I'm no hyper-rationalist type. The most important part of life is subjective and experiential, not how logical one can be. To the extent that science discounts this in favor of repeatable experiments, it's wayward, imo. Our ultimate and only frame of reference is subjective. If science can't capture it, that's a limitation of science, not a diss on subjective experience. And the world is a very mystical place, and consciousness very spiritual. It's just that defaulting to formal doctrines of religions isn't spiritual at all, but closer to anti-spiritual.
The path is the path is the path. An independent path. That's different from obedience. Gnosticism rocks. But formalized religion is a corruption of it, an ending of it.

I've never heard anybody say "We can't have a system of medicine without ultimate and perfect knowledge from an omniscient authority," or "we can't have a system of cosmology without ultimate and perfect knowledge from a perfect supernatural authority," or "we can't have a system of mathematics without perfect knowledge and authority from an omniscient supernatural being," etc.

When we get to morality, in order to smuggle god in, it becomes: "You have no foundation for morality without god, therefore god exists. You can have no system of morality without god."

They are all works in progress. No special pleading because it gets fuzzy and complicated. It's religious-speak to make this exception for morality systems. It's not reality based, as usual with religion.

"Personification of the source of what is and what is happening = god." -- Sadhguru

Thousands of times over, such gods are created by man. Embodied by this, embodied by that, embodied by a thousand different things. "All the same," says Confucius. Check your premises.

"Miracle claims are used to dupe people into religions. By miracle I don't mean this. I mean wondrous and mysterious." -- Sadhguru

Westerners are determined to continue to be duped by these Indian spirituality scammers.

I listened to his debate with cognitive scientist Steven Pinker and fully expected him to be embarrassed. He didn't get embarrassed. He made good points, including the very astute characterization of religion in the quotes listed above. Of course you leapt immediately to I'm a follower of his or some BS.

Argue with the points he made, or you are double ad hominem (against me and him).

1. Miracle claims are used to dupe gullible people into religions across the centuries, including today.
2. The personification of an unknown source into a "god being" that will kill if you don't believe in it is a sick religious formulation.

Such profound criticisms. Now go ahead and lay out his alternative moral prescription..

I really don't know or care. I suspect it is something like go within, connect with true self and source, and don't listen to people who fancy themselves god messengers.

You don’t know? Then why are you appealing to him like he’s some moral authority you muppet?

I quoted the guy to discuss the quote. That has nothing to do with appealing to him as an authority, fool. It means simply he has a point. Of course you would make that mistake with your fundamentalist, "I'm the one telling you about god" mindset. You can't quite fathom discussing ideas without going authoritarian and presuming others are doing the same.

Tell me again, what is it that qualifies you to be revealing god's nature, and how are you different than all the other countless revealers of the various claimed gods? Because so far it seems like it is pretty much just a presumed, ipso facto thing and "Why would I need to provide anything like that?" You owe it to anyone who wants to know you are reliable as a source given all the impostors.

You actually believe you are capable of discerning the truth on your own? You are the arrogant one.

The spirit of truth is the only one who can provide validation. I am a servant. Still, I have already been validated at the highest level and speak the truth about myself.

Let your life experience inform your spirituality. Gnosis over obedience to canned religion. Personal experience is indeed, I think, the vital aspect of a "religion." It's just that in orthodox religion, so many claim it by contagion but actually have nothing to offer when asked to describe their experience. Many who left this or that religion, having claimed to be great believers and having dramatic personal experiences, when they deconstructed, said some version of, "You know, I didn't really believe it but was just caught up in the group think. And I didn't have any personal experience that informed me about god."

Gnosis is sacred. Whatever can be gleaned along the path of one's actual personal experience, not framed and canned by some orthodox presupposition and group contagion, is where profound meaning is uncovered in life. Superstitions of the 1st Century? Warring religions down thru the ages? Con men frauds pontificating ridiculously? You be the judge.

You may not believe in God, but the question is: Does God believe in you?

Here's kind of how activating a god story in your head works: you believe it, you have emotions around it, you have an epiphany, you attribute it to something, you start a narrative in your head about life events as they relate to the belief.

This works for every religion under the sun, no actual god needed. That much is proven.

This casts shade on all the mutually exclusive god claims. But not so much for a "perennial philosophy" idea that all the religions are attempts to apprehend a god that indeed does exist but is unknown. In case anybody cares to keep their religion on a sensible path, that one seems a keeper. "My god is realer than your god and you're going to hell if you don't believe it" ... not so much.

Embracing the mystery requires courage. Bluffing a pat answer is neurotic, fear-based, superstitious. Opening oneself to some plan of the cosmos is an awesome idea; forfeiting mind to 1st Century superstitions ... not so much.

I think the answer is that you kind of have to believe.

If it's just consume as much as you can and then die what's the point in going on.

Some external force wants life to continue on this planet, even though 100 years from now, it won't matter to us, whether life exists or not.

I agree having hope or faith in some positive force or direction is great ... faith in ancient superstitions and canned religions not so great.

To paraphrase essayist Anais Nin: Religion is so often not about what's real, but about believing in an illusion they can bear to live with. Is this why thousands of different religions can gain traction within humanity?

I thought that one might get radio silence. If any religion no matter how bizarre gains adherents, what does that say about the religious impulse as commonly practiced? "Well ours isn't weird, it's the real and true one. And it isn't strange or bizarre in any way." You know, blood drinking is weird. Just because the widespread popularity of the religion has sort of normalized the idea of blood drinking, at least if you don't think about it too much, that doesn't mean that blood drinking isn't actually bizarre and kind of sick. It is considered exactly that -- sick and highly ill-advised -- everywhere else under the sun that it occurs. And for good reason. But if you are getting your ideas from the 1st Century, it seems like it isn't a problem. Why question it?

This is so egregiously begging the question that it hardly merits a response.

Interview with a true believer zealot who ipso facto is just in the right religion, period:

Interviewer: Does a Jehovah's Witness need to deconstruct from their god belief?
Zealot: Yes, of course (laughs).

Interview: Does a Moonie need to deconstruct from the belief system?
Zealot: Yes, of course.

Interviewer: Does a Mormon need to deconstruct from their belief system?
Zealot: Yes.

I: Does a Catholic need to deconstruct from their belief system?
Z: Yes.

I: Does a Hindu need to deconstruct from their worldview?
Z: Yes.

I: Does a Muslim need to deconstruct from their belief system?
Z: Yes.

I: Does a Southern Baptist need to deconstruct from their belief system?
Z: Yes.

I: Do you need to disentangle yourself from your religious worldview?
Z: No. I've got the real one.

I: How did it come about that you have the real one?
Z: (He either has absolutely nothing on this or some version of): "Come on, man. It's just always been that way."

I rammed a giant dildo up god’s ass.

The current state of atheism in one post.

not as a singular entity but yea ofc.. big advocate of pantheism

As a thought experiment will you answer all of these questions? Would your answers be relevantly different? I suspect not. That other people disagree with our views should be background knowledge for all of us.

In this case however there are 6 billion theists and 1 billion non-theists so your position is epistemically weaker based on your own reasoning. If you had stated your conclusion more formally it would have been prima facia self defeating.