How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

So, morality does not exist (without God). It is the rulemakers who decide how people in society act. If they decide that murder is fine then murder is no longer immoral.

So, were the murders of the disappeared people in the South American socialist/communist purges of the 70s moral?

According to God, you shall not commit murder. In other words you shall not take innocent blood.

As I’m reading your post, my first thoughts involve confusion as to why you have chosen to start your question from a position that assumes all religions are wrong, and then questions why. To begin answering this question, I believe that one should approach it from a slightly different perspective. We could instead ask questions such as, “What makes any singular religion wrong” or “What makes any singular religion inferior or superior to other religions?”. You’re asking sort of a pointed question, and to examine what you may be wondering, I think it makes sense to take a step back and examine this topic by asking more neutral questions. To do this, one may choose an extremely objective method, like examining prior probability of significant events that occur within all religious doctrines, then comparing which events are most likely to be true even if they are not verifiable. However, objective measures like this can mathematically complicate things, leading one to lose sight of what they’re trying to understand in the first place. My take is that you’re trying to figure out what makes religion wrong or right. Allow me to present a simple argument that deals with the superiority, or lack thereof, of any given religion.

1. If any given religion is superior to others, it will produce morally superior people.

2. No single religion has been shown to produce morally superior people.

3. No religion is superior to others. (1, 2 MT)



You can use this argument, or similar versions of it to base your thinking off of, then begin asking questions such as, “Is any religion more wrong than another?” or “How then should I choose which religion to believe in, if they are all equally right?” Based on my argument, there is no singular religion one should believe in because it is “more right” than any other. Instead, it points to the philosophical problems that arise through religious pluralism. If all religions are equally moral, does this invalidate the purpose of religion in the first place? Researching these questions can help you think about your original question in new ways and lead you closer to possibly answers. Please do let me know your thoughts, as you said in your original post that you would like to respond by sharing them.

Well if there is a God and he has his own rules, probably wiser to stick to his rules don't you think? The God of the bible has rules which as far as I am aware need to be kept perfectly...but we can't keep them...nobody can and even trying to keep them in order to stay in with this God (earn his favor) appears to be pointless to.

Isaiah 64:6

It appears that I have had it as far as the God of the bible is concerned...I'm just a rule breaker before the eyes this God.

However...John 3:16 words are incredible....it says that this man Jesus was prepared to take the full punishment for my rule breaking and all I have to do is accept this offering as a free gift.

Why on earth would he want to do that? other than out of love....a love which is beyond my understanding.

In a way...YES!

We humans decide what is "moral" for ourselves...in our own time.

YOU, and your fellow Christians, want a culture of 2000 years ago to set the "morality" for our times.

YOU want people to be able to own slaves; to kill people who "believe in" a different god from you; to kill kids who are disobedient; to kill people who engage in sexual acts you do not like; wantonly to kill the vanquished in wars.

YOUR morality sucks...and you know it. That is why you deviate from it, because it sucks. The god of the Bible sucks. It is a barbarous, vengeful, wrathful, unforgiving, demanding, murderous, petty god...most likely invented because the ancient Hebrews had enemies who had barbarous, vengeful, wrathful, unforgiving, demanding, murderous, petty gods that had to be fought.

Wake the hell up.

YES, WE SHOULD DECIDE WHAT MORALITY IS FOR OURSELVES...not rely on the morality of a relatively primitive people who lived millennia ago. Thatessentially is what our set of laws is all about...setting a morality for ourselves.

Neal is just saying that the only thing stopping him committing atrocities is the fear of eternal damnation.

That’s why they’re champing at the bit looking for a ‘legitimate’ excuse to start shooting people.

Unfortunately, that seems to be the case, Izzy.

The god of reward and punishment is an absurdity. We humans should be above that kind of thing.

Don’t try engaging with them on the difference between ethics and jurisprudence. The difference between collective and individual morality is probably too much.

You are correct.

I understand your point concerning morality.
As for politics:
Right now the police protect people. If the protection of the police is taken away, I will make sure that my family is protected. Therefore, I bought a gun for the first time.
Izzy represents the stupidity that this nation is heading towards. I will use my gun for protection. Izzy is acting extremely irrational in his thinking.
We must protect America from the Izzys of this world.
Discussing Christianity and morality is fine. However, being verbally attacked for owning a gun for protection is quite another matter.

Children needed to be protected from the likes of you.

No more Sandy Hooks you sick degenerate.

I will protect my family from mentally ill people like you.

You’re the one threatening your family.

You’re the one who thinks Sandy Hooks are fine so you can strut about waving a gun around feeling important.

The blood of innocent children is on your hands, you’re not honest enough to admit it. You have no integrity.

People like you are murdering our citizens.

Justice for Harry Dunn.

One final word for you, Frank
Thank you for your service in the military. ;-)

So, the disappeared were innocent?

You know I’m the other side of the World and no threat to your family.

And unlike you I’ve never brought your family up.

You made threats to my children. You are the one who is mentally ill.

The only conceivable way I could be a “threat” to your family is by introducing them to decent ideas, like affordable health care and shooting free schools.

And you’re prepared to “protect” your family from ideas like that with your gun.

I’m so glad I live in a country with sane gun laws to protect our children from dangerous religious fanatics like you.

You’re what they call the American Taliban.

Why is that an absurdity? If the vast complex system we are living in was made for things to live in then it can be assumed that living should be considered good.

If the complexity fulfills this obvious assumption, it is safe to assume it was built for this purpose. It is logical then to assume there is an assumes an author of this obviously implied purpose. It is then a reasonable assumption there is a god of reward and punishment that rewards people that promote life over people that promote death.

It is also reasonable to assume that none of that is true, and that our ability to make these assumptions randomly appeared in the matter of our body, and that matter randomly appeared out of nothing, according to processes that randomly appeared in nothing, out of an explosion initiated by gravity in the Big bang. But if there was nothing how did gravity as a process work without any matter to make it work.

Is it more absurd to assume there is an yet unknown process to initiate matter and gravity out of nothing or some sort of intelligent god with a purpose.

Could you explain what you meant by absurd and why one option is more absurd than the other, or are both absurd?

I could attempt to...but to put that into perspective, I also could attempt to explain quantum mechanics to a ferret. I doubt either would be successful. Let's just say it is an opinion.

Question begging to justify question begging is an absurdity.