Does a religion have to be ancient in order for it to be true?

[Segev Moran]

Atenism.

Keep in mind I am talking about historical records not claims backed by no records. The Bible may claim X but evidence does not support it.

Atenism is a transformed religion that started after promoting Aten to be the only god
I don't think its a monotheistic religion persay
The oldest hebrew biblical reference is 1000 BC so historically wise, an idea of one god might show earlier but the religion itself is not monotheistic in its origin.

 

[Shad]

Atenism is a transformed religion that started after promoting Aten to be the only god
I don't think its a monotheistic religion persay

It's later years it become solely monotheistic.

The oldest hebrew biblical reference is 1000 BC so historically wise, an idea of one god might show earlier but the religion itself is not monotheistic in its origin.

Irrelevant as references does not mean evidence of. The oldest parts of the Bible found at dated to 700BCE

Judaism isn't monotheistic in it's origins either but henotheistic. Yahweh was a Canaanite God. Elohim was a Canaanite God. Both were merged. History vs religious dogma.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Ok... It doesn't sound as a defined monotheistic religion but I'll take your word for it

In the sense how you and I understand monotheism yes, it doesn't, but his belief was very short lived anyway. I thought this was interesting in the link:

"This chapter concludes the book by examining whether there were any direct or indirect influences of Atenism on the Hebrews, who according to the biblical tradition were likely in Egypt during Akhenaten’s reign. A comparative analysis between Psalm 104 and the Great Aten Hymn suggests that there was no direct connection between them. The axial movement theory held that religions evolved toward monotheism, with breakthroughs occurring in 7th–5th centuries B.C. in different parts of the world. Atenism in the 14th century B.C. shows the inadequacy of this popular theory, which many scholars have applied to Israelite religion. By way of analogy with Atenism, it is suggested that there is no reason to reject the notion of Mosaic monotheism in the century after Akhenaten. Atenism died with Akhenaten, as the reign of Tutankhamun demonstrates."

Subscribe - Oxford Scholarship

 

[Segev Moran]

The oldest parts of the Bible found at dated to 700BCE

you are mistaken. the first hebre language referencing the time of king solomon's reign were found to be 1000bc.
The claim of the Jewish religion is that the religion is 3700Bc. for that there is no historical evidence.

Judaism isn't monotheistic in it's origins either but henotheistic. Yahweh was a Canaanite God. Elohim was a Canaanite God. Both were merged. History vs religious dogma.

Elohim and Y, are the same name. there are many more names referencing the same God.

 

[Shad]

you are mistaken. the first hebre language referencing the time of king solomon's reign were found to be 1000bc.
The claim of the Jewish religion is that the religion is 3700Bc. for that there is no historical evidence.

A reference to X is not evidence the text existed during X. Here is an example. Duke William of Normandy invaded England in 1066. My reference does not mean this post is from 1066.

Elohim and Y, are the same name. there are many more names referencing the same God.

Those are also the names of Canaanite Gods. Archaeology has moved to a view that the Hebrews are just a splinter-group of the Canaanites.

 

[Milton Platt]

Atheist argument concerning the existence of any metaphysical deity (or deities) aside to make it clear what I'm asking is whether how "old" a religion is, is a requirement to make a religion true?

The question is very pertinent and relatable to the ongoing debate among theistic religions especially of the Abrahamic family. It appears to me (indirectly) in philosophical dialectical discussions I've been in that one proclaims to be true since it is the oldest, and therefore all others after that even the ones that remotely relate back to the original said religion are heretical. In addition to the question in the OP can't truth reinvent itself in latter generations due to change in time?

Edit: I extend the same question to non-theistic religions

The age of a particular religion has nothing to do with the truthfulness of it. It matters not whether it is the oldest or the youngest.

 

[Augustus]

I believe things that are false are not useful. I have found signs saying food this exit and then have to drive 10 miles to find it. That is a waste of my time and gas unless I am desperate.

That's just saying something which isn't useful isn't useful.

Plenty of things that are not true can be useful though. It can be useful to believe 'all men are created equal' even though this is simply a narrative fiction. The functioning of our society requires us to believe things which are not true as they create utility.

 

[Segev Moran]

A reference to X is not evidence the text existed during X. Here is an example. Duke William of Normandy invaded England in 1066. My reference does not mean this post is from 1066.

You misunderstood me.
The text carvings themselves were dated to be 1000BC.

Those are also the names of Canaanite Gods. Archaeology has moved to a view that the Hebrews are just a splinter-group of the Canaanites.

The name is still referencing the one God

 

[Shad]

You misunderstood me.
The text carvings themselves were dated to be 1000BC.

I need a reference

The name is still referencing the one God

Doesn't matter really as it fits archaeologists models regarding the evolution to monotheism from henotheism

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's just saying something which isn't useful isn't useful.

Plenty of things that are not true can be useful though. It can be useful to believe 'all men are created equal' even though this is simply a narrative fiction. The functioning of our society requires us to believe things which are not true as they create utility.

"All men are created equal" is a statement of values by the person expressing the idea, so it really is true for those who believe it.

This is quite different from saying falsehoods for motivation, though, because the truth of them tends to bite you in the butt eventually.

In the end stages of WWI, it may have been useful for short-term morale for the German generals to tell the troops that the war was going well, but they ended up having to surrender all the same.

 

[syo]

No. We don't say it's older so it's more true. In my opinion

 

[Segev Moran]

I need a reference

Khirbet Qeiyafa - Wikipedia
This should give you a starting point.

Doesn't matter really as it fits archaeologists models regarding the evolution to monotheism from henotheism

God existed long before the Jewish religion formed (i mean God that is referenced in the bible, the bible tells the story of God revealing itself to humans long before the Jewish religion formed)
So references to God in other ancient religions is obvious.
Yet the Jewish religion is still the first to explain and suggest that God is the only God that ever existed.

 

[Shad]

Khirbet Qeiyafa - Wikipedia
This should give you a starting point.

Which is not the example I was talking about.

God existed long before the Jewish religion formed (i mean God that is referenced in the bible, the bible tells the story of God revealing itself to humans long before the Jewish religion formed)
So references to God in other ancient religions is obvious.
Yet the Jewish religion is still the first to explain and suggest that God is the only God that ever existed.

Nope as per my previous posts.

 

[Bear Wild]

Atheist argument concerning the existence of any metaphysical deity (or deities) aside to make it clear what I'm asking is whether how "old" a religion is, is a requirement to make a religion true?

The question is very pertinent and relatable to the ongoing debate among theistic religions especially of the Abrahamic family. It appears to me (indirectly) in philosophical dialectical discussions I've been in that one proclaims to be true since it is the oldest, and therefore all others after that even the ones that remotely relate back to the original said religion are heretical. In addition to the question in the OP can't truth reinvent itself in latter generations due to change in time?

Edit: I extend the same question to non-theistic religions

The oldest religions predate the Abrahamic religions. Age has nothing to do with the validity of a religion. Look up the metaphysics for religious Naturalism. Donald Crosby is a good reference.

 

[Augustus]

"All men are created equal" is a statement of values by the person expressing the idea, so it really is true for those who believe it.

'Metaphorical truths' are things which are not objectively true yet offer some form of benefit to individuals, groups or societies.

These are what underpin ideologies, religions, social orders, etc. and are spread via myths/narratives.

This is quite different from saying falsehoods for motivation, though, because the truth of them tends to bite you in the butt eventually.

In the end stages of WWI, it may have been useful for short-term morale for the German generals to tell the troops that the war was going well, but they ended up having to surrender all the same.

But the falsehoods used for motivation by the allies when they were losing the war might well have proved beneficial in the long run.

 

[Muffled]

Scientology we can both agree is man made. Ron Hubbard was no prophet.

Muhammad and Bahá’u’lláh are both serious contenders as prophets.

I have examined how Islam is outlined in the Bible, particularly Daniel and Revelation, in a recent thread.

I could easily provide an exegesis of over a hundred verses that establishes Bahá’u’lláh’s credentials.

I believe I didn't agree with it there either.

I believe I would settle for one fulfilled prophecy and one statement that God had spoken to him.

 

[Muffled]

Many churches and other religions like Judaism and Islam would agree with you, except whether Canon is closed. There are far too many different views as to what is canon and how to interpret it and what may be called Revelation or cannon beyond the Bible,



True for most Theistic religions, but there is far too much disagreement as to what is from God and true and what is from men and false.

Why should I be convinced what you believe is true and from God and everything else is from men and false?.

I believe as a Bah'ai this is highly unlikely but Christians should be able theoretically.

 

[Muffled]

This is not a historical view but a religious one.

I believe history says that Aten was considered to be the one god in Egypt. Perhaps for Judaism it is the first time with Jehovah as the one God.

 

[Fool]

But those that modify their beliefs to fit these old religions are they just reinventing the wheel?

yes, but obviously it's just a wheel with a different form, composition.

 

[Ancient Soul]

Atheist argument concerning the existence of any metaphysical deity (or deities) aside to make it clear what I'm asking is whether how "old" a religion is, is a requirement to make a religion true?

The question is very pertinent and relatable to the ongoing debate among theistic religions especially of the Abrahamic family. It appears to me (indirectly) in philosophical dialectical discussions I've been in that one proclaims to be true since it is the oldest, and therefore all others after that even the ones that remotely relate back to the original said religion are heretical. In addition to the question in the OP can't truth reinvent itself in latter generations due to change in time?

Edit: I extend the same question to non-theistic religions

That's not even logical.

How long a mythology has been around has absolutely NOTHING to do how "true" or untrue it is. It only means that the oldest has a more effective brainwashing system than the rest, and/or incites it's followers to force those beliefs upon others by any means necessary.

Something that it true should hold up to scrutiny, logic, and real world facts.