How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

I don't think 'life' is easy to investigate and may require further paradigm shifts in biology beyond systems theory (such as quantum or field effects to account for metamorphosis). But insofar as religions have essentially social and psychological functions (rather than an epistemological one) , I think the 'opiates of the masses' will merely alter their form accordingly. Humans, with their concepts of 'future' or 'purpose' will always seek insulation against a picture of their possible cosmic insignificance.

You already answered your own question. You could falsify it by showing that life can arise spontaneously without intelligent intervention. Go for it, let me know when it succeeds. DKS indeed...

But that is beside the point in this post modern world of 'science' where experimental proof is no longer a requirement. How are you going to prove 'multiverses', 'brane and string theory', quantum fluctuations creating our and other universes and other such ilk?

You have missed the train fresco, science has already climbed aboard the spooky action at a distance metaphysical express.

That made me laugh!

There is no evidence that life did not arise spontaneously !
As far as missing the train is concerned you don't even seem to know where the station is ! I suggest you have a look at Polkinghorne if you wan't to know what 'believing scientists' think. After that you might take Phil Sci 101 again. You never know, you might not flunk it as badly next time round!

Oh please, no more softballs right across the plate.

There is no evidence that life DID arise spontaneously other than the vacuous circular argument that it had to have done so because it did.
I'm still waiting for that life form crawling out of a test tube of primordial soup.

The rest of your post was just personal insults about my poor education (for which you have no knowledge or evidence of.)

And there's even less evidence that a hypothetical omnipotent celestial being would care a toss about the species homo sapiens, with its psychological hang ups on 'purpose' and 'meaning of life.' Dream on !

BTW Does the 'Oh please' style make you feel better about being wrong ?

And just to re-iterate that this thread is about 'religion being wrong', which is different to a belief in ID. I have give my reasons earlier on social evidence grounds because science is tangential to that discussion.

Actually, it's about 'How can we be sure they are'.

The words 'religion', 'sure' and 'wrong' have no absolute meaning.
But in the specific context of 'religion' contributing to social and psychological identity, we can be 'sure' that historically religion has contributed to, fuelled, and at times instigated social strife. Insofar that such strife is 'wrong' then so is religion.
Those with an individual belief system which they might call 'religion' do not figure in the above analysis since they have contracted out of the 'social factor'.

NB. The word 'wrong' in the context of applying the word 'scientific' to a theory does have a specific meaning defined by the 'falsifiability in principle' rule.

We can be sure all religions are wrong because, men interpret them and no two men can agree on everything. The question should be which one is the least wrong? I think that's the one to run with.

I disagree on the basis that 'one man's meat is another man's poison'. To elevate religion to something other than a psychological palliative or social structure is a primary logical error on the part of some atheists.

What is the error in logic? Poison is nobody's meat.

The error is to assume that 'disagreement' (per se) amongst believers about the details of religious belief and practice has anything to do with the justification for atheism. It is the fact that those disagreements may become socially pernicious which can justify atheism. Opiates may be innocuous or recreational without them being classed as 'poisonous'.

I consider atheism a belief system to be judged for wrongness like all the rest.

And there we part company.

Why would that be don't atheists believe in anything like, "there is no God".

Why is that belief treated differently than say an agnostic, or diests?

What is your interpretation of atheism?

Someone who doesn't believe in any form of deity. What is your definition of a deist?

Why not be kind and answer the question you were asked first?

Deist is a belief in god. "God of nature" is one. Most gods are connected to a religion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions