Debate: Would you sooner let your faith rest with science or God?
Side: God

... I almost thought you were agreeing with me after that first sentence. I think you misunderstood my entire paragraph, but I'll respond anyway.So you admit, "Jesus dying for everyone's sins cannot be proven true..." than you go on to volunteer yourself as a perfect example of exactly what my point is.You say it's "symbolism."Okay then... so I take it you're not Christian either?Because that's the cornerstone of that religion. If you do not believe that Jesus died for your sins, but you believe in a Christian type god, then you are Muslim, or Jewish, or..."SPIRITUAL!" Which is what I said people were congregating toward, in light of said science and common sense.So then, someone, like you for example, since you said it yourself, gets to pick and choose what parts of a religion they believe, then why have religion at all?Why not everyone just have their own kind of moral code, whether god's involved or no?I mean, established religions have exact, stingent, unbending rules and ideas that they, and their flock adhere to.Yet so many like yourself don't buy it. Hm, seems my opposition has proven my point.See what I'm saying? Not that you agree, I just want to make sure you understand, because your response is a little off context as a reply to my above statement.It's a pretty good arguement up to a point, but then..."My belief is that they go hand in hand because what is the point of science? You are either trying to find "God" or prove that "God" does not exist. Either way a whole lot of faith is needed in either. I'm more for science because I like what I can see, but I'm also not ignorant to the fact that something started everything and that something is what most of us title as "god"".Science is not necessarily trying to prove or disprove god. And some god's existence is in no way necessary for science to exist. "Something started everything."Why? Because something started you? Therefore everything else, including the universe had to have something "start it?"No. Because you can just as easily say then "something had to start god," so then that must be super god, who was intern started by mega god, and on down the line. It's just as likely that the Universe simply always was. Even more likely than god just always being as at least we know the Universe exists now."The truth is you already drank the koolaid! That is why you exist. You believe in something or else you would be dead, I mean why live?"No. I exist because my parents had sex, then I was born. I can assure you not believing doesn't lead to sudden death, as I have not believed for quite some time now, and am very much alive.So, I went ahead and reread the definition of religion from the link you provided, and it hasn't changed, and still in no way resembles science.Science does not have "beliefs" it is not dependant on a large number of people "believing" it. The world was round long before people believed it was round, and people still believed it was flat long after science had proven it to be round.Evolution is not a matter of faith. It's based on biological evidence, fossils, and people actually observing evolution before their eyes in micro organisms. Still people don't believe in it.Science in no way depends on faith. Religion does. Which was my point.