Is that the opposite of a religious fact?

All religions require faith. Science does not. Therefore it is not a religion.

The whole point of science is based around trying to disprove or prove something like a concept or idea. It’s in a constant state of change and adaption. You win points for figuring stuff out.

Religion is rigid and doesn’t really change. The concept of disagreeing isn’t even in the vocabulary. Well, I guess if you want it to change you have to start your own religion, or cult, which is what all religions started out as.

I guess the distinction is the tenants of science are universally accepted and apply throughout the whole planet. Which kind of quells the anxiety a bit, don’t ya think? There’s about a zillion interpretations of all the denominations of religion.. ahh shit. Which one?

Science in the art of learning what is
Religion is the wish for the way it is
The fundamental question of why it is, may never be discovered.

Seems like along with fake news and alternative facts folks now feel they can redefine any old word however they want. It used to be that true was the opposite of false and love didn’t include hate and atheist meant without religion. Now we have alt-definitions and atheist is not the opposite of belief in a god but instead the opposite of that which is: Shit I don’t know!

I like to explain it like this;
Science is just a method to find answers regardless if we like the answers or not.
Religion is about belief, and there are many different answers given by believers of the same religion.

The 'religion' of science is the notion that

1. this is all random
2. physical reality is all that is important and the fact that physical matter is made up of energy condensed into a slow vibration is just a curiosity
3. there is no consciousness after death

there's probably some other little details. No one is discounting the scientific method because it works. Science works best when its simple. The scientific concepts that are most communicable and proliferated are its most simple ideas, and each one of us must experience it for ourselves because the information must be relatable to another human experience. If you believe anything that is touted as 'fact' under the name of 'science' without experiencing it and applying it to your life then you experience it as a religion. We are all guilty of believing things just because we have heard them.

I could say that it is just like religion in that there are many useful concepts and symbols but it isn't perfect! Lol

To the theist, life without religion is inconceivable, it is therefore somewhat inevitable that they would view anything that is taking the place of religion as being some form of religion itself, even when that which is replacing religion is simple rational thought and science.
However all religions have 5 commonalities:

• A creation myth
• Laws
• Rituals
• An after death myth
• A greater sense of community
  Thus, on the psychological level science has enough in common with religion to perhaps make it understandable when theists demonstrate that confusion and imagine science to be some form of religion.

In addition there is no idol nor being that is to be worshiped. There are those who are recognized for their accomplishments but hey are not worshiped. The rules of science are not like the commandments because as knowledge expands so do the rules.

I can see where the confusion/error came from. They equate the demand for evidence and rigor with a mantra -- a belief system with rigid rules/dogma. In a way, they are right, but with the wrong emphasis.

They also use 'believe' in some rather silly ways because they don't understand the difference between acceptance and believing. "Do you 'believe' in evolution?" There is nothing to believe, but there is a posit to accept. "Those atheists believe in science -- ergo their religion." A bit tougher, but believing in the scientific method/science is a belief in something that exists and is readily demonstrable. Again, it's more accurate to say that I accept the process of doing science and trust its outcomes and understand its fluidity. Science works even when you don't believe in it. The same can't be said for religion/god(s).

Also, they can't imagine anyone can exist without maintaining belief. It is just beyond their grasp that such a thing is possible.

There is no dogma in science. There is nothing that has to be accepted on insufficient evidence. Nothing has to be taken strictly on faith. Science doesn't have the basic characteristics of religion.

I think people figure that "if my beliefs are guided by religion, and your beliefs are guided by science and reason, then they must be the same in some way."

Calling science a religion is nothing more than a theist's of trying to disparage it.

Religion and science are diametrically opposed ways of thinking, so it could never be said that science is a type of religion.