How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

You are human aren't you? Could you comment on them in context of my question. Maybe dolphins understand the concept also, if only the could speak or write human language.

Not sure what you are getting at here. 'Reality' tends to boil down to what communicators 'agree about' for mutual perposes. Humans tend to agree about human projects, and dolphins about dolphin projects. What we call 'language' facilitates such projects so 'understanding' tends to limited to species or sub-group within a species. The human linguistic token such as the word 'atom' has no more significance to dolphins than a bunch of repetitive dolphin click patterns does for us. And even in human projects we call 'scientific' the word 'atom' has only had wide value as currency since about 1900, and having already been modified, for all we know may lose its value (utility) in the future.

Human language is considered to have greater complexity than that of other species with respect facilitating to our relatively superior planning abilities. We tend to be preoccupied with purpose and 'consequecies' and religious mythology seems to be the price we pay for our subsequent anxieties about that psychological construction we call 'time'.

the creator of the universe is not a thing to have a cause. He is infinite, as we know, the world is not infinite, it does come from ''something.''

Is velocity of psychological construct? Or is velocity a physical property? Can you describe the physical velocity of an object without time? I don't think you can. Time is necessary to observe and comment on a process. I think that makes time part of physical reality.

Time is a man made concept, it is nothing more than a measurement of elapse between two events. everything is subjective even the things we call objective. everything is subjective to the brain observing it.

How do you know it is a he? How are you able to speak for it or even know it exit? does it talk to you?

You have a lot of reading to do if you really want to get to grips with physics .

The demise of 'time' as an independent physical variable started with Einstein's Relativity after which it was incorporated into a concept of 'space time' . More recently even that level of complexity is being superceded by workers like Rovelli in 'quantum gravity' from which it follows that 'before' and 'after' are observer specific like 'up' and 'down'. That point in its turn underscores the rejection of the lay concept of 'causality ' by physicists except in specific contexts, since at cosmic level, sequence of events is observer specific and not existentially independent.

Your labelling of your mythical 'creator' as 'without cause' is therefore just a bit of needless fancy footwork to dodge a simplistic infinite regress accusation about ' the 'origin of the creator'. Religion boils down to 'absolutism' whereas science boils down to 'relativism' in which 'causality' has well defined limits.

Time is not independant but it is related to space in terms of velocity, rotations per time interval,or frequencies (information). Time is dependant on real matter moving with enough order to establish a pattern(information). That is all physics is, the recognition of repeating patterns over time intervals (information). Since we are made up of rotating matter (protons, neutrons, and electrons) (information) moving through a quanticized space time continuum (made up of bosons and photons) the difference in energy density information density)(which is what causes gravity) at the location of different observers taking a measurement of the same event, causes different observed measurements by different observers of the same event. This happens because the movement and location of the observers effects the observers spatial density and their instriments of measurment as they interact with the space time continuum (through the higgs mechanism I think).

An 'event' is an interaction between observer and observed reported as such by the observer. You don't seem to understand that 'events' have no existence independent of the agreement of observers. Einstein showed that observers in different motion frames lack such agreement. There is no 'same event' except in the eyes of a third party taking a 'God's Eye view' (transcendent of Einstein's observers on trains or on platforms).
But of course a God's Eye view is predicated on the concept of a mythical (absolutist) God ! In 'reality' ( i.e. for practical purposes)neither observer's reference frame is 'the correct one'. This is the crux of the matter...the separation of pragmatism from 'naive realism' ...the latter underpinning the wish for 'Truth'.

And truth is in the eye of the beholder.

. The reason no two observers agree on the same event is because the observers are measuring a system in which their bodies are seperate systemsytems form each other and embedded in the larger system they both exist in. You could technically substitute universe for system and there is your multiverse. Each atomIMG_0267.HEIC and each group of atoms could be considered seperate universes.

We cannot actually experience at God's eye view of all three systems but we are fully capable of imagining it accurately and developing measurments that can be predicted (like einstien did with the eclipse and gravitational lensing).

You can imagine the way the quarks of matter and the virtual bosons of the Higgs field are arranged and back out the Constants. But first you have to believe that space is made up of particles and virtual particles and then you have to believe you can figure out the geometry in which they are arranged. If you don't ask the question you won't get the answer.

Correct...the absolutist capital 'T' is the fallacy.

The is no 'same' event except by agreement. That is what you are avoiding.

'Accurately' means agreement about successful prediction for specific human purposes...

...and 'measuring' starts with 'thinging', the first level of measurement.

As far as this thread is concerned, none of this matters to a religionist who plays the game of 'man created in the image of a creator'. It is the avoidance of the human origin of all 'images' that makes such beliefs potentially pernicious.

my obession of God will both attract or alienate people. I will reply in the most calm and rational way a man can respond. First time any one has ever hit a ''nerve'' i never thought existed in me.
. What do you do for a living? if you work independently without co-operation it is your spirit in the shape of your work.
e.g i am a writer, my book, is my spirit in the shape of my words. not my brain. We might write dissame thing, but not as i would. all though our mind automates dissame ways.
Every artificial thing that is'nt from nature is mans spirit in another form.
. When God created you.. It was his spirit in the shape of the dust of the earth.
.We are not made of body and soul and mind--to Automate and reason.
.But we also do have a SPIRIT.
. God is spirit.
.Diffrence is because we do acknowledge the fuction of our soul and mind, but not the function of our spirit.

.....strange use of the word 'rational'....

How do i know it is a he?
.My own spirit testifies so.
If the sounds too religions.
.The SPIRIT is that part of man which is aware or concious of God. Because of what religion calls sin God-awareness is dead. God will never exist to us, even when there are things that science has no answers for.
.The functions of mans spirit include.
.Revelation from God
.Prayer to God
.Fellowship with God
.Communion with God
. Conscience to judge [discern]
.Discernment of spirits [spiritual sense]

oh, it is very rational. To be rational is not to use your body soul and mind and abandon the spirit.
the two process of healing a body is through natural or supernatural means.
you cannot deny the fact that people have been healed supernaturally since history. Medical doctors only assist the natural healing powers already IN the body.
spiritual sickness:demon possession
emotional sickness:mental illness
physical sickness; paralysis.
can you deny that there have been some very strange medical conditions that a doctor cant help you with?
stupid religions come up--seeking diffrent means to awake that dead spirit of man.
.you own your own soul. you loose it each time you laugh and smile at people,why? when you talk and entertain yourself for too long, when friends are gone. why do you have that empty feeling as if we have been drained?
.i dont know if i can ever proof that God exist, i do not wish to. I dont even want you to believe.
.do you know what is my perfection--think of a robot with intimate eyes.

I do not deny that 'illness' has many aspects including powerful psychological ones as yet not understood by what we call 'science'. So what ? To attribute apparent remissions to 'spiritual' or 'divine' origins is merely playing arbitrary word games, the details of which are a function of parochial experiences. Even tribal witch doctors (often qualified as such by what we might call 'schizophenic tendencies') are reported to have had 'success' in both their blessing and cursing activities. To call explanations of any such phenomena 'rational' is to indulge in semantic 'ad hockery'.

This thread is ostensibly about the 'wrongness' of religion. I have argued that an answer to that question can only be found by weighing the historical evidence of the social perniciousness of religion, against its role as a multifarious psychological crux. On that basis, the verbiage associated with the claims made any parochial belief system are irrelevant.

You do like your words, don't you? It must be a nightmare to play scrabble with you, tbh.

Having said that, I'm not sure what you mean with your last sentence: it doesn't seem to work. Oh well.

I don't think words like 'right' or 'wrong' can be accurately applied to religion, and I also am of the opinion that a majority of the people I know seems to have no problem with slapping those qualifiers, usually the latter, on religions willy-nilly.

I for one don't believe you can squarely place 'the social perniciousness' related to religion, usually in a causal relationship, squarely at the feet of said religion. Ultimately, people are responsible for their own actions, and if they desire to make something happen, they will try to find an excuse to make the circumstances favorable to obtaining their goals. Such would be the case from kings all the way down to peasants (the peasant rebellions in present day Germany in the 1520's come to mind). In that regard, religions are not all that different from guns imho: guns don't kill people, people kill people. If there were no guns, they would use bows or swords to accomplish the same thing. (this by no means infers that I am in favor of the fifth amendment: guns certainly facilitate in the killing business, and I don't see why people should be free in purchasing them).

Same for religion: it's nice if you can justify your actions by quoting scripture, as it gives you an excuse for your actions among other believers. However, if that particular religion had not been established, would that mean the actions referred to would not have occurred? I for one believe that they would have, but that they would have happened for another reason
(eg, rather then wage war with the vile thingamajigs because they refuse to follow the true faith, you wage war with the vile thingamajigs because of the repulsive warts they all have on their nose.)

It doesn't work. I suspect he wrote it in a hurry. Fresco is excitable. He is either eager to instruct the poor ignorant barbarian, or he is savagely attacking the Philistine who had the temerity to dissent from his "wisdom." He was once banging on about "languagers," or some such silly philosopher's neologism, so I put to him the question I've always asked and he has never answered, which is "whence the languagers?" (If reality is just a human construct, where did humans come from?) His attack was immediate and vicious.