Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 9:33 AM
21 online now:
AZPaul3, Diomedes, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, Tangle, vimesey (7 members, 14 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,633 Year: 3,670/19,786 Month: 665/1,087 Week: 34/221 Day: 5/29 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
34Next
Author Topic:   Nonsensical Atheists? Agobot?
Agobot
Member (Idle past 3609 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 16 of 48 (497446)
02-04-2009 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Rahvin
02-03-2009 4:59 PM


Rahvin writes:

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."

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.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Percy, posted 02-04-2009 7:30 AM Agobot has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


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 yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


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 yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2269 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 19 of 48 (497461)
02-04-2009 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Agobot
02-04-2009 6:59 AM


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, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Agobot, posted 02-04-2009 6:59 AM Agobot has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by onifre, posted 02-04-2009 3:00 PM bluescat48 has responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 20 of 48 (497468)
02-04-2009 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Agobot
02-04-2009 6:59 AM


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.

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?

Which is the same as denouncing the existence of emergent properties.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Agobot, posted 02-04-2009 6:59 AM Agobot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Agobot, posted 02-04-2009 1:27 PM Modulous has responded

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 3609 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 21 of 48 (497513)
02-04-2009 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Modulous
02-04-2009 9:07 AM


Modulous writes:

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?

Rhetorical question?? What "rhetorical" question? Here is the thread(please cite it):

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=860&m=31 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=860&m=31">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=860&m=31

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.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Modulous writes:

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.

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:

Capt... writes:

You seem very confused vis a vis the difference between the behavior of an atom that is part of a system that has emergent properties, and the emergent property itself. A crude analogy would be a piece of iron dropped in the water - it sinks - and an iron tub dropped in the water - it floats. The iron is no different, but its arrangement gives the tub a different property with respect to the surface of the water.

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?

Modulous writes:

I'd rather make no sense to you, than make sense to you, if your nonsense detection apparatus is calibrated as it is.

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 message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Modulous, posted 02-04-2009 9:07 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Modulous, posted 02-04-2009 1:59 PM Agobot has responded
 Message 23 by PaulK, posted 02-04-2009 2:08 PM Agobot has not yet responded
 Message 24 by Percy, posted 02-04-2009 2:11 PM Agobot has responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 22 of 48 (497519)
02-04-2009 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Agobot
02-04-2009 1:27 PM


Rhetorical question?? What "rhetorical" question?

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.

Now where in my quote...did i "imply" {that a bridge does not display any emergent properties and that this was because it was not alive/conscious.}

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.

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.

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.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Agobot, posted 02-04-2009 5:22 PM Modulous has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14753
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 23 of 48 (497520)
02-04-2009 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Agobot
02-04-2009 1:27 PM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Agobot, posted 02-04-2009 1:27 PM Agobot has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Rahvin, posted 02-04-2009 2:47 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


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 responded

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

    
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1266 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 25 of 48 (497528)
02-04-2009 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by PaulK
02-04-2009 2:08 PM


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.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by PaulK, posted 02-04-2009 2:08 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1030 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 26 of 48 (497531)
02-04-2009 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by bluescat48
02-04-2009 8:17 AM


I'd say this one,

bluecat writes:

2) Rap is not music.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by bluescat48, posted 02-04-2009 8:17 AM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by bluescat48, posted 02-04-2009 3:07 PM onifre has responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2269 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 27 of 48 (497536)
02-04-2009 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by onifre
02-04-2009 3:00 PM


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, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by onifre, posted 02-04-2009 3:00 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by onifre, posted 02-04-2009 3:52 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1030 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 28 of 48 (497548)
02-04-2009 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by bluescat48
02-04-2009 3:07 PM


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.

Yes, but you are an atheist, rap music, by definition, is music, and to deny that is nonsensical.

You said,

bluecat writes:

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?

These:

bluecat writes:


1) Obama is a better choice than McCain.
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.

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,

bluecat writes:

2)Rap is not music.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by bluescat48, posted 02-04-2009 3:07 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

    
Agobot
Member (Idle past 3609 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 29 of 48 (497564)
02-04-2009 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Modulous
02-04-2009 1:59 PM


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.

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:

Modulous writes:

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.

BTW, what are these magical emergent properties of the bridge that you are talking about??

Capt.... writes:

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?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Modulous, posted 02-04-2009 1:59 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by kuresu, posted 02-04-2009 5:35 PM Agobot has responded
 Message 33 by Modulous, posted 02-04-2009 5:52 PM Agobot has responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 592 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 30 of 48 (497566)
02-04-2009 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Agobot
02-04-2009 5:22 PM


You know, I really have to wonder if there's some kind of language barrier here.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Agobot, posted 02-04-2009 5:22 PM Agobot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Agobot, posted 02-04-2009 5:49 PM kuresu has responded

    
Prev1
2
34Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019