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.
Why would anyone believe this crap, Michael? How is it that so many cultures imagined gods, all of them being entirely bogus, until one day a particular culture imagined a god and THAT one, being indistinguishable from the rest, was the real McCoy? How is it that this god watched all those other cultures imagine false gods, much like himself, and then chose to reveal himself in such a cliché manner? How is it, that the creator of the cosmos didn't know the planet was round? Why would the creator of the entire cosmos be so fixated on one tribe, and having them kill animals, burning their carcasses, so they he might be 'pleased by the odour'?
I know how you believe it, Michael, and I wish you would get yourself some help.
Like Job can you present a rallying acquisition against God? If you can affront him , loosen the bands of the seven sisters ( Pleiades ) or draw Leviathan from the ocean with a hook. then shall he be the first to congratulate you and call you his equal and be endowed to dare question his judgement, purpose or counsel.
Hate to break it to you Michael, but Job was fictitious too --
@Micheal - are you talking about Zeus here? Or Ra? Or Anu? Once again you just revert to bizarre cult speak because you are incapable of representing your god-belief coherently.
Yo, Miguelito! A few words about your challanges.
First, the Pleides are a cluster of new stars, formed just a few million years before the extinction of the dinosaurs.
Astronomers estimate that the cluster will survive for about another 250 million years, after which it will disperse due to gravitational interactions with its galactic neighborhood, at which time, their bands will be loosed.
They were named for the 7 hot daughters of Atlas, and were immortalized by Zeus by placing them in the sky where we could all enjoy them.
What Zeus hath put in the sky, let not Yahweh mess with, or something like that --
As for old Leviathan, I'm thinking a depth charge, followed by a harpoon on a winch ought to solve the Leviathian problem.
But what does doing all this win me? The right for him to call me his equal? To late! I'm already his superior, I'm real!
And as for questioning his judgment, purpose or counsel, hell, I've been doing that since I was twelve!
Michael, you have sidestepped the challenge and thus failed to answer the challenge. Nobody is challenging "God" here. What is being challenged if the notion of God as represented by the Bible makes sense to believe as true.
How do we know this Bible is inspired?
God has to be accepted before we can question him. We aren't anywhere near there to do that. This is not questioning God as a person. This is questioning God as a concept, and more specifically the truthfulness of the Bible.
Now, earlier you said it was amazing the world doesn't believe. It is not amazing that the world at large does not believe. Why would you even say that? Just because you are super self-convinced?
The passage implies that the world doesn't disbelieve due to hardness of heart. Hardness of heart ignores evidence. Nobody is ignoring evidence here. Hardness of heart implies that someone ignores the obvious. What makes anything obvious is strong evidence. Everything obvious in the world is obvious only because of evidence. Just evidence. That is the only thing out there that does that. Obvious means the evidence overwhelms all evidence to the contrary.
Overassurance, on the other hand, gives the false impression that something is obvious. If you think about it, it is actually obvious is that many people are overassured. It is very obvious people get overassured. The way you can tell if something is truly obvious or people are overassured about it is if the claim or idea is able to overwhelm evidence brought against it. Nothing is obvious unless it overwhelms counter-evidence. If it just holds it's own, it is called "debatable", not obvious. So don't say it is amazing people won't believe when all you are doing is presenting something that shows, if you play mental gymnastics and twister with the idea, you can show how it is "possible".
It is just dishonest thinking to not consider "Is this obvious" or "am I overassured".
@ John Kelly
"Now, earlier you said it was amazing the world doesn't believe. It is not amazing that the world at large does not believe. Why would you even say that? Just because you are super self-convinced?"
I was addressing the future when, the two witnesses are revealed, The spirit filled of Judah and Levi (The two lampstands and olive trees before the God of the whold earth). They will have the powers of Elijah and Moses in the days of their prophecies. "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: 6And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse."
Now in regard to Leviathan, I agree with the scholarship of my sources;
The mythological significance of Leviathan is well known. Appearing as the Lothan of seven heads that Baal destroys in the Ugaritic myths, he is likewise the sea-serpent of many heads that Elohim defeated in the beginning (Ps. 74.12-14). One mythical tradition of the eschaton represents a final battle of Yahweh with Leviathan (Isa. 27.1). This Leviathan is doubtless the mythical origin of the dragon of seven heads in Rev. 17. Leviathan, as well as Behemoth, appears with eschatological significance in Enoch 60.7-9, IV Ezra 6.49-52, and Apoc[ryphal] Baruch 24.4 (1992, p. 367).
RE: "final battle of Yahweh with Leviathan"
Let me get this picture clear in my head - your Yahweh created the entire universe in six days, yet he's going to crawl out from wherever he lives/resides, and fight a sea monster - is that about it?
You DO know I can't see you, so I gotta ask - you are saying this with a straight face, aren't you?
Two words, Michael - sea kelp!
A straight face and tin foil helmet.
That source says it is the mythical origin. And yes, the mythology of the Leviathan pervades Jewish thought. Other sources talk about it being slain to provide food for the great banquet at the return of the Messiah.
But that doesn't mean that the dragon (Rome) is the leviathan. The origin means from where the imagery is drawn from in the Apocalypse of John.
"That source says it is the mythical origin. And yes, the mythology of the Leviathan pervades Jewish thought. Other sources talk about it being slain to provide food for the great banquet at the return of the Messiah.
But that doesn't mean that the dragon (Rome) is the leviathan. The origin means from where the imagery is drawn from in the Apocalypse of John."
John this is now common knowledge in all realms except Catholicism, of which it includes, that the Beast that reigns in the Presence of the Dragon is the Rome Empire. Also the scarlet colored beast the the Woman rides is also the Roman Empire. The seven head represent the seven imperial dynasties that martyr Christians: Julio-Claudian, Vespasian, Septimus Severus, etc. Nero of the Julio-Claudian line, of course is most notable for killing the elect people. However the writer of Revelation, accurately foretold that seven other dynasties would persecute Christians. The ten horns represent 10 houses of Europe and Byzantium that rule when Christian Roman Empire Fragments, including the house of Hapsburg, Oldenburg, Franks, Bourbons, etc. Daniel speaks of three horns being uprooted bey a big horn uttering blasphemies, This is the Beast to come, the Revived Imperial Roman Empire. The Beast will uproot the only ruling houses in Europe. The three horns are the house of Hapsburg, Oldenburg and Bourbon. The regency of Spain and elsewhere is a Bourbon, Oldenburg would include Queen Elizabeth. Hapsburg has diminished in heirs, yet a Duchy still rules in Europe.
Michael, many people understand it to be Rome. But few believe the Job Leviathan to be "The Beast" mentioned in Revelation. The Beast draws off of Leviathan imagery. It is a major stretch to say it, itself is the Leviathan.
Also, yes the best is Rome, but it is Rome in the time period in which Revelation is written. Revelation is apocalyptic literature. The end of the world is just a backdrop. It isn't meant to be a prediction of the future, nor is it meant to be a prophecy. It is meant to be an encoded message that uses numbers and imagery to convey a message of encouragement and a reminder to a people who are losing hope under the hand of Domitian.
The Jews used apocalyptic literature as a way of sending encoded messages. The backdrop is only important for the hidden message. You shouldn't be trying to pick prophecies out of it. It was a circular letter to the 7 churches in Asia Minor. By the time the Apocalypse rolled around, apocalyptic literature had been around for hundreds of years.
Having an angel guide is normal in apocalyptic lit, as well as having representative number coding, as well as having visions describe what the person is seeing. Hence the genre name "Apocalyptic".