claims without evidence = myth, claims with evidence = science, yey or ney?

science is good except when they theorize and call it fact

A claim without evidence is neither support, unsupported, or refuted. It is just a claim. Claims which evidence is not available for are untestable hypotheses. Claims which are illogical are refuted on logic alone.

A claim with evidence is a hypothesis or theory in testing. Even "proven" theories are still being tested all the time. Evidence may support, not support, or refute a claim.

Science is a method of gathering and analyzing evidence.

Myth is a collection of fictional canon.

Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge. - Carl Sagan

The existence of God can be proven through theoretical means, philosophy being a rung of science. Now a little off point, but when I think of the Earth suspended in the atmosphere, rotating perfectly, I cannot accept science's claim that this creation is a random occurrence...this is one example and there are many. So the answer is ney.

if a religion has no evidence behind it then I guess that sort of works. If you r going by that logic however then if I tell you my name and dont show any witnesses to that or ID cards then my name is a myth.

Of course, except that claims without evidence could be simple ignorance and superstition and never rise to the level of myth.

Ok, so we all agree, atheism is a myth.

Then on what basis do you continue to claim to be logical while clinging to that most irrational of all myths?

The bible is not evidence. It is a claim. The most important parts of the bible are totally unsupported by external validation. One cannot have a self-validating document, unless one wants to totally ignore logic and reason.

Yep.

EVERY theory in Science MUST be accompanied by evidence. And that evidence MUST be not only credible, testable and falsifiable, but it must be peer-reviewed as well.

The evolution theory is an atheistic myth.

HEY, YEY