting stories, neither can be fully believed.
To all of this, must be added the fact that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written anonymously, and only in the mid-second century, was it decided to attribute the four "Gospels" to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
So you see, Michael, it's not a question of whether or not the apostles were "deluded persons adhering to ancient superstitions," it's a question of whether the apostles or Yeshua ever existed at all - so far, and we've waited two thousand years - there's no proof that either did.
Poor Michael - now he's tangling with Archy - big mistake :)
REALLY? the new testament which was written by many different hands with many different ideas on how to interpret writings commissioned by a king to rewrite supposedly sacred text to be more accommodating to the way people thought at the time and how the king wanted it. he was the EDITOR after all. yet you believe in the MIRACLES that illiterate apostles observed even though they are written about many years (often hundreds) after they supposedly happened by someone putting to paper what essentially is simple myth or wives tales passed generation to generation that in themselves get embellished each time. even in our times a story will within a week or even a day get completely changed by the time it gets back to the original teller.
// He is the Ark of the Covenant.//
Really? So Christ electrocuted people...? I had no idea.
That was the gold leafed box. I am referring to the living fulfilment.
@Michael - read Richard Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale, which traces evolution back to the very first single-celled creatures, then get back to me, even if it takes another three decades - I can wait.
Top physicist such as Lennard Susskind are relying on the Multiverse to render existence a mindless act of nature and thus defect all prose from the anthropic principle stand point.
Dr. Susskind is a self professed athiest.
I assume by Dr. Susskind you don't mean the family practice doc who lives in Colorado, but the one at Stanford.