Therefore, religions do not, and cannot, agree — Art48

Religions do not agree but their prophets do.
If you understand their context and the implicit in their words you'll find only superficial, temporal and cultural differences.

Religion is commonly based on some “sacred” writings, sacred because the writings are said to contain the wisdom of wise men/women, saints, prophets, and/or God-men. — Art48

Not really. Religion predates the invention of writing by about 30,000 years. Before writing were oral traditions - stories of origin, stories of heroes, stories of the history of a people and stories of supernatural beings and of life beyond death. In several cultures that could not possibly have had physical contact, there are similar stories of a fall from grace, a loss of innocence and why it all went wrong. There were drawings in caves and on rock-faces. There were dances and ceremonies and offerings of food - or living creatures - to the ancestors, to demons and gods and nature spirits. There were sacred places and places of dread, observances and taboos.

This is the situation we should expect if God does not really exist: different civilizations making up different stories about God. — Art48

The unigod idea is a recent one; the first mention we have of it was floated in Egypt less than 4000 years ago, by Akhenaten - but didn't catch on with anybody much, except the Jews, who spent a few centuries in Egypt and already had a tribal god of their own to identify with Aten.

But it’s also the situation we should expect if God wants to be discovered fresh, by each person: religion gets us started on the path, but eventually we realize it’s fictional. — Art48

I wish that were true for the majority of religious people.

the first mention we have of it was floated in Egypt less than 4000 years ago, by Akhenaten — Vera Mont

Was Utu (sumerian sun god) who became Shamesh (Akkadian) not suggested around 6000 BCE. Was Utu not the first ever recorded sungod?
Akhenaten pushed for Aten around 1350 BCE, according to some online stuff.
Although I think you might be right that Akhenaten was the first to push for a sun god as the most powerful god but did he also suggest Aten was the ONLY god that existed, as in monotheism?

Was Utu (sumerian sun god) who became Shamesh (Akkadian) not suggested around 6000 BCE. Was Utu not the first ever recorded sungod? — universeness

Sungod, yes - or probably. Only god, no. He had parents, a wife and kids, as well as colleagues.

Although I think you might be right that Akhenaten was the first to push for a sun god as the most powerful god but did he also suggest Aten was the ONLY god that existed, as in monotheism? — universeness

As far as I recall, yes. With Akhenaten as the only mortal he talked to. You can see why that wouldn't be madly popular with the prisetly caste.

Sungod, yes - or probably. Only god, no. He had parents, a wife and kids, as well as colleagues. — Vera Mont

:lol: How human these early gods were! I wonder why? :halo:

Everything you've written here could be said of any philosophy.

This is the situation we should expect if God does not really exist — Art48

What God? You yourself said, correctly, that "religions do not, and cannot, agree", which means that the concept of "God" differs among them. And you confirm this later, by saying "different civilizations making up different stories about God."
We are used, unfortunately, to say "God is or does this and that", "the God", etc., as something (the existence of which is) given or absolute and/or without any reference. (That's why when I bring up the term "God", I use it in one of the following manners: "the Christian God", "the God of the Bible", "a God", "a god", "gods", "a God or Supreme Being", etc.)

Then, I guess you kind of "prove" that God --any kind of God-- doesn't really exist by reductio ad absurdum, i.e. this situation, with all these differences, etc. are a proof or indication that none of these Gods exists. Right, it is the only way to prove that something does not exist when there are no and cannot be proofs that it exists. However, this is a generalization that may not stand for all religions or, more specifically, all the kinds of descriptions of a God. One has to examine all these descriptions and prove them fallacious, imaginary, etc. Yet, one needs not even do that. The proof of the existence of something lies with the one who claims its existence. There's no meaning for me to try prove that there is no angel standing at the top of the church if I don't see any and do not believe that there can be any. Whoever sees that angel is responsible for proving it.

And such a proof --a generally accepted proof, independent of religion-- remains to be given! :smile:

***
Addednum:
Re: "Whoever sees that angel is responsible for proving it." For proving that there is indeed an angel standing there.

How human these early gods were! I wonder why? — universeness

Of course they were human. They were characters in the stories told by humans. The gods of giraffes would have long necks and, if Montesquieu was any judge, the gods of triangles would have three sides. However, the earliest supernatural entities in folklore are nature spirits - weather phenomena, bodies of water, trees and animals.

Whoever sees that angel is responsible for proving it. — Alkis Piskas

Don't blink!

:up:

Don't blink! — Vera Mont

I can do that. I have practiced it a lot!

At that point, we arrive at a fork in the road: atheism lies on one side, a personal search for genuine knowledge and experience of God lies on the other. — Art48

There are more roads at that intersection than just those two. There's also "I'm tired of all this, let's do something else". Possibly others as well.

What God? You yourself said, correctly, that "religions do not, and cannot, agree", which means that the concept of "God" differs among them. And you confirm this later, by saying "different civilizations making up different stories about God." — Alkis Piskas

The idea is that there is a reality that deserves to be called "God" and the human civilizations have made several childish, erroneous attempts to describe that reality.

Religions do not agree but their prophets do. — TheMadMan

Wishful thinking. Joseph Smith and The Buddha had little in common.

Joseph Smith and The Buddha — Banno

Don't even mate. Com' on

Many religions, same superstition. :pray:

Check mate, I think.

The idea that prophets agreed on some underlying truth works right up until you look at what they actually said. The idea comes, I suppose, from James' Varieties of religious experience, which ends in aporia rather than agreement.

Any agreement amongst the prophets is found only in their silence.

Any agreement amongst the prophets is found only in their silence. — Banno

:smirk:

Everything you've written here could be said of any philosophy. — T Clark

Yes, Philosophy can be done badly. Some folk do treat the texts as "sacred" writings. Some of philosophy is tribal.

Is that the only way to do philosophy? Is it the right way? Are there alternatives?

Check mate, I think — Banno

Childish

The idea that prophets agreed on some underlying truth works right up until you look at what they actually said. — Banno

The other way around is the truth. When you actually learn what they said, you understand they were saying the same thing.

Childish — TheMadMan

Then you will have no trouble setting out what it is they say, that is shared.

Go one, then.

When you actually learn what they said, you understand they were saying the same thing. — TheMadMan

Are you into interfaith?

You didn't even understand what I said.
It is childish to put Smith and Buddha on the same category.

The other way around is the truth. When you actually learn what they said, you understand they were saying the same thing. — TheMadMan

Yes, pretty much:
"Guilty, guilty, guilty! It's all your fault!"

Are you into interfaith? — frank

Im not sure what that means.

What?

Im not sure what that means. — TheMadMan

Interfaith is a progressive form of religion where the differences between Christianity (including all it's sects), Judaism, and Islam are downplayed to focus instead in their similarities. I guess in principle it would extend to other religions. Those are just the ones that show up most significantly for Americans.

It is childish to put Smith and Buddha on the same category. — TheMadMan

Who counts as a legitimate prophet and how do we tell the difference?

I'm not into organized religion at all. For me there is a big difference between those who awakened and the religions created around them.

You test it through rationality, insight and experience.