Why can't we just be "excellent" to each other?

[Waitingforthemothership]

Actually, the DNA in a tree-leaf contains the codons for making the entire tree, but it can only create a forest when the genotype achieves phenotypic expression through a multitude of reproductive cycles.

And -- there's something terribly wrong with religion -- it's called groupthink.

As for gods, present your evidence.

I think you already sort of understand what I was suggesting. What you find in the chromosomes of a leaf cell aren't actually "plans" at all. They are a portion of the genome of the entire species. Sexual reproduction can't happen without other organisms and natural selection can't operate without MANY other organisms. The DNA molecule is just a carrier for a pattern of information. It's the information pattern that is being passed along and evolving over time through natural selection. The DNA molecule itself is just a vehicle. The pattern of information in the DNA of a tree-leaf is only a portion of a much, much larger process. Without that larger process it has no significance and could not exist. Taking a single "tree" and saying, "Here, this is a thing, with an independent existence from other "things" is rather like taking a carburetor or a steering wheel and saying, "Here, this is a thing, with an independent existence from other things." It isn't really; it's part of a thing, and its existence implies, or points to, the whole.

I do think you're wrong about religion and groupthink. There's no thinking going on in most religions. But we can certainly IMAGINE religions in which thinking is happening. Buddhism is a good example as, even though the sort of Buddhism taught in Asian universities is devoid of religious dogmatism and ritual, it is still religious in that it grapples with existential theological/cosmological questions and issues.

As for the existence of gods, I wasn't intending to force any beliefs on anyone. I was simply making an observation-- stating what I believe to be a self-evident reality. I mentioned gods because I had suggested that religion, in and of itself, wasn't a problem. I suspected that, without the existence of gods, it might seem silly and pointless for religions to exist.

There is no unequivocal hard evidence for the present existence of gods, any more than there is unequivocal hard evidence for the non-existence of an anthropomorphic non-physical uncaused omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent God who sends people to hell to suffer eternally when they don't believe in Him and agree to worship Him.

There is no unequivocal hard evidence that intelligent life exists anywhere other than on our planet, but the idea that we are the only self-aware, technological creatures in 100,000,000,000 galaxies containing (on average) 100,000,000,000 star systems each in the visible universe alone is nothing less than absurd. Doing the math, our universe almost certainly must contain innumerable technologically-advanced species, though they are probably extreeeeeemly thinly spread out-- mindbogglingly thinly. Today, most educated people pretty much take it for granted that intelligent, technological extraterrestrial civilizations exist-- however-- most people mistakenly imagine that the scientific understanding and technological abilities is more or less comparable to our own. (When I say "more or less" I mean "within a few generations" of our own.) In Gene Roddenberry's vision, the Star Trek universe is only two to four hundred years ahead of our own, and the Star Wars universe is essentially the same-- probably no more than 500 years or so ahead of us. Significantly more technologically-advanced beings are virtually never depicted in science fiction movies and television because human audience members would be unable to relate to them and to their world. It would look like an acid trip, and would make no sense at all to the audience.

(With the exception of 2001 a Space Odyssey, no major science fiction film that I know of has ever even depicted silent explosions and silent rocket engines. That's because doing so would confuse and distract audience members. How, then, are we supposed to depict 39th century technology and non-anthropomorphic space aliens? No-- space aliens are always pre-technological singularity and anthropomorphic. So are monotheistic Gods.)

Once an intelligent, technological species has matured to the point where it no longer presents a threat to its own survival, and has the technological power to survive any natural disaster (including the supernova of its own star), there is no practical limit to how long it could continue to exist. It could, in principle, continue to develop technologically for hundreds of thousands or even millions of years. Our own species has only been technological for only a few generations, and we've already harnessed the power of the atom and traveled to the moon. We ourselves are already proto-gods in the eyes of aborigines-- but imagine what we could do after 500,000 or so years of technological development! Human physicists are already toying with the idea of creating a singularity under laboratory conditions, initiating inflation in it, and generating a tailor-made bubble universe, but that's only the beginning (no pun intended). Natural law is obviously a "physical" thing. It is a part, or an aspect, of our physical universe. In principle there's no reason to believe that a sufficiently technologically-advanced species shouldn't be able to manipulate natural law as they like at a local, or even global, level.

Up until now, human technological ability has involved using scientific knowledge of how the universe works to exploit, or take advantage of, Natural Law. Once our own species becomes sufficiently technologically advanced to take the idea of MANIPULATING Natural Law seriously-- even if only at the level of science fiction fantasy-- the word "supernatural" and its associated concept will have become antiquated and outmoded. Modern science rejects the notion of the "supernatural" today, only because playing around with Natural Law-- with the latent parameters that define the structure of spacetime and phenomena in our universe-- is outside of our grasp. Once we can imagine playing around with the laws of nature which define our universe-- or of designing and creating other universes, the concept of "supernatural" verses "natural" will be outmoded.

As you can see, we're talking here, not only about gods comparable in power to Zeus, or Thor, or Ra-- but also gods capable (in principle) of performing "miracles" and even creating universes. That none of the gods we are discussing is infinite, eternal, 100% omniscient, 100% omnipotent, or 100% omnibelevolent is irrelevant. Whether or not we can PROVE that these gods exist, their existence is certainly possible. A quintessentially perfect and infinite, eternal and uncaused Being is NOT possible, even in principle. Since virtually all contemporary theists believe in an intrinsically impossible God, and have no interest at all in realistic gods like the ones I'm describing, these realistic gods play no role in contemporary atheist-theist debate.

But they almost certainly exist! In very, very large numbers!

[Silver]

I do not like people enough to be decent toward them, never mind excellent toward them.

People freaking annoy me, and nothing can change that.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, by that token, we're gods, to ants. But it rather stretches the meaning of the word, especially consider that the context is an atheist discussion board.

[Waitingforthemothership]

Well, by that token, we're gods, to ants. But it rather stretches the meaning of the word, especially consider that the context is an atheist discussion board.

That is stretching the meaning, because ants aren't human and the term "god" implies something that exists as viewed from the subjective perspective of humans. Imagine, though, what it would be like if we lived on a planet in which humans weren't the smartest creature. The intelligence of a frog is greater than that of a worm by many orders of magnitude. The intelligence of a chimpanzee is greater than that of a frog in the same way, and the intelligence of a human is somewhat greater than that of a chimpanzee. What if species existed on our planet which were many orders of magnitude smarter than a human, in the same way that a dog is smarter than a turtle or a turtle is smarter than a worm? That species would, of course, be technological. And what sort of technology might they have? If they were smarter than us in the same way that we are smarter than frogs, would they not be true gods?

Arthur C. Clarke is often quoted as saying that "A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." I agree, and I would extrapolate from this truism that, "A sufficiently technologically advanced species is indistinguishable from a god.

[Thumpalumpacus]

If you can stretch the meaning of "god", you've no grounds for objection when others apply their own meaning of "person".

[Thumpalumpacus]

Some folks cannot distinguish between coral snakes and king snakes. Does that inability mean no differences exist?

Of course not.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I do think you're wrong about religion and groupthink. There's no thinking going on in most religions. But we can certainly IMAGINE religions in which thinking is happening. Buddhism is a good example as, even though the sort of Buddhism taught in Asian universities is devoid of religious dogmatism and ritual, it is still religious in that it grapples with existential theological/cosmological questions and issues.

Forgive my delay, but I had to get home to my computer to address this other part of your post. I firmly disagree with this claim here.

Religion is clearly a form of thinking -- all religion. It happens inside the brains of individuals of all religions, and for that matter all non members. No I, and apparently you, happen to disagree with the output of this thinking, but that doesn't mean it isn't thinking. Thinking is, to use the first noun subdefinition of the Oxford, "the process of using one’s mind to consider or reason about something[/url]. Let me draw your attention to the phrase "using one's mind to consider". Clearly believers are doing this; it is not an autonomic response, it is not something done by the lungs or muscles. It is done in the mind, and by definition, that is a thought.

Dogma is thought. Freethought is thought. Deciding what you want for lunch is thought.

Given on the basis above that religion is thinking of a sort, I think it's absolutely fair to classify it as groupthink: "The practice of thinking or making decisions as a group in a way that discourages creativity or individual responsibility". Synods and conventions and catechisms hand down mental approaches from on high, and followers of this or that particular faith face opprobrium if they choose to not toe the line.

Just because someone's thinking doesn't line up with yours, doesn't share your predicates and premises, doesn't mean that thinking isn't happening. It can mean that they're wrong, you're wrong, you're both right, or in very rare instances, you're both right.

[robvalue]

So... some life forms can be vastly more powerful/intelligent than others?

Indeed. There's really no need to use loaded terms like "God" to make statements like this.

[thool]

I do not like people enough to be decent toward them, never mind excellent toward them.  

People freaking annoy me, and nothing can change that.

Why is this? Aren't there any people that do not annoy you?

[Waitingforthemothership]

Religion is clearly a form of thinking -- all religion.  It happens inside the brains of individuals of all religions, and for that matter all non members. No I, and apparently you, happen to disagree with the output of this thinking, but that doesn't mean it isn't thinking.

Dogma is thought. Freethought is thought. Deciding what you want for lunch is thought.

Given on the basis above that religion is thinking of a sort, I think it's absolutely fair to classify it as groupthink.

Sure, it's perfectly reasonable to define religion, in this way, as thought and groupthink. I'm not in the habit of viewing and defining religious dogma and ideology in this way, so it's unfamiliar to me, but it's a perfectly reasonable way to define and interpret the reality.