Hallo, dear atheists

Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Hallo, dear atheists

Hi

I was invited here from a Facebook fellow with the promise that you don't delete topics just because you can not refute a statement, idea or theory.
It is not the promise that brought me here.
It is the attitude behind the rule.

Just few seconds ago I was banished in the Facebook group "Atheism: A Non-Prophet Organization".
For the sake of atheism I hope it won't happen here.
I'm a non-religious supporter for the idea of God's existence.
I say that I don't believe in God, because I know that he exists.
Why am I so certain is a long talk and soon I'll post a topic in which I'll try to give you the answer for my certainty.

I'm Bulgarian living in Johannesburg, South Africa.
50 years old male, married, father of two children. Musician who works as a carpenter.
Love science. Love people. Love the Love.

And just to make this topic more entertaining: - Do you know that Darwinism derives from the Bible?

Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

 


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Welcome, Truden! I think

Welcome, Truden!

I think you qualify as a Deist.


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the forums.  I

Welcome to the forums.  I hope you find it interesting and educational (and I don't mean that to be cruel, there is an immense amount of knowledge and information here).


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote: I think you

Watcher wrote:

I think you qualify as a Deist.

I'm going to bet against that, but we'll see Eye-wink


shelley
ModeratorRRS local affiliate
shelley's picture
Posts: 1859
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Welcome Truden!

Welcome Truden!


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote: Hi I was

Truden wrote:
Hi

I was invited here from a Facebook fellow with the promise that you don't delete topics just because you can not refute a statement, idea or theory.

It is not the promise that brought me here.

It is the attitude behind the rule.

Welcome.

Truden wrote:
Just few seconds ago I was banished in the Facebook group "Atheism: A Non-Prophet Organization".

For the sake of atheism I hope it won't happen here.

I'm a non-religious supporter for the idea of God's existence.

I have a thread of questions for theists, both affiliated with religions and not, if you're so inclined: Questions for Theists

It's not a debate, just a questionnaire.

Truden wrote:
I say that I don't believe in God, because I know that he exists.

Why am I so certain is a long talk and soon I'll post a topic in which I'll try to give you the answer for my certainty.

OK.

Truden wrote:
I'm Bulgarian living in Johannesburg, South Africa.

50 years old male, married, father of two children. Musician who works as a carpenter.

Love science. Love people. Love the Love.

And just to make this topic more entertaining: - Do you know that Darwinism derives from the Bible?

[...]

What's "Darwinism?"


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I was invited here

Quote:
I was invited here from a Facebook fellow with the promise that you don't delete topics just because you can not refute a statement, idea or theory.
It is not the promise that brought me here.
It is the attitude behind the rule.

Glad to hear it.  I think you'll find us to be completely open about such things.

Quote:
Just few seconds ago I was banished in the Facebook group "Atheism: A Non-Prophet Organization".
For the sake of atheism I hope it won't happen here.

The rules are very simple.  Follow them, and you're welcome as long as you want to stay.  Basically, don't spam, don't lie, and don't preach.  As long as you are respectful of others, and discuss, rather than preach, you'll be fine.

Quote:
I'm a non-religious supporter for the idea of God's existence.
I say that I don't believe in God, because I know that he exists.

Fine, but there are only two choices:

1) You have empirical, testable, falsifiable evidence (in which case, let me be the first to congratulate you on your upcoming Nobel Prize.)

2) You have non-testable, non-scientific, and illogical evidence, which would put you in the same boat as every other theist who's ever lived.

Please, if you can prove god's existence, by all means do it.  We're here to advocate truth, and the truth as far as we can determine is that there is no evidence for god.

 

Quote:
Why am I so certain is a long talk and soon I'll post a topic in which I'll try to give you the answer for my certainty.

We'll be waiting.

 

Quote:
I'm Bulgarian living in Johannesburg, South Africa.
50 years old male, married, father of two children. Musician who works as a carpenter.
Love science. Love people. Love the Love.

If anything, the one thing all of us have in common is that we love the science.  Bring the scientific proof of god, and you'll have our gratitude.

But, be warned, we are not uneducated or naive.  There are scientists from many fields here, philosophers, logicians, mathematicians, psychologists, evolutionary scientists, cosmologists.  If you claim something that isn't true, or that isn't scientific, we'll call you on it.

 

Quote:
And just to make this topic more entertaining: - Do you know that Darwinism derives from the Bible?

You're off to a bad start here.  "Darwinism" is a term Christians use, as if somehow we're worshiping Darwin, or something.  "Darwinism" doesn't exist.  Evolution does.  Darwin was not aware of the existence of the gene, or dna.  He observed the effects of evolution and described, in general terms, how it worked.  We have a century of science since Darwin's observation.

Oh, and that passage you quoted, even when given extremely liberal literary license, doesn't match the historical process of evolution.  Not even remotely.  It would be hard to describe it more inaccurately.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote: Welcome,

Watcher wrote:

Welcome, Truden!

I think you qualify as a Deist.

Not necessarily. Although I think the distinction is dubious, some Christians for instance like to play with the wording a bit, and call themselves "Christ followers," or something, to distance the religious connotation.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Eh, he could be a theist,

Eh, he could be a theist, deist, pantheist.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote: Hi I was

Truden wrote:
Hi

I was invited here from a Facebook fellow with the promise that you don't delete topics just because you can not refute a statement, idea or theory.
It is not the promise that brought me here.
It is the attitude behind the rule.

Just few seconds ago I was banished in the Facebook group "Atheism: A Non-Prophet Organization".
For the sake of atheism I hope it won't happen here.
I'm a non-religious supporter for the idea of God's existence.
I say that I don't believe in God, because I know that he exists.
Why am I so certain is a long talk and soon I'll post a topic in which I'll try to give you the answer for my certainty.

I'm Bulgarian living in Johannesburg, South Africa.
50 years old male, married, father of two children. Musician who works as a carpenter.
Love science. Love people. Love the Love.

And just to make this topic more entertaining: - Do you know that Darwinism derives from the Bible?
Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

 

Hello. I guess by Darwinism you mean the theory of evolution. If that biblical passage is describing the theory of evolution it is doing a terrible job of it. You would think god could have been a little more specific, you know, creating 'everything' and all. It would have helped with things like medicine. Instead we had to wait several thousand years for a human being to notice evolution while all those who studied the bible took that passage to refer to making animals in their present forms. I bet god's going, "Doooh!"

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
Heads up:

Heads up:

 

His topic was deleted by the group administrators at Facebook because he was supposedly being troll-ish. I didn't read the topic thorougly enough to see anything delete worthy (I didn't see any novel arguments either), but the group doesn't have the same no-deletes policy that this place has, I guess.

He did start a new topic after his earlier topic was deleted that I would describe as semi-trollish, but nothing that would stop me from extending an invite. If things become trollish, I accept full responsibility. =P

Not trying to poison your well, Truden. I know you object to the accusations made by the Facebook group, so just consider this a chance to prove yourself.

Don't disappoint me, Truden. You said you had some good stuff, so I hope you give us something new to think about. Eye-wink

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


Bulldog
Superfan
Bulldog's picture
Posts: 333
Joined: 2007-08-04
User is offlineOffline
Welcome, Truden.  I'll be

Welcome, Truden.  I'll be looking forward to reading your threads.


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Thanks to all for the warm

Thanks to all for the warm welcoming.

I have a problem with the "preaching" word when used by atheists.
Is philosophizing considered preaching in your community?
To me "preaching" is an attempt to convert people to my belief.
I wouldn't do that because if I do believe something, it is that the world must flourish under two beliefs - God exist and God does not exist.

To prove God's existence with evidences is as difficult as to prove God's NON-EXISTENCE with evidences.

Atheists say that they don't have to prove NON-EXISTENCE and they are right, but they miss the logic that their belief derives from the belief that God exists and it is not about proving NON-EXISTENCE but about defending their belief.

Since humans have written the first scriptures there is God in their belief, written on stones and paper.
The belief that God does not exist is an idea opposing the scriptures and therefore we can and must call it BELIEF.

The above is not a preaching but logical clarification.
Hope that it make sense to you guys.
 


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Absolutely. However, no one

Absolutely.

However, no one has ever asked for proof of what they believe.

That's one thing that I think we do differently than other sites.

Quite often, people have garnered new information from this site concerning their own bits of irrational hypocrisy that theism seems to impart to its adherents.

I agree 'wholemindedly' that there is a vast disparity between philosophy and preaching/proselytizing.

I think that you would agree that the latter is more often represented by your fellow ideologues. Thus our apprehension is warranted. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


sumra
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2006-12-11
User is offlineOffline
truden, why are you worried

truden,

why are you worried about god? if you think god exists , then why do you want to convince others?


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
 However, no one has
 However, no one has ever asked for proof of what they believe.

 

Well, theists BELIEF that God exists.
When atheists say "Give us evidence that God exists" they actually say "Prove that your belief is right".
Most theist did never say that their belief is based on evidences.
It is belief after all. If there were evidences it would not be belief but KNOWLEDGE.

Why do I say that?
I'd like to set your minds to the idea that when discussing two beliefs we can not do it based on evidences but based on logic.
Which does not mean that we must ignore science, but only means that when involving science we must do it with logic.

I'm sure that you would agree with that too.

Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
sumra wrote: truden, why

sumra wrote:

truden,

why are you worried about god? if you think god exists , then why do you want to convince others?

 I'm not worried and I'm not convincing anybody.
I don't take atheism as an attempt to convince me that God does not exist.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote: However,

Truden wrote:
However, no one has ever asked for proof of what they believe.

 

Well, theists BELIEF that God exists.
When atheists say "Give us evidence that God exists" they actually say "Prove that your belief is right".

Only after the assertion that they are right has been made.

Quote:
Most theist did never say that their belief is based on evidences.
It is belief after all. If there were evidences it would not be belief but KNOWLEDGE.

I must disagree here. Most theists encountered here and a few other places declare just the opposite that they 'have personal evidence' that their god exists.

We try to address which is which on as individual a basis as possible. We deal with both types. i.e. Those who equate belief with evidence and those with just belief.

Quote:
Why do I say that?
I'd like to set your minds to the idea that when discussing two beliefs we can not do it based on evidences but based on logic.
Which does not mean that we must ignore science, but only means that when involving science we must do it with logic.

I'm sure that you would agree with that too.

Yes. The 'questions' thread posted earlier here has questions for both modes of thought. Our logic-only method and the evidence-based assertions.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Naw when you say something

Naw when you say something exists, or believe, I ask for the evidence for such said belief or statement of claim, I don't think it's a bad thing nor am I asking if you are right, I am asking you to back up your claim. I don't go around believing what everyone says, and when someone claims that there is a god, I simply ask them to show me that this god of theirs exists......which to date well no one has.

 

    It's like those that claim they have special powers, I say back them up. I know a few magicians, I can tell ya, there are no special powers, just illusions and tricks of the trade. Any positive claim requires someone to back it up to prove they are speaking truth, otherwise, it's nothing else that a belief, a strong belief maybe, but a belief. 


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote: I must

darth_josh wrote:


I must disagree here. Most theists encountered here and a few other places declare just the opposite that they 'have personal evidence' that their god exists.



I'm not talking about "personal evidences".
Personal evidence is not provable and it is illogical to ask for such prove.
We can only ask for evidence which is publicly available.

There is luck of such type of evidences at this time, which makes us to say that the belief for God's existence lucks evidences.
But the belief for God's not existence also lucks evidences or more precisely said is based on the luck of evidences.

We have no other choice but to use logic.


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote: Well,

Truden wrote:

Well, theists BELIEF that God exists.
When atheists say "Give us evidence that God exists" they actually say "Prove that your belief is right".

 

Sort of. Most atheists (and all the atheists on this site that I'm aware of) are agnostic atheists, which means we don't claim to know that there definitely is not a god. We simply say that there is no reason to believe that there is one.

 If you were to say "there might be a god" and stop there, then there wouldn't be much to argue. But when you start trying to define that god, give it traits, give it activities, desires, and so on, this is where the resident atheist is going to stop you.

But as was said in an earlier post, we deal with god-belief on a case-by-case basis, so we try not to make unfair generalizations and will try to respond specifically to the points you bring up.

Quote:
 

Most theist did never say that their belief is based on evidences.
It is belief after all. If there were evidences it would not be belief but KNOWLEDGE.

Sort of.

But believing that The Beatles were overrated is a belief as well, yet you could offer some kind of rationale, or attempt to explain why you think so. It's clear from the start that it's all just opinion, so there isn't even a question as to whether or not you're right. You are and you are not. That's how opinions work. But there is never any question as to whether or not the Beatles EXIST or ever existed.

But when making an ontological assertion, something either exists or it doesn't. Everyone's opinion is NOT just as good as the next.

Belief that the Beatles were overrated, although debatable, is acceptable.

Belief that there are pink unicorns that can talk is not acceptable, because there is no reason for a person to believe such a thing, aside from the fact that they simply want to. It would also be irrational for a person to reject that the Beatles ever existed.

If there is no reason to believe that there are talking pink unicorns, then we just assume that there are not any until further notice. It doesn't mean that we're right, but it's the only rational position.

If the question is simply "Does a god exist?" with no discussion of what "god" means, then the atheist and theist positions are more or less on equal turf, though it leaves "god" as just a word with no real meaning.

When you start defining "god", then you have to start providing rationale for your definition, and that is where the trouble tends to start.

 

Quote:

Why do I say that?
I'd like to set your minds to the idea that when discussing two beliefs we can not do it based on evidences but based on logic.
Which does not mean that we must ignore science, but only means that when involving science we must do it with logic.

I'm sure that you would agree with that too.

I think so. 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote:

Truden wrote:


There is luck of such type of evidences at this time, which makes us to say that the belief for God's existence lucks evidences.
But the belief for God's not existence also lucks evidences or more precisely said is based on the luck of evidences.

 

Careful. The skeptical position is not required to provide evidence. It is the person making the positive claim that carries the burden of proof. Those are the laws of logical argument.

 

For example, it would be inappropriate for me to approach you and say that I saw a six-legged dog today and then ask you to prove that I didn't. You can't? Therefore I must have. (Even if I did, it would be unacceptable for you to believe me based on that "proof&quotEye-wink.

However, if I claimed to have seen a six-legged dog, it would be perfectly acceptable for you to ask me to prove to you that I did. I can't prove it? No reason for you to buy it. (I might have seen one, but your skeptical position is acceptable in this case).

 

So the fact that god-belief lacks evidence is significant.

The fact that god-skepticism lacks evidence is not significant.

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


Sam Chadwick
Posts: 3
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
Hello chaps, I'm a

Hello chaps,

 

I'm a member of the Facebook group that 'banished' Truden, (Nikolay), not so long ago. I think the reason for his ban was primarily how often he resorted to petty insults instead of debating his point. Don't get me wrong; I wouldn't have banned him if I had the choice. But the group seems to be very strict and very willing to kick people out.

 

Anyway, Nikolay probably won't be happy to see me here, as I am in fact of no intelligence whatsoever due to my young age. Isn't that right Nikolay?

 

Just something I wanted to pick you up on first Nikolay; is the point you are conveying in this topic an alternative to the one in the Facebook group? The reason I say this is because of a certain quote from your opening post:

 

"Why am I so certain is a long talk and soon I'll post a topic in which I'll try to give you the answer for my certainty."

 

If I remember correctly, you intially wanted to prove that the existence of God had a 50% chance of truthfullness, right? Please, correct me if I'm wrong on that. So does that mean in this topic, your target is 100% proof of God?

 

 

Lastly, to all the regulars here, I am a humble teenager! I will do my best to contribute if/when I feel I can, but the recommendation of the guy over at the Facebook group suggests you are incredibily intelligent people over here, so I'm here to learn. Smile

 

Cheers,


Sam.


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Archeopteryx wrote: If

Archeopteryx wrote:
If there is no reason to believe that there are talking pink unicorns, then we just assume that there are not any until further notice.


Making such parallels most of the time are inappropriate especially to the subject of God's existence.
However it only proves that belief is based on logical assumption:
1) Since humans learned to write they write about God, therefore God exists.
2) Since there are no evidences for God's existence there is no reason to belief that God exists.

In both cases we are not dealing with evidences but with logical conclusions.

Note that I'm still not discussing God's existence.
I just want to make sure that you agree that following the logic is better solution when discussing two beliefs rather than concentrating on evidences.

Ignore the claims of some religious people that they have evidences.
I don't claim that.
Put your belief that God does not exist against my belief that God exist.
Both parties do not have evidences.

You have the logical right to ask me why do I believe that God exist.
Since I say that there are not evidences for God's existence you can not ask me to provide evidences.
You can only ask me for logical explanation of my belief, hoping that my logical explanation can lead to facts which can be considered as supportive evidences for God's existence.

To all: Can I have your consent to open a topic in which to discus God's existence based on logic and science?


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Hey Sam. Give us an intro

Hey Sam.

Give us an intro thread when you get a chance.

Rather than this being a different place for a second chance, we'll treat it like a whole new thing here. From past experiences, myspace and facebook 'groups' are notorious for actions such as you're reference.

I wish I could say, "Let the past be past.", but that would be obnoxiously hypocritical of me since I am known to hold 'grudges'. lol.

I'm glad that we're all here and working to ensure that defining our individual positions has been a part of our initial introductions to each other. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Sam Chadwick wrote: I'm a

Sam Chadwick wrote:


I'm a member of the Facebook group that 'banished' Truden, (Nikolay), not so long ago. I think the reason for his ban was primarily how often he resorted to petty insults instead of debating his point.



Sam, you don't have the right to say that. The topic is deleted and no one can know whether you are saying the truth.

In the deleted topic I was called an idiot and insulted in all possible ways.
I did never use insulting words and did never mean to insult any one in that topic.
I welcome you to be part of this conversation.
Follow it and you will find my point.


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
Welcome aboard Sam!   If

Welcome aboard Sam!

 

If you're going to be sticking around, maybe you should create a new topic introducing yourself. You don't have to, but it's cool when people do. Plus, people could probably link you to a bunch of cool atheist goodies for  you to read, and some RRS videos (always awesome) and whatnot. Not exactly appropriate here. That would be thread-hijacking. Eye-wink

Also, though I do think there are a lot of intelligent people here, I never meant to imply that every person that hangs out here is super intelligent. It's a public forum after all. Eye-wink

There are a lot of average joes hanging around as well. I'm glad to see that you checked this place out. Alexandra mentioned maybe joining, too, so the more the merrier. =)

(If you're reading Alexandra... do it.. come to the dark side).

 

 Now then... back to business...

 

*ahem*

 

I didn't see much of the deleted topic, so I don't remember what claims were being made. There were some things going on there that I would probably object to, but I'm trying to let Truden start from scratch. He's behaving well so far, so let's just let bygones be bygones for now. Let him present his arguments without poisoning his well. Eye-wink

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Truden, you'll probably

Truden, you'll probably catch a lot of flak from the hop since the majority position is that science is based upon evidence and testability while logic(not wholly separate) is based upon opinion initially.

You should probably choose one method or the other. I was under the impression from your earlier posts that you were leaning more toward logic. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Sam Chadwick
Posts: 3
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
Josh and Archeopteryx

Josh and Archeopteryx (Matthew is it?); okay dokay- I'll create an introductory thread some time soon! Alexandra has some great points (as do many of those on the Facebook group, even if they are a little... brash), so yeah hopefully she'll join.

 

And I suppose I can agree to refrain from poisoning his well... (it was so tempting though!)

 

 

 

Nikolay (sorry if that get's confusing for everyone else), I have the RIGHT to state my opinion about what went on in that other thread. But I apologise- I will forget everything you have said previously for now, and focus on whatever you say from this point.

 

Continuez le discussion!

 

 


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote: Sam, you

Truden wrote:

Sam, you don't have the right to say that. The topic is deleted and no one can know whether you are saying the truth.

In the deleted topic I was called an idiot and insulted in all possible ways.
I did never use insulting words and did never mean to insult any one in that topic.
I welcome you to be part of this conversation.
Follow it and you will find my point.

 

You've got a clean slate here, and no bad marks so far. No worries. We try to make it as fair as possible.

A word of caution about insults and name-calling though. We do tend to have some of that around here. Some people will be more gentle in disagreeing with you, but you may find that some people are more combative. Usually things only get to that point when someone else starts it, so try not to set that cycle in motion yourself, and if someone else sets that wheel turning, try to let it go.

Unless you enjoy a little name-calling and creative insults with your debates. It can be fun. =D

And for future reference, there is a "kill 'em with kindness" board where the atheists are forbidden to become too aggressive with the theists, and they aren't allowed to swear, etc. If you're looking for a kindness guarantee, you may consider going there in the future, FYI. 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Archeopteryx wrote:   And

Archeopteryx wrote:
 

And for future reference, there is a "kill 'em with kindness" board where the atheists are forbidden to become too aggressive with the theists, and they aren't allowed to swear, etc. If you're looking for a kindness guarantee, you may consider going there in the future, FYI.

I don't mind intelligent sarcasm which made me to be sarcastic about sarcasm:

Sarcasm is child of your Pride
Pride is daughter of Ignorance
Ignorance is I KNOW
I KNOW is the human nature
Human’s nature is your realized Self
Your unrealized Self is the Truth about you.
Most people are missing THAT Truth, sleeping with the Sarcasm.


So, it'd be more enjoyable to colorize our discussion with inteligent sarcasm without taking it as a personal insult.
But if that's against your rules, I'll try to stick to the most comfortable for the majority atmosphere. 

 


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Nahh. The KEWK referral

Nahh. The KEWK referral from Archeo was just FYI.

As Archeo said, it is a different forum to post in if you're worried about being offended too greatly by 'normal' message board discussions.

 

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote: Truden,

darth_josh wrote:

Truden, you'll probably catch a lot of flak from the hop since the majority position is that science is based upon evidence and testability while logic(not wholly separate) is based upon opinion initially.

You should probably choose one method or the other. I was under the impression from your earlier posts that you were leaning more toward logic.

I think that we can differentiate between opinion and scientific theory based on evidences.
A scientific theory is also type of opinion which creates a belief about the nature of the subject.
Using logic we can question a scientific theory and if possible draw different conclusions based on the same evidences thus creating new theory and belief. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote: Hi I was

Truden wrote:
Hi

I was invited here from a Facebook fellow with the promise that you don't delete topics just because you can not refute a statement, idea or theory.
It is not the promise that brought me here.
It is the attitude behind the rule.

Just few seconds ago I was banished in the Facebook group "Atheism: A Non-Prophet Organization".
For the sake of atheism I hope it won't happen here.
I'm a non-religious supporter for the idea of God's existence.
I say that I don't believe in God, because I know that he exists.
Why am I so certain is a long talk and soon I'll post a topic in which I'll try to give you the answer for my certainty.

I'm Bulgarian living in Johannesburg, South Africa.
50 years old male, married, father of two children. Musician who works as a carpenter.
Love science. Love people. Love the Love.

And just to make this topic more entertaining: - Do you know that Darwinism derives from the Bible?
Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

 

As a general rule, and I cannot speak for the admins because I am merely a member, there is little that will get someone banned. Sock puppits, spamming, physical threats and preaching. Other than that you length of stay depends on you and your comfort level.

Some atheists here like the quiet library exchanges while still others dont mind the verbal brawls. But in eather case do not take our criticisms as a personal attack, we are merely questioning your claims, not weither or not you personally are a nice person. Those are two different subjects.

NOW, on with your post. I am a bit skeptical that you call yourself a non religious supporter then go on to quote the bible. You might be a non-Church gower, but based on this post you sound like a Christian.

Secondly non of those bible quotes do a thing to support Darwin. They are ambigious quotes and let me demonstrate why they are. EXAMPLE:

Star Trec fan, "Gene Rodenberry knew about the modern cell phone"

Atheist, "How?"

Star Trec fan, "He dipicted the tricorder"

Atheist, "So? He had an idea that future technology scientists built upon and it was merely a conicidence that it was possible, but he had no clue how to build the computer chips and microwave sattilites back then or how to make a "phone" that small. And you are not taking into account all the things Star Trec dipicted that will  never be a reality, such as transporters and tribbles and klingons."

Saying that "The sky is blue" is not a scientific explination as to WHY, the sky is blue. There is absolutely nothing in any of those verses that makes any scientific explination as to HOW the connection between Darwin exists. 

Muslims do this too. I had one muslim quote a koran verse talking about "mountains moving" claiming that ment Muhammed knew about plate tectonics. Earthquakes existed back then and prior, but the people that wrote the bible or koran DID NOT KNOW HOW OR WHY these things were happening.

You have nothing and we have beat this tactic like a dead horse and your deity belief is not the only label attempting to retrofit science after the fact. 

The verses dont seem to me to claim that water brought fourth all life, but water was a means of support of all life. It had life in it, and animals and humans not only drank it, but got their food from it. Consider maybe it isnt claiming that water is the source of all life, but a SOURCE OF SUPPORT of all life. Have you considered that interpretation?

What you are doing is common in theism today because sceince for the past century has been explaining natural events without superstitious myth and theists are backpeddling to retorfit science after the fact to prop up their myth. Jews and Muslims do this too.

In that same book God "POOF" made Adam out of dirt and then "Poof" took one of his ribs and made Eve. According to Jews EVE was not the first woman btw. Science has proven that humans come from a sperm and egg and two seperate sets of DNA.

That same book treats the sun and moon as seperate sources of light and science has proven that the sunlight bounces off the moon.

If you are going to treat that book as a science textbook here, I hate to burst your bubble but there are far too many here well versed in science that will be far more than happy to show you your errors. 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote: Archeopteryx

Truden wrote:
Archeopteryx wrote:
If there is no reason to believe that there are talking pink unicorns, then we just assume that there are not any until further notice.


Making such parallels most of the time are inappropriate especially to the subject of God's existence.
However it only proves that belief is based on logical assumption:
1) Since humans learned to write they write about God, therefore God exists.

Try not to use terms like 'logical assumption'. An assumption is not 'logical' unless you are using some colloquial sense of the word where logical means possible. 

Now, as to the non-sequitur-ish assertion you make above, when you say things such as "Since humans learned to write they write about God" and capitalize 'god' you give the false impression that all these people write about a specific 'god', which of course isn't true.

To say that all humans have written about 'god', or something to that affect, is using 'god' in a generic sense to mean 'a deity'. It is no more amazing than to say that all people have wirtten about 'monsters'. If it was the case that all ancient people had myths about vampires then there might be something of significance in that particular monster myth, but that all peoples have a belief in monsters is not suprising nor is it reason to think monsters actually exist. The fact that all people have a belief in a widely various cast of, most often anthromorphized, father figures or superheros or universe builders is hardly suprising either. People use such things to explain what they do not understand.  


Quote:
2) Since there are no evidences for God's existence there is no reason to belief that God exists.

 This seems a fairly reasonable statement that is a general rule we follow every single day of  our lives in every situation we ever find ourselves. If we did not approach things in this manner we would constantly be without any frame of reference for what exists and what does not.

Quote:
In both cases we are not dealing with evidences but with logical conclusions.

 Neither of those are actually logical conclusions, as you have written them. The first one is a naked assertion and the second is applying a general rule humans use to understand their existence to the 'god' concept. 

Quote:
Note that I'm still not discussing God's existence.
I just want to make sure that you agree that following the logic is better solution when discussing two beliefs rather than concentrating on evidences.

 Absolutely not. Why would anyone agree to that? It is very easy to construct logical arguments that are sound but false. The only, and I mean only, way we have of determining truth from fiction is by evidences. Some philosophical questions require that we use only logical argument but it is by no means a desirable way to go about answering questions. 

Quote:
Ignore the claims of some religious people that they have evidences.
I don't claim that.

Good. 

 

Quote:
Put your belief that God does not exist against my belief that God exist.
Both parties do not have evidences.

 If anyone ever gave me a reason to think a god might exist then I would need evidences to show how that reason was wrong to continue not giving the god concept any weight. Until that time to ask for evidences is to shift the burden of proof, whether we are discussing belief or knowledge. I wonder how you even differentiate between belief and knowledge as you seem to think one means something much more substantial than the other. What is the difference from your definition of the two terms?

Quote:
You have the logical right to ask me why do I believe that God exist.

You really should stop sticking the word 'logical' throughout your post. Logic deals with the validity of inference and demonstration. What is a 'logical right' to ask someone something?  


Quote:
Since I say that there are not evidences for God's existence you can not ask me to provide evidences.

 At which point any claim could be made. I believe I have an invisible monkey. Don't ask for evidence there isn't any. But I have a "logical assumption" that my invisible monkey exists.  

Quote:
You can only ask me for logical explanation of my belief, hoping that my logical explanation can lead to facts which can be considered as supportive evidences for God's existence.

 Could I have some logical explanation for your belief in the hopes that your logical explanation can lead to facts which can be considered as supportive evidences for God's existence?

Quote:
To all: Can I have your consent to open a topic in which to discus God's existence based on logic and science?

Go ahead. Should be interesting. 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote: To all: Can I have


Quote:
To all: Can I have your consent to open a topic in which to discus God's existence based on logic and science?

Quote:
Go ahead. Should be interesting.

The only new thing I see happening that is possible is maybe new wrapping on an old package. In that sense it should be intresting how creative the apologetics are.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I just noticed another

I just noticed another thing. This theist is trying to have it both ways. He trys to make the claim that all life came from water caused by a sky daddy fasely, BUT Adam is molded from dirt.


"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


MacProudhon
MacProudhon's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
I am also from the Facebook

I am also from the Facebook group that banned Nikolay, I argued against it, since I didn't see what it would achieve other than to come across dogmatic and authoritarian, giving atheism a bad name (or non-name). I have no idea why the topic was deleted either. The basis of the topic was a reposting of one of his blogs onto the facebook group. Which can be found here:  http://mnogo.truden.com/


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Vessel, to me "logic" is

Vessel, to me "logic" is the way to move through information and evidences in orther to explain the nature of a subject.

Logic is used in science to create scientific theories such as the Big Bamg theory. In that sense we can say that a chain of events or evidences can lead to logical assumption, but I'll stop using it if it messes you that much.

You must also concider my limited English and non English way of expression. I'm Bulgarian. 


Omnibus
Posts: 47
Joined: 2007-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote:Sam Chadwick

Truden wrote:
Sam Chadwick wrote:


I'm a member of the Facebook group that 'banished' Truden, (Nikolay), not so long ago. I think the reason for his ban was primarily how often he resorted to petty insults instead of debating his point.



Sam, you don't have the right to say that. The topic is deleted and no one can know whether you are saying the truth.

In the deleted topic I was called an idiot and insulted in all possible ways.
I did never use insulting words and did never mean to insult any one in that topic.
I welcome you to be part of this conversation.
Follow it and you will find my point.

 

Actually Truden you have been called out for being insulting at richarddawkins.net and those posts have not been deleted. Here's one of two threads you started there.

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=32572&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

 

I also remember your absurd premise in the Taste of the Cookie thread.

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=32391&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

Will you be arguing that here?

Too bad stupidity isn't poisonous.


lieutenant24
lieutenant24's picture
Posts: 42
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
Nikolay! I was starting to

Nikolay! I was starting to miss you. It seems that your entire audience has followed you from Facebook.

I look forward to seeing some new perspectives on your theories.

COME TO THE DARK SIDE -- WE HAVE COOKIES


Blind_Chance
Blind_Chance's picture
Posts: 124
Joined: 2008-01-09
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote: Archeopteryx

Truden wrote:
Archeopteryx wrote:

And for future reference, there is a "kill 'em with kindness" board where the atheists are forbidden to become too aggressive with the theists, and they aren't allowed to swear, etc. If you're looking for a kindness guarantee, you may consider going there in the future, FYI.

I don't mind intelligent sarcasm which made me to be sarcastic about sarcasm:

Sarcasm is child of your Pride
Pride is daughter of Ignorance
Ignorance is I KNOW
I KNOW is the human nature
Human’s nature is your realized Self
Your unrealized Self is the Truth about you.
Most people are missing THAT Truth, sleeping with the Sarcasm.

Oh, are ignorant enough to be so sure that your quote is true ? On what facts are you basing your assumption ? Because God says so ?

Sorry mate but if somebody will say that 2+2=5 or 2+2*2=8 I will call him a fool and ask to go back to primary school. 

If you you say that your Christian/Jewish/Muslim/[put random god] God exist I will be sarcastic. I will call you a fool if you ignore facts about science, religion or deny morality in name of your God.

And yeah welcome on forum I am never tired to discuss with believers.

Ecrasez l'infame!


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Omnibus wrote:   Actually

Omnibus wrote:
 

Actually Truden you have been called out for being insulting at richarddawkins.net and those posts have not been deleted. Here's one of two threads you started there.

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=32572&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

 

I also remember your absurd premise in the Taste of the Cookie thread.

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=32391&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

Will you be arguing that here?

 If sarcasm was used against me I might have answered with sarcasm but I can not recall me using insulting words.


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
lieutenant24

lieutenant24 wrote:

Nikolay! I was starting to miss you. It seems that your entire audience has followed you from Facebook.

I look forward to seeing some new perspectives on your theories.

Thanks, lieutenant Smile


It appears that we like each other in some special way if we follow each other.

The one who banned me in the Facebook group actually banned you from having conversation with me in his forums. 


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Not trying to make this a

Not trying to make this a tangent, but at least the mods here can spell 'species'. LMAO.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
Hi Truden, I think you're a

Hi Truden,

I think you're a complete and utter nutcase. Having said that, welcome to the RRS.


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Jacob Cordingley wrote: Hi

Jacob Cordingley wrote:

Hi Truden,

I think you're a complete and utter nutcase. Having said that, welcome to the RRS.

It all depends on your understanding about nutcase.

Einstein wouldn't be as much happy of the appreciation of his theory from a peasant as to be called nutcase from the same peasant.


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote: Not

darth_josh wrote:

Not trying to make this a tangent, but at least the mods here can spell 'species'. LMAO.

As Bulgarian I have spell checker but I don't pay much attention to it when I'm sure of my English.
Sometimes typing is playing bad games even to English speaking people, and you can see misplaced letters in a word.

Well, I do misspell words, but I lean on your intelligence to understand the word in the context and not to pay much attention to my spelling.
Hope that it is not very frustrating. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote: darth_josh

Truden wrote:
darth_josh wrote:

Not trying to make this a tangent, but at least the mods here can spell 'species'. LMAO.

As Bulgarian I have spell checker but I don't pay much attention to it when I'm sure of my English.
Sometimes typing is playing bad games even to English speaking people, and you can see misplaced letters in a word.

Well, I do misspell words, but I lean on your intelligence to understand the word in the context and not to pay much attention to my spelling.
Hope that it is not very frustrating.

I may tottally dissagree with you on the existance of your claimed deity, or any for that matter. But spelling Nazzis get on my nerves in certain situations. If I was writing a college paper, or writing for a newspaper, then it matters, because you are expected to do it right.As well, if I owned a website, it would be a reasonable expectation to get spelling right.

But as a mere poster in a casuall thread, to me, it is like having a conversation with a bunch of guys at a bar, completely casuall and informal.  

I personally wont get down on you for spelling anywhere close as much as I will when you make a claim without backing it up.

Now, back to the god issueeee. You believe he exists and I dont see any good reason for buying such a claim. That is what matters to me, not the fact that humans have faults. 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian, I have posted topic

Brian, I have posted topic in the section "Atheist vs. Theist" - 50/50
You are welcome to join the discussion.


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Hi

Hi Truden

http://mnogo.truden.com/

I've been reading your musings, about your believe in the god of Mount Sinai Yahweh

? do you believe that the Bible is the Word of God and as such should be taken literally as the truth

? or do you pick and choose what parts of the Bible are to be believed