How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

Think you, You have always been a kind person.

I don't think I know much outside of direct experience. I question a lot about things that are extrapolated from direct experience, though. And especially about second and third-hand reports. Paticca samuppada. The brain and the environment are not such disparete entities as you seem to suggest. Do you have some knowledge that isn't dependent upon your brain? If not, then whatever you say/think/perceive/experience is in no way ontologically prior to what I say/think, etc. The experiences of thinking and thinking that you know are direct experiences, nothing more, as far as I can tell. Cf: Pyrrho of Elis/Pyrrhonism/Sextus Empiricus.

I seem to share an understanding similar to yours.

Ba-ding! Good to hear that. ^^

In my defense, please note that I would prefer to eat broken glass than suggest FBM follow phoney fundies.

On another note, I am not surprised, in these troubled times, that God's adversary would erect many fiine looking straw men to conceal his intent.

Did I attribute the 10k year thing to you? It was just an example of how belief, faith and interpretation of the evidence have limits.

At best, all are wrong but one. Chances are that last one's wrong too.

Of course not. It is also an example of how folks can use the evils of men to indict God.

Whether we like to hear it or not, Satan has kidnapped the world for this day. You and I may believe God's intervention is long past due; but we are not the timekeepers.

I'm not indicting a god, though. I'm questioning its existence and asking for credible evidence. Something unambiguous. Something that doesn't come packaged in a metaphor. I'm asking why this alleged creator demands faith, but then hides from us.

I haven't even mention its arch-nemesis, because before taking down that path, we need to answer thefirst question. What evidence is there that such a divine being even exists? Scripture is the claim, not the evidence.

I don't mean to be harsh, but every time I ask for evidence, you wriggle out of it. Evidence is anything that points unambiguously to a certain answer. We have evidence for the half-lives of radioactive isotopes. We have evidence to support the Big Bang Theory. There's nothing difficult about the concept of genuine, credible evidence for the exixtence of something. If you don't have any, then why would a rational being accept such a mind-boggling, counterintuitive hypothesis, especially when we have alternative hypotheses that are supported by empirical evidence and that don't require a supernatural creator?

A lot of things are accepted based on evidence that is far from unambiguous. People are convicted of murder on circumstantial evidence. I was initially convinced of God's existence based on circumstantial evidence.

Except to the extent that I continue to insist that you have beliefs which you cannot provide unambiguous evidence for (and you keep insisting you don't), your position is unassailable.

No one is going to be able to provide you with unambiguous evidence of the existence of God.

Yours is a very interesting and fundamental question: "Why would God not want to provide us with unambiguous evidence?"

The typical answer to this question is: "Because he wants us to come to him through faith."

Obviously the next question is "Why does he want that?"

One answer, and the one that resonates with me, is that he has imbued himself in all of us and that in order for us to return to the godhead we need to find the way on our own. Providing a clearly defined path and absolute proof of the endpoint makes the journey far less arduous and thus less meaningful.

There is, of course, a strong mystical element in this answer, but I don't think it's without experiential support. Irrespective of the existence of God it is a common cultural theme that, to put it simply, the best in life doesn't come easy. This may be a way that our culture has come to grips with the fact that life is hard, but my personal experiences largely, if not exclusively, confirm it. So I am inclined to believe that anything of true value requires determination and effort. It would follow that the ultimate true value: returning to the godhead requires the same, if not to the greatest of degrees.

We can also argue, perhaps not convincingly, that God's greatest gift to us is the ability to perceive his existence and thus launch ourselves on the proper path (to which I hurry to add I am but a couple of footsteps down myself).

I can only try and imagine the unknowable and hope that insights along the way prove accurate.

If there is a Supreme Being, he/she/it/ur is the ultimate creator. As I believe that God has imbued himself in us I also believe that I have the opportunity to glimpse him through what can be called altered states of consciousness. One such state is obtainable through the creative process. There is a common expression of experience among creative people (artists, writers, composers etc) which is that they reach a place where they don't seem to even know where their creative expression is coming from. It simply flows into them. That's a rare state to obtain, but I've been fortunate enough to achieve it and it is exhilarating. I have extrapolated that this is what the Ultimate Creator must feel, and the only way he can achieve it is by not knowing how it all will lay out. A nice trick for an omniscient being, but he's also omnipotent. In any case if he takes a hand in our lives (or the lives of his other creations throughout the universe) or makes it clear he exists and how to return to him, the state can't be achieved.

But enough of that.

No one can prove God exists and no one can prove he does not. You can argue that in the absence of evidence I have engaged in some dreamy psychological self-deception to make myself feel good and I can say you have too narrow a perspective and are bound by your physical senses.

The question is what difference does this difference in perspective make? Other than us both feeling sorry for one another, I say it doesn't make any.

I am glad that you (and I think I'm right about this) don't offer the childish argument so often made that if there was a God, horrible things wouldn't happen, babies wouldn't die and rabbits would have their throats ripped out by foxes. Or that the sins of humans who claim to commit them in the name of God must be imputed to him.

In the end it comes down to what do you intellectually feel comfortable with. If for you that is a conclusion that there is no god, fine. If for me it's the opposite that's fine too. Neither conclusion obviates the need for human morality and neither should, in any way, be an excuse for immorality. I'm convinced that "believers" and "non-believers" can agree on basic tenets of morality, so neither of us poses a threat to the other.

Wow!

Finn...that is the finest, most thought out comment I've ever seen you post.

I agree with it.

It's not kidnapping if it was done entirely with God's consent, though.

You got that one right blue. It was a mutually agreed upon bet between Satan and God. Satan's wager was that if God left us alone with Satan's influence, not even the best of men would follow God. God said 'You're on'.

If, as you say, no one can either prove or disprove this alleged god's existence, why believe? Why not just admit that you don't know? Seems to me the emotional element is quite strong in the choice to believe. Nor is belief as benign as you seem to characterize it. You may be benign in your beliefs, but you know the history of violence and oppression related to religions as well as I do, or better.

Then there's faith healing, money-scamming fundamentalist televangelists, etc etc. Yes, I see that belief brings a lot of emotional relief to a lot of people, but as a former believer, I also see first-hand that the consequences of skepticism are nothing like what many believers picuture it as. I'm not wailing and gnashing my teeth, nor am I eating babies and raping farm animals. I've simply accepted what appears to be the undeniable inevitability of my own death and the apparent truth that that'll be the end of my conscious being.

I don't see any evidence strong enough for the existence of any deity to make me want to restructure my entire life and behavior in accordance with its alleged wishes, demands or commands. Those wishes, demands and commands sound suspiciously too much like those of my fellow mortals who wish to profit off my credulity.

Are you a Jehovah's Witness?

This pretty much sums it up.

There is a huge difference between permission beforehand and accommodation after. The rebellion brought up issues never before raised.

No, but I often invite them in when they come knocking. They wouldn't have me (not that I tried) because I refuse to worship their God which is actually 'Family'. Besides, they only promise eternity here in this meat grinder existence on earth. They say all 144,000 slots in heaven are already spoken for.

So no. Hell no.

Because I don't need absolute proof. The idea that God exists makes sense to me and I may have just fooled myself, but I can understand why he might not offer us absolute proof.

Belief in God is benign. It's religion that can be both benign and malignant.

And belief in God need not involve the following of any rules, demands, commands etc which do not make sense to you. Belief in God doesn't require following a religion.

I would venture to say as well that there are quite a few so-called "believers" who do terrible things who are actually non-believers. For the longest time people weren't very comfortable saying there was no God, but I don't for a second think that means that there were no atheists in the Middle Ages and the eras thereafter. Plenty of religious leaders have used religion as a vehicle to advance their lust for power and riches. I bet the number of them who were actual fanatics is less than the number who were just smart, manipulative and sinister. Half the Popes probably didn't believe.

This is not to say that non-believers are somehow more likely to do evil things.

In any case we obviously look at life in a somewhat different way and there''a nothing wrong with that. I just have a problem with anyone who presumes to know something that is unknowable (at least at this time), and then use that presumption to criticize or impugn people who think otherwise. Believer or Non-believer.