Nonsensical Atheists? Agobot?

You are not confused only because you are floating in a sea of ignorance and you believe you know everything(LOL). That's why you are confident and you are not confused if God exists or not. 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.

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: 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.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Add last sentence.Edited by Percy, : Post AbE addendum.Edited by Percy, : Clarify wording in 2nd para.

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

Evidently this topic is supposed to show why we atheists are Nonsensical.Which of the following statements which I have made here or on other forums are nonsensical.1) Obama is a better choice that McCain.
2) Rap is not music.
3) Given the size, the ark could not have held all the animals and food.
4) Skin color, Religious belief or sexual orientation should not be used to judge a person.
5) Theories are the best way to interpret the data given.
6) Paedophiles do not necessarily abuse children.
7) Genesis 2 contradicts Genesis 1.or my 2 signatures below:Edited by bluescat48, : misc typos (I cant typ gud!

---

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

A person that asks a rhetorical question that implies that atoms in a bridge move and interact in an organised fashion in the same way the atoms in your body move and interact predictably is the best example of atheist nonsense you can come up with? 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. Indeed, the Cap'n then went on to reply to you to discuss, in brief, his understanding of emergent properties with at least one real life example thereof - the very opposite of denouncing emergent properties.I'd rather make no sense to you, than make sense to you, if your nonsense detection apparatus is calibrated as it is.

Rhetorical question?? What "rhetorical" question? Here is the thread(please cite it):http://EvC Forum: Confidence in evolutionary science -->EvC Forum: Confidence in evolutionary scienceNow where in my quote below: did i "imply" this: ------------------------------------------------------------------- Yep, he spouted even more BS. If a dead human body floats in water and a living human body floats in the water, does this mean they are both somehow alive?(although one is obviously dead?). They both float, but one has emergent properties and the other clearly doesn't. This is his ridiculous quote: Is this how an atheist with blinders thinks about emergent properties? Are they really that simple to "explain" as an example with a bath tub floating in water, or is it because the blinders are set too tight and some of you don't see very well past a pre-conceived notion? It's ok with me. If 10 YEC's agreed that the Earth is 6000 years old, would this agreement between them lend credibility to their claims? Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This one:

quote:

---

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?

---

From Message 31. I will bold the section where I inferred this:

quote:

---

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.

---

I am not going to teach you how the term is used, look it up. If you think atheists are liable to talk nonsense about it, how about a definition from theists? I should probably note, the link I gave for theist's definition is specifically talking about the Emergent Properties of Biological Systems, but I'm sure you can generalise having looked through some of the other links from google.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Well now we know the problem. The problem is that you don't understand either of the statements you're complaining about. And it's not a fault in the writing, either.

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

For the record, I called it: Agobot is confused, as usual.

I'd say this one, But I'm sure it has nothing to do with your atheism, it probably has more to do with your age.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Thank you, you just showed what I was trying to say, none of the things I said had anything to do with atheism but just my opinions of various things. With the exception of the fist point, all of the opinions I posted I had before I became an atheist.

---

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

Yes, but you are an atheist, rap music, by definition, is music, and to deny that is nonsensical.You said, These: Have evidence supporting them and can be claimed with confidence. Even if others disagree it can be compared through evidence; winner being irrelevant. The above statements are not nonsensical.This one however, Has no evidence to support it other than subjective and actually contradicts the definition given to that specific genre. That makes your statement nonsensical. Just as the statment "evolution is not science" would be considered nonsensical.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

I never said because it(the bridge) was alive that it didn't have emergent properties. I never implied the word because, that's a Lie what you are putting into my mouth. I merely said: BTW, what are these magical emergent properties of the bridge that you are talking about?? If this was supposed to have been a rhetorical question, it's got to be the dumbest 'rhetorical' question on Earth. Ha ha ha, here is another rhetorical question:Is the Earth not flat? (asked by a flat earth society member)Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

You know, I really have to wonder if there's some kind of language barrier here.