- 13,913
- Adelaide
- Neomone
In a nutshell:
In prehistoric times, religions arose as an organizing force in the economic, political and military affairs of humans. This is how tribes and clans were universally organized, and how civilization arose. The shaman came first, only then the king. Of course all these religions were founded on lies, first of which was eternal life.
So far, you're just describing history.
It was a lie necessary so that a group of believing, well-ordered and skilled followers could found and defend a walled city, and a civilization.
And there you've just made the leap from "this is what happened" to "so that is the only way it could have happened".
You're missing something in the middle.
Archeology, burial practices, and the emergence of written history support this view.
They support that your description of history is pretty much what happened. I don't dispute it.
I'm not aware of anything that supports the assertion that the idea of eternal life is necessary for civilisation. That's your argument, yeah? This started off around the idea that the lie was necessary, but we didn't specify what it was necessary for.
So let's clear this up early before we start talking circles around each other, the lie of eternal life is necessary for civilisation is your claim? If not, please correct me.
I don't want to speak for Imari on this, but from my perspective you've laid out why religion was successful, and why it became so widespread, but you haven't shown why it was necessary.
Was religion the only possible way to unite early civilizations? The only possible way to consolidate influence? If not, then it wasn't necessary. It just happened to be one useful tool among several.
This is basically it. Just because it was the most successful way, doesn't mean it was the only one.
If belief in dragons and their sacrifice for eternal souls had been a better lie than Jesus, then we would be debating dragons today, invisible or not.
You're aware that Jesus is fairly significantly after the start of civilisation, no matter how you want to define it? Your argument is that the lie of eternal life was necessary for civilisation, as I understand it. Jesus is way too late to help you establish anything, unless you want to argue that Christianity was necessary. I'd love to see someone try that one.