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.

   Suppose a comb is found at the scene of a murder that is engraved with the initials J.S. and other engravings such as a family crest widely known to belong to a certain "John Smith."  Is that "evidence" John Smith was at the scene of the murder?  Yes it is.  Is it proof he committed the murder?  Not likely without further evidence, no it is not. It still goes in the "evidence" box though.

   Suppose the aforementioned John Smith was at a party 300 miles away attended by 50 people who remember seeing John Smith there before and after the time of the murder.  What happens now to the "evidence" of the comb?  Since it was only evidence and not proof it becomes far less significant evidence.  Notice it is far more difficult to pretend to be John Smith than to acquire his comb.

   Life is far more complicated than you can begin to manage.  I have no idea who or what "Universal Medicine" might be, but I do know there are all sorts out there.  Some "evidence" is not very good.  Some "evidence" might seem good until further evidence is found as in my example.  Some organizations are fake and designed to create the impression in simple minds like yours that all other organizations of the same "type" are also no good.

   You keep thinking "religion" is a problem simply because "Christians" are an obvious problem in some readily measurable ways.  That is because you are mentally retarded.  No one can make you see the difference because your brain is defective.

   Do you mean that A.A.A.S. ?    Are you joking? 

Again, can't help but note you avoided my question. 

What's laughable about the AAAS? Besides, that's not the only survey of scientists that's been done, and they all come out the same: www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
Of course, now Arlon will find a way to dismiss the results of three different surveys of over 4500 scientists spanning over a century. I eagerly await the spin. 

So the spin is "attack the credibility of 4500 scientists." I wasn't aware that having patents and unique approaches to problems were required to make one a scientist, or even a good one. Here I thought what was required was years of schooling and testing to learn and prove one knows what is necessary to be a scientist in a given field, the same way one would study, learn, and test that learning to be considered a professional in any field. Of course Arlon can say it doesn't require high intelligence, while also dismissing literally the only means we have of measuring intelligence (IQ tests). So IQ tests don't measure intelligence, but Arlon does, and does it better than IQ tests apparently! 

I'd wager that "that guy here now" has studied far more math (and science) than yourself. 

   I'm sure "science" is more difficult for some people than others, but it is obviously not as difficult as religion, which also requires much schooling, that is of course excepting some forms of "Christianity" that only take a few seconds to learn.

   Seriously though one of the great things about science is that it is so plain and easy.  Just being a "scientist" is no guarantee of being "equipped" to understand religion.

I'm sure religion is quite difficult. Thinking up arguments to support a belief when you have no evidence (and I'm still waiting for you to explain how you determine what information is relevant to a belief and how it's relevant) does require a lot of mental gymnastics. Not sure if I'd call that intelligence, though. 

So are you still sticking with the idea that most atheists are malcontents, including the majority of scientists? Or do you think if you interviewed different scientists you'd get a different number, despite three different surveys spanning 100 years and 4500 scientists all having the same result? 

Really?

In my view atheism is exactly the opposite of an 'ideology' due to the fact that is an absence of one.

It would be possible to mock people for not believing anything, however IMHO there is a subtle though important difference.

I disagree.  Religion is a personal choice even if you are born into it.  Nationality is objective not cultural ie where you were born, and culture although pervasive is 'optional',  unlike your race which is a mixture of genes (often complex) however it is physical and objective.