thank you for your thoughtful reply. And yes I agree (but wouldn't eeverybody?): not all religious people think alike, and neither do tge non-religious.

The main point that I make about religion as opposed to science, is that religion demands the acceptance of god, whilst science only asks you to be inquisitive and search for better questions, where no answer is every answer is in principle falsifiable: in science all swans are white until a black swan is discovered; in religion god is the origin of everything and that is the ultimate truth (take it on faith). As god cannot be proven nor disproven, in the same way that it cannot be proven or disproven that god is a Rastafari Teapot, religion and science are diametrically opposed. Like evidence-based medicine stands to voodoo.

I do not intend to cause offence. I try to elucidate.

We will not agree, and that in itself proves my case, that these are 2 different systems. Critical Thinking demands that the idea is in principle falsifiable: God and the Rastafari teapot that can never be discovered are not falsifiable ideas, but they can live in anyone's imagination.

Nothing new here, it's all been said before, but I have done a bit of studying of regious texts and religious apologies, and they all fail the tests of critical thinking (quite miserably). Again, no offence intended in my attempt to be clear.

Best regards
Mitch