Why does science always upstage God?

[vulcanlogician]

Yet Dalai Lama nevertheless accepts at least two supernatural claims, reincarnation and the "law of karma," and (in the same book where that quote is from, "The Universe in a Single Atom") he criticizes the theory of evolution along creationist lines, arguing that mutations aren’t random and that the notion of "survival of the fittest" is a tautology (it isn’t). So, like with all faiths, Buddhism literalism about some beliefs makes it incompatible with science.

I really hate when lovers of Buddhism argue they are not the same as Christians or Muslims. "Karma" is simply another argument for getting even. Concepts of heaven and hell, and vengeance, are no different. 

In all of human history, good or bad, the truth is sometimes bad things happen to good people, and good things happen to bad people.

There is no difference in humanity, worldwide in our species history. If a story is told, it has been told before. The binary 0s and 1s only allow for  diversity. But the flight ends for everyone, first class, business class or coach, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Rasta, ect ect.  No amount of arguing for a deity or a religion will change the fact all 7 billion of us only have one home to live on.

But there are differences. There are even significant differences between Christianity and Islam. If you study even a little bit of Buddhism you'll find that it is way more acceptable to the skeptical mind than the Abrahamic faiths. That counts for something. Sure, there are unfounded beliefs in Buddhism, but that doesn't mean isn't any solid wisdom or useful practices to be discovered when studying it. It's good to have a little nuance in one's approach toward belief systems. Like Nietzsche does below...

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
"In my condemnation of Christianity I surely hope I do no injustice to a related religion with an even larger number of believers: I allude to Buddhism. Both are to be reckoned among the nihilistic religions—they are both décadence religions—but they are separated from each other in a very remarkable way. For the fact that he is able to compare them at all the critic of Christianity is indebted to the scholars of India.—Buddhism is a hundred times [more] realistic [than] Christianity—it is part of its living heritage that it is able to face problems objectively and coolly; it is the product of long centuries of philosophical speculation. The concept, “god,” was already disposed of before it appeared. Buddhism is the only genuinely positive religion to be encountered in history, and this applies even to its epistemology (which is a strict phenomenalism).