why did an evolved life-form invent "god"?

quote:

---

However, I don't think the comment was "intended" to be racist,

---

I don't think a comment can be racist unless it is intended
to be.

It's all about the need we seem to have to understand
how things got to be the way they are.When we have gaps in our knowledge we invent something
to fill it ... much the same as children do.Religions, of course, seem to have more to do with population
control than with explaining stuff per-se ... they just
tap into that need as a method of mass manipulation.

quote:

---

racism is "the taking of race into account in circumstances in which it is otherwise irrelevant".

---

Which implies an agenda ... or intent.Comparing physical traits of one or other race with one
or other animal is only racist if it is used to claim
superiority/inferiority and thus justify different treatment.I would have thought that racism was more about making
prejudicial judgements based solely upon race.

quote:

---

In the case of a comparison with animals, I would think so.

---

That's 'animalism' ... what makes you think other animals
are inferior to humans?Suppose someone found a higher correlation between one ethnicity
and some other animals genome ... would that fact and/or
comparitive act be racist?

quote:

---

rue. But I think that that something can only be PRE-judicial if the scenario is not actually impacted by race, but is nevertheless constructed as one that is so impacted. (eg. Prince Philips
remark about wiring looking as if it had been put in by an Indian electrician). There are some
decisions that SHOULD be informed by race: for example, selection of sun tan lotion, or more
contentiously, Affirmative Action. These are scenarios in which race is relevant and therefore its
introduction is not dishonest or prejudicial.

---

That would make race relevent to any evolutionary discussion.Evolution is the study of bio-diversity, and race is a biological
diversification.

quote:

---

...to help reinforce the group's effectiveness as a bulwark against the vagaries of a natural world.

---

That's an interesting viewpoint, and for (I hesitate to say)
'primitive' religions this may be valid.The big, organised religions seemed solely targetted at
income generation and populace control.

True ... but those features are true of any well-defined
membership group ... even families and extended families.As for mainstream christianity ... well, how rich is the vatican?If they followed Jesus's word they would have no possesions,
and if they really wanted to help mankind they could sell
off enough loot to support a small country for decades.Most religions exist in a 'thou shalt not...or else' culture
and claim that donations will aid your route to heaven. The other
benefits are just the hook that all good cons require.

I have always suspected that religion started as a control
mechanism when populations started to become more dense.By invoking an all-seeing, vengeful god one can reduced the
incidences of undesirable behaviour without having to hire
too many 'guardians' ... falls down if people don't believe
in your god though.As far as the crutch goes ... I'm sure it can be helpful for
someone who needs that ... but that's one of the factors used
to hook people into all kinds of bizarre cults. One should
be very careful.