(September 27, 2009 at 6:17 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: 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?
And with respect, I think that you grossly misunderstand religion right there.
(September 27, 2009 at 6:17 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.
I don't deny that people have mistakenly made claims of knowledge falling into the empirical realm. This is always error and always specifically conflicting with the nature of religion. The two things cannot co-exist logically.