Thanks for the wikipedia link. It says that Dennett and the "New Atheists" assert "that God does not exist". That perfectly exemplifies my point: you can't use

Thanks for the wikipedia link. It says that Dennett and the "New Atheists" assert "that God does not exist". That perfectly exemplifies my point: you can't use non-verifiability to prove that God doesn't exist. What it proves is that neither an unverifiable claim nor it's contradiction is meaningful. From the wiki article, it looks to me like my position isn't Scientism at all. The article presents Scientism as a kind of fallacy: attempting to apply some version of scientific method to everything. What I'm on about is more like ternary logic: a thing can be True, or it can be False, or it can be neither. It's closer to Not Even Wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong