Scientism - Nothing But a Childish Insult?

by cofty 147 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  cofty

  Bollocks! You have used scientism as an insult dozens of times in recent weeks. You even refer to it as a cult. How many examples would you like me to paste here as proof?

  I have never demanded scientific proof of God I just challenge you to provide evidence. You constantly twist that into scientism. Go and read my OP again.

  Since Christians insist that God acts in the physical world - as you have - it is perfectly reasonable to ask for evidence.

  This thread is full of examples of the sort of things that might equate with scientism. I have not recognized any as positions I would agree with. Your work is all ahead of you.
• 

  John_Mann

  But it's a cult.

  I keep saying not as insult but trying to make you see you are following a cult and are not even aware of that.

  But you keep demanding evidence and I know you are actually referring to scientific evidence.

  I already explained to you that physical evidence its not the same as scientific evidence.

  You seem to be totally blind about the existence of several types of evidence.

  You're in a serious denial mode.
• 

  cofty

  So you think you know what I mean even though I have explicitly stated the exact opposite multiple times.

  Further conversation with you is literally impossible.
• 

  John_Mann

  I have never demanded scientific proof of God I just challenge you to provide evidence.

  Ok, let's try again...

  If not scientific evidence then what is exactly the type of evidence you're talking about?
  
  
• 

  cofty

  It's all in the OP
• 

  John_Mann

  If you are talking about physical evidence I'd already showed to you a lot of them:

  https://churchpop.com/2015/06/28/5-extraordinary-eucharistic-miracles-with-pictures/

  There are physical and testimonial evidence to the Our Lady of Zeitoun and Our Lady of Fatima.
• 

  cofty

  I have never specified any limits on what evidence you might want to offer.

  This thread is not about whether or not you have evidence for God or what sort of evidence that might be.

  This thread is about your baseless accusations of "scientism". So far you have failed to withdraw it or support it.
• 

  John_Mann

  Cofty I'm not "accusing" you for being a follower of scientism more than I'm "accusing" you for being an atheist.

  I'm just defining your position as being scientism.

  IMHO you deny even the existence of scientism by only using the word in quotemarks.

  In this very thread some people admitted to be followers of scientism.

  Sincerely I don't care if people choose to be followers of scientism, atheism or JWism. I believe in free will after all...

  But I'm very intrigued with people who deny the very position that they hold. And usually I like to know why they do that. That's really my intention about your position.

  Same thing happened with punkofnice when I defined him as nihilist in another topic. His position is even stranger because he knows he's a nihilist but doesn't like the label.
• 

  John_Mann

  This thread is about your baseless accusations of "scientism".

  My base of why I define you as a follower of scientism is because you never specify the type of evidence you're talking about when the subject is God.

  But considering your position is very easy to imply you are talking about scientific evidence.

  So if someone put scientific evidence and God in the same equation then this person is a follower of scientism.

  My suggestion to you is only specify the type of evidence when you're talking about the concept of God.

  Don't say only evidence but qualify it by saying scientific evidence, testimonial evidence, physical evidence, forensic evidence, logical proof, etc...
  
  
• 

  cofty

  In this very thread some people admitted to be followers of scientism.

  That's a lie .

  Quote and link please.