reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
The problem with science is that (unfortunatly) you cannot separate the two.
Pure science as it were does not exist.
You have those as the leaders/establishment that view themselves much the same as a high priest of the religions of old.
They use their influence and more importantly their knowledge to quiet any dissent to their teachings (starting to see the likeness to religion).
They give their studies/facts/evidence as law and it is up to others to prove them wrong BY THEIR OPINIONS.
Now even in the face of this they are more often than naught will not admit fault. Even in the face of overwelming evidence or no alternative that
fits their previous facts.
Two examples of this are the previously mentioned one of the big bang vs scientific fact something cannot come from nothing.
The second is the bumblebee principle (my words).
That being up untill about 15 years ago according to all known and proven (by the establishment) laws of aerodynamics, power systems, physics, you
name it something made TO THE EXACT SPECIFICATIONS of a bumblebee could not fly.
Someone forgot to tell the bumblebees this and they were flying for thousands of years.
The fact (IMO face saving at its finest) that changed that was that someone "discovered after decades of studying" bumblebee wings that there is a
thin slit/gap in their wings that give them some extra lift.
Not the fact they were flying or the fact the wings were studied, disected, microscope viewed, disected again, electtron microscope viewed for decades
before this "discovery"
So while off topic of athiesm the OP first stated i think it shows that ANY SYSTEM can be considered a "religion" by the very basic definition of
the word and not limited to belief in alah, god, old man in the clouds, the great spagetti monster, or something in that thread