Science and religion

[jstrodel]

You mean, something like this:
"95% of scientists in biological sciences, which is probably tens of thousands of scientists accept evolutionary theory"

That would be a non-fallacious argument from authority (biologists would be the correct people to consult on a question of biology).

Holding up a chemist as your authority (as you did) is fallacious.

Try again.

This is the crux of your argument:
1. Arguments from authority based on the number of a population that refers to an authority that I accept are valid
2. Arguments from authority based on the number of a population that refers to an authority that I don't accept are invalid (not only are they arguments from authority which are always fallacious when they refer to anything that refers to the Christian faith, they are ad populum, another fallacy that is attached to anything not friendly to the Christian faith)
3. I do not have to prove why arguments from the authorities that I like are valid and other arguments from other authorities are invalid. It is not necessary for me to understand natural theology or to understand philosophical theology or Biblical apologetic to reject the Christian standards from authority, I can assign the concept of a fallacy to the belief because it does not meet the standards of evidence that presuppose to be the only standard.
4. If anyone makes an argument that does not conform to the standard of authority that I presuppose to be true, or give a testimony or present any evidence, as in miraculous evidence, I can consider their testimony invalid because it is inconsistent with the values that I have presupposed in 3. I can consider the person delusional, since their belief does not conform to the authority that I have presupposed.

Obviously 3 is begging the question, because you have not proven that science is the only standard.

Four resembles the sort of psychological manipulation that happens in totalitarian societies such as Communist societies.

This is a dishonest argument. It is presupposed that science is the only valid means of intellectual authority, even though science itself depends on theistic philosophy, such as that of Newton and Aristotle, who both incorporated theology into their beliefs. Even if science and theology were not inextricable, it would still be necessary to prove that religious authorities are illegitimate, which does not happen through calling religious belief about as "proven" as the truth fairy.

Proof is always understood through the presupposed scientific values, but only the science that is friendly to atheism is accepted. What is happening here is that people are arguing that all arguments other than atheist authorities are invalid. The only valid arguments are those made by authorities friendly to atheism, and none of these need to be proven.

Someone made fun of me because I use the word "epistemology". You know why? Because atheist epistemology is like a cancer that lives inside of peoples minds, deceiving their slightly-above-average IQ's that they are critical thinkers when they are pressuposing the superiority of atheist approaches to theology and ignoring religious ones. Science cannot even broach the question of whether God exists.

An atheist is someone who considers it a mark of pure critical thinking to appeal to the authority of biological science as an absolute mediator of the unconditional absolute importance not only of evolutionary theory, but of evolutionary theory as the central defining characteristic of what it means to be wise.

At the same time, the atheist is someone who is quick to ridicule the much more modest use of the argument from authority, expressed best through large numbers of experts, to make not an absolute claim for the truth of religion, but the much more modest claim that perhaps religion is not the same as believing in the tooth fairy if most of the worlds most influential people have believed in God (by far).

Older atheists who realize they are doing this are dishonest, and will goto hell because they are deliberately deceiving others. Younger atheists are deceived and ensnared by lies and spiritual warfare and are deep into something they really have no business being in. I have nothing but love and concern for all who are blinded by the culture war that is presently taking place.

Christianity will be vindicated, it will survive, as it has for 2000 years. The atheists, however, may not survive and their errors will not go unnoticed by God.