(September 27, 2009 at 3:19 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I'm saying that you call everything "superstition" which does not cover religion at all. Superstition is precisely what religion guides against. As someone without religious guidance you are more at risk of falling foul of superstition because you have no way to discern it from anything else, which you kindly demonstrate.
I think it most certainty does cover religion. Religion is one of the most common forms of superstition. You claim it doesn't cover it, you claim that religion guides against that, you claim that I am somewhat without such guidance - assuming that there is any guidance in the first place - you claim that because I lack this guidance, and that that makes me more likely to 'fall foul' of superstition than religion, which I am against.
Okay, you claim these things, okay. I disbelieve you. Okay, okay?
(September 26, 2009 at 7:40 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:That is irrelevant to whether Religions themselves have claimed, or still make claims of knowledge that fall into the realms of the empirical.fr0d0 Wrote:[...]Ok, if you really believe that, 2 questions: 1. How can you know that? 2. How can you be sure of it?
Very simply because that is the meaning of the word 'religion'. "Religion" never means "a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method".
EvF