Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nonsensical Atheists? Agobot?
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 1 of 48 (497255)
02-03-2009 5:41 AM


In Message 45 Agobot said:
Agobot writes:
I think you'll have an answer to this question when you can explain why the nonsense spurred by atheists gets a different treatment to nonsense brought forth by creatinists. Why is a certain kind of nonsense somehow more acceptable than another?
I asked him to clarify this, he said he'd do it in a new thread, this is this thread.
So, I'd like to ask Agobot (or anyone else for that matter) what "nonsense" he was talking about when he said that.

I hunt for the truth

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Wounded King, posted 02-03-2009 7:51 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 48 (497258)
02-03-2009 5:57 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 3 of 48 (497266)
02-03-2009 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Huntard
02-03-2009 5:41 AM


As a counterexample, in the event that any examples actually arise, I would give LindaLou. Linda was an atheist, or at least not a theist, and when she started bringing up ideas which were generally considered nonsense she didn't get treatment any different from creationists, we can see this since Buz and Nemesis Juggernaut were espousing exactly the same sorts of nonsense in similar, and in some cases the same, threads.
Obviously this wasn't the right kind of nonsense to be given the free atheist pass on.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Huntard, posted 02-03-2009 5:41 AM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 02-03-2009 9:13 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


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

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 5 of 48 (497280)
02-03-2009 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Percy
02-03-2009 9:13 AM


Link Me Up, Scotty
Do you have a link to that podcast?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 02-03-2009 9:13 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 02-03-2009 9:37 AM Phat has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


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

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 7 of 48 (497331)
02-03-2009 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Percy
02-03-2009 9:13 AM


Percy writes:
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.
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.
Let's start one by one. Why does this utter nonsense get a free pass, if religion and atheism are on equal footing on EvC:
From "Confidence in evolutionary science" thread, post 31, discussing emergent properties:
"How many atoms are in that bridge I mentioned above? Does not each of them have to "constantly move and interact in an organised fashion" just as surely and predictably as the atoms in your body? Is it your impression that bridge atoms behave differently than cell atoms?"
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?
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 02-03-2009 9:13 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by subbie, posted 02-03-2009 4:26 PM Agobot has not replied
 Message 9 by bluescat48, posted 02-03-2009 4:31 PM Agobot has not replied
 Message 10 by Huntard, posted 02-03-2009 4:43 PM Agobot has not replied
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 02-03-2009 4:48 PM Agobot has not replied
 Message 13 by bluegenes, posted 02-03-2009 5:10 PM Agobot has not replied
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 02-04-2009 7:13 AM Agobot has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 8 of 48 (497346)
02-03-2009 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Agobot
02-03-2009 2:48 PM


quote:
Do they agree on the existence of God?
Given your usage of the imprecise word "they," it's impossible to answer your question. Are you asking if all atheists agree on the existence of god? If so, the answer is yes by definition. If you are asking whether religious scientists and atheists agree on the existence of god, the answer is no by definition.
quote:
What does science have to do with God?
Nothing. Science talks about the natural, god (by most definitions) is supernatural. Science says nothing about the supernatural.
quote:
And what does "matters of science" have to do with religion or God?
Nothing, directly. Now, if a particular religion makes a claim about the real world that would leave behind evidence, science can look for the evidence. If the evidence found contradicts the claim, science can refute the claim. Other than that, the two occupy separate spheres.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

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

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 9 of 48 (497347)
02-03-2009 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Agobot
02-03-2009 2:48 PM


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?
He is not stating his beliefs, he is giving a conditional statemet in regards to a Statement by Bertot
The title of this thread is CONFIDENCE, not comprehensice, without any shadow of a doubt evidence. From this it has moved to a discussion and definition of belief and faith, from that to what is evidence, etc, etc.
Actually, this thread is about why you're more confident in your beliefs about God than about things that have been established using facts and evidence gathered from the natural world using the scientific method
You are taking a line out of context and "putting words in Percy's mouth."

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

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

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 10 of 48 (497349)
02-03-2009 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Agobot
02-03-2009 2:48 PM


Agobot writes:
"How many atoms are in that bridge I mentioned above? Does not each of them have to "constantly move and interact in an organised fashion" just as surely and predictably as the atoms in your body? Is it your impression that bridge atoms behave differently than cell atoms?"
Care to explain also why this is nonsense? It seems to be a very viable question to the statement you made.
Sorry if this sounds like nonsense to you, but I just don;t see it.

I hunt for the truth

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Rahvin, posted 02-03-2009 4:59 PM Huntard has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 11 of 48 (497350)
02-03-2009 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Agobot
02-03-2009 2:48 PM


more context on the Percy quote
And you misunderstand where Mod is going with his arguments. 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.
Percy is giving his understanding of Modulous' argument, not stating his own position.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

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

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 12 of 48 (497356)
02-03-2009 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Huntard
02-03-2009 4:43 PM


Care to explain also why this is nonsense? It seems to be a very viable question to the statement you made.
Sorry if this sounds like nonsense to you, but I just don;t see it.
It's not nonsense.
Agobot is confused.
Agobot is nearly always confused.
Agobot is also nearly always convinced that everyone else is speaking nonsense, and that he communicates clearly to the rest of us. He also tends to interpret things that people say in decidedly odd ways, like a few posts ago when he took Percy's summary of the atheist position as Percy's own position, despite the fact that it was clear to the rest of us what Percy was intending to do.
In any given discussion about nonsense where Agobot is involved, it can nearly always be accurately assumed that the nonsense was brought into the discussion by Agobot.
Percy's quote was completely reasonable, and contained no nonsense. The atoms that comprise a bridge are not fundamentally different from those that comprise a living cell, and in both cases those atoms do in fact "constantly move and interact in an organized fashion." This is an accurate portrayal of the Atomic Theory of Matter.
Only Agobot could consider the statement to be "nonsense."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Huntard, posted 02-03-2009 4:43 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Huntard, posted 02-03-2009 5:24 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 16 by Agobot, posted 02-04-2009 7:04 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 13 of 48 (497358)
02-03-2009 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Agobot
02-03-2009 2:48 PM


??????
Agobot writes:
Let's start one by one. Why does this utter nonsense get a free pass, if religion and atheism are on equal footing on EvC:
From "Confidence in evolutionary science" thread, post 31, discussing emergent properties:
Captain Stormfield???(please link to the messages you quote) writes:
"How many atoms are in that bridge I mentioned above? Does not each of them have to "constantly move and interact in an organised fashion" just as surely and predictably as the atoms in your body? Is it your impression that bridge atoms behave differently than cell atoms?"
What has this extract to do with atheism, and what makes you think this new member is an atheist? Are you confusing methodological naturalism (science) with atheism?

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

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 14 of 48 (497360)
02-03-2009 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Rahvin
02-03-2009 4:59 PM


Thanks, I was getting a bit confused here, it's becoming clearer to me now. As I thought, the comment was not nonsense, I should trust myself more

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Rahvin, posted 02-03-2009 4:59 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Agobot, posted 02-04-2009 6:59 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 15 of 48 (497444)
02-04-2009 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Huntard
02-03-2009 5:24 PM


Capt... writes:
"How many atoms are in that bridge I mentioned above? Does not each of them have to "constantly move and interact in an organised fashion" just as surely and predictably as the atoms in your body? Is it your impression that bridge atoms behave differently than cell atoms?"
Huntard writes:
Thanks, I was getting a bit confused here, it's becoming clearer to me now. As I thought, the comment was not nonsense, I should trust myself more
No, it's not nonsense. It's nonsense beyond nonsense. He is clearly saying that the atoms in whatever molecules there are in the bridge, behave in the same way as the atoms in the molecules of your body. Which is the same as denouncing the existence of emergent properties. And which of course is idiotic, but it's no surprise that nobody from your camp notices it.
I know most you of you would like to think of atheists as intellectuals. While this may be the case with certain individuals, as whole, most of you don't fare much better than creationists.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Huntard, posted 02-03-2009 5:24 PM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by bluescat48, posted 02-04-2009 8:17 AM Agobot has not replied
 Message 20 by Modulous, posted 02-04-2009 9:07 AM Agobot has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024