Identifying false religions.

The strange thing is that the two of you are agreeing vociferously past each other.You both agree that a logical argument can be invalid and true or valid and false.The question seems to be regarding the nature of 'valid' in the context of belief.Phage seems to be saying that 'that an idea has not been falsified is not a valid reason to believe that the idea is true'.You seem to be saying 'that an idea has not been falsified means the belief is valid'.Could you explain what you mean by 'valid belief'? Unless you were making the trivial point that 'a belief that is not falsified is not falsified' - I can't make sense out of it.

I understand what the topic is, but I though would have more to contribute than 'we can identify false religions by finding religions which rely on empirically falsified notions' - but it seems not. But you suggest that where there is support for or against the notion, then either believing it or not are both rational? What do you mean by 'rational' here? Merely 'not falsified'? Well, yes, trivially.

In order for you to be able to say that your claim "Where there is no evidence for...a notion..we don't have enough information to know" is something you can say you 'know', you'll need to provide evidence - by your own epistemological standards. So a religion that has a deity that doesn't get involved in the universe, does not provide any revelations yet is still the cause of some religious experiences would count as 'suspect at best'?