Which one of you is wrong? How do you know?

Over at Common Sense Atheism, Luke Muehlhauser shares how he "came out" and told his religious family about his atheism. It's a valuable experience; many, many people who lose religious faith (or realize they never had it) wrestle with the question of how to break the news to family. ("How do I tell them?" seems one of the most common questions asked by callers to atheist TV show The Atheist Experience.)

The comments below the post show lots of appreciation for Luke's tale, as well as the expected (but mostly short and civil) back-and-forth involving believers who find fault with the post. Until a comment by "Siamese", a loooong screed making God-filled claim after claim with, as you might guess, zero evidence or even argument. Out-of-thin-air assertions like these:

Heaven does last for eternity and those who chose a personal relationship with Jesus while on earth will be united with God. This unity does not imply the experience of pleasurable earthly activities; rather, it is an experience of selfless love and adoration for the God of all creation...

God desires a personal relationship with each human, in order for this relationship to occur he provided each human freedom of choice. If he had not given human beings the freedom to reject Him, all humans would go to heaven and be united with him, but their choice to be with him would have been a programmed fact...

Since God is loving and just he respects the decisions one makes and will eternally separate himself from this individual on judgment day...

And so on. Run of the mill stuff. What kills me about such blather, though – and what we too often led slide by without challenge to the claimant – is that the above claims are not only refuted by atheism, they're refuted by religion. It can't be said often or strongly enough: Every religious claim a believer can make is refuted first and foremost by the majority of religious believers not adhering to the claimant's particular minority faith/sect/denomination. When atheists want to refute a religious claim, they always have to get in line behind the throng of believers shouting "You've got that wrong" (often followed by further brilliant commentary such as "Infidel!", "Heretic", "Blasphemer!", "Hell-bound!", and the like).

Why should the atheist – or anyone – accept one minority claim over countless additional minority claims? The argument will typically bounce off the listener, but it has to be said again and again anyway. So here's my humble response left in the Common Sense Atheism comments:

@Siamese: That’s quite a post there. It brings up an awful lot of questions… which really boil down to a single question or two. As follows:

“Through the freewill that God provides each individual one can choose to reject a personal relationship with Jesus.”

Some Christians, such as Calvinist Protestants, believe in a Predestination that largely removes that free will, and makes the embracing of Jesus the choice of God, not of the individual. Which one of you is wrong (or are you both)? How do you know?

“Even though God has dominion over all creation in the heavens and on earth, each individual is still “wholly responsible” for each decision they make over their “blink” existence in their current fallen physical body.”

Some schools of Hinduism hand much of that decision-making to fate or destiny, not individual responsibility. Which one of you is wrong (or are you both)? How do you know?

“After death the decisions one made during their “blink” existence upon earth, will determine what how they spend eternity.”

Some schools of Buddhism reject the idea of a single “blink” existence on Earth, pointing to a long cycle of multiple deaths and rebirths instead. Which one of you is wrong (or are you both)? How do you know?

“First, as finite beings, living in flesh and blood bodies, it is impossible to clearly understand the spiritual realm that is referred to as eternal life.”

Many believers not only claim great understanding of that realm, they map it out in great detail. For example, Jewish Kabbalah mystics describe no less than seven Heavens, each with unique features and governed by specifically-named angels. Which one of you is wrong (or are you both)? How do you know?

“Heaven is not a cloud covered haven where angels sing and harps are played; the Bible does involve various figurative descriptions in this realm, but it is to help human minds grasp the basic concept of heaven.”

Some Christians have claimed that heaven is a cloud-filled realm of angels and harps. Which one of you is wrong (or are you both)? How do you know?

“Heaven does last for eternity and those who chose a personal relationship with Jesus while on earth will be united with God.”

Muslims claim that belief in Allah, and not a personal relationship with Jesus, is the prerequisite for entering heaven. Which one of you is wrong (or are you both)? How do you know?

“Hell is not an eternally burning lake of fire; the Bible does reference fire when speaking of hell, yet these descriptions are provided to help human minds grasp the utter desolation of a Godless eternity. ”

Many Christian sects claim that hell is indeed a literal lake of fire. Which one of you is wrong (or are you both)? How do you know?

And so on. I thank reason that I’m not one of those trying to defend religious claims. After all, every religious claim is simultaneously a *rejection* of many, many more religious claims. Every religious claim is a claim that some *other* believer is wrong. All of us using our minds can only watch and ask:

Which of you is wrong (or are you all)? How do you know?

Alas, as of this writing Siamese either didn't see the comment or chose not to respond to it. But if any maker of religious claims should read this, I ask the same:

Your claims are refuted by many, many other religious believers. Which of you is wrong (or are you all)? How do you know?