Some Considerations on Origin and Development of Polytheism and Monotheism

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,354
Australia
#61
And what you are arguing is JUST some form of personal belief that you developed to be able to 'get by' .

When studying comparative religions, the first step should be an examination and realization about the nature of beliefs ... and the lengths we go to to justify them . Sometimes incredulous and ridiculous to the outside observer ... but truth and reality to the subjective observer .

Is there a way out of this 'religious' ' muddle ? Yes ..... by an examination and realization about the nature of beliefs

otherwise ......

1546374156791.png
 

Cepheus

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,284
#62
What you are arguing is just Secular Calvinism.
What Is the difference between "secular Calvinism" and determinism ?

In other words, "secular Calvinism" looks like an oxymoron. re: p does not equal -p. p cannot be said to be part of -p.

IMO, Specul8 seems to be referring to determinism. Right ? Not "secular Calvinism" which, I don't think is a generally accepted concept.

To wit: Calvinism has metaphysical qualities and determinism does not. Other distinguishing features between the two, such as the degree of "free will" or the concept of indeterminism are significant.
 
Last edited:
Likes: specul8

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,354
Australia
#63
Its closer to determinism than it is to Calvinism. I dont agree with the 'completeness' and 'always' concepts. One can become aware of the forces and proclivities determining choice and actions and , to an extent, navigate through them.

My point is really, our choices are most often not as 'conscious' as we think they are.

For example, many people insist they follow the religion they do, by choice. The study I refereed to earlier lists many causes why people adopt religion and specific religions ; one of the leading influences is 'family/cultural inheritance' .

Also especially in the area of 'free will' , most people and most of those 'fee will' choices are the results of deep programming.

I am more of a proponent of ' True Will ' , which does, however, follow more of a 'determinism' concept .... in a way . 'True Will' may be totally different and apart from what we percieve as 'free will' , as 'free will' is mostly programming and conditioning, but living one's free will does not bring the benefits that living one's True Will does , both personally and socially.
 
Likes: Cepheus
Nov 2016
970
Germany
#64
@sparky:

You wrote in a recently closed thread, where I presented the same arguments with regard to ´Paleolithic ignorance of fatherhood" as I do in this one here on page 1:

I found this statement deeply unbelievable ,
recent paleolithic societies like the Plain Indians or the Australian aborigines were fully aware of fatherhood


I know this argument, it can easily be refuted. Since fatherhood became known in early Neolithic, that is, about 10,000 years ago, there has been more than enough time for the diffusion of this knowledge all over the planet. So it comes with no surprise that today´s Paleolithic-like peoples have knowledge of that.

Genetic studies show that about 4,000 years ago Indian immigrants came to Australia and mixed with the indigene people, the Aborigines (11 % genetic material is Indian). So probably those Indians brought that knowledge to them.

Yet there seem to be exceptions. The Melanesian Trobriander, a hunter-gatherer-society, were found fully ignorant of fatherhood by ethnologist Malinowksi in the early 20th century.
 
Last edited:

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,354
Australia
#65
@sparky:

You wrote in a recently closed thread, where I presented the same arguments with regard to ´Paleolithic ignorance of fatherhood" as I do in this one here on page 1:

I found this statement deeply unbelievable ,
recent paleolithic societies like the Plain Indians or the Australian aborigines were fully aware of fatherhood


I know this argument, it can easily be refuted. Since fatherhood became known in early Neolithic, that is, about 10,000 years ago, there has been more than enough time for the spread of this knowledge all over the planet. So it comes with no surprise that today´s Paleolithic-like peoples have knowledge of that.

Genetic studies show that about 4,000 years ago Indian immigrants came to Australia and mixed with the indigene people, the Aborigines (11 % genetic material is Indian). So probably those Indians brought that knowledge to them.
This is rubbish and 'below the belt' to quote outdated genetics , knowing full well that it would be against the rules to run the counter and more current genetic argument.

Indian Immigrants coming to Australia 4000 ya ! Nope.


But you do need to be debunked ;

" Also our genome data do not show any significant gene flow events into Australia from India around 6,000 years ago, suggested by previous research. "

DNA reveals a new history of the First Australians
 
Nov 2016
970
Germany
#66
I have always thought that the early cities, even starting with the Uruk period, each had their own God or Gods. The people who lived in this area seemed to have no issue with different Gods and were more than happy to adopt another God from a different city if he seemed useful.
The most common deity in those times was the Sumerian goddess Inanna and her Akkadian variant Ishtar. There were at least 13 Sumerian cities with a central Inanna temple, evidencing the top importance of that over-arching goddess, originally coming from Uruk, in Sumer. Of course each city had additionally its special city deities.

I would guess also, that some saw similarities between the different Gods and just assumed perhaps that it was the same God with a different name.
This is no only a guess but often a fact. Many Egyptian deities, for example, have been Hellenized ("interpretatio graeca"). In another thread we had the example of Babylonian Ishtar (Ex-Akkadian Ishtar) who in Arabia was venerated as Al-Uzza and in Syria as Astarte.

Of course, these ancient people preferred their own God it seems, but battles over religion were not common. I think some of the Kings stole statues of Gods which were later returned to the original cities.
An example of an aggressive, but (factually) tolerant approach to foreign gods is the Assyrian abduction of the Babylonian statue of Marduk to Assur. To my knowledge, this happened at least twice: First through Tukulti-Ninurta I. (the inventor of elite deportation) after his conquest of Babylon in the 13th century BC, then by Sanherib at the beginning of the 7th century BC. Numerous statues of gods in Babylon were also destroyed, but not to destroy the Babylonian religion, but to weaken the Babylonian gods, whose existence nobody doubted. The aim of all that was the weakening of the Babylonian people. To remove Marduk from his ancestral place of worship was therefore not intended to eliminate the Babylonian religion, but rather confirms it, since the power of Marduk was recognized by the Assyrians, but was suspended by the deportation.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Cepheus

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,820
Sydney
#67
@ Tamnuz
"The Melanesian Trobriander, a hunter-gatherer-society, were found fully ignorant of fatherhood by ethnologist Malinowksi in the early 20th century."

The Trobrian population is agricultural not hunter gatherers ,
their culture has been used as some kind of Rousseauist ideal paradise of free sex and peacefulness

only one problem , it's a completely invented lie .
from Malinovsky to Margaret Mead the need to have an example of their theories made them invent one
Mead in particular would have her "research" throw out today as little more than fiction
but since it fitted the wishes and careers of their Academia circles , the lies were upheld , the critics silenced
...until discretely her thesis were gently laid to rest
 
Likes: specul8

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,765
#68
For example, many people insist they follow the religion they do, by choice. The study I refereed to earlier lists many causes why people adopt religion and specific religions ; one of the leading influences is 'family/cultural inheritance' .

.
Statistically people "follow" the religion predominant in wherever they were born... That is why you have countries that are 99%+ christian or muslim.. (within that you may have "pockets" of minority religions though such as the coptic christians in Egypt)

It is true however that in western countries with freedom of religion, a growing number of people "chose" their religion, including marginal ones such as the worship of satan or sicentology.. I do not have stats, but I think this is still la fairly small minority though....
 

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,354
Australia
#69
@sparky:

You wrote in a recently closed thread, where I presented the same arguments with regard to ´Paleolithic ignorance of fatherhood" as I do in this one here on page 1:

I found this statement deeply unbelievable ,
recent paleolithic societies like the Plain Indians or the Australian aborigines were fully aware of fatherhood


I know this argument, it can easily be refuted. Since fatherhood became known in early Neolithic, that is, about 10,000 years ago, there has been more than enough time for the spread of this knowledge all over the planet. So it comes with no surprise that today´s Paleolithic-like peoples have knowledge of that.

Genetic studies show that about 4,000 years ago Indian immigrants came to Australia and mixed with the indigene people, the Aborigines (11 % genetic material is Indian). So probably those Indians brought that knowledge to them.
This is rubbish and 'below the belt' to quote outdated genetics , knowing full well that it would be against the rules to run the counter and more current genetic argument.

Indian Immigrants coming to Australia 4000 ya ! Nope.


But you do need to be debunked ;

" Also our genome data do not show any significant gene flow events into Australia from India around 6,000 years ago, suggested by previous research. "

DNA reveals a new history of the First Australians
@ Tamnuz
"The Melanesian Trobriander, a hunter-gatherer-society, were found fully ignorant of fatherhood by ethnologist Malinowksi in the early 20th century."

The Trobrian population is agricultural not hunter gatherers ,
their culture has been used as some kind of Rousseauist ideal paradise of free sex and peacefulness

only one problem , it's a completely invented lie .
from Malinovsky to Margaret Mead the need to have an example of their theories made them invent one
Mead in particular would have her "research" throw out today as little more than fiction
but since it fitted the wishes and careers of their Academia circles , the lies were upheld , the critics silenced
...until discretely her thesis were gently laid to rest


1546629325630.png

"I say ... those savage foreign chappies are so backward - they dont even know where babies come from "
 

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,354
Australia
#70
Statistically people "follow" the religion predominant in wherever they were born... That is why you have countries that are 99%+ christian or muslim.. (within that you may have "pockets" of minority religions though such as the coptic christians in Egypt)
That is why I wrote "family / cultural " inheritance .

It is true however that in western countries with freedom of religion, a growing number of people "chose" their religion, including marginal ones such as the worship of satan or sicentology.. I do not have stats, but I think this is still la fairly small minority though....
Since you enclosed the word "chose" in quote marks, its a fair statement .
 

Similar History Discussions