How Science v Religion is Not a Real Debate: Applying the CoP

It seems that the neo-atheism trend rising up today are putting two entities that are different into a battle.

The process in which I see the way/how we as a thinking thing absorbs information and uses that data is based on a process (Think a tri-cycle of an embodied cognition)...

- First point (main-primary) Belief Systems (isms, religions and philosophies) become primary to our thinking nature. Those primary beliefs are formed, created and/or adaptive due to society, family, friends, environments, optimism, inspirations and other individualistic factors (Neurophysiological Nature and Nurture).

- The secondary are the tools we use to enhance, explain, explore and expand the primary. The secondary are obvious tools; math, science, art, poetry, astronomy, biology, physics, engineering, etc. Fields of study that we have traditionally used in humanities and use more in-depth today (The Meta-Longing to Know and be Happy).

- The third is the applying and the applications feedback, either conflicting or establishing patterns with the first and second (Self-Actualization vs. Social Acceptance).

It seems to me that this debate is something that neo-atheist need to create because they claim to "lack a belief system" due to the fact "not believing in a unicorn isn't a-unicornism." Which is totally **** retarded. The concept of God has existed since cave-paintings. You are already in a culture of atheist, why not just take the next step and organize?!?! It would be so beneficial for the world to have a religion based off of "religious naturalism" "ignosticism" and/or "Indian irreligion." Gandhism! The knowledge of all the good things these philosophers had to teach while nitpicking the better quotes! Rather than never learning due to current day dogmas.

Going to this website, a ritual, reading articles about atheism, science and politics, scripture reading. The differences are not in the actions but in the context of actions. I know everyone on here is happy to be surrounded by philosophy, but this Neo-Atheism and Militant Atheism doesn't do anything to help in the long run. It only proves to further divide humans against humans.

Classically, all the fundamental religions of today were very liberal and free-based. Kabbalah suggested God is in the brain, ancient Islamism suggest math is the language of God - Today, scholars suggest Jesus was talking about consciousness and not an immaterial place (kingdom of heaven). We all have the ability to "feel" and want to "know" God... whether it is knowing "that" idea does and "this" idea does not exist.

I'm a middlist - So, while I HATE this new trend, I support it also, because it does show the opposite side of the spectrum that is stunting global growth. But to fix that growth does not come from telling people of their "irrationalities" but rather how our NATURAL optimistic biases are making us want to know and love a god or knowledge.

I don't know where I am going with this, just tired of "Religion vs. Science," because science is a tool to investigate while religion is a process to understand... Science dictates a "process" but for data, not life, not philosophy and not the holistic reality we are apart of...Science and religion are ultimately no mutual entities - as it required a new age of unorganized religion in order to establish a debate between a broad methodology of research... with organized religions.

The overstatement of science (or any other religious phrase), for the purpose of debate, is how exactly I know this movement of atheism is religious - the overstatement of ideas is essential to carry on beliefs forward and to reject others. 

Reference my Plea to Atheist!