oldest major religion

Don Quixote

Don Quixote

cancer survivor
Contributor
the candidates are hinduism (vedas) and judiasim

ancient egyptian religion (isis et al) dates back to over 3000 bce but is not widely practiced today

the written vedas date back to about 1500 bce (however, the oral tradition of the vedas dates back further) while the jewish calendar claims the year 5769

christianity and islam trail by a large margin

while wars suck, religious wars suck the most (right up there with civil wars)

anyone remember the 100+ years war during the reformation - 17th century ce

oh well

india and pakistan will have fun fun fun until they decide to quit...or not enough people are left to fight
 
Jainism is supposedly an ancient religion. The early Buddhists talked like Jainism was something ancient and had been there much longer than Buddhism.

It probably wasn't independent of Hindu traditions during that time though.
 
Watermark said:
NM.

I just read that Jainism first started at at least 4000 BC.
Click to expand...

while jainism predated buddhaism, it is not considered a major religion today and buddhaism is not a religion but a philosophy (the original that is, there is a religious offshoot)

some older religions are resurfacing but were relegated to 'minor' sometime back

perhaps i should have named this oldest 'continuous' major religion

another candidate might be ancestor worship as practiced in asia but i do not think that rates as a religion
 
DonQuixote said:
while jainism predated buddhaism, it is not considered a major religion today and buddhaism is not a religion but a philosophy (the original that is, there is a religious offshoot)

some older religions are resurfacing but were relegated to 'minor' sometime back

perhaps i should have named this oldest 'continuous' major religion

another candidate might be ancestor worship as practiced in asia but i do not think that rates as a religion
Click to expand...

There are 10 million Jews and 5 million Jains. How is Judaism a major religion and Jainism not under your definition, again? And Buddhism's always been a religion.
 
Watermark said:
There are 10 million Jews and 5 million Jains. How is Judaism a major religion and Jainism not under your definition, again? And Buddhism's always been a religion.
Click to expand...

Buddism was not a religion before Budda I think.

there was however 51 Million Bushists.
 
Actually, archeologists have discovered what seems to be remains of the world's earliest religious worship site in the remote Ngamiland region of Botswana. Here, our ancestors performed advanced rituals, worshiping the python some 70,000 years ago. The sensational discovery strengthens Africa's position as the cradle of modern man.
These connections suggest a three stage model in the evolution of religion: One, the earliest forms of religion (pre-Upper Paleolithic [UP]) would have been restricted to ecstatic rituals used to facilitate social bonding; two, the transition to UP religion was marked by the emergence of shamanistic healing rituals; and, three, the cave art, elaborate burials, and other artifacts associated with the UP represent the first evidence of ancestor worship and the emergence of theological narratives of the supernatural. The emergence of UP religion was associated with the move from egalitarian to trans egalitarian hunter-gatherers.

There has also been a discovery of similar nature, many miles away on the continent of Australia. Mungo Man and Mungo Woman were originally thought to pre-date the African civilization, but there has been some dispute, some archeologist still maintain the civilization is over 70,000 years old, others date it at around 40,000 years. The important "religious" aspect is, they practiced ritual burial and evidence was found of extensive use of red ocher, which is associated with the religious rituals found in other civilizations of the past.

So, while you guys can argue about when "organized" religion began, based on what we know, you can't dispute the evidence of human spiritual belief and religious practices long before this. One fact that completely fascinates me, and Atheist Science can't really provide a satisfactory explanation, is the connection of human spirituality (which has been with us as far back as we have discovered remains of man) and the advancement of mankind in thought and technology. Here we have millions of life forms on the planet, none exhibit spiritual belief other than humans, yet humans are the most advanced life forms, and the only ones capable of cognitive thought toward advancement of the species and purpose. We are the smartest living creatures on the planet, and the only ones who worship a higher power. Isn't that a dichotomy?
 
Dixie said:
We are the smartest living creatures on the planet, and the only ones who worship a higher power. Isn't that a dichotomy?
Click to expand...

That's just because we have developed imagination enough to conceptualize a supreme being. It doesn't mean, "god is real" if that's the simplistic bromide you're peddling.
 
AssHatZombie said:
That's just because we have developed imagination enough to conceptualize a supreme being. It doesn't mean, "god is real" if that's the simplistic bromide you're peddling.
Click to expand...

Not peddling anything, I just think it's interesting... here we are, in all our infinite wisdom and knowledge, the only living species with the ability to organize civilization and rationalize thought... and we are also the only living creatures inherently bound to spiritual worship and beliefs. If I were a "scientist" I think I might be inclined to conclude there may be a connection with these two unique attributes regarding our species. That's all I am saying.

I don't know God is real, just as you don't know God isn't real. What I do know is, humans have some sort of hard-wired propensity to worship something greater than self, and this behavior is profound within man for some reason. I don't accept the "just because we can" arguments or the idea that we "needed something" to explain the unexplained. Those are easy answers someone can conclude, when they don't want to examine the evidence in a pragmatic way. If you have prejudiced your mind into believing or disbelieving something, drawing your own personal conclusions, you are wholly unable to comprehend the truth, or explore the possibilities. I would submit that is the case with you, just as it's the case with people who believe every word of The Bible literally to be the truth.

I'm not as interested in forming conclusions as I am exploring possibilities.
 
We're the smartest beings on the planet, and the only ones that have invented weapons capable of destroying all life. Does that not indicate that destroying all life is good?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top