Though religion itself cannot be objective, philosophy of religion can be. For example, the epistemology of religion delves into the study of how an individual can know, or more accurately, be convinced of their religious convictions. How does an individual become convinced of their religious beliefs? What do they accept as evidence (not proof) for the existence of God, for example? A strong exhilarating feeling? Nothing could be more subjective, or subject to interpretation, and strong exhilarating feelings can be produced by taking certain drugs. Pointing to scripture is not objective because scripture is only "true" because it claims itself to be true. This is a circular argument that could be made of any of a thousand or more "scriptures" of humankind, of which one typically chooses (or was indoctrinated into) the proclaimed scripture of one's personal and subjective tradition. Evidenced by the number of believers? This not only simply reflects mass societal indoctrination and has constantly changed through the ages, but it also sidesteps the issue of sincerity. This is not even to mention that sincerity itself is subjective, and one can easily be sincerely mistaken. True because someone told me whom I trust? This is blind faith, or perhaps more accurately "parroting", and often is attributable to a type of spiritual celebrity worship that negates individuality. Contrarily, when atheists ask for proof of the existence of God, simply ask them what they would accept as proof. Usually, they simply cannot answer as God, being immaterial, cannot be found in a test tube or a telescope. Even "seeing God" could easily just be an illusion, assuming one can even know what God should "look like." Indeed, more to the point, God being immaterial shouldn't be anything recognizable by physical senses at all. So, what then would the objective criteria be?

The questions are good. The answers are fleeting.

Same as my view on all philosophy. It is just an idea. A thought. Do with it what you will. It only means something to you if you let it

Thanks for asking. I think it hinges on a semantics problem. It depends a lot on how you define words. And not outside the dictionary choices, but depending on which dictionary definition we use for various critical terms, an objective understanding of religions can be discerned that is not in conflict with science.

All religions seem to be allegorical portrayals of very real human psychology, if we have eyes to see it. Human psychology exists objectively. Art exists objectively. Metaphor exists objectively. Studying all these things already exists objectively.

Reading metaphor as literal fact leads believers and non-believers equally astray. My view (since you asked ) is that the most valued (and therefore “sacred” ) commodity on earth is the knowledge of how to reduce suffering, both physical, and particularly psychological. Ancient religious traditions were primarily, but not exclusively, aimed at teaching that knowledge, and training adepts. Many practices which make no sense from a literal perspective are very effective when understood as a tool to manage one’s personal psychology.

If it smells like shit and looks like shit it's probably shit.

I've never heard a religious philosophy that was objective. They're all the only way and everyone who doesn't agree is evil and is going to he'll.

I just don't believe. I will leave it a that. I don't overthink much unless there is a new trick in bed I never seen but I enjoyed it.... I got to know the details... deconstruct and make it better or die trying. Philosophy? nah, not my trick... I like the simple Primal Aspect of Me.

Well geez this is a tough one I don't no how to make a good comment lol, cause those of us here at least most of us arent dictated by organized religion

Nothing based on irrational belief can be called objective.

I believe that atheism is strongest when someone has been indoctrinated heavily by religion and is recovering. That never happened to me, so I call myself an agnostic rather than an atheist. I like being open. I'm not open to organized religion at all. I relish free thought and believe everyone has the right to figure things out his/her way. Here, on this site, I get to see the deep wounds that have been made by religion.