Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The World Religions Tree (huge visualization)

000024.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 83 posts

Re: The World Religions Tree (huge visualization)

#71

Post by skissane »

hereandthere2 wrote: post #62
cjsthompson wrote: post #19

As expected, European native beliefs (and their link to hinduism) are not even mentioned.

Im interested in this link between hinduism and European native beliefs. A quick google search didn't lead to anything authoritative. Do you know where more info could be found?

In theory Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, and the ancient Greek, Roman, Germanic, Celtic, Norse, etc, religions, are all descended from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_religion - however, that is so long ago, by the time we get to the historical period, they have diverged a lot, both due to their own organic development in different directions, and also due to the influence of differing non-Indo-European cultures - such as Dravidian culture in the case of Hinduism; Semitic and Sumerian cultures in the case of Zoroastrianism; Etruscan culture in the case of the Romans

Re: The World Religions Tree (huge visualization)

#72

Post by gonvaled »

nemo wrote: post #66
gonvaled wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I must be dense, I do not get it

The joke was that atheists (along with the others listed) are inclined towards outspoken rants at everyone. You responded with an outspoken rant to the joke.

A) the joke was that atheists are exhibitionists, not that they are ranters. BAD joke.

B) In case the joke was meant to include ranters, the same case can be made that religious people are generally more ranting inclined. BAD joke.

C) I do not say anywhere that I (the ranter) am an atheist, which makes the whole point moot

Re: The World Religions Tree (huge visualization)

#73

Post by gonvaled »

incompatible wrote: post #68
hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're naive if you think that's all what religion boils down to. That tree includes Confucianism, for instance. Although it's considered a religion, it's secular and closer to philosophy. Most religions are also mixed with creation mythologies, which have a bonding function inside cultures and ethnic groups. So, the `religion` subject is much more complex than a simple pissing contest.

If it doesn't make any unverifiable claims about the supernatural, then by all means remove it from the "religions" category and add it to "philosophy".

I would change "unverifiable" by "unfalsifiable" there. Nothing is verifiable (not even science works that way).

Re: The World Religions Tree (huge visualization)

#74

Post by panglott »

This is less "inaccurate" than fundamentally conceptually flawed. Human ideological systems are not like biological systems that speciate through schism. They are creations of living human minds and societies that piece together ideas that they find meaningful and useful.

So this chart lists a couple of major sources: Chinese folk Taoism, Japanese mythology, Shramana traditions (non-vedic), Early Vedic period, and Ancient Israelite religion. Most of these traditions have been cross-pollinating, merging, and re-dividing for millenia. Yet this kind of visualization can only depict schism, not influence.

Re: The World Religions Tree (huge visualization)

#75

Post by dragonwriter »

panglott wrote: post #74

This is less "inaccurate" than fundamentally conceptually flawed. Human ideological systems are not like biological systems that speciate through schism. They are creations of living human minds and societies that piece together ideas that they find meaningful and useful. So this chart lists a couple of major sources: Chinese folk Taoism, Japanese mythology, Shramana traditions (non-vedic), Early Vedic period, and An…

> This is less "inaccurate" than fundamentally conceptually flawed. Human ideological systems are not like biological systems that speciate through schism.

Given the existence of horizontal gene transfer [0], neither are the biological systems traditionally described that way. Nevertheless, the schism model can be a useful illustrative approximation even when its not a completely accurate model.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer

Re: The World Religions Tree (huge visualization)

#76

Post by burgreblast »

lqndlwq wrote: post #17
ars wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Judaism is actually derived from ancient Babylonian polytheism. That isn't true. At best, and even this is debated, there are some traces, but it's not in the slightest "derived from".

Maybe not derived from, but certainly descended from. Yahweh was the national god of the Israelites, who were part of the Canaanite polytheistic system. In the context of Yahweh being a warrior deity in a polytheistic system, the phrase "there are no other gods like our god," and also the crusades against neighboring settlements seem to take on more meaning. Interesting reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh

>Certainly descended from

Also no.

Yahweh is clearly at a level "above all gods", i.e. on his own level as omnipotent creator of all things. Angels and fallen angels (aka demons/ heavenly hosts and other "gods") are on a second level of power/influence, and then earthly creations below that.

As such, Yahweh doesn't "compete" against other (lower-case) gods, because they're not omnipotent creators and he is.

Although the Israelites were pretty famous for rejecting him and worshiping lower-case gods, (and subsequently incurring Yahweh's wrath), there's never a question that he is the I AM and not any derivation.

Re: The World Religions Tree (huge visualization)

#77

Post by lknwfdlknfd »

burgreblast wrote: post #76
lqndlwq wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe not derived from, but certainly descended from. Yahweh was the national god of the Israelites, who were part of the Canaanite polytheistic system. In the context of Yahweh being a warrior deity in a polytheistic system, the phrase "there are no other gods like our god," and also the crusades against neighboring settlements seem to take on more meaning. Interesting reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh

>Certainly descended from Also no. Yahweh is clearly at a level "above all gods", i.e. on his own level as omnipotent creator of all things. Angels and fallen angels (aka demons/ heavenly hosts and other "gods") are on a second level of power/influence, and then earthly creations below that. As such, Yahweh doesn't "compete" against other (lower-case) gods, because they're not omnipotent creators and he is. Although…

I'm talking about the historical and anthropological record, not the Hebrew mythology. Of course the religion's modern texts would paint themselves in an infallible light.

So yes, Judaism is descended and evolved from Canaanite religion.

Re: The World Religions Tree (huge visualization)

#78

Post by ars »

lknwfdlknfd wrote: post #77
burgreblast wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Certainly descended from Also no. Yahweh is clearly at a level "above all gods", i.e. on his own level as omnipotent creator of all things. Angels and fallen angels (aka demons/ heavenly hosts and other "gods") are on a second level of power/influence, and then earthly creations below that. As such, Yahweh doesn't "compete" against other (lower-case) gods, because they're not omnipotent creators and he is. Although…

I'm talking about the historical and anthropological record, not the Hebrew mythology. Of course the religion's modern texts would paint themselves in an infallible light. So yes, Judaism is descended and evolved from Canaanite religion.

Your own links don't support such a strong claim. At best the strongest claim you can make is that the name might have some correspondence with the name of Canaanite Gods, but you have zero information on the direction of the influence.

Your own links make no claim at all that the religion itself has any relationship with the Canaanite religions.

Regarding the direction, do not forget that Abraham was very active in the region, and proselytized extensively. It is hardly surprising if the Canaanites took some concepts from him.

Re: The World Religions Tree (huge visualization)

#79

Post by hcarvalhoalves »

incompatible wrote: post #68
hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're naive if you think that's all what religion boils down to. That tree includes Confucianism, for instance. Although it's considered a religion, it's secular and closer to philosophy. Most religions are also mixed with creation mythologies, which have a bonding function inside cultures and ethnic groups. So, the `religion` subject is much more complex than a simple pissing contest.

If it doesn't make any unverifiable claims about the supernatural, then by all means remove it from the "religions" category and add it to "philosophy".

Read Espinoza if you think it's clear cut like that.

Re: The World Religions Tree (huge visualization)

#80

Post by lknwfdlknfd »

ars wrote: post #78
lknwfdlknfd wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm talking about the historical and anthropological record, not the Hebrew mythology. Of course the religion's modern texts would paint themselves in an infallible light. So yes, Judaism is descended and evolved from Canaanite religion.

Your own links don't support such a strong claim. At best the strongest claim you can make is that the name might have some correspondence with the name of Canaanite Gods, but you have zero information on the direction of the influence. Your own links make no claim at all that the religion itself has any relationship with the Canaanite religions. Regarding the direction, do not forget that Abraham was very active in…

That article has been restructured quite a bit after it was made part of the Judaism portal, compared to when I first found it and then looked into the subject a couple of years ago. Just because one wikipedia article is incomplete doesn't mean it's not an accepted fact.
Post reply on HN