The real religion?

[LadyForCamus]

First, you clipped out my second sentence: 
While they are used by science, they are also used in a number of different fields: philosophy (reason, logic, philosophy of mind, etc.), social sciences, mathematics, as well as intuitively used a thousands times every day by people (if I do x then my wife will do y). 
No reply to that? You still think these terms apply only to science? Then tell me why this particular sentence is wrong.
Second, when you make a point and I reply (with reasons why I believe my point to be true) and then you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty is an unjustified leap and seems more like you don't know how to respond. Attacking one's character is pretty low.

Steve, when you make a truth claim about something, especially something as extraordinary as a personal relationship with a deity, you are automatically pushing that claim into the scrutinizing light of science, whether you like it or not.  

I am not disputing those words are used in other fields of study (though I may dispute that they suddenly mean something different in the way that you're implying).  I am disputing you incorrectly stating that they are "not scientific words."   You used those words with a very specific connotation; with very scientific implications that your truth claim is indisputably TRUE, and then backed out immediately when I held you to it.

So, are you saying that there is scientific evidence, and then there is that "other" kind of evidence?  That there is scientific proof, and then that "other" kind of proof?  Could you elaborate?  It reminds me a lot of Wooters and his category B "knowledge."   Or Ken Ham and his "historical science versus observational science" bull crap.