Modal Argument: The Mind is Not the Brain

[bennyboy]

It's also worth saying that since 'atheos' roots from 'theos', 'a-theism' is a superior form to 'athe-ism'. As long as people are clear about their definitions, I'm happy.

How do you figure? atheos + ism = atheism, a + theism = atheism

I don't see how anything but context and a declaration of usage makes the two forms anything but perfectly ambiguous.

[Angrboda]

"Scientism" is a word made up by woo woo doctors to push a anti-science agenda.

scientism, n.
2. A term applied (freq. in a derogatory manner) to a belief in the omnipotence of scientific knowledge and techniques; also to the view that the methods of study appropriate to physical science can replace those used in other fields such as philosophy and, esp., human behaviour and the social sciences.

<=== Derogatory mannor means as an attack on critical thinkers here. It's what I was referring to here: "Scientism" is a word made up by woo woo doctors to push a anti-science agenda.

My question was directed at this segment of the definition, I asked you how did you interpret what the Oxford writers meant by that.

You, sir, are a dishonest jackass.

[Brakeman]

?
Okie dokie then ..

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

?
Okie dokie then ..

She was a bit too rough on you.

But she is right, scientism isn't a meaningless insult. It is a pejorative, but it indicates a real belief system that is prevalent in atheist communities.

Scientism is also stupid (a property it shares with atheist communities).

[Brakeman]

?
Okie dokie then ..

She was a bit too rough on you.

But she is right, scientism isn't a meaningless insult. It is a pejorative, but it indicates a real belief system that is prevalent in atheist communities.

The question mark in my post meant that I didn't get her point, if she had one other than to call me a jackass. She's not very eloquent.

You claim with fervor that "scientism is a real belief system." Obviously there aren't many scientism churches around, so the idea is not common socially, I mean, If I were to ask the average man on the street what it meant, they wouldn't likely know, would they?

I have read the dictionary definition of scientism, and it seems silly to me, as I believe we all use the generic scientific rules of discovery every day without even noticing it. So evidently I don't get the point that you and apophenia are so passionate about.

Could you please explain the tenants and adherent draw that I don't see in this discussion. Are there really people who call themselves Scientivists that don't mean it in a generic support of real science? Well other than trolls of course..

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

She was a bit too rough on you.

But she is right, scientism isn't a meaningless insult. It is a pejorative, but it indicates a real belief system that is prevalent in atheist communities.

The question mark in my post meant that I didn't get her point, if she had one other than to call me a jackass. She's not very eloquent.

You claim with fervor that "scientism is a real belief system." Obviously there aren't many scientism churches around, so the idea is not common socially, I mean, If I were to ask the average man on the street what it meant, they wouldn't likely know, would they?

I have read the dictionary definition of scientism, and it seems silly to me, as I believe we all use the generic scientific rules of discovery every day without even noticing it. So evidently I don't get the point that you and apophenia are so passionate about.

Could you please explain the tenants and adherent draw that I don't see in this discussion. Are there really people who call themselves Scientivists that don't mean it in a generic support of real science? Well other than trolls of course..

Yeah I don't know why she would act like such a jackass either. Must be something in the water here. That said, I claim nothing "with fervor". Yes, there are no scientism churches. But people are adherents of scientism. Ie, they don't just think science is useful and it works. They go further, believing science is the ultimate source of knowledge. This is the kind of belief that used to be held among intellectuals during the fifties, except it was called "logical positivism". But it was self-refuting then and it is self-refuting now. It's irrational nonsense.

Which explains why so many atheists believe it.

[pocaracas]

It's irrational nonsense.

Which explains why so many atheists believe it.

You always have to finish off with some insult to those who do not believe that any god exists, don't you?
Are you trying to arouse some sort of reaction?... or just being a dick?

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

It's irrational nonsense.

Which explains why so many atheists believe it.

You always have to finish off with some insult to those who do not believe that any god exists, don't you?
Are you trying to arouse some sort of reaction?... or just being a dick?

Pointing out the fact that atheists believe irrational nonsense is not an insult. It's a factual description of the beliefs of almost every atheist on this forum.

[pocaracas]

You always have to finish off with some insult to those who do not believe that any god exists, don't you?
Are you trying to arouse some sort of reaction?... or just being a dick?

Pointing out the fact that atheists believe irrational nonsense is not an insult. It's a factual description of the beliefs of almost every atheist on this forum.

So are the beliefs of every theist on this forum... so what?
It's just that theirs are a bit more irrational...

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Pointing out the fact that atheists believe irrational nonsense is not an insult. It's a factual description of the beliefs of almost every atheist on this forum.

So are the beliefs of every theist on this forum... so what?
It's just that theirs are a bit more irrational...

Surely if you sit with your thumb up your ass when people insult theists, you should do the same for everything I say.

Do you believe one cannot shine a critical light on atheist's claims equal to the one that is shined on theists?