[<1/1,000,000th%]

The statement, “only what can be known by science or quantified and empirically tested is rational and true”.

Of course I don't believe that. But the process of science doesn't benefit by being scripturally bound. Isn't this the basis for most of the arguments against evolution by Creationist/ID'ers? That evolutionists are following "atheist scripture"?

(I admit that most folks don't look at atheism as a religion, but it shares the same characteristics, so it should be treated as a religion.)

[Heartlander]

I do not believe science should be bound by anything. This is my point. I believe that ID is only pointing to a corner in science. It is up to the scientific commune to find the other three (corners).

It is science that puts itself in a box if they believe a self-refutable statement like, “only what can be known by science or quantified and empirically tested is rational and true”.

It is an unsubstantiated philosophy like any other…

[forsnax5]

I admit that most folks don't look at atheism as a religion, but it shares the same characteristics, so it should be treated as a religion.

I did a stint in the military in the early sixties. During basic training, my dog tag had NO REL PREF listed as my religion. My DI took umbrage with that, saying that it wasn't possible not to have a religion.

He asked me what religion my parents practiced, and I told him they were Presbyterian. He had my records changed to show my religion as Protestant.

There's always someone who needs to fit everyone else into categories...