You are attempting to frame all of human understanding on the scientific method, a rather recent development.
Oh, I understand that quite well. Science has shown itself, even in its fledgling infancy, to have explanatory powers no other philosophy can begin to approach let alone match.
You are claiming infallibility using this method, even though the method itself is not infallible.
Phat, you've been around these parts long enough to know science claims no such thing.
What we claim is best evidence and the preponderance of the evidence.
Can you match that?
You and ringo are attempting to trivialize belief with the assumption that no actual God exists.
I won't try to speak for ringo who speaks very well for himself, but I for one do not wish to trivialize your god or its existence.
I want to kill your god. I don't want the idea of your god trivialized, I want it extinct ... extinctified ... extincticated.
You are suggesting that some humans, armed with a methodology and critical thought discipline, can define the validity of the freewilled beliefs of others.
Yep.
Or at least point out where their errors lay and give them the knowledge and the tools to correct their thinking.
If you are suggesting I want to force the situation on society, yah, that might fit my emotional state but it won't work. Evolution (fast, sped-up, escalated) not revolution.
I have a free will and I have a brain the equal of any of yours.
Absolutely.
I assume your brain operates well within the bell curve of human normal as does mine. But your brain has a couple screws loose in the circuitry defining your god. It seems disconnected from the critical logic regions which seem to operate just fine in other realms knocking around in there.
It's hard going but I'm still working on you.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.