Scientism - The Belief System of Atheists

Facts are not subjective. That’s what makes them facts.

 

And you presenting unverified statements as a "fact" proves that you do not actually know what a fact is.

 

Rationality requires objectivity. I always stop to think if I’m being rational. Do you?

 

The whole premise of religion is BASED on unverified statements. Lol.

 

And what is YOUR answer? Do you realize that what you call "rational" is in fact not rational, except to those who intend promote themselves

 

If you actually bothered to read other posts than your own you would find that I am not a proponent of any religion. Your religion seems to be anything you say is correct, especially when it is wrong.

 

You keep pinging my posts but you never offer any tangible argument. All ad hominem nonsense. No disproof. If you think I’m wrong about something then man up and prove it.

 

Ok then what have I stated that is irrational?

 

"The whole premise of religion is BASED on unverified statements. Lol. " - Captain Obvious, stating the utterly irrational and untrue

 

Yes. Though the term is often too generic to be accurate. There are 'Anti-theists' who go beyond disbelief, actively denegrating the beliefs of others while pushing their own, no differently than proselytizers of more classically defined belief systems.

Science is no more or less subject to the authoritative command and control structure than religious establishments. For example, do some digging into such subjects as 'forbidden archeology' and 'suppressed' or 'disruptive technology'. As much as religious establishments promote one belief while punishing another, the scientific establishment will promote research in some directions while suppressing it in others. Including research that may validate certain spiritual beliefs that could compete with political and/or social agendas that both religious and scientific establishments use to keep their authority or perception of consensus.

 

exactly. There is a reason they call it faith!

 

When you provide actual facts I will. As is, no point arguing with your nonsense.

 

The vast majority of your posts on this subject to start with.

You insistence that you and only you could possibly be correct and anything that you claim is a fact. Another falsehood.

 

Can you be specific?

 

We’ll argue with logic then. You seem to have issue with the concept of belief system. I’m only making the argument that a philosophical system is a belief system and your arguments are purely semantical and out of context. You haven’t taken one step in making your argument. Calling me names is not an argument.

 

Can you when you claim to have furnished "facts"?

 

More word games. I asked you to be specific as to what your disputing but never mind. I guess you think it’s more intelligent being cute.

 

First, logic is not proof of anything. In fact, different people claim logic for opposite things. Even you should be able to see that. Apparently not.

Second, you have shown no knowledge of any philosophical proof of anything. You know nothing about philosophy. It is merely a agreement with the thoughts of others that you and you alone deem to be true.

BTW, site one time that I have called you a name, while all this time you have attempted, and failed, to disparage any idea but your own. Sad.

Here is a question for you, why have various philosophers over the millennium differed on so many of their claims and stated beliefs?

 

Or never mind, you can't support your claims and are just afraid to try since it will prove you in error. Any word games belong to you since you have provided no data to back up your nonsense.

 

Ok. I put this to you. Verify that your god created the earth in six days. If you cannot then it is proof I am correct and what I said is true.

 

1st- logic is non-contradictory. Logic dictates truth. Without it there is no math, algebra or science.

2nd- I never claimed all philosophy is true. Aside from Objectivism I think it’s mostly crap. But so is religion.
But regardless of what I or you think. They are still belief systems nonetheless. And from any belief system and views on epistemology and metaphysics, ethics will naturally follow based on that belief system. As does theories of rights responsibilities, politics and proper roles of governments.
When I call it a philosophical system I mean it in Literal terms.

 

Proof only to you and your like. I do not subscribe to this idea, but you can not verify another explanation.

You lose again.

 

There you go again, ignoring questions for which you have no answer and going off on a tangent expressing that your beliefs are the only ones worthy of consideration, trying to include a multitude of other items to your personal philosophy., deciding proper roles. You are not in charge, thankfully.

You lose again.

BTW, you also do not understand what logic is. It often contradicts itself and is only vaunted by those like you who do not understand what it means.

 

You’re hopeless. Logic never contradicts itself.

 

How can I lose when you fail? Yes you win in circular reasoning. Ok you can go away back to fantasy land.