How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

Not quite. I generally agree with that very balanced and sober thinker, Rosborne. But, while I think of Science as the most efficient way to answer our questions--to gain "knowledge" about the physical world, I do not think of Science either as having a monopoloy on "Truth" nor do I think of philosophy's grasp of Truth as unproblematical. Humankind has been learning, albeit more slowly, about the structures and ways of Nature eons before the development of the Scientific METHOD per se. While it might be naive of us not to consider Trial and Error and Serendipidous Accidental Discovery to be part of the zcientific process, it was contributions like Popper's "falsification" of formal hypotheses, that ushered in the Method as I understand it.

Not quite. I generally agree with that very balanced and sober thinker, Rosborne. But, while I think of Science as the most efficient way to answer our questions--to gain "knowledge" about the physical world, I do not think of Science either as having a monopoloy on "Truth" nor do I think of philosophy's grasp of Truth as unproblematical. Humankind has been learning, albeit more slowly, about the structures and ways of Nature eons before the development of the Scientific METHOD per se. While it might be naive of us not to consider Trial and Error and Serendipidous Accidental Discovery to be part of the zcientific process, it was contributions like Popper's "falsification" of formal hypotheses, that ushered in the Method as I understand it.

This is why I don't usually go for "Glib", someone always overthinks it

Glib works, as long as the reader recognizes it as such.

Because they don't investigate their History .

Hence the mindset is based on distorted presented knowledge .

There's two possibilities.
1) Every one of the thousands of religions currently or previously followed is wrong.
2) Every one of the thousands of religions currently or previously followed is wrong - except for yours.

Elegantly stated.

I prefer the concept that every religion is wrong about some of it, they merely differ as to how much.

Because they don't investigate their past Ancient History .

Following Arrow's theorem there exists a unique omnipotent entity that decides every election this could be a good candidate gor God

Doesn't Arrow's theorem depend on voters' understanding issues, knowing each candidate's platform du jour, expecting said candidate not to waffle, and having the collective intelligence to figure it all out?

Ahahahahahaha!

So, what part of it does your religion have wrong?

The voters can understand as they want but their choice is not taken into account since it is a dictatorship

To believe that one is unlikely to have grasp of impregnable truth, is different to believing one is wrong about any given belief. The prerequisite is that one is ready to accept change when one identifies that one is wrong about any given belief, understanding or assumed knowledge.

Where do you stand on the matter of Divinely imparted knowledge Infra? You're bright and knowledgeable, and while we often differ in our position, I'd be keen to know what you think

So then, you don't think your religion has any part of it wrong, specifically, but it doesn't have grasp of irrefutable truth, generally.

You really think I'm bright and knowledgeable? Gee whiz, thanks.

I don't believe in divinely imparted knowledge.

An example of one person saying "I blindly guess there is divinely inspired knowledge"...and another saying "I blindly guess there is not."

And wonder of wonders...neither used the words "blindly guess."

I guess, I expect that some of what I believe will eventually turn up wrong, I am confident also that much of it will prove true, but I will strive to ensure the scales are tipped in the right direction by the time I find out the answers. More than anything, I just hope I get the important things right, such as how to treat my neighbour and how to honour the God I have correctly or incorrectly guessed exists.

I do think you are bright and knowledgeable, you're not an ignoramus, neither do you assert without having an understanding of what you assert, so you have my intellectual respect. It is also nice sometimes to acknowledge things we agree on, such as your sentiments here

Because none have Humanities survival as their foremost concern .

None do

Are you suggesting an aspect of any true religion would hold the survival of humanity as it's foremost concern

Exactly

And if not , rejected .