Argumentum ad populum fallacy.  Majorities do not determine truth. 

Please explain how this is a straw man.  I responded to someone's claim.  The statement is self-refuting, it is not a straw-man.  It is a philosophical statement about science, not a scientific statement at all.  How can the statement be quantified and empirically tested?  And if it cannot, then by the statement's own standards, it cannot itself be true or rationally held.  One cannot turn to science to justify science any more than one can pull oneself up by his own bootstraps. 

You are very confused as to what science is.  Science deals in hypothesis which lead to theory.  Both are based upon probabilies, not absolutes. 

Science is based upon certain basic assumptions that are themselves not absolute and certain.  One must use 'faith' that natural laws will remain generally uniform.  Natural law is not absolute, as there are changes and variables that affect conclusions within science. It can be asked, how would you use science to prove your claim here?  Certainty requires that one knows all possibilities, at all times, and in all places.  No one can survey all things possible in the past, present, and future.  Some future change may alter what science has uncovered in the present.  Take the example of the hypothesis of the flat-earth, gravity, the electron's composition, etc.  You are confusing certainty with probability theory once again. 

Human sense data is subjective - to us as a species as well as between us as individuals. Nevertheless there are many things we can accurately observe about the universe. And while falsifiability provides an increased measure of objectivity, we all accept that scientific knowledge is not absolute but based on experiment and observation built around certain constants we can measure.

But the thing is, you are the only one claiming there is an absolute. You have taken the objective high ground from us and insisted you, Chaz, somehow have detected an unidentified being who exists outside of space time. You are truly amazing and there are people at NASA who need your help. 

In all inductive things there is a measure of expectation based on what has been observed in the past. This cannot be called religious faith so stop with your endless tu cocque arguments. The trouble for you is that god has never been defined let alone observed outside of the wishful thinking of the human imagination.

Why don't you apply the sharp edge of your intellect to demanding of your religion the certainty you demand of scientific data. See how far you get. 

You haven't a clue, do you?

On what "Argumentum ad populum fallacy" is, do you?

What I made was a statement, and a claim that is falsifiable.

It may be incorrect, if it is falsified.

Saying "No scientist would make such a claim" is no more a fallacy than stating "No elephant would ever fly by flapping his ears"

Find me a single example of either, and you've falsified my claim.

Good luck.

Well, no.

Because they can all be wrong.

That's why scientists use a scientific method, to discover the characteristics of the natural world.

The natural world follows 'patterns' with the utmost reliabilty and adherence, that give us the ability to predict a 'natural' outcome, with the utmost certainty.

That's why we call them 'laws', once they reach absolute certainty.

When NO deviation presents itself, under the exact same circumstances.

It's very simple.

Because of your misunderstanding and misinterpretation of what 'knowledge' is.

It led you (but no one single scientist) to make the incorrect assumption that experimentation is the ONLY means of knowledge.

A child by simply observing that the family cat 'meows', and the family dog 'barks', develops the knowledge that the cat 'meows', and the dog 'barks', because it allows the child to reliably predict that the family dog does not 'meow', and that the family cat does not 'bark'.

It has the 'knowledge' of that.

See?

A child could understand that.

I'm not sure why you feel it's ONLY through 'experimentation' that we gain knowledge.

It's safe to say some of your philosophies are not very intelligent.

I just did it to test the veracity of your statements, and they failed miserably.

I falsified them.

If you feel differently, show this to your mom, and see how she feels.

Exactly.

Which is why it's both cognitive dissonance, and irrational to be convinced of a supernatural godlike figure existing, based on conjecture, by a people and society that were guided by their irrationality, high degree of general ignorance to natural world, and inability to reconcile incompatible claims.

You make a series of mistakes based on your fundamentally incorrect understanding of what 'knowledge' is, and believe that there is some generally agreed upon consensus that ONLY things that are scientifically tested can be classified as 'knowledge'.

Which is simply not true, in the slightest.

A complete, and utter fallacy, of your imagination.

One does not need to do anything but observe that well established scientific 'laws' are reliable in their predictions of the natural world.

That would be difficult for you to prove, empirically, unless you correct the numerous comprehension problems you have, that I've clearly demonstrated.

IOW, you're out of your league.

False.

Science uses absolutes.

False.

You are using the terms 'science' and 'theory', interchangeably, when they are NOT interchangeable.

Nature behaves predictably. The predictability of nature are the patterns that it never deviates from.

We UNDERSTAND them, because nature DEMONSTRATES them with ABSOLUTE adherence to those patterns. Which allows us to make predictions with ABSOLUTE certainty.

There's no HOPE that they will behave as predicted.

There is the UNDERSTANDING (knowledge/absolute certainty) that they DO.

I can see how your comprehension problems have led you into confusion, and how you could arrive at all of your erroneous conclusions, including this one.

Which speaks volumes to me, about the type of 'thinking' it requires to be a theist.

Thanks for the elaborate demonstration to this forum.

Thanks for pointing that out. That just needed to be posted twice.

I bet Nietzsche had 'faith' in that claim!

The common theist argument that everyone takes "everything" on faith (which demonstrates to me that they do not think very highly of their faith if that is the crux of their argument) is a fallacy of equivocation. Check this RRS post out for an in-depth analysis of why that argument does not work :

http://www.rationalresponders.com/doesnt_everyone_take_things_on_faith

Trust is experiential whereas theistic faith is not. And I do not need any faith to make that observation. Hehe.

And yet, none of those attributes have ever been proven.

As far as faith in science goes, science gave us medicine, electricity, these computers that we are typing on, airplanes, taken us into outer space, to the bottoms of the sea and many other things that we now simply take for granted.

What has religion brought us ? Other than the admission that it is not concerned for finding the truth, as evidenced here :

 http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09/03/hawking.god.universe.criticisms/index.html?hpt=C1

Yea, I'm confused.  This last post is just another rambling against stuff most of us don't believe.  Again.

Hey Chaz, you're all wrong because you believe you have to kiss a frog to be saved!  Haha, checkmate, theist!!!  

I wonder why they never came up with any of the "unknowable" or "mysterious" aspects of god's nature during all of their inquiries ?

Odd how theists always describe god as a mystery, but never have any aspect of him in their descriptives that could not be a construct of their own human minds.

as 'according to atheism', Chaz, that would imply there was some universal atheistic doctrine. It's true there's no scientific evidence of a soul but that's nothing to do with atheism at all. Blame Thomas Willis - a christian. 

I think it's fair to say that the human body is made of elements comprised of molecules derived from hydrogen and oxygen. Even if there is an invisible, immutable soul, you and I still have a verifiable material body to walk around in. 

Clearly, all living cells are made of physical stuff - molecules. The mysteries of the cytoplasm and the darkness surrounding abiogenesis do not wash away the observable fact that life appears to be a combination of integrated physical systems constructed from a multiplicity of single cells. To me this is much more amazing, much more profound than a heavenly father.  

This idea you expound that we hear so often - that atheists see nothing as having intrinsic worth or value - is a strawman with the stuffing falling out of his shirt. I'm a former christian and I feel and deal with the world exactly the same way I always have. I behave better than I did. I am more prone to universal altruism than I used to be. I have one life and I am responsible for it. I reject arbitrary sectarian segregation. Most atheists here think in similar ways. 

Intrinsic value and worth in any case, is subjective and not a universal value or worth. If the planet had it's own personality I am sure it would be happier if 6.5 billion of the 7 billion humans living on it fell down dead. We would think that bad. It's clear the most important things are the things we know. The most important people are the people we know. The core of our in-group is family and a few friends who we can implicitly depend on. We invest in these people.  

It's a mistake to think atheists are not exactly like you in almost every way, Chaz. Personally, I can flip over into feeling like a christian if I want to. The neuronal construct of my belief system still exists. There would be others here who would be the same. There's no great mystery to the feeling of christianity. But it's an uncomfortable feeling to me now. Devoid of coherent thought.  

Spot on, AE.

If social cohesion is a personal preference, why are you and many others applying it universally to Muslims who do such?  Why are Muslims obligated to refrain from stoning if it is a personal matter or preference?  What if they believe that stoning does promote social cohesion? In some social orders, it may be thought of as riding the community of the act and consequences that adultery has produced, i.e. broken homes, unwanted pregnancies, diseases, etc. 

You are correct, I don't have a lot of time to waste here.  I am just 'trolling' as you stated.  I can't respond to multiple responses each day.  It is fun to see the logical and philosophical traps that atheism walks into.  The worldview of atheism is incoherent, in so far as justifying the major tenets of reality, i.e. immaterial absolutes, ethics, and uniformity of natural law. 

How can it 'make sense', as atheism does not hold to absolutes which are the basis for coherent sensibilities or rational thought?

Romans chapter 1:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness, and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness. 19 Because that which may be known of God, is manifest in them; for God hath shown it to them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools: 23 And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping animals.

I believe your friend, 'RedneF' made such claims regarding scietific inquiry and 100% certainty. 

There is a difference between circularity 'within' a system and circularity tied to one's axioms or ultimate starting points.  Every philosophy must use its own standards in proving its conclusions; otherwise, it is simply incoherent.  Those who believe that human reason is the uiltimate authority (rationalists) must presuppose the authority of reason in their arguments for rationalism.  In other words, they tie truth back to their reasoning. Those who believe in the ultimacy of sense experience must presuppose it in arguing for their philosophy (empiricism).  And skeptics must be skeptical of their own skepticism (a fact, that is, of course, the Achilles' heel of skepticism). 

TYVM,

That's why my friends value my objectivity so much. Because of my predictions being 100% correct, so often.

The abscence of theism, is what is termed as atheist.

It is an abstract.

It is not an ideology.

It is not a doctrine.

It's not 'anything else', and it doesn't make you 'something else'. It is not inductive.

It is not mutually inclusive, of anything else.

Just as being illiterate does not make you 'something else'.

Just as 'dead' means simply that you are 'not alive', and not anything other than 'dead'.

It's nonsensical to posit that illiteracy falls into logical and philosophical traps.

It's nonsensical to posit that atheism falls into logical and philosophical traps.

You are being intellectually dishonest. To yourself, first and foremost.

And then you are preaching false statements, either knowingly, or unknowingly, when it was easily within your purview to know the truth.

Which is 'bearing false witness' according to the bible.

Once again, 'atheism' is analogous to 'illiteracy'.

Illiteracy cannot have a 'worldview'.

It is not an ideology.

Correlation does not equal causation.

You miscomprehension of the 'state' of not being 'one thing', for being 'another thing' is gross error, on your part.

You cannot debate with me, nearly as much as you can learn from me.

That's the main thing I've learned from you.

The secondary thing that I've learned from you, is that you're simply not equipped to lecture someone like me, on just about anything, much less, how the universe works....

I'm not foolish enough to invest more time, thinking that you'd be able to increase my knowledge of the universe and the origins of life.

The only reason I participate in threads by theists, is to demonstrate for those who sit on the fence of theist beliefs, who don't see all the flaws in theist reasonings.

Guys like you are only a catalyst that rational people use to aid theists into becoming 'non theists' (atheists).

You're willing to engage in battle (so that you can project that you've battled and won), lose the battle, and the war itself.

It's comical.

Good luck with your odds on that 'bearing false witness' thing.

It seems your god likes dim people (sheep). Which indicates an insecurity to be among intelligent people.

That's some god you've got there!

He can blow me....

Definition of an absolute please.

Demonstrate to me a particular absolute that is the basis for rational thought.

Harley, you know the answer to this, "God did it". Who cares that it is no different than lucky socks or 4 leaf clovers. Their superstition has human qualities on a much grander scale. THAT "faith" is what gives it credibility in the absence of evidence.

Pointing out that it is irrational to blindly swallow comic book super heros vs super villains will only make their heads explode.

All knowledge claims are philosophical in nature ?

Philosophy falls pretty flat in the face of raw empirical data.

Let me add to what you are saying here, I do get tired of pointing out to theists that when a scientist uses a word like "theory" or "law" the scientist IS NOT using it in the same context the theist projects onto the word.

It is mixing apples and oranges.

Which leads them to the false arguments "It's just a theory"

And "If there is a law then there has to be a lawmaker".

It is enough to pull your hair out.

and irritating to argue with an epistemologist when you take a materialist world view. There's that insistence on Parmenides' distinction between sense and reason, a delineation that's anthropomorphic and arbitrary and that labels all science as mere material - a place no true 'thinking' man would want to be seen.

Ultimately our chum Chaz probably believes god is the One, the ultimate and immaterial reality, changeless and subsistent thought. Such definitions seek to sideline sense data and carve reality into segments like truth, sense data, knowledge and opinion. Trouble is, knowledge is generalised opinion and so is subjective truth - the actual truth is probably beyond human mental perception. 

The fact the human brain is used to think about everything allows people like Chaz to declare all material reasoning as circular, as if the classic experiment in which water boils at 100 degrees at sea level has less meaningful proof than the assertion there exists an exo-universal god-thing who from beyond space time watches me fap in the shower. 

Epistemology is the most interesting attempt at god proving to me but it ignores neuroscience and subatomics completely and rules out sense data while using the shape our senses make inside our brains to endeavour to define and categorise a being for which there is no material evidence. The rest of us would argue the brain is an extension of the world that built it, that its processes are implicitly connected to material inputs. 

Let's hope our grecian thinker applies a similarly vigourous process to his consideration of the mythology and smudge of the bible. Clever epistemologists like Chaz are invariably forced to create personal religions. 

Lol.....the strawman......it's all he has. If he allows himself to comprehend that we're not saying those Muslims are objectively wrong, then he has nothing. 

As I just stated to 'battlebutter'; why the need for such a topic, if no atheist applies their version of morality to the Muslim stoning?  Several have posited end-goals or purposes to morality, i.e. survival, social cohesion, happiness, etc.  To propose any purposes, then the means to obtain them require application of ethics universally.  These unjustified goals are the teleology of one's worldview.  It is like stating that one has a moral obligation to seek such goals.  If not, then why propose them?  If we follow your reasoning that ethics are 'personal' and not objective, absolute, and universal; then one cannot apply them to Muslims or anyone.

If you hold to philosophical naturalism, then you are rejecting my presuppositions a-priori.  Similarly, I believe that things such as laws of logic, ethics, beauty, propositions, math, etc.; are immaterial in nature.  Atheists speak of such things, yet cannot justify them based upon their ultimate axioms. 

'But the natural man (unregenerate that assumes only physicalism or naturalism) does not receive the things of God and neither can he know them, as they are spiritually discerned.'  1 Corinthians 2:14 - Bible.  This is stating in its context that naturalism cannot preceive immaterial entities at all.  This is why objectivity is rejected by atheists. 

I believe this thread has worn out its usefullness. It is like beating a dead horse.  I'll just move along and browse through the rest of site.  Thanks for responding, as atheists always wind up contradicting themselves.