The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution - Richard Dawkins #1 Bestseller Available Now

no problem. a huge mining operation which had almost destroyed an island off new Papau with toxic waste was reclaimed by locals who claimed nature spirits had asked them to intervene. it is now a paradise. there is a documentary about it called "the coconut revolution". it is freely available on the internet.
but thats besides the point, apostate....

the ONLY way to know? you sound like a religious fanatic. why couldnt the irrational be known? im not avoiding anything dude. but if rational is the only thing of value to you, i genuinely pity you. i love the irrational. it spices things up a bit. and, of course, allows the rational to exist by proxy...
besides, youre making up your own definitions here, and putting words in my mouth. i want to see a genuine response from a human being, not a piece of rhetoric drenched in conflict...

danta, Religion isn't the abuse of an ideology. Religion is the belief that one can acquire knowledge through irrational thought. This is called "faith." Science derives from the Latin, meaning "to know." Science is the seeking of knowledge by looking at evidence and using reason to examine the evidence. This is the ONLY way to know anything. Either you support the use of reason and rationality, or you support superstitious nonsense. That's the conflict, the issue, and you avoid it.

just as they may abuse any ideology. and if you define religion as the abuse of ideology, i agree. however, our favourite online dictionary defines it thus: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
theres a "usually" and an "often" in there,

but cmon, experience IS subjective, thats precisely my point. science would be completely redundent if it could never translate eventually into a subjective experience. but surely you can see the mix up in continueums here...? i am not trying to marry the two, quite the opposite. being completely different in nature, im saying they could never be married, however they CAN be experienced side by side without any contradictions. all it requires is respect for qualatative difference. no?

nietzsche wasnt even close to a poet, but i get you. then youll understand the idea of a "supersoul" ? by the way, he drove himself nuts, convinced that the supersensible was responsible for phenomina, but unable to prove it.

HeisseZone . com und dieses vid sind meine top funde im netz heute

As for Khalil Gibran,...I am more of a Nietzsche gal ! ;)

That "bigger" is only "bigger" than science to you basically. Not to those who see science as the "bigger"!
In other words, it has very little to do with objectivity nor with infinity of the mind but every thing with your subjective world view! You are kidding yourself if you think you are thinking outside of the box. You are merely thinking within another box than those who feel the same way over a science based world view!

LOL Yes I am afraid you are already coming across very garbled and unscientific. Which is the point really. Like Gogo, you are trying to marry science and emotional subjective views!
And like him you prove that leads to garbled unscientific ramblings!
I am not saying there is anything wrong with that but since they are highly subjective, one cannot reasonable expect anybody else but you yourself to base anything on them! Not practically and not even philosophically really.