I waffled on whether or not to respond to this post, beings as what I wanted to say about it has already been said and modded out of veiw, but here it goes anyway:
Your comment achieves nothing more than offending both camps of which you speak. You offend the religious and those willing to believe in inexplicable miracles by discounting the value and power of their faith in the otherwise unbelievable. The point of their beliefs (in many cases) is that they ARE ridiculous, in the common sense. They don't require proof and will frequently reject it so that their faith stands on only their own power of will -- a character trait that they and many others value.
You offend those of a more scientific persuasion by asserting that the individuals who have actually done the first-hand work of technical and observational science (and those who trust in their consensus) are either liars or are participating some kind of mass halucination.
Your judgment on the sincerity of 'religions' is nearly as misguided. Organized religion is used by its leaders almost as often for personal gain as it for personal enlightenment. If you'd like to contest that, I suggest you do some research into ownership of most of the private land of the Rocky Mountains and many important corporations of America. In the case of those that follow the New Testament, such lavish positions of power and money is unwise if not directly hypocritical for as Jesus is reported as saying to Lazarus, "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of needle than it is for a rich man to pass through the gates of Heaven."
In addition, so many of these churches in the past, particularly the Anglican and Catholic, have only proven Mao Zedong's famous quote that religion is the opiate of the masses by mixing church and state to the point of justifying great political atrocities. All those leader's had to do assuage the concerns of the ruled populace is claim that God told them to do it. Doesn't sound very sincere to me; and if it isn't, does that make all these listed mainstream religions into cults, is that all it takes?
My real point of contention is that your post was modded as Insightful, when all it really amounts to is uninformed, egocentric assertions deserving little more than a Flamebait tag.
I judge a religion as being good or bad based on whether its adherents become better people as a result of practicing it. - Joe Mullally, computer salesman