Rusting Car Bumper

galiel,

The burden of proof is on you and I don't see much point in continuing.

If you can tell me how it is that I do consult or should consult science when I decide if I liked that movie I just watched or if science tells me if I am in love, then I'd be happy to consider your point of view.

DC

galiel

Which religious document do you consult to decide if you liked that movie? Which guru do you consult to tell you whether you are in love or not?

Seems to me you need neither science nor religion. What you need is a dose of common sense and for someone to remind you that you can make up your own mind without deferring to some imagined authority.

galiel

The burden of proof is on those who make extraordinary claims. You claim that a scientific religion is possible.

Since:
- there is no empirical evidence to suport that claim(such a beast does not currently exist),
- there is plenty of empirical evidence to contradict it (as evidenced by religions' historical fight to suppress science, by the fact that science has replaced religion as the explanation for an increasing number of phenomena that were previously thought to be the exclusive realm of religion),
- that logically there is no reason to assume that religious faith is essential or irreplaceable for any part of human experience,
- and that, finally, the very definitions of the two terms are contradictory,
therefore you are making an extraordinary, counter-intuitive claim.

Thus, it is up to you try to substantiate it.

[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

fando

Just for laffs: Scientology