> However they're the religion that best learnt (even if by force) that science must be respected. The notion that there is (or must be) a conflict between rel

> However they're the religion that best learnt (even if by force) that science must be respected. The notion that there is (or must be) a conflict between religion and science is fallacious. It is an idea currently extremely popular with 20 y/o know-it-all angry atheists – but it is far from the truth. Another popular related idea is that “you can’t be religious and be a scientist” and that religious people are of lower intelligence (the latter is usually proved with a pseudo-scientific “statistical” argument). > My point is rather that without evidence and facts it gets much easier to manipulate debates with ideologies. My biggest problem is that popular secular humanists try to pass of their ideology as “science” – and doing it on the public dime too (while working at educational institutions). Neither the church nor certain secular humanists have a monopoly on the truth or scientific fact. > I see the debates on forums and blogs as being mostly heavy on opinions and weak on facts. And I see religion as a form of ideology. Most internet debates are nothing but a circle jerk. I increasingly see pop-atheism as an ideology too. Nothing ruins social sites (such as reddit.com, digg.com) as quickly as the influx of angry close-minded atheists. That is one of the things that make ycnews nice – there aren’t that many ideologues, and even those that are there, are well mannered and moderate.