How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

Jehovah is simply the most common pronunciation of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, which BTW, was far more commonly in use in past centuries. The first book printed in the US, Bay Psalm Book, made use of the name.

El, is also found in the Hebrew scriptures, as is Elohim. So what's your point?

Two points--Jehovah is a corruption, due to ignorance, of Yahweh; Fresco asked you for a source, but you just made a statement from authority.

this article from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica disposes of your Jehovah bullshit.

I readily confess a high degree of ignorance. I am not an official representative of the Watchtower Society, and my opinions should not to be taken as such.

If you would prefer to have me reference the name Yahweh, OK. So long as we are speaking of the person represented by the Tetragrammaton. I am not the one who chose the common pronunciation of the name. I merely noted it has been used for centuries.

What I find more interesting is the Hebrew superstition which obfuscated the correct pronunciation of the name.

So, you didn't read the Britannica article, huh?

(EDIT: Ignorance is a highly curable condition--i know that well from personal experience.)

What part of the article was supposed to sway me?
The name yod heh waw heh was known before the time of Moses.
As it should have been.

From the article: "JEHOVAH (Yahweh), in the Bible, the God of Israel. "Jehovah" is a modern mispronunciation of the Hebrew name, resulting from combining the consonants of that name, Jhvh, with the vowels of the word ădōnāy, "Lord," which the Jews substituted for the proper name in reading the scriptures."

Jeeze, Buddy, it's right at the beginning of the article.

Is that it? OK. You're correct. When someone comes up with the correct pronunciation of the name, I will be sure to use it.

You are either being willfully disingenuous, or you're completely missing the point. Jehovah is not equivalent to Yahweh. Jehovah is just a word which arises out of the ignorance of the people who first translated or read the Septuagint. Jehovah is an unintentionally made up word. It does not mean "causes to become."

I often disagree with the tactics Setanta uses but he does more often speak the truth "no mater how tactful it maybe"

Have you studied the history of religion in any depth other than what religions may have taught you?

I suppose you will now say Jesus should be referred to as Yeshua.

Like the feeling scientists have?

Yeah, not at all dissimilar.

I do hope you realize that my response was facetious. Although there are certainly some yobs calling themselves atheist who worship science (the strength of their fervor in inverse proportion to their knowledge of science and particularly of the scientific method), i don't actually think the analogy is appropriate.

Members of religious communities meet once a week or more often in a building dedicated to their religious ends. They engage in activities such as picnics and Sunday schools, as well as activities to raise money to maintain the building or to build a new one, such as bake sales.

They are met to discuss or to celebrate a belief system based upon no demonstrable evidence. They are met to confirm their adherence to their belief set.

Scientists do not attend ritualized services on a weekly basis, nor do they erect buildings for the sole purpose of celebrating science. References to universities or research institutes would not be analogous as the purpose of universities is to teach, and to teach far more subjects that just science; research institutes have to provide results in the real world or they tend to lose their funding.

The nature of scientific method is entirely antithetical to the nature of a religious belief set. The former is about questioning data and results to attempt to reach a plausible, replicable model of reality. The latter dictates reality and brooks no dissent.

While scientists may feel a sense of community, it's not at all in the nature of a religious community. Although some individuals who are called scientists may viewed the great unwashed with disdain, i rather think that their fascination with their subjects and their eagerness to share what they've learned is a distinct difference which separates them from the religious bigot.

I have a much better handle on comparative religion than Set would have us believe.

However, Set is one of the best sharpening stones I have.

It's interesting how much credit you give to simple people who are "scientists" and how little you give to those who are "religious."

Aside from the fact that you are attempting to compare a wide swath of people from numerous societal strata and professions with a narrow group in a single profession, you demonstrate a rather romantic notion of scientists and a rather cynical one about the religious.

The religious who meet in churches and on picnics can't possibly be there to enjoy themselves in the company of people who share at least the pretense of common values.

Based upon you post one might be forgiven the conclusion that you have absolutely no personal experience with church-going communities.

Or that he had far too much experience.

"I'm Spartacus" and "I'm Spartacus" and "I'm Spartacus" simply leads to them all being crucified rather than engaging in the futility of searching for an invisible needle in a haystack. It's not any conclusion at all (as to whether Spartacus was in the bunch or not).

I wasn't sure about the facetiousness. Thanks for clarifying.

You completely failed to understand what i said to FBM in those posts--something which does not surprise me in the least.

Perhaps, but I have commented on what you wrote, and so perhaps you did not express yourself clearly.