Do you think its wrong to mock religion?

Which is untrue, since that, while one can make out that all evidence is 'information', not all information is 'evidence', "relevant to a belief" or not. It can just be context. For instance there is plenty of information relevant to the esoteric cult Universal Medicine to be found here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Medicine but very little evidence (and Arlon has in mind positive evidence) that might suggest the cult's beliefs are true. Neither, come to that, do we treat information, or evidence for most things in life equally - unless of course we are credulous towards everything we know, with no critical faculties at all. Or since we so readily dispense with the carping of unbelievers and the twitterings of science with their limited perceptions to decide matters, presumably the claims of UM carry as much weight as some claims of the religious?


In which case it ought to be the case that the assertions of theists are usually better proved and evidenced than other claims. But this is never the case; instead we are told 'not to test God', 'God works in mysterious ways' and to 'have faith' in matters which are typically always unfalsifiable.  The contradiction between the alleged 'higher standards' of believers who admit dealing with the ineffable - in fact insist upon it when it suits - is one reason why religion is mocked.