The Atheist Experience

A fine link about something we, yes, now might indeed call early science. But you are being disingenuous since the point, still, made here is that it is just  not the fact, as you claimed that "Ancient Rome gave it [natural philosophy] the term "science". No more so than some alchemists called themselves "chemists". I hope that helps.

So there was an English language in Roman times to introduce the word science into?

Perhaps because it is blindingly obvious?

Not just Wiki, Arlon. Here's the Encylopedia Brittanica:

www.britannica.com/topic/naturalistic-fallacy

Or instead you can argue with a dictionary and win, which I know you like:

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/naturalistic%20fallacy

Of course, my appealing to authorities reaching opposing views to yours may not mean you are wrong, as I have had cause to note when dealing with other fundamentalists here, just lately; althought it means that you are more unlikely to be right.




Yes, I can see it must be repeatedly embarrassing for you. But I will still call them just as I see them, thank you anyway.

It would be rare to see the naturalistic fallacy used by anyone except bad debaters, or tabloid feature writers. Or a poor man's demagogue online, maybe. Certainly it would not be expected of professionals using logic as part of their work skills.

A fallacy by way of proceeding is never really a wise way to proceed in an argument - although it is easy to see, with your record of things, how it is the sort of thing you would say.

That an ad hominem is an argument is also a fallacy, Arlon LOL. But you have been told that before.

When I suggested this feel free to raise it again. My reference was to your use of it casually, as if it carried any logical weight : "god ... might mean just the complex and nebulous forces in nature and society required to develop a system of ethics" when the comparison from 'nature' is not logically meaningful enough on which to build, or extract a system of ethics. Such sloppiness distinguished your entire article, imho.

As noted above, with every ad hominem instead of argument of yours, I have indeed found one...

When I ever claim that science is able to do any such thing, again, feel free to come back to me on this.

Well, I am sure the fervent adherents of various religions might have a stern reply to that or, closer to home, the western advocates of ID, who often see creationism, er, intelligent design in a Christian framework. But as I am not of their ilk, I am happy to go along with the idea.


As you have been reminded before, Darwinism has nothing to do with considering the beginning of life on earth but only the means of descent thereafter. And I am not even sure why this is relevant to our exchange here, or the definition of god, and so is rather a non-sequitur.


Or it could be that nature, just like your favoured deliberate supernatural, hitherto works mysteriously. It rubs both ways, that sort of argument.

Hey, I think I know this one! Is it because you never listen to what is most reasonable?