science, has lots of truth behind it... verifiable facts, unlike religion...

Keith Augustine, atheist philosopher: "In utilizing methodological naturalism, science and history do not assume a priori that, as a matter of fact, supernatural causes don't really exist. There is no conceptual conflict between practicing science or history and believing in the supernatural."

Keith Augustine, Naturalism (Infidels: 2009), http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/naturalism/ .

* * * * * * *

Kenneth R. Miller, biologist: "My friends and colleagues in nonscientific disciplines will often claim science as their authority. Clearly they believe that scientific inquiry has ruled out the divine. Unfortunately for them, as I will argue, nothing of the sort is true. Their attitude towards religion and religious people are rooted not so much in science itself as in the humanist fabric of modern intellectual life."

Kenneth R. Miller, Finding Darwin's god (Cliff Street Books: 1999), p. 19.

* * * * * * *

Mark Buchheim, biologist: "Science is indeed a powerful tool, but science is, by default, mute with regard to anything outside the natural world. The late Stephen J. Gould introduced the concept of NOMA, or non-overlapping magisteria, to describe how science and faith co-exist in "mutual humility." The point I'm making here is that science, stripped of any philosophical assumptions about the exclusivity of the natural world, can tell us nothing about our faith."

Mark Buchheim, "Letter to the editor: an educated response", The Collegian Online (University of Tulsa: 2005), http://www.utulsa.edu/collegian/article.asp?article=2569 .

* * * * * * *

Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist: "Darwin did not use evolution to promote atheism or to maintain that no concept of God could ever be squared with the structure of nature. Rather, he argued that nature's factuality, as read within the magisterium of science, could not resolve, or even specify, the existence or character of God, the ultimate meaning of life, the proper foundations of morality, or any other question within the different magisterium of religion."

Stephen Jay Gould, Rocks of ages: Science and religion in the fullness of life (Ballantine: 1999), p. 192.

Both, for I ate the apple . Lol
But all joking aside. I strongly want to believe in religion but without the facts it's hard to blindly put faith in something.

i'm sure there's lots of truths in the bible, but over the years it got changed as the bible was rewritten... ever play that game in school about passing a phrase around the room? same thing applies to the bible... maybe that's why the Vatican won't release the original texts...

Religion or science

Ditto.
Facts versus faith.

I think the best thing we can do with any religious teaching is to pick through it and find the moral lessons that will make us better people. Now whether you choose to believe all of the mythology mixed in with it is entirely up to you.

Just goes to show even wonderful things can be corrupted by mankind. I actually had to pause to answer this since I do have faith in the same breathe I abhor the word "Religion". Since in my experience I have witnessed to many that would practice the rituals of said religion with concept or belief in the acts themselves.

i agree, the bible is a great way for people to mold there life around, great morals and philosophies in it... to bad it has become a way for others to take advantage of people and used as a control factor...

Just goes to show even wonderful things can be corrupted by mankind. I actually had to pause to answer this since I do have faith in the same breathe I abhor the word "Religion". Since in my experience I have witnessed to many that would practice the rituals of said religion with concept or belief in the acts themselves.

Religion or science