Which god / supernatural postulation /
religion, if any, is verity?
(Top Posts - Distance From Belief
in theism - 111102)

So many religions ... so many gods ... so many deities ...
so many demons and jinns ... so many angels ... so many
heavens and hells ... so little time ...

- - -

African mythology
http://www.pantheon.org/areas/mythology/africa/african/articles.html

Americas mythology (Aztec, Haitian,
Inca, Mayan, Native American)
http://www.pantheon.org/areas/mythology/americas/

Asian mythology (Chinese, Hindu, Islamic, Japanese,
Judaic, Korean, Mesopotamian, Persian)
http://www.pantheon.org/areas/mythology/asia/

Egyptian mythology
http://www.pantheon.org/areas/mythology/africa/egyptian/articles.html

European mythology (Celtic, Etruscan,
Greek, Latvian, Norse, Roman)
http://www.pantheon.org/areas/mythology/europe/

Oceania mythology (Aboriginal, Polynesian)
http://www.pantheon.org/areas/mythology/oceania/

- - -

Which package is verity? Is it a social / cultural
decision rather than a veritable one? Is it a decision
objectively assessing the verity and lack thereof
regarding the innumerable claims, or is it a decision
merely of convenience, trying to keep friends, family,
and others happy?

---
Most all of us are disbelievers, for the most part
http://prohuman.net/disbelief/most_are_disbelievers.htm
---

There is logic and reason to lead to the valid con-
clusion that all supernatural religions (and their
associated supernatural beings / places / cons /
threats) exist in the area of "make believe", fabri-
cations, and human-created fantasies.

If one supernatural religion is verity, which one,
and why? Can't find *the* one? Of course not, because
there is nothing but claims - all-but endless claims,
and claims do not a verity make.

If someone claimed a 9-legged 99-foot tall virgin
purple people-eater fell in the forest, is that verity?
No, of course not, for claiming a 9-legged 99-foot
tall virgin purple people-eater fell in the forest is
just a claim. Evidence would be required for the
word verity to apply, for claims do not a verity make.

Gods? Same deal, irreconcilable claims out-the-wa-
zoo, but not one iota of evidence they are anything
but "make believe", deceit, and denial of our natural
existence in a naturalistic domain.

Put another way, there is plentiful evidence that all
supernatural religions are based on "make believe",
anti-naturalism, and mere assertions sans any evi-
dence whatsoever regarding absolute ultimate
unknowns (loaded with nightmares, horror stories,
and wonderous candylands of indescribable joy,
yet not one scintilla of evidence exists regarding
those supposed supernatural places).

And from all that, where does the word verity apply?

It's logical and reasonable to view those claims
which try to assert verity exists in the supernatural
realm as purely and evidentially "make believe"
beyond a reasonable doubt. Only via the venue
of pretense can an anti-naturalistic inexplicable
supernatural realm be fantasized about as realities
rather than fictions.

So, it is logical and reasonable to point out that

o the realm of which supernatural religions speak
is a "make believe" area where anything goes,
for anyone can assert anything there,

o without evidence, the supernatural assertions are
devoid of veritable substance,

o the supernatural claims are loaded with attempts
to convince via techniques of brainwashing with
a heavy dose of cants-repetitions-threats-cons,

o the supposed other-worldly "realities" are efforts
to delude via abuse of the concept of "truth" by
telling innocents a particular supernatural fantasy
is "true" (and implied there, that all alternative
supernatural fantasies are false),

o the ancient supernatural views deceive by
denying that supernatural fantasies are stock
full of manipulative means devised to control
humans from birth.

It's the same logic and reason that applies when
we refuse to believe a bloke who says he has an
invisible friend on his shoulder, and his invisible
friend controls the universe. If, furthermore, the
bloke says we must believe him, give him money,
and tell our children that his invisible friend is
required for immortality or else the child will be
tormented forever, well then, rather than merely
dismiss the bloke as crazy, we're likely to request
an intervention to prevent him from harming folks.

Supernatural religions? Same exact deal. No evi-
dence, pronounced illogic -- what we have are a lot
of blokes with claimed invisible superfriends, using
"make believe" to con and threaten us all. That tech-
nique utilizes pervasive insults to integrity, logic, and
reason, and at its fundamental fearful core resides
ancient remnants of human ignorance.

Anyone who asserts that they have supernatural verity
must, logically and reasonable, provide evidence of
a tangible and validatable kind, if open-minded search
for verity is desired, for mere claims do not a verity
make.

Supernatural religions are well-known for failing to
provide evidence, and for trying to weasel out of that
basic necessity by asserting that faith (trust) in what-
ever the faith-following persons believe (at the end
of illogical loops of supernatural claims) is meritori-
ous merely by its existence.

For evidence of the logic and reason of disbelief /
distance / disassociation from supernatural religions,
see my web site (linked to below).

In my view ...

... It is illogical and unreasonable to treat "make be-
lieve" as verity and as required for ultimate rewards
and as required to escape immortal torment / death,
and it is estimable to point out the nature of devious-
ness entailed in the supernatural religion show, the
biggest con game on earth for thousands of years,
at least.

From "A Tale of a Tub", by Bergen Evans: "the call to
blind faith is really a call to barbarism and slavery,
for in being asked to believe without evidence, we are
being asked to abdicate our integrity, as freedom of
speech and freedom of action are meaningless without
freedom to think, and there is no freedom of thought
without doubt" ...

- - -