|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nonsensical Atheists? Agobot? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
In Message 45 Agobot said:
Agobot writes:
I asked him to clarify this, he said he'd do it in a new thread, this is this thread. 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? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Do you have a link to that podcast?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5559 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: 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: Nothing. Science talks about the natural, god (by most definitions) is supernatural. Science says nothing about the supernatural.
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4218 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Agobot writes:
Care to explain also why this is nonsense? It seems to be a very viable question to the statement you made. "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?" Sorry if this sounds like nonsense to you, but I just don;t see it. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2506 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5559 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024