There is a reason statistics is employed on such a large scale in the modern world, because, when done correctly, it works. What you should be doing instead, is educating yourself in statistical principles so that other people can't mislead you with it. The problem is not the stats, the problem is that people are data illiterate and the key is self education.

Statistics sometimes contain logical fallacy.

That link does not say statistics contains logical fallacies, it says the misuse of statistics is a statistical fallacy.

It is exist due to widespread of scientific method usage which exist as an indirect form of appeal to authority fallacy.

That makes no sense at all. You have to explain everything in science and back up everything with evidence. So how could it have an appeal to authority fallacy?

The fallacies you listed are things people do, they are not inherit in the methods.

Statistics is not just math, that's a common misconception.

Anyone who thinks religion and science don't mix, should study the history on the theory of special creation vs species transmutation, Isaac Newton and Reductionism, the heliocentric solar system, and vitalist vs machinist; among many other examples.

I think you are making a lot of false assumptions about me. I never said it is all about science and I never said science is without limits. Those are assumptions you made about me completely off the top of your head without any evidence. As I have said several times, I don't care what you believe and I don't need to justify my participation in this thread either.

I have written on a sheet of paper 100 different versions of a flying pink elephant. Until you address and disprove all 100 version this is proof flying pink elephants exist. Unless at that point I just come up with another 100 versions. It really is an absurd argument for the existence of something.

Science is about making evidence based conclusions, and not the type of evidence that only you can see, there are commonly accepted standards of what counts as evidence. Like being demonstrable and repeatable.

I don't care what you believe. Feel free to think whatever you want; however, that is not going to stop me from expressing what I think about those beliefs.

Well let's see, it has be how many thousands of year? And not a single thread of evidence of god(s)? At some point you just have to let go.

God damn you really need to learn how to read.

Let me sum up this entire thread: An argument on who gets to say what about an imaginary being.

If the standard for not being an authority on God is not being able to disprove God then no one is an authority on God.

Let me make this clear, I think atheist and theist are both equally full of nonsense.

You are absolutely demanding proof of the non-existence. I quoted you doing it right in that post, it has been your entire argument this whole thread. My point is that you don't have a clue what that means in respect to science. I don't care if you believe in God or not, or whatever you want to call it, your personal beliefs are not what I have an issue with.

As I stated previously, you know virtually zero about science. I earned a degree in physics, and I'm getting bored of your ludicrous claims regarding science. Name the experiment that any scientist has come up with to disprove the existence of any and all Gods? — LD Saunders

And yet, despite your claim of an education, you keep demanding proof of this non-existence; showing how little you actually understand the scientific process. It is like those people who demand science prove that vaccines never cause autism. It is an impossible standard and it cannot be done. Science can show that there is no evidence of a link, and it is on the lack of evidence where we draw our conclusion. Science is an evidence based methodology, which often also includes making conclusions on a lack of evidence. So much for your college degree, as in this area it seems to be worthless.

Scientist absolutely have studied supernatural claims, they have just failed to prove any of them. Science is not about studying only that which can be proven, as we don't know if it can be proven until we study it.

At any rate this thread is not about science, it is about a scientist and there is nothing in the world which bars a person, on the sole condition that their profession is science, from calling BS on the God theory.

It seems you are just chucked full baseless assumptions.

Just lay your argument down and supply your evidence. Stop beating around the bush and just give us your proof, as would be the standard in any other setting.

They would have to see it the way I do and then take the leap of faith, never losing that unshakable doubt while holding belife.

There is faith and then you have a knockoff and the knockoff is actually just sloppy reasoning mistaken for faith. Most people go with the knockoff, since it is the simpler of the two.

True faith is having my level of doubt and still holding faith.

Here is a crazy idea: Could it be that there is no evidence because it is not real? I think there is a very strong possibility of that.

All I am hearing is more talk. Where is the evidence?

When discussing something as philosophically deep as faith, a dictionary definition is going to fall massively short.

A dictionary is no authority in such matters. Talk about not understanding limits.

I have made several valid arguments against your silly position.

I many plenty of arguments, clearly ones you didn't understand.

I got tons of opinions if you want more.

People who need their belief in God to be rational are people who lack faith.

I ripped it off from Soren Kierkegaard.

To be honest, I have only met one person which I think may have had genuine faith, he both recognized the absurdity of the belief and believed at the same time. Most people who claim to have "faith" are always trying to justify the absurdity of the belief. They are trying to rationalize something that is beyond rationalizing. It is absurd.

If one finds theism reasonable then they don't need faith to believe, they have reason. Genuine faith is believing when you know it is unreasonable to believe.

The only thing believers ever bring is silly word games. There is a very good reason for that, because it is the only thing they have. Cut the BS and show us a single scrap of real evidence.

That is a nonsense argument. Semantic goalpost shifting.

Why would anyone be desperate not to believe in God? A another fine example of the engagement in a false equivalence. Believing something without evidence is not the same as not believing in something that lack any evidence. They are two very different things.

Proving God's existence is incredibly easy. The vast majority of people are desperate for God (or the like) to be real and are ready to gobble any proof given no matter how erroneous it is.

No division I say, no division at all, everything gets its fair turn. I don't care how many babies God kills, he still has to stand on the altar of reason.

The difference here is that some of us are unconvinced that God (or the like) is a special case that needs special rules.

To anyone else: I point to Jeremiah's language. It's typical that conceited bigots commonly express their bigotry in a loud namecalling manner. — Michael Ossipoff

Characterizing a whole group on the perceived actions of one individual you assume to be a member of the larger group, is the very heart of prejudice and bigotry. It is commonly called stereotyping. So point away, as not only have you just displayed your own bias, you have also displayed, by using one sample as representative of a whole, your scientific ineptitude.

However, if it makes your feel any better I think "materialist" are just as big of idiots as believers. This whole idea of division of ideologies is a form of compartmentalization people use to engage in various forms of false equivalence in order to feel a sense of justification in beliefs they know don’t measure up. Which is why people so desperately build these subjective walls between empirical/rational investigation and “spiritual/religious” beliefs. As they know, on some level, that their fiction would fail to stand up to such scrutiny, so their next best option is to maintain certain beliefs are exempt from such standards. Some people also engage is semantic shifting in order to feel unique in their beliefs, which is where I suspect you fall in.

Nope, I was talking about your god(s). That is whatever silly nonsense you are hiding and too scared to say aloud.

Actually I am referring to your god(s).

Can't prove Santa Claus is not real? Stop being so irrational.

If you can't prove to me that I don't have an invisible purple magical donkey, then you are being a very irrational person.

Demanding evidence of the absence of a magical being is not a rational position.