My argument was merely this: definition:supernatural-those that lie outside of physical laws, realm of things outside of nature. Thus, science can never EVER hope to incorporate such things deemed supernatural because such lies beyond science (natural laws). If ever we were able to explain something once believed to be explainable would cease to be supernatural. I think most of you agree with me here. Natural/supernatural is not a subjective thing subject to opinion. That is why science can never incorporate that which is supernatural.

Now, H suggested that it might be possible to create wine from water. Sure, it's plausible some time in the future to assemble things purely from elements I suppose. But that means by definition, turning wine to water isn't supernatural because by then, any scientist could do it. Are scientific discoveries considered supernatural? Primitive peoples might believe so, but clearly they are not. We can manipulate natural laws to work towards desirable ends.

As far as New age religion... I don't doubt people have all kinds of strange beliefs. Whatever. I respect that right. But I don't see how these new agers are all that different from traditional religions. Many practices, and beliefs are shared I'm sure ex) some form of rapture or departure from this world to a better place. As an atheist, I'm interested only in maximizing the time and experience possible in the here and now. Trying to make humanity better right now is better than waiting around for some grand event imposed by God to make the world better. In regards to a one world religion, I don't see that happening soon. Call me naive, but theres been plenty of attempts to create universal religion (catholicism being one example). Hell, you can't even get christians to agree with each other. Look at all the various branchings in Christianity.