Yeah, it's impossible to run experiments to disprove religions, but what does that say exactly? Look at any other claim, and look at the baseline for people to regard you as sane when making it. You need proof, you need evidence, you need backing. Religion has none.

There is my proof, such as it is. Otherwise I ignore the first half and the last two sentences of your comment.

A scientific question is a question that is solely grounded in the physical world and that can be proven or disproved by following the scientific method. Questions like "Why does a human need to breathe?" and "Why do rocks fall when I drop them?" are scientific questions. A question that does not follow this pattern is a non-scientific question. Questions like "Is there a God?" and "Where do we go when we die?" are non-scientific questions because the scientific method cannot be applied to them.

You enter the conversation with one approved outcome: to convert the other person to think as you do. I do not enjoy this. I also do not enjoy the idea that holding a different opinion automatically proves a lack of understanding the subject.

EDIT: You seem to believe that a debate means preaching one's own opinion without giving a shred of thought to another's. There is no point in engaging in a conversation that will have no outcome but "I am correct. Listen to how you are incorrect. If you leave, you are too weak for my strong opinions."