Again, I don't debate religion's usefulness or integral status in human nature. I debate its foundations, yes. Your argument relies heavily on paralellisms: science isn't perfect, therefore religion has the same foundations as science.

No. Science may not be perfect, but its tenets are provable. Your belief is God has the same claim to truth as someone believing they have an invisible dragon in their garage. I don't deny God's existence. But I don't accept it either. And frankly, I think your argument skirts the issue with distractions rather than focusing on the factual foundations for a belief in God.

• God not required for religion - aurino - April 27, 2001 - 13:10 UTC
  • God not required for anything. - alexander - April 27, 2001 - 22:21 UTC
    • Entanglement - yanniru - April 27, 2001 - 23:15 UTC
      • Please explain entanglement - stormcrow - April 28, 2001 - 00:45 UTC
        • It's a mystery - yanniru - April 28, 2001 - 11:50 UTC
          • Thanks - stormcrow - April 28, 2001 - 12:07 UTC
            • Whoops - stormcrow - April 28, 2001 - 12:07 UTC
              • What does NT mean - yanniru - April 28, 2001 - 20:54 UTC
                • "No Text." (oh, NT, btw) :) - stormcrow - April 28, 2001 - 22:56 UTC
          • re: Aspect's inequality experiments - harvey1 - April 28, 2001 - 15:19 UTC
            • E & P & R have passed away - yanniru - April 28, 2001 - 20:56 UTC
          • Entanglement is no puzzle! - doctordick - April 30, 2001 - 14:07 UTC
      • Entanglement is not a law? IT IS NATURAL LAW. - alexander - April 30, 2001 - 18:00 UTC