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).

Welcome Truden!

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

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.

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.

We'll be waiting.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.
 

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.

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. 

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.

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.

I think so. 

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.

Cheers,

Sam.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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!

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. 

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.  

 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.

 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. 

 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. 

Good. 

 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?

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?  

 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.  

 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?

Go ahead. Should be interesting.