I have often sat down and wondered if I had to list all the religions I have studied in order of their absurdity, which order would they be in? Specifically, which would be first? I often find that the religion I find craziest at any given time tends to be the one I have most recently studied in depth, or the one whose followers have most recently annoyed me. But based solely on faith and practice, which religion is the silliest?
Perhaps it could be Islam? Islam, after all, has no valid arguments in its favor, which is why most Muslim apologists tend to default to attacking other religions instead of defending their own. Or maybe it's Mormonism, a Henotheistic religion riding on the back of Trinitarian Monotheism? Perhaps Evolution, a religion whose followers claim allegiance to science while denying the most basic observations of mankind, should take the first spot? After much thought, I eventually came to the conclusion that the silliest religion in the world is Catholicism. This is because part of Catholic practice is to frequently show believers why they are wrong, yet still expect them to believe it.
See, Catholicism has a doctrine called "Transubstantiation". That is, whenever they take communion, they claim that the bread and the wine literally become the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. They still look like bread and wine. They still feel like bread and wine. They still taste like bread and wine. I don't really need to tell you this: They are bread and wine. Every other false religion has some sort of excuse for why their crazier claims require faith, be it because their claims occurred in the past, or because they take place in another realm. But no, every Sunday, Catholic priests pretend to transform bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Jesus, place it in front of the people who are to consume it, and somehow, no matter how many times this is done, no matter how obvious it is that this is a scam, Catholics still go back expecting to consume real human flesh, and real human blood.
Of course, Catholics aren't so delusional as to actually believe the bread and wine becomes flesh and blood. They call it a "sacred mystery". It's a mystery why God (who cannot lie, and is not a deceiver) transforms the bread and wine without transforming the bread and wine. This, somehow, makes it ok. You can see the beginning of the logic. When you add an omnipotent and omniscient deceiver into your worldview, you can say anything you like, it doesn't matter, because God is both powerful enough to pull off any prank He likes, and knows how to do it.
But there are two problems with this. First, ask yourself, is that really the kind of God you want to follow? If God is such a powerful deceiver, your own religion could be a deceit from God. At that point, you should never be able to trust anything you believe.
But more importantly, that's not the God of the Bible. The father of lies, according to the Bible is actually Satan, and the way to resist those lies is to rely on Jesus, who is the way, the truth, and the life. There genuinely are things in Christianity that must be believed by faith. I've never been to Heaven, so I can't tell you conclusively that it exists, or what it's like. And of course, no one alive today saw the events described in the Bible take place. But the reason these things require faith is precisely because they're not in front of me. But when God does do something miraculous, it's no "sacred mystery". Jesus didn't swim up to the disciples and tell them He was walking on water. Lazarus didn't lie dead and stinking in his tomb while Jesus claimed he was walking around. Jesus didn't tell the guests at the wedding that the water was the best wine they'd ever had and expect them to just believe it on faith alone. No, every miracle Jesus ever performed was, in some way, verifiable, to the point where even those who denied His legitimacy at least tried to explain how He was doing those miracles.
And we're not just talking during Jesus' ministry. The 10 plagues, the Red Sea crossing, Joshua's long day, God never asked His followers to be gullible and just pretend something happened. These things actually happened before witnesses. So why should Transubstantiation be any different? If you want me to believe bread and wine become flesh and blood, you better be able to show me flesh and blood. If you can't, then Transubstantiation is not only deceptive, but it's not even very good deception. Rather, it is self delusion that boggles the mind of anyone who isn't somehow stuck in it themselves. Far better to go with the Biblical view of the Lord's Supper: "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." (1 Corinthians 11:23-26, emphasis mine).