Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, but we could definitely say that it evolved from earlier computer chips along with many other requisite technologies, and likely had hundreds or thousands of contributing designers, not just one. Are you arguing for polytheistic evolutionary design?
Wow! Another example of disjunct thinking huh, QH? Comparing the uncomparable. The true source of ever-advancing computer chip capability is not some improbable "Insta-Poof Creationism" typical of Christianity, as in: from rocks to computer chips, but rather it's the organic approach of the designer's mind; the growth and evolution of the organism's particular logic circuits.
We are not alone here on earth in our ability to think ahead, but we may be unique on this planet in our ability to size up the future far ahead, to daydream and imagine alternate solutions, and then, with our opposable thumbs, [and warm, dry Silicon Valley garages], to actually build our test ideas. And then try them on a percentage of the intelligent and educated population who, thus intrigued by evolution and advancement, do not auto-deny their cohorts' spectacular advancements in science. Thanks to DNA's ability to advance, multi-test and then record positive changes!
Wowowow!
Many of those ideas have, yup, been truly nutty, but once in a while, just like in the natural mutation of DNA through the documented-known occurrence of literally multi-quin-trillions of hourly chance cellular reproduction events within the totality of life on this planet, a good thing or two happens, and we get, for instance, an animal mind that creates the Mac computer versus the staid, status-quo, almost "Catholic" and dull PC mentality of the herd.
Thus, QED, we advance. Pretty simple, once you open your mind!
Why does there need to be evidence which supports Atheism, anyway? You wouldn't expect me to bear the burden of proving that there isn't a planet made of solid iridium in the Andromeda Galaxy just because I posited that there isn't, would you?
The burden of proof falls upon the believer who is making a claim. Atheism is the default position. Atheists need not prove anything.
Whereas the Theory of Evolution does explain the increasing complexity of life.
And with the "increasing complexity of life", someone has to be at the top of the food chain. What if this person (or race) at the top evolved beyond the need for a physical body? What if they could travel back and forth through space/time just by thought alone? What if they contained the entire group consciousness of the universe in their minds? Would they not be "Gods" to us?
Being that we (humans) are only 500,000 years old; what if there was a lifeform as old as the universe itself (15 billion years old). Compare them (15 billion years) to us (500,000 years). There's simply no comparison. Also keep in mind that we have NO CLUE what a multi-billion year life form is capable of doing. Their abilities could seem like impossible "magic" to us. Heck, they could have even been the inventors of our physical reality. The "big bang" could have been an experiment in their non-physical realm that created what we know as "reality". Let's face it, there are tons of laws in our physical existence. That's enough to make one wonder what (or who) set these laws in motion? The possibilities are endless when one stops to give this some thought.
My point here is that atheism should maintain a "could-be-a-God" position on things simply because none of us really know for sure. Based on the numbers I provided above, "God" is mathematically possible.
Last edited by urbancharlotte; 09-17-2010 at 02:56 AM..
Why does there need to be evidence which supports Atheism, anyway? You wouldn't expect me to bear the burden of proving that there isn't a planet made of solid iridium in the Andromeda Galaxy just because I posited that there isn't, would you?
The burden of proof falls upon the believer who is making a claim. Atheism is the default position. Atheists need not prove anything.
If 90% of the people in the world had determined that there existed, "a planet made of solid iridium in the Andromeda Galaxy"...and you posited there wasn't...you can be 100% sure you would be required to prove your contention as having merit.
"Burden of proof" would be on the "God Exists" claim...all else being equal. But when you are the veeeeeeeeery slight majority...contesting the worldwide "standard"...that's a totally different story. I know it drives TAC bonkers, but Belief has been the "norm" (8to9 out of 10) for thousands of years. It's the "incumbent position"...the "ruling viewpoint"...the "champion concept"! "God Exists" doesn't have to prove itself...it currently "holds office"! It's upon the weak challenger (Atheism) of nearly negligible merit/influence to prove itself. So far it's gotten steamrolled and flattened, in every "race". If it were seen as an "election"...Atheism would be viewed as being defeated in the biggest landslide EVER.
It's actually a joke that the insignificant Challenger with a 1W-9L record would have the nerve to tell the Undefeated Champion to "prove" Himself. LOL!
And you can spout all the "ad Pop/Logical Fallacy" rebuttals you want...the Atheist viewpoint STILL won't ever do anything but get trounced in the arena of world merit.
And before anyone gets all mentally irregular...I hold Atheism in higher regard, and view it as superior, to most concepts, and all organized religious dogma. I'm just willing to face reality as to what "the way of the world" is.
^^^This is only true because "God" crash landed on Earth in his UFO long ago. As a result, stories of this event were passed down verbally. Over time, the real story got twisted (kinda like the "telephone game"). By the time we were smart enough to write down the story, it had become religious garbage (hardly resembling at all what really happened).
This is why I say let's stop trying to validate religious gods. We all know they are not real gods. Instead, let's point our telescopes to the sky and look for the real thing.
(1) the evidence for ancient alien intervention is not good enough. Even the evidence for present UFO visitation (despite Charlotte's videos of a string of UFO enthusiasts relating various anecdotes) is not good enough
(2) The popular majority view is massively influential, I concede but it is not a reliable indicator of fact as Gldnshwr seems to concede. Therefore it is is neither here nor there as regards evidence for atheism. The only purpose in his hammering at majority delusion is to put nettles in the atheist sleeping bag. No way will we or should we say 'there's no point - the people will always believe what they are told'.
Thanks for the tip, mate. . Erudite books are not going to change public opinion. Getting the message through on the popular level will do that, and from Austin atheists to Dawking best - sellers, the message is going to get through, because it has all the logic and evidence behind it.
The debate has pretty much been won. Hawking's recent God.is.Not -neccer- sarry. and the recent life - development in the labs have come close to plugging the last tiny gaps for god. The only task now is to let the populum know it.
If 90% of the people in the world had determined that there existed, "a planet made of solid iridium in the Andromeda Galaxy"...and you posited there wasn't...you can be 100% sure you would be required to prove your contention as having merit.
"Burden of proof" would be on the "God Exists" claim...all else being equal. But when you are the veeeeeeeeery slight majority...contesting the worldwide "standard"...that's a totally different story. I know it drives TAC bonkers, but Belief has been the "norm" (8to9 out of 10) for thousands of years. It's the "incumbent position"...the "ruling viewpoint"...the "champion concept"! "God Exists" doesn't have to prove itself...it currently "holds office"! It's upon the weak challenger (Atheism) of nearly negligible merit/influence to prove itself. So far it's gotten steamrolled and flattened, in every "race". If it were seen as an "election"...Atheism would be viewed as being defeated in the biggest landslide EVER.
It's actually a joke that the insignificant Challenger with a 1W-9L record would have the nerve to tell the Undefeated Champion to "prove" Himself. LOL!
And you can spout all the "ad Pop/Logical Fallacy" rebuttals you want...the Atheist viewpoint STILL won't ever do anything but get trounced in the arena of world merit.
And before anyone gets all mentally irregular...I hold Atheism in higher regard, and view it as superior, to most concepts, and all organized religious dogma. I'm just willing to face reality as to what "the way of the world" is.
While I'm not sure your logic makes sense here, I'll point this out:
The non-religious/atheist make up about 22% of the world's population, which put's it in second place in all the worlds belief systems - somewhat less than Christianity and somewhat more than Islam. So it's not as lop-sided as you suggest.
If the world was a village with 1000 people in it, this is what it would look like:
This thread is closed due to the many off topic sidebars,insults and attacks on each other from both sides
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
