Are all illusions equal? No, some are more harmful to society than others. Some are more harmful to the person. Some are both.

Clearly not all religions are equal as many are based on wildly differing tenants. Janism is basically humanism where you cannot be violent to others, so this must be better than all the Abrahamic religions. Buddhism hasn't been talked about much in the comments and as that doesn't have a central text and uses the ideas of one's own experiences to validate your own beliefs and truths, again clearly better / different to Abrahamic religions. I've heard that most psychologists, if religious, are Buddhists. Scientology is a crock of crap so we can forget about that.

I certainly would not put Jainism on the same level as fundamentalist Christianity or Islam.

All religions have the same innate ability to cause harm to society - and some are better at it than others. But just because one is not CURRENTLY as destructive as another does not make it any less false - and it is the falseness of all religions that make them equal.

All religions are equally false, but not all religions are equal in their consequences. Just because two things share one trait doesn't mean they share all traits, nor are they the same in all regards.

They are all equal inasmuch as they are all untrue ... Some are more dangerous than others at various points in history .

I think if you follow the golden rule of treating others like you want to be treated, and you try to help a person in distress like in the story of the good Samaritan, then I you'll live an altruistic life. I was heavily indoctrinated as a Catholic school girl, so if I were to salvage anything from the bible, it would be those two teachings. However, for religion to work in the way good people think it should, we also have to completely ignore the majority of stories in the bible. For instance, the story of Issac who was ready to sacrifice his son for god is totally screwed up as is the fact that for some stupid reason Jesus had to die a horrible death to absolve us of our sins.

I find them all equally delusional.

They are all equal in appropriating morality through regular ritual and devotion which keeps the believer from straying thoughts logic or reason. The rules may vary, but the outcome is the same, in that it is an attempt to control large groups of people. Rituals give them a sense of unity. Certain clothing separates them from others. They seek to create an 'us' and 'them' system which defines non believers as lesser beings which god allows to be killed or subjugated and lands conquered with out guilt or sin.

I thought they were all equals... until I discovered Scientology. Now, I consider the difference between religions where the leaders believe in what they say and the ones where the leaders are just there to make money or have power (like Raelians and Scientology)

Yes. They are all equally man-made.

If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, behaves like a duck.. then it must be a duck.

There is no single answer to the specific question. One may say that they are on an equal footing in that they promote belief in place of thoughtful, critical investigation. That is a valid answer.

In agreement with your posit, one can also say that they are not because of differing dogma, belief systems, actions, etc. This too is a valid answer.

What the question appears to be asking is whether there is a difference between religions that is qualitative. The answer to this would be in the affirmative. What each does to and how each affects society as a whole is readily subject to a qualitative value. On a scale with the least harmful at the bottom and the most dangerous at the top, Jainism would be 0 on the scale and radical Islam would be a 10. Everything else would fall somewhere on the scale between those values. I hasten to point out that all the Abrahamic religions would be crowding the upper end of the scale.

All religious people are equal in their disdain for rational thought and reason. I keep seeing references on this site to "the good people" who practice religion as opposed to the zealots. There are no "good people." In some ways they are worse. They provide cover for and legitimize the zealots who take religious delusions to the extreme. It is dangerous to distinguish one religion from another based on "the particular values and ideas who (sic) have different consequences on human behavior." This has been enough to spark wars and crusades throughout all human history. And I hear the same idea referenced by many christians who worship the same god and read the same scriptures as do their slandered brethren who are muslim. Even christians are at the throats of other christians for no better reason than religious bigotry based on minute philosophical differences. The bloody wars between catholics and protestants come to mind as well as The Troubles in Northern Ireland. Falling into the trap of ranking the religious by the characteristics of their religions on a "good to bad" scale makes you vulnerable to the siren song of politicians itching to wage war. Religion could not be used as a cover for wars of aggression whose true aims are to loot other countries of their resources and wage cultural imperialism in the fight to make the world safe for McDonald' and KFC. If the vast majority of the electorate were atheists or, at least, considered all religious justifications for waging war as spurious there would be one less phony flag to fly while trying to convince a skeptical nation to go to war.

I believe that all religions are equal and the value they get is given by their followers earnestness.

If a religion is untrue...and for all I can see no evidence..then there is no difference. One could debate to what extent has religion caused war and conflict and make a judgement on that. The crusades, Holocaust to name but two are pretty good examples of why religion is insane.

Religions are generally based on a common thread of fantasy - a sort of opiate to calm the fears of humans. So, in that respect they are equal. Religions could be beneficial if they are relegated to humans' spiritual needs ( many people simply need the opiate or else can't cope). Some religions are better at this than others. When a religion intrudes in the political arena, well, then it's no longer about religion, is it? It's about POWER to control others. Islam seems to be the most pernicious, at least because it has so many adherents. But, let's face it, Christianity has shown similar patterns when it was the main cultural/political force.

I believe they are equal in their falseness, they all profess to the supernatural to some degree, they all make claims as to how one should live their lives, so in many ways they are different but yet the goals are the same

All religions are based on ungrounded cultural mythology and superstition. Still some religions treat people with greater dignity and respect than others. They do less damage.

I think all Religious are equal just as all Governments are equal...I think the term "fornicators" was a description designed for the two. They crawl in bed together and manipulate the masses, seeking to control every aspect of our lives. We will generally get in bed with one if not both. People will harm you to defend these fornicators.

I believe all religions are equally toxic eventually. Any sort of delusional think is harmful to the psyche.

equally false in terms of involving a supreme being? sure. equally false in terms of what they teach, even if what they teach is ostensibly what the supreme being wants/prefers/demands? no. and the issue does not only underline the presumed christianity vs. islam debate; those are not the only two major religions. i can make a good case, i think, for judaism's being less false, god aside, than other religions, by virtue of its humanism and its focus on the present world instead of an afterlife. in judaism one is not asked to be good in order to get to heaven. one is asked to be good because being good is good. yeah, there's the whole if you love god you love his creation so be good to his creation deal, but the premise survives without god too, which is one reason i can still be a jew and also be an atheist (try doing that with christianity or islam!) judaism also does not condemn doubters, or even disbelievers. the only thing you can do to get kicked out of judaism, so to speak, is take on another god (so buddhism is not incompatible because buddha isn't a god). in addition, jews don't demand that everyone become jewish; it's not a requirement for being a good person (hence the term "righteous gentile) nor to get to heaven (which is not much like the christian or islamic perception of heaven either). there are fewer commandments for gentiles than for jews. jews have 613; for gentiles jews require only seven of those.

not to worship idols.
not to curse god.
to establish courts of justice.
not to commit murder.
not to commit adultery or sexual immorality.
not to steal.
not to eat flesh torn from a living animal.

number two is open to interpretation, especially for an atheist, since, if there is no god, then saying "goddamnit" is not meant literally and thus might not count. likewise, "sexual immorality" isn't defined right there in the law, and barely defined elsewhere. the rest are not such bad commandments, god or no god, right?

(i am not talking about the super orthodox, and i am not talking about the 613, which include rules for kashruth and all that, because i am only considering what jews and other religionists expect from OTHER people. levels of interference with others in the universe counts, for me, when considering "equally false." the more you interfere, the worse you are, right?)

compare that to some sects of christianity whose members kill abortion doctors, or demonstrate loudly at military funerals because jesus hates gays (kind of convoluted, that) or try to legislate the 10 commandments (THE 10, right? not the 613 or the seven!) into law or post them in courtrooms, or who demand that everyone else follow their religion or end of up an imaginary hell (or jail, depending on how your local government operates). compare to islam, which for the most part doesn't try to change anyone but which has some purported followers (i say purported because, like so many christians, some muslims don't understand or follow their own religion and yet claim to be its most sincere and devout proponents -- while blowing up buildings and school buses. religion has its problems but that's not part of islam. it's part of the human propensity to use religion to justify any old horror.)

i am not saying all this to try to convert anyone to judaism (which isn't easy anyway, and jews don't proselytize), or to any religion at all. i repeat: i am an atheist. i am just trying to answer the question in a logical fashion. it asks us to compare and contrast, right? i've attempted, in a limited fashion, to do so. when i say that judaism is less false overall than the other two, i am not implying that religions that involve a supreme being are not all, in the end, false, at least in that regard. i am only considering as many of the other factors as i happen to know and happen to think of while typing this answer. i've probably left out something important!

g

I think Sam Harris sums it up pretty well.

Q: "With all of the different religions, how can I know which one is correct?"

A: There is no doubt that the number of different religions in the world makes it a challenge to know which one is correct. First, let’s consider some thoughts on the overall subject and then look at how one might approach the topic in a manner that can actually get to a right conclusion about God. The challenge of different answers to a particular issue is not unique to the topic of religion. For example, you can sit 100 math students down, give them a complex problem to solve, and it is likely that many will get the answer wrong. But does this mean that a correct answer does not exist? Not at all. Those who get the answer wrong simply need to be shown their error and know the techniques necessary to arrive at the correct answer.

How do we arrive at the truth about God? We use a systematic methodology that is designed to separate truth from error by using various tests for truth, with the end result being a set of right conclusions. Can you imagine the end results a scientist would arrive at if he went into the lab and just started mixing things together with no rhyme or reason? Or if a physician just started treating a patient with random medicines in the hope of making him well? Neither the scientist nor the physician takes this approach; instead, they use systematic methods that are methodical, logical, evidential, and proven to yield the right end result.

This being the case, why should theology—the study of God—be any different? Why believe it can be approached in a haphazard and undisciplined way and still yield right conclusions? Unfortunately, this is the approach many take, and this is one of the reasons why so many religions exist. That said, we now return to the question of how to reach truthful conclusions about God. What systematic approach should be used? First, we need to establish a framework for testing various truth claims, and then we need a roadmap to follow to reach a right conclusion. Here is a good framework to use:

1. Logical consistency—the claims of a belief system must logically cohere to each other and not contradict in any way. As an example, the end goal of Buddhism is to rid oneself of all desires. Yet, one must have a desire to rid oneself of all desires, which is a contradictory and illogical principle.

2. Empirical adequacy—is there evidence to support the belief system (whether the evidence is rational, externally evidential, etc.)? Naturally, it is only right to want proof for important claims being made so the assertions can be verified. For example, Mormons teach that Jesus visited North America. Yet there is absolutely no proof, archaeological or otherwise, to support such a claim.

3. Existential relevancy—the belief system should address the big questions of life described below and the teachings should be accurately reflected in the world in which we live. Christianity, for example, provides good answers for the large questions of life, but is sometimes questioned because of its claim of an all-good and powerful God who exists alongside a world filled with very real evil. Critics charge that such a thing violates the criteria of existential relevancy, although many good answers have been given to address the issue.

The above framework, when applied to the topic of religion, will help lead one to a right view of God and will answer the four big questions of life:

1. Origin – where did we come from?
2. Ethics – how should we live?
3. Meaning – what is the purpose for life?
4. Destiny – where is mankind heading?

They are all equally misguided.

But it's the fundamentalists that are the issue. What are the fundemantals? Like Sam harris said, Islamic findementalists are a problem because the fundamentals, as they see them, call for violence, whereas a Jane fundementalist gets safer!