See if you can follow this, Monotheism was first practiced on a limited scale in Egypt, with Akhenaten and simultaneously in Babylon with Bel Marduk. What a surprise then that the Monotheism that is the norm today spread from the influence of the Hebrews who were directly influenced by Egypt and Babylonia. Hell started with a belief in the underworld and was again spread to the Hebrews who perfected it, packaged it and passed it on. Satan has the same story, Those three examples I gave perfectly demonstrate your request for an example. We're not talking about similar, we are talking about what influenced modern beliefs. You asked a question I answered it, btw putting words in my mouth "I'm surprised you could even think those are original to Abrahamic religions" don't do you any credit when my actual words are posted just above your misinterpretation of them
Sorry, but I'm just not willing to accept these statements. You claim all monotheism derives from Egypt and Babylonia. What's your proof? Sure, the Abrahamic religions (which you apparently aren't talking about) were heavily influenced by those cultures, among others. That doesn't mean myths about an underworld, heaven, a single übergod or his evil counterpart didn't exist in other places outside their influence.
And if "we're not talking about similar", then what is your basis for claiming the reincarnation myths that you claim sprung up all over the world are the same myth, and not just something similar? (By the way, I'm yet to see proof of that claim; one country doesn't equal everywhere.)
Every ancient culture had a belief that the common people would live again on this planet after death, heaven was just for the Kings and Aristocracy and those who could afford the correct preparation for their afterlife with the Gods. The underworld again was just for those who messed up spectacularly and so needed to be sent somewhere as an example to others. That is religious Dogma the same as heaven. At the same time with reincarnation you dont go up or down, you just come back over and over. The list of ancient adherents to reincarnation is a famous and numerous one and matches quite well the list of those who understood that religious Dogma was unlikely to hold any answers, Gautam Buddha, Mahavir the Tirthankar of Jainism, Pythagoras, Plato, Socrates, Patañjali, Pherecydes of Syros, etc etc
Again, your claim that "every ancient culture had a belief of reincarnation" demands some evidence; I'm tempted to say extraordinary evidence. And even if many did, didn't they also have ideas of a single god that was more powerful than any other being? If simply having similar beliefs doesn't matter, why does it matter if several people believed in something like reincarnation?
Yes I'm sure your unsupported rhetoric is important to you but I'm afraid it doesn't hold much weight with anyone who knows better. I am making a simple case here, heaven, hell and satan are spread by religious dogma, reincarnation is not. Do you dispute that ?
Yes, obviously I do. The idea of reincarnation would not be widespread if it had not been taught to people, generation to generation, and spread by prophets, just as any other religious idea. Also, you do realize that the several reincarnation myths differ quite considerably from each other? Why are you speaking as if they were all speaking of the same thing, when you claim hell is
not the same thing as an underworld in religions not derived from Babylon and Egypt?
Mirrorglass said:
You do realize that most religions that believe in reincarnation also believe in Karma or something similar, meaning that the actions taken in this life affect the quality of the second. Many also believe it's possible to exit the circle of reincarnation to enter Nirvana or such - note the similarity with Heaven. These religions also impose strict sets of rules and speak of punishment after death to those who break them. Your idea of "liberating" reincarnation is not one derived from ancient religions all over the world; it's just New-Agey silliness.
Not at all, you are confusing the modern view of heaven with reincarnation. The ancient view of heaven was not at all similar to the dogma exhibited today, why do you think that Kings and Pharoahs bothered to go to all the trouble of ensuring they reached heaven after death if the common man could reach it without any assistance at all, seems to be a big wide chasm between what you think and what they thought, are you sure you are not diffusing actual ancient belief with what youre opinion is telling you they believed. Perhaps more study on the ancient world and its beliefs would be of service to you here.
This doesn't seem to be in response to the quoted section at all. I stated that many religions that believe in reincarnation also believe that the actions taken during life affect the quality of the next life, and that it is possible to exit the cycle to enter a heaven, of sorts. You responded by stating I was confused and wrong, and that in ancient Egypt.. people believed the actions they took during their lives affected the quality of their next lives, and that it was possible to reach a heaven after death. You go on to marvel at my lack of understanding of ancient history, leaving me with little choice but to question whether or not you actually read what I wrote.
It should also be noted that I was referring to contemporary religions, not ancient Egypt - although I admit that if the ancient Egyptians truly believed in a form of reincarnation, then it is likely their beliefs may have formed the base for latter religions who also embraced the concept.
It was true in Mesopotamia
As a response to "you haven't presented evidence that reincarnation springs up everywhere without precedent", this is lacking. That something may have taken place once certainly doesn't prove that it happens regularly, everywhere.
That belief was there from the outset
And the quoted section doesn't even suggest that. What it suggests is that the Mesopotamians, with their limited knowledge and understanding of the world, observed phenomena around them, and deduced (incorrectly, but fairly logically) that humans may also rise from the ground like the sun does. This is not a case of "a belief being there from the outset"; it's a case of a primitive civilization trying it's hand at logic and arriving at an incorrect conclusion, similar to deciding the Earth is a flat disk, or that the sky is a dome with water on top of it. If anything, the text you quoted seems to suggest that belief in
an underworld was there from the outset, as this formed one of the basic assumptions for the line of reasoning that lead to assuming people reincarnated.
It was true in ancient egypt that the Upper classes believed they would be reborn in Maat (heaven) but that isn't reincarnation, that is resurrection. The common people believed they would come back and assist more Kings and Pharoahs to attain heaven in exactly the same way as the Mesopotamians. These are the oldest two civilisations, personally I think that one influenced the other, the similarities in their cosmology are rampant, it has been surmised that reincarnation was an idea that existed with Proto Indo European language. Perhaps all we are seeing is exactly the same as heaven/hell/satan, with reincarnation being the standard belief but are just missing the first parts of that because they took place before language was capable of recording them. That would also explain how the idea is there in numerous cultures yet is not part of the standard religious belief of the day, a kind of folk belief as opposed to a religiously sponsored one.
So, basically, you are admitting that instead of "springing up everywhere", reincarnation was taught in two old cultures which influenced one another - cultures which you admit had a strong influence on the development of religion all over the world. It seems to me that if we are to assume concepts such as heaven, hell or monotheism were spread by dogma originating from these cultures, then it is equally clear that belief in reincarnation was spread in the same way.
Also, what do you mean by "standard religious belief of the day"? I presume you are aware of the fact that hinduism and buddhism (with some 1,4 billion followers altogether) both believe in reincarnation, as do some Muslim sects and even a few offshoots of Christianity?
Explain then how instinct is not a function of genetic inheritence, instinct is stored in the Hypothalamus, the same centre where we store our long term memories and they are inherited, for instance if it wasn't for our ancestors discovering that they were much safer sleeping at night you would not be up and about in the daytime now. Instincts are recognised to be behaviours that are passed genetically because they increased the chances of the original organism of passing on its genes. So they are passed genetically, why not all the other data that stored in the hypothalamus. Any idea what the storage capacity of the brain is Mirrorglass ?
I was kind of afraid it would come to this. No matter. It's a simple enough thing if you have some knowledge of evolutionary biology and the brain's function.
Basically, instincts are something we have from the moment we are born. They are not memories; they are behavioral patterns built into our genomes. They were similarly built into the genomes of our forefathers. They
never were memories, either; that is, they are not data our forefathers aqcuired via their senses and processed in their brain, but simple natural tendencies.
Also, it's not that only the useful instincts pass on. We inherit all the instincts from our parents, even the illogical instincts that aren't in any way grounded in reality. However, a person with poor instincts is less likely to end up reproducing, and that's why evolution has lead to the instinct we have becoming dominant.
So basically, no data from the hypothalamus is passed on; data
used to construct the hypothalamus is. The only traits that can be inherited are traits we already have from the moment of conception. And that is why memories cannot be passed on genetically.
As for the storage capacity of the brain, it's a red herring, even if you didn't mean it to be one. So it won't seem like I'm avoiding the question, though: yes, I have a rough idea of what the storage capacity of the brain is. It is practically infinite, meaning it is not possible to reach it's limits during a human's lifetime.
I am not saying reincarnation is valid, I am just explaining why people think it is. It was not a form of woo thinking for ancient peoples but a result of observation of their environment. There are reasons that the idea was so popular back then and isnt now. I thought we were investigating them, with your above claim you are moving the goalposts
I really don't see much difference between arguing for a claim's validity and arguing that there's good reason to believe it. No matter; I still disagree with your stance. Certainly, reincarnation was a result of observation of environment. So was the idea of a flat earth, a canopy in the heavens, and an all-powerful creator god. That doesn't make the idea any less woo.
As for the goalposts, I wasn't aware we were talking about why ancient people believed in reincarnation; actually, I thought we were talking about whether or not reincarnation is any different from other religious myths.
Mirrorglass said:
I'm not dismissing anything; just saying that reincarnation is very unlikely, and the evidence you have presented doesn't hold water. And it's not that I believe reincarnation has no validity - it's simply that your arguments have none.
Ok thats because you have been unable to comprehend that I am not talking about its validity, but the fact that it is an enigma that is not the result of forced religious belief. Even today, the vast majority of people who have a reincarnation experience do not belong to a belief system that advocates it. James Leininger here may not be a good example as I believe its fraudulent, but hes from an orthodox christian family. Which doesn't teach this
Perhaps I haven't had a perfectly clear understanding of what your idea is. But again, it doesn't matter; I don't agree with you anyway. I believe belief in reincarnation is perfectly analogous to belief in Heaven. Both have spread partially by forced preaching, partially because people generally want to believe in any woo that states there is life after death.
I also have trouble with many of your unfounded statements, such as "the vast majority of people who have a reincarnation experience do not belong to a belief system that advocates it". First of all, I'm certain there are more Hindus with such experiences than Christians and other westerners put together. Second, in this day and age, Christianity usually doesn't mean strict Christian faith, and with the media pumping out stories like these in a steady stream, belief in reincarnation is not any stranger than belief in Jesus. And there is a steady stream of Jesus experiences as well - each one equally convincing to each of the reincarnation experiences.
To be clear, I was not at any point attempting to prove that there is any validity in reincarnation, just that there are things that explain a belief in it which to an ancient world mindset make perfect sense. That the idea has been championed in the modern world by a bunch of woos who like to dance naked around campfires or by dubious parents who want everyone to believe that Junior is special while at the same time milking the gullibility of the general public for cash is none of my concern
If this truly was your only point, then you've spent quite a few more words on it than necessary. But even so, you have established you believe faith in reincarnation is somehow different from faith in a Heaven or a Hell, and I don't agree with that either.
btw if your response to this post is going to be another tirade against my "lack of understanding" or scoffing at my "lack of knowledge" you'll soon find yourself marginalised by a lot of posters here who know exactly what my area of knowledge is and that it isn't in any way oxymoronic to this discussion
I double-checked, but I couldn't find any reference to your "lack of understanding" or "lack of knowledge" in my tirade. Scoffing, there may have been, but it was directed against your arguments, not you personally.
What will be, will be, though personally I would be more impressed if you simply held your own in a discussion instead of having me marginalized by a bunch of posters.
By the way, what kind of an area of knowledge would be oxymoronic to this discussion? I take some pride in my imagination, but couldn't really think of any that would match that description.
