Where does the idea that a god's power is relative to the

Collective unconscious, noosphere

American Gods

>>19402670
it's more intuitive and simple an answer than your question implies.

thoughts and beliefs, especially ones with as much sway over a person's heart myth, eventually will manifest in actions and in material (i.e. how you present yourself superficially, what you buy, eat, etc.)

The beliefs shape how you deal with other people, how you deal with your own life trajectory, etc.

Therefore, ideals appear in the real world, they affect the real world.

And now it's just basic arithmetic. The more people who have a common vision, who share images in their head, obviously the more the world gets shaped by this particular religious system.

yes, there is variance in interpretation between every individual, NECESSARILY, but eventually when enough people use the words and hold the ideals in their head, the IMAGES EVOLVE.

They detach from the host, they grow, like Frankenstein's monster, more powerful than the initial creators.

I said it was a simpler answer, but clearly I sort of disproved myself as I went along. I just mean to say that its not so much supernatural as it is psychological and immediate, it's a real fucking thing that happens, not just /x/ type conspiracy.

>inb4 psychological explanations don't mean it's still not a bit magical.
i think humans are magical, but these sort of psychological, memetic explanations of how ideas are passed and grow or are cast aside, is a way of demystifying the magic.

ALSO
i like that pic, OP. I'd fuck that shiva

Its the same as having followers to your social media. More power to you, others get jealous, and kill your followers. Logic

>>19402759
thats kali. shes standing on top of shiva

>>19402759
i didn't answer your question at all, my mistake.

yeah, the guy >>19402681
is right, in the modern style of thought, we talk about the collective unconscious.

but i think the idea is as old as humans: one tribe would unite under a god and destroy another tribe and when nobody is left in that tribe, their god, in a sense, dies.

>>19402774
i dont actually know the hindu figures at all, I was just being a big ol' racist and calling any indian god shiva cus its the only name i know

>>19402670
>Where does the idea that a god's power is relative to the number of people who worship it comes from?

From the reasoning that god calls their own through faith and not trough actually signaling them over.

It's a delusion.

>>19402759
Good post

File: 1461814937613.jpg (209KB, 900x670px)

209KB, 900x670px

>>19402775
I think the idea is a very modern one infact.

In old mythologies gods are independent beings who's power is self contained and not dependent upon worship at all.

The idea that their power was drawn in some way from those who worshipped them would have been laughable.

And yet people today seem under the impression that it is how it is and how it always has been. Which is clearly false.

Irrespective of whether the notion is correct or not, people definitely did not always believe this. It would be nice to know where the idea started.

>>19403027
Post-Hellenistic Egregore Theorem

After the advent of Abrahamist faiths spread across Europe, pagan systems were gradually assimilated or replaced, and no pagan deity stepped forth in resurgence.

It was a simpler solution for the masses to believe that their gods derived potency from their respective followings than to entertain the notions of their gods betraying them, or worse, never having been with them in the first place.

>>19402670
That's just how gods work. All gods. Anything calling itself god. Otherwise they'd have no reason to care about reverence. We make them, and when we stop worshiping them, they are unmade. That's just the natural life cycle of a god.

>>19403268
Why should they care about reverence?

I don't see any reason why a god should be obliged to do so.

I don't give a bum money because them asking me for change generates me wealth.

>>19403341
Because they only exist when we create them. It's not like they have any basis for existence other than our hearts and minds.

>>19403361
Based on what exactly?

I really don't understand how you can so brazenly state that gods are simply thoughtforms when none of the lore or literature we have on them agrees.

>>19403027
>>19403241

I vote Tim Allen's "The Santa Clause"

SANTA NEEDS YOU TO BELIEVE IN HIM TO HAVE POWER!!

>>19403375
>none of the lore or literature we have on them agrees
That's how we know all the creation myths, all the reasons for reverence, all the faiths, every tradition and all the disjunct worship is caused by us, by our creativity, and by what we're willing to believe. If gods had an inherent nature of than us creating them with our belief, we'd see that characteristic emerge in all the disparate myths and pantheons. We know from experience that the world is a static place, so if we fail to see that same consistency in the gods, then we know the gods aren't made from the same nature that makes the world around us. Their characters echo the character of man, not nature.

>>19403027
your phrasing is correct i think, 'the idea that their power was drawn in some way from those who worshipped them would have been laughable'.

that may very well be true, that they perceived the deities as outside and independent of them, but just because they didn't know the deities were manmade doesnt mean that they werent manmade.

my point is, regardless of their lack of awareness, the modern concept can be retroactively applied and found true.

seems a bit of a non-point and obvious, so forgive me if that was tedious and frivolous, but in a sense, it IS 'how it always has been'

the only difference is our greater awareness of our selves and our psychology. i think that our sort of sterilizing of divinity is a bit spooky. It sort of undermines the concepts of Gods in any antiquated sense to discuss their psychoanalytical proof.

so maybe, yes, i agree, the idea that gods get their power from beliefs is a modern one, but its more of a realization that THAT IS HOW ITS ALWAYS WORKED.

like we were doing it, we were making and empowering abstract concepts and icons and endowing them with much gravity, the action preceded the awareness.

and now we have the awareness. so in a sense, you are right, the idea is new, but certainly certainly certainly not the action. our awareness is new.

and id say that this awareness, 'where the idea started' (which is possible to say, because all ideological movements that take on traction only take on traction if they resonate ((and often originate)) with many people, i.e. many people, in similar climates, cultures, circumstances, come to the same realizations and conclusions)

in general, i think we can point to Nietzche, Freud, and Jung.

Nietzche, for attacking the existence of god in a linguistic manner that showed god to be a mere ideal, not a reality.

freud and jung, collective unconscious

but where does this awareness leave us? jaded fucks who have over-explained divinity to the point of absurdity and nihilism?

>>19403410
To clarify, I meant none of the lore agrees that they are simply thoughtforms. All of the literature treats them as independent entities, not born of belief nor powered by faith.

>>19403424

****impossible to say

>>19402670
Let me ask you,why would a god need worship?

>>19402670
D&D

>>19403426
By their nature they must be. They can't all have consistent origin stories like Ecks. Any god that wishes to exist prior to Ecks has to have some kind of illogical myth associated with it.

>>19403458
lololol

>>19403426
well put, tip cap to you

>>19403458
I havn't played in a long time but isn't D&D the exact opposite of this?

I mean you can still run into an ancient forgotten god who has zero worshippers and he will still totally kick your ass.

>>19403677
I think that if it's a God, then it gets it's power from it's worshippers but Archdevils, atropals and other shit don't.
There are probably exceptions but I don't know and it probably also depends on the setting.

>>19402670
Its a misunderstanding of their need to be known to stay alive,not worshipped not sacrificed to just believed in.And its from truth.

>>19402670
Also it doesn't equate power just their sanity

File: no_escape.jpg (41KB, 388x399px)

41KB, 388x399px

>>19402670
It's all related to creating "Deamons". When people love or worship something they give it psychic energy. If enough people worship something fervently enough then it can start to become "alive". Such things have NO SOUL but a desire to continue "living". So, no matter how they start, they ALWAYS become evil. This collecting of energy can be accelerated with sacrifices, and amplified even more if all the followers focus on a symbol or statue.

This is all hidden in the bible. The "old gods" (including the the Jewish Yahweh) demanded foreskin, animal, and human sacrifices. They also had definitive symbols that people adored and worshiped.

SOME Jews moved away from this (evil) sorcery and Jesus was a part of that sect. That's why real Christians DO NOT worship graven images (including Jesus and the cross), they DO NOT sacrifice animals, and they DO NOT offer up their son's foreskins.

Because gods always ask to be worshipped and to not worship other gods

>>19402670
Just look at the 10 commandments. He clearly has a huge interesst in people worshipping him. Like he seems to be petty and insecure about it, not the behavior of someone who exists independantly of this worship

>>19402670
The more followers ANY idea has (not just gods), the more influential it will be. More people will take actions based on carrying this idea forwards, and as such the idea will spread even more rapidly and become even more influential. That's what I think it means when a god has more power. More worshippers = more people living in the name of the idea and spreading the idea = more power to the idea.

>>19403424

nietzsche preached existentialism not nihilism, finding your own value in a world where there is no objective value of anything

an individual is responsible for finding value in themselves, things outside themselves, and in developing their own moral code

that isn't nihilism,people who call nietzsche a nihilist don't actually read any of his works

File: shiva.jpg (52KB, 564x631px)

52KB, 564x631px

>>19402784
Shiva is best god anyways so he forgives you

>>19402670
I 1st read about it Terry Prattchetts Small Gods

>>19402670
Because that idea makes a lot of sense and it aligns very well with the idea that the other gods who have very good compeling myths behind them existed and were only replaced by a more violent god (Christian). Didnt you ever question christianity? Never stopped to think that maybe other religions, other gods werent just as legit as Yahweh?

Like other anon said American Gods presents this idea very well but before that, other cultures have suggested that before. Taoism always defended the idea that gods are just as strong as the amount of prayers they received. That just building a shrine on a place and praying enough would be enough to create a god that would take care of that land. It's not a new concept and in my opinion makes a lot of sense.

>>19403438
it doesn't
Most of the gods that people worship today are weak as fuck patrons of "inner fulfillment" and other gay shit, only working miracles that are "real, in your mind" and dumbass shit like that, yet have more worshipers than perhaps any other gods in history, what with modern population growth and all.

In the Rig Veda there was only one hymn and not even a name for the being which had created the entire motherfucking universe, while the entire rest of the book is just dedicated to various minor gods.

A truly powerful god doesn't need your worship.

>>19402670
It probably stems from Enlightenment-era philosophy that the state gains its legitimacy from the democratic support of the citizens. It also probably takes influence from the fact that in the western world people have been more prone to following religion without gods than gods without religion.