The point is that religion is based on the beliefs of scientifically ignorant people. The whole god-concept is not one based on evidence & reason, but from uninformed superstition.
'God does not play dice' according to Einstein, and yet he acknowledges the presence of god, or a god, in that very sentence. Consider also the case of the latest Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby whose Wikipedia entry states -Welby worked for 11 years in the oil industry, five of them for the French oil company Elf Aquitaine based in Paris. In 1984 he became treasurer of the oil exploration group Enterprise Oil PLC in London, where he was mainly concerned with West African and North Sea oil projects. He retired from his executive position in 1989 and said that he sensed a calling from God to be ordained.
A successful 11 year career in the oil industry is hardly the mark of "scientifically ignorant people"
So just what are you trying to tell us Bill. Those who choose to hold a faith are lesser and ignorant people? There are plenty of people who manage to live quite excellent lives without great knowledge of science, or any religion come to that.
Alchemy deviated from science in a number of ways - not least the involvement of arcane symbols & other 'magical' concepts.
But didn't those arcane symbols and magical concepts serve well even though the assumptions that led to them proved false. They also served the purpose of keeping the 'research' confidential to the practitioners and their paymasters before we invented patents. The promotion of the 'magic' may have been as much about obscuring the actual recipes as it was religion. The advancement in pigment technology during the renaissance is a case in point. You should think a little wider. What is the Periodic table if not a modern arrangement of symbols?
Once those were stripped away, the science started to emerge.
I'm generalising. Do you want a point-by-point refutation of every different belief emanating from every religion & cult?
If you have the time then yes please.
So that's a no then? I can give you facts about religion(s), but I'm not sure what would constitute a religious fact. Various religions make claims about how the cosmos is & came into being. We can test those claims & generally find them wanting. The point is this - given that Bronze Age tribes knew so little about physics and the like, given that we today put so little stock by their claims regarding the observable universe, why should we take any notice of their claims about gods, angels, demons, pixies & shit?
Bill, the only facts that are acceptable to you are scientific facts so when you seek to source them from the pool of religion you are bound to come away empty handed. That's the ultimate straw man argument! Religion is not about scientific facts but if that is your understanding of it then no wonder you struggle accept other peoples less blinkered view of the world and the way it works. If 'facts' were all that life was about then then every successful person in every field of human endeavour would be a scientist and obviously that is not the case.
Bronze age tribes have moved on a bit you know and so has the interpretation of what they believed in. Rather than pander to your rather unscientific fixation with the ancients and their goats let us look once again at the influence of later religions whose desire for symbolism led to flying buttress and vaulted domes, both of which were architectural developments which came about due to religion. I have already mentioned the improvement of pigments which was fuelled to a great extent by money from the church but art led us in all sorts of directions such as the desire for decoration and enlightenment, so lets celebrate the good that religion has brought us rather than dismiss it's pagan origins and influence as being nonsensical and inconsequential