What would the history of humanity been like if the Abrahamic faiths never existed?
>>503982
I don't understand why you come here asking such a stupid question. Do you want us to rewrite thousands of years of history for you? What do you seek to gain from asking a question like this knowing that any answer you get will be pure bullshit?
>>503982
More intact baby dicks. That's pretty much the only thing you can be certain at.
>>504002
This lol
I've noticed: why are millennials obsessed with senseless, stupid, rhetorical questions that serve no purpose. This thread is a perfect example. Who the fuck cares? It didn't happen. Quit wasting time imagining useless fantasy scenarios
>>503982
That's 4,000 years to cover, Anon. That's an alternate reality that's very difficult to imagine, unless a big project is made, but then it's kind of pointless.
>>504002
>>504010
>>504047
I don't think OP expects you to write 2500 years of history.
It seems like more of a broad thought experiment to me.
>>504010
The reason is that they want additional confirmation bias for their shitty edgy contrarian opinions so they can act all smart and superior when they shoot off their mouths saying some stupid shit like
>the gap left by the Christian dark ages
>>504060
even if that's OP
why do you consider it 'damage control'?
>>503982
Zoroastrianism derivates would be the main faiths.
>>504051
That was kind of the idea, yeah. Not sure why people got so butthurt.
I thought it would be cool to think of. Would Europe have ever United? Would the Middle East have united? Would the modern sized states have emerged or would the world stay in tribal societies?
Lots to think about.
>>503982
>What would the history of humanity been like if the Abrahamic faiths never existed?
We would probably be exploring the galaxy by now because the repression of science, reason and free-thinking by the Abrahamic faiths (namely Christianity) would never have happened.
>>504213
>everything is implicitly Christianity's fault!
>>504192
And all of it is so vague and impossible to define that the best that can be done is come up with vague unexplainable possibilities at best and complete unfounded bullshit at worst.
Alternate history discussion is at its best when restricted to a relatively narrow criteria where people can weigh the differences with reality reasonably and come to a somewhat reasonable conclusion. Cutting Abrahamic religion out of history is just a useless exercise because it's so gargantuan over such a large period of time. It just rewrites history for thousands of years.
Hinduism? Sikhism? Could these have been some of the main faiths?
>>504213
here's your reply
>>504221
I'd place my bets on Buddhism, if anything.
>>504213
have a (You) but only this one time, okay :3
>>504225
Both Buddhism and Sikhism derive from Hinduism... Would they have even come into existence with the absence of Abrahamic religions?
>>504060
I posted that, not OP.
>>504241
What influence did Abrahamic religions have on those...?
>>504298
Not much, as you would probably agree, but I think rather the question is would Sikhism have come into existence since it's such a new religion.
>>504219
>And all of it is so vague and impossible to define that the best that can be done is come up with vague unexplainable possibilities at best and complete unfounded bullshit at worst.
>vague unexplainable possibilities
I think you mean vague unfalsifiable possibilities. Which is fine for a broad thought experiment imo. The OP wasn't brilliant written out, but I'm sure you could get an interesting discussion out of the topic. And if someone does post completely unfounded bullshit, there's nothing stopping a reply which points out why it the post falls into that category.
>Alternate history discussion is at its best when restricted to a relatively narrow criteria where people can weigh the differences with reality reasonably and come to a somewhat reasonable conclusion. Cutting Abrahamic religion out of history is just a useless exercise because it's so gargantuan over such a large period of time. It just rewrites history for thousands of years.
If the discussion centred around the relatively immediate aftermath of judaism not coming about, (200-500 years), that would narrow the scope of the discussion quite dramatically. Although I personally don't have a problem with speculating about the general trends over history as a whole, and how abrahamic religion may have pertained to them. It's obviously not going to be as accurate of a discussion as inquiring into an alternative government for some specific nation in the 20th century, but I'm sure you could get something out of it.
>>504384
(Continued) Seen as the Sikhs (and Hindus) where constantly attacked by Islamic emperors of India such as Aurangzeb.
>>504059
>The reason is that they want additional confirmation bias for their shitty edgy contrarian opinions
You sound quite invested in that view.
>>504107
Is there any likelyhood that it would have spread from persia?
Does it's replacement by islam mean that it's "virality" for lack of a better term was relatively low?
>>504010
>Someone speculates about an alternative scenario
>Replies point out explicit and implicit flaws in the post, as well as flaws in the poster's thinking
>Replies point out flaws in those replies
>Continue
>What we can say about the alternative is slowly seperated from what we can't
The thread really doesn't have to turn out that bad if it has posts that are constructively catabolic. Although it may be philosophical as well as historical.
Thanks, guys. You've turned a thread that could've been interesting into a bunch of people arguing over what is and isn't a valid question. I hope you're happy, we're just as bad as /pol/ now.
>>504486
But it's not a good question to begin with. It's way too broad. Hey, what if we never ate meat? What if homo sapiens had three arms?
Kik for lesbo: giuliam280
>>504221
>>504225
I think given the nebulous nature of the topic, the most useful answers could come from discussing the nature of abrahamic religions as compared to the (many) other ones, and the effects abrahamic religions may have had on societies.
As opposed to discussing specific alternative religions, as the range of possible religions that could have been established in the intervening 3000 years is infinite.
>>503982
>What would the history of ants been [sic] like if all the Earth's mantle were permanently occluded by aqueous bodies?
Know what the didactic similarity is between your question and mine? Well, they're both fucking stupid.
>what would've happened if no philosopher from socrates to kant ever existed
>would the world be a better place
Does that make you mad fedora?
The world probably would've been a shitty place
>>504517
>>504538
OP was bad but that doesn't mean the thread has to be bad.
>You asked a question that would have gotten you banned from alternatehistory.net for poor quality.
Obviously that site has a higher standard for discussion of its specific niche.
>But it's not a good question to begin with. It's way too broad. Hey, what if we never ate meat? What if homo sapiens had three arms?
It's broad, but that doesn't mean it's a bad topic. Youy examples are inane.
>>504538
The Planiverse is a book that is entirely written about how a universe with our physical laws as we understand them, but only two dimensions, would look. What life would look like, how society would be shaped.
If someone can write a whole book about THAT, and you're telling me that we can't have a simple fucking discussion about a not-so-out-there counterfactual, I don't know what to say to you.
We can live in this world without some Abrahamic.So I can't think nothing about it.
We would probably be in the space age right now.
100% honest.
>>504595
That's nice. Your counterfactual is crap. Why do the high place worshippers of the levant stop their drive towards patriarchal monotheism?
Oh wait, you don't even know the history of the development of Judaism and the creation of Abraham out of traditional semetic folktales.
Or the contents of the high place worshipper pantheon as reconstructed.
Or the pressures which produced Judaism.
It is almost like you did no research for your counterfactual, don't have a point of divergence, and don't in fact understand what you're asking.
Never post a counterfactual again.
>>504619
Wow. It's almost like you don't understand what a counterfactual is. And, for the last fucking time, I didn't post it.
A counterfactual needn't have a "divergence point." I think the human brain is capable of contriving the situation, without knowing *exactly* what caused it to occur. At least, most are.
>this_means_you.jpg
>>504634
Nope, you're just a useless feckless cunt.
PODs keep counterfactuals on topic by requiring that they actually explain the context of the situation which provoked the change.
Ie: they demonstrate a basic familiarity with the factual from which the counterfactual is inspired.
OP shows none of this. It is worthless garbage, and you belong with your nuts in the sausage maker along with OPs.
>>504548
>"What would the history of ants been [sic] like if all the Earth's mantle were permanently occluded by aqueous bodies?" Know what the didactic similarity is between your question and mine? Well, they're both fucking stupid.
Your question doesn't work because the fundamental shift would have happened way before the evolution of ants, and you presuppose that they would still exist (if acqueous bodies occluding the mantle is even a possibility).
Whearas OP's question functions both in terms of causality and premise. It's only problem is being too broad for a discussion involving sources etc, but I don't see any reason why this should invalidate it.
I mean we had an half decent thread about the americas not existing, and this thread is definitely more sensible than that.
>>504699
>I mean we had an half decent thread about the americas not existing
So you had a useless circle jerk. Who ate the sao?
>Whearas OP's question functions both in terms of causality and premise.
OP doesn't even know who asherah was.
You fucking millennials have nothing better to do with your time then to rape the internet with your irrelevant edgelord faggot rhetorical inquiries.
Its a nice thought, but no matter how much you fantasize about it, history still is the way it is, and no matter how many intelligent arguments you try to make on http://christianscience.com/ they will still call you a troll and tell you to go back to 4chan. So yeah, why dont you go ask those dumb bitches this question.
Take whatever they say, think of the opposite, and then post it here pretending to be a different person even though we all know its still OP
this means you
>>504486
Your an idiot.
kill your self and join Isis, in that order.
>>503982
Rome's hegemony would decline, disrupting the world order and leaving vacuums to be filled, centres or trade, innovation and culture would decline, etc.
What I'm trying to say is, stop overestimating religion.
>>504698
Perhaps in academia. If OP were writing a paper, I'm sure he would devote more thought to this. However, you seem to have fucking forgotten that this website is just for people to shoot the shit.
You can tell, because in a more formal setting you can't say "feckless cunt," you feckless cunt.
>>504722
>OP doesn't even know who asherah was.
so? I didn't realize you needed to do research before posting here, my elitist friend. Sorry to have offended your eyes with such a simple question.
>>504743
>a high level of discourse is expected
This is very vague, and does not require OP to follow your FCAs of "demonstrating understanding of the source material," or whatever other bullshit you had to do for HIS-101.
>>504586
A higher standard of discussion specifically for alternative history.
As this board has a broader subject matter, the standard for every individual subsection of that subject will obviously in general be lower than a site dedicated exclusively to that subsection.
>>504762
>This is very vague, and does not require OP to follow your FCAs of "demonstrating understanding of the source material," or whatever other bullshit you had to do for HIS-101.
Maybe you ought to read the sticky, OP.
OH LOOK AT THE TIME:
>When discussing history, please reference credible source material, and provide as much supporting information as possible in your posts.
There is plenty of source material available for this topic.
>>504538
>You asked a question that would have gotten you banned from alternatehistory.net for poor quality.
There's no such site. Do you mean alternativehistory.com?
>>504772
>When discussing history
But we are not discussing history. It's a counterfactual you dense fuck.
>>504778
cheers mate.
>>504562
>Implying the existence of philosophy as a field of study wasn't inevitable
>Implying that the OP is as bad as your counterfactual asking to evaluate if the world would be "better" over a 3000 year divergence
Also
>Does that make you mad fedora?
I guess if you're a member of an abrahamic religion you may think their coming about was inevitable, and you may even feel insulted by a question like OP's.
Personally I didn't interpret it to be malicious.
>>504570
Specifically because of the lack of christianity?
>>503982
We'd have a Galactic Government and be living in Mars or somewhere, fucking green alien chicks. At the very least, we wouldn't be fighting sand niggers in the middle of nowhere.
>>503982
We'd be colonizing other star systems by now. And the twin towers would've never fallen
>>504619
Why is OP's knowledge that important? Because you don't want to reward his ignorance by contributing to the thread? The OP itself makes sense.
Sure he didn't kickstart the thread, but if you can posit a scenario why not go for it?
>>504698
The ambiguity about the point of departure just makes it easier to come up with a scenario.
If you had to divide possibles PODs into categories, how would you do it?
>>504725
>You fucking millennials have nothing better to do with your time then to rape the internet with your irrelevant edgelord faggot rhetorical inquiries.
>rhetorical inquiries
>implying
