it is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.
if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.
followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.
Ok - but you have still to establish that anybody here actually is guilty of this thought crime you call "scientism". It just sounds like a catch-all insult to help you avoid dealing with challenges.
You said - "If you ask for scientific evidence to God then you are a follower of scientism."
I replied that christians constantly make claims about the real world. Therefore it is reasonable to ask for scientific evidence to support those claims.
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
In your 10,000+ posts have you ever said anything kind to anybody? - Cofty to NNThat was a genuine question.
it is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.
if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.
followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.
a person would have to be God to say there is no God
That ceases to be true as soon as we define "god".
for several weeks i've been treating myself to a hot chocolate milk (well, soymilk) before bedtime.
some 16 oz soymilk which i heat on high in our microwave oven.
this is just enough time where the liquid begins to bubble along the top edge.. i then take it out of the microwave and place it on my kitchen gram scale, stir it good enough to redistribute the heat, then reset the scale to zero grams.. next, i squeeze in the hershey's sytup, "special dark mildly sweet chocolate" (fat free) into the warmed soymilk till the scale reads some 30 grams.
Water lost as steam.
it is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.
if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.
followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.
Rainbow Troll - Thank you for your answer.
I get the impression that the only example of things that cannot be known through empirical scientific evidence is pure mathematics.
Is that correct?
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
You seem to have mistaken me for somebody who cares about your opinion of me. Silly mistake.
In your 10,000+ posts have you ever said anything kind to anybody?
Now if you really need to dispense UPPER_CASE insults like a petulant child take it to PM.
it is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.
if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.
followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.
Rainbow Troll - Please give me a specific example of something that can be known without science.
Not exactly miracles: - John_mann
Yes that was specifically your claim.
a personal paranormal experience
Which of course can be investigated scientifically.
St. Anselm's ontological argument.
Smoke and mirrors. Even as a christian I knew this was nothing but sophistry.
Pascal's wager
Really? Pretend to believe just in case? How is that a way of knowing anything?
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
My OP is very concise. It is by a long way the most concise explanation of the blood issue I have ever read.
The verbosity was the work of imbeciles like Fishy & co.
Your arrogance is astonishing. You really are an unpleasant old git.
it is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.
if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.
followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.
I want to come back to this statement which seems to me to be deeply hypocritical
If you ask for scientific evidence to God then you are a follower of scientism. - John_Mann
Theists constantly make claims about physical reality.
It was Stephen Jay Gould who proposed "non-overlapping magesteria". It will never work. People of faith don't have enough faith to stay on their own turf.
it is not uncommon for theists to accuse rational people on this forum of "scientism".. in my opinion it is nothing but a cheap shot from those who know they lack evidence for their beliefs.
if something like "scientism" actually does exist then i have never encountered it.. here is part of an exchange from another thread - i have brought it here as it was off-topic.... scientism = claim of scientific method being universal and the only valid method of knowledge.
followers of scientism always demand scientific evidence to anything.
But it takes a pretty stupid person to argue that historical, poetic or political accounts of a river either don't matter or that they can be reduced to science. - SBF
Yes it does. I have never met somebody so stupid which still leaves me wondering why the silly accusations of "scientism" keep getting thrown around.
Cofty's question inevitably implies either:...
No it doesn't imply either of those things.
Rainbow Troll - Science gets around the limitations of our subjective senses. That is kind of the whole point of science.
the exercise of reason has allowed me to solve many longstanding metaphysical question - such as the nature of consciousness and its relationship to matter - that I don't believe scientists will ever be able to arrive at using their methods
Wow. I will be so excited for you when you get your Nobel Prize
