Well, I'd try not to use such absolute terms. Obviously, I cannot prove religion false. I can say it's incredibly unlikely to be true, and has little evidence i

Well, I'd try not to use such absolute terms. Obviously, I cannot prove religion false. I can say it's incredibly unlikely to be true, and has little evidence in support of its fantastical claims, but I can't go all-out "false" - see The Dragon in my Garage et al. You do touch upon an interesting point, though - for some time I've thought that our very language is at fault here. True and false, right and wrong - loaded, ambiguous terms. Even proven and unproven don't really cut it. And yet for brevity's sake we cannot fully articulate upon the nuanced and disclaimer-filled totality of our meaning. See Sapir & Whorf. Anyway, I didn't claim religion is "false". I would argue such a term is inapplicable. I do maintain, however, that it is outlandishly, even laughably, unlikely, and with scant hard evidence in its favour, its embrace reflects badly upon those who accept its tenets without question.