but question what you mean by referring to sets of beliefs that exist "outside of science".

Empirical science differs from religious tenets in the methodology for how conclusions are reached, accepted, and rejected. In science, every new theory proposed needs to demonstrate itself as being at least as consistent with observed reality as a former theory (null hypothesis) and then add more to it (ability to make accurate predictions.) A theory that repeatedly fails to predict the outcome of events accurately is quickly dropped.

Religion's approach to explaining things typically comes from interpretations of words/ideas/thoughts of earlier people. Even if you discount the loss of the original meanings of these writings and stories, it still originates from individuals who tried to explain their experiences without performing explicit tests on them (tests intentionally designed to attempt to prove them wrong.) Example: Muhammad is said to have heard the word of god spoken to him through the archangel Gabriel. Assuming he honestly believed this, why should anyone else? It's based on one man's word, who, even if he believed it himself, could very well have dreamed it up in any number of ways that to him seemed real. Religion bases itself on beliefs that originate in ways one can't test. For that reason, I see no credibility in believing anything that originates from religion.

Who would presume that there are phenomena which cannot be so tested?

What I'm saying is, what makes a statement religion is that it has a religious origin, not a scientific one. If "god" said the Earth is a body moving around the sun, that could be tested and therefore is part of science, but the part that this statement came from "god" is untestable because again what kind of experiment can be conceived to validate that this statement originates from a supreme being? The testable part is science, adding the unverifiable religious origin makes the statement in entirety religion.

Creation myths are an example as well. Some Christians believe the Earth to be roughly 6,000 years old. This can be tested and overwhelmingly refuted. Science moves on, religion clings to this claim.

According to whose standards of what qualifies as "scientifically based" reasoning? What is the scientific basis for determining whether an event complex's impact on society (btw which society?) is ultimately positive or negative?

I'm speaking about human society. Scientifically based reasoning means experimentally verifiable. Take a claim, form it into precise quantifiable terms, and derive tests that can either support or refute it. Non-scientifically based reasoning means any kind of statement that can't be tested, and therefore can lead to illogical social policies. The Catholic Church says that gay marriage is wrong, but it's entire premise for this is interpretation of words written a long time ago by people who had different cultural views. Cases like this illustrate how ideologies without a rational, verifiable basis can produce unethical outcomes.

I'm not surprised. We're living in an age when communication outside of our local group is becoming increasingly common. People are starting to hear ideas they never would have before. Religion has generally survived because people's experiences were limited to the views of those immediately around them, those who pretty much shared those same views. Today, and for a while now, that's been changing and people are hearing other things causing them to rethink what they've been taught.

I'm not going to make this a debate about religion but to refute your point, some of us do not believe in a god, so saying we're equal/superior makes no sense.

As far as the creation being superior to the creator, if you think of evolution as a process of producing gradually more complex lifeforms over time, then it's very possible the creations can outperform their ancestors/creators.

Of course a lot depends on how you define "superior" too. If you're talking about outperforming their creator, a calculator can do math much faster than the engineers who build it.

criticizing religion in general is totally pointless

Religion is specifically a set of beliefs that exist outside of science, determined through philosophy and story-telling. If a religious belief can be tested, similar to science, then that part of it is science and not religion.

By this, if one asks if the influence of non-scientifically based reasoning can have a negative impact on society, then yes, it's very much NOT a pointless question.

Christians need to prove god exists because they're making the claim, more specifically, they're making statements on who this god is and how it works, a whole variety of assertions that should be tested. If a swindler makes an outrageous claim, you'd want him/her to back it up, right? Same thing.

Why does it matter that they believe in something that can't be verified? It wouldn't if that belief didn't impact their actions that affect others. False beliefs can encourage people to support legislation or practices that harm other's rights, example: banning gay marriage.

The reason the argument doesn't work the other way for proving god doesn't exist is because it's a null position. Science alone works pretty well at explaining things so there's no reason to introduce an unnecessary concept to the picture.

The rest of the argument is invalid since the concept of good and evil are defined by humans, cultures, and religions. Nature has no such concepts: the sun doesn't care that it's keeping us warm and that earthquake here or there doesn't care that it's killing people. WE define good and evil, without us they mean nothing.

I do understand what you're going for. Poetically, it could be considered true as could be the case with many of the other "god myths" out there. In the same sense one could call the Big Bang god too, as it was the creation process that lead to everything there is.

Poetry and myth make for wonderful stories, no doubt, and they explain things in a way that lets us grasp them easily. Thinking of the sun as a "God of Life" can be inspiring, that is, until that vague idea gets turned into a real religion and starts interfering with society, human rights, and scientific understanding.

The Universe is a big place, no, REALLY big. That means that chemicals can mix in all sorts of ways in many different places. In most of those places nothing comes of it, millions upon millions of dead star systems. In a few (at least one) the conditions for life are just right, with a sun of the right temperature, a planet at the right distance and made of the right mix of chemicals.

This planet and star are perfect for us because this was the one that had the right conditions for us to exist. It's silly to argue that god must exist because of how perfect this is, it's perfect because if it wasn't we wouldn't be here, you don't need a god in the picture to explain that.

Children are happy believing in fairy tales, that doesn't make them true. Wanting something to be true because you're afraid of the truth won't make it so.

This is only a valid argument if the Bible is to believed and there's no evidence it should be. There are plenty of other ancient texts that claim another so-and-so is god, why should the Bible be true and not them?

First, let's assert that the Bible is an unreliable source to use as evidence: it was written a long time ago by a mix of different peoples, changed around, misinterpreted, and indicates no reason to be believed above any of the other myth texts written in ancient times.

That being the case, what other evidence is there that Jesus was a god? As far as I'm aware it's all from people/stories that trace that belief back to the Bible as well.

With no reliable source of evidence to actually say either way that Jesus is god or not, the logical conclusion is to expect he, assuming he did in fact exist, was just another human being.