Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

I presume you're talking about archaic-primitive cultures with their logic of ambiguity (a can also be -a). I too don't know what it's called in English.

Burials with flowers. Think about it.

If an evolution of conscience is to be connected with religious concerns then we have to go much much earlier when, eventually, men had the so called "pre-logic" mentality meaning the incapacity for creating abstract concepts of definitions.

Pretty vague, even for you… (But it's likely just a sexist joke?    )

I presume you meant "consciousness" and not "conscience"? But I take your meaning: pre-archaic, archaic-paralogical and paralogical-logical (as Campbell's Psychiatric Dictionary has it).
Such hardly seems supportable on the basis of extant writing… (And  ethnographys are too fanciful to permit such a conflation of "modern" primatives with proto-humans.) So again I ask:
How did you reach your conclusion?

The amount of Freudian bunkum found in early anthropological works is unbelievable.

If you put flowers at burial sites it means:
a) the dead person is not just a reproducing partner but a beloved one. Emotions.
b) you believe in afterlife. Soul.
c) you want it to be beautiful. Aesthetics.

Emotions, Soul and Aesthetics - you're knocking at God's door.

Have you read Duran Bell's "Bands, Fertility and the Social Organization of Early Humans"? (pdf, not the greatest quality…some typos I suspect are due to OCR errors) Something to consider: Its quality of argument/evidence, compared with your "leisure" theory of religion…

Unfortunately I see no quality of argument/evidence anywhere from the the first word to the last one.

The author is more an ethologist, taking his cues from animals of all sorts, not just humans; and interested in particular behaviors.

Finally, he ties it all up with an argument that he thinks is consistent with Darwinian Fitness, as a determinant factor in early human social evolution…that relegates "bands" -properly understood- as an adaptation to marginal circumstances, and certainly not a common one [if the growth of early human populations is to be explained].

I suspect you just didn't appreciate the "bands" posit -as the most likely organizational mode of early humanity-

One can only think about "marginal" circumstances (low level of resources for example) as in comparison with today's higher levels. Marginal was the norm back then not the exception.

If, Belfrager, you're confusing Bob [Zimmerman] Dylan's electric backup band with what Pleistocene populations might have had as social aggregations — I can't help you here! "He ain't heavy, he's my brother…"

what a band is and what the alternative would be

Let's start with this, Bel, since it likely underlies our disagreement: What "social" organization do you take a "band" to be?

band, in anthropology, a notional type of human social organization consisting of a small number of people (usually no more than 30 to 50 persons in all) who form a fluid, egalitarian community and cooperate in activities such as subsistence, security, ritual, and care for children and elders.

burgeoning

Hence, such groups would not likely had much effect upon the burgeoning early human populations.

Me, I just think we (certainly me, perhaps you…) routinely say more than we know, believe more than we can justify, and defend more than we have either belief or knowledge of.

Some people believe in honey, some people talk about honey, but some people have tasted honey. The first kind of people are believers. The second kind are philosophers or theorisers. The third kind are mystics.

please avoid something like : Nirvanna Fallacy


note : think irrational make us happier , think rational make us unhappier

--Choose your poison