Comment 12 by Maariya

What are you implying - that true philosophers should never take religion seriously enough to critically examine its claims?

If one took something so seriously then they wouldnt attempt to critically examine it, because its religion not science.

When we take anything seriously (like electricity, heat, sunlight) we try to use it and take note of its effects. This in it's self is a test of its existence.

Clearly the claims of many religions simply do not work, but science can take the psychology behind these forms of thinking seriously.

Religion has always been a closed belief system, however if you criticise a certain part of it I'm sure that religion will have an acceptable comeback.

It will only be an acceptable comeback in the biased blinkered views of its followers. The obvious question is "acceptable to whom"?

Science however is an open belief system i guess that's what makes it so rational and open to criticisms,

That is the validity of the scientific method - that evidence still stands after repeated critical testing by people with deep understanding and expertise.

then again it has to be an open system as it is still learning things already known by religion.

What? The things "known to religion" are either common knowledge, or false unevidenced claims.

Perhaps (as others have requested) you could some examples of non-fiction things known to (a specified) religion, which are not known to science.

Comment 10 by Maariya

Comment 9 by blitz442

So you're talking about the falsification principle, I don’t see how that applies to religion.

It applies to the reality of the universe and everything in it!

That principle was sought out by 'philosophers' who were more bothered about science then they were about religion/God.

There is no evidence or reason to assume gods exist, let alone that any particular god exists. Falsification can discredit some specific religious claims.

There is evidence that the notion of gods originates in the spiritual feelings of the brain, and "gods" have zero properties in the absence of believers.

So obviously it would 'disprove' God.

Proving a negative is always difficult. The absence of evidence or clear descriptions, is good evidence that even followers making claims of deities, usually do not know what they are talking about.