How much of religion is just us projecting our psychology and preferences into the universe, insisting to ourselves that it must have a purpose, that it must conform with our emotions ?

Kino chart

Must have taken ages and ages to make that.

>>17845780 (OP)
100%, but human psychology is divinity, and not many religions actually say “the universe will bend to fit your narrow worldview.” The argument can be made that religion is a suite of ideas to make sense of the world, not control it. Also purpose is what you make it: stop projecting.

>>17845780 (OP)
What you're describing is Satanism. It's a rejection of divine revelation. It's the belief that reality is about yourself and that you can determine what morality is as long as it sounds good.

>>17845780 (OP)
>>17845838
>>17845876
Higher quality would be nice though.

>>17845876
>>17845838
What's that english phrase where you put a lot of effort in but the end-product is still shit?

>>17845908
Absent divine revelation to you personally, any claimed divine revelatiom is just something someone or maybe many people said at some point. If a supposed divine revelation does become very widely accepted, it's probably because it was forced on people, because a lot of people simply thought it sounded good, or some combination of the two.

>>17845908
>satanic
>strive for empathy

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHA

>>17845780 (OP)
It depends on what your ideas around religion and it's truthfulness are. But I think it's a fairly valid explanation of at least some currents of belief, cults (High Control Groups, I mean) have been observed to operate in this way, for example.

P.S: I like how much effort went into this but I disagree a lot with the guy's actual choices in making the chart.

>>17845966
It's almost like they specifically picked the name to fuck with you or something.

>>17845780 (OP)
Midwit Whiggian chart informed by pop history. There's no evidence that humans all "began" as animists and such, then transitioned through polytheism to henotheism to monolatrism to monotheism. That applies only to the Indo-European faiths and neither universally within such nor neatly. The thought arises only by those who cannot comprehend all things not fitting into neat little boxes nor not all things "progressing" from some lower form to a higher form

>>17846230
And if one has a more accurate vision of how socially enforced thought systems changed gradually and unevenly over time, how would you neatly summarize that in a diagram, genius? Do you expect this faggot Simon to write a whole paragraph qualifying exactly what he means by animism? Actually, it's "midwit" to be so pretentious that you make a broad dismissal based on flaws that can easily be ignored to reveal interesting historical information.

There's definitely a psychological aspect to religion.
For example, the Judeo-Christian God (an old man sitting on a cloud and fond of judging human beings) seems to be a heavily idealised father figure that you embrace once you're too old to believe your biological father is omnipotent

This would explain why we are seeing a revival of Christianity among young Gen Z males, who probably come from households with weak or absent fathers

>>17846341
>how would you neatly summarize that in a diagram, genius
How would you neatly summarise the relation of Malay and the screeches of a dolphin? The basis for the chart is inherently flawed, since it's presupposes all religion is genetically related. They aren't. The idea would be better presented in either a number of separate charts, or one chart of multiple separate trees without assumptions of a common ancestor nor the Whiggish, Eurocentric nonsense of an ascent from "primitive" to "civilised"

>>17846341
There's no grand unifying theory of religion. Religion is not a concept that was only invented once and then diverged as it spread to every corner of the earth. You put people alone in isolated groups and they will invent some kind of religion eventually, it's a natural tendency among a subset of the human population due to a combination of desperate need for answers and a predilection for superstitious belief.

There's no inherent connection between primitive animism in far east Asia and Egyptian polytheism. The conditions that gave rise to these two modes of belief are totally different, why would the beliefs have to be related?

Can I get a rundown on fundamental beliefs of animism?

>>17845780 (OP)
This always happens.
>Invent cogs
>bro everything is cogs bro
>invent computer
>bro everything is a simulation bro
Even in fucking ancient greece the nigga heraclitus was like
>Invent fire
>Yoooo everything is actually fire bruh
You will never escape it.

>>17846352
Your father was not there for moment really sad

>>17846698
Animism is pretty straightforward.
Go out into the wilderness and try to survive. Then pay attention to what your mind comes up with.

>>17846794
me no speak ESL

>>17845780 (OP)
Any honest investigation of the universe should start with no preconceptions. Empty the mind of all assumptions. Study the evidence, and see where the evidence takes you.

Religion has it backwards. Religion starts with a conclusion ("God exists") and then tries to find any evidence to fit this conclusion.

>>17845780 (OP)
>Pffft the God of the Bible? Just another myth among thousands.
>Look at this chart, I made him into NOTHING.
>Now excuse me while I live like an ANIMAL and indulge in all sorts of vile sin.
Tick tock.

>>17847923
>The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom
Have fun burning.

>>17847932
As I said, religion is not an honest investigation of the universe. You should dispense of conclusions, look at the evidence, and see where the evidence takes you. Don't start with a conclusion, such as God existing, and then try to find whatever cherry-picked pieces of information you can, in order to try to support your foregone conclusion.

>>17847958
>You should dispense of conclusions, look at the evidence, and see where the evidence takes you.
I have a whole book of evidence called "The King James Bible." You have nothing other than
>duhhhhhhh I'm STOOOPID
>I DUZZN NO NUFFIN
I'm not interested in trading with you. Enjoy Hell.

>>17846352
That completely ignores the many variables of men with strong fathers who become Christian out of personal convictions not because of some Freudian goobledegook.

>>17845908
funny how these dirtbag leftist atheist types inevitably adopt slave morality anyways lol

>>17847923
>Make your own conclusions by adopting MY empirical outlook!

>>17847974
>The King James Bible
So the Harry Potter books are evidence that Harry Potter was a real wizard, are they?

>>17848355
You can doubt the existence of the universe if you want. Is that the position you're taking? Just so we're clear.

>>17847974
>I have a whole book of evidence called "The King James Bible."
The KJV is an Anglican Bible, and the Anglican church rejected the authority of the Bishop of Rome because King Henry VIII wanted to spit on God's law by treating marriage as a way to mass-produce potential heirs rather than as a holy sacrament. It would come as a surprise to no-one that an ecclesiastical institution that believes it's okay for God's representatives on Earth to pick and choose which laws they want to follow would modify the word of God to affirm the ideology they wanted to push onto England at the time. You're reading a heretic's Bible, anon, so lower your tone.

>>17845780 (OP)
Not a whole lot desu. Whe whole dichotomy "either it's objectively out there or I'm subjectively imagining it" is fake.

>>17849702
*Yawn* Have fun burning, papist.
>>17849268
>So the Harry Potter books are evidence that Harry Potter was a real wizard, are they?
Yeah they are evidence, but they aren't compelling since they are clearly fiction, and they aren't God's word.

>>17850450
>since they are clearly fiction
so is the bible

> they aren't God's word
so is the bible

>>17850596
Great! Have fun burning.

>>17850635
write a better fanfic

>>17845780 (OP)
My hypothesis/schizoid delusion: The entire universe happens in our minds and is perceived by the witness consciousness, nothing we experience does not first get mediated by the mind, including senses, before reaching the consciousness.

We project deep subconscious currents from our pscyhologies onto the world that basically manifests as a Jungian synchronicity.

All these subconscious undercurrents are a combination of what God created us with and our own actions, and the meaningful ones are projected and emphasized in our minds by the grace of God.

The problem of evil: A lot of these projections result in atrocity because suffering and "wrestling with God" are the only authentic means of transformation and theosis

This schizoid delusion of mine applies in both eastern and western frameworks

>>17847226
This is actually an excellent point. Last time I went camping I camped on an outcrop surrounded by freshwater crocodiles. I had a very strong sense I was being watched (I was), and had this irrational fear that a crocodile would untie my canoe (because i'd stolen its spot and it kept watching me) from the beach and I'd be fucked. I also heard these massive snaps across the water of a (much larger than expected) crocodile hunting at sundown and it somehow felt like an omen. I am usually completely comfortable in this sort of environment and have been for years but when you're alone and vulnerable and start reading into things in the wild it gets very psychological, and you start to feel like you're among intentions and forces

>>17849702
You really have no leg to stand on, anon. Not if you're pretending to defend Romanism. Take the beam out of your own eye on that account. The Roman aristocracy, who thought to call themselves a "church" from the 4th century, were historically a bunch of pederasts and child molestors. These same kings of debauchery seriously attempted to burn the real Bible, while passing off a flimsy corruption as their own. It's completely debauched from start to finish. If you think otherwise, you've bought the propaganda just like a North Korean does and you're burying your head in the sand.

"For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.
A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh."
- Luke 6:43-45

>You're reading a heretic's Bible
You realize that the most direct influence on the KJV was the Geneva Bible of 1560, right? I hope you knew that already. The two translations are extremely similar. Without the Geneva Bible you would never have the KJV. The commission of King James in 1604-1611 took the Geneva Bible and swapped in some select word choices from the Bishops' Bible to arrive at the KJV. We're talking about really basic stuff here, like using the word "church" instead of "assembly."

The biggest objection the Anglican faction had to the Geneva Bible was the marginal notes. The 1611 translators did not begrudge the 1560 translation itself, which was sound. It was also the first ever English Bible fully translated out of the original languages. The 1611 translators also used a slightly more advanced version of the TR that didn't exist in 1560 for the New Testament, but this only affects a handful of verses.

>>17845780 (OP)

This chart is so wrong on so many levels, most importantly the dates of emergence are off by AT LEAST 300 years, and at most 25000. Wtf is this?