First, I think you may be mixing up an hypothesis with a theory. Hypotheses only become theories in hard science after they have been tested a large number of times with consistent results. At the point that they become actual theories excepted by the scientific community, they are considered the very best explanation that exists for the data and the phenomenon. They are as close to a scientific fact as we can get until improved technology comes along to provide better data and measurement collection, adding additional insight.

Now to your original question. When we do an experiment, we never say that we proved the hypothesis. Instead we say that we our data adds validity to the the hypothesis and and an understanding of the phenomenon as tested. However, we can say that the hypothesis was incorrect as the results do not support the data.

Religions aren't theories, they are stories, unsubstantiated assertions, fiction.

Yes. Religious "truths" are not based on tested, verified, and peer reviewed objective evidence. They don't have their roots in a logical hypothesis stated in a manner that allows it to be tested. In fact, they are not scientifically testable, cannot be independently verified, and by their very nature are not falsifiable. The two cannot be more different in nature.

In my opinion, there are no religious truths, just religious dogma. As for science theory, once a theory is established and verified, it is assumed and accepted to be true UNTIL proven false or wrong.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

Apologist conflate the scientific meaning with the colloquial or common meaning. They are not similar in the least. The important part to remember is that a scientific Theory is a body of facts. The facts will not change. They will be added to with additional facts this is the only reason they are provisional. They are NOT based on "truths" which are subjective as in religion.

What religious truths? Isn't that an oxymoron?

That's the trick... believers accept religion as truth. Scientists will never go so far as to call any discovery or theory a truth, as it never is. That's a clear definition of an impasse. Some people need it to be black and white...and decided. Some people are okay with everything in life just being a working theory (all grey area). It's all just a part of humanity, and humanity's emotional needs.

Religion has truths?

Scientific theories have supporting evidence. Religious assertions have no basis in reality.
A ST is not constructed to coddle people. I forget who said it, maybe Hitchen's did, that nothing about atheism is wishful. All religions pander to the human ego.
STs have applications, for example, germ theory helps us fight disease. Look at any statistics you want, prayer has the same rate of success as random chance.

theory doesn't mean in science what it means in casual speech. "i have a theory that the guy across the street is stealing my lawn signs" can be proven if you stay up all night and watch the guy like a hawk but until and unless you catch him, it's just a theory. the theory of gravity can't be proven per se but it can be observed and we can assume it's true until it's disproven. i am not expecting to float to the ceiling any time soon, since i am not an astronaut, so i think we can say that gravity is as GOOD as proven. as for religion... there is no point in wasting time trying to prove there was no talking snake in the garden of eden, but we do have some experience of snakes to tell us how unlikely that is.

g

Theories can be proven, but typically they are relatively simple theories. It's the more in depth and, by their nature, more difficult to prove with absolute certainty that are troublesome. Sometimes, these theories make sense to anyone with the intellectual honesty to think it through, such as evolution. It's detestable when people deny the plausibility of a theory without examining the concept of it.

Well, that's his theory.

I think Karl Popper is a bit wacky on this, if that is indeed what he said. You absolutely can prove a scientific theory to be right or wrong. Any religious truths have yet to be proven.

Why don't he climb the Empire State Building and jump off and disprove the theory of gravity with his life.

The major difference is evidence vs faith and science strives to discover new evidence even if it goes against current understanding. Science is capable of change. When it comes to religion evidence doesn't change anything.

What's different about religious hypotheses is that in general they aren't falsifiable and so can be neither proven or DISproven. Anything supernatural (gods, demons, demigods, angels, an afterlife) is purely speculative and asserted without evidence and so you cannot construct a means of disproving it. Since there's no way to disprove it, there's no way to develop a belief that it's likely to be true.

The supernatural is a useless and illogical concept because it hypothesizes things conveniently beyond observation or evaluation of any kind.

Once a thing can be observed and evaluated, it's part of the natural world, not some imagined supernatural world.

Hence, religious "truth" claims cannot be even provisionally verified.

Science is basically the philosophy of humility, admit that we are not certain and can always improve, especially if we work at it. Religion is the philosophy of arrogance, we are gifted with absolute truth because we are special and chosen.

Religious ideas can't be falsified because they are beliefs, not objective facts.

Yes because experiments are scientifically replicated so we might need a few more burning bushes and a few more extra fish to believe the 'science' /verity of the bible and wasn't it Methusalah who lived to be hundreds of years old - sorry not having ever been religious I don't have the right figures but seems like it doesn't happen these days - its only in those two books that it happened at all.

So I would read there can never be facts only unprovable theories. So can his theory not be shown to be right? Kind of like the exception to the exception rule. I don't even think religious ideas can be categorized as theories. To me, a theory should have a basic modicum of provability, which religion does not.

As usual, when your initial premise is faulty you can make up anything you want after that and make it sound great. "Religious truth" for instance. Gods were invented to explain things people didn't understand. As science progressed the Gods fell away. Volcan for volcanoes, Poseidon, until we figured out how the tides occur. People still cling to the last God however and just like little kids can have imaginary friends apparently adults can too. Religious truth is an oxymoron.

You may not prove it to be right but thats not the point. You only have to prove it to be "best".

Yes, religious circular false truisms cannot be proven either right or wrong.

There is a broad array of religious "truths" to look at. Be specific about which religious "truths" are to be considered, then we'll have something to work with.