Yet another religion thread: what constitutes weird?

[hyena]

I like the way you divided it into two schools of thought however I do agree with the first one simply because this is what really went down through history and is documented.

The second idea has to be discredited simply because if it were true, then all humans regardless of race or location or era in time would instinctively come up with the exact same version of a God just like all living creatures on earth drink the same water.

this argument appears invalid to me. what do you mean by 'documented'? the only way to document that humans invented god consists in proving that god does not exist, and this cannot be done.

also, what do you base your second conclusion upon? i reckon that the effect you mention is a possibility, but why should it be the only outcome of a god planting the idea of its existence into people's minds? how can you be sure of that?

 

[QRV]

Myths, dreams, art, philosophy, etc., have never shown the existence of such a realm, they have only shown the power of the human mind, its creativity, and its capabilities.

I know that, I didn't state it as an objective fact, but as a possibility which I certainly believe in. IMO it all points towards the trascendental, but of course it can't be proven by any empirical method. There are certain scientific descriptions, however, of a few phenomena that are related to this, like the theory of synchronicity, formulated by C.G. Jung.

First of all, that was a childish response.
Second of all, I understand what ian.de is talking about there, and it isn't nonsense, it's a real area of debate in the field of consciousness. Unlike what ian.de said earlier, there is no evidence that tells us that animals aren't conscious at all, in fact certain behaviors show otherwise. We can't possibly know for sure ..perhaps they are very much conscious of their existence and the fact that they are an entity in an out-there world, but since they biologically lack the complex communication skills that humans possess, they are very much limited in conveying any of it, either to each other or to people who study them. But it is a currently-discussed and debated scientific topic that, while other animals may be conscious and may think, our species is easily conscious of being conscious. We think about thinking. And that this may be one of the main reasons for our extensive imagination.

Well, I don't find this argument even close to satisfactory. Cognitive theories are way too concrete to be used as an argument against the religious, which is symbolic in nature. All this metacognition crap only helps to explain a small part of the equation, which merely concerns reason (and not all of reason), leaving aside the rest of the traits of personality. Thus it is a bit reduccionist when it comes to the imaginative and symbolic.

About the animals, I have my doubts about their supposed lack of consciousness. Bees and ants possess really complex forms of communication, even though they only have a couple of ganglions, and not our our much too complicated brain-spinal system. Monkeys are believed to recognize themselves in mirrors, and most mammals can produce more than a hundred different sounds, which we can only guess are used for communication of some sort. But as you said, this is very controversial.

The very basic underlying essence of the universe, its beginning, its real nature, and its bounds are of course very far from known. They are all nothing but theories based on interpretations of limited evidence ..exciting as it may be. I don't know what you mean by essence of science..
However, evolution is very well understood. And it's all out there. You advocate reading, perhaps you'd be interested.
And lastly, as to your rude response, I don't see anything in that particular post of ian.de's that would qualify as "making shit up" any more than your thoughts of your innate spiritual realm.

I'm sorry to disagree on this last point, evolution hasn't been understood entirely, hence the label of "theory" that's still there. There are many many questions that are yet unanswered -and don't get me wrong, I believe evolution is quite a fact in itself, but its very intrinsec mechanisms and processes are still far from being understood.

the comment QRV made concerned, if i understand correctly, both the finality of your tone and the inaccuracy of your statement, not your idea that god does not exist.

Yep. I have no problem with atheists in general, just with the dumb ones.

 

[GHOST IN THE RUINS]

Hyena,

The idea of god has evolved throughout the years. As you may well know, some of the earliest religions appeared in Mesopotamia (current Iraq) and the Middle East. Various dieties were being worshipped, the gods were numerous and mainly these gods were related to natural phenomenae; Thunder, Wind, Rain, Sun, Moon, even the existence of the stars had a story or explanation. When I said 'documented' I mean the Earliest stories about gods and dieties were inscribed on cylinder seals and stone tablets found in various sites in Iraq.

Other 'documented' (myths if you like) come from the ancient Greeks and Romans who worshipped the primarily the god of the SUN (ZEUS). APOLLO was the God of Reason and order, Dyonisus the god of earthly pleasure...Aphrodite the Goddess of LOVE. Mars (the planet) became the GOD OF WAR.

Incidentally, the people living in central america (The INCAS and MAYANS, before them the AZTECS) also worshipped the same God of the SUN. It is very probable that the greeks borrowed this idea from them (You remember the story of Atlantis?), so there was contact.

Among goods and other things, the people of the past also traded ideas, influenced one another, and each race adopted a version of the story and modified it to suite their needs.
The first sentence and paragraph in the Old Testament is "There was darkness and God's spirit hovered above the waters..... then he separated day from night... divided land from sea... created plants and animals... shaped man in his image.....etc.) The SAME story is inscribed on ancient tablets in Iraq (ancient Mesopotamia) dating a good 3 or 4,000 years BC.

The idea of 2 Gods or advesaries (God and the Devil) comes from ancient Persia (today's Iran) where God was called Mazda (omnicient god of the skies) and Ahura (his leutenant) on earth was God of Nature. He was responsible for the coming of rain, earthquakes, destruction and rebirth, the growing of crops, abundance of food...

The ancient Semites (Jews of today) adopted this idea and turned Mazda into Yahwe, and because Yahwe was jealous by nature and cannot tolerate the presence of any other god, Ahura had to be turned into the Devil and made him God's adversary along with all the other gods ruling over the region (Baal, Belzibub, Astaroth, Tiamat, Marduk...etc)

The Christians followed their lead and adding to the story the influence of the Romans (who worshipped the God of the Sun after the Greeks). Where do you think the idea of the HALO behind the heads of saints and Jesus present in all religious paintings comes from? The HALO represents the SUN. The sun being divine. in Christianity when they say "God is Light" they are referring to the sun.

Isalm came soon after and based their religion on the Jewish story because Christianity was still young (600 years) and the story of Yahwe (the early Jewish god) was way way older by thousands of years, and so it had more culture and tradition in it. Also it had more ritual.

Speaking of rituals: the early Mesopotamians would build monuments for their Gods and offer them food from the earth at every coming of Spring as a thank you gesture for the abundance of life and food. The survived the wrath of the Gods in Winter.

The early semites worshiped another set of gods but offered slaughtered LAMB or cattle to their gods. Baal was represented as a BULL.

The God Yahwe demanded no sacrifice save him being the only God around and he demnded obedience, and MONEY paid by the common people to the representants of this God on earth (i.e. Moses and his brother among their group)

The Ten commandments were actuall over 40. They also come from ancient Persia but were too many to memrize so they were cut down to the essential 10.

The 40 commandments from Ancient Persia come from Ancient Mesopotamia where Hamurabi came up and dictated the FIRST LAWS ever documented by mankind. It was mainly about rules of behaviour, crime and punishment...etc. The first draft of the Civil Law. It's fundementals apply even today.

In brief, the idea of God has evolved along the years taking many twists and turns, versions alterations until it has 'consumed itself'

All these stories mixed and borrowed from one another...Because all humankind was searching for an answer. The GOD answer was satisfactory until the coming of the age of reason. It is when man started to dare aloud and question aloud without fear of being persecuted by the church, the defender of the story of GOD, the marketing agency...

God died with the coming of the age of reason. Fear stopped being the key.

 

[GHOST IN THE RUINS]

Oh and I forgot to mention that many religions, philosophies and ideas about gods and the creation came from people who used to get high on Opium (as in the case of Plato) or delusional as in the case of many of the early phrophets would wold seclude themself for years on end and finally emerge raving mad about seeing him or talking to him....etc. People were obsessed by HIM and still are to some extent.

I'm not against HIM or saying that he's bad, on the contrary, from an emotional point of view, GOD has been and still is the remedy and answer to millions of people living in hard conditions, those who have to edure much suffering. The idea answers fear and supplies man with an infinite well of strength and motivation. A reason to live and endure. It is purely psychological.

 

[Siren]

The second idea has to be discredited simply because if it were true, then all humans regardless of race or location or era in time would instinctively come up with the exact same version of a God just like all living creatures on earth drink the same water.

This is a statement with a very limited view. Firstly, God is something spiritual, whereas water is something physical, so again we have the comparison between apples and oranges. Even then, you will find that not everyone drinks the same water, the consistency of the water you and i drink is different, and every water has a different taste.

With what you said you assume that God is something with limits, boundaries and a defined form (for example an old grandpa with a white beard or an Indian goddess with many arms), which is quite the contrary from what most theists believe. If there is such a thing as God, then in my opinion it is trully limitless, omnipotent and omnipresent, and thus cannot be expressed with only one form, idea or shape, but is best described by none of them and all of them at once.




I hate to be ruining my beautiful post count. I wish i could have a fixed one.

 

[MagSec4]

Ah, just as I was considering weighing in. No, you're right, I'll just keep doing what I've been doing.

Yeah..
Hey, one second.. I have to go talk to QRV, I'll be right back to the benches

I'm sorry to disagree on this last point, evolution hasn't been understood entirely, hence the label of "theory" that's still there.

Evolution is not a theory. It is a real phenomenon that follows logically given relevant physical circumstances.

If you would have some patience, I'll try to explain as best as I can:

Let's say there is a large group of simple entities, let's call them dots. And these dots have only two characteristics. Only two properties:
One is a color. Each one has its own solid color, and overall the dots as a group range in a nice distribution from a green to a yellow. Let's say 25% of the dots are deemed to be unmistakably 'green', and 25% unmistakably 'yellow', with the remaining 50% being greenish-yellow shades of varying degrees.
The other property of these dots is that they make copies of themselves every once in a while, and they all do so at the same rate. And when making a copy, it isn't necessarily a perfect copy. Meaning, the color of the copy would be a very slightly different shade if measured precisely. So, with time, the group of dots has been exponentially increasing in number, and the distribution of color would remain, no matter what the total number of dots is.
But now we'll add some external pressure to the system. Let's say that hyena brings by a zapper. And what this zapper does is discriminately eliminate dots that are yellow (starting from a specific hexadecimal value of a greenish-yellow and anything yellower than that). As time goes by, hyena's toy will keep zapping away all dots yellow. The dots that remain will keep making copies of themselves (and should one be at around the zapper's threshold yellow value, it might find that particular copy of itself zapped).
When measuring the distribution of colors at this later time, I'm sure you can all correctly guess that it will be different ..that the percentage of green dots has increased. It may be something like 40% unmistakably green, 35% green with a slight hint of yellow, and 25% yellowish-green. Yellow dots, and greenish-yellow dots, no longer exist.

The distribution of a property of a group of entities at a later time after such an external pressure will be different ..it changes. This is evolution.

Note the following too: At no point did any one dot change. All individual dots existed absolutely unchanged at all times. Only the distribution of traits (one trait in this case) changed. Note also, that nothing in this system was done randomly (the zapper had specific discriminatory instructions). And nothing happened by mere chance. Given specific and physical parameters the system behaved only logically.
The dots evolved.
Perhaps someone who saw the group at a time before hyena's zapper might be able to tell stories of yellow dots having once existed.

To get back to your post, QRV, what was viewed as a theory many decades ago was that organisms on this planet came about through the (real) process of evolution. And even more controversially then, that humans were evolved from earlier species. That was the theory.. that animals evolved. But even this is no longer called a "theory", as you have been thinking. It's simply an information lag: The phrase "theory of evolution" is still diffused throughout the general population (and of course, strongly held by the hardcore religious). Sure, biologists argue specific pathways at certain times with certain traits, but the evolution of earth's species is, in the present day, very much considered an axiom, not a theory.

 

[Matse]

What you just described is intermediary inheritance of traits not evolution. Evolution would mean one of the genes of the yellows changed so it would be red. Evolution is not a theory since scientists know that genes can change and evolve into something that hasn't existed before due to "accidents" that aren't really supposed to happen in the DNA in a cell for example genestrings breaking, connecting at wrong places etc.

 

[MagSec4]

No, no no.. change of genes is not evolution. Change of genes is only a driving force that creates a distribution so that evolution may happen. Otherwise we would have entities that are identical and multiply perfectly, and shall forever remain identical.

And genes have absolutely nothing to do with the example I put forth. The main point of the example was not the part of color inheritance, it was the shift in distribution of colors caused by an external pressure. In biological bodies, genes would be a reason behind specific traits. But for this simple system, how the color property of the dots got there is irrelevant to show their evolution. I'm just trying to point out what evolution intrinsically is at the most basic level. Of course any real system would be immensely more complex than mine, with many external pressures, many traits, many variables that cause and maintain the distribution, etc.

EDIT: Oh, by the way, for a real-life, current example of evolution, substitute in bacteria as the entities, resistance to antibiotics as the distribution spectrum, and man-made antibiotics as the external pressure.
The percentage of bacteria that are resistant to current antibiotics increases every time, in the same way that the color distribution in the dots shifted. And a new antibiotic is used, and the process repeats..

 

[hyena]

@ghost in the ruins: again, i am under the impression that your argument is neither here nor there. most of the cultural history you cite is true, but it doesn't prove anything at all. in christianity, there is the concept of "history of salvation", according to which not only individuals but cultures as a whole tend to have a time pattern in their knowledge of god. if you buy this story, you can recode everything you have said in terms of men experiencing a "high" or a "low" in their collective path toward salvation. the concept of a salvation history is even stronger in judaism, with the old testament being practically choke full of stories of Jews as a community swinging now closer, now farther from God. i'm not saying that this idea is true, just pointing out that the facts as you relate them are, again, compatible with both an atheistic and a theistic vision.

 

[Siren]

Other 'documented' (myths if you like) come from the ancient Greeks and Romans who worshipped the primarily the god of the SUN (ZEUS). APOLLO was the God of Reason and order, Dyonisus the god of earthly pleasure...Aphrodite the Goddess of LOVE. Mars (the planet) became the GOD OF WAR.

The Christians followed their lead and adding to the story the influence of the Romans (who worshipped the God of the Sun after the Greeks). Where do you think the idea of the HALO behind the heads of saints and Jesus present in all religious paintings comes from? The HALO represents the SUN. The sun being divine. in Christianity when they say "God is Light" they are referring to the sun.

I'm sorry to ruin most of your post and your theory with it, but Greeks and Romans did not worship the God of SUN. Maybe you would like to get your facts straight. The King of Gods was Zeus, and he was the God of Thunder. Apollo was the God of Sun. Athena was the Goddess of Wisdom, etc.

Incidentally, the people living in central america (The INCAS and MAYANS, before them the AZTECS) also worshipped the same God of the SUN. It is very probable that the greeks borrowed this idea from them (You remember the story of Atlantis?), so there was contact.

Once again, you might want to get your facts straight. I'm not very familiar with American history, but a quick wikipedia search showed that the Mayans came first ("the first clearly “Maya” settlements were established in approximately 1800BC" and "Archaeological evidence suggests the construction of ceremonial architecture in Maya area by approximately 1000 BC") and their classic period was 250-900 AD. Also "the Aztecs were a Pre-Columbian Mesoamerican people of central Mexico in the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries". And "the Inca people began as a tribe in the Cuzco area around the 12th century AD".
I'm sure you can search the chronology of Ancient Greece and ancient greek mythology on your own.

Oh and I forgot to mention that many religions, philosophies and ideas about gods and the creation came from people who used to get high on Opium (as in the case of Plato)

I would very much like to see some sources on this, since it's something i have never heard before (ie Plato getting high on opium).





More when i have time to read the rest of the posts.

 

[Wolfman Von Jones]

Haha, fucking pwned.

Nick

 

[QRV]

Evolution is not a theory. It is a real phenomenon that follows logically given relevant physical circumstances.

If you would have some patience, I'll try to explain as best as I can:

Let's say there is a large group of simple entities, let's call them dots. And these dots have only two characteristics. Only two properties:
One is a color. Each one has its own solid color, and overall the dots as a group range in a nice distribution from a green to a yellow. Let's say 25% of the dots are deemed to be unmistakably 'green', and 25% unmistakably 'yellow', with the remaining 50% being greenish-yellow shades of varying degrees.
The other property of these dots is that they make copies of themselves every once in a while, and they all do so at the same rate. And when making a copy, it isn't necessarily a perfect copy. Meaning, the color of the copy would be a very slightly different shade if measured precisely. So, with time, the group of dots has been exponentially increasing in number, and the distribution of color would remain, no matter what the total number of dots is.
But now we'll add some external pressure to the system. Let's say that hyena brings by a zapper. And what this zapper does is discriminately eliminate dots that are yellow (starting from a specific hexadecimal value of a greenish-yellow and anything yellower than that). As time goes by, hyena's toy will keep zapping away all dots yellow. The dots that remain will keep making copies of themselves (and should one be at around the zapper's threshold yellow value, it might find that particular copy of itself zapped).
When measuring the distribution of colors at this later time, I'm sure you can all correctly guess that it will be different ..that the percentage of green dots has increased. It may be something like 40% unmistakably green, 35% green with a slight hint of yellow, and 25% yellowish-green. Yellow dots, and greenish-yellow dots, no longer exist.

The distribution of a property of a group of entities at a later time after such an external pressure will be different ..it changes. This is evolution.

Note the following too: At no point did any one dot change. All individual dots existed absolutely unchanged at all times. Only the distribution of traits (one trait in this case) changed. Note also, that nothing in this system was done randomly (the zapper had specific discriminatory instructions). And nothing happened by mere chance. Given specific and physical parameters the system behaved only logically.
The dots evolved.
Perhaps someone who saw the group at a time before hyena's zapper might be able to tell stories of yellow dots having once existed.

To get back to your post, QRV, what was viewed as a theory many decades ago was that organisms on this planet came about through the (real) process of evolution. And even more controversially then, that humans were evolved from earlier species. That was the theory.. that animals evolved. But even this is no longer called a "theory", as you have been thinking. It's simply an information lag: The phrase "theory of evolution" is still diffused throughout the general population (and of course, strongly held by the hardcore religious). Sure, biologists argue specific pathways at certain times with certain traits, but the evolution of earth's species is, in the present day, very much considered an axiom, not a theory.

I see. Thanks for clarifying. I feel stupid for guiding myself by my old high school teachings.

You didn't answer my other comments, so should I take that as a "granted"? Or as a simple, proud and gay-ass "I don't have much information to debate that at the moment"?

 

[ian.de]

Yep. I have no problem with atheists in general, just with the dumb ones.

What's with the personal attacks bud? You're calling me dumb for no reason. It sounds like you just took a cognitive development course last semester and you're getting angry because my lingo isn't up to par.

We are looking at the situation from two different points of view. I say that spirituality is a product of the human mind. You say that spirituality is another realm/demension that the human mind is aware of.

The reason I don't agree with you is because I see absolutely 0.0% evidence for a spiritual realm. I don't believe humans have spirits, and if we had spirits what would a spirit do?

Do mentally retarded people have spirits? Is their spirit retarded too or is it just trapped in a mentally retarded "vehicle"?

We've already determined that theists feel no need to hold their beliefs up to any empiricle/observable/logical/reasonable evidence. So pursuing the discussion by trying to debunk the Bible (which is just a story anyway) and comparing Christianity to other religions is a lost cause as it seems most of the theists in this thread are not die hard literal Christians anyway.

I suppose there is no way to prove whether or not humans have spirits because there is no all-encompassing definition of the word. My bet is on no, spirits do not exist, and religion is a man-made institution invented to passify our consciousness with a greater sense of hope, meaning and purpose.

 

[QRV]

What's with the personal attacks bud? You're calling me dumb for no reason. It sounds like you just took a cognitive development course last semester and you're getting angry because my lingo isn't up to par.

We are looking at the situation from two different points of view. I say that spirituality is a product of the human mind. You say that spirituality is another realm/demension that the human mind is aware of.

The reason I don't agree with you is because I see absolutely 0.0% evidence for a spiritual realm. I don't believe humans have spirits, and if we had spirits what would a spirit do?

Do mentally retarded people have spirits? Is their spirit retarded too or is it just trapped in a mentally retarded "vehicle"?

We've already determined that theists feel no need to hold their beliefs up to any empiricle/observable/logical/reasonable evidence. So pursuing the discussion by trying to debunk the Bible (which is just a story anyway) and comparing Christianity to other religions is a lost cause as it seems most of the theists in this thread are not die hard literal Christians anyway.

I suppose there is no way to prove whether or not humans have spirits because there is no all-encompassing definition of the word. My bet is on no, spirits do not exist, and religion is a man-made institution invented to passify our consciousness with a greater sense of hope, meaning and purpose.

I agree there's no way of proving anything, I've said that quite a few times already. And who's comparing Christianity to other religions, anyway? And who cares nobody here is a diehard Christian? You're not making any sense.

What I did was argue with your idea that religion is a construct which came out of the so-called "metacognition". By saying that you're implying that pretty much every creative act was made out of something like "existencial fear", which is a very rude way to reduce the spiritual acomplishments of the entire race, be it artistic, mythological or religious. All I'm saying is there is far more to it than these simplistic, much too concrete explanations. any poet would tell you that, even an atheist one.

 

[MagSec4]

You didn't answer my other comments, so should I take that as a "granted"? Or as a simple, proud and gay-ass "I don't have much information to debate that at the moment"?

Well, to be honest with you, I'm not entirely sure what you mean. You talk about metacognition ..I don't think we're in the same page. I was just mentioning that I think I know what ian.de was talking about. I had recently read about studies and debates on consciousness, and what I said wouldn't really have been an argument from me. I just pointed out that some of the scientists debating this think that it (being aware of our consciousness) may be a reason why people have extensive imaginations. But eitherway, I don't know where the misunderstanding is, but nothing that I was referring to deviated toward getting that 'meta' prefix ..it was a scientific source, not jumping any gaps toward the purely philosophical or the paranormal.

And maybe I don't understand what you meant to say with this:

Cognitive theories are way too concrete to be used as an argument against the religious, which is symbolic in nature.

..but if I were to take it as is, the only thing I'd have to say is that I strongly disagree: Cognition is what's responsible for all that a sentient living thing perceives and processes in its mind. All the sensory input, and all the mental contemplations and imagery, including abstract ideas like something with a "symbolic" interpretation. I can tell you that my brain is biologically equipped to process information of the world around me through my sensory input receptors, be it to duck when a bottle is thrown at me ..or to read and understand a phrase from Shakespeare that has a symbolic meaning.

And I guess in the end I didn't feel like debating any further this thing that you and ian.de have maintained. And part of the reason now, I suppose, would be in the fact that phrases like that above are used in these debates. If the defense is that something is too concrete, too real, too rational, and too materialistic and open to understanding or explanation, to be used against something ..then what's the point of trying to argue against that something and those who defend it?
I mean, that's all I have on my side ..reason and reality. I don't have anything else.
And it's like hyena said, we (non-believers) can just as easily just let it all be. Once something comes beyond what is known, and it comes to a point where the next step is personal opinion based on emotion and pure faith, then we are all free to make this choice.

 

[GHOST IN THE RUINS]

@Siren: I may not have written down all the dates right, neither the chronology nor every single detail, I'm just trying to point out that the story of god and religion has evolved along the years, with every new stage, the story got influenced and borrowed from other religions and added to it its own ideas to fit...

Point is: God is man's idea, solution, answer to otherwise unanswerable questions (at the time)

The example of water I gave you was meant in the general sense that IF the idea of God was instinctive (built in) the human mind, then all minds would come up with one version of God, not many.

References on the subject: A HISTORY OF GOD by KAREN ARMSTRONG
THE BOTANY OF DESIRE by MICHAEL POLLAK

 

[Siren]

@Ghost in the Ruins: If you try to make a point and half of the information you use is incorrect, then i'm not going to buy the other half of the information, let alone the whole of your point.

And my point about the water thing was that God has many versions/sides/dimensions, hence the many Gods, each one being one representation/side of the real thing. I don't see why God should have only one dimension.

 

[GHOST IN THE RUINS]

@ Siren: "the devil lurks in the details"

Yes, God has many versions/sides/dimensions which proves precisely that He is but an Idea with many versions of it.

God is a contradiction in himself (if you insist on looking at the details) and the proof to that are the 99 Names (or Qualities) given to God in Islam: Among many others are Merciful / Vengeful, Forgiver / Punisher.....etc. When you read them all in succession one cannot help but realise that these are all Human traits. We are sometimes merciful and sometimes tolerant, sometimes vengeful and sometime forgiving.... depending on our character, immediate mood, type of reaction we are used to, our habits, tradition, influences....etc.

I take it from your answer that you're a firm believer, I do not intend to shake your faith. The existence of God as a human Idea (concept) is as valid (if not more) as the other Idea that says that God exists as a separate entity outside the human understanding.

History tell us many stories about how many gods became one god. Why didn't the idea of One God dawn on humanity from the beginning?

Mono theistic religions are a little over 2000 years old.
Multiple dieties or Gods existed for at least 4,000 years BC, way before the days of Moses.

 

[rahvin]

@ Siren: "the devil lurks in the details"

I raise you "a fool and his money are soon parted".

 

[Wolfman Von Jones]

Mono theistic religions are a little over 2000 years old.
Multiple dieties or Gods existed for at least 4,000 years BC, way before the days of Moses.

You lie

Rahvin: I see that and raise you 'a penny saved is a penny earned'.