How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

Technically correct !
But many of them are as demonstrated by their lack of philosophical depth. Resort to Dr. Johnson's 'rock kicking' is typical of that.

I suppose Fresco is that kind of in depth philosopher who thinks dreams are not true dreams just because they are dreams...for someone who insists there are no truths he seems certain of a lot of things including centering the subject as the ground of existence without ever clarifying what "subject" is, all the while denying there is a ground at all... his boat is full of holes....he his fine with fuzzy logic and lack of consistency in his world vision, but appeals to classical logical thinking when it comes to criticizing his opponents...Fresco is perhaps the best example in A2K of a pseudo savant.

I'll let you explain how my 'neo-pragmatists' position on contextual usage with respect to words like 'existence' is contiguous with 'classical logic'. My position is one of fluidity of set membership according to shifting contexts/paradigms. Thus questions of 'the existence of God' can validly be answered in the affirmative in the communicative contexts of 'believers', and in the negative, or declared vacuous, in the communicative contexts of atheists. 'Truth ' merely makes an appearance in the pragmatist's sense of 'what it is good to belief', and that 'goodness' is subject to social consensus.
Over to you !

I get it.
Truth is subject to human consensus.
I know this is trite, but:
Are you absolutely sure of that?

I suppose your neo pragmatist view is also prone to contextual consensus or are you using good old classic logic when you define your stance on this matter ? Irony bits...

I have a good friend who comes from a large and strange family wherein all the children assumed one or more identities for the amusement of all. His younger brother often payed the role of "Bobo" who was prone to stringing along absurd but seemingly meaningful words to impress (e.g. "The consolidates confluence of Con Edison connotes closure!"

Bobo would appreciate your post.

Classic comment when bobo's project themselves in the world around them and mistake identities...if you don't get it don't pretend you have something to say about it...just step down or bring food to the table clown !
Fresco basically repeated the stupid "this sentence is false" old argument...
Its no toy game fool...

About pragmatism lets just say it is the epitome of nonsense. One denies existence with nothing...nothing go figure...cherry on top, one should stick to what works so they preach...hahaha...two contradictions in one go. Perfect !

There are many gods that men have created. It must have been normal in man's history.

The meaning of the word 'I' is no exception to contextual restraints.
By asking your question, you are are attempting to evoke a response from an 'I' whose identity is a function of this particular communicative context. That context holds at 'arms length' or attempts to take an overview beyond the minutiae of specific 'truth requests' such as those concerning courtroom trials which serve to inform subsequent social actions on the part of 'society', or those of scientific testing of hypotheses within their own historical paradigms.
In respect to that transcendent overview, this 'I' is 'sure' of its interpretations. This 'I' rejects any attempt at an infinite regress game involving the equating of the words 'surety' and 'truth' , whose equivalence might be valid within particular sub contexts and therefore involving different 'I's' labelled 'fresco'.
People like Fil who are motivated to apply 'logical contradiction games' fail to understand that dynamic positions transcendent of static set theory are exempt from such games. Indeed 'game theory' (a la Wittgenstein or Derrida) is their very foundation !

No one ever denied that certain truths have operational specific contexts and function withim a limit. After all an unlimited function is nonsense. None of it makes such truths dissolve onto nothingness or simply vanish. They exist within the limits of their ecosystem. At one point since infinity is nonsense these layers of operational truths hit a bed rock ecosystem that cannot be denied without denying everything. In fact pragmatists are the ones making a case for an infinite regress of systems which is utter nonsense not classical philosophers.

Again irony of ironies the fact that certain assessments work should be enough of a clue to not undermine a foundation somewhere and with it retrocess into irrational infinity. Anyone that understands computation will argue the same I am arguing right now.

One does not simply expect a lower dimension system can compute a higher one. None of this entails one isn't there. If one does that one undermines our own utterance that nothing is there.
It never ocurred to me to say windows does not exist just because I cannot describe windows from within with full detail through an inferior virtual machine.

Your claim 'to understand computation' has yet to be demonstrated. Taking it as axiomatic ignores philosophical views as to its possible anthropocentric origins ( e.g. 'embodiment theory'). The chief issue is that humans have developed a symbolic system called 'computation' which assists in their ultimately limited efforts to 'predict and control'. As far as this thread is concerned, the argument boils down to whether those limits can be 'resolved' , amelorated or exacerbated by religious faith,

There you go with language games that try to bedrock reality in "humans" and " Counsciousness" without understanding that they can't be described as for their ultimate reality...one could argue humans are Avatars within a computing process. This doesn't mean "humans" are false but just that the operational meaning of the concept is not abstract enough. On the other hand the concept of existing just posits X is without trying to frame in what way it is. Your bedground is an inferior less generalist concept period.

At the mention of the phrase 'ultimate reality' I must leave you to wallow in the swamp of 'naive realism', and/or religious faith. I do not 'bedrock reality', I bedrock the usage of words like 'reality' in the contexts of human communicative needs.

Then you are bed rocking those in "Human languaging" whether you are aware of it or not is not my fault. It doesn't inform me **** (pardon my French) about what those mean. I say X period. You go a lot further and try to contextualize X in a human frame. My statement is in fact a lot simpler then yours and claims far less.

You and many more around are mistaken about me when you think I come to this fracked up forum trying to make an image for myself with this stuff. Those who know me up close know that I don't give a **** for self image in social context, I don't have an agenda, or an established current of thought. I don't have an agenda period. If I debate something I debate it because I really think there is a point to be made not because I want to impress someone.
Lets imagine for a minute that my vulgar monkey brain hit jackpot on some good idea...I would gladly give it to someone else to work the details and get the profit and rather chose anonymity. I would never trade my quiet personal life for some sort of social delusion about fame and glory. Not that fool anyway.

I once knew a lawyer named Bob Laublaw. His friends loved saying his full name whenever he tried to say something profound.

Go ahead, try it, it's fun...

Keep on chugging, Fil. I enjoy reading your posts.