How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

I've tried to search for how many religions (estimated) have been followed throughout man's history. It's hard information to come by, since the web is overflowing with sites with agendas, both for and against faith.
Still, it's reasonable to conclude that there have been many. The ones in existence right now number in the hundreds.
So for theists, I would ask you to perform this exercise, and conclude the most likely answer.

Scenario 1: Every religion ever followed throughout history is wrong.

Scenario 2: Every religion ever followed thoughout history is wrong - except for yours.

If you conclude that scenario 2 is correct, you're an ignorant, and possibly dangerous fuckwit.

1 Reply

@Wilso,

You know there are more scenarios right?

1 Reply

@Smileyrius,

Smileyrius wrote:

You know there are more scenarios right?

Amen!

I wrote a piece that discussed one such scenario...and then discarded it. I suspect Wilso is not interested in that kind of thing.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You're talking creative expletives, right?
A scatological neologist . . ?

0 Replies

Quote:

At the heart of all religion you find the idea of rebranding the capacity for self-deception as a virtue rather than a weakness - unknown

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

As the title reads "How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?" I have my ideas and I would like to hear some of yours before I share mine.

That's easy. Just look at what a world WITH religion has brought us so far. I'd say religions, still, after thousands of years, haven't accomplished ANY of "their" goals. Otherwise, the world would be a different place. Right?

0 Replies

Quote:

the only thing that separates a religion from a psychosis is popularity - unknown

1 Reply

@Wilso,

We need not equate "religion" with "superstitution"--some mystical forms of religion are profoundly valid and psychospiritually beneficial. But we can assume that all superstitions are wrong and then determine which "religions" fit into that category.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Then what is a superstition?

And heres a quote:

Quote:

Chocolate covered raisins are the reason I have trust issues

1 Reply

@InkRune,

Superstitions are, as I see them right now, beliefs about events and objects in the world that are non-empirical and supernatural, i.e., they never actually occur in non-psychotic experience, only in fantastic assertions about the world. (They are forms of mental illness)
Religions, on the other hand, pertain to efforts to realize one's true nature, to re-connect oneself with Ultimate or Total or Absolute Reality (re-ligio or re-ligare). Think of the root for ligament. (They are forms of mental health)

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

A very good distinction useful to civilize some new atheists out there...
I am not a believer in god or any particular religion in the classical sense but I agree with your civilized and original definition on Religion. Good job !
"re-ligare" indeed, in English "to connect with" !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

It feels good when someone else sees what I see in that principle. Thanks.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

Closest English version that sounds more or less similar to re-ligare is, "to link".
For the sake of making it tangible imagine a Latin English hybrid neologism version "relinkare"
(for curiosity's sake in Portuguese religar)

0 Replies

Or "to bind," as in a ligature.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

But I do think that the linkage term is a bit misleading, if taken as a verb. Mystical practice--like meditation--does not connect us with "God" (defined broadly). Instead it leads to a falling away of the illusion of separateness of self from the Universe. It leads to, what some call, the Self: that which is one with everything. Remember the Hindu mantra Tat Tvam Asi (that art thou). In other words mystical practice reveals that you and God were always one. This, I think, is what Jesus proclaimed for all of us, not just for himself.

0 Replies

How about some evidence for your god? If you're making the claim that such a being exists, the burden of pro0f is on you.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

How about some evidence for your god? If you're making the claim that such a being exists, the burden of pro0f is on you.

You are correct, FBM, but the implication of what you are saying is worth noting. The implication is that "the burden of proof" falls on anyone making an assertion about anything.

In the case of whether or not gods (or a GOD) are involved in the true nature of the REALITY of existence..."the burden of proof" falls on anyone making an assertion that there are no gods...every bit as much as a person making an assertion that there is a GOD.

We don't want to lose sight of that.

Perhaps the best thing to say about the true nature of the REALITY of existence is...that there is not much (if anything) we logically can assert about it.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

As the title reads "How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?" I have my ideas and I would like to hear some of yours before I share mine.

Religious belief is for those who need someone or something to lean on, afraid to make their own decisions.

“What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

If they were right they would be called Science.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

reasoning logic wrote:
How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

If they were right they would be called Science.

Slam! Nailed it! Laughing

2 Replies

How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know