Which religion is the Oldest religion in the world?!

Well my rationalisation is based on the evidence, not based on whatever i have to believe in order to protect a bronze age myth.

So how could a tree have been growing 10000 years ago if the earth is 6000 years old? have you made something up yet or are you still manufacturing your rationalisation?

 

So is mine... And ultimately that "evidence" on both sides is purely opinion.

We have a different opinion.

That was my point. There are no 10,000 year old trees. The oldest found date to 4000 years.

Thanks for making my RATIONALIZATION!

 

MIA I posted a link to a 10000 year old tree, at least have dignity and intellecual honesty to not deny reality.

Or is that what you are reduced to now? Concluding that the earth is 6000 years old and denying the existance if everything that suggests otherwise.

It's also demonstrative of the type of mindset you have if you think factual evidence is in anyway "opinion".

You have lost this one mia, and sadly made a mockery of yourself in the process. But I guess that was inevitable considering you were in the unfortunate position of having to defend the infantile claim that the earth is 6000 years old.

 

Maybe everything you said is true. Or maybe carbon dating is just another deceptive tool of the devil.

 

Going through DP posts makes me feel sick to my bones sometimes. The level of ignorance that I see hurts my brain. It leaves me totally shocked and perplexed.

It's 2009 and there are still ignoramuses perpetuating drivel from the Dark Ages. There are still people who actually believe, without question, that Adam and Eve were real, and that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

I just can't believe it . . .

 

That was a link to what is known as a clonal tree. The worlds oldest trees I know of were over 4,000 years old.

What? Comparing apples to apples? Or would you rather I compare them to oranges like you do?

What factual evidence? That link to that tree you sent is not 10,000 years old. Its a clonal tree. Assuming the earth is older than 6000 years, the root system in that tree could conceivably predate the cloned tree.

The root system, not the tree was CARBON dated to 10,000 years. I think that carbon dating is an inaccurate way of determining age.

Cut that clonal tree down and count the rings. That's the only real and accurate way to determine its age. And that is the way that some of the oldest trees have been aged.

Lost what? Can you prove the earth is older than 6000 years old? Can I prove its not? Again, its a difference of opinion and a difference of a religious belief and a scientific belief both of which are not DIS-Proven, or Proven.

Its not entirely accurate. The original ratio of carbon and radioactive carbon is unknown. Without knowing that original ratio, how can one place a date or metric on the length of time? The simple fact is, its inaccurate.

You and me both.

And there are still people that believe the opposite. I just cannot believe it either.

 

So what did this clonal tree do before the earth was formed? grow in space?

So where did the root system originate if it originated before, according to you and your primitive little desert myth, the planet?

Well of course you disagree with the validity of carbon dating, what with you being a scientist and all.... Even if we agree that the findings were innacurate they would only have been innacurate because of contamination. So if the sample that was tested was contaminated it would have been contaminated with organic material which was 10000 years old. Which still blows your shitty little desert myth out the water.

I can and have proven it, the fact that you are intellectually dishonest and diceitful to the point that you can brazenly deny reality doesn't effect that. But it does make it easier for us to expose the type of liar religion produces.

 

Christianity is not the oldest either.

Jesus is more of a re-writing of even older religious myths. There were similar gods and powerful beings described thousands of years before Jesus, like a little-known god named Mithras, the Egyptian god Horus and others. The Christ story mimics these very closely, from a holy life, baptism, death and a three-day resurrection. Some of these old, original stories include additional details like a missing body in a tomb found by two women, or a person who baptizes the hero, and the baptizer is later beheaded.

There's also Krishna which is the greek translation of Christos, which is also the greek translation of Christ...

Even the "virgin birth" isn't original...... In fact, in the catacombs at Rome are pictures of the baby Horus being held by the virgin mother Isis - the original "Madonna and Child" - and the Vatican itself is built upon the papacy of Mithra, who shares many qualities with Jesus and who existed as a deity long before the Jesus character was formalized. The Christian hierarchy is nearly identical to the Mithraic version it replaced.

 

The question here is "Which Religion is the Oldest Religion in the World?" The question doesn't ask which organized religion nor does it ask if the religion still exists. I am going to supply a link on Neanderthal Man which is a subspecies of humans, which dates back to 600,000–350,000 years ago. Now I am sure they had some kind of rituals but we have no records on Neanderthal Man religious beliefs that I know of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

 

Not likely given that too is about 6000 years old.

I'd imagine it originated in the mind of God. My suggestion is you do a google search of clonal trees and brush up on what they are.

Its not just contamination, its the fact that there is no real metric for which to gauge earths age given there is no clock that started at the beginning that has continued on to the present.

Instead scientists use a process by which they measure radioactive decay as a way of attempting to extrapolate a measurement of time for something which again, they have no accurate measurement for in the first place.

Could carbon dating be accurate? Sure, assuming you know when the start and the end/present is. But we do not do we?

Reality? What proof? Big Bang? Its a theory. Age of the earth? Theory. Origins of earth? Theory.

You can no more prove the age of the earth than I can prove the existence of God. If you knew anything about the scientific method you'd realize that all you or I can do when applying those principles is to "disprove" the theory.

I would suggest you study up on the scientific method and the process by which a theory becomes law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

In other words when you get into a debate you'd rather call someone "dishonest" and "deceitful" than state an opinion. An opinion that you claim to be the "truth". In reality what that makes you is a hypocrite and arrogant.

 

The question really peaked my interest and I found a link with current information on a discovery by Archaeologists that has been recent, which dates back 70,000 years on the oldest religious worship.

http://www.afrol.com/articles/23093

 

Atheism is the oldest. ok fine it's not a "religion" but you could make it into one by saying their beliefs are that religion is "crazy talk".

As for traditional religion, umm wild guess Hinduism is the oldest or at least written down.

 

So where was the tree, the tree that has been here for 10000 years, if the earth, and universe lol, is 6000 years old?

It seems a lot of what you hold to be true is nothing more than a figment of your imagination. Ever tried reality?

Is that really your answer? That the tree is 10000 years old because it existed in gods mind for 4 thousand years before he created the earth? That's just tragic, it's probably the most pitiful rationalisation i have ever had the misfortune to hear some use. You could have said "the devil done it" and, as pitiful as that answer would have been, retained at least a shred of dignity. Now you have just made yourself look rediculous.

Clocks were started. Granted they weren't clocks with hands, something youd stilll no doubt have trouble understanding, but clocks none the less. Carbon 14 decays into nitrogen at a known rate, by comparing the ratio of carbon 14, nitrogen and carbon 12 in an organic sample we can determine how long ago that sample died. Now i understand this is a little harder to grasp than staring at the hands on your micky mouse clock in your bedroom, but something doesn't become innacure on the grouds at you posess an education insufficient to understand it.

Carbon dating is accurate. So is Potassium-argon dating, so is Uranium-thorium-lead dating and so is Rubidium-strontium dating. We know the rate at which these elements decay and from that we can extrapolate how long they have been decaying in any given sample. And guess what, they all confirm that you and your silly little idea are wrong. Not just a little wrong, but wrong by a factor of billions.

It has been figured out that the extent to which you are wrong is the equivolent to someone believing the united states is 8 inches wide.

Gravity? theory. Music? theory. tides? theory. Still trotting out that decietful littl lie? knowingly too. Good job your god doesn't exist, the levels you are prepared to sink to would make him ashamed.

Theories don't become laws, they are two entirely separate things. Laws are what something does, the data, theories explain how and why it does it. I don't know how many times you need this simple distinction explained to you.

I call you dishonest and decietful because you are, you know you are and you know you are wrong, that's the sad thing. I'm in two minds whether to be impressed by or pitty you for your abily to o sink to such lows and your ability to deny the patently obvious in favour of some cretinous little desert myth which you have been unfortunate enough to be tricked in to believing.

Im mean seriously, can you imagine standing in front of a room full of people and saying this shit? Imagine the laughter. Imagine how they would all point at you and laugh with your "it existed in the mind of god" excuse for the fact that a 10000 year old tree has been found. it's pitiful, i pity you for what your religion has got you to do to yourself. The willingness to publicy humiliate yourself is tragic.

 

That is where your logic is flawed. The tree is not 10000 years old. That's the point.

Its called opinion. You have one too. The difference is, I do not attack you because of it.

No, the answer is, the tree is not 10000 years old because the earth is only 6000 years old. Are you listening to anything I say?

You can only determine that rate accurately by knowing how long that piece of string really is. The point here is that no one knows how long a piece of string is. Does that make more sense?


I cannot make this any more remedial.

Its not the accuracy or the rate of decay that's in question. The problem is no one knows where the beginning is, so its impossible to suggest that the rate of decay is constant without a starting point from which to measure it.

You've got a rather obtuse way of looking at reason. I'd suggest you actually take a look at the scientific method as I suggested, or at the very least talk to a high school science teacher.

Gravity is a law. I'd suggest you actually READ and LEARN about the scientific method. Then you might obtain a slight grasp as to what I am talking about here. You'd find out the difference between the LAW of Gravity and the THEORY of Relativity and what defines both.

Good God man, have you ever had a science class of any kind? Laws start as Theories. Prior to that they are hypothesis.

Again, (and I think I have said this enough) READ

How can I be wrong when neither one of us have been shown to be right? You are talking in complete circles.

Again, you continue this conceited and arrogant diatribe without ever once providing any evidence to dispute my opinion. I find your lack of attention to detail in these recent rants to be one of a raving lunatic.

You are becoming more and more irrational with every post.

It's pretty sad that you've chosen to sink to this level rather than continue the discussion rationally. I'm not sure I want to help you any further.

You, like I learned in school that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. I also learned it was 6000 years old. One is a scientific account, another is a Biblical one. I also learned that the Tasaday were not real. Text books and history are being continually re-written as the result of new findings and contradictions. Is it really funny to suggest a differing opinion? Or do you just continually drink the kool-aid and believe everything everyone wants you to?

Try thinking for yourself once. Its rather liberating.

 

This statement reminds me of when I was a kid and my brother and I would be forced to take that old yellow terrible tasting triaminic. I would always say, "Mmmm, that tastes so good" (Even though I actually hated the stuff too, I could just hide it). My brother would get so mad it would almost cause a fist-fight everytime. He would holar, "you're wrong, and you know it! You are lying" This is exactly what Stox does when you disagree with him.

 

I could agree with Stox and he would still find a way to tell me I am wrong, a liar, deceitful, and bad.

 

Hinduism is the oldest religion

"The earliest evidence for prehistoric religion in India date back to the late Neolithic in the early Harappan period (5500–2600 BCE).[78][89] The beliefs and practices of the pre-classical era (1500–500 BCE) are called the "historical Vedic religion". Modern Hinduism grew out of the Vedas, the oldest of which is the Rigveda, dated to 1700–1100 BCE.[90] The Vedas center on worship of deities such as Indra, Varuna and Agni, and on the Soma ritual. They performed fire-sacrifices, called yajña, and chanted Vedic mantras but did not build temples or icons.[citation needed] The oldest Vedic traditions exhibit strong similarities to Zoroastrianism and other Indo-European religions."

source wikipedia

 

Interesting interpretation, but wrong context.

It can be argued that some (NOT all) of the ideals, principles, and psychology of Christianity existed before Christ was born. That's because Christ did not INVENT new Truths, he merely described existing truths, in the same way that Newton did not invent the laws of physics, he merely described existing laws of physics. Christ took these existing Truths (some of which were reflected in previous religions) and seamlessly explained them by connecting them all together with Love and compassion at it's heart. It also helps that Christ's behavioral psychology of personal satisfaction and happiness is flawless. (OTOH, the disciples screwed it all up).

As to the original question... I recall that the oldest religion is either the Jewish religion, or Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism may be as old as 1700BC. Judaism is so ancient that it's origin cannot be accurately traced by historians.

It can be successfully argued that Judaism and Zoroastrianism are definitely the oldest surviving practicing religions today.

Zoroastrianism is fascinating. It preaches that one of the worst sins is the sin of lying.

BTW, "atheism" is not a religion, it is the ABSENCE of religion, in the same way that black is not a color but the absence of color.

BTW, Wikipedia is sometimes inaccurate when it comes to origins of religions because adherents like to play with editing the origins - you've got to do the work yourself.

 

Stox and Mia you crack me up,

I cant tell if Mia is deliberately trying to rattle stox or honestly believes what he is saying.

I would like to throw my question to Mia.

You find fault in the scientific theory behind the dating process of the tree and the earth. Surely though a theory (which is what it is) of a man adding up the ages in the bible is full of holes. Do we really trust a dark ages document with numerous authors to be factual and true? Its common knowledge that what man perieves of the world around him is not a true reflection of the reality what certainty can you place on this document?

@stox a quote from betrand russell "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."

 

I think that its much more believable that the earth is younger rather than older. It would explain a hell of a lot. I mean wouldn't it seem more feasible that people kept records and passed them down through the ages, though possibly flawed, how could they be off by millions, or billions or thousands of years?

Using carbon dating you could easily come to the same conclusion I have. It all depends where you place the beginning.

You can date a tree by counting the growth rings. When the carbon dating and the growth ring dating differ, seems reasonable to assume that one or the other is flawed. Of course we know that dating trees by their growth rings is ACCURATE. Can't say the same for CD.