Science is more dependable then religion at finding truth

Thank you for your rebuttal. First off "I am saying that religion doesn't prove anything. If you have no proof then how do you think other people will accept this. How do you prove your religion? " Who said I had no proof? If you want to get into a debate about Theism vs. Atheism i'll be happy to go there. I would like to ask though, What would you determine as proper evidence for God? Secondly "Morality doesn't require God. If you need the threat of eternal hell to make you not murder people you are not a good person. The existence of God and hell shouldn't affect how you treat others. You should do good because you want to help others not because your trying to get your eternal reward. " "Life has no meaning. It is called nihilism and it says that life has no meaning. While most people see this as just being edgy the original intent was actually optimistic. If life has no original meaning you give it your meaning. Instead of a God you chose what your life is about. " In response to these two quotes, I would like to start out by saying that you seem to be proving my point, Not disproving it (especially with the second quote). Let me explain. When I mentioned morality and meaning, I was saying that this is not determined by science, But by religion (I am going to change this terminology to theism because there are atheistic religions too). You seem to be giving your own religion (or irreligion if you prefer) to disprove my views on meaning to life, Which I'll get to in a moment. First of all, Of course you don't need to believe in God to have morality! I know plenty of good Atheists and Agnostics and work with a few of them myself. My point was that science cannot determine what is good and bad, But theism can. Without God objective moral values do not exist. You don't have to believe in objective moral law or an objective moral law giver for that law to exist. We both believe murder is wrong for example, But on your view, Why is it wrong? What gives you the authority to say that murder is wrong if there is another equally valid human being out there that says that it is not wrong? Why are we obligated to do good and help others? Science cannot answer any of these questions and that is my point. While I love science and it is an incredibly powerful tool in determining the truth of the physical universe, It is vastly limited. Theism can determine morality, Meaning, And everything that asks in terms of why. Science cannot answer in terms of why, Which is the question we all long to answer. You answer in the terms of the meaning of life in a philosophical sense. You did not use any science to come to the conclusion. On your religion (or irreligion) you have come to this personal conclusion. You said that you believe that life has no meaning (which you are right is nihilism). I am sure the intent was optimistic, But I don't see the idea that we are just purposeless matter floating around an indifferent universe that is waiting to kill us quite optimistic. You also say that since it has no meaning you give it your own meaning (which is existentialism). However we both know this meaning is entirely subjective and illusory. If I say the meaning of life is to be the greatest armadillo that ever lived first I would be off to a terrible start and second that wouldn't make the meaning of life to be the greatest armadillo that ever lived. Without God there is not objective meaning to life we can both agree on that. However, That was not determined by science! That was determined by whether theism is true! In your rebuttal there were no arguments that either meaning or morality are determined by science. Do you have any evidence that these can be determined by science?