There's the question! Do you think that science is a religion? Debattte.

As for me, do I think science is a religion? No. I think this because science can be proven (as far as anything can actually be proven, at least) where as religion can't. With science you can test things thoroughly. Personally, I'm not a follower of any religion and follow science, I very rarely have thoughts that there might be something 'out there'. One of the biggest places for conflict with science is creationism vs. evolution, and here I'd side with evolution as a theory purely because to my ears it sounds far more plausible than creationism.

Yes.

So if there was a big raping spaghetti monster, you'd think it was real without any evidence because you "believe"?

So you saw god?

But how you do know it was the "holy spirit" as you say?

No, no it cannot. Belief does not equal proof. Proof is actual empirical evidence. I believe that we have evolved from a common ancestor that we share with chimpanzees because of the evidence in the fossil record. I believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years because of ageing tests of the oldest rocks found on this planet. I see no similar evidence of the entire universe being created in 6 days, of us being created as a species by some sort of divine figure (or figures, polythiestic religions are really no different) or so on, so forth. You are free to believe what you want, but it cannot be proven.

And no, I don't think you can really compare science to religions. I really don't get where that arguement comes from. Science is more or less the anithesis of religion, it requires solid fact, tested repeatedly, as opposed to wishy washy faith where you accept something that cannot possibly be proven. I could grudgingly accept that the Big Bang Theory for the beginning of the universe requires a lot of belief because it is not a particularly intuitive concept for our brains to accept, though there is still at least circumstantial evidence. Besides, cosmology like that really does point out a big plus point of religion. It's open-mindedness, which religion does not have. While it may take a while for attitudes to change from one theory that was so common to another, it does eventually occur, religion however is wrapped in Dogma. Science is far more fluid, the conclusions change when the evidence changes.

Doesn't necessarily have to be the "holy spirit". You see, the modern day religions are all extremely primitive. They are full of flaws, because the religion was created by people who thought that dragons exist and that rabbits lay eggs from a dead man. These thoughts were created in order to explain things that people back then could not, since they had limited science. They (christians) speak with very enticing and intriguing words, but that is it. If you actually believe all they say is the supreme society and lifestyle, then I pity you Steph.

That is why I'm saying your beliefs have no defending standpoints. As a Nihilist, I simply despise all other religions because they are all too folly and ridiculous. I'm sorry to offend anyone, but I have my opinions, just like any one of you.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see how christianity can actually be a religion used in all ages of humanity.

I see your point, maybe there needs to be a new bible written because some things on it seem a bit old old school.

As Christians we ourselves argue that but there is just one thing we all agree on , and that's the ten commandments (Which is the reason why I believe god loves gays).