Why does science always upstage God?

[Angrboda]

Ha!  (Just kidding...)

The response you read, could lead you to believe I am an ABBA traitor. While I am glad they remain relevant in music history, and while I do like this song, it is middle of the road for them. It is not my favorite, nor does it stand out like Watch Out, or SOS or Money Money Money, or The Winner Takes It all. They seem to be playing it safe here. I am fine with that. It still has an ABBA quality about it, but it was a safe song, not a standout.

---

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).

To say there are differences in religions is correct. But to claim any religion is special is not. Religion, like politics and economics, are merely human's arguments for tribalism to get at resources. 

Carl Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot" speech says to me everything humanity needs to know ultimately. We are not special, our labels are not special, and we would do better long term to accept that if we want to extend our species ride. 

If someone hates me, and wants to kill me because they hate me, life provides that opportunity. But that does not mean if they are successful, they will have an eternity of being the king of the hill.

Please label your views correctly. You clearly mean that it is not special TO YOU. Whether it is special to anyone else is not something you decide.

Seriously, you read some lame argument that might persuade a few morons and think it's the best thing since sliced bread.

You're stuck in a rut repeating an argument that is little more than a deepity. Pull your head out. Honestly, you're a one-trick pony whose one trick sucks.

How do you know that they won't have that eternity as king of the hill?