They would most likely remain extinct. I mean, has any dead religion ever been revived in history?

Very good point. If a religion is dead at one point, no one will grow up being surrounded by it and its customs, and thus will have a more difficult time trying to connect with it.

Edit: Interesting poll results. About one day ago the result between "yes" and "no" votes was equal. "No" now holds a significant majority of votes.

race is real, religion is not, comparing the two is like comparing horses and unicorns.

Mormon's belive a bunch of egotistial horseshite that some drugged up kid claims was imparted to him in a vision, which anyone with a brain cell knows was a drug trip, it's only popular cause he threw in a bunch of bs about how great the USA was, people who believe that shit are morons.

If you blacked out science would it survive?

 Even if religion didn't survive after a blackout that doesn't indicate a lack of basis as much as it does just how open people are to influence (since they would just blindly accept whatever took religion's place).

For this matter, is most people's faith in science honestly based around their own understanding or are they simply taking somebody's word for it? Would this mean that science is just as much without basis as religion since it is passed down through others?

 Let people have their faith. It's no different than you wishing to retain your own belief in science. For the record, science is only "provable" by the laws of science, it's self-fulfilling, in the same manner as any other form of "logic". However, it only makes sense if you accept its underlying premises, much in the same manner that religion only makes sense if you accept the notion of supernatural factors.

@ BOLD

Actually, I could argue that it's the complete opposite. In addition to the usual reading, Muslims recite verses from the Quran at least 5 time a day during prayers. Not to mention, the thousands, if not millions, who have memorized it entirely from cover to cover some of which who are 10 years old or even illiterate.

People believe in science because they know that it's based around the scientific method. They trust what scientists say because all of them use the same method to reach their conclusions. It doesn't matter if the results are passed down to others because the results can be recreated.

Religion though is based around trusting what relatives and people who lived thousands of years ago supposedly said and experienced. That knowledged has been passed down through generations (and probably been skewed at one point or several). Religious claims cannot be recreated or proven, its all about trusting its validity through belief.

I don't remember saying that people shouldn't have their faith. And yes, science is only provable by the laws of science. But this topic is not about that. It is all about speculations, and sharing thoughts on the subject.

In the past, whenever a religion went extinct, there were plenty of other religions that existed. Which left people with abundant oppurtunities to exercise their inner desire for meaning, without the need to resurect past religions. On the contrary, The1 is proposing that all religions will become extinct. If that does happen, then people won't have any existing means to search. Extinct religions will be their only source for search (or new religions altogether), so there's a greater chance for a religion to be ressurected in The1's scenario than what we've seen in the past.

Science requires no faith. It's quite the opposite actually; science promotes skeptism. Science is merely making observations in the most objective way possible. We know science is correct most of the time because we can have different people perform tests and we can see if what science says is true. 

Even if science gets something wrong, that wouldn't disprove science. Science is not defined as being absolutely correct all of the time. Science is the quest for knowledge. So if sceince does get something wrong, we would still learn something. We would learn what's not correct, which can oftentimes still teach us mistakes and could push us closer to the truth. So it's still science.

You make science out to be some created concept which some people don't believe in. Science is the quest for knowledge and is a natural part of humanity. The term 'science' was just attached to it to make it easier to communicate. If science is destroyed, it would always be 'recreated' as people try to make sence of the world. When people make claims and find out that they're false, then they won't believe those claims. If people make claims and test that they're true, then they would believe those claims.

And you can see for yourself how helpful science has been. Computers, internet, buildings, phones, television, etc. All made possible by science. A lack of science would have made it impossible for our species to advance.

Fair enough, my bad. I guess I mistook your intentions since there are so many threads on religious matters anymore (both for and against). I personally don't take a stance but I get tired of one side or the other claiming superiority in their perspective.

Anyway, OT, yes I believe religion would come back to a certain degree. The reason for this is that I believe religion is very much less about the worship of supernatural beings than it is about culture and a manner of living (similar to philosophical discliplines such as Confucianism). Take countries that are primarily atheistic / agnostic (45-80% of the population) such as Sweden, Denmark, and Norway (http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html).
 
These countries still have weddings in churches and attend mass on special occassions. Religion still plays a large role in their life even without it being taught in their schools simply because it is ingrained in their culture.

Science requires faith in one's senses, or those of another, in order to ascertain the certainty of one's observations. When one accepts the findings of another scientists without personally seeing the experiment I find this no different than accepting the stories of people 2000 years ago about a God they swore to have seen). Likewise, even if you had perceived the results personally, there is no guarantee that you are of sound judgement. Science also requires the assumption of truth and untruth, something I don't believe in.

I would also consider philosophy the quest for knowledge; I would consider science the quest for worldly knowledge. Likewise I consider philosphy very much a part of religion which means there is a pursuit of knowledge even within relgiion.

Perhaps you are correct in me mistaking science as a concept and not a process. This is likely due to the manner in which it is handled by many in which theories are accepted into practice and people's misapplications of science, namely trying to apply its uses where it doesn't belong. For example, when people try to disprove the existence of God by citing an alternative theory to the existence of the universe. I won't get into it here, but there is good reason to believe that the existence of God can neither be proven nor unproven, particularly not through the methods of science.

I also feel that the scientific process promotes an ego-centric perspective, looking inward for answers rather than outward and while it does promote some level of skepticism it discourages skepticism of one's self or their peers. This also promotes the notion that all answers are obtainable given enough time and there are no limits to our advancement.

Since science promotes the seeking of truth, this leads many to attack what they perceive as an untruth, regardless of the reasons such a perspective was adopted. Many living a religious life recognize the scientific fallacies of their beliefs, they choose to have faith regardless of those matters, not because they are ignorant of them (as much of the scientific community treats them).

I'm not denying that science has its uses (I majored in computer science after all); however, it is not the alpha and omega.

In short, I have no qualms with science itself, just the assholes who use it as a manner of discriminating against those of opposing views, who have a lot more in common with those "religious bigots" than they would prefer to believe. As I stated above, I originally mistook the intentions of this thread as another attempt to discredit religion by demonstrating that it was based more upon hearsay than scientific reason.