It's amazing how so easily you can constantly convince yourself you are correct even when reality and the facts say otherwise.
Why not present that statement in a more honest way?
It is entirely unsurprising that I can easily convince myself that I am correct, when I am capable of presenting simple logical arguments backed by facts (including facts which you accept) which support my position and show faults in your position, which you repeatedly refuse to engage with, which you are entirely incapable of refuting; and when instead of even attempting to support your position you instead typically resort to strawmanning me and trying to make demands that I prove or provide something I never claimed; all while being completely incapable of providing anything that shows I am wrong.
When faced with all that, why wouldn't I be convinced I am correct?
The potentially amazing thing is how in the light of all that you still think you are correct.
If you were correct you would have demonstrated the fault with my argument.
Instead you just pathetically dismiss it as illogic and refuse to engage with it, as if you know it demonstrates the fault in your claim and you know you can't refute it.
Here it is again, if you think I am wrong, you should be able to clearly demonstrate what is wrong with my argument:
A standard 6 sided dice is rolled with the result hidden.
5 people each say it is a different integer from 1 to 5, even though they have no way to know.
The religious people are like the first 5 people, each claiming something about the dice, that they don't know.
You come in and claim that because they don't know, they must be wrong, and thus the dice could not be on any digit from 1 to 5.
That is effectively you claiming it must be 6, even though you don't know, and thus by your own "reasoning" you must be wrong.
You appear to believe, despite having zero proof, that one of those many religions could have been right about life after death despite the indisputable fact that here and now in 2022 we have little clue about about the answer to that question.
What do you mean despite the fact?
That very fact is the proof that supports my position.
The fact that we have no idea what happens after death means we cannot honestly claim that all the religions must be wrong about what happens after death.
Just like in the dice analogy, the fact that we don't know what the dice landed on means we cannot honestly claim that those people who are just guessing must be wrong about what the dice landed in.
In order to know the religions are wrong, or that the people guessing are wrong, we need to know at least enough to show that they are wrong. And we don't for either case.
You appear to believe, despite having zero proof to support your position, and providing facts which refute your position, that all these religions are wrong, not simply that they don't know, but that they have no chance of being correct, even though you have absolutely nothing to support that belief of yours.
Are you claiming that the answer has been lost?
No. Considering I am not claiming that one of these is correct, and there are still plenty of religions out there and you can easily find what they claim happens after death, why would I claim the answer has been lost?
Then again you have a track record of ignoring reality and the facts when it suits you.
You sure do love projecting don't you?
When you can't refute your opponent, you just lie and claim they are ignoring reality and facts.
What part of reality am I ignoring?
What facts am I ignoring?
Are you referring to the fact that no one knows what happens after death, which means your claim that all the religions are wrong is entirely baseless?
The fact which supports my position and demonstrates a significant flaw with your view?
A fact you repeatedly ignore the logical consequences of?
Or do you mean the fact you keep ignoring that there is a distinction between knowing an answer you claim is correct, vs just claiming that answer without knowing?
Or do you mean the fact you keep ignoring that this is not a dichotomy. I don't need to claim a religion is correct to claim your position that all religions are wrong is baseless. Instead I can pick a third option of "we don't know". We don't know if the religions are right or wrong. That means claiming they are wrong is just as baseless as claiming they are right.
So I have a track record of accepting reality and facts and using them to support my position.
Conversely you have a track record of rejecting or misrepresenting facts and parts of reality which demonstrate you are wrong or show flaws in your position, misrepresenting or otherwise making false claims about facts or parts of reality to pretend they support you when they don't, ignoring the reality of what people have said and instead constructing strawmen to knock down, effectively lying about what they are saying, demanding they prove or provide things only your strawmen have claimed rather than what they have claimed, and continually projecting these inadequacies onto others.
we never knew
Do you understand the difference between guessing and being correct, vs knowing that you are correct.
Again, for the dice analogy, any of those 5 people could be correct, even though they have no way of knowing. But not knowing doesn't mean they are wrong.
You claiming they are wrong is just as baseless as them claiming any particular number.
Just like they have no way of knowing they are correct, you have no way of knowing they are wrong.
And by you claiming that they are all wrong, you are effectively claiming the dice landed on 6, something you have no way of knowing, and placing your claim as equivalent to their claims.
So what makes your claim, effectively that the dice landed on 6, any better than their equivalent claims that it landed on a different number?