"Scientism" on Wikipedia ...

[Audie]

Ok, I'm more interested in desensitizing the term.
Just not doing a very good job of it I guess.

The term doesn't bother me. Not really sure why it should bother anyone.

The term is ok. Falsely directing it, not so much.

Just for one, it is as inimical to science as creationism is.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The term is ok. Falsely directing it, not so much.

Just for one, it is as inimical to science as creationism is.

So what is its correct use?

 

[Audie]

It's only pejorative if you say it is. It's a broad brush label for a philosophical perspective.

I can't believe you need me to point you in the direction of the Atheist Inquisition on this site. Some things are impossible to miss, even for the wilfully blind.

Then give an example.. ive raised the reward to
$ 42.65

" atheist inquisition"

 

[Audie]

Sorry, you seem sensitive about it. My point was not to offend.
Everyone is someone's bigot.
Bigot was a term you offered, not me.

I guess the terms bigot and prejudice are stuck with their pejorative meanings whether I see them that way or not.
I will be more careful about that.

Calling it bigotry was some over the top
on my part.
Dunno if its exactly "sensitivity" on my
part, but portraying atheists as such idiots
and so dedicated to anti science ( over and over) is annoying.
The hero of the op will never give an example
of course, as there arent any here.

An example from anywhere might be of vague interest, but as every form of stupid thinking
possible must be out there somewhere, an actual scientismist could probably be found, may have even appeared on Coast to Coast.

 

[Audie]

I know what atheism is. And I recognize the difference between atheists like Sartre and Camus, and the neo-atheists like Richard Dawkins, and other more religious type atheists. So did Karl Popper.

Perhaps but why say that in response to my post . Theres no connection.

 

[Sheldon]

It's only pejorative if you say it is. It's a broad brush label for a philosophical perspective.

Well yes I understand the subjective nature of being offended, if it helps I'm not. In order for it to offend me it would need to be accurate in some way, and correct in it's assessment for me. Nothing in my acceptance of the efficacy of the scientific method is blind bigoted or dogmatic, though of course others might not share that view.

I can't believe you need me to point you in the direction of the Atheist Inquisition on this site. Some things are impossible to miss, even for the wilfully blind.

You seem to have doubled down on the claim, but in all the terror of this "atheist Inquisition" neglected to proffer any examples? Well to some examples then, so I can examine this "atheist Inquisition". You do see the irony of the term at least? How many theists were tortured, and burned at the stake by these Inquisitorial atheists? How many were called an abomination, or threatened with an eternity of torture after they die, blown up, stabbed, had their heads chopped off etc etc you get the idea I'm sure. Now will there be an atheist caliphate, are they looking at locations? Nowhere too cold please, or too warm.

 

[Sheldon]

but portraying atheists as such idiots
and so dedicated to anti science ( over and over) is annoying.
The hero of the op will never give an example
of course, as there arent any here.

Really, given PureX's form for starting atheist bashing threads with this sort of sophistry, I find it amusing. I wonder why atheists and atheism bother him so much?

An example from anywhere might be of vague interest, but as every form of stupid thinking
possible must be out there somewhere, an actual scientismist could probably be found, may have even appeared on Coast to Coast.

Oh I suspect someone will dig up an approximation of the accusation at some point, but be prepared to be underwhelmed.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Really, given PureX's form for starting atheist bashing threads with this sort of sophistry, I find it amusing. I wonder why atheists and atheism bother him so much?



Oh I suspect someone will dig up an approximation of the accusation at some point, but be prepared to be underwhelmed.

In the meantime you can have fun with this one:

P1: There is no positive evidence for gods.
C: Therefore there is no reason to believe in them.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Then give an example.. ive raised the reward to
$ 42.65

" atheist inquisition"

You ever seen those street hustlers playing Find The Lady, with playing cards or ball and cups?

That’s how your cash offer looks to me.

The examples are not hard to find, just choose a promising looking thread and have a read. Though perhaps you will only see what you want to see…

 

[Sheldon]

In the meantime you can have fun with this one:

P1: There is no positive evidence for gods.
C: Therefore there is no reason to believe in them.

I think the premise is worded more like an absolute than I care to use.

Try

P1 Theists consistently fail to demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity. or deities.
C: Therefore I remain unconvinced by claims that any deity or deities exist, and withhold belief.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think the premise is worded more like an absolute than I care to use.

Try

P1 Theists consistently fail to demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity. or deities.
C: Therefore I remain unconvinced by claims that any deity or deities exist, and withhold belief.

Yeah, that is an invalid deduction.

 

[PureX]

Is it an objective fact that the world is not flat?

No, it isn't. It's a subjective opinion based on a personally chosen perspective as the criteria.

 

[Windwalker]

Forum Rules

3-2) Defamation, slander, or misrepresentation of a member's beliefs/arguments, or that of a particular group, culture, or religion. This includes altering the words of another member to change their meaning when using the quote feature.

You have gone beyond altering my words, you have totally made up arguments that I did not make. I am no longer engaging in your dishonest discussion.

I asked you to show where I misquoted you. You did not. If I read this rule right, it's you who are violating it right now, alerting the meaning of what I said and misrepresenting me. You need to show me where I altered what you meant, and how. I did not do that. This is all just you evading's taking responsibility for saying something indefensible, claiming, in effect, that Karl Popper is a believer who is just looking to make science look bad. You did say that in effect, because you were quoting the OP, where it explained who was saying it, and then you called them, believers who are just trying to make science look bad, or words to that effect.

If you accuse a member of lying, you need to back it up. Otherwise, you are violating this rule, not I.

 

[Audie]

You ever seen those street hustlers playing Find The Lady, with playing cards or ball and cups?

That’s how your cash offer looks to me.

The examples are not hard to find, just choose a promising looking thread and have a read. Though perhaps you will only see what you want to see…

Its ok to just say you cant do it.
Nobody else can either.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Its ok to just say you cant do it.
Nobody else can either.

Well, I have pinned this one. And if the future is like the past, one will come. I already remember one, but I can't find it, because my search words are not good enough.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
Is it an objective fact that the world is not flat?

No, it isn't. It's a subjective opinion based on a personally chosen perspective as the criteria.

You think the shape of the earth is dependant on personal opinion or feelings, okey dokey. You know the ancient Greeks conclusively demonstrated objective evidence that the world is not flat don't you, Just a couple of sticks about 500 miles apart and perpendicular to the ground. If the world was flat the sun would have cast the same shadow on both, do I need to tell you the result? This test can be performed by anyone of course, and the results will always be the same, regardless of their subjective opinion. That would make it an objective fact, since it a) isn't affected by personal opinions or feelings, and b) is known or proven to be true.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You think the shape of the earth is dependant on personal opinion or feelings, okey dokey. You know the ancient Greeks conclusively demonstrated objective evidence that the world is not flat don't you, Just a couple of sticks about 500 miles apart and perpendicular to the ground. If the world was flat the sun would have cast the same shadow on both, do I need to tell you the result? This test can be performed by anyone of course, and the results will always be the same, regardless of their subjective opinion. that would make it an objective fact, since it a) isn't affected by personal opinions or feelings, and b) is known or proven to be true.

Okay, you are a philosophical naturalism in effect. You just don't seem able to understand the different parts of what makes a claim about the world a claim.

 

[Audie]

Really, given PureX's form for starting atheist bashing threads with this sort of sophistry, I find it amusing. I wonder why atheists and atheism bother him so much?

A unabashed CAPITALIST atheist is plus x double bad.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A unabashed CAPITALIST atheist is plus x double bad.

Evidence of bad.

 

[Lain]

You think the shape of the earth is dependant on personal opinion or feelings, okey dokey. You know the ancient Greeks conclusively demonstrated objective evidence that the world is not flat don't you, Just a couple of sticks about 500 miles apart and perpendicular to the ground. If the world was flat the sun would have cast the same shadow on both, do I need to tell you the result? This test can be performed by anyone of course, and the results will always be the same, regardless of their subjective opinion. That would make it an objective fact, since it a) isn't affected by personal opinions or feelings, and b) is known or proven to be true.

All subjects doing a test the same way and achieving the same results makes the result "objective" to you in all cases?