there is a difference between not being proven, and being disproven

Right, but dismissing something isn't what you said.

well each religion is disproven by the other religions

You said they disprove themselves.

something may never be proven in your lifetime, that does not mean it is disproven

cuz they all claim to be the one true one

disprove =/= dismiss

@Dr.Wol well, discordianism affirms all religions - all things are true, even those that are false.

lets take the bible, it disproves other religions cuz its skylord says there is no other god

how many physicists came up with a theory that was not proven in their lifetime but later proven.

Tbh wol, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Wheres your evidence of them disproving themselves?

By themselves

physicists based it on mathematics though, they calculated it, it just hasn't been "proven" at the time

@Dr.Wol i dont think the bible actualy says there are no other gods. Just that you ought not to follow them

Eh, not sure if this is just a semantic argument at this point.

@Cody what philosophical razor was that one again? Cant 'member

You don't seem to know the difference between evidence and a thought.

proof and a claim

Occam's?

or wait

Sorry to hear your member doesnt get up

Must be hard

Occams razor is the one where the simple answer is most likely the real one

😏

@Cody only cause you're around

😂

🤔

What are you guys arguing about now

My cock

Idk

religion

And i can't argue with that Paradox cuz the side to prove something isn't mine,

Religion has to prove its own validity, i don't have to disprove it

@Dr.Wol not the simple answer as colloquially understood, the answer making the least unfounded assumptions

Right, you don't

you can't, that's my point

Is it whether religion is pointless

I don't have to