How is your religion being old a flex or an argument

[prettyboylite]

A very common thing hindus do is flex how old their religion is but if you think logically a very old religion has higher chances of being flawed. As an old religion will likely not be aligned with new discoveries of physics, history, and other sciences. An old religion also comes with more superstition and harmful practices.

What hindus also fail to realise is that most of their rituals, texts, practices and the caste system etc. developed around the same broad historical period when other major religions were also taking shape.
For example a very famous Hindu practice is Sati (buring of the wife if the husband dies) only started in the post gupta period and continued till the Britishers stopped it. It started in 4th to 5th century and ended in 1829 CE. Keep in mind hinduism is around 3500 years old.
Vedic period = foundation of Hindu philosophy, early science, mathematics, and medicine
Post vedic hinduism (current) = not much in terms of development


This is not an argument against Hinduism or theism

 

[prettyboylite]

@inversions @Gengar @mohi_100 @tomahawk @xzylecrey

 

[mohito]

If a religion being old was a flex, jews and currys would be the biggest moggers oat. We know that's not the case

 

[prettyboylite]

@LTNUser

 

[inversions]

I feel like it would be a valid argument if the stuff said ages ago lined up with modern day research

But I doubt that's the case with Hinduism

 

[prettyboylite]

I feel like it would be a valid argument if the stuff said ages ago lined up with modern day research

But I doubt that's the case with Hinduism

They get 1 fact correct for every 1000 bs facts and flex that one correct fact

 

[SkinjobCatastrophe]

To have an old, continuous practice carries a lot of prestige. It carries more significance in the mind to say it has been practiced for thousands of years than to say the prophet or text showed up recently, which usually draws suspicion and is not as dramatic. Mormons for example are generally considered negatively by the american public, but regular protestants are not so heavily criticized, so it even has significance to non religious people

 

[prettyboylite]

To have an old, continuous practice carries a lot of prestige. It carries more significance in the mind to say it has been practiced for thousands of years than to say the prophet or text showed up recently, which usually draws suspicion and is not as dramatic. Mormons for example are generally considered negatively by the american public, but regular protestants are not so heavily criticized, so it even has significance to non religious people

Prestige and significance is not an argument but I get your point

 

[prettyboylite]

If a religion being old was a flex, jews and currys would be the biggest moggers oat. We know that's not the case

cage

 

[prettyboylite]

@shkypot @abzz @Histy

 

[prettyboylite]

@polonaecel

 

[abzz!]

@shkypot @abzz @Histy

idk, you're completely right

the truth should be the truth, regardless of whether it was a million years ago, or today.

 

[silently_said]

same reason why niggas flex joindate here

 

[prettyboylite]

idk, you're completely right

the truth should be the truth, regardless of whether it was a million years ago, or today.

The laws of energy was different back then bro

 

[prettyboylite]

same reason why niggas flex joindate here

Yes

 

[Deleted member 135923]

We wuz cavemans and sheeit

 

[Histy]

A very common thing hindus do is flex how old their religion is but if you think logically a very old religion has higher chances of being flawed. As an old religion will likely not be aligned with new discoveries of physics, history, and other sciences. An old religion also comes with more superstition and harmful practices.

What hindus also fail to realise is that most of their rituals, texts, practices and the caste system etc. developed around the same broad historical period when other major religions were also taking shape.
For example a very famous Hindu practice is Sati (buring of the wife if the husband dies) only started in the post gupta period and continued till the Britishers stopped it. It started in 4th to 5th century and ended in 1829 CE. Keep in mind hinduism is around 3500 years old.
Vedic period = foundation of Hindu philosophy, early science, mathematics, and medicine
Post vedic hinduism (current) = not much in terms of development


This is not an argument against Hinduism or theism

Idc about Hinduism

 

[prettyboylite]

Idc about Hinduism

Neither do i

 

[tomacōck]

theyre just stupid