Happy Atheist Forum

Quote from: "hvargas"I'm not an atheist cause atheist do not know why they don't believe, and I don't believe in any of the Gods that the world has construted as well. I know the true and there are others who also know the true but they are not coming forward cause they are leaving it to time. There are things that are in existences for which both atheist and theist are totally unaware and since they are so busy looking into each other they are missing the real " TRUE ". MOST ATHEIST WERE THEIST and its very unlikely that an atheist will return to the ranks.

Emphasis in above quote is mine.

I saw this in another thread and it really caught my attention. I'm interested to hear you elaborate on your unique knowledge that you are claiming. Also how did you come to the conclusion that atheists do not know why they don't believe?

I'm sure many people would like to know these things. Mind sharing?

When you go to school and in the classroom you are given a test which later is returned to you with a given mark. All of the students received different marks while some may get the same marks. You can't help yourself in comaparing your marks with the rest of the class. What I'm trying to say is that we look for things to compare ourselves with and when we do, we either accept or reject. Atheist only have theist to compare itself to which is obvious as theist also only have atheist to comapare themselves with. What does an atheist believes? It believes that it does not believed in what the theist holds to be the true. It believes that it does not believe in the existence of a GOD which is what the theist believed. It believes that it does not believe in anything beyond this life, which is the theist belief. In other words atheist rejects theist as theist rejects atheist in forms. Atheist have the tendencies that through the works of science everything can be explained and in other words SCIENCE then is the atheist GOD. For things that the atheist and theist can't explain becomes argumentive for both. The atheist just like the child in the classroom looks towards the theist to compare itself with and then gives itself a higher grade, the theist then does the same. Since the theist is wrong then the atheist is also wrong because its comparing itself to that which is wrong. What does this means: The theist is the one presenting God to the atheist with all its defenitions.The theist is wrong so the atheist does not have the true so how can it believe. Atheist just like theist do not know the true but one claims to know it. No more time left.

Well McQ, I am certainly glad you got such a concise and well thought answer, it is obvious hvargas put a lot of thought into his post. I for one, thank him for making the forums a better, more intellectually enlightening place. Obviously the 3 day, 23 hour and 47 minute gap between question and answer was spent in deep contemplation, in order to distil his expansive ideas down into one little nugget of easily digested and eminently readable pros.

Bravo good sir, well trolled!

I believe you have constructed a confusing strawman of atheists which you personally reject.  You still have not answered the part of the question asking about what special knowledge you know that theists and atheists don't, but you ran out of time so presumably that bit of 'information' is on its way.  Or maybe you did address that, I just missed it while being confused by all the 'believes it does not believe' crap.  

Of course, I could be completely wrong since nothing you write makes much of any sense.  But hey, maybe I'm just trying to compare myself to a crazy person so I can give myself a higher grade or whatever.  

Let me try asking again.

What do you mean by this statement?: I know the true and there are others who also know the true but they are not coming forward cause they are leaving it to time.

And what evidence do you have to make this claim?: atheist do not know why they don't believe

I am having trouble answering hvargas as I am not really sure what the point is. The writing is very poorly constructed and almost unintelligible in parts.  Although, if hvargas does not have English as a first language, I commend and welcome the attempt to debate here.

As an atheist, I do not compare myself with anyone. I like to consider myself a free-thinker who approaches every debate and dilemma by looking at the facts, analyzing the situation with as much logic as I can muster, and drawing my own conclusions as best I can. There are writers and philosophers I can relate to - others I can't.

I did not become an atheist with the goal of rejecting theism. I am not arrogant and I do not claim to have the answers to the big questions of the universe. I have no idea what happens after death because nobody ever came back to tell me, but I have an assumption it will be what it was like before we were born.

I reached the conclusion (through experience, research, debate and thought) that I see no evidence to prove the existence of god(s). Whilst it may be impossible to disprove the existence of god(s), the preponderance of evidence points to there not being any form of divine creator or guiding hand that controls the world and destiny, answering or ignoring prayers at will, creating and destroying life with impunity.

The evidence points to science and logic as being our best ways to slowly discover the answers we are seeking. Filling in the unknown blanks with religion seems to be defeatist and shows a lack of intelligent curiosity. As a naturally inquisitive person, this is not enough to satisfy me.

No theist has ever presented evidence to me. They have presented personal experiences that I cannot verify. They have presented anecdotal examples of miracles that have other explanations. They point to writings in the Bible (and other holy books) that are unverifiable, often immoral in nature, and have been exposed as myths (and in some many cases deliberate untruths) by knowledgeable experts.

When a person presents an idea as 'true', the onus is upon them to prove it to me. It is not my responsibility to disprove them.

I know exactly why I am an atheist. And I become irritated that atheism is often described as a 'belief system' (which I have an inkling hvargas is doing here). There is a difference between belief and faith. There is a world of difference between believing something is true because you can assess the repeatable and measurable evidence, and having 'faith' that something immeasurable and invisible to all but yourself is real.  

Hvargas, I'm still waiting for you to explain clearly what was intended by your post. I also feel you do not understand the nature and meaning of atheism. As such, you have used your ideas and judgements of what an atheist does or doesn't believe in order to create an insubstantial argument.

Back to you guys...

Quote from: "hvargas"When you go to school and in the classroom you are given a test which later is returned to you with a given mark. All of the students received different marks while some may get the same marks. You can't help yourself in comaparing your marks with the rest of the class. What I'm trying to say is that we look for things to compare ourselves with and when we do, we either accept or reject. Atheist only have theist to compare itself to which is obvious as theist also only have atheist to comapare themselves with. What does an atheist believes? It believes that it does not believed in what the theist holds to be the true. It believes that it does not believe in the existence of a GOD which is what the theist believed. It believes that it does not believe in anything beyond this life, which is the theist belief. In other words atheist rejects theist as theist rejects atheist in forms. Atheist have the tendencies that through the works of science everything can be explained and in other words SCIENCE then is the atheist GOD. For things that the atheist and theist can't explain becomes argumentive for both. The atheist just like the child in the classroom looks towards the theist to compare itself with and then gives itself a higher grade, the theist then does the same. Since the theist is wrong then the atheist is also wrong because its comparing itself to that which is wrong. What does this means: The theist is the one presenting God to the atheist with all its defenitions.The theist is wrong so the atheist does not have the true so how can it believe. Atheist just like theist do not know the true but one claims to know it. No more time left.

Are you by chance related to fdesilva?

Quote from: "zookie"As an atheist, I do not compare myself with anyone. I like to consider myself a free-thinker who approaches every debate and dilemma by looking at the facts, analyzing the situation with as much logic as I can muster, and drawing my own conclusions as best I can. There are writers and philosophers I can relate to - others I can't.

I did not become an atheist with the goal of rejecting theism. I am not arrogant and I do not claim to have the answers to the big questions of the universe. I have no idea what happens after death because nobody ever came back to tell me, but I have an assumption it will be what it was like before we were born.

I reached the conclusion (through experience, research, debate and thought) that I see no evidence to prove the existence of god(s). Whilst it may be impossible to disprove the existence of god(s), the preponderance of evidence points to there not being any form of divine creator or guiding hand that controls the world and destiny, answering or ignoring prayers at will, creating and destroying life with impunity.

The evidence points to science and logic as being our best ways to slowly discover the answers we are seeking. Filling in the unknown blanks with religion seems to be defeatist and shows a lack of intelligent curiosity. As a naturally inquisitive person, this is not enough to satisfy me.

No theist has ever presented evidence to me. They have presented personal experiences that I cannot verify. They have presented anecdotal examples of miracles that have other explanations. They point to writings in the Bible (and other holy books) that are unverifiable, often immoral in nature, and have been exposed as myths (and in some many cases deliberate untruths) by knowledgeable experts.

When a person presents an idea as 'true', the onus is upon them to prove it to me. It is not my responsibility to disprove them.

I know exactly why I am an atheist. And I become irritated that atheism is often described as a 'belief system' (which I have an inkling hvargas is doing here). There is a difference between belief and faith. There is a world of difference between believing something is true because you can assess the repeatable and measurable evidence, and having 'faith' that something immeasurable and invisible to all but yourself is real.

+1

Very well said.

Hismikeness

Thanks, Hismikeness!  

Quote from: "Whitney"Are you by chance related to fdesilva?

I was thinking the same thing.  I inadvertently confused the two on another thread.

Oh, and hvargas, you are a theist and hardly a free thinker.

When you know something that you cannot prove, there is no sense in writing or talking about it with anyone. When someone presents me with a conversation about God, the presenter is the one that should prove to me that God exist. It must do this not through Faith but with physical evidence. It is not up to me to present anyone with any evidence about anything. When I attended college one of my teacher said, that when she writes, she will do a draft and then re-write the same theme a couple of times. The final presentations will be most likely what she had wanted to communicate to her readers. I had found that many people don't really read with a critical frame of mind cause they are too busy in their own thoughts, so they pick on words and parts of sentences which they select to form an opinion. A question may have a simple answer but obvious is much too simple, for example, why are you an atheist ?, answer: cause there are theist. Likewise, why are you a theist ?, answer: cause there are atheist. Why do most people seek the existence of a God ? Among the many reasons, is cause they don't believe in themselves ( responsibilities and actions ), so they create something higher then themselves. The problems with creating something that cannot be presented is that many stories must also be created to define that something. What I know or what I may know is not as important as to say for example; I'm a physical being living in a physical planet and galaxy therefore, in some other place there must be a least one other asking the same question. If you cannot prove it, keep it to yourself. I had not thought the answer before giving it and that may be due to the seriouness of my thinking. This means that the answers are allready there, I don't have to wait for the next day or the next hour to respond. I must go to a library and used the computer they lent out for 45 minutes. ;)  

que the Mr. Madison speech....

Hvargas, I don't know what you problem is but you aren't making any sense.  If someone asks what gender you are you don't go on a long rant about how people call themselves men only because women exist.  If someone asks you what color your hair is you don't say brown just because there are blondes.  We have labels so we can convey quickly to others what our point of view is on a subject.  Even that word "free thinker" that you have listed as your worldview only exists because it has an opposite.

I recommend a daily dose of risperidone, 4mg.

Quote from: "hvargas"When you know something that you cannot prove, there is no sense in writing or talking about it with anyone. When someone presents me with a conversation about God, the presenter is the one that should prove to me that God exist. It must do this not through Faith but with physical evidence. It is not up to me to present anyone with any evidence about anything. When I attended college one of my teacher said, that when she writes, she will do a draft and then re-write the same theme a couple of times. The final presentations will be most likely what she had wanted to communicate to her readers. I had found that many people don't really read with a critical frame of mind cause they are too busy in their own thoughts, so they pick on words and parts of sentences which they select to form an opinion. A question may have a simple answer but obvious is much too simple, for example, why are you an atheist ?, answer: cause there are theist. Likewise, why are you a theist ?, answer: cause there are atheist. Why do most people seek the existence of a God ? Among the many reasons, is cause they don't believe in themselves ( responsibilities and actions ), so they create something higher then themselves. The problems with creating something that cannot be presented is that many stories must also be created to define that something. What I know or what I may know is not as important as to say for example; I'm a physical being living in a physical planet and galaxy therefore, in some other place there must be a least one other asking the same question. If you cannot prove it, keep it to yourself. I had not thought the answer before giving it and that may be due to the seriouness of my thinking. This means that the answers are allready there, I don't have to wait for the next day or the next hour to respond. I must go to a library and used the computer they lent out for 45 minutes. ;)  

I'm actually just starting to almost understand what you mean here.

However, it doesn't quite answer the questions I asked. It seemed to me that you were saying that atheists don't know why they believe what they do (or why they don't believe in gods). Also that you have some kind of special knowledge that you don't want to explain. Is this correct?

For secret knowledge, I'm rooting for Moon Nazis.

Wow. Religion has been around for a long time and along with it the believe in GOD. Those who believe are called THEIST and they came first, later came the ATHEIST. It will be very difficult to find the first ATHEIST but whoever it was, it opposed the Theist beliefs. The oppositions grew as it is today and we can find many books rejecting the existence of God. The Atheist authors points of referrence is Religion/God as given in the past and today. Enough of this..... Here is someting I read today as I was on my way to the library: Hawking: "Aliens are out there, and they won't come in peace". Aliens are out there, but it could be too dangerous for humans to interact with them. British astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said.... I won't worry about that cause this PLANET the we called EARTH is under protection, so they won't dare attack it. Do you know who I'm in existence. :pop:

Quote from: "hvargas"Wow. Religion has been around for a long time and along with it the believe in GOD. Those who believe are called THEIST and they came first, later came the ATHEIST.

Before religions existed, everyone was an atheist.  So while the terminology 'atheist' may have come after 'theist', I think you're wrong to claim that atheism didn't exist until theism.  You're arguing about semantics as if the creation of the specific label is reflective of the creation of the thought process.

Quote from: "hvargas"Wow. Religion has been around for a long time and along with it the believe in GOD. Those who believe are called THEIST and they came first, later came the ATHEIST. It will be very difficult to find the first ATHEIST but whoever it was, it opposed the Theist beliefs. The oppositions grew as it is today and we can find many books rejecting the existence of God. The Atheist authors points of referrence is Religion/God as given in the past and today. Enough of this..... Here is someting I read today as I was on my way to the library: Hawking: "Aliens are out there, and they won't come in peace". Aliens are out there, but it could be too dangerous for humans to interact with them. British astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said.... I won't worry about that cause this PLANET the we called EARTH is under protection, so they won't dare attack it. Do you know who I'm in existence. :pop:

You may want to review some basics about argumentation and hypothesis testing.

Quote from: "hvargas"Wow. Religion has been around for a long time and along with it the believe in GOD. Those who believe are called THEIST and they came first, later came the ATHEIST. It will be very difficult to find the first ATHEIST but whoever it was, it opposed the Theist beliefs. The oppositions grew as it is today and we can find many books rejecting the existence of God. The Atheist authors points of referrence is Religion/God as given in the past and today. Enough of this..... Here is someting I read today as I was on my way to the library: Hawking: "Aliens are out there, and they won't come in peace". Aliens are out there, but it could be too dangerous for humans to interact with them. British astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said.... I won't worry about that cause this PLANET the we called EARTH is under protection, so they won't dare attack it. Do you know who I'm in existence. :pop:

hvargas, do you understand the only reason this thread exists is because I'm asking you direct questions? You have not answered them yet, you've just supplied  non sequitur posts here. Try again, please. Try to stay on track.

Quote from: "hvargas"Here is someting I read today as I was on my way to the library: Hawking: "Aliens are out there, and they won't come in peace". Aliens are out there, but it could be too dangerous for humans to interact with them. British astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said.... I won't worry about that cause this PLANET the we called EARTH is under protection, so they won't dare attack it. Do you know who I'm in existence. :pop:

Now read that again and decide for yourself if this hvargas guy is really someone you want to try to have a discussion with.

Quote from: "i_am_i"Now read that again and decide for yourself if this hvargas guy is really someone you want to try to have a discussion with.

I'd already decided about the time this thread was started, give or take a day or two. I'd defended him earlier, in spite of the fact that he seemed not to have the most secure connection to reality, because by giving him the benefit of a lot of doubt I had misinterpreted some of his posts as merely poorly worded and slightly hysterical attempts at rationality. Really, some of his stuff seemed not so bad when I tried to understand it by fixing his grammatical errors and clarifying what seemed to be the point. Turns out he really is just as irrational as he sounds and his material is best understood thusly:

Insistence upon shouting every other word = mentally incompetent person.


Reading not required.

I'd say now I know what to look out for next time, but I'll probably just continue to treat each new person as sane and competent until proven otherwise, on a case-by-case basis. I'm sure I'll continue to be disappointed more often than not by those who show tell-tale signs of lunacy, arrogance, dogmatism, brainwashing, etc. (I've picked a lot of clues in my short time here, :D

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "hvargas"Here is someting I read today as I was on my way to the library: Hawking: "Aliens are out there, and they won't come in peace". Aliens are out there, but it could be too dangerous for humans to interact with them. British astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said.... I won't worry about that cause this PLANET the we called EARTH is under protection, so they won't dare attack it. Do you know who I'm in existence. :pop:

Now read that again and decide for yourself if this hvargas guy is really someone you want to try to have a discussion with.

I know. I'm just trying to be unusually optimistic.  

Quote from: "McQ"I know. I'm just trying to be unusually optimistic.  :P

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "hvargas"Here is someting I read today as I was on my way to the library: Hawking: "Aliens are out there, and they won't come in peace". Aliens are out there, but it could be too dangerous for humans to interact with them. British astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said.... I won't worry about that cause this PLANET the we called EARTH is under protection, so they won't dare attack it. Do you know who I'm in existence. :pop:

Now read that again and decide for yourself if this hvargas guy is really someone you want to try to have a discussion with.

I know. I'm just trying to be unusually optimistic.  

I don't believe you've ever been anything but optimistic and tolerant.