Vlad,
No words. It's just your incredible claim that you are immune from scientism after spending the best part of two decades demonstrating it.
First, what I
actually said was that I’m only “immune” to the extent that I cannot falsify the reasoning for the things I do believe.
Second, your charge of scientism is pretty much the mother of all the straw men you attempt (admittedly from an extremely crowded field) given that I’ve never said anything that would suggest that I subscribe to it, and moreover given that I’ve endlessly rebutted the charge only for you to run away each time I’ve done it.
Are you still hanging around playgrounds in your spare time by the way? After all, if you insist on making up shit about me I see no reason for it not to be a two-way street.
I think what you mean is science is enough to satisfy and that there is no need for anything else.
Then – as so often – you think wrongly. What I actually mean is what I actually say - namely that science (and the reasoning that supports it) is the only verifiable means I know of test truth claims about the nature of the universe. If ever you manage to find another method to do that to test the various religious claims you make, by all means tell us what it is.
You stand as perfect in the truth that science is all and what it is that is lacking in others is science and anything else is an unreal story.
More lying isn’t helping you here. I have no idea whether or not your religious “stories” are true but – and here’s the point –
nor have you. Your reliance on fallacious reasoning and unqualified assertions tells me that I have no reason to accept them, but if ever you manage to produce something more robust than that for justification I’ll examine your reasoning on its merits. I won’t be holding my breath though.
Religiously speaking you are sufficiently enlighten save perhaps for more scientific facts.
You’ve collapsed into incoherence again. Is there a coherent sentence in there somewhere trying to escape your mangled prose?
There is of course a word for all this. Scientism.
Find yourself someone who actually argues for it then if you can and have it out with him. You seem to have forgotten by the way that the last time you tried to make your case by citing Wiki re scientism it blew up in your face because it didn’t mean what you thought it meant at all.
Of course given your keenness to suspend the principal of sufficient reason as and when it suits it kind of renders the piety of your appeal to reason rather hollow.
I don’t “suspend” it, I explain to you why it’s bollocks – albeit that the explanation always fall on deaf ears.
By all mean though if you fancy swapping your persistent lying , straw men, false reasoning and unsupported assertions for actual sound arguments then – finally – try sharing them here.
Good luck with it.
