How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

Many years ago, a person asked me whether or not I believe in God. I said, "You mean the god of the Bible?"

He said, "Yeah."

I said, "No."

He said, "Well how do you think everything came into being?"

I said, "I don't know. I wasn't there."
____________________________________

Maybe religions are a manifestation of humanity's reluctance to say, "I don't know."

I always think there are So any human may see the wonders of nature and feel a sense of awe and conclude that there is some other power bigger than he is who he can’t see, but who makes all things and directs all things.

The feeling you describe is god as consciousness relative to the local event. A singlarity.

The feeling you describe is indistinguishable from nonlocality other than nonlocality sheads the relative feeling and just is nothing. Nothing being the true identity of something which came from nothing. Love is nothing but is the real something.

Cant argue with conviction fresco. Cos conviction knows its right.

Yeah . . . like the Nazis . . . they knew they were right.

You have got to be the biggest bullsh*t artist this site has ever had. Then, of course, there are you hilariously idiotic arguments.

Everything said or done goes into the pot of relativity good or bad and its that which greats and causes outcomes. The true identity of an individual is as jesus said it was relativity or nonlocality.The nazis preferred a local made up identity denying relativness .Maybe you denying relativness to but thats you egos prerogative to choose identity that gives local event advantage like the nazis did.

The count is now 1000 times you have wrote variations of the word non-locality. Are you going for the world record? Furthermore, you take it out of context and misapply it many times.

Nonlocal means no limit and local means limited. National socialism means limited socialism or limited good will. The parable that jesus spoke the good samarition means unconditional good will. Both concern relativity of good will. National socialism and national localism means the same thing. Communionism is international localism. Life limited to location in either case. Freedom is nonlocalism or universal goodwill as the teachings of jesus n buhdda proclaim.

I know what it means. The point is that you keep repeating it ad nauseum and wearing it out..adding nothing of value to the dialogue. The points you just brought up have no relevance to the OP or anything in the discussion.

Well they do because they point to religion as being basically true. The relativity going on around you is god in action. And that includes the relativity in postings on this forum. Wars are relativity in action or differences in relative conflict.

We can know that religions are true and there is a god and that god is relativity as seen an experienced in the event by an observer whos consciousness must its self be relative and there for indistinguishable from the relativity observed. All things must pass away but the relativity in the action including consciousness will not pass away . Why because it relativity is real.

Instead of simplistically trying to cash on the scientific associations of terms like 'relativity', can you not see that all you are saying is that everything is in a state of flux except the hypothetical observer of such flux ? In your case that is called 'taking a God's eye view, where the assumption is that such a transcendent position is attainable by communing with a divinity. Meditator's might agree that such a position might be attainable albeit temporarily, but they do not require a 'God' concept to account for it.

Yes thats more or less right so two closing observers are really at home in the same consciousness getting rid of local identity. Say in the case two closing buhddas in different cars the closing in spacetime is illusion with only the relativity being truly real and stationary which would be indistinguishable from the consciousness of both buhddas at the same moment.

When ya not thinking your nothing. Think about that.

It looks like I am late to this post but I would still like to offer my input.
I think the answer is you can't. Just as there is no way to prove that Santa Clause, the spaghetti monster, or anything other mystical creature isn't real. Similar to the previous made-up beings, we know that a god does not exist simply because there is no evidence of one existing. Why do you think so many different religions sprung up in so many parts of the world? Simply because people were trying to create some form of order and understanding of the universe they are in.

Left to their own devices your average Joe would not spend 2 minutes trying to understand the universe they are in, let alone invent inumerable religions, blow their valuable time and resources on religious rituals, etc. I'm not saying these 'Joes' got it right, but there is something beyond curiosity about the universe driving them.

There are no "Joes left to their own devices" because every Joe is socialized via the language and customs of his social group. That immersion is usually what directs their thinking. (Try thinking without language !). Primitive forest dwellers are not going to come up with a 'Jesus concept' out of the blue ! Those, like me, who call themselves 'atheists' are making a social statement with respect to the conditioning of their group. They are saying that such parochial conditioning is either useless or dysfunctional are far as they are concerned. It is nothing has do with 'evidence' (which lies in the eye of the beholder ), even if some atheists attempt to justify their position that way. The main thrust of the argument is (as stated in the previous post) the recognition of the plethora of religious beliefs conditioned by a corresponding plethora of social structures at the global level.

Seems that the metaphorical average Joes have a dissociative identity disorder. They are at once so disinterested in the universe that they wouldn't spend 2 minutes trying to figure it out, yet at the same time, there is some sort of curiosity about the universe "driving them."



Need not be an either-or. The lack of evidence alone (plus what the extant evidence does suggest) is sufficient cause to initiate a rendering of the parochial conditioning useless and/or dysfunctional, I'd say.

That is where we tend to differ. It may be true that atheists are more likely to be part of the global 'scientific community' and therefore speak the language of 'scientific evidence', but considering the case of 'Einstein's God' or that of other scientific believers (like Heisenberg), we cannot assume the case for evidence is clear cut. IMO the overall driving force behind belief is 'finding meaning in 'existence' per se, rather than 'accounting for existence'. That probably futile search for 'meaning' is part of the price we pay as cognate animals with a concept of 'planning' or 'reason'.