Do you think its wrong to mock religion?

   I'm glad you aren't saying anything that stupid in real life since that would guarantee Donald Trump a second term.

   I'm showing how the origin of life did not happen.  If I can prove the thief did not enter by the back door (for example there isn't one), then he did not.  I do not have to show which door or window he did enter.

   Your burden is somewhat different.  If you claim life began without an intelligent designer you need to have at least some clue how.  Show one.  Those short RNA chains are not doing it.

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.

   You are not understanding this issue of scope.  My negative proof is easy enough because nature has limited scope.  Your negative proof has unlimited scope.  There are only so many elements and so many agencies in nature.  However many we find that's how are found.  Otherwise the agency and materials are not found in nature.  That's obviously very disturbing to you.  Why?

Going by that argument, parents should not give their children names either. Not even family names!!!! Let them decide for themselves what to be called. 

A name is a personal identity, a religion is an ideal that has no basis for factual evidence of its belief. Naming is one thing a parent also needs to be careful and mindful of. 

Go ahead then, what evidence?

Religion is all about one's relationship with God or gods. It can take an entire lifetime to learn about one's own religion. And yes, people do have evidence for their own beliefs.

Really ? 

You know i would love to see the evidence that people have for their own beliefs.

See my response to Ned.