Thread: Old religions

Why are old gods & old religions no longer practiced?

Greek gods for example. Zeus, Poseidon & others. You would be hard pressed to find many people who still worship these gods. Greece is still around, but these gods are not worshiped much.

Same thing with pagan & wiccan. Some sets might still worship the old gods but odin & thor have fallen heavily out of favor with most. Most pagans I talk to ramble off something along the lines of "we worship the earth" or mother nature.....or rocks...

I do not meet many egyptians but I doubt they still pay homage to ra or osiris.

I know certain other religions played heavily in this. Christianity for example helping to convert pagans away from their gods, same with greek gods.

Still, it seems puzzling that these deitys would just fall out of favor with everyone & never be started back up.

Any enlightenment?

Because newer religions took over by force. Not only by force but also by clever manipulation of their own emerging religions by incorporating older religions' dates, practices, names, , and philosophies into their own and calling them their own.

The irony of it all is that what we are seeing is principles of natural selection at work even in that 'exclusive' domain of religion. :-))

Originally Posted by Implicate Order

The irony of it all is that what we are seeing is principles of natural selection at work even in that 'exclusive' domain of religion. :-))

A chillingly sound observation.

It's more about power and control than it is about religion. If you can get away with killing heathens or infidels then it proves that your god is the mightier. Before the christian god with no name the roman empire worshipped many gods (jupiter, mars, mithras) but their fortunes were declining. That is why the gods we have today are the gods of empires and not the local gods of antiquity. Just imagine, if the cult of osiris were to re-emerge it would be swept aside by the mob. Another example, muslims will not tolerate the christian god being referred to as 'allah' in a country like Malaysia. Christians in Malta also refer to 'allah', but they are a small island nation.
All gods and religions fail in the end when they get overtaken by the might of something else.

Here's something to think about. Hitler was Catholic and he said "God was on his side" but the same God was also fighting him from the allies side so how can the same God fight with itself, perplexing I'd say even though I do not believe In such fantasy.

There's certainly a lot to like about the idea of religions being groups of memes which resemble in some ways genes as a analog for survival.

--
Probably also good to point out that a sizeable amount of the spreading of modern faiths was done not through conquest, or violence, but often through persistence taking generations, non-violent exploitations (e.g one of my early missionary ancestors gave out free booze to Native Americans in the Wisconsin to weaken their society), and attractiveness of a far more internally coherent set of ideas than most tribal. As strong examples, Christianity spread by primarily non-violence in colonial areas, as did Islam over modern Indonesia (where the largest number of Muslims live).

Well the people that believed in these religions have been wiped out. You are likely to believe what your parents teach you. I have met a person who believes in the Viking gods and Valhalla.

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Here's something to think about. Hitler was Catholic and he said "God was on his side" but the same God was also fighting him from the allies side so how can the same God fight with itself, perplexing I'd say even though I do not believe In such fantasy.

So you say you believe that God was on Hitler's side, and you also believe he was on the Allies' side, and now you say you don't believe it?

So you aren't confused, I'll straighten this out for you. Either Hitler or the Allies are wrong/lieing.

Originally Posted by Implicate Order

The irony of it all is that what we are seeing is principles of natural selection at work even in that 'exclusive' domain of religion. :-))

Exactly. Meme complexes trying to outcompete each other also explains why some languages and cultures survive and others become absorbed or just get eliminated.

If you add the fight for power to the mix, it simply encourages the process.

Why dont the Gods of different religion fight with each other and leave humans alone. Humans should tell all their Gods "Punish me if i do wrong. Dont punish me if I belong to some other sect/cult/pantheon/religion."

So you say you believe that God was on Hitler's side, and you also believe he was on the Allies' side, and now you say you don't believe it?

So you aren't confused, I'll straighten this out for you. Either Hitler or the Allies are wrong/lieing.

I said I did not belive that there is a God but only that the fighting sides both said God was on their side. Nothing perplexing to me. How about they both are not stating the truth.

I've been wondering this question for a long time also. My best guess so far is that monotheists simply refused to trade with polytheists.

It's much the same way as how you see megachains of many businesses today. McDonald's dominates over the local mom and pop fast food store because everyone is familiar with McDonald's way of doing things and so they buy food there because they know what they're going to get.

Monotheists didn't want to trade with non-Monotheists because they distrusted them. They thought the polytheists would try to cheat them in unpredictable ways (whereas other monotheists would be more predictable in their trickery.) The common format, belief system, and set of moral expectations made it easier to get things done.

And trade tends to be the strongest force against war. You rarely attack people who you're trading with a lot, because you know the moment the war breaks out all that trade will be interrupted.


This would explain many things. 1) - Explains why Rome eventually endorsed Xianity. 2) - Explains why Jewish people have historically had a reputation as the best bankers and merchants. - They had a head start on monotheism.

Originally Posted by jgoti

Originally Posted by Implicate Order

The irony of it all is that what we are seeing is principles of natural selection at work even in that 'exclusive' domain of religion. :-))

Exactly. Meme complexes trying to outcompete each other also explains why some languages and cultures survive and others become absorbed or just get eliminated.

If you add the fight for power to the mix, it simply encourages the process.

Well, yes except for one point.
Neither memes nor genes have any minds to have motives with,so they are not actually trying to outcompete each other. It is just that they replicate and whatever has the right balance between repilication rate and persistence is what stays around.

Originally Posted by dan hunter

Neither memes nor genes have any minds to have motives with,so they are not actually trying to outcompete each other. It is just that they replicate and whatever has the right balance between repilication rate and persistence is what stays around.

Reasonable. I think the philosopher David Hume is more accurate in his Natural History of Religion.

In this essay, Hume pioneers a naturalist account of the causes, effects, and historical development of religious belief. Hume locates the origins of religion in emotion, particularly fear and the desire to control the future. He further argues that monotheism arises from competition between religions, as believers seek to distinguish their deities as superior to all rivals. The monotheist drive to dominate other beliefs, and to burnish the primitive, emotional core of religion under a veneer of theology, Hume concludes that this yields intolerance, intellectual dishonesty, and unnatural moral doctrines. (from Wiki)

Always worth a quick read of the full text:
http://stoa.usp.br/briannaloch/files...vid%2BHume.pdf

More from Hume:

Generally speaking the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.

Originally Posted by parag29081973

Why dont the Gods of different religion fight with each other and leave humans alone. Humans should tell all their Gods "Punish me if i do wrong. Dont punish me if I belong to some other sect/cult/pantheon/religion."

Often, in mythology, the Gods DO fight one another and end up harming humanity in the process. However, in some cases, Gods such as Prometheus loved humanity deeply and the most painful way to cut them was to hurt humanity (also, to have eagles eat their liver, but whatever).

If the Gods didn't interact with humanity, they would serve no purpose. We created the idea of Gods to give us a better way to understand the world around us. They had to interact with us in some meaningful way because the whole world revolved around us (some people still think that way).

Originally Posted by ox

More from Hume:

Generally speaking the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.

Oh, really? Tell that to the victims of the Khmer Rouge.

Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge were composed of Buddhists and Pol Pot himself was a communist and Theravada Buddhist. Pol Pot studied at a Buddhist monastery (1 year) and then later at a Catholic school (8 years).

This has been pointed out to you before, Harold. Buddhists believe in karma - the ultimate in cause and effect. Monotheists believe in sin as a softer version of karma. That is why buddhists and monotheists have little regard for life on earth, and place every emphasis on their imaginary nirvana or heaven.

Karl Popper: Theology is due to lack of faith.

And yet it is the use of faith as a weapon that leads religion to kill.

Hume did say 'generally speaking' and he was right when he said that in about 1770, and it is still right today. He also said:

Our curiosity about the world generates the sense that every action must have a cause. A purpose, an intention, a design strikes everywhere even the careless, the most stupid thinker, and who else could be responsible but a deity?

Originally Posted by ox

Buddhists believe in karma - the ultimate in cause and effect. Monotheists believe in sin as a softer version of karma. That is why buddhists and monotheists have little regard for life on earth, and place every emphasis on their imaginary nirvana or heaven.

Good grief. Seriously?

That is either a gross caricaturization of the views held by those two parties, or a heavily detached view of what these two groups have been advocating for and have participated in; peace demonstrations, pro-life campaigns, etc. Not trying to defend either groups here, but you may be making it somewhat difficult for me not to appear like I am.

Originally Posted by ox

Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge were composed of Buddhists and Pol Pot himself was a communist and Theravada Buddhist. Pol Pot studied at a Buddhist monastery (1 year) and then later at a Catholic school (8 years).

This has been pointed out to you before, Harold. Buddhists believe in karma - the ultimate in cause and effect. Monotheists believe in sin as a softer version of karma. That is why buddhists and monotheists have little regard for life on earth, and place every emphasis on their imaginary nirvana or heaven.

You can't blame it on Buddhism just because Pol Pot once upon a time was a Buddhist. It was a Marxist movement. Marx is generally considered a philosopher. And, of course, there was plenty of other Marxist inspired mayhem, under Stalin and Mao. Marxism is officially atheist.

Scoobydoo:
Absolutely. I am sick and tired of hearing a monotheist say that 'Man' has dominion over every other living thing on this planet. What right have they got to say this? Only because of their damned scripture. An atheist would say that all life is sacred.
As for the buddhists, they devalue all other life by saying that it is for the rebirth of inferior souls.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

You can't blame it on buddhism just because Pol Pot once upon a time was a Buddhist. It was a Marxist movement. Marx is generally considered a philosopher. And, of course, there was plenty of other Marxist inspired mayhem, under Stalin and Mao. Marxism is officially atheist.

Marx's economic model was partly based on his revulsion of the fabulous wealth of the Church, when the majority were living in poverty (religion was the opium of the people). Stalin's version of atheism may have been rooted in God and nature. Mao was born into a family of devout buddhists. Cambodian communism was influenced by Theravada Buddhism. Hitler was strongly influenced by the power of the Church.
All extreme political systems are influenced by religion, and there is no getting away from that. Name an extreme political system which is not influenced by religion.

Originally Posted by ox

An atheist would say that all life is sacred.

Citation needed. I doubt that very much. The word "sacred" is applied to religious beliefs. Atheism is only a lack of belief in gods. It does not imply any particular view toward life.

sa·cred
/ˈsākrid/
adjective
adjective: sacred
1. connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration.

Marx's economic model was partly based on his revulsion of the fabulous wealth of the Church, when the majority were living in poverty (religion was the opium of the people). Stalin's version of atheism may have been rooted in God and nature. Mao was born into a family of devout buddhists. Cambodian communism was influenced by Theravada Buddhism. Hitler was strongly influenced by the power of the Church.
All extreme political systems are influenced by religion, and there is no getting away from that. Name an extreme political system which is not influenced by religion.

If you are going to claim that even avowed atheists are religious nuts, there is no arguing with you. You've gone full crackpot mode. Nothing will ever convince you.

Originally Posted by ox

An atheist would say that all life is sacred.

I might say all life is potentially important to the well-being of the ecosystem and treated equally within natural laws, but I wouldn't use the term sacred.

Originally Posted by ox

I am sick and tired of hearing a monotheist say that 'Man' has dominion over every other living thing on this planet. What right have they got to say this? Only because of their damned scripture.

I suspect I already know which genre of monotheism you may be referring to, but I want to hear it from you. Which monotheistic religion specifically are you referring to? Name them.

Originally Posted by ox

An atheist would say that all life is sacred.

Someone with an atheistic stance "may" say that, but they would not necessarily say that. If you require a specific name, please let me know.

Originally Posted by ox

As for the buddhists, they devalue all other life by saying that it is for the rebirth of inferior souls.

Please present your case wherein "all other life" is devalued by words, and provide a source where it mentions anything about "inferior souls".

Ox: should of used sacrosanct rather than sacred.

Sacrosanct: (especially of a principle, place, or routine) regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with.

Then you wouldn't be playing the game of semantics with Harold. Or had what you meant, questioned by Flick.

Originally Posted by pavlos

Ox: should of used sacrosanct rather than sacred.

Sacrosanct: (especially of a principle, place, or routine) regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with.

Then you wouldn't be playing the game of semantics with Harold. Or had what you meant, questioned by Flick.

That doesn't help much. There is still nothing about atheism in itself that would lead anyone to believe life is sacrosanct, good, bad, indifferent, or anything else. It is simply a lack of belief in a god. If you believe life is sacrosanct, you got that idea from somewhere else other than your atheism.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

That doesn't help much. There is still nothing about atheism in itself that would lead anyone to believe life is sacrosanct, good, bad, indifferent, or anything else. It is simply a lack of belief in a god. If you believe life is sacrosanct, you got that idea from somewhere else other than your atheism.

I second that.
I, for one, value human life and I derive that from secular humanism.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by pavlos

Ox: should of used sacrosanct rather than sacred.

Sacrosanct: (especially of a principle, place, or routine) regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with.

Then you wouldn't be playing the game of semantics with Harold. Or had what you meant, questioned by Flick.

That doesn't help much. There is still nothing about atheism in itself that would lead anyone to believe life is sacrosanct, good, bad, indifferent, or anything else. It is simply a lack of belief in a god. If you believe life is sacrosanct, you got that idea from somewhere else other than your atheism.

I was only suggesting that Ox used it. I personally do not label myself atheist. I too am a humanist.
And I agree with you in the most part, but I do think it was merely semantic complaining that he had used the term atheist and sacred in the same sentence. You knew what he was inferring. I dare say you would have complained if he had said non-believer. Or even humanist. His personal atheism or what he perceives atheism to mean may entail the sanctity of life. Who's to know, but Ox.

Originally Posted by ox

An atheist would say that all life is sacred.
As for the buddhists, they devalue all other life by saying that it is for the rebirth of inferior souls.

You know nothing of atheism or Buddhism. Neither of these statements are true.

All I can say is religion should make one a better person.The religion of a person should get reflected in that persons attitude. People are confused. No religion is wrong. The followers are corrupt. As put by Mahatma Gandhi " An eye for an eye makes the world blind". All religions talk about "humility and modesty". No religion professes arrogance on part of its followers. God help them.

Originally Posted by parag29081973

No religion is wrong. The followers are corrupt. As put by Mahatma Gandhi " An eye for an eye makes the world blind". All religions talk about "humility and modesty". No religion professes arrogance on part of its followers. God help them.

Overly broad. Also inaccurate is as far as your claim that it's the followers not the religions...religion=followers, there is nothing more.

Originally Posted by dan hunter

Originally Posted by jgoti

Originally Posted by Implicate Order

The irony of it all is that what we are seeing is principles of natural selection at work even in that 'exclusive' domain of religion. :-))

Exactly. Meme complexes trying to outcompete each other also explains why some languages and cultures survive and others become absorbed or just get eliminated.

If you add the fight for power to the mix, it simply encourages the process.

Well, yes except for one point.
Neither memes nor genes have any minds to have motives with,so they are not actually trying to outcompete each other. It is just that they replicate and whatever has the right balance between repilication rate and persistence is what stays around.

Well, "trying to" is not accurate, of course. They are just outcompeting each other through humans who, ironically, do have the will.

Originally Posted by parag29081973

As put by Mahatma Gandhi " An eye for an eye makes the world blind". All religions talk about "humility and modesty". No religion professes arrogance on part of its followers. God help them.

I think Gandhi was wrong. "An eye for an eye" is equivalent to "tit for tat" which is a successful strategy in many situations. It doesn't make the world blind. It keeps anti-social and uncooperative people from taking advantage of you.
Tit for tat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tit for tat is an English saying meaning "equivalent retaliation". It is also a highly effective strategy ingame theory for the iterated prisoner's dilemma. The strategy was first introduced by Anatol Rapoport inRobert Axelrod's two tournaments,^[1] held around 1980. Notably, it was (on both occasions) both thesimplest strategy and the most successful.

I disagree. I see tit for tat as different from eye for an eye. Eye for an eye usually is repercussion for harm befallen to you. If someone stole your car, you go and burn down there house. If your wife cheats on you, you go to a brothel.

though "an eye for an eye. a tooth for a tooth" is usually equal retaliation. Someone gives you a black eye & knocks out your tooth, you do the same to them, but no more. However in practicality violence is rarely equal, it usually escalates.

Tit for tat is like the good version. quid pro quo, scrach my back and & I will scratch yours. These are (usually) good versions. You help me out with something & i will help you out with something.

For example, you kill my wife & i will kill yours, so we cant be implicated XD.

Originally Posted by GoldenRatio

though "an eye for an eye. a tooth for a tooth" is usually equal retaliation. Someone gives you a black eye & knocks out your tooth, you do the same to them, but no more. However in practicality violence is rarely equal, it usually escalates.

The prisoner's dilemma only has two options, cooperate or defect. Defection is actually a form of punishment, since the victim of the defection gets a longer prison sentence. It's not quite the same as real life, because the defector gets his sentence reduced, whereas in real life, you generally only get the satisfaction of revenge. Still, the deterrent effect applies.
The point of the "eye for an eye, tooth for tooth" is to prevent the escalation by limiting the punishment to an equivalent penalty. It has a long history in law dating back the the Hammurabi code.

Originally Posted by GoldenRatio

For example, you kill my wife & i will kill yours, so we cant be implicated XD.

That is a strange train of thought you've hitched onto.

*hands JG his coat*

Originally Posted by GoldenRatio

Originally Posted by ox

An atheist would say that all life is sacred.
As for the buddhists, they devalue all other life by saying that it is for the rebirth of inferior souls.

You know nothing of atheism or Buddhism. Neither of these statements are true.

Oh, I think I know quite a bit about atheism, having a tendency towards it and adeism.
As for the Buddhists, I accept that they and their fellow Jains are confused enough about their own beliefs to understand the transmigration of souls. They have no definite scripture so you would have to ask each and every one.
I am really talking about the contempt that theists have in general for all life apart from 'Man'.
From Genesis 1:28:

Man shall have dominion over the fish, birds, and every other living thing.

All life and the universe having been made in a few short days about 6000 years ago, and immutable ever since.
The atheist takes a somewhat different view. From Darwin (Origin of Species):

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

From invertebrates in ancient seas to primates in primeval forests to Homo Sapiens, the atheist has reverence for all life.
The monotheist with his holy scripture is either incapable or unwilling to face up to truth of evolution by natural selection.
With the Bible in one hand and Darwin in the other, which do I hold true?
Well, it isn't the Bible.

Originally Posted by ox

The monotheist with his holy scripture is either incapable or unwilling to face up to truth of evolution by natural selection.

I have said this so often on many forums I should probably make it part of my signature line. I was raised within the Church of Scotland and nothing that was ever said contradicted acceptance of evolution. The two systems, religious belief and scientific discovery, were seen as perfectly compatible. Please do not judge the set by the character of a subset.

Originally Posted by John Galt

I was raised within the Church of Scotland and nothing that was ever said contradicted acceptance of evolution. The two systems, religious belief and scientific discovery, were seen as perfectly compatible. Please do not judge the set by the character of a subset.

Knowing that they cannot win the argument, they (the C of S or whatever denomination) prefer to avoid it. Genesis and Evolution cannot both be true. Put your cards on the table and describe how they are compatible.

Originally Posted by ox

I am really talking about the contempt that theists have in general for all life apart from 'Man'.
From Genesis 1:28:

Man shall have dominion over the fish, birds, and every other living thing.

How does "having dominion over" translate to "having contempt for"?

From invertebrates in ancient seas to primates in primeval forests to Homo Sapiens, the atheist has reverence for all life.

How exactly does being an atheist imply a reverence for life? If some atheists have a reverence for life this does not imply that it is their atheism that imparted the reverence. Furthermore, many theists also have reverence for life. Your leaps of logic are not supported.

I strongly considered replying to OX, pointing out all the things he said wrong...

However I had more important things to do, like take a wizz.

Originally Posted by ox

Originally Posted by John Galt

I was raised within the Church of Scotland and nothing that was ever said contradicted acceptance of evolution. The two systems, religious belief and scientific discovery, were seen as perfectly compatible. Please do not judge the set by the character of a subset.

Knowing that they cannot win the argument, they (the C of S or whatever denomination) prefer to avoid it. Genesis and Evolution cannot both be true. Put your cards on the table and describe how they are compatible.

Genesis is a metaphor. Why is it that so many people wish to ignore the fact that , like almost every culture, Jewish writing was rich in metaphor.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Why is it that so many people wish to ignore the fact that , like almost every culture, Jewish writing was rich in metaphor.

Because for the first 1970+ years of Christianity it wasn't' taught as such and still isn't in most bible schools nor bible studies.

Originally Posted by ox

Originally Posted by John Galt

I was raised within the Church of Scotland and nothing that was ever said contradicted acceptance of evolution. The two systems, religious belief and scientific discovery, were seen as perfectly compatible. Please do not judge the set by the character of a subset.

Knowing that they cannot win the argument, they (the C of S or whatever denomination) prefer to avoid it. Genesis and Evolution cannot both be true. Put your cards on the table and describe how they are compatible.

I agree with John Galt's comments about the Church of Scotland.
There is only a problem with Genesis and Evolution if one accepts a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Genesis is a metaphor. Why is it that so many people wish to ignore the fact that , like almost every culture, Jewish writing was rich in metaphor.

Then explain the metaphor.
Do you mean the whole of Genesis or just the creation story? Genesis begins with not one but two creation myths. The most likely explanation for this is that the Jews were simply conjuring up their own myths to compete with earlier legends. A bit like the way the Arabs invented Islam out of concern that 'God' had left them out of the equation. These are examples of how competition between ancient tribes and races led to each devising their holy scripture as a weapon to be used in times of war. To survive, each needed to be favoured by 'God'. So what you have in Genesis is not metaphor but a propaganda weapon.

There is no perfection, there cannot be or there would be no room for development. Religion is only good for a specific time and can only serve that time and purpose. A simple old restriction can bring about change in a new culture that can find no reasonable use and so it dies. Everything dies except the universe, we can only speculate that it does not die. The worship of Ra, Osiris, Isis, is still continuing today, however, not in the same way it used to in those times.

Actually, current speculation is the universe will eventually die. When dark energy overwhelms gravity & atoms themselves can no longer hold together. ending in the big freeze.

That, or all matter decays, thus when the last proton decays to oblivion, there will be no more universe

Less accepted is the big crunch, where gravity takes over & the universe collapses in on itself, but thats not the current theroy. Considering we see an expanding universe, not a contracting one.

Originally Posted by GoldenRatio

Why are old gods & old religions no longer practiced?

Greek gods for example. Zeus, Poseidon & others. You would be hard pressed to find many people who still worship these gods. Greece is still around, but these gods are not worshiped much.

Same thing with pagan & wiccan. Some sets might still worship the old gods but odin & thor have fallen heavily out of favor with most. Most pagans I talk to ramble off something along the lines of "we worship the earth" or mother nature.....or rocks...

I do not meet many egyptians but I doubt they still pay homage to ra or osiris.

I know certain other religions played heavily in this. Christianity for example helping to convert pagans away from their gods, same with greek gods.

Still, it seems puzzling that these deitys would just fall out of favor with everyone & never be started back up.

Any enlightenment?

In addition to what others have said about this, the three Abrahamic faiths are money makers. Money, power and religion are close cousins.