Stop posting so I can finish this post! 
next time, just link http://imgur.com/r/all/KLzKUrX
Fair enough, but that link only makes sense in light of our explanations. People need to stop wanting 1 min explanations to deep concepts. Twitter format doesn't work for everything.
... you must really stop trying to oppose religion to logic and science, they are related as much as an apple is related to a pear. It doesn't really make sense trying to confront them on the same plane.
If you've been unable to experience it too bad/good for you but just stop pretending other to prove that is plain impossible to prove and will ever be.
I disagree. One, religion is not some lump some concept, it is as complicated as, well, most other human experiences. Two, there is very little reason to not confront them on the same plane if they concern the same universe and confront the same aspects of that universe. The concepts spill over into each other quite a bit due to commenting on similar things like people, how we are supposed to live, and what our purpose is. Which I believe was the actual starting issue.
Religion is one means by which the few controlled the many. Whether there is a god or not is a matter of faith and religion is the exploitation of that belief.
I would disagree. In most cases there is probably exploitation, but I would not say that is all religion is. Religion is one way by which people try to fill their spiritual need. Is it the only way people do so? No. You may see people talk of dancing or gardening as being "spiritual" to them as well, but there is a need there however one tries to quantify that or fill it. If it weren't the case, the topic wouldn't keep coming up.
You're wrong, religion has been exploited by few to control the many... just like science is now exploited and used improperly by someone as a weapon against religion. The religion is simply a way an human being use to give an organized response to his own need...
I don't agree with everything in the post, but I agree with a lot of it. Definitely the above. I think the biggest problem with exploitation of science and religion is that both have people that are trying to use people's trust in the respective institutions as a quick means of making a personal army for someone personal agenda against some group or some concept.
I have no problem with people believing in whatever nonsense they wish to believe in, but when those beliefs leak into the real world and affect us, someone needs to speak up and shovel it back into imagination-land where it belongs and makes sense.
To be honest, Eonwind makes a valid point about your response even if that is not how I would word it. You are essentially fanatically defending science in a blanket absolute, whether you intend to or not, which is behavior typically ascribed to religious devotion. You are still glossing over where science is guilty of the same thing and placing it on a pedestal that only works if you don't apply the same standard back to science. And when presented with where science has the same fallacies, you simply repeat the chant of "science is fact" without addressing the issue and turn back to attack religion. This is the same method of behavior used by some religious people to attack science.
science does not enquire what is real and what is not real but test a theory to prove it true or prove it false... and what is not proven neither false nor true the science simply ignore it or enquires more. I suggest you do the same with religion.
I would say inquiry is a good approach. Rather than just blow the whole concept off experiment with it like you would if you were looking for any other answer. Actually keep track of the variables you are coming across in a religion and its beliefs.
It is not sufficient to just dismissively say that I'm wrong. You need to add some substance to your assertion. Tell me why you believe what you are saying is true. If you are right, then I may learn something in the process.
Keep in mind Rig, that until you can prove that God does not exist, you are doing the same thing. You can make a point for religions being loopy, but that is a different claim from God not existing. You have no substance for your assertion that God is unfounded.
It's been my experience with religious groups ( Catholicism and other varieties of christians ), that the existence of god and associated ideology is taught as if it was irrefutable fact. This is what I meant when I spoke of the error of presenting myth as if it was irrefutable fact.
Well consider that it is as real to the person who believes in god as you standing in front of them, but each person's experience is individual and the indicator that let's them know might only make sense to them. With that much variance how would give an explanation that includes everyone's experience and still makes sense to someone else? You simplify the explanation down for one. It's kinda like defining the color of a red ball by including everyone's experiences, including colorblind people. We might all agree that the color of ball is "red" but the description of what tells us that varies. Color is a very hard thing to describe since we have a hard time sharing our perspectives with others then imagine how much more complex that gets once you add the experiences of people who see red differently.
Ah, meant I should not jump in because it looks interesting and I have a bucket of stuff to do.
Yes, do the important stuff first or you will never get back to it.
