November 22, 2007

to all the posters at Dawkins' forum :)

Recently i posted an article disproving atheism, featuring its current spokesperson, Professor Richard Dawkins.

i mentioned that i forwarded it to a forum over at Dawkins' homepage. (i failed to mention that i also forwarded it to his own provided email address.)

Anyways, i started a new thread and asked people to comment: the same thing that i ask of people over here in this blog, at another forum, and through email. But expecting the very strong reactions that i might get, and knowing how i would possibly react, i chose not to go back there immediately. (Plus, yesterday was Research Day! i'm really not allowed to do anything else :) )

After less than three days, i go back to the forum where i posted and it was locked. No more discussion permitted.


The moderator, "Sciwoman", says (boldface mine):

Since it appears that the OP [original poster] is not going to return...

On the off-chance the OP returns and wishes to engage in discussion...

On what grounds does it appear to be so? Because it took some days for me to come back...

Sorry if it seems that way; but
it took some time for me to reply to my own blog even.

Wasn't this what i said in the original post? i hope you can check it out and give me your thoughts

And by off-chance, perhaps she is thinking of the many other non-atheists who post there and then leave immediately without a trace. Well, that's not me; but i can sympathize with feeling that they were left hanging. (Imagine: expressing one's deep personal beliefs and values in reaction to a supposed listener who wasn't there at all, or who made an appearance once but didn't return again.)

Previously she wrote:

Let's just say, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Teci to come back. Call it the voice of experience.

i'm sorry but the voice of experience is wrong. i'm here and i'm back.


When i first read Sciwoman's posts i thought that it was pretty ironic that her statements had unscientific phrases: "it appears", "off-chance", "experience". But then, i realized that this probably was all she experienced: at least from the people she has been moderating over at that certain forum. i am.

I have every intention of returning to the forum; it was my intention not only to start the discussion but to help get it rolling.

i am not like the others :)

i am truly sorry for giving you and everyone the impression that i only was out to pull a prank: tiptoeing over to your side then run hurriedly far far away, according to another guy in the forum.

No. i'm here for the long run :)

i'm here...

  1. because i care for you guys,
  2. because i doubted and disbelieved in the past as well,
  3. because i know how you feel and how you think,
  4. because (forgive me for saying this) i know the Truth,
  5. because i hope that you can know the Truth as well.
Truth that is also good and fills you with hope. (Not to be confused with the false hopes and of false teachings :) )

Sciwoman: your reactions to my coming back to the forum echo how unbelievers feel about God:

  • "God does not appear to be true..."
  • "Experience tells me that God is not true..."
And so on.

But i am glad for one little word, the word that initially made me feel slighted.

"On the off-chance that God is true..."

That's exactly why i'm here :) To say that improbable does NOT automatically mean impossible; that to encounter does NOT automatically mean to see.

The fact that i do wish to return to the forum shows that there are some truths that we do not expect --- yet aren't we glad they are true. :)

(Well, sometimes we're glad!...)

i still do not understand why some threads have to be locked. Wouldn't it be better to let everyone have their say, regardless of whether the original poster comes back, and regardless of time or posting frequency? (That's also what i show at the last part of "Are You There...": just because i did not see Dawkins when i demanded his immediate presence, does not prove he's not true.)

Christians would say that "God's will is different from ours," and understandably, unbelievers would say that's foolish and/or safe reasoning. But how different is that from someone being too busy with research (my adviser knows that my blog is more fruitful than my simulations!), or people prioritizing different things, or one person seeing the short-term while one sees the bigger picture? How hard is it for us to see someone else's point of view?

We can agree that truth is universal (else it wouldn't be true), but there are different perspectives (NOT different truths!). So i cannot immediately see another person's reasons, desires, will...i cannot see her very self until she chooses to, maybe, blog about it. Or explain why she doesn't blog or post or comment as often as we would like her to.

So, here i am, explaining. And i am explaining what God Himself has revealed through the Bible, through the Holy Spirit speaking to my heart...

Unbelievers: i hope you continue reading :) i know this is where it gets pretty silly, right? But imagine you're on the bus sitting beside someone talking on the phone, laughing even. It's quite possible that your seatmate is just pretending to have a friend (because she doesn't have any). Or maybe she is talking to someone on the other end of the line. You can't prove either way, but you can't disprove either. But in the meanwhile she's saying her friend just gave her a great idea for a blog entry. :)

Unbelievers: PLEASE stay. i promise not to be vicious, and if i am, remind me of this promise :) i just want to talk to you. i hope you give me a chance, once again. :)

Sciwoman: i am a sciwoman just like you :) Here's to off-chances that just might be worth taking. :)


  1. Darren3:52 AM

    I am also an atheist, Teci. I don't mind discussing things on your blog with you. I don't know exactly how, but if you want to, e-mail me at

  2. Hello Darren :)

    i just read your response and would be very glad to correspond with you. i'll be emailing you right after this, but in any case my email address is Take care and hope to hear from you soon :)

  3. Darren7:00 AM

    Teci, how can you accept the bible when science shows quite clearly so many mistakes in it (such as the age of the earth)?

  4. To everyone: a proper "closure of sorts" may be found here:

    But new comments are always welcome :) It looks like i have more time to respond, but in any case again i say that i will always try my best to do so :)

    All the best and i do hope to hear and correspond with you :)

  5. To Darren: i am truly sorry for suddenly vanishing on you :( i wrote on another blog entry that i would be gone until April '08 because of massive schoolwork (which actually is still not finished), but i was not able to personally get back to you. i *am* sorry. :(

    To answer your question: the Bible is *not* in error because it does *not* give the specific age of the earth.

    Centuries ago, it seemed that science and faith (specifically, the Bible) were at odds because it was claimed and later determined that the sun, not the earth, is at the center of our universe. But the Bible has *not* claimed that the earth was the center.

    Admittedly, these (earth's age, earth-orbiting-sun, etc.) can be interpreted as such, in the same way that there are other interpretations. Also, it can be implied, because the Bible says that humans are higher than other life forms He created, etc. But again it's not stated as a direct absolute fact which can be proven or disproven.

    When a similar scientific (or other) discovery is made, we can determine if (a) it clearly confirms Scripture/the Bible (ex: archaeological finds in the past (only decades ago!) of cities in Biblical times), (b) it can be compatible with the Bible (ex: near-death experiences? evolution? alien life?), (c) or if it is undoubtedly contradicted by what is in the Bible (i have yet to find one).

    Darren, i highly appreciate the respect you give me :) And i feel that you are really just after the truth :) i can tell you this: In my youth i had rejected Christianity but it turned out that all i had were misconceptions or outright lies against it. Now, i can say that all my experiences only confirm the truth contained in the Bible, whether in my personal life, or others' lives, or even in fields such as science and philosophy.

    The Bible, and the God behind it, is unchanging yet remains relevant and reasonable after two, three millennia. "Perhaps there is some truth to it," as the saying goes :)

    Anyways, i do hope you would still correspond with me and i am looking forward to doing so.

    All the best,
    teci :)