“Inuma ilu awilu,” When gods [were] men.

[The Grand Nudger]

You were born and raised in an environment where the unnatural and completely ludicrous idea of the existence of a creator God is revered and part of every day life. You are, therefore, unable to imagine a human community where the idea of such a God does not exist because in such a community deification is not possible.
So, present a plausible theory on how the idea of immaterial gods came to be and then we can start a serious conversation.
I do have such a theory. You may not like it, but it is based on research and evidence

Tango..no, I wasn't. see how assumptions can completely tank any point you might attempt to make? That you have a theory isn't disputed, and whether or not I think you r theory has any merit is irrelevant unless you care to mention precisely why I criticise it, which is now and has always been exactly the same criticism, a criticism which you have never managed to adress and at this point simply avoid as though it were never made.

For snake gods stories to be taken seriously you have to present similar snake gods stories from various cultures; otherwise we are dealing with local legends not worthy of investigation. The story of the gods I am referring to is an international one.

Taken seriously by whom, how have you determined that snake god stories are less worthy of consideration than any other? Your bias is showing, which is, again, the same criticism I have always made in every one of your posts.

I am not (let me rephrase, no-one) is responsible for providing you with any alternative theory of any given thing in order to criticise whatever conclusions you may have drawn about that thing. You are not correct by default, period, you loon. A "serious conversation" does not begin with requests such as these. A "serious conversation" might just begin by mentioning that you have overreached......

[dtango]

A "serious conversation" might just begin by mentioning that you have overreached......

You may complain of overreaching when the entire story has been restored and an attempt is made to fit it to historical events. At the present point we are trying to decide on what it was in the mind of the author of the phrase “When gods were human.”
His opinion, his belief, is the one that counts. Neither yours not mine. So, the point here is: do you care to know what he was thinking and what he believed? If “yes” then reflect on what he wrote; otherwise there is no point in arguing.

If, however, you are interested in the way scholars handle this matter, you may read a discussion that has just been started -and I hope it will continue in spite of the fighting- in the homonymous City-data thread: http://www.city-data.com/forum/religion-...-were.html

[The Grand Nudger]

I didn't realize that city-data had become a scholarly review. The beliefs of the author aren't under scrutiny from me. The conclusions that you alluded to at the very beginning of your post are. This narrative is offered as a justification for those, but as you yourself have so succinctly put, the only thing that might be determined from this particular text, the only thing that might be decided, is what the author himself believed.

[Epimethean]

And tango "represents" his thesis!