How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

Another explanation of deism. https://www.thoughtco.com/deism-95703

Atheism means lack of belief. If one was talking about lacking belief in fairies, how would this position be shown to be wrong?

Ah, the dead giveaway. You think your belief in atheism requires no examination..
Theism constantly does so.

Then, all sciences are wrong.

Someones even swear that the universe is expanding, others have shown thru observation and calculation that isn't.

Then, because these scientists (from both sides) are in contradiction with their interpretation of observation, your conclusion must be that this branch of science is wrong.

If you expand your research, you will find that in most of the branches of science there are controversies with their interpretations of observation and test.

Then, according to you, all sciences are wrong.

The question is, which one is the least wrong?

Drivel !

I don't believe in 'atheism'. I simply reject the utility of a 'god concept' for me just like I reject the utility of the concept of 'watching football', or the concept of 'plane spotting'. I am an afootballist and an aplanist ! I do not dispute that some people find those concepts and their associated social activities 'useful' anymore than some find 'theism' useful. I don't have to justify their lack of utility to me except in the company of morons who seek to promote their importance or significance.

Oh, I didn't realize you were a utilitarian. I never would have guessed from your past posts on this thread and others.

But congrats on getting it right about football anyway.

Have you seen an optician recently ? I've been pushing philosophical pragmatism for at the least the last five years.

Maybe it got lost in your jargon.

Leadfoot I may disagree with you at times but I do respect the character you have shared over time. Many of my family members who I love dearly see reality similarly as you do.

If you give Fresco a chance you will find value in his education.

Unfortunately, accusations of 'jargon' tend to be merely an indication of lack of reading and its contributory defensive mind set. Theists have 'no need' to listen to atheists who might rock their boat....indeed why would they ? .The adage...'where ignorance is bliss tis folly to be wise'... comes to mind, where the word 'ignorance' implies both 'to ignore' and 'to be uninformed'.

Be glad to. Works both ways though.

Unless the interpretation of the data works everywhere and always, it is wrong someplace, even if it is usually right. So yes there is something wrong with the way physicists are interpreting the data. I believe the biggest mistake is ignoring the evidence suggesting a structure to empty space. A structure to empty space would add a whole bunch of order to the universe and invalidate the big bang theory as the initial action at the beginning of our universe. That event would have to be replaced with a quantum creation event laying out this structure to empty space. For this interpretation to be true some sort of intelligence is required to order space, because all of empty space can't instantaneously order itself. For that reason a structure to empty space makes the "big bang religion" wrong.

"Usually right" is better than usually wrong.

Please do not give up on people like me and my family and friends when it comes to sharing reality as you see it. I'm not saying you understand it empirically but perhaps your working model of reality is more correct than ours.

If you make fun of us or put our logical reasoning down we ma become resistant to understand what you may be sharing even though you are trying to be intellectually honest.

Religions are wrong when gods don't exist.

Then, you can be sure about religions as wrong when you verify that gods don't exist.

Simple.

Do you think there could be a possibility that there could be others who have studied the subject at hand and may be more informed by the thousands of hours that they have invested studying behavior?

The point about 'logic' is that it is only as good as the axioms it operates on.
A pragatists view of 'reality' is the same as as that for any concept. It has relative utility in specific contexts but no absolute meaning. Thus concepts like 'God' can only be judged on their contextual functionality, and that judgement is a social activity in which different axioms compete for significance. I argue against the denial of this social process which to me is obvious. Since famous 'thinkers in the literature' contribute to this position, I may cite them from time to time despite the intransigence of some 'naive realists'. That intransigence is perfectly understandable according to the associate position that 'self is a social construction'. Thus 'the social self' is defined by the boundaries of its acquired 'socially significant axioms', and will seek to protect its integrity by shoring up those boundaries. It takes a certain amount of courage and intellect to abandon those 'mental home comforts' and to recoognise and be sceptical of that ephemeral 'self'.

What have I said that is factually incorrect? Please leave my poor grammar and ability to use the English language out of the discussion, and focus on my ideas.

Well we are far from verifying a god never existed. And we have a lot of evidence that one still does.

What if your basic premise to all your arguments:


is wrong? What if reality is real. What if it was really made for a real purpose that can be found to be objectively true to an objective God? Could that be a possibility in your mind? You could be incorrect in your assumptions you stated in your first quote, because you can provide very little data to support it except for consensus with the like minded smart people you are citing. And when I read there arguments, they do the same as you. (they provide very little data to support it except for consensus with other like minded smart people) Now your intransigence is perfectly understandable because like you said you believe: Do you think there is a possibility, and your intransigence to accepting some sort of IDer is because, your social self' is defined by the boundaries of its acquired 'socially significant axioms', and will seek to protect its integrity by shoring up those boundaries? Could it be you lack the courage to abandon those 'mental home comforts' (the need to be accepted by other like minded atheists) and to recognize and be skeptical of that ephemeral 'self', (that you and the rest of your like minded intellectual friends are not the smartest creatures in the universe)? Because, I do believe that you and I and most people contributing to this forum, have the intellect to look out the window and understand that because, of all the beauty and complexity I am observing, it sure seems intellectually reasonable to conclude that something bigger than me designed this for a purpose bigger than me. When I look out the window at the earth and the universe, I sure see a lot of data supporting that supposition (I would think most atheists would not deny that amount of data). Do you?