Welcome to Gaia! ::

Science verifies religion.
What we think is religion, what we see is science.
Together it is the Sight.

Religion is simply a way to look at the unexplained. It might be easier, for some people, to believe that an event was an act of a god rather than a natural phenomenon, and that's perfectly fine.

Science proves religion in some examples:
The flood in Noah's ark has been proved through science that a flood of that proportion happened.

Firstly, I'd like to say that I do agree with Dusk's premise on the primitive mind and its powers of imagination, and I also like Mad Haru's comment, but do not share his opinion that it is "perfectly fine." I'm not a fan of allowing, or accepting people's ignorance and self delusion.

Religion continues to worship gaps in scientific knowledge, wherever they might be, saying that in those holes there is God's presence, yet with the advancement of scientific knowledge those holes begin to disappear. Religion once shunned the idea of a heliocentric universe, yet with overwhelming science it caved. It has done so with nearly every other major advancement in science, like evolution or DNA. Still, it tries to grasp onto its rope, shifting around its views like some coward trying to keep power.

Furthermore, I cannot stand the assertion that science relies on faith. Some science may begin with a hypothesis, but to confirm this and to be accepted by the scientific community it must be proven. Even with the beginning hypothesis, there had to be some starting point, some evidence that would give a researcher the idea to research whatever it is he is studying. I've also been hit with the argument that the general public, when learning about science, must go off of faith alone because it cannot confirm things that great minds are telling them. I do not pretend to be all knowing in science, or possessing a mind like that of Hawkings, Tyson, or Dawkins, but this argument is akin to saying that because you are to uneducated or unintelligent to learn some things, you cannot go off of what high science has confirmed.

That having been said, I think I can shift to Beaulolais' baffling comment. I'm not sure where you were going with that, but I think the first part can be associated with my previous comment on gaps. I don't really think the afterlife bit should hold because it has no scientific evidence for it. I don't think knowing what being an animal or knowing what the opposite sex would be like is too religious at all... I believe Freud had some interesting points on the latter, though. the other part of Beau's statement is easy enough to put aside, though. I'd like to point out the use of the word "primitive". the minds of those villagers would most likely be lesser, "primitive" ones. the shaman would be most likely to be a more intelligent being. Knowing how a group of men will move is easy enough to do if you know basic war tactics (basic being all that is needed there-- their tactics primitive, too). Anyways, the villagers would most likely to be scared of a more powerful mind gallivanting as a holy man. This sort of thing continues today with the general shunning of intelligent by the public.

Now, I saved the bit I thought I would have most fun with for last. Pirate Radio FM... I'd like to see were you got that idea of the Great Flood and its evidence from. I don't believe any real scientist would believe that such a thing is possible. I mean, of you have evidence or writings of it, do please as how me and I'll look it over, but the story of Noah is so ridiculously fallacious that it is almost laughable (and I would laugh it you weren't taking it seriously). First off, the world does not even contain enough water to cover the planet, even if we count melting the polar caps. Next, tell me how one man in the middle east was able to gather up every living creature, in twos. it is impossible to think that one could get the animals on different and unknown continents, let alone fit them on a boat like your Noah would have. More simply, this idea is as easy to dispute as Adam and Eve-- the gene pool necessary to create a thriving species is close to 500 beings per. There is no true scientific evidence in support of religion or any supernatural being, which is why the religious always fall back on their argument that "It's all faith," like it is some great shield that society is not allowed to break.

I'm going to ignore Dr1gon's statement, simply because it is so sweetly vague that I cannot extract any meaning from it, and if there is any, I've probably already touched on it. If you wish to discuss it, I'd be happy to if you would clarify for me.

yes. it is also a coping mechanism. people, understandably, dont want to believe for example that a close family member has just died. they dont want to think that theyre gone forever and that they will never see or talk to them again, so they tell themselves that they are "in a better place", "well see grandma in heaven" the bible is just flawless in its belief of faith, that we should believe in something that we cant see, its inspiring, and back then, when everyone was in such a dark place, it spread like wildfire because everyone wanted to believe in good.
in a way, im not completely AGAINST the bible. i think that if someone needs to tell themselves "theyre in a better place" to deal with the death of a loved one, im not going to say "THERES NO HEAVEN", i dont personally believe theres a heaven, but if my mother died right now, id probably tell myself shes going to heaven just as a temporary coping method until i heal from it. religions helped alot of people who found goodness in themselves by "looking to god" and for that reason, i dont completely think its a bad thing for other people to believe in. as long as theyre not taking advantage of it.