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

Equally bullshit

Even some secular scholars believe the Church of England had a major role in establishing Rule of Law that protected peasants from lords and some Muslims still seems stuck on keeping people nomadic or in caves. They're both stupid but one is definitely the winner.

If I had to choose to be around religious people, I'd probably pick Buddhists who don't live in Myanmar.

are we, humans, equal ?

all religions are equal, because they are all equally false, and all can not be proven .,nor disproven, when you use faith as a factor, quid a pro

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!

are we, humans, equal ?

Not my case.....all delusions are delusions duh......I do not escalate any tangients over this question. ....any good resulting from any believer DOES NOT RESCUE religion from absurdity. ....alleged deities alleged miracles are worthless hallucinations. ...hell threats and heaven bribes are evil inducements and result in a variety of intended and UN-intended consequences. ...acoordingly this is a worthless question regarding the comparisons between faiths. ...all are wrong. ...be thankful some believers turn out to be good humans despite bad faiths

I think Sam Harris sums it up pretty well.

Equally idiotic? Yes. This is not to say that each one has positive ways to live ones life, but they are all an equal waste of a person's brain.

It's not, I think,a particular religion itself that is more damaging or enriching than another, but how the actions of its priestly class, particularly in the higher echelons of its hierarchical power structure, shape the way in which it is practiced. The professional practioners of the three monotheistic systems have long tended toward outright misogyny - from Judaism's view that wives are chattel to the insistence within some Muslim societies on cloistering away womenfolk on the pretext of protecting their virtue - and have not shied away from employing violence both to expand and solidify their control (as in the Crusades, the persecution of "witches" and widespread use of burning hertics alive, jihad, and contemporary Islamist terrorism).

Buddhism, on the other hand, has by and large remained a religion of non-violence (the recent persecution of the Rohingya notwithstanding), perhaps because it has traditionally lacked a powerful class of priestly elites.

Are all atheist equal?

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.

"Do you think all religious are equal?"

Equal in what sense?

"Some Atheists claim that all religions or religious philosophies are the same since they are equally false."

Well certain non-supernatural claims found in religions may be true. I think Jesus probably did exist but that doesn't say much on it's own does it?

"I assert that them being equally false is irrelevant. Ideologies and belief systems embed particular values and ideas who have different consequences on human behavior."

True but it's hard to really judge them all equal handedly.

"Consequences on the human behavior is what really matters as this is how it truly affects society."

True.

"Not all religions are equal because they represent different religious philosophies and set of rules in the same way that godless ideologies such as marxism or capitalism are."

True.

"Do you believe that all religions are equal?"

Perhaps not in their negative impacts on humanity but to really objectively compare every aspect of each one without any cultural value judgements creeping in is neigh on impossible!

"What do you mean by it?'

i'm pretty sure they can't all be equal but how the hell can you be entirely objective when judging them all?

"This issue underlines the Christianity vs. Islam debate. Please defend your case here."

As far as I'm concerned most are so bad they are largely as bad as each other. I'm OK with Jains though because the more fundamentalist they get the less you have to worry about them as harmful because they are 100% pacifist. They won't even kill insects i they can help it!

All religions are only equal in there willful disregard of reality, but they are far from being equally benign.

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

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.

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 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)

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.

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 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

From a scientific viewpoint there can be little difference between religions in as much as they are all figments of someone imagination. That being said there are some religions that are so virilent that they are much more of a threat to the rest of civilization.

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.