I think that as brain science continues to grow and discover, there will be more evidence that religion is man-made. Of corse, there is alot of evidence now, but the believers will keep stuck on their religion anyway.

Science is not just one thing. Religion is not irrelevant to the science of anthropology, for example. Science studies bird behavior, ant behavior, and rat behavior; why should human behavior somehow be irrelevant, or off limits to scientific inquiry?

Science tells us the facts of the natural world, but it doesn’t go into the community every week and console grieving widows; that’s not its job. Science maintains no facility which weekly teaches people to forgive and love their enemies.

Religion predates science by thousands of years, but science is a specialized discipline which grew out of religion, just like philosophy and law, etc. There is no real competition between science and authentic religion. They make much better allies than enemies.

A great audiobook is ALPHA GOD byHector A. Garcia narrated by Seth Andrews. trust me, you won't be disappointed.

If religion would just stick with the "Do unto others as you", and help the poor then it would be fine. But forget this heaven, hell, sin, Eve bit an apple, Noah, sex, and crap like that. It's very obvious that man created god to be like man, not God created man in his/her image.

I agree with a lot that has been said. How long we should tolerate religionists neglecting evidence is quite another matter. Religion DOES undermine science and in many situations at the extreme, religion does settle the matter by denying life chances

This is what the Religiously Impaired™ just do not get. Science has nothing against the magical properties of Pixie Dust either. Science simply does not factor in religion, the same way it does not factor in Pixie Dust. No evidence, no consideration. This is just the way it is.

THANKS,good to reflect on the basic facts
that led me, and others to free and reasoned thought.

I have been teaching high school biology (with an emphasis on evolution) for 20 years. Every year I have a handful of young students who vociferously object to the notion of humans sharing common ancestry with apes (and reptiles, and earthworms, and bacteria). Time and time again I hear, "I believe the Bible." To those students I say, "That's all well and good, but in science belief is irrelevant. Belief is just a strongly held opinion. Do you have independently-verifiable evidence to support your position? If so, show us. We would love to see it!" While they chew on that I continue to wheel out evidence that we DO share common ancestry with all other species on Earth. Am I able to convince the ardent believer on the spot? Usually not (the fence-sitters generally do come around). But I suspect that in the believer's mind I have planted seeds of doubt that will one day bear fruit. For what it's worth, I'd like to believe so.

As it should be to all humans, irrelevant.

I think that those who take the word of religion over science do so because they're either too intellectually lazy or intimidated by the demands science makes on them to actually think. It also doesn't promise anyone magical kingdoms in the sky or eternal life and religious leaning people like that sort of thing.

On the David McConnell quote. I was much the same way, although I was never a believer. I had the fortune to have not been brought up in a religious household.

But I also had the fortune to have gone to a few "Science" based schools. Something IMHO, we are lacking. Using the Scientific method in every avenue is honestly the only way to get to the truth. Well, "truth" might not be the best word. rather we, by hypothesis, testing, and drawing conclusions based on the empirical evidence. we could deduce the most likely scenario.

The archaic use of religious texts as not only dogma, but as a tool to forgo pseudo Science., it something that really needs to be looked at with Disdain,ridicule, and contempt.
Just my 5 cents.

Paraphrasing Neil deGrasse Tyson: Religions were invented long ago when humankind knew nothing about how the world works. Religion provided the answer, “God did it”. But as science provides answers to the same old questions, religion must give way to science (not science give way to religion).
(Man's belief in) “God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist

I like Reville’s assessment.

[irishtimes.com]

Religions make many scientific statements which are false. Science corrects those. Now, who is doing the undermining? If I walk around Times Square proclaiming to be the king of America are those people laughing at me undermining me or am I undermining myself for saying stupid things? I guess a case can be made for both usages of the word but it is pretty clear where the real fault lies.

I realize that I'm about to state the obvious, but...

Science tries to be 'correct' -- to describe reality. Science doesn't care about Religion except insofar as Religion often promotes falsehoods that Science by it's nature wants to correct.

Religion tries to be in 'control' -- correctness is only useful in that it can be used to preempt integrity (deserved or not). Religion need only conflict with Science when Religion's control is threatened by Religion's falsehoods being exposed.

The two positions would never disagree if their goals were the same.

For me, one worldview seeking 'control' to the expense of 'correctness' makes it an easy choice. Religion falls in a poor second (at least) place.