Quote:
Understood, and thanks, but in my opinion (IMO) every debater uses his/her own opinions even when they are plagiarized from texts, writings or studies done by any other interested party portraying personal opinions.
After mocking me for about a page, you still seem to miss the very core of the point. Let me put this as easily as possible.

If you say "Christians of all ages have been prone to violence and deceit", I will presume that this is your opinion. If you add IMO to this, even better.

If you say "It's a proven fact that Christians of all ages have been prone to violence and deceit", I will demand that you actually have some verifiable source to back this up.

So you wrote "Studies have shone". You took it back and you apologized for it, but apparently without getting the idea that what you wrote wasn't bad because I happened to call you on it - it's bad because claiming things to be true, despite you knowing that they're not true, is bad. And that's what makes it hard to trust what you write, not the lack of "IMO".

On topic:
The similarity between (some parts of) religions and (some parts of) science could perhaps be that they try to explain the same things. Like origin. The fact that they have different explanations for the same thing causes some people to be upset, and some other people to accept both answers for what they are - different. Religion isn't (or usually isn't) trying to explain origin in a way that would be helpful to an archeologist. Science isn't trying to explain *why* we are here as much as *how* we came here.

People who think of science as their religion is only slightly less scary than people who think of religion as science. I think both groups try to fill two differently shaped holes with one block and finding that it doesn't quite fit in both.