Your comment is not a serious philosophical objection to religion—it’s an emotional dismissal without substance. If the goal is to critique religious belief, you should engage with actual arguments rather than relying on sweeping generalizations and rhetorical shortcuts.
Many religious traditions contain highly developed philosophical and theological frameworks that are anything but “nonsensical.” Christianity, for example, has a long intellectual tradition with thinkers like Aquinas, Augustine, and more recently, philosophers such as Edward Feser and Alexander Pruss, who argue rigorously for the coherence of religious belief. To call all religious ideas "absurd" is to ignore centuries of intellectual engagement with fundamental metaphysical and moral questions.
By declaring all religious narratives to be universally absurd, you assume an almost godlike knowledge—that you have perfectly analyzed and refuted every religious tradition throughout human history. This is an impossible claim. You would need exhaustive knowledge of theology, philosophy, and history to make such a sweeping statement, yet you provide no argument or evidence.
Religious thought has shaped civilizations, moral systems, and philosophical traditions for millennia. Dismissing all religious texts as "nonsense" ignores their role in forming the intellectual and ethical foundations of societies, including the development of human rights, law, and even science (many early scientists were devoutly religious).
A serious critique of religion would engage with specific claims, doctrines, or philosophical arguments and demonstrate why they fail. Simply declaring something to be “nonsensical” is not an argument; it’s just a personal opinion disguised as a refutation. Imagine responding to Einstein’s theory of relativity by saying, “That’s absurd.” It adds nothing to the discussion.