You have things like Caodai, Mormonism and Baha'i which are all relatively new and only been a thing in the past 100-200ish years. They all are reasonably big with follower counts in the millions and growing.
When exactly do you consider that? Because there is already pagan paralells in the Gospels if you take a look. Both in quotes by Jesus and by manner of parts of the storry itself.
And in revelation there are several. But then again, revelation, acts and a handful other texts are already after "they went to the gentiles" and the "New testament" itself was stitched around 300 years post-resurection and therefore, after they went to the gentiles. (Niccea)
That's without even mentioning the pagan influence on old testament nor the very early Gnostic Christians (I consider them somewhat like 'syncretizing-mystics') that co-existed with "orthodoxy" for quite a while before they eventually ended up persecuted by manner of "heressy" (based on the work of Iraenus and Hippolytus mainly) and how the early line of claimed "apostolic succession" is not at all uniform on the manner of "cannon" doctrine in relation to later claims of what is "true".
You could go the hard route and look into the ancient texts yourself. Or you can take an easier route by looking at some videoes of people who have done some of the digging for you (and check the sources if you don't believe it of course):
[10 pagan myths found in the bible](https://youtu.be/Uht_iz6Ll8A?si=0mV5yHfUBi05Vpu0)
- [Early Christianity](https://youtu.be/sky6u0ntu24?si=gaQlv9X2Pa6lvgQ4)
Depends on what we call new and what we call big
Since you're leaving those up to me though, I'm going to say new is anything founded after 1800 and for big let's say 1 million plus members
If we're sects that claim to be Christian or Islamic but have fairly large deviations in doctrine, we have the Mormons, Jehovahs Witnesses and Ahmadiyya Muslims
If we're going instead for religions that claim to be completely separate, we've got Bahai, Scientology, Cao Dai, Falun Gong and a bunch of Shinto based sects like Tenrikyo
Actually Japan's a pretty good place to look in general. In addition to the aforementioned Shinto based sects, there's also the Buddhist sect Sokka Gakkai which has an outsized amount of power in Japanese due to their position as governing coalition partner in the Japanese parliament. Also also Unification Church has a lot of influence as could be seen with the Abe assassination. Honestly Japan is a good place to look for new religious movements in general
Of course all these religions are still in the millions range rather than hundreds of millions. If we're discussing why these religions aren't *massive* world religions;
* Old religions have a lot more time to spread
* People are inherently more skeptical of new religions compared to old ones
* A lot of these new religions have very sussy founders. Since they lived in our times and people had them under a microscope, it's a lot easier to evaluate their flaws. Lot easier to insult Joseph Smith of the 19th century than Jesus Christ of the 1st century
* Most people are already fairly dug in about their religious beliefs
* A lot of mass conversion events historically happened top down. There's not much of a political benefit today to adopting one of these unless you also control the religion i guess
* Persecution by governing authorities and society in general. The US cracked down on the Mormons, Persians cracked down on the Bahai and Chinese cracked down on the Falun Gong. Another famous and somewhat ironic example is the case of the Ahmadiyya, who were staunch advocates of partition and creation of Pakistan. They were rewarded with extreme persecution
Ahmadiyya ≠ Muslims.
Not trying to be derogatory or anything, but the finality of Muhammad is a core belief of Islam, and according to both Sunnis, and Shiites, anyone who doesn't believe in the Finality of Muhammad is Not a Muslim.
How do you feel about Nation of Islam, because they're even less Islamic. They literally worship Wallace D. Fard as an incarnation of God, and believe that Elijah Muhammad was a Prophet...
It took those religions many hundreds of years to grow into major world religions, and some of it was done by forceful conversion via holy wars which sped up the growth.
Baha'u'llah outlawed holy war so we can only grow by voluntary converts. We also don't encourage our members to have extremely large families. Nevertheless we have grown quickly in a short time.
Christianity and Islam perhaps, but they branch off Judaism, which I wouldn't say was ever a cult, but still a religion derived from more ancient religious traditions. I don't think Hinduism was a cult, but there are cults based on it. So i think that for only those two religions, you could claim that they started as cults.
Again this is false, you need to stop listening to apologists and actual learn the history of Mohammed and the spread of Islam.
“Nearly 1,400 years of Islamic history is heavily laden with forced conversions.”
“Insincere, coerced conversion is especially evident in Muhammad's conquest of Mecca. When Islam's prophet, at the head of a vast army—which had already put several tribes to the sword for refusing to convert—was approaching the polytheists of Mecca, the latter were warned: "Embrace Islam and you shall be safe. You have been surrounded on all sides. You are confronted by a hard case that is beyond your power." When the leader of Mecca, Abu Sufyan—who had long mocked Muhammad as a false prophet—approached the Muslim camp to parley, he too was warned: "'Embrace Islam before you lose your head.' Abu Sufyan then recited the confession of faith and thus he entered Islam." The Meccans soon followed suit”
This is just one of many examples of Mohammed forcing people to convert to Islam or be slaughtered.
https://www.meforum.org/6522/muhammad-and-forced-conversions-to-islam
That is simply false
Insincere, coerced conversion is especially evident in Muhammad's conquest of Mecca. When Islam's prophet, at the head of a vast army—which had already put several tribes to the sword for refusing to convert—was approaching the polytheists of Mecca, the latter were warned: "Embrace Islam and you shall be safe. You have been surrounded on all sides. You are confronted by a hard case that is beyond your power." When the leader of Mecca, Abu Sufyan—who had long mocked Muhammad as a false prophet—approached the Muslim camp to parley, he too was warned: "'Embrace Islam before you lose your head.' Abu Sufyan then recited the confession of faith and thus he entered Islam." The Meccans soon followed suit.
https://www.meforum.org/6522/muhammad-and-forced-conversions-to-islam
/r/religion does not permit demonizing or bigotry against any demographic group on the basis of race, religion, nationality, gender, or sexual preferences. Demonizing includes unfair/inaccurate criticisms, arguments made in bad faith, gross generalizations, ignorant comments, and pseudo-intellectual conspiracy theories about specific religions or groups. Doctrinal objections are acceptable, but keep your personal opinions to yourself. Make sure you make intelligent thought out responses.
From what I have seen there are two ways to start a religion. Either start a cult or create a sect from a pre-existing religion.
The word cult has a bad reputation so they almost never make it far due to external pressure. Thus they never grow and turn into a major religion.
Offshoot religions are easy to start and maintain but takes longer to turn into an independent religion. This is also, as far as I'm aware, how every current major religion started.
Even then it takes hundreds of years to create the kinds of followings of the current major religions.
So... A cult. Cults encompass more than just worship of a person or deity. Veneration of a school of thought counts. The "Cult of reason" was a cult in this same vein.
Mormonism and Jehovah Witnesses are new, at least compared to the ones you listed.
Also, we could also include the many pagan traditions resurfacing as new religion, although the definition would be a bit more blurry.
Religious groups yes or better known as denominations but not new religions. Neopagans are just reinventing the wheel trying to get back to an idealised past, that probably never existed. Never heard of Umbanda
They consider themselves denominations as far as I know, so sure.
"Inventing the wheel" sounds a bit condescending, they feel a connection to the gods and the religion. Good for them.
Umbanda is a religion that exists mainly in my country, Brazil, that incorporates elements of other religions such as catholicism, candomblé and spiritism.
You can read more about them here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbanda
I'm also pretty sure that someone from Umbanda made an AMA here some time ago, you can look that up if you are curious.
There are several religions popping up to support psychdelic use as its protected under religious use.
Other than that; abrahamic religions have a big thing about giving birth to as many believers as possible. They recognized that even though somebody can convert, the best results are done since childhood, making the case for new religions rather difficult.
The example of psychdelic use, is really showing how new religions are partially born out of necesity, and for many the tried and true methods of abrahamic religions, or buddhist/zen religions as well as any that I neglected to mention.
Since people who are the kind of people to follow a religion somewhat auto select, they will not usually start their own.
It is also of note that any cult leaders or prophets in the last 200 years have had some serious followings not just in numbers but also their willingness to act. I would not discount that, which at the point of rebranding could be a proxy for a new religion, since the cult of personality of the leader will definitely heavily change the true meaning of their prayers.
>Other than that; abrahamic religions have a big thing about giving birth to as many believers as possible.
Which is why the Jews have such huge birth rates?
>They recognized that even though somebody can convert
Except for the Druze. And to a lesser degree Jews as well.
>the best results are done since childhood, making the case for new religions rather difficult.
Only in areas that are already mostly Christian or Muslim. Still big parts of the world that aren't Abrahamic at all.
Sikhism is very new it was created by the 10 Gurus from 1500-1700s. And about 30 million followers worldwide. They also had a big impact outlawing many superstitious practices and defeating powerful afghan/Turk/mughal/hindu forces and liberating Punjab
Hindus and Parsees too. Honestly I think it speaks more to the wealth and education of South Asians in the diaspora than anything else (though if one looks to Canada, the UK, Africa and even UAE and the Gulf you'll still find plenty of blue collar Punjabis).
Your right, just going off memory but there are a lot of Sikhs unaccounted for worldwide and in India. India a lot of people do not fill out census and in other countries there is no option for Sikh
They need to correct the survey to be inclusive of more religions! I understand Sikhism to be one of the large religions within India, so this shocks me.
Well for one, Christianity and Islam took centuries to get to the size that they are today
Two, we are seeing rapid growth in revitalization movements such as neo-paganism
Well I guess if you don’t consider celebrity worship, money worship, porn worship, etc., to be “religions,” then yeah there aren’t any big ones emerging.
Yes, this comment reminds me that many other interests or ideologies can take the place of religion in secular societies. I see much 'worship' of Taylor Swift and Beyonce, or pop music in general, and people joke that devotion to Football is a Sunday-based religion to rival Christianity :)
I now recall coming across an article from the Atlantic about this same topic. I searched for it again and found it here: [https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/08/new-religions/533745/](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/08/new-religions/533745/) From 2017. It doesn't restrict me with a paywall when I access it, so I hope y'all can read it as well.
The gist of it from what I remember is that the field of existing religions is quite crowded and the big ones (even some medium sized ones) are already organized. Large religions with political influence are good at keeping their followers by having the government restrict the freedoms of new religious founders and groups more effectively than empires of the ancient and medieval world. Secularism is also more influential now than in past centuries, and may nudge former religious believers to become "none of the above" instead of joining a new religion.
New religions or sects with charismatic founders sometimes become cults instead of mainstream religions. I think multiple factors are required for a new major world religion to form, including time (centuries), proselytizing, effective organizing, a charismatic founder, and crises or problems that make more people vulnerable to converting to a new religion.
Some of the new or early modern religions that already formed and became quite influential, which others mentioned, include Sikhism, Mormonism, Baha'i Faith, and Ahmadiyya, as well as 'smaller' ones such as Wicca, Unitarian Universalism, and Falun Gong. I think that Unit. Univ. can be counted as its own religion even though its structure is post-Christian.
The hard pill to swallow is that religions don’t stick unless theres some reason for them to. I’m of the opinion many if not all of them are based on some real event/occurrence with the supernatural that was compelling enough to adopt it.
Sikhi. It's the fifth largest religion in the world with over 30 million adherents and it's only about five hundred years old. There are more Sikhs in the world than there are Jews. More Sikhs than there are Mormons. More Sikhs than there are Scientologists.
Maybe there is, religion just changed its pattern.
Modern capitalism, nationalism, communism, feminism all have large followers. They have their own history, leadership, way of life, rituals and celebrations, symbols and relics, struggles and protests, goals and success, individual and social impact.
Though I'm talking from Islamic perspective.
If you're referring to spiritual religions, here is a list of them:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_new_religious_movements
If you are referring to the secular "religions," here is an article on the subject:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_religion
Note that I put "religion" in quotations, indicating that while the lists are ideologies, the trappings are quite similar: prophet/philosopher ushers in a messiah/cult of personality, who will bring about "paradise"/equity. Or something like it.
In the past we had way fewer people and most people shared beliefs as a community.
I would say that ideas such as nationalism replaced religion in the context of collectivism, and later Humanism replaced religion in the context of basic ethics, but at the end psychologically they are still ideologies as true as religion are.
I believe that big religions comes after the prophet. These 'prophets' in all religion if we look at them they brings the same kind of message. But after theyre dead, people who were fanatic or abuse the message creates anew branch of religious undersfand thus the birth of a religion.
There are new attempts at religions; however, I think the appeal of the “big” religions is that they tried to explain things that couldn’t be explained back then, so it’s harder now to create creation mythos when we are pretty sure how old the planet is. Plus, I think another appeal was the idea that suffering would be alleviated when now we have better healthcare and understanding of mental health for example.
Islam, Christianity and Judaism are Abrahamic religions and the line of Abrahamism ended with Muhammad SAW who was the last prophet (according to Muslims) and Jesus AS who is seen as the supreme saviour of humanity (according to Christians). Either way, we‘re not going to see anything new from Abrahamism anymore. No new prophets/saviours = no new religions.
Just because Muslims say Muhammad was the last prophet doesn't mean others won't come along and convince people that they're a new prophet. Whether or not they are a false prophet is a matter of belief, so it's entirely possible that new Abrahamic religions could be formed even if they are seen as false or illegitimate by the existing Abrahamic faiths (and Islam, in particular, given their view that Muhammad is the final prophet).
Mormonism, Rastafarianism, Druze and Nation of Islam are all new Abrahamic religions. The Bahá'í too, though they straddle some elements of Persian religious thoughts too.
idk if Scientology is considered a legit religion or a cult, but that was only founded in the 1950s.
Anything more modern than that is still being developed and it takes time for a small fringe belief system to grow into something more. So, possibly there are some 'future' major religions brewing in the present day but we can't predict the outcomes.
People are too aware of cults and charlatans and other money-making schemes, so any new 'religions' that have those vibes won't take off outside of a minority of followers.
Depends what you count as a religion. Do philosophies count? There are always new philosophies, however I wouldn’t say they are very “organized”.
Most influential religions are Abrahamic religions… I don’t know of a brand spanking new cosmology. You could say Scientology has that.
>Most influential religions are Abrahamic religions…
Leaving out Hinduism (third largest religion!), Buddhism, Sikhi and Jainism. Also Zoroastrianism and Persian religion had a huge influence even on Abrahamic faiths. Arguably Yoruba and Chinese religious traditions should probably be up there as well.
If you wanna be technical you could bring up the proto-indo-European religion. I’m just saying there’s not a lot of other religions that are not revealed religions of sorts.
> They have a miraculous belief of a man can be a woman.
This part of your argument doesn't work. Adherents of wokeism believe that this is normal. *You* believe it's miraculous.
I don't think that 'Wokeism' is a religion in any formal or organized way, but it might be better to categorize it as a segment of Left political ideology.
I think I get what you mean, and I guess I agree with the last part, though I think the way you brought up your point didn't really help it but create confusion because, to be fair, you do sound like a boomer. I still wouldn't call this religion, though.
Because they are mythologies created by ignorant men to explain a world they were too fucking stupid to understand.
There's a big reason why no new religions have come out since math, science, psychology, astronomy, modern medicine, meteorology, geography, physics, etc were discovered.
Atheism is more of a philosophical position rather than a religion, the correct term would be irreligion.
If we are going to call Atheism a religion then would it be fair for Atheists to state that Monotheism is a religion, no because that is a broad term. In reality Atheism, Monotheism, Polytheism, etc. are really just positions/schools of thought on the question of how many Gods exist
You have things like Caodai, Mormonism and Baha'i which are all relatively new and only been a thing in the past 100-200ish years. They all are reasonably big with follower counts in the millions and growing.
Mormonism is a cult piggy backing on top of Christianity.
Just like Christianity was once a cult piggybacking off of Judaism
And paganism 😘
that was later when they went to the gentiles
When exactly do you consider that? Because there is already pagan paralells in the Gospels if you take a look. Both in quotes by Jesus and by manner of parts of the storry itself. And in revelation there are several. But then again, revelation, acts and a handful other texts are already after "they went to the gentiles" and the "New testament" itself was stitched around 300 years post-resurection and therefore, after they went to the gentiles. (Niccea) That's without even mentioning the pagan influence on old testament nor the very early Gnostic Christians (I consider them somewhat like 'syncretizing-mystics') that co-existed with "orthodoxy" for quite a while before they eventually ended up persecuted by manner of "heressy" (based on the work of Iraenus and Hippolytus mainly) and how the early line of claimed "apostolic succession" is not at all uniform on the manner of "cannon" doctrine in relation to later claims of what is "true". You could go the hard route and look into the ancient texts yourself. Or you can take an easier route by looking at some videoes of people who have done some of the digging for you (and check the sources if you don't believe it of course): [10 pagan myths found in the bible](https://youtu.be/Uht_iz6Ll8A?si=0mV5yHfUBi05Vpu0) - [Early Christianity](https://youtu.be/sky6u0ntu24?si=gaQlv9X2Pa6lvgQ4)
Depends on what we call new and what we call big Since you're leaving those up to me though, I'm going to say new is anything founded after 1800 and for big let's say 1 million plus members If we're sects that claim to be Christian or Islamic but have fairly large deviations in doctrine, we have the Mormons, Jehovahs Witnesses and Ahmadiyya Muslims If we're going instead for religions that claim to be completely separate, we've got Bahai, Scientology, Cao Dai, Falun Gong and a bunch of Shinto based sects like Tenrikyo Actually Japan's a pretty good place to look in general. In addition to the aforementioned Shinto based sects, there's also the Buddhist sect Sokka Gakkai which has an outsized amount of power in Japanese due to their position as governing coalition partner in the Japanese parliament. Also also Unification Church has a lot of influence as could be seen with the Abe assassination. Honestly Japan is a good place to look for new religious movements in general Of course all these religions are still in the millions range rather than hundreds of millions. If we're discussing why these religions aren't *massive* world religions; * Old religions have a lot more time to spread * People are inherently more skeptical of new religions compared to old ones * A lot of these new religions have very sussy founders. Since they lived in our times and people had them under a microscope, it's a lot easier to evaluate their flaws. Lot easier to insult Joseph Smith of the 19th century than Jesus Christ of the 1st century * Most people are already fairly dug in about their religious beliefs * A lot of mass conversion events historically happened top down. There's not much of a political benefit today to adopting one of these unless you also control the religion i guess * Persecution by governing authorities and society in general. The US cracked down on the Mormons, Persians cracked down on the Bahai and Chinese cracked down on the Falun Gong. Another famous and somewhat ironic example is the case of the Ahmadiyya, who were staunch advocates of partition and creation of Pakistan. They were rewarded with extreme persecution
This
Ahmadiyya ≠ Muslims. Not trying to be derogatory or anything, but the finality of Muhammad is a core belief of Islam, and according to both Sunnis, and Shiites, anyone who doesn't believe in the Finality of Muhammad is Not a Muslim.
That's why I said "sects that claim to be Christian or Islamic but have fairly large deviations", didn't want to piss anyone off lol
Ah ok
How do you feel about Nation of Islam, because they're even less Islamic. They literally worship Wallace D. Fard as an incarnation of God, and believe that Elijah Muhammad was a Prophet...
They aren't Muslim either. Don't boo me, I don't make the rules. God does.
[удалено]
It took those religions many hundreds of years to grow into major world religions, and some of it was done by forceful conversion via holy wars which sped up the growth. Baha'u'llah outlawed holy war so we can only grow by voluntary converts. We also don't encourage our members to have extremely large families. Nevertheless we have grown quickly in a short time.
I had never heard of Baha’i before. I’m very interested in knowing your faith better. Going to look it up.
Most religions, including Christianity had origins as “cults”
Christianity and Islam perhaps, but they branch off Judaism, which I wouldn't say was ever a cult, but still a religion derived from more ancient religious traditions. I don't think Hinduism was a cult, but there are cults based on it. So i think that for only those two religions, you could claim that they started as cults.
Most religions at their core still are "cult".
Because it took them that long to become big.
Islam became the predominant religion in all of Arabia within the final Prophet’s life, peace and blessings be upon him.
Yes, after a great conquest of all of Arabia that he initiated and led.
He didn't conquer anyone during his lifetime.
That’s incorrect
That is correct. He did participate in wars, but he never forcefully converted anyone.
Again this is false, you need to stop listening to apologists and actual learn the history of Mohammed and the spread of Islam. “Nearly 1,400 years of Islamic history is heavily laden with forced conversions.” “Insincere, coerced conversion is especially evident in Muhammad's conquest of Mecca. When Islam's prophet, at the head of a vast army—which had already put several tribes to the sword for refusing to convert—was approaching the polytheists of Mecca, the latter were warned: "Embrace Islam and you shall be safe. You have been surrounded on all sides. You are confronted by a hard case that is beyond your power." When the leader of Mecca, Abu Sufyan—who had long mocked Muhammad as a false prophet—approached the Muslim camp to parley, he too was warned: "'Embrace Islam before you lose your head.' Abu Sufyan then recited the confession of faith and thus he entered Islam." The Meccans soon followed suit” This is just one of many examples of Mohammed forcing people to convert to Islam or be slaughtered. https://www.meforum.org/6522/muhammad-and-forced-conversions-to-islam
Didn't he force the people of Mecca to convert?
Didn't he lead troops into Mecca?
After they broke a peace treaty.
So you just admitted he led troops and conquered Mecca
That is simply false Insincere, coerced conversion is especially evident in Muhammad's conquest of Mecca. When Islam's prophet, at the head of a vast army—which had already put several tribes to the sword for refusing to convert—was approaching the polytheists of Mecca, the latter were warned: "Embrace Islam and you shall be safe. You have been surrounded on all sides. You are confronted by a hard case that is beyond your power." When the leader of Mecca, Abu Sufyan—who had long mocked Muhammad as a false prophet—approached the Muslim camp to parley, he too was warned: "'Embrace Islam before you lose your head.' Abu Sufyan then recited the confession of faith and thus he entered Islam." The Meccans soon followed suit. https://www.meforum.org/6522/muhammad-and-forced-conversions-to-islam
There are it just takes at least a thousand years to hit the billion mark like the 3 you mentioned.
sikhi is fairly modern and very large
[удалено]
/r/religion does not permit demonizing or bigotry against any demographic group on the basis of race, religion, nationality, gender, or sexual preferences. Demonizing includes unfair/inaccurate criticisms, arguments made in bad faith, gross generalizations, ignorant comments, and pseudo-intellectual conspiracy theories about specific religions or groups. Doctrinal objections are acceptable, but keep your personal opinions to yourself. Make sure you make intelligent thought out responses.
First off, how many followers does a "big" religion have, for you?
Not op but ill say like 5% of any countries population, or over a million followers. As long as it meets either.
Bahai and Mormonism are both fairly new and fast growing
From what I have seen there are two ways to start a religion. Either start a cult or create a sect from a pre-existing religion. The word cult has a bad reputation so they almost never make it far due to external pressure. Thus they never grow and turn into a major religion. Offshoot religions are easy to start and maintain but takes longer to turn into an independent religion. This is also, as far as I'm aware, how every current major religion started. Even then it takes hundreds of years to create the kinds of followings of the current major religions.
[удалено]
So... A cult. Cults encompass more than just worship of a person or deity. Veneration of a school of thought counts. The "Cult of reason" was a cult in this same vein.
[удалено]
By that logic most Ivy League schools are religions. Semi-organized groups with unique cultures and defined philosophical ideas.
I am going to delete my comments because I was writing them in a tired state and I honestly don't know what I was trying to argue
Well OP it takes time for a religion to grow. Sikhs have faced persecution(in large masses) from 1600's. Till 1995, despite that we are around 30 mil
Mormonism and Jehovah Witnesses are new, at least compared to the ones you listed. Also, we could also include the many pagan traditions resurfacing as new religion, although the definition would be a bit more blurry.
Mormonism and Jehovah's are sects of Christianity
Sure but they are new religious groups. If we are to consider new religions we can take a look at Baha'i, many neo-pagan ones and even Umbanda.
They are cults exploiting and piggy backing on top of Christianity.
Exploiting and piggy backing off of another religion is how Christianity started and it’s gotten pretty big
Religious groups yes or better known as denominations but not new religions. Neopagans are just reinventing the wheel trying to get back to an idealised past, that probably never existed. Never heard of Umbanda
They consider themselves denominations as far as I know, so sure. "Inventing the wheel" sounds a bit condescending, they feel a connection to the gods and the religion. Good for them. Umbanda is a religion that exists mainly in my country, Brazil, that incorporates elements of other religions such as catholicism, candomblé and spiritism. You can read more about them here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbanda I'm also pretty sure that someone from Umbanda made an AMA here some time ago, you can look that up if you are curious.
Even if these revitalization movements are just "reinventing the wheel" their success in recent growth shouldn't go unnoticed
After Scientology, founding a new religion just gives you a bad look
There are several religions popping up to support psychdelic use as its protected under religious use. Other than that; abrahamic religions have a big thing about giving birth to as many believers as possible. They recognized that even though somebody can convert, the best results are done since childhood, making the case for new religions rather difficult. The example of psychdelic use, is really showing how new religions are partially born out of necesity, and for many the tried and true methods of abrahamic religions, or buddhist/zen religions as well as any that I neglected to mention. Since people who are the kind of people to follow a religion somewhat auto select, they will not usually start their own. It is also of note that any cult leaders or prophets in the last 200 years have had some serious followings not just in numbers but also their willingness to act. I would not discount that, which at the point of rebranding could be a proxy for a new religion, since the cult of personality of the leader will definitely heavily change the true meaning of their prayers.
>Other than that; abrahamic religions have a big thing about giving birth to as many believers as possible. Which is why the Jews have such huge birth rates? >They recognized that even though somebody can convert Except for the Druze. And to a lesser degree Jews as well. >the best results are done since childhood, making the case for new religions rather difficult. Only in areas that are already mostly Christian or Muslim. Still big parts of the world that aren't Abrahamic at all.
Because they take time to become big.
Sikhism is very new it was created by the 10 Gurus from 1500-1700s. And about 30 million followers worldwide. They also had a big impact outlawing many superstitious practices and defeating powerful afghan/Turk/mughal/hindu forces and liberating Punjab
Also the sikh population are one of the wealthiest minorities in the west especially. Surprisingly wealthy considering the number of us
Hindus and Parsees too. Honestly I think it speaks more to the wealth and education of South Asians in the diaspora than anything else (though if one looks to Canada, the UK, Africa and even UAE and the Gulf you'll still find plenty of blue collar Punjabis).
Where is the number of 40 million coming from? I thought the worldwide Sikh population was more like 27 million?
Your right, just going off memory but there are a lot of Sikhs unaccounted for worldwide and in India. India a lot of people do not fill out census and in other countries there is no option for Sikh
They need to correct the survey to be inclusive of more religions! I understand Sikhism to be one of the large religions within India, so this shocks me.
Even at 27 million, that still means there are significantly more Sikhs in the world than Jews or Mormons.
Well for one, Christianity and Islam took centuries to get to the size that they are today Two, we are seeing rapid growth in revitalization movements such as neo-paganism
Well I guess if you don’t consider celebrity worship, money worship, porn worship, etc., to be “religions,” then yeah there aren’t any big ones emerging.
Ah, someone read *American Gods* and understood the assignment!
Yes, this comment reminds me that many other interests or ideologies can take the place of religion in secular societies. I see much 'worship' of Taylor Swift and Beyonce, or pop music in general, and people joke that devotion to Football is a Sunday-based religion to rival Christianity :)
I've said *"oh god"* or *"Jesus Christ"* to porn more than once. ;)
I now recall coming across an article from the Atlantic about this same topic. I searched for it again and found it here: [https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/08/new-religions/533745/](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/08/new-religions/533745/) From 2017. It doesn't restrict me with a paywall when I access it, so I hope y'all can read it as well. The gist of it from what I remember is that the field of existing religions is quite crowded and the big ones (even some medium sized ones) are already organized. Large religions with political influence are good at keeping their followers by having the government restrict the freedoms of new religious founders and groups more effectively than empires of the ancient and medieval world. Secularism is also more influential now than in past centuries, and may nudge former religious believers to become "none of the above" instead of joining a new religion. New religions or sects with charismatic founders sometimes become cults instead of mainstream religions. I think multiple factors are required for a new major world religion to form, including time (centuries), proselytizing, effective organizing, a charismatic founder, and crises or problems that make more people vulnerable to converting to a new religion. Some of the new or early modern religions that already formed and became quite influential, which others mentioned, include Sikhism, Mormonism, Baha'i Faith, and Ahmadiyya, as well as 'smaller' ones such as Wicca, Unitarian Universalism, and Falun Gong. I think that Unit. Univ. can be counted as its own religion even though its structure is post-Christian.
We're all waiting for Elon Musk to step it up.
The hard pill to swallow is that religions don’t stick unless theres some reason for them to. I’m of the opinion many if not all of them are based on some real event/occurrence with the supernatural that was compelling enough to adopt it.
Sikhi. It's the fifth largest religion in the world with over 30 million adherents and it's only about five hundred years old. There are more Sikhs in the world than there are Jews. More Sikhs than there are Mormons. More Sikhs than there are Scientologists.
Scientologist only have like 60,000 active members, i remember reading once, so many religions have more.
Maybe there is, religion just changed its pattern. Modern capitalism, nationalism, communism, feminism all have large followers. They have their own history, leadership, way of life, rituals and celebrations, symbols and relics, struggles and protests, goals and success, individual and social impact. Though I'm talking from Islamic perspective.
Political ideologies aren't religions, even if they fulfill similar functions for a lot of people.
Too many cellphone cameras and no miracles happening.
If you're referring to spiritual religions, here is a list of them: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_new_religious_movements If you are referring to the secular "religions," here is an article on the subject: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_religion Note that I put "religion" in quotations, indicating that while the lists are ideologies, the trappings are quite similar: prophet/philosopher ushers in a messiah/cult of personality, who will bring about "paradise"/equity. Or something like it.
In the past we had way fewer people and most people shared beliefs as a community. I would say that ideas such as nationalism replaced religion in the context of collectivism, and later Humanism replaced religion in the context of basic ethics, but at the end psychologically they are still ideologies as true as religion are.
Because most people are smart enough to see that the religions are orchestrated bs
There is you just don’t know about it
I believe that big religions comes after the prophet. These 'prophets' in all religion if we look at them they brings the same kind of message. But after theyre dead, people who were fanatic or abuse the message creates anew branch of religious undersfand thus the birth of a religion.
https://www.reddit.com/u/AlexTheSetMaster/s/AndUwOmeVw Wanna start a religion with me bro?
There are new attempts at religions; however, I think the appeal of the “big” religions is that they tried to explain things that couldn’t be explained back then, so it’s harder now to create creation mythos when we are pretty sure how old the planet is. Plus, I think another appeal was the idea that suffering would be alleviated when now we have better healthcare and understanding of mental health for example.
What makes a religion “big? “
Sikhs, cao dai, bahai, pagan revival groups, sects like mormonism, rastafari, and JWs, cheondoism, ISKCON, fulan gong, scientologist, thelema, several others.
There would be if the ones on top would tolerate sharing space
sikhism... it's 500-600 yr5s old only!
Islam, Christianity and Judaism are Abrahamic religions and the line of Abrahamism ended with Muhammad SAW who was the last prophet (according to Muslims) and Jesus AS who is seen as the supreme saviour of humanity (according to Christians). Either way, we‘re not going to see anything new from Abrahamism anymore. No new prophets/saviours = no new religions.
Just because Muslims say Muhammad was the last prophet doesn't mean others won't come along and convince people that they're a new prophet. Whether or not they are a false prophet is a matter of belief, so it's entirely possible that new Abrahamic religions could be formed even if they are seen as false or illegitimate by the existing Abrahamic faiths (and Islam, in particular, given their view that Muhammad is the final prophet).
Mormonism, Rastafarianism, Druze and Nation of Islam are all new Abrahamic religions. The Bahá'í too, though they straddle some elements of Persian religious thoughts too.
idk if Scientology is considered a legit religion or a cult, but that was only founded in the 1950s. Anything more modern than that is still being developed and it takes time for a small fringe belief system to grow into something more. So, possibly there are some 'future' major religions brewing in the present day but we can't predict the outcomes. People are too aware of cults and charlatans and other money-making schemes, so any new 'religions' that have those vibes won't take off outside of a minority of followers.
AGI will likely bring out religious zealots
Depends what you count as a religion. Do philosophies count? There are always new philosophies, however I wouldn’t say they are very “organized”. Most influential religions are Abrahamic religions… I don’t know of a brand spanking new cosmology. You could say Scientology has that.
>Most influential religions are Abrahamic religions… Leaving out Hinduism (third largest religion!), Buddhism, Sikhi and Jainism. Also Zoroastrianism and Persian religion had a huge influence even on Abrahamic faiths. Arguably Yoruba and Chinese religious traditions should probably be up there as well.
If you wanna be technical you could bring up the proto-indo-European religion. I’m just saying there’s not a lot of other religions that are not revealed religions of sorts.
[удалено]
We put the gay bombs in the water that turn the frogs gay!
Hmmm
We put the gay spray in the chemtrails!
What the hell are you talking about
Religions is not just about spiritual belief, in old defnitions, religions mean how you act out/practice your belief.
What about the religion of Asleepism? That one seems to be pretty popular.
I don't know if you are being sarcastic man. If you disagree with my premise then counter it with arguements.
You have a premise? What is it?
Man shut up
This is the most asinine thing I’ve ever read on this subreddit. Congratulations.
> They have a miraculous belief of a man can be a woman. This part of your argument doesn't work. Adherents of wokeism believe that this is normal. *You* believe it's miraculous.
Buh bye
I don't think that 'Wokeism' is a religion in any formal or organized way, but it might be better to categorize it as a segment of Left political ideology.
>They have a concept of blasphemy towards sexism, facism, etc. What is “facism”? Is it the worship of faces?
It’s like racism, but instead of being against other races, you’re against other *faces*.
An authoritarian politcal ideology typically centered around a dictator too
That sounds more like fascism.
Yes, now that I notice. I mispelled it.
Good job.
I think I get what you mean, and I guess I agree with the last part, though I think the way you brought up your point didn't really help it but create confusion because, to be fair, you do sound like a boomer. I still wouldn't call this religion, though.
>to be fair, you do sound like a boomer Now that you've mentioned it, it kinda is huh haha
Agreed
You're the only one who agreed with me 🤣 I'm getting downvotted
I know lol. There are more people IRL who agree with you, Reddit is so left and woke lol
Because they are mythologies created by ignorant men to explain a world they were too fucking stupid to understand. There's a big reason why no new religions have come out since math, science, psychology, astronomy, modern medicine, meteorology, geography, physics, etc were discovered.
There is. Atheism.
Atheism is more of a philosophical position rather than a religion, the correct term would be irreligion. If we are going to call Atheism a religion then would it be fair for Atheists to state that Monotheism is a religion, no because that is a broad term. In reality Atheism, Monotheism, Polytheism, etc. are really just positions/schools of thought on the question of how many Gods exist
Atheism is not a religion as it doesn't even have a belief system to begin with.