I was not aware someone else had discovered Truth. /s

Religions fail? Quite the opposite: they have provided solace for people in crisis for millennia. What did you think religion was about, the truth? Nothing so mundane. Religion is the redemptive and consummatory structure of our existence. Everything else is just incidental. And this makes the youtube simply about things incidentally true about a culture's way of dealing with metaethical indeterminacies.

I'm not in the religion or God business, but by what measure does one determine whether a religion has failed? By its gifts or its brutalities? How do you weigh the benefits against the harms? And which religions are we talking about?

It seems to me you can only make a blanket judgement like that if you already hold the view that religion is superstition that gets good people to do bad things, which is certainly a perspective, but not the only one.

... "the truth" about what?

Apparently, not only did the commenters (except Astrophel) fail to watch the 10 minute video they are commenting on, they also failed to read the second sentence of the original post. Here it is again.

In short, religions disagree about what happens when I die, how to be saved, etc. Religions have had thousands of years to find the truth and have failed. — Art48

I hope that helps.

Astrophel: "Religion is the redemptive and consummatory structure of our existence"
Hm. I'd call that word salad. But if you can give it some meaning, I expect existing religions will disagree about that, too.

Why Religions Fail — Art48

I watched your video, where it repeats for 10 minutes:
1. No one knows what will happen after death, since:
2. Religions contradict each other
3. All religions are based on superhero stories
4. Science does not contradict itself

I propose another question: for what purpose did humanity ask the question "what will happen after death? . "Was the answer to this question important, or did the answer to this question justify ethics?

I think the man of that time did well, because he would be saved after death. In my opinion, the basis of the search for an answer to the question that after death is the justification of ethics. Of course, good and bad actions in different societies are different actions. Hence, in my opinion, such discrepancies. You say that religions are contradictory, but I think not really: do well and you will be saved, that's what they have in common. Another thing is that a different concept is good everywhere.

By the way, Zaroastrianism (the first monotheistic religion) argued 3 postulates: Good thought. Good word. Good deed. Little has changed in religions since then.

By the way, Zaroastrianism (the first monotheistic religion) argued 3 postulates: Good thought. Good word. Good deed. Little has changed in religions since then. — Astorre

There’s a Buddhist anecdote that an elderly questioner once asked the Buddha, what is the core of his teaching? He replied, ‘Cease from evil, learn to do good, and purify the mind.’ Taken aback, the questioner said, ‘but a child knows that!’ ‘Yes’, was the reply, ‘but how many grown adults are able to live up it?’

In short, religions disagree about what happens when I die, how to be saved, etc. Religions have had thousands of years to find the truth and have failed.
— Art48

I hope that helps. — Art48

Not really. I think "religions disagree" because they seek answers which rationalize or are permissible in accord with prior conclusions (dogmas). To the degree different religions share prior conclusions, it seems their questions tend to converge on similar (or equivalent) "truths", and vice versa.

‘Cease from evil, learn to do good, and purify the mind.’ — Wayfarer

Cease from - means something was already going on that needs to cease.

Learn. To do. Good. - a life’s work.

Purify the mind.

Love it.

There’s a Buddhist anecdote that an elderly questioner once asked the Buddha, what is the core of his teaching? He replied, ‘Cease from evil, learn to do good, and purify the mind.’ — Wayfarer

What do you take "purify the mind" to mean? A reference to the Noble Eightfold Path?
To me, it could suggest that we don't need to concern ourselves with metaphysics, philosophy, or even whether life has any inherent meaning: we just need to do what's outlined above. It's minimalist, but challenging in its own way.

What do you take "purify the mind" to mean? — Tom Storm

Purification in Theravada Buddhism is to observe the precepts and learn to bring the mind to bear on wholesome states of mind. In addition there are various meditative disciplines such as kasina which is concentration on various shapes and designs and mindfulness training. These are aimed at ‘one-pointedness’ of mind culminating in states of jhana (meditative trance) of which there are eight gradations. But that is in turn predicated on the vinaya or the lay version of the precepts and the Buddhist way of life. It’s very different from and probably at odds with typical modern lifestyles in many ways (mine included.)

(I thought the portrayal of Thai Buddhism in the recent season of White Lotus was quite realistic in many ways. The idealistic young Piper Ratliff who had had her heart set on staying at the Wat for a year changed her mind after staying a week, largely because there was no air-conditioning and the diet was meager.)

In short, religions disagree about what happens when I die, how to be saved, etc. Religions have had thousands of years to find the truth and have failed. — Art48

Oh, I didn't know that there was the truth. How did you verify that religion (what is a religion?) failed to find the truth?

By the way, Zaroastrianism (the first monotheistic religion) argued 3 postulates: Good thought. Good word. Good deed. Little has changed in religions since then. — Astorre

Obviously a lot has changed in religion since then.

Though I didn't watch the video my interpretation is that Are48 is essentially pointing out that religions fail because they are human inventions–no religion can be all-inclusive because no people can be all-inclusive.

Хотя я не смотрел видео, — практика

Judging by the answer, you not only did not watch the video, but also did not read what I wrote.

The author criticizes religion for the lack of a uniform approach to such concepts as life after death, achieving it, and also for the fact that in all religions there is a certain superhero who gives the truth.

I suggested a new layer: what if the idea of ​​life after death is, first of all, an attempt to justify ethics. you behave well, after death you get a continuation of life in heaven. the concept of behaving well for different times and societies has different content. hence the different ways to get to "heaven" in different religions.

I only said that as a tool for justifying good behavior, religions do not contradict each other.

For example, the Wheel of Samsara in Hinduism served as one of the ideological justifications for the caste system, explaining social inequality through karma and motivating people to follow caste duties for the sake of a better rebirth. the idea of Valhalla for the Vikings justified courage, heroism and risk for warriors. the idea of humility in the name of heaven in Christianity made it easier for the lowest classes to accept their oppression.

The list goes on and on. The main idea is that the justification through the afterlife (or rebirth) has always served for ethic

My point is simply that religions are inherently exclusive and fail the excluded. Your example illustrates this well. In Orthodox Brahmanical Hinduism the untouchables were denied even spiritual mobility—were excluded within their own culture and religious tradition by no fault of their own.

Your example also shows how religions change as untouchability and caste discrimination has been banned for many years.