You're believing a fictional story. There is a part where
   evidence ends and belief begins. You can CHOOSE to pick up
   'something else' other than standard old religion to take its
   place, but it's just as fictional. == I don't have a problem
   with you saying, "My belief system is "BETTER THAN" the other
   stuff out there BECAUSE: [x], [y], [z]". That's fine. Just keep
   in mind where the line is and when you're crossing over into
   another territory, that's all. == I'm not talking about ancient
   religions. I'm talking about developing modern ones that can't
   see themselves for what they are. There's Science and then
   there's that which goes beyond Science. You have several
   directions to go into at that point. a) "I don't know / can't
   say either way" - which is the path I've chosen. b) Scientism,
   which is the path you _seem to_ be close to, if not on it. c)
   Rationalism and disciplines which are very Platonic as well such
   as mathematics and such. d) or using one of the traditional
   systems. Now you may say "traditional systems are worse than my
   system". But they're still on the same spectrum. It's important
   to see that. This doesn't make them EQUIVALENT in all ways - it
   just means that they're on the same spectrum and caution should
   be exercised when leaving the realm of Science and building
   belief systems upon it. == For intellectual honesty, imo, I'd
   prefer you said that a) "Scientism is the rational choice
   because..." rather than b) "What I know is the Truth" - because
   because b) comes across as a religion, plain and simple. ==
   Ultimately, I'm speaking about rhetoric - and using it myself -
   you don't have to follow what I'm saying. I'm trying to helpful,
   even if it seems I'm fighting. == You've made your point: Your
   beliefs are better than the old ways. I don't deny that you're
   probably right. But also, there's no aliens. Replacing one
   religion with another is hard not to do. == Traditional
   religions may not be needed. We just have to be wary of the new
   ones, especially when they sneak in under the guise of being
   scientific when they're not. == Modern beliefs can most
   DEFINITELY affect our behavior in dangerous ways. There's no
   immunity from the dangers when leaving the territory of
   evidence. The everyday sociopath is an example of the dangers of
   rationalization for example. You _can_ rationalize anything,
   given enough evidence and logic and many murders were perfectly
   logical when you follow the chain but still wrong. No, , beliefs
   can be dangerous. There's no thousands of years of history of
   post 19th century Scientism and there hasn't yet been the rises
   to political power that we've seen with religious belief
   systems. But even in the 19th/20th century, scientists have
   murdered other scientists over opposing beliefs. It's small
   because the sample set and social power is small. But given
   enough force, belief that overshadows evidence and reason - even
   if it's 'based upon' evidence and reason to make its leaps and
   bounds, can certainly be just as dangerous. Stick to what's
   proven. If you _believe_ something that's 'more' - acknowledge
   it, that's all. If it's rationalism, call it so. If it's
   scientism, call it so. Otherwise, your ability to convince
   others of your correctness will always be limited. == and as a
   reminder, kind =/= nice. It *can* be the same at times but
   kindness can sometimes be harsh. I minimize the harshness of
   kindness but I apply it when necessary. ==