You did claim to be a neurosurgeon who should have some basic understanding of neuroscience?...
bachfiend made this manifestly rude comment in reply to a minor rather esoteric point I had made about the definition of "imaginary".
Why the rudeness? Why would he question my professional competence because I disagreed with him about the definition of a word in a philosophical discussion?
Note that bachfiend (who seems to be a retired pathologist) knows nothing about me professionally, except what he's read on the web. I'm a qualified neurosurgeon, teach at a medical school, hold a tenured professorship (academic, not clinical), am an active researcher, and am vice-chairman of my department.
Why would bachfiend question my basic competence as a neurosurgeon, based on a difference of opinion about the definition of a word?
Think about this:
Imagine that I were a young scientist, a grad student or an untenured assistant professor, and I expressed viewpoints that did not 'fit' with the atheist/materialist zeitgeist. Perhaps I said that I didn't think that atheism was an adequate view of origins of the universe, or perhaps I had some questions about the logical rigor behind the Darwinian paradigm. Or perhaps I mustered enough courage to say I believed in God.
bachfiend's nasty slip gives you a clear example of the viciousness that young and vulnerable scientists face every day if they question materialism and atheism. If you don't tow the ideological line-- if you don't agree with all of their definitions and their metaphysics-- they'll come after you, professionally and personally.
I've had friends who are basic scientists and Christians tell me that they dare not speak out. They'll never get another job or another grant.
Remember that it's our money-- in the form of research funding-- that many of these atheist thugs are using to enforce their ideological conformity.