Supernatural Holdings of Atheist Faith

OK, start with this part of what I posted this morning: 

Eliminativists often respond to this objection by first noting that the bare thesis that there are no beliefs is not itself contradictory or conceptually incoherent.

The notion that there is or can be such a thing as a "bare thesis" of any kind, nevermind one that claims there are no beliefs is superstitious.   If there is such a thing as a "bare thesis" it must exist independent of those who articulate that thesis, it must exist, somewhere, outside of the human minds that think it, the human mouths that articulate it, the human hands who type it or write it.   And there is no evidence of any kind that such a "bare thesis" is any more than a totally human construct and that any arguments for that thesis must exist as a belief of a human mind.    The notion that such a thing as a "bare thesis" exists is superstition, the folk belief of the kind of materialism and, really, the atheism that was the motive of both the claim that there are no beliefs and for the creation of a notion of such a "bare thesis" that either is claimed to exist independent of minds or in a form that can enter into human articulation, discourse and debate. 

That is intrinsic to the notion of eliminative materialism, it is a hard logical consequence of the materialist ideology, especially when it is articulated in the form of scientism and, especially, the eliminativist faith tradition, such as it is.   The entirety of all human culture, all human thought, which includes all of science and mathematics and even logical consequence must be held to the same program of discrediting and debunkery that all other "folk beliefs" are held in, including all of morality, including all of human thought.   The absurdity of that position is self-evident, it is about the only really certain thing you can say about it.   

Rosenberg's ridiculous assertion that his book "changes circuits" replacing what he asserts is incorrect information with "correct" information is rendered absurd by his claim that his book doesn't make statements.  You can read his book without becoming convinced of his absurd ideas, you can reject them on the basis of judging his statements in the book to be false or absurd or self-contradicting, or other things, depending on the level of attention and consideration you want to give them or you can accept them on the faith you have in materialism, the emotional attachment you have to scientism and atheism.   But in order to accept them you have to do so on the basis of their status as statements having meaning. 

That anyone with a college degree, or who has succeeded in matriculating to college, or, really, being advanced to 9th grade, would accept such a notion is a better symptom of an educational system in crisis than it is an acceptance of the scientific method.  There is no science involved.