“The "science religion" says it is not a religion but:”
If you’re going to refute the claim, you need to actually post an argument, not just corollaries.
I mean, OP - Dipshit. Not really a compelling comparison. Accurate, but not an argument.
“dogma - "science is not religion"”
That’s not dogma until you at LEAST show that you understand what the word ‘dogma’ means and that this is a dogmatic statement, not just a rejection of your idiocy.
“creation story - big bang”
But not all of science is defined by accepting the Big Bang Theory. Christains must accept Genesis, either as a history or as an allegory, but you CAN be a scientist who doesn’t accept BBT.
“#Bible - Darwin's Origin of Species”
Again, not all scientists must accept Darwin’s work as divinely inspired.
“#Jesus - evolution”
Huh? That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard, and i work for the government.
“collection plate - grant writing”
But those aren’t comparable. You’re directed to tithe. No one is directed to grant funding. That’s why there’s an application process.
“Not religion? Really?”
You should actually provide a definition of religion that DOES describe science, but does not also describe Monday Night Football, vegan cooking, designated hitter rule, and chili cook-offs. THEN you’ll have something beyond just empty questions.
