Neither a theist nor an atheist

Actually, no. In pure empiricism the best you could do is say 'everything I have observed sufficiently closely has been made of atoms'. Unless the empiricist has observe all humans at the molecular scale they cannot claim that a person is 'seen' to be a 'collection of atoms'.A pure empiricists that reasons that since everything they've seen closely is made of atoms, and since the theory 'everything is made of atoms' produces a coherent explanation that explains new things and produces predicts etc, therefore we can expect that person x is made of atoms...would be using rationalism plus empiricism. Emergent properties are just as observable (if not more so) as molecular ones. So no, empiricists would not fail to take emergent phenomena into account. Indeed - the observation of phenomena is their characteristic!Have you confused empiricism with reductionism?What does any of this have to do with Nohadism and theism?

Why would an empiricist require reason to get to emergent properties? What reasoning is in place to infer that water is wet, for instance? It seems like something you can get to by sensing the wetness of water, without needing to use reason.

You claimed, I disputed it, and your response is to repeat it? What do you think empirical means?The empirical world view holds that knowledge can be acquired through percetptual/sensory experience.The fact is that emergent properties are accessible to our senses, more than the existence of atoms are. So you are entirely wrong. And empiricists have experience of at least one mind. Sure, but its real easy to experience emergent phenomena. In fact, our brains are pretty much wired to do so.