On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:05:42 -0500, Maleki
wrote:

wrote in
:

Richard Alexander wrote:
I think this guy has more faith in, and gives more scope to science than
the typical scientist does. He has an issue -- God is not merely unproven
or untestable, God must be provably false, it must not even make sense to
bring up the subject, and let science and logic be modified such that it
is so. Which is about as bad as the creationists who pick their own
premise -- the Bible -- and let all other intellectual endeavor be
modified such that the premise remains intact.

Yep, we see here again the pattern that all zealots, no matter what
their particular brand of zealotry is, are essentially the same.

Neither of you know what you're talking about.

You cannot include religion into science but you certainly
can include science into religion. You just need to know the
boundaries for each. If you've tried and failed then your
religion is not good enough. Or you know nothing about your
religion, or ANY religion. You think people are fools?

Theists who make falsifiable real-world claims for their religion are
fools for making them outside their religion. Eg creationists.

It's their problem that science falsifies them, not ours.