Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nonsensical Atheists? Agobot?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 4 of 48 (497279)
02-03-2009 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Wounded King
02-03-2009 7:51 AM


I don't know if he's an atheist, but another evolutionist who often receives very skeptical treatment from other evolutionists is Hoot Mon, now going by the moniker Fosdick the Fearless.
It will be interesting to see Agobot's response, but it was already obvious to everyone he was talking through his hat. People don't agree with other people because they share a label, not even close. If they did then all people sharing the Christian label would agree with one another and there'd be only one Christian church, probably Catholic with Martin Luther its greatest saint. I must add, though, that it was certainly very interesting to see John 10:10 and Bertot declaring their mutually exclusive viewpoints to be in agreement back in the Friggin' Confident thread. So though there will be no examples of atheists agreeing with one another simply because they're fellow atheists, examples abound of Christians trying to paper over differences (until suddenly there's another church in town ).
There's an interesting book by Guy Harrison called 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God. I don't plan on reading the book, but I did listen to Harrison being interviewed by D. J. Grothe on the Point of Inquiry podcast. Interestingly, the reasons given for believing in God were pretty much the same no matter which God or gods (Christian, Islam, Hindu, etc.) were believed in. Being surrounded by a community of other true believers apparently provides enormous confidence, and the evidence cited is pretty much the same, such as it's common knowledge, everyone believes this, they feel God's presence, they've experienced miracles, life is just so incredible, their scriptures are obviously true, etc.
Clearly, religious people around the world tend to agree about the nature of the evidence, but they strongly disagree about which God that evidence supports. Atheists, too, display a wide range of disparate opinions, but not about the major points of science, which having been established through real-world observations thereby correspond to the real world, and the real world is what it is.
There's really no point in disagreeing with the real world that science uncovers for us, atheists for the most part understand this very well, and this is why Agobot sees atheists agreeing with each other on matters of science. But his filter causes him to fail to notice that religious scientists agree with each other and also with atheists on matters of science. There *is* a common element, but it's not atheism, it's science.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Wounded King, posted 02-03-2009 7:51 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Phat, posted 02-03-2009 9:21 AM Percy has replied
 Message 7 by Agobot, posted 02-03-2009 2:48 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 6 of 48 (497285)
02-03-2009 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Phat
02-03-2009 9:21 AM


Re: Link Me Up, Scotty

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Phat, posted 02-03-2009 9:21 AM Phat has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 17 of 48 (497448)
02-04-2009 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Agobot
02-03-2009 2:48 PM


Agobot writes:
But this is blank statement. Do they agree on the existence of God?What does science have to do with God? And what does "matters of science" have to do with religion or God? What agreement are you talking about? Such a gross generalisation about scientists(which scientists??) carries no distinct, definite meaning.
I can see you're struggling to put my reply into the proper context. Read the opening post again, Message 1, where Huntard explains that this thread is a spin-off from the I Am Not An Atheist! thread. In that thread you said that atheists speak nonsense, and that I was mistaken for an atheist because I was agreeing with other atheists when I spoke the same nonsense. Sound familiar now?
So the passage you responded to is merely explaining why you can't group people who agree about one thing under the label for something else. Atheists in general accept evolution for much the same reasons I accept evolution, but if that leads you to conclude I'm an atheist then you're making an error in logic of the first order. Agreement about evolution puts people in the evolutionist group, not the atheist group. Or if you were not thinking of evolution but some other topic on which I'm in agreement with atheists, then apply the same argument, it still doesn't make me an atheist. I'm a deist and do not agree with atheists that there is no God.
But my post wasn't meant to divert the topic, I was just posting additional background while waiting for you to join. This thread is for you to be specific about what nonsense you were accusing atheists of.
Added by Edit:
Percy, people say you are a deist? but in message 290 in "Why so friggin' confident?" you said this:
"He's not saying that higher confidence should be placed in his incomplete evidence than in yours. What it boils down to is that you don't have any evidence related to the key question, whether there's any such phenomenon as God at all."
If you believe there is no such a phenomenon as God, what kind of a deist could you be? And why would being an atheist necessarily be a bad thing or a negative label?
I didn't say I'm a deist who doesn't believe in God. I said there's no evidence for God. I nonetheless have complete faith that there is a God and I require no evidence whatsoever. This faith springs completely from within and has no rational or evidential components that I'm aware of.
But this isn't the topic. This thread is for you to describe the nonsense atheists speak.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Add last sentence.
Edited by Percy, : Post AbE addendum.
Edited by Percy, : Clarify wording in 2nd para.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Agobot, posted 02-03-2009 2:48 PM Agobot has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 18 of 48 (497453)
02-04-2009 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Agobot
02-04-2009 7:04 AM


Agobot writes:
When you are past puberty(your language gives you away at every 2nd sentence), you'll see how little in fact you knew, Mr.IknowEverything.
You've listed 3/23/2004 as your own birthday. Your born-again date, I assume?
Could we keep this thread on-topic? This is your second post here and you have yet to address it in any way.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Agobot, posted 02-04-2009 7:04 AM Agobot has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 24 of 48 (497521)
02-04-2009 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Agobot
02-04-2009 1:27 PM


Agobot writes:
Now where in my quote below:
Agobot writes:
This is complete nonsense and it's a shame that atheists can spread drivel 7/24 here. A bridge does not have emergent properties, it's not alive and it's most definitely not conscious. If this board was not biased toward atheism you'd get at least temporary suspension.
did i "imply" this:
Modulous writes:
In your reply to the above statement you implied that a bridge does not display any emergent properties and that this was because it was not alive/conscious. That is nonsense.
The text you quote from Modulous's is a pretty accurate recap of what you said in the text you quoted from yourself.
The point Capt Stormfield was making was that a bridge is no less an emergent manifestation of atoms than life. All atoms of a given isotope always have precisely the same properties, and it doesn't matter whether they're in a bridge or a living cell. They both contain atoms doing nothing more than obeying physical laws.
Reading the rest of your message, I'm wondering if you believe that only life can display emergent properties. If so then you're saying a lot of things that you'll probably regret later, so you might want to read up on emergence before digging your hole any deeper.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Agobot, posted 02-04-2009 1:27 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Agobot, posted 02-04-2009 5:43 PM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 38 of 48 (497590)
02-04-2009 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Modulous
02-04-2009 5:52 PM


Modulous responding to Agobot writes:
I appreciate English isn't your first language...
I didn't know that, that explains a lot. I hope some progress can be made helping Agobot understand what is actually being said, but I'm not sure this is how I want to spend my time.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Modulous, posted 02-04-2009 5:52 PM Modulous has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 47 of 48 (497830)
02-06-2009 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Huntard
02-05-2009 5:15 PM


Re: Short recap
Huntard writes:
It could be that there is a language problem, but so far (seeing as he seems to be able to write English very well) I don't see any evidence for it.
My own opinion is that there's something seriously wrong somewhere because even relatively simple points aren't being understood, but leaving that aside, I've seen accusations of lies and so forth flying around a little, so even though I'm not playing the role of moderator in this thread I thought I'd caution people to not set their expectations too high or take discussion here too seriously. For whatever reason, many arguments just aren't being understood, and there's no way to force comprehension. If it helps, write for the lurkers.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Huntard, posted 02-05-2009 5:15 PM Huntard has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024