Most of what humans talk about isn't science or religion, and to reduce the world to just that is pretty weird to say the least. Most things can't be resolved

Most of what humans talk about isn't science or religion, and to reduce the world to just that is pretty weird to say the least. Most things can't be resolved by appeals to objective truth. It sounds like you're working on a model where that's how one resolves conflicts, but literally most of the history of knowledge, humanity, whatever label you want to put on it -- isn't that. Even science isn't by any means that binary. Disagreements can last centuries. And we're even at a spot in science where a lot of the interesting stuff fumbles around for decades before we can even come up with experiments that could possibly test it; and some of it we won't ever be able to test. (A lot of cosmology isn't testable.) But the point me and a few others were making is that you don't seem to know much about religion, so it's probably not a good thing to use in analogies. Religion is definitely not a set of neatly divided mutually exclusive beliefs. Almost all of the world's adherents come from two families of religions -- Abrahamic or Vedic -- and within those groups there's a whole lot of similarity and varying levels of theological exclusivity. I feel like gambling or the stock market may be better examples. If one person takes a long position on a stock and another short, they have mutually exclusive beliefs about it, and one of them will be wrong.