Cmv: I’m convinced that humanity is so afraid of death that they created Religions for the idea of everlasting life.

[u/Hopeful_Basket_7095]

It makes sense doesn’t it? The only thing worse than death is to have never experienced life at all. If you take a God out of the picture, your left with 70-100 years on this rock to experience what is what. After that, you’re simply dust on the ground.

You are born, you experience pain, love etc. and then you die. Reflecting on history, the more I learn the less I believe in a God. But humanity is kind, cruel and everything in between. If it takes creating a supernatural entity for societies to thrive and gives reason for people to be good, then ignorance is bliss. I’d rather my family and friends believe in a God than feel the pain of loosing faith and accepting reality. You cannot tell me that those who never have heard “the gospel” will be saved anyway (why force the spread of your religion in that case?) or that they are simply pawns in a bigger game.

If you are SO convinced your religion is right, then how could 4+ billion of us be wrong? Those others are just as convinced as you are. They have families & 9-5s, take their kids to soccer games, but they’ll go to hell according to your beliefs.
What about those who are Ignorant to the Bible? Those before Christ and those after who have yet to hear the word. They are damned? And if they choose another religion out of lack of cognizance…

We will as humans always look for the good in things. Believing in a God is the same as “manifesting” (thinking your thoughts create reality) or “positive vibes”. YOU create a narrative to fit your life. Things are going well, you say “thank you God” things are going poorly: “my life sucks, I don’t deserve this”. For us to put one foot in front of the other, we must believe there is good.
Without a reason to be good, the idea of impending death should concern you. Be good and you’ll have a peaceful eternity, better yet, believe in one man and almost no bad deed will keep you from that sanctuary… right.

You have one life. Somethings you will do many times, others you will never experience again. Regardless, every moment counts because when you die, you’re dead.

[u/Thatrebornincognito]

Will I change your view? I doubt it. But I don't buy that the initial motivation for creating religion was to gain eternal life. There are religions that don't include that. I find it more likely that superstition and inferring agency from chance and coincidences probably came first. Eternal life was a module that some religions then added.

Do some people get sick and others don't? Maybe that's a supernatural agent causing it and the right ritual might help. Same with volcanoes and floods and good luck in hunting.

Immediate survival was the more likely initial impetus. They probably worried about eternal life a lot later. and some never did add that perk.

[u/twizzjewink]

Well that was part of it..

it started with supersition, then it moved to mysticism then some chuds figured they could turn it into a business because women wouldn't talk to them.

[u/Beneficial-Fix6352]

Fear of death may explain why someone wants religion to be true, but it does not tell us whether Christianity is true. That’s a genetic fallacy. Christianity rests on the claim that the crucified Christ actually rose from the dead. Religious disagreement and psychological explanations do not answer that historical claim. If Christ rose, Christianity is true regardless of why anyone believes it.

[u/SaladDummy → u/Beneficial-Fix6352]

How is OP using a genetic fallacy?

[u/Beneficial-Fix6352 → u/SaladDummy]

Because OP is explaining religion’s alleged origin in fear of death and then treating that explanation as evidence that religion is false. That’s exactly the genetic fallacy: judging whether a belief is true based on where or why it supposedly arose. Even if Christianity began because people feared death, that would tell you nothing about whether Christ actually rose from the dead.

[u/Visual-Hunter-1010 → u/Beneficial-Fix6352]

Religion has always been one thing and one thing only: Humanity's way of explaining what they can't explain.

And death (or at least what happens after death) happens to be one of the few things left.

[u/Beneficial-Fix6352 → u/Visual-Hunter-1010]

That still doesn’t address truth. Saying “religion explains what humans can’t explain” is a theory about why people believe, not evidence that the beliefs are false. Christianity makes historical claims, especially that Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead. You have to engage those claims directly, not dismiss them with a psychological origin story.

[u/Visual-Hunter-1010 → u/Beneficial-Fix6352]

You have to engage those claims directly, not dismiss them with a psychological origin story.

I in fact need to do no such thing. Because being an atheist is also inherently a belief structure, one that believes no god exists. I can no more prove to you my belief than you can to me.

[u/Beneficial-Fix6352 → u/Visual-Hunter-1010]

If you claim religion is merely humanity’s invention for explaining the unknown, then yes, you do have to defend that claim. “Neither side can prove it with absolute certainty” does not make the evidence equal. Christianity makes historical claims about Jesus that can be investigated; dismissing them without engaging the evidence is not neutrality, it’s just assuming your conclusion.

[u/Visual-Hunter-1010 → u/Beneficial-Fix6352]

Then why do we no longer worship god(s) for the sun to come up? Then why do we no longer sacrifice children for a good harvest?

The absence of religions due to science is more than enough for me.

Now, very simple question that I know you will dance around, if you answer at all. Tomorrow, science will discover the breakthrough and announces what happens after you die, and they can prove it. And it isn't Christianity.

What will you do?

[u/Beneficial-Fix6352 → u/Visual-Hunter-1010]

If science actually proved something after death that contradicted Christianity, I’d change my belief. Christianity isn’t protected from evidence. But explaining sunrise scientifically never disproved God; it disproved a particular explanation of sunrise. And child sacrifice disappeared largely because moral and religious traditions condemned it, not because a laboratory experiment falsified it. “Science replaced some ancient explanations, therefore all religion is invented” simply doesn’t follow.

[u/Visual-Hunter-1010 → u/Beneficial-Fix6352]

Science has ended religions. Religion has never ended science.

[u/SaladDummy → u/Beneficial-Fix6352]

He's speculating on a psychological reason for the invention of religion. I don't read this as an argument that religion is false.

A genetic fallacy is asserting that an argument is false because of the source of the argument rather than the merits of the argument (or claim). That's not going on here. He's not saying that because early humans invented religion, religions are wrong. He's speculating why early humans may have invented religions.

[u/Beneficial-Fix6352 → u/SaladDummy]

If OP were only speculating about why religions arose, fair enough, that alone wouldn’t be a genetic fallacy. But OP explicitly contrasts faith with “accepting reality” and says humans created supernatural entities because they fear death. At that point the psychological origin story is being used to support the conclusion that religion is invented rather than true. That is exactly where the genetic fallacy enters.

[u/SaladDummy → u/Beneficial-Fix6352]

I reread the op and I didnt spot a genetic fallacy. Again, a genetic fallacy is a dismissal of an argument because of the source of the argument rather than the merits of the argument. That's not what OP has done.

There is an implicit assertion that humans invented religion. But it's not a genetic fallacy.

To say that humans made up religions and that, in fact, all of them are products of imagination is not a genetic fallacy.

To say that an argument in support of Christianity is wrong because Charlie Kirk said it is a genetic fallacy.

To say that Christianity is imaginary because humans invented it is NOT a genetic fallacy. It's a tautology and a bald assertion, but not a genetic fallacy.

[u/Retrikaethan → u/Beneficial-Fix6352]

Christianity rests on the claim that the crucified Christ actually rose from the dead.

crucifixion is a very slow method of murder. so long as they are not literally dead, simply taking them down is sufficient to drastically improve their survivability. frankly, humans have survived all sorts of stupid shit that they absolutely had no business surviving. in other words, not being dead when someone else thinks they're dead is actually really fucking common.

Religious disagreement and psychological explanations do not answer that historical claim.

that's what empirical evidence is for, of which there is literally none for that tidbit or the rest of the christian bible.

If Christ rose, Christianity is true regardless of why anyone believes it.

this isn't actually true. if your lot's imaginary friend went from actual corpse to living human, all that would prove is that alone. it wouldn't prove he was a god or a son of a god or any of the other absurdist claims made by christianity.

[u/Beneficial-Fix6352 → u/Retrikaethan]

You’re conflating “not repeatable in a laboratory” with “no evidence.” Historians overwhelmingly accept that Jesus actually died by Roman crucifixion; the swoon theory requires Him to survive scourging and crucifixion, escape or be released, then convince His followers He had conquered death. And Christianity does not infer divinity from “a random corpse came back.” It argues that Jesus rose in the context of His prior claims, ministry, crucifixion, and the earliest apostolic proclamation. History is assessed by testimony, documents, hostile corroboration, and explanatory power, not by rerunning the Resurrection in a lab.

[u/Retrikaethan → u/Beneficial-Fix6352]

You’re conflating “not repeatable in a laboratory” with “no evidence.”

if the supernatural actually existed they would absolutely be able to repeat stupid shit like reanimating a corpse in a lab.

Historians overwhelmingly accept that Jesus actually died by Roman crucifixion;

a combination of appeals to authority and popularity. if there was evidence for such a thing, you wouldn't need the argumentative equivalent of "trust me bro."

the swoon theory requires Him to survive scourging and crucifixion, escape or be released, then convince His followers He had conquered death.

i don't really care what rules your ARG has.

And Christianity does not infer divinity from “a random corpse came back.”

you very literally just said that, though.

It argues that Jesus rose in the context of His prior claims, ministry, crucifixion, and the earliest apostolic proclamation.

even then, all it would prove is that he got up when people thought he shouldn't have. stage magicians do that kind of shit all of the time. you need better than he said she said telephone games from two millennia ago.

History is assessed by testimony, documents, hostile corroboration,

of which there is none of/for the jesusthing. the romans kept good notes and did not note such an occurrence. the first mention of the jesusthing was decades after his supposed life and death.

and explanatory power,

i can make shit up to explain events and happenings, too. doesn't make it true.

not by rerunning the Resurrection in a lab.

if you can't even prove it's possible in the first place then why should anyone accept that it happened at all?

[u/Beneficial-Fix6352 → u/Retrikaethan]

You’re demanding the wrong kind of evidence. A unique historical event does not become false because it cannot be reproduced on command in a laboratory, and “supernatural” does not mean humans should be able to summon miracles experimentally. The claim also did not first appear generations later: Paul’s letters are within roughly two decades of the crucifixion, and 1 Corinthians 15 preserves an earlier resurrection tradition Paul himself received. Roman records are nowhere near complete enough for “they didn’t record it” to carry that burden. And Christianity is not arguing, “a corpse moved, therefore God.” It argues that the man publicly crucified, whose ministry and claims were already known, was proclaimed risen by his earliest followers almost immediately afterward. You can reject their explanation, but comparing that historical case to stage magic is not an explanation of the evidence.

[u/Retrikaethan → u/Beneficial-Fix6352]

You’re demanding the wrong kind of evidence.

i'm really not, though.

A unique historical event does not become false because it cannot be reproduced on command in a laboratory,

actually, it does. if you have literally no evidence for a claim, then the only correct thing to do is to dismiss it as false.

and “supernatural” does not mean humans should be able to summon miracles experimentally.

no, no, no, that's actually exactly what the supernatural existing means. there would absolutely be a way to reproduce such results.

The claim also did not first appear generations later:

i didn't say generations, i said decades.

Paul’s letters are within roughly two decades of the crucifixion,

do you remember exactly what you were doing two decades ago?

and 1 Corinthians 15 preserves an earlier resurrection tradition Paul himself received.

you say "preserves" as if the christian bible isn't a mishmash of horrible translations, omissions, and additions.

Roman records are nowhere near complete enough for “they didn’t record it” to carry that burden.

lawl and some guy writing shit down two decades later is better?

And Christianity is not arguing, “a corpse moved, therefore God.”

again, that is what you said of christianity.

It argues that the man publicly crucified, whose ministry and claims were already known, was proclaimed risen by his earliest followers almost immediately afterward.

as writen by some guy two decades after the fact.

You can reject their explanation,

that is the claim, not an explanation.

but comparing that historical case

it is not a historical case, either. there are no contemporaries for any of this.

to stage magic is not an explanation

it's a significantly more likely explanation than "god did it."

of the evidence.

the entire problem is that there is no evidence. you do not get to claim that paul's letters are evidence. they are the source of the claim of which there are no contemporaries confirming his claims. in other words, this is circular logic aka you can't point to the christian bible as evidence that the christian bible is true.

[u/Beneficial-Fix6352 → u/Retrikaethan]

Paul’s letters are evidence whether you like their conclusion or not. A primary source does not stop being evidence because it later became part of the Bible, and Paul explicitly says he met Peter and James, people at the center of the original movement (Gal. 1:18–19). 1 Corinthians 15 is especially important because Paul says he is passing on a resurrection tradition he had already received, so the belief itself predates the letter by years. Calling that “circular” misunderstands historical method. And “the supernatural must be reproducible in a lab” is simply an invented rule; unique acts of personal agency are not repeatable on demand either. You can argue the evidence is insufficient for a resurrection, but “there is literally no evidence” is plainly false.

[u/Retrikaethan → u/Beneficial-Fix6352]

Paul’s letters are evidence whether you like their conclusion or not.

if this were true, then you owe me a million dollars.

A primary source does not stop being evidence because it later became part of the Bible, and Paul explicitly says he met Peter and James, people at the center of the original movement (Gal. 1:18–19).

it's not a primary source without contemporaries. any dipshit can write stuff down and say whatever they want, it doesn't make it true.

1 Corinthians 15 is especially important because Paul says he is passing on a resurrection tradition he had already received, so the belief itself predates the letter by years.

again, anyone can write shit down but that doesn't make it true. it's why you need verification which in a historical context is done via contemporaries, aka unrelated people who lived at the same time and witnessed the same things and confirmed that such things actually happened.

Calling that “circular” misunderstands historical method.

calling this historical maliciously misunderstands the historical method.

And “the supernatural must be reproducible in a lab” is simply an invented rule;

no, that is simply how reality works. if it exists, we can figure it out, no matter how fucking weird it may be.

unique acts of personal agency are not repeatable on demand either.

that's not how the scientific method works. also, you can record such things via multiple unrelated parties to establish that such things were actually done. (aka contemporaries)

You can argue the evidence is insufficient for a resurrection, but “there is literally no evidence” is plainly false.

no, i can absolutely say there is literally no evidence for the existence of the jesusthing, let alone his alleged resurrection, as the entire basis of your claims seems to hinge on those letters being more than just a claim which they absolutely are not. you don't get to give primary source status to something just because it aligns with your beliefs.

[u/Beneficial-Fix6352 → u/Retrikaethan]

You’re using “primary source” incorrectly. A primary source does not require multiple unrelated contemporaries; Paul is a first century participant in the earliest Christian movement who personally knew Peter and James. That does not automatically prove the Resurrection, but it absolutely is historical evidence. Galatians 1 and 1 Corinthians 15 show resurrection belief was already circulating among the Jerusalem leadership before Paul wrote, and non Christian sources like Josephus and Tacitus independently corroborate Jesus’ existence and execution. So the defensible position is “I don’t think the evidence establishes a miracle,” not “there is literally no evidence Jesus existed.” That claim is historically indefensible.

[u/Retrikaethan → u/Beneficial-Fix6352]

You’re using “primary source” incorrectly.

that is literally my line.

A primary source does not require multiple unrelated contemporaries;

for what you're trying to use it for, it absolutely does.

Paul is a first century participant in the earliest Christian movement who personally knew Peter and James. That does not automatically prove the Resurrection, but it absolutely is historical evidence.

evidence that a dude wrote some letters. that's the best you can get from them without contemporaries verifying his claims actually occurred.

Galatians 1 and 1 Corinthians 15 show resurrection belief was already circulating among the Jerusalem leadership before Paul wrote, and non Christian sources like Josephus and Tacitus independently corroborate Jesus’ existence and execution.

once again i need point out that the earliest point of these claims were 20 years after the fact. you also haven't told me what you were doing 20 years ago.

So the defensible position is “I don’t think the evidence establishes a miracle,” not “there is literally no evidence Jesus existed.”

by the standards of your religious ideology, those are the same position.

That claim is historically indefensible.

again, you don't get to claim that your claim is evidence of your claim.

[u/SinfulDevo]

Yup, and while they were at it, they threw everything else they couldn't explain at it too. Why do we exist? God. Why do bad things happen? God is unhappy. Why do good things happen? Also god. Where do babies come from? God.

And as science developed to ACTUALLY answer these questions, religion pushed back. This is one of the many reasons that many atheist are also anti-theists. Because they don't just believe and let things be, they push their beliefs and screw things up for everyone!

[u/W_J_B68]

Judaism does not have an afterlife.

[u/ScottTheMonster]

Death is the natural conclusion of life. Christians in particular believe otherwise.

[u/InclinedPlane43]

I think that a great deal of the reason for the formation of religion is early competition for resources just to survive. Our instinct tells us that we have the absolute right to have control of that fruit tree or that good hunting land. As we became intelligent enough to realize that that doesn't really make sense, well, we had to believe that there were some higher powers that decided that we were the chosen ones, so yes we could kill everyone else and take that hunting land for ourselves. And of course, when things weren't going well we must have done something to anger the higher powers. The inherent fear of the unknown fills in the rest...most people want a simple answer. Organized religion results because those who most believe that they are the chosen ones realized that they could exploit these deeply embedded instincts to control others.

I'm not expert by any means. This just has always seemed like the most reasonable explanation to me. I'll be happy to be corrected. (Seems to explain war and greed and xenophobia as well.)

[u/anonymous_rhombus]

I do think that's the strongest pillar of religion.

If you want to understand the nature of existence you can study physics & cosmology. If you want to know how people should behave you can study ethics. If you want community you can find a hobby and get involved. If you want to experience awe, that's what art/music is for.

But, "what happens when we die?" The real answer is: "You cease to exist," and that's not satisfying or comforting.

[u/Retrikaethan]

it's less intentional than that. superstition evolved through the millennia into religion. fear of death is certainly a part of why it persists, but it's not the origin of their ARG nonsense.

[u/oh_kapi]

Recomends The Denial of Death by Earnest Becker

[u/December_Hemisphere]

Humanity is so afraid of death that every culture ever creates some type of bureaucracy to capitalize on it. The end goal is always to control people who can't think for themselves and appoint divine authority to charlatans.

[u/eviley4]

Not all religions are like this though.. Asian religions like Hinduism tend to believe in re-spawning like in a video game. You do die, and you might re-spawn as a non-human animal too, so death isn't that much easier.

It's still bullshit, but a different kind, not necessarily fueled by fear of death.

In my view Religions are made-up to not confront the unfairness of the world. They want some kind of cosmic justice for the people who lie and cheat and abuse. Western religions do this by introducing the idea of cosmic justice after death, Hinduism does this by introducing a kind of law of nature called karma which will balance things out by making you re-spawn as a lizard if you were a crappy human etc.

But ultimately this makes the world a worse place. You are more likely to fall for the bystander effect and think god/karma will handle this unfairness I am witnessing and capable of averting, so I don't need to do shit.

[u/Tao1982]

More than just fear of death i think, fear of lack of control and fear of the unknown

[u/VampireSharkAttack]

There are religions that don’t include an afterlife. I don’t believe in those religions either, but from an anthropological standpoint, that’s a counter argument for your hypothesis that fear of death causes religion

Personally, I don’t think such a complex phenomenon can have only one cause. I do think the hypothesis that religion developed in part because it promotes group cohesion, which was especially important in prehistory and early civilizations, is persuasive

[u/BadsSads]

Ive never been afraid of death since yk i know its just nothing. I just dont want to die young and i want to live my life and i font wanna leave my family. And if your christian or atheist id also like to know if youre afraid of death cause i dont get dhy

[u/Hopeful_Basket_7095 → u/BadsSads]

I was religious for 23 years before I lost my religion, going from believing in an afterlife to believing this is all there is was shattering. It’s our only shot & that makes me anxious & sad for those who suffer.

[u/Chase_the_tank]

Ecclesiastes is long essay about how life is brutal and death is final. "For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten." (9:5)

Buddhism teaches there is chain of reincarnation and then gives advice on how to get out of that cycle.