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

I echo Ned's sentiments.In fact, I would go so far as to say, that science should be able to handle all comers gladly. We are confident in our methods, in our evidences, and mostly in our conclusions. We don;t need to be setting barriers for people BEFORE they join the debate; we can and should rely on our position to the carry the argument.All that said, however, theists are on shaky ground asserting the science is equvalent to religion, and that claim can be rejected and indeed scorned, IMO.

quote:

---

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

---

Couldnt disagree more. Its racist or otherwise DESPITE the intent of the speaker. Intent has nothing to do with it; racism is "the taking of race into account in circumstances in which it is otherwise irrelevant".

quote:

---

Which implies an agenda ... or intent.

---

Oh no not necessarily. Not on ht part of the speaker anyway - they may not be aware that it is in an innapropriate context. IME that possibility cannot be ruled out; but the statement may be racist none the less IMO.

quote:

---

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.

---

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

quote:

---

I would have thought that racism was more about making
prejudicial judgements based solely upon race.

---

True. 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.