Can the fact that there are beliefs in many gods and religions around be taken as evidence or proof that all religions are false?

It is some evidence for it. There is no logically compelling reason to prefer one set of deities to any other. There is no genuine objective evidence for any gods. Gods have the personalities of people who invented them. That shows men created gods. The creators of gods were not very intelligent, so sacred texts are comically absurd. My maternal grandfather was a Baptist pastor, so I was taken or sent to church every Sunday and told to read the Bible every day from age 4 to age 17 when I went off to college. I also read much of Greek and Norse mythologies. In college, I studied more world religions. I also read Science books, since my maternal grandparents were both teachers who had a large library. I saw conflicts between Science and the Bible. I recall doubting the Bible by age six. My grandfather had a concordance. I used if to compare Bible verses on various subjects and observed dumb contradictions. I have much evidence against religions, and this is one of them.

I agree with Hitchen's. Couldn't say it better myself. I think I would just add, that religion is applicable in practical matters of life; meaning it can be utilized to alter human behavior for good or bad.

Possibly all false, possible all but one is false, or possibly that many of them are perceptions of the same truth. One of popular problems with comparing religions is the misconception that if one religion doesn't include another, they disagree. For example, nothing says that God didn't send other representatives besides Jesus to Earth, so a number of religions can fit into the Judeo-Christian model (for example) without conflict.

The fact that there are many beliefs in many gods implies a choice of two things, since they all can't be true.

1. Either there is one correct religion and all the others are false, or 2. None of them is correct. Distasteful choice, but logically, that's all there is.

That's All Or Nothing thinking. Saying "religions are false" is like the religious people saying, "My religion is THE true one."

I'll tell you something from the Bible - don't tell lies about your neighbor.

Got a problem with that? If not, you can't say religion is entirely false.

Personally, I find the idea of a Higher Power that's concerned with individual human beings interesting. You can put forward a good argument based on near-death research (Source, below).

Not all religions have gods and goddesses, so the presumption that religions are false because of a belief in gods is false. Jainism and Buddhism are both examples of religions that don't need gods.

Before you look at the beliefs themselves, first you must consider why they exist to begin with. Why do humans believe in gods at all? It is because they provide answers. All religions offer explanations as to the rules of the world. Humans naturally fear the unknown for the unknown could be hiding something potentially dangerous. Religions fill that void with the illusion of an entity, either benevolent, or at the very least, which can be appeased, understood, and that offers a measure of security to their lives. Knowing that something governs the things that lurk in the dark, that there are rules, be they real or imaginary, offers people a means of dealing with the unknown and thus, makes them feel safer.

In other words, religion is a coping mechanism.

It is reasonable to assume contradictory hypotheses are either evidence of some error on the part of one or more of the hypotheses, or that a more inclusive framing may resolve such contradiction (cf general relativity and classical physics re Mercury orbit perturbation).

One such more inclusive framing that is as valid as assuming all religions are false or herd-derived (great Moose in the sky) is that of God, Life, Being as Noumenal or Great Tao, tending to be beyond human categorization. The prophet Mohammad (owbp) noted this, in his hadith (paraphrased) "almost all sects in Islam will be false paths in the end of the age [ = Christian-speak 'end times']."

Howbeit, presence of contradiction does not = proof of unreason. Pascal's wager is similar: instead of getting into the minutiae or weeds of one sect vs another, it may be noted that Light and Truth are aspects or Names of Deity, even if most theology seems equivalent to 5 blindfolded Hindu investigators encountering and describing a trunk, an ear, a tail, a side, and a tusk of an Indian elephant.

The logic of "God" = transcendence and immanence, and if a human does not encounter immanence e.g. as "kingdom within," it is valid to posit that that human has Energy-veilings. Thus in the case of "God," there is no logical way to prove "God is not"...which brings up Pascal's wager and a general solution: if one Loves God, Loves Colleague as Self, and even Loves as Messias, Truth, Christ Jesus, Loves, then that fulfills the law and the prophets. This scenario presumes God Is, Loves created creatures as Sons and Daughters, Children of the One Light, and the Child loves to love in return, developing Self as I Am awareness of the I AM.

Related:

The Path of the Higher Self.

I think religion is a fascinating anthropological phenomenon. The installation of widespread belief in a vain attempt to apply purpose to existence in so many different permeations. Fascinating.

Pick your religion

For the purposes of this answer ‘Faiths’ are included in religions because the semantic word play will not be acknowledged.

Most religions claim they their book is divinely inspired.

Some actually claim it to be written by their god.

Most religions claim to be the true religion.

Most religions say that they have proof of their religion being the true one yet all the arguments are circular therefore invalid.

Because of this, all religions say it is about ‘Faith’ and following your heart.

So, because the above is true then all religions are equally valid.

Most religions claim to be the way of love and peace.

Most religions have killed to convert.

All religions are different but claim to have commonalities.

Therefore it follows that all religions must all be dilutions.