A question about original sin.

[Captain Scarlet]

But science is the proof against the religion.

Strictly speaking science does not prove anything. Proof comes only from deductive logic or mathematics. Science provides us with evidence and facts which are organized into theories with powerful predictive qualities. Theories are also tentative and subject to falisification if new facts emerge. Science has no agenda to disprove religion. Its conclusions do, prima facie, stand in opposition to some religious dogmas and interpretation of long held beliefs. In response religions deny the truth of the scientific conclusions or adapt their theology accordingly, because they put themselves in an invulnerable position and say 'this is the truth' when they absolutely have no idea of whether it is or isn't. It is therefore religions fault that science sometimes makes it look foolish, when the lights are shone on a previously mysterious or intractable problem. This is why Religious diehards lash out at it, but always are so very keen to use science when they think it backs up their claims or indeed benefits them personally. Your opening sentence is therefore false.

It is constantly making ground to the opposite, the assumption that theassumption is true. With only science, yes, all the theories and will informed
speculation are the best explanation.

I have no idea what you are saying here.

But the religion is not based on science but the science must be based on religion.

Science is based on methodological naturalism it neither needs nor is based on any religion.

I just thought since were are so confident is our agenda for destroying religion and
hopefully "freeing" all of our minds science would shatter the belief system for the sake of saving our important but not important lives.

This is an impossibly incoherent sentence. Attempts to destroy religion are futile and I really couldn't care less what people believe. Just put the facts out there and let the people decide. But if religion invades my space I'll push back on it. It's that simple.

I can not prove it to you, I believe in something and will share it if asked or i feel it necessary to intercede with my thoughts. If it was proven it would not even be
science, it would be control. You will reason against such things for there is no
incontrovertible truth and this particular item does not fancy your character. But whats cool is, i can still reason for it. I would have to do some research but i think the truth already stands and your just trying to find something that suits you. The truth for you is there is no god, everything else is up for grabs and flawed, because humans are grabbing it.

This is a confused argument. Proof is not science as explained earlier. You need to reason to god to prove he exists. Deductive logic is inescapable in that if you could put up a knockdown argument for believing in god, then it would be proved that god must exist. The thing is no- one has ever successfully argued this and equally atheism has failed to establish a knock down argument for itself. Atheists would argue 5 further things however:

-We should presume atheism given occams
-The burden of proof is not borne by atheism
-That the religious need to define god better and consistently
-That definitions of god such that they do exist are so far from our experience that they present an impossibly incoherent 'being'
-Given inductive arguments atheism is far more probable than theism