>>15264148>I challenge you to point to a time in human history where humans did not have some evidence of religious practicesThat runs into a causation problem though. Did we have civilization because of religion, or did we have religion because of civilization? They're only correlated. Theists often like to take credit for civilization by seeing the causation in the right way.
But personally I'd put my money on civilization causing religion, not the other way around. Prior to civilization there was no need for spirituality to be a job that you'd receive monetary compensation for. You'd just be a shaman if you legitimately believed it and wouldn't be if you didn't. But AFTER civilization and the division of labor, you couldn't find time to be spiritual unless you made it a full-time job that you got paid for. Hence religion, which to this day is mostly an organized structure for the purpose of making sure the priest gets paid and can be religious on a full-time basis.
And religion taking credit for everyday things as a middleman is the whole business model of religion. If you're digging in your field and you find a big lump of gold, you might be amazed at your own good fortune. But the theist will show up to tell you that your good fortune was actually God's work and you should thank him. The actual fact of finding the gold is the same either way, but the theist gets to install his God as a middleman in that process between the gold and you; building the credit of his god without any need for consistent results. If something good happens, thank Jesus, if something bad happens, well God works in mysterious ways.
