@Baden So every person who believes jesus is white is fair game?
The Washington Post is now an authority and your justification for your own racism.
Zero self awareness. Just a hypocrite.

Criticizing the belief that Jesus is white is racism? No, it's the belief that Jesus is white is racist or at least, ignorant and deserving of criticism.

Anyway, maybe get back on topic, please. I don't think the charge sticks at all. I think you and T Clark misinterpreted the comment. If you disagree, take it to another mod.

Yeah, folks – white, black & brown – who believe JC was Anglo Saxon-looking instead of Palestinian-looking.

@180 Proof The tone of your post was deprecatory to white people,it alluded to white people. If I made a post about gangbangin,hip hop and other stereotypes and said black jeezusism half the forum would have erupted.
So don't play the innocent. Man up and own your words and post.

Nowhere in my post do I even once mention "white people". Wtf are you talking about, Zippy? Brain tumor got you hearing voices :sweat:

@180 Proof What a wimp and backtracker!
So your posts was about blacks who are maga and worship black jesus?!
What a liar!

Quote me in context in order to substantiate your claims, Zippy, or go fuck off till you have something constructive enough to say worth a reply.

@180 Proof https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/541966
There you go weasel.

That's only a link, Zippy, not a quote supporting your lies. (Gfy with a wire-brush.)

@180 Proof You are a weasel. The quote is there.
Lying sophist.

Use the forum quote function at your disposal like everyone else and post the incriminating evidence, Zippy. :sweat:

@180 Proof Yesterday's news mate.
Get over yourself.

The religious are not an ethnic group. And if you think their ideas should be protected then the same principle applies to the ideas of those who reject religion. If you have any other complaints, you can start a feedback thread or send a PM but your comparison is invalid. — Baden

It's not clear to me. Are you threatening to stop my posts on this subject?

For the record - @baker wrote that few Christians actually believe in God. I responded describing my experience in the southern US. @180 Proof responded describing the characteristics of white southerners in his usual extravagant way - with lots of bolded words and insults. Then I responded saying that you and your co-ideologs would not allow that to be said about any group other than whites, which is true. I never mentioned religious prejudice, as you incorrectly stated.

I'll ask again, are you threatening to shut down my voice because I don't toe your party line.

No, it's not true. That's been established as far as I'm concerned. Nothing racist was said. The accusations were false. As for the rest, read what I wrote and stop being a drama queen. Or if you must, take it to the other thread.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11047/racism-or-prejudice-is-there-a-real-difference

No, it's not true. That's been established as far as I'm concerned. Nothing racist was said. The accusations were false. As for the rest, read what I wrote and stop being a drama queen. Or if you must, take it to the other thread. — Baden

So then, the answer is "yes." If I don't say the things you want, you will stop me from writing in this thread.

Dude, this is supposed to be about religion. You can discuss racism in the racism thread. That's the way it works re keeping things on topic.

I’m always suspicious of people who “wear their religion on their sleeves” — praxis

I'm not.

Anything that does not address this:

why do humans have the belief that there is some entity or entities outside of their own species that have influence and determination of their being something after the physical death of a human. — David S

will be deleted.

empirically right. — 180 Proof

I'm not sure what that means.

Okay, trying to get back on topic. I know my opening OP set the question of the origins of the belief in supra natural beings in a religious context as arguably they go hand in hand. But the question was really why our species came up with this idea. Some replies have suggested it may be part of human dna, the questioning part. Or it may have been used to understand disasters, or explain why we die, or maybe a mystical experience. I was trying to understand the early origins from pre history. It was maybe Zoroastrianism that first came up with a monotheistic God {this may have been a google search}. But irrespective I was looking for maybe answers that are not directly tied to religion.

The reason is to try and filter out that of course a firm religious belief may come from family or upbringing or cultural background. This has been referred to as Public religion here and a good distinction. Of course for adults in particular who have found wether from birth or upbringing or maybe in later life their own private religion of whatever denomination it is why you believe that this omniscient and omnipresent being {if that is what it is to you} exists. It’s not questioning your belief or faith but what your spirit (or soul if you will) let’s you emphatically believe that is true. I mentioned I am Taoist myself where the origins and where we come from and where we go is explained in the 3 main Taoist texts and to an extent the I Ching too {not a religious text but an important classic of Confucian and Taoist teaching}.

There are many replies that focus on religion versus atheism but that was not what I was asking from the original post. [mea culpa as I tied the supra natural entity or God if you like to religion because I guess that is how most people think about it.

So I guess for your private religion and if you have that belief for whatever denomination I would appreciate you sharing and do hope your replies are not countered by others strongly opposed for whatever reason to this idea.

..here's a thought...open up another thread and argue that all of life is rational. I'd be happy to participate :blush: — 3017amen

Your participation would be incontrovertible proof that such argument is invalid.

Another one bits the dust I see. Oh well, when you get the courage to make your case, I'll be waiting.

BTW, I can't resist, are you ashamed that you got Einstein wrong? Or was that another attempt at a red herring...or, wait, maybe you understand blowing smoke, lying, pretending, and Dennett's speedo's better :razz:

I’ll just wait for the street cleaner to do their work.

Hahahahahaha! Be well!

I reference the premier authority in the matter...

Albert Einstein's religious views have been widely studied and often misunderstood. Albert Einstein stated that he believed in the pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza. He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naïve. He clarified however that, "I am not an atheist", preferring to call himself an agnostic, or a "religious nonbeliever." Einstein also stated he did not believe in life after death, adding "one life is enough for me." He was closely involved in his lifetime with several humanist groups. — Wiki Wiki Pedia

I would express regret for bursting your little bubble, Amen, if I felt any regret.

Coolio!! I'll do a search to see if this subject matter has been covered and if not, I'll open up a thread on Albert!!

Although he certainly was not perfect, obviously he's widely acknowledged to be one of the greatest physicists of all time. Just about every physics article/book I read has his name dropped...

the question was really why our species came up with this idea. Some replies have suggested it may be part of human dna, the questioning part. Or it may have been used to understand disasters, or explain why we die, or maybe a mystical experience. I was trying to understand the early origins from pre history. It was maybe Zoroastrianism that first came up with a monotheistic God {this may have been a google search}. But irrespective I was looking for maybe answers that are not directly tied to religion. — David S

The reference to 'species' is significant, because it implies an essentially biological perspective. Which in turn suggest that you're wanting a naturalistic explanation for religion, one that is compatible with naturalism generally. And I am guessing that it's because supernatural is a taboo word in today's culture.

But I think the supernatural origin of religion must be considered. Of course the question then arises, why are there so many, and why do they conflict with each other?

What does this mean for the different, and often conflicting, belief-systems of the religions?

It means that they are descriptions of different manifestations of the Ultimate; and as such they do not conflict with one another. They each arise from some immensely powerful moment or period of religious experience, notably the Buddha’s experience of enlightenment under the Bo tree at Bodh Gaya, Jesus’ sense of the presence of the heavenly Father, Muhammad’s experience of hearing the words that became the Qur’an, and also the experiences of Vedic sages, of Hebrew prophets, of Taoist sages.

But these experiences are always formed in the terms available to that individual or community at that time and are then further elaborated within the resulting new religious movements. This process of elaboration is one of philosophical or theological construction. Christian experience of the presence of God, for example, at least in the early days and again since the 13th-14th century rediscovery of the centrality of the divine love, is the sense of a greater, much more momentously important, much more profoundly loving, personal presence than that of one’s fellow humans.

But that this higher presence is eternal, is omnipotent, is omniscient, is the creator of the universe, is infinite in goodness and love is not, because it cannot be, given in the experience itself. In sense perception we can see as far as our horizon but cannot see how much further the world stretches beyond it, and so likewise we can experience a high degree of goodness or of love but cannot experience that it reaches beyond this to infinity. That God has these infinite qualities, and likewise that God is a divine Trinity, can only be an inference, or a theory, or a supposedly revealed truth, but not an experienced fact.

And so Jesus himself will have understood that experienced loving and demanding presence to be the God of his Jewish tradition, and specifically of that aspect of the tradition that emphasized the divine goodness and love, as well as justice and power. But as his teaching about the heavenly Father was further elaborated, and indeed transformed, within the expanding gentile church, it grew into the philosophical conception of God as an infinite co-equal trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

And so what we inherit today is a complex totality in which religious experience and philosophical speculation embodied in theological doctrine have interacted over the centuries and have to a certain degree fused. In the other great traditions the same process has taken place, in each case taking its own distinctive forms. For religious experience always has to take some specific form, and the forms developed within a given tradition ‘work’, so to speak, for people within that tradition but not, in many cases, for people formed by a different tradition. — John Hick, Who or What is God?

Coolio!! — 3017amen

I had to go though the motions of posting a snippet from wikipedia about something that should have been apparent to you from your own postings for you to be cool?

The worst kind of troll is the one who doesn't realize they're trolling.

It means that they are descriptions of different manifestations of the Ultimate; and as such they do not conflict with one another. They each arise from some immensely powerful moment or period of religious experience, notably the Buddha’s experience of enlightenment under the Bo tree at Bodh Gaya, Jesus’ sense of the presence of the heavenly Father, Muhammad’s experience of hearing the words that became the Qur’an, and also the experiences of Vedic sages, of Hebrew prophets, of Taoist sages. — John Hick, Who or What is God?

This is very much in tune with how I think these all come from the same source you term the Ultimate and the Taoist in me considers the Tao.

I just think it is sad (understated word) that these different interpretations and for some in particular have been ‘at war’ with each other even within the same basic beliefs, so the divisions in Islam, the many divisions in Christianity. So much lives lost over the different views of this one Universal ultimate.

The deification or more correctly this supranatural dimension is still the interesting one. In literature there are many examples but my favourite is the works of Tolkien. As much as he hated allegory in all its forms his own creation myth with Eru Iluvitar.

Eru was the supreme deity of Arda. He was the single creator, above the Valar, but delegated almost all direct action within Eä to the Ainur. The music of the Ainur and the discord in the music creating the division, the Yin to the Yang. There is a parallel in the concept of Archangels and angels with the Ainur. This is similar to the Greek and Norse pantheons with different powers attributed to different gods.

The one god concept seems to be a way of competing with this multi faceted view, another oddity so not worshiping ‘false gods’ - how is this reconciled with the idea of Archangels and such, messengers of the gods but still supranatural.

The Taoist of course have the Yellow Emperor who is considered I guess ‘God Like’ and also the 8 Taoist Immortals. These are not competing with each other but just examples of enlightened beings similar to Buddha.

Spirituality therefore rather than religion is a positive for everyone in terms of finding an ‘inner peace’,that is very close perhaps I suggest to what the original idea behind the origins of gods, the deep understanding of what life is.