A lot to respond to here.
* The argument about proving a negative is that you cannot prove something does not exist somewhere in the Universe.
- Prove there are no unicorns. You can't
- Prove there are no leprechauns. You can't.
- Prove Zeus is not real. You can't.
- Prove there are no magical fairies in your garden. You can't.
- Prove there is no God. You can't.
This is what we mean when we say that.
* You say things like ESP could not be proved by science, of course they could. Many scientists are trying to do just that. If I can read minds, we can test that, it's very simple.
How did you figure it out without science, so why would you make a decision about your eternal soul based on science?
You have not proved a soul exists, so in all probabillity your question is not even valid. Love is a feeling, it is not an objective thing that exists outside of us. So when we say we feel love, that is indisputable. Very different from making a claim about the existence of something in objective reality. Saying you can feel that God exists is not the same as God actually existing. I can be in love with a fictional character from a book, for example.
Now, as I keep telling you, science has not claimed "there is no God", it is not the job of science to make such a claim. It can claim that the Universe could exist without a God, though, and therefore, without good evidence for God's existence, atheism or agnosticism is the most logical position to take. You are misapplying science here, or misunderstanding it. Like I said before, the main reason we don't believe is due to lack of evidence in God's existence, not due to a disproof of any kind.
We have amazing science today, and it still can not proove God is non-exsistant any more than in the Days of Columbus, or the steam airplane.
No proving negatives, right? We can't prove 10 headed monkeys with x-ray eyes don't exist either, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to believe in them.
I'm not sure I can agree that the scientific method is perfect, I think it's feasible it could be improved, but I'm not sure how. I do agree that when science gets things wrong, the scientists use of the method is at fault, rather than the method itself, though.
* Faith is not a tool, agreed. But it is not me making that fallacy, but people like greeney and others when they imply it should be used as a method of determining truth in place of science.
* Faith works as long as we have faith in the right thing? How do we know what the right thing is? I see Muslims having faith in Allah who are just as sure they are right, and just as sure it's working, as the Christians with faith in their God. Even if it works, you need a tool to determine what to have faith in. Each religion is sure it's the true religion, and that their God is the true God. In this respect, I think we can say that faith can seem to be working when in reality it's based on a delusion.
* I consider the Bible primitive because it was an early attempt to explain and describe the world, written by people who, while they may have been smart, were scientifically unknowledgable to a great degree. They were stabbing in the dark, so to speak.
And they were so sophisticated they had to use methods like public stoning for mundane offenses!
"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."
- Sam Harris