> In order for discussion to have any meaning, the things we claim have to be 'falsifiable' This assumes a particular brand of empiricism. Which is not falsifi

> In order for discussion to have any meaning, the things we claim have to be 'falsifiable' This assumes a particular brand of empiricism. Which is not falsifiable. Not saying that discounts everything founded on empiricism. Just that the claim you're making doesn't live up to its own standard, and thus isn't necessarily a good way of dismissing other approaches, such as religion.