This is more something for theists to think about. Atheists will just get frustrated with its outlandish absurdity and lack of scientific evidence. But if you do somehow manage to give it serious consideration you'll find its rather consistent. Probably just a coincidence, but its all in good fun.

Theists, your god is without a doubt a higher entity than us, right? Clearly he runs rings around us in the brains department.
If he's so smart, why would it be beyond his capabilities to trick measly humans? Of course it wouldn't, keep that in mind.
I think he's lying.

I think, as science is suggesting, the earth naturally occurred and life on earth was made by the sun and the earth's teamwork.
It was running smoothly and a new potentially great species had just evolved. Humans.
They were living it up and acting like any good species should when something strange happened. Man was given commandments. These were quite bizarre commandments. We see them as normal because our society was built on them. But when compared to the laws all other animals follow and what humans followed before these commandments, they are quite strange indeed.

Killing was expected back in the day, stealing was done by all, if one clan of humans has a nice buffaloe carcass your clan would run over and take it using force, maybe killing them if they put up a fight. And you wouldn't have felt guilty about that in the slightest. You covetted thy neighbours wife whenever you could, you certainly didn't love thy neighbour, you quarrelled with neighbours and kept them at a distance, trying to kill them whenever they got too close.
This is natural, its how pack predators live, humans were pack predators.

Nothing changed in us biologically. But something convinced us to live differently. It was these commandments, but where did they come from?
Thats whats missing in the puzzle, but lets gather what we do know and try to piece it together.

Humans are much happier thanks to these commandments, agreed? These commandments taught us to help eachother and share ideas, two heads are better than one they say, obviously 6 billion are better than 2.
Thanks to these commandments we are living comfortably and advancing at an amazing rate, we no longer chase away strangers, we meet them and exchange ideas, making both parties more knowledgable in the process.
There is no doubt, that as far as humans are concerned, the ten commandments were a "godsend"(hehe)

But if you want a dog to eat babies, you reward it for doing so, its not thinking about the baby, its thinking about the snack 'em, or whatever. Chewing the baby is the hurdle to the snack 'em.
Human beings are being rewarded with comfort and happiness, but what are they actually doing?
If you look at the earth from the outside, homo-sapiens are spreading around it and altering its landscape, killing off its other species and befouling it with pollution. It has to be agreed that you can't argue with that. This IS happening, that fact can not be argued, whether you see it as a negative, a positive or a "no big deal" we all know this what humans are doing.

I thought the only entities with planetary destruction as their top priority were the villains on that planeteers cartoon. But it turns out whoever designed the 10 commandments is also working towards this strange goal.
Is god's arch rival captain planet? Is captain planet satan? :confused:

Who is god? I doubt he is a ratlike man with a red hood, so who is he?
He didn't make earth, he merely interfered with it and tricked a species into doing his bidding by rewarding them with the comfort all species pine after.
He turned us against the earth, and thus the earth against us(it is trying to be rid of us, HIV, sars, etc are all examples of earth trying to fight back)
What could he possibly want from this?
Could "god" be an alien race that specialises in population mind control tactics?
I'm really at a loss, but I know what I see and I know somethings up.

There are so many indications that point to foul play. The bible is the conspiracy, of course you believe in it, you were supposed to, those that don't believe in it litterally believe in it enough for the plan to continue. You are loving thy neighbours which is all that matters.

Perhaps it is a good thing, its hard to argue that life today is alot easier and alot more fun than chasing families off buffaloe carcasses. But I'm still pissed, because we've been tricked. Tricked into being happier but tricked none the less.

The first set of laws were the pre-biblical laws of Hammurabi's Code. Created by the Sumerian king Hammurabi, these laws codified what was probably already standard practices including, but not limited to a ban on robbery and stealing the son of another. Not only that, but there are laws for debt including what to do if a renter's crops are destroyed and he is unable to pay his debt.

These codes establish rules for humanity to live by with the goal of making a safer world.

You say humans are much happier thanks to commandments condemning killing and stealing and I agree. I also agree that your little scenario can kind of make sense in a way, but I guess you would have to believe that Hammurabi's Code was divinely inspired. I guess he claims it is anyways so who knows.

lou, get a life

Sorry.
I'll try to not to stray from the 4 threads that get repetitively recycled on this forum ever again. What was I thinking? Lets get back on track;
So, like, if gods so good, why does he do bad stuff to good people? Thats totally weak dude
:rolleyes:

If you see a problem firingseed, point it out, spot the flaws in my assertions if they're so clearly wack.
If this topic is so beneath you you could atleast point out why.
And no I won't get a life:mad: MOTHER!

Spoilsport,
Hammurabi eh?
So he's the dirty culprit with the good intentions.
I still think he was divinely inspired by some scheming bad guy(s).

god has allowed the development of mankind. be thankful. salvation is still in the name of jesus, whose grace is beyond compare. this fleshly life is just the tip of the iceberg, and there are many spiritual domains- hence jesus- our lord and saviour. only god is good.

brain upon brain, brain upon brain- how else could a created being develop. tho the spirit of man and beast need no creative development, it is upon the spirit that natural evolution takes place. and consider the spirit, or soul, as the skeleton of the mind.
well, at least ya got my brain ticking...
tick, tock, tic...

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
If you see a problem, point it out, spot the flaws in my assertions if they're so clearly wack.
If this topic is so beneath you you could atleast point out why.

so here is where the porblem arises, and understand that i am not agreeing or disagreeing witht the notion of a god or how active or inactive he/she/it is.
tribal peoples did not kill for pleasure, they killed to eat. one fought to make clear that one could fight and then fought no more. fighting was a prep to avoid a real war, so to suggest that it was chaos in terms of laws is untrue.
next, to say that life is easier now with these codes is also faulty, as the average span of a working day for tribal peoples was 1-3 hours, as opposed to our eight.
and coveting the neighbor's wife, you will find through numerous cave drawing was handled in what is perhaps a more pragmatic system than the "it is wrong" system of the bible, but it is a system nonetheless and was highly frowned upon. the process generally involved a dual between the men and the woman went with the winner.
but let's leave all that aside, if you are saying that we naturally evolved (as seems to bet he presupposition for this thread), then is not our population and spreading a natural process in evolution, even if it means the end of us, it must be the natural evovling process if we are agreed that a natrual process is what governs us, correct?
it is also of due note that loving your neighbor was not a law, it was a given. you lived breathed and died for you family, your tirbe, your neighbor. now other tribes were a different issue, but that was mostly self-preservation when you understand how the processes really developed.
the birth of right and wrong is not the birth of laws or commandments, but rather the birth of cognitive thought. to say that the brith of morality is the birth of written out laws or codes of any kind is like saying that sickness didn't exist until medical texts came along. it is in a person or people as to what is the socially acceptable terms of existence. (it can be argued as to nature or nurture but that really isn't the point here either.)
now, doctor, i'm assuming (dr.) it's just your nickname, because not to be unkind, but your statements don't reflect any real study in any sort of area at all, but it does show one thing, that you are pondering which is necessary for any real growth. thanks for sharing your theory though.

Good points Dr Lou! ...planetary destruction...whoever designed the 10 commandments is also working towards this strange goal. I don't think the commandments do encourage planetary destruction, rather they don't guard against it. Yes this points towards the commandments' use being for the benefit of humanity and it's progress, however maybe the fact that there are ten is significant. Again this could have been created by humanity, i.e. we have ten fingers and ten toes, thus ten commandments came forth, but there are also ten planets, or bodies, in our solar system. Do you not find this significant? Also why is it that there are animals on this planet that naturally have no limbs (snakes), none with only two limbs, and none with three limbs either. There are animals with four limbs (many of them), none with five, some with six, none with seven, some with eight, and then centipedes (cent- i- paedes; paedal meaning legs, thus paedastal, meaning a stand) and millipaedes. I think there are things to be found here, but you make some very valid points. :)

But I'm still pissed, because we've been tricked. Tricked into being happier but tricked none the less. I wonder if this is really true; can you imagine what alternatives there could have been?

hey! dr lou's growing up.

lol, i won't lash out but i will object.

Killing was expected back in the day, stealing was done by all, if one clan of humans has a nice buffaloe carcass your clan would run over and take it using force, maybe killing them if they put up a fight. And you wouldn't have felt guilty about that in the slightest. You covetted thy neighbours wife whenever you could, you certainly didn't love thy neighbour, you quarrelled with neighbours and kept them at a distance, trying to kill them whenever they got too close.
sorry lou but this just isn't so. back in the day when we existed like this, written langauge wasn't even heard of, cave paintings maybe, but i'm quite sure they didn't call them cave paintings either. rather a romantic view of what might have happened, but your time period is completely wrong. besides- compassion and caring has been exhibited all through-out our ancestors history. parents loved children, children loved friends, there was loyalty and there was sharing, yes there was most definately general caring. it may have been a cut throat world, but today's world is just as cut throat. in a slightly different way mind you.

Nothing changed in us biologically. But something convinced us to live differently. It was these commandments, but where did they come from?
sorry boss, it might have been revultion at socities lawlessness, but again, you've got humans pegged incorrectly and in a different time period. socitey has only evolved through laws, perhaps it was realised that rules were required.

Oh I'm sure I have the time periods wrong.
I'm just stirring up the question of "what happened?"
The fact is, homo-sapiens were living as social predators do for a long time, no surpises there, what is surprising but what has become accepted was our transition to loving our neighbours and cooperating with strangers to spark civilisation.
Its just odd, it doesn't seem odd to us, but it is. Lions think its odd, hyenas think its odd and chimpanzees think its odd.
They think its odd because they can't stand their competition, and deep down we can't either. Something convinced us to act against our instincts, but what? If it wasn't the actual 10 commandments then it was something else but it happened.
I walk down the street and see bald apes staring at me and eachother, they size eachother up, if they feel they are physically superior they stare and look threatening, inferior and they cower and look away. You know why? We all want to kill eachother, or more accurately we all feel the urge to kill eachother. Its what we were designed to do.
Any animal behaviouralist or accomplished psychologist will tell you this. The politics of homo-sapien pack life is similar to that of canines. Thats why dogs joined the clans of ancient humans, it was a very easy transition. We are a little different and have no doubt confused some dogs over the years but our clan life was close enough to pass.
Sure dogs make friends, and we naturally do too, I'm not saying we were simple killing machines. But the first thing we would do when we saw a stranger was attack them or cower from them. If the attacker was in a good mood he would spare the cowerer and then the cowerer would essentially become his ass kisser. Today we call it friendship.
But today we are expected to automatically be friends with everyone, even before we kick their ass. You'll find groups of males will compensate by playfully wrassling later on. You think you wrestle your friends for fun but in reality you are displaying your primitive instincts to decipher order in your knew clan.
Anyway, every animal behaviouralist knows this but I've never heard of anyone noticing what this means historically.
Untill now, and untill me:D
It means we have been tampered with by an unnatural source. This must have occurred before any form of society or civilisation because society and civilisation was the unnatural product of this tampering. Clans of homo-sapiens simply don't naturally join forces and live together happily, its not in their instincts, but they did for some reason.
I assumed the 10 commandments were behind this, because they do tell people to do these unnatural things. But you are right, apparently when moses unleashed his commandments people were already civilised to a certain extent(he wouldn't have been able to tell everyone if they weren't) so they must have started obeying something like them before that.
Either way it is strange. People wouldn't just realise this lifestyle would be easier, they are just people, lions don't just decide it would be easier to eat grass do they?

it could've just been brain development. i dunno, but i don't think animals are not friends as much as they are obviously less defined between themselves as we are. more they're"apls". look at chimps, obviously they have to get there alpha male shite out the way before they becomes pals, but there is examples of culture, passed down by what can only be a caring mother- especially if she has taken the time to teach her offspring. i studied a little bit of cultural revolution, it doesn't go as far back as you're contemplating, but it was as interesting as human evolution, if not more so.

factor in the time that it has taken us to get where we are, and it might just have been the next natural step. and i wouldn't attribute the ten commandments to anything thing great, we suffered through about two thousand years of dark ages after christ was born, to eventually get to where the great civilisations were before us, now. (rome and egypt etc. don't forget china that plodded along nicely for 3000 with no intervention from "outside")

much of what we have is learned behaviour...conventions and soforth. grant absolute power and the real spirit will emerge

even road laws conform and train us. road laws play a big part in society evolvement and adjustment. do this...don't do that etc.

an interesting theory of this change taking place and it's cause can be found in the daniel quinn books "ishmael" and "the story of b". not to say i necesarily always agree with them, but there are some interesting ideas. and based on your views, lou, i think you would find them quite interesting.

and based ont he fact that you said you didn't know of anyone who had contemplated this, here is an example of someone who has taken it to the furthest dark corners and come up with a solution that makes ssense, and works, which is the basis for anything worth doing.

much of what we have is learned behaviour...conventions and soforth. grant absolute power and the real spirit will emerge
yeah, the one that is called "corruption", as shown by many historical figures, religious and not-quite-so-religious.

even road laws conform and train us. road laws play a big part in society evolvement and adjustment. do this...don't do that etc.
road laws are there to stop us killing ourselves. that is a silly comparison. or maybe not, society is not society without it's rules. however, road rules are there for obviously expicit reasons. they don't teach us not to do things, they teach us how to do things co-operatively.

Originally posted by atheroy
road laws are there to stop us killing ourselves.
But why are we being stopped from killing ourselves?
That seems like a strange question but it really isn't when you consider what we know of life on earth. It is natural that we consider our own lives precious, this is what keeps all animals alive. And it is natural for social animals to consider the lives of those in their pack as precious, they have evolved to the point where they found cooperation beneficial.

I guess an animal COULD evolve to the point where it values the lives of every single member of its species, but we know humans didn't evolve that far because there are still murderers and in reality nobody is overly concerned about the lives of everyone. Some people might think they are but they would still value their own babies life over the life of a strange old man.

If we had litterally evolved to be the way we are we would be like a tight knit global ant colony, but we aren't, we aren't even close to that kind of order.
Yet we do like to try to act like one despite our regular old fashioned pack instincts.
Why is that?

This really is a mystery. Its seems normal to us because its all we know but natural history tells us otherwise.
There is less order to human behaviour than any other animal. The fact we need to be told how to act is a big red flag. We are acting in a fake way we aren't supposed to that appears to have been designed by something not human. I'm not saying aliens stuck stop signs in the road but something convinced us to act against our instincts a long time ago.

It was a religion of some kind, religion lays down rules that if we obey we will be rewarded with an afterlife and if we disobey will be punished.
I use to think man made up religion but now I think thats not realistic. Man had no reason to stop acting like man. It would be very bizarre if after hundreds of thousands of years a species suddenly decided to act completely differently than how it was hardwired to act.

I know animals well enough to know that doesn't happen. And I know people well enough to know they are still very much animals by nature.

The bible goes to great lengths to cloud this bizarre occurence, and it worked on early impressionable humans quite well. It tickled their egos but also scared them into conformity, all while reassuring them their lives had purpose and giving them a sense of hope. Humans got scammed hook line and sinker.
This wasn't of human creation, it was far beyond humans it was tricking humans.
Ironically, it tricked us into cooperating and advancing which inevitably lead us into understanding the world and thus noticing the falsity and suspiciousness of the trick itself.

Civilisation could be a natural occurence on some other planet, but it would require a species with a very different social order to that of homo-sapiens.
Bees and ants have the right style of mindset. They are altruistic and work for the greater good of the colony. It would be expected and natural for an advanced species with ancestors like ants or bees to naturally evolve to become civilised and make cities.
That would not be surprising at all. But humans simply aren't that kind of animal, its not a matter of choice, we simply didn't evolve that way, we are pack animals which by nature don't like strangers and don't want to cooperate with anyone but our pack members. We naturally feel the urge to make rivals and compete with them.
Please don't say "not me, I love meeting new people" all that will prove is you have no grasp on what I am talking about. This just is how people are, its the essence of what the homo-sapien species is, bottom line.
We suddenly started acting like colony animals instead of pack animals and this should have us all asking questions because frankly it is extremely strange.

I think I'm the only animal-behaviouralist on this board which is upsetting because I fear you people don't see what I'm saying. Not trying to be a jerk, I have no idea what most of you are talking about most of the time because you are far above me on the subject you are discussing. All I have been studying for the last 12 years is animal behaviour in depth. My entire human brain is packed only with this knowledge, its quite sad really, but understand that and don't underestimate my "crazy observations".

i dont notice anyone underestimating you since you've begiun being more rational and specific about your comments. i did state a source for a man who has studied what your talking about at great tlength and is in almost 100% agreement with you thought he is much further along on the whys and wheres and hows but that is just time. i agree with some of your thoughts.

Rules are not responsible for civilization, technology is. Our civilization has continued to grow only as much as our technology has let it. 6000 years ago, or so, we developed the technology for basic agriculture which allowed our tribal hunter/gatherer societies to settle down in a specific areas and to raise the supportable local population. Each advance in civilization has primarily been brought about by an advance in technology. The rules were created to help people to live together afterwards.

If you doubt which is primary consider how long it would take for the rules to break down if all the technology in any city in the world suddenly disappeared. Utter chaos.

~Raithere

with a correction. technology helped, along with art & literature, to develop the civilization that was sustained by sufficient peace by rules. technology also helped some nomadic tribes and other 'civilizations' to destroy the civilizations. technology and rules are not mutually exclusive and cannot be claimed, individually, to be the sole reason for civilizations.

There is less order to human behaviour than any other animal. The fact we need to be told how to act is a big red flag. We are acting in a fake way we aren't supposed to that appears to have been designed by something not human. I'm not saying aliens stuck stop signs in the road but something convinced us to act against our instincts a long time ago.
it's been well documented that even as early humans we were worshipping things we didn't understand (the first worshipped thing was the bear. not sure though as i'm working from memory). perhaps as we developed, and our ideas about the things we worshipped developed, we started to give the qualities to that thing that were foreign to ourselves. that made their belief special, it was somtething not naturally of this world. over time the ideas got more ingrained and that is when we started to aspire to such qualities ourselves.....
so our beliefs back then changed forever our behaviour now. this is pure speculation, anyones comments would be appreciated.

Originally posted by atheroy
----------
it's been well documented that even as early humans we were worshipping things we didn't understand (the first worshipped thing was the bear.
----------
(I think the early humans worshipped things that had power over them, probably out of fear and respect.)
----------
perhaps as we developed, and our ideas about the things we worshipped developed, we started to give the qualities to that thing that were foreign to ourselves. that made their belief special, it was somtething not naturally of this world. over time the ideas got more ingrained and that is when we started to aspire to such qualities ourselves.....so our beliefs back then changed forever our behaviour now. this is pure speculation, anyones comments would be appreciated.
----------
(Early humans feared and worshipped the sun and moon, because they didn't understand them, because they were out of reach, yet affected their lives on a daily basis. Consequently, as humans evolved and became more civilized, they felt a need to create a mythological creator-being that they also feared and worshipped. They called him by many names due to their present understanding of their mythological concept.)
----------
(Your questions make me think that if the Spirit of God doesn't reside within the human race, then why did we evolve to where we are today? Your post has given me further confirmation to my belief that the Spirit of God lives within the human race, so therefore, we are the face of God on Earth.)

Originally posted by everneo
with a correction. technology helped, along with art & literature, to develop the civilization that was sustained by sufficient peace by rules. technology also helped some nomadic tribes and other 'civilizations' to destroy the civilizations. technology and rules are not mutually exclusive and cannot be claimed, individually, to be the sole reason for civilizations.Certainly none of it occurred in a vacuum one factor benefits and influences the others. I'm sure there were some basic rules of conduct amongst hunter-gatherer tribes without technology. Yet, I find technology to be the key component. No amount of rules will advance a society that has only a subsistence level of technology beyond that bare minimum. A society cannot afford artists and writers if every member must constantly strive to keep just enough on the table for everyone to live. Only when technology allowed us a surplus did these things truly develop.

~Raithere

m*w
it's nice that something i've said has finally influenced someone in some way here:D. however, i have pretty much no idea what you're talking about. i have never heard of anyone describe their individual belief so. i guess what it comes down to for me, is why do you believe in god? why does anyone believe? all i ever manage to see is the wonder and power of nature (seriously, anyone who's been camping away from city lights will know what i'm talking about, starry night skies are amazing). i have never felt anything to indicate otherwise, no inbuilt sense, no natural assumption of a greater being. i think the bible and all that are fallacies and prefer to question the reason of god (i guess :confused: ), contrived religions are a real turn off for me, the existance of a book that has no meaning to nature can't have any relevance in the world we live in. not sure where i'm going with this, when i get there i'll tell you.

basically, i look around myself and see nothing designed by plan, instead designed by nature. there is great difference between the two. i wish more people saw it this way, i have a great appreciation of everything around me, to get to live once is an honor. i dunno, there is great comfort when you're at a place where everyone believes the same things you do, that's why i reckon large religions are so popular. atheism or individual religions are much harder to maintain i believe, in moments of "weakness", there is no greater remedy than acceptance.

Originally posted by atheroy
----------
m*w
it's nice that something i've said has finally influenced someone in some way here:D. i guess what it comes down to for me, is why do you believe in god? why does anyone believe?
----------
(I believe in the One Spirit of God that created all of nature and human beings. Nature is wondeful. It is us and it is God. We are One with Nature just as we are One with God. I am like you, I love the night sky and the stars. As a kid, I would just lay outside in my yard looking up at the night sky. I love the mountains and the ocean. I love raging thunderstorms (except when they turn into hurricanes here in Texas).
----------
i have never felt anything to indicate otherwise, no inbuilt sense, no natural assumption of a greater being.
----------
(I think our basic human nature in this day and time competes with work, education, survival, paying bills, traffic jams, struggling on a day-to-day basis in a different world than did our early human ancestors. It's those times we go camping, or lay out under the stars, that remind us of our place in the universe. Just as we're coping to survive in a hustle-bustle world, our innermost spirit (the One Spirit of God) tries to remind us of our greatness in the universe with the beauty of the mountains, the ocean, the stars in the sky. All these things were created for us by the Spirit of God of which we are a part.)
----------
i think the bible and all that are fallacies and prefer to question the reason of god (i guess :confused: ), contrived religions are a real turn off for me, the existance of a book that has no meaning to nature can't have any relevance in the world we live in. not sure where i'm going with this, when i get there i'll tell you.
----------
(The Bible and the myth of Xianity, for example, take our focus off of the whole of creation and the reason we are here. They act like a smoke screen in our lives. The only thing the Bible and Xianity want us to focus on is Jesus, Satan, Saints and the Pope. I've been there, and I did not find God there at all. I cannot speak for other religions, because I am not familiar with their beliefs. My personal belief is that Xianity is the most false religion of all. It is the Anti-X as far as I'm concerned. Xianity generates the most lies.)
----------
basically, i look around myself and see nothing designed by plan, instead designed by nature. there is great difference between the two. i wish more people saw it this way, i have a great appreciation of everything around me, to get to live once is an honor. i dunno, there is great comfort when you're at a place where everyone believes the same things you do, that's why i reckon large religions are so popular. atheism or individual religions are much harder to maintain i believe, in moments of "weakness", there is no greater remedy than acceptance.
---------
(What greater acceptance could one have than to know his existence is for the soul purpose of carrying the One Spirit of God on the face of the Earth? I think you are on the right track. You already have the understanding that you are one with nature, and you have such love and appreciation for nature. You are part of this beautiful nature, and you are also One with God. Thinking about it and rationalizing about it creates the smoke screen. That's what religions do. Just continue to enjoy nature, and get back to nature as often as you can. Just remember that you are part of God's great creation. You and Nature are One with the Spirit of God, and you are God!)

m*w

your insight to your personal beliefs are great, i was interested in them before and i see they're all i thought they would be, i'm glad you shared them. our beliefs are greatly similar, regardless of where they end.

thanks :)

Originally posted by Raithere
Yet, I find technology to be the key component. No amount of rules will advance a society that has only a subsistence level of technology beyond that bare minimum.
Well that is where we disagree.
I don't see how technology could have come about before the rules were put in place.
Reason being technology requires a level of cooperation that doesn't naturally come to humans. Humans are social yes, but only in the way a lion, hyena or chimpanzee is social. What spawned technology was more of an ant like level of cooperation and for that to happen humans needed to be convinced to act against their instincts first.
How they were convinced is the mystery.
I won't accuse "the bible" exactly but I'm certain the bible was based on whatever did alter humanity's course.
It repeatedly accuses all people of naturally being "sinners", implying that their instincts are in some way "wrong", while also telling them that it is right to act like an animal they are not. As I have said its basically telling us to act like ants or bees.
It does this by threatening to punish disobedience and promising to reward conformity, ie heaven and hell.
Whatever did this knew the human animal well and played on their fears and weaknesses.
It told them they were above the animals that they had been competing with and interacting with for hundreds of thousands of years, which made them yearn to be different. Conveniently what they were was still visible in the animals around them and this constantly reminded them how not to behave.
Humans gritted their teeth and fought off their instincts and cooperated with former rivals due to fear from "god".
Like I said, 500 heads are better than 20 and it was only this unnatural joining of forces that allowed humans to become civilised and advance technologically.
Unless what you mean by technology is like stone axes and stuff like that in which case I think you are right that "technology" came before these rules. But this technology never would have lead to any more than really really sharp stone axes.
To get where we are today it was required that we stop acting like the territorial quarrelsome animals we are and start acting like a cooperative alrtuistic colony animal. Something we simply are not and this is apparent with the wars and murders and the conflict we see today.
We try our hardest to act like ants when we are lions, it isn't surprising our inner lions rear their heads all the time.
What is more curious is why we started trying to act like ants in the first place.
We were made to feel guilty for our instincts, but by whom?
A manipulative ant-like alien species?
As absurd as it sounds its the most reasonable explanation I can come up with.
Saying a magical entity named god did it is actually far more absurd when you take into account the fact that it is most likely we live in a universe devoid of mysticism. Even saying man did it and decided to change on his own is not realistic because it is apparent that deep down man didn't want to change. Something else tricked him into changing, something far more intelligent than the humans of that era. Any ideas?

Something else tricked him into changing, something far more intelligent than the humans of that era. Any ideas?
this is something people often don't separate between (not saying that you haven't, i can't actually tell) but we were just as intelligent back then as we are now, the difference is accumulated knowledge. i still think it was in our capacity as early humans to use our brains as they are now, intrinsicly linked with making partnerships and bonds that may have before been unacheivable with less complex brains. besides, i don't think the bible can be an authoritive voice when it comes to saying who was evil or not (it's from a humans point of view who was trying to assert HIS point of view, not gods). humans were around long before the bible was, great cultures and civilizations came before christianity, they weren't bad, they may have been a bit less advanced than ours now, but ye old egyption civilization was in ways more advanced than ye old english civilization, and no less or more brutal. infact, you'd be surpirsed at how un-evil humans were, co-operation began when the population became to big to sustain through individual/family-type efforts (i would say). so when these groups of people began pooling together, you get a pooling of ideas, and these ideas become common knowledge, held by a lot individuals in these newly formed groups, and the information is passed on and improved on. so we learn to co-operate against what we might have otherwise felt inclined to do- we understood it was the only way forward, therefore we applied and we excelled. these are just ideas as well, please read and give any ideas yourself,

atheroy

You are correct, the human brain is no more powerful today than it was when the very first humans walked the earth, but we are much less naive today than we were 5000 years ago. That is what I meant to say.

I disagree however that the human population grew before this unnatural level of cooperation I speak of was established. Predation and natural inter-clan politics would have made sure of that. Lions have no natural enemies yet their population is balanced. This is because they cull eachother strictly, as do chimpanzees and most other social animals. In some way or another nature ensures that every species reaches a balance. When there is limited or no predation elaborate political structures develop that cull individuals for weaknesses other than being easy prey. There are no exceptions so I see no reason to think humans would have naturally become an exception, they have become one due to superstition that lead to law, I'm curious as to how and why which is the point of this thread.
The population increase in humans seems more likely to be a by product of what I am talking about.
People may have been civilised before the bible was released in book stores but it can't be known how old the litterature the bible was based on is. The story of genesis may have started as a tale told by elders around a campfire after a giant sloth hunt for example.
I suspect some of the messages in the bible are very old indeed and were only much later compiled and altered to make a "bible".
As I've said, I'm fairly certain people simply wouldn't have become civilised had they not been convinced that if they don't get along they will spend an afterlife in pain for eternity. Civilisation contradicts our very nature.
This is what makes me suspicious over its origin, along with a multitude of other factors.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
As I've said, I'm fairly certain people simply wouldn't have become civilised had they not been convinced that if they don't get along they will spend an afterlife in pain for eternity. You apparently believe that the early non-Judeo-Christian civilizations were myths. Just imagine those poor, uncivilized Ionians and Chinese and ...

Lou,

It is almost time to go home from work, so i don;t have time to really dive into this, but I want to give you something to cinsider before I get back to work tonight to expand on my thoughts.

You keep pointing out teh similarities between humans and other animals (specifically pack mammals) but I think what you need to be looking at is the apparent differences.
That is where I think you will find your conspiracy culprit.

Human emotion - Animals, I am sure, experience emotions on some level, but the WAY in which we experience them seems to differ greatly. What animals, other than humans, place sentimental value on objects? We experience, and are driven, by emotions powerfully enough to override, logic, reason and even instinct.

Conscious thought and abstract reasoning - Althought some animals do show some level of reasoning and problem solving, I doubt you can argue that we greatly surpass the rest of the animal kingdom in the field of reasoning and cognizant thought with a future purpose in mind. Which leads us to...

Knowledge of mortality - Animals WILL fight to protect themselves and other members of the pack, but the combination of the way we experience emotion and our conscious effort to plan for the future and analyze information abstractly makes us place a higher value on individual life (ours and others), plus it forces us to realize that inter-pack cooperation would more efficiently bring us toward a greater (subjective, of course) goal. Other animals do not "know" this, nor do they seem to have the capacity to understand it and use this knowledge to override their powerful instincts. They "know" that a foreign animal is there to steal their food, not help them cultivate. They also do not know HOW to cultivate. They HAVE to be opportunistic, because they do not have the capacity to farm, grow, herd food, therefore a greater level of cooperation (inter-pack dependency) would not only not be something that comes naturally, it would not be fruitful, perhaps it would even be detrimental.

Look at the distinct differnces, Lou, not the similarities, and you will see that we are the culprits (and victims) of our own species-wide conspiracy.

I suspect humans were convinced to cooperate before there was any civilisations. They branched out after this occured. I only mention the judeo-christian beliefs because they still clearly show what I am talking about. This is not to say they came up with the idea of civilisation, but they wrote of what occured where others did not.
The fact remains that any form of civilisation requires rules, in every case this is cause for suspicion.
Naturally "civilised" species don't need rules, threats or guilt in order to be civilised, it is hardwired into them.
I understand how it is hard to see the problem, civilisation is all we know and one could be excused for assuming humans were just smart enough progress beyond their evolved behaviour, but thats just not realistic. They didn't just progress beyond their behaviour, they started to live lives contradicting their very nature. Progression beyond our natural behaviour would look very different to what we have today.
What we have today is a societal structure more suitable for ants, or more accurately more suitable for a creature that is being forced to act like ants. It has been modified to continue making individuals act in a way they naturally wouldn't. If it was just ants there would be no need for law.
Nor would there be need for laws if we were living in societies based on human nature.
It is similar to dogs needing discipline to fit into our society. Not chewing on the couch doesn't come naturally to them. Not throwing a stone at the guy next door doesn't come naturally to us. But we don't throw the stone, not because we know better , but because we fear the consequences. And fearing consequences is what all of civilisation was built on, all technology, every aspect of our success comes from us fearing consequences. Its not as romantic as attributing our success to our "sentience" or "consciousness" or "general kickassedness" but its far more realistic.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
Not throwing a stone at the guy next door doesn't come naturally to us. But we don't throw the stone, not because we know better , but because we fear the consequences. And fearing consequences is what all of civilisation was built on, all technology, every aspect of our success comes from us fearing consequences. Its not as romantic as attributing our success to our "sentience" or "consciousness" or "general kickassedness" but its far more realistic.
try picking up a stone when a not-so-friendly-but-brave dog is around. it will probably stare at you and sometimes show its teeth. it knows the consequences of your action of picking up stone. even at dog world one dog does not randomly byte the other because it would get the same in return.

i agree, to some extent, that the knowledge of consequences prevents one human from acting hostile towards the other. but for civilization, it is not just the fear factor that nurtures and advances that civilization. man's finer senses and his necessity / desire to improve the living condition ( life & knowledge in general) by any means (technology, art, literature etc) develops the civilization. ofcourse, there should not be lawlessness / disasters all around, in that case the poineers of advancement of civilization would have no voice and means to carry on their nice work. while fearing the consequences hold together the civilization, desiring the consequences advances the civilization. man has more ability, to see through and analyse the action-reaction, consequences, than his rest of animal-kingdom-mates, due to his better developed brain and consciousness.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by one_raven
Lou,

It is almost time to go home from work, so i don;t have time to really dive into this, but I want to give you something to cinsider before I get back to work tonight to expand on my thoughts.
You seem to have addressed me regarding what I am actually saying which is refreshing:) thanks for that.

You keep pointing out teh similarities between humans and other animals (specifically pack mammals) but I think what you need to be looking at is the apparent differences.
That is where I think you will find your conspiracy culprit.
Civilisation isn't necessarily an unnatural or bizarre concept for a species to adopt. In fact it is our differences that I am taking into account. Our differences from what I would expect a civilised species to be. I speak of our similarities to pack mammals only because what I really want to mention are our similarities to HUMANS. But that would make me sound nutty. I feel I know what humans are and that what they are now is not it, pack mammals are closer to what homo-sapiens are "supposed" to be than what humans are today.

Human emotion - Animals, I am sure, experience emotions on some level, but the WAY in which we experience them seems to differ greatly. What animals, other than humans, place sentimental value on objects? We experience, and are driven, by emotions powerfully enough to override, logic, reason and even instinct.
I'm fairly certain elephants share or exceed our level of emotion. Ofcourse, it is all too easy for us to speak precisely on the intricacies of human emotion, we can feel it and get answers from others when we ask them about it. We can watch an elephant tenderly rub its trunk over an old friends skeleton but we have to draw our own conclusions from that and chances are we won't fully acknowledge this behavior to the extent it deserves simply because we don't understand. The species barrier is a hard thing to overcome as far as comprehension is concerned.
Perhaps the best species to look at is dogs, spending our lives with them has forced us to notice their behaviour. People are out there believing their dogs were sent from god or a person that got reincarnated as a dog, merely because their dogs are displaying attributes we wouldn't expect an "animal" to possess. Dogs aren't magic animals, infact they are far surpassed by many other animals as far as mental and emotional capacity is concerned, but they are in our face 24 hours a day so we see how similar to us they are. We aren't that far removed from any mammal. Not enough to warrant how different from them we try to act.

Conscious thought and abstract reasoning - Althought some animals do show some level of reasoning and problem solving, I doubt you can argue that we greatly surpass the rest of the animal kingdom in the field of reasoning and cognizant thought with a future purpose in mind. Which leads us to...

Knowledge of mortality - Animals WILL fight to protect themselves and other members of the pack, but the combination of the way we experience emotion and our conscious effort to plan for the future and analyze information abstractly makes us place a higher value on individual life (ours and others), plus it forces us to realize that inter-pack cooperation would more efficiently bring us toward a greater (subjective, of course) goal. Other animals do not "know" this, nor do they seem to have the capacity to understand it and use this knowledge to override their powerful instincts. They "know" that a foreign animal is there to steal their food, not help them cultivate. They also do not know HOW to cultivate. They HAVE to be opportunistic, because they do not have the capacity to farm, grow, herd food, therefore a greater level of cooperation (inter-pack dependency) would not only not be something that comes naturally, it would not be fruitful, perhaps it would even be detrimental.
How much "capacity" is required to farm grow and herd food?
It seems like a fair amount of reasoning and future planning using abstract imagination would be needed for such a task no? Then how do you explain the fact that ants use farming techniques very similar to our own? Did you know that?
They plant "crops" in the hearts of their nests, herd caterpillars and milk them, fatten up larvae from other species for future consumption etc. Are they blessed with our complex brains? Do they have the capacity for abstract thought? Of course not. Perhaps the ability to farm and plan ahead has nothing to do with the human brain. Perhaps there are tasks the human brain is for and farming isn't one of them. We can understand farming, but does that mean we came up with it? Not necessarily. Thats just what allowed us to do it.

I'm not belittling the homo-sapien. We have many standoutish qualities, but I feel it is these qualities that made us the target and they never had the potential to naturally get us where we are today. Not because they aren't "good enough" but because they are different.

Certain things are clearly human in origin, like traps for example, I think without interference human clans would be wandering around africa europe and asia with extremely advanced traps for catching animals and weapons for fighting eachother, I believe art and music belong to us, they are very tribal concept and thats what we are, a tribal species. Caring about our appearance and wearing clothes also seems like a natural human trait.
But joining forces, agriculture and making cities does not to me. Thats my only problem, humans don't get along with strangers. I'm not coming to that conclusion by looking at chimps and lions, but by looking at humans who happen to share many traits with lions and chimps.
Which is not surprising considering our close ancestral relationship with those animals. But ants and bee's are very very very distant cousins, our similarities with them is what I find surprising.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
I don't see how technology could have come about before the rules were put in place.
Reason being technology requires a level of cooperation that doesn't naturally come to humans.I don't agree with either point. Humans share a very natural tendency with most animals to work together in small, familial groups (tribes). Ants and bees are no different they function in familial groups as well; there are simply more of them in a family. The only aspect of human civilization that is unusual is the organizational development of these tribes into larger, cooperative, organizations but this would seem to be a natural evolution rather than artificial. Tribes (animal or human) continually interact and such interactions tend to follow certain patterns. The only difference is that human intelligence allowed us to codify these interactions and to intentionally direct them towards mutually beneficial forms.

The primary technological innovations that allowed civilization to develop would have required very little collaboration; the plow, the fence, the net, containers, food preservation, planting seeds. Certainly there is an improvement in efficiency the more people collaborate but the basic advances could easily be invented and implemented by tribal groups.

Humans are social yes, but only in the way a lion, hyena or chimpanzee is social. What spawned technology was more of an ant like level of cooperation and for that to happen humans needed to be convinced to act against their instincts first.Lions, hyenas, and chimpanzees all have very elaborate social structures. Ants operate similarly only with (apparently) less individualism and a much larger tribe. And while civilized behavior may not be instinctual it is in the best interest of the individual so no more influence need to be sought than people acting in their best interest.

Game theory has proven that cooperation is always the most beneficial for all parties in the long run. Those that cooperate survive; this alone would drive human society towards more and more cooperative behavior.

~Raithere

Other animals have not demonstrated the ability to effectively plan for and work towards the long term future.
It stops raining, they migrate or suffer through it.
We can act like ants if we want to, or wolves, or turtles, or anything else we wish to emulate.
Our intellect overrides our instincts.
(whether or not that is a positive thing is another question)

If they could do so, perhaps they would work together (with other packs) toward future goals.

Humans have the unique ability to greatly affect the environment around them.
So much more than any other animal.

We also are not specialists.

If we decide to farm the land, we can.
If we decide to farm animals, we can.
If we decide to put animals to work for us, we can.
We create and build complex machinery to perform tasks for us.

We clearly have a lot to gain through inter-pack cooperation.
That cooperation requires set social rules to be effective.
If we remained in individual packs, we would not need to cooperate with other packs, we could simply steal, murder and plunder.
But in order for us to pool resources we need a set of cooperative rules.
What those rules should be is the philosophical holy grail, but they must be there.

Originally posted by one_raven
We clearly have a lot to gain through inter-pack cooperation.
That cooperation requires set social rules to be effective.A set of rules certainly makes it easier for larger groups of humans to cooperate more effectively but I do not see that the set of rules had to precede any such cooperation.

Animal packs to more than simply steal resources from one another and murder or warfare is the exception rather than the rule. There is a constant interaction between tribes; they combine during migration, members (typically young males) spilt off from one tribe to join or form another, competition between alpha males is typically non-fatal in contest for breeding prerogatives.

Any familial tribe that was as combative and xenophobic as some are asserting here would quickly fall to a decreasing cycle of inbreeding and would die out. The only difference I see here is one of scope and not of kind. Our human abilities have allowed us to expand and formalize the cooperation and interaction that exists normally and while the scope of it does push a little at the bounds of instinct we are still, at a fundamental level, primarily operating on a tribal level of organization.

The primary difference is that we are far more flexible in defining what our tribe is; we reorganize based upon the task at hand. At home, our familial relations are our tribe; we go to work and our co-workers are our tribe; we go to play softball and our team is our tribe. The tribes interact with each-other and the task of some tribes is to organize the activities of other tribes towards a common goal. We are simply more adaptable and thus successful, which is cause enough for such a change to evolve. I see no fundamental difference or any reason to assert that some outside influence would be necessary to drive this behavior.

~Raithere

Originally posted by Raithere
Animal packs to more than simply steal resources from one another and murder or warfare is the exception rather than the rule. There is a constant interaction between tribes; they combine during migration, members (typically young males) spilt off from one tribe to join or form another, competition between alpha males is typically non-fatal in contest for breeding prerogatives.

Any familial tribe that was as combative and xenophobic as some are asserting here would quickly fall to a decreasing cycle of inbreeding and would die out
You are correct to call me out but only because I was over simplifying, you are wrong when you say our cousins and niche sharers aren't combative as a rule.

Chimpanzees flat out WILL kill any male chimpanzee in their territory that they are not familiar with. Any clan of chimpanzees will be made up of males who are blood relatives, and assorted females that this group of brothers managed to pick up along the way, the rest will be made up of offspring. They are not, however, willing to accept any other adult males into this group and when adult males are found they are brutally murdered, its hard to watch.

Its alot more intricate than that but I'm not going to write a book about it here. Basically every social animal has an extremely complex political structure evolved to be ideal for the survival of the most competent clans. We would have had one also, thats the only reasonable assumption to be made. And before we had the means to farm we couldn't have supported an overly large amount of individuals, the only practical political structure for us to naturally evolve would have involved the urge to compete with other clans of humans.

We all know humans need to compete with other humans anyway, we can still see it today, we know we have violent tendencies toward eachother, imagine if there was no law or police some of you aren't realising what this means historically or something I don't know.

I think the reason we feel we are so flexible is because right now we are lost. We aren't living in the political structure made for our species, I think if all order to society and civilisation was lost, if there was no law or police or technology or civilisation at all we would quickly go back to our original political structure whether we wanted to or not. We would have to, probably to a more violently cutthroat degree than ever before because there are so many people and so few resources.

We are still animals, and we can never take that away, we are still completely controlled by our instincts IMO(and the opinion of all good neuroscientists and sociobiologists).
More people than I thought appear to have taken the "free will" phrase coined by the bible seriously.

That free will you sense is instincts, I'd bet most animals would feel like they are making decisions, thats just how instincts function.
To get an organism to follow its instincts the thought has to prepare and create itself, this action is the organism is "deciding what to do".

What I'm getting at is that although human intelligence is probably the greatest of all animals, the altering of behaviour is an unrelated issue. It truely is insane to think our intelligence alone could make us greatly alter the political structure our species functions on. It could better it, as in a clan with an extra intelligent member could be extra skilled at being a clan, but deciding to change completely in the way you propose humans did is beyond the mental capability of any animal that could possibly evolve anywhere ever. Its not a brain action, brains don't do that. The main thing the brain obeys is instinct, are you "smart" enough to suddenly not be interested in sex at all?

I'm just gonna come out and say it, I suspect human progression was interfered with by an alien species that operates off an altruistic caste like system, or is a superorganism like an ant colony. Here me out(even if only for entertainment purposes:))

If you look at religion from a certain perspective, you can see how it looks like a tool for changing a species from one thing into another by playing on that species traits and subtely expanding on them.

Love for example. Humans feel this trait strongly for clan survival purposes. Many religions build on this, they tell us to love everybody, we have evolved to think love is great so the we are open to that suggestion, it was clearly the most efficient way to start the human species acting like a super-organism.

Traditionally super-organisms are comprised of naturally altruistic members that only care for the well being of the superorganism because they basically are that super-organism.
Humans are still mammals so they care for themselves very much, it wasn't so long ago they were all alone out in the big bad world, the social life is still very new and mammals first and foremost care for themselves. The social life's only real purpose for them is to protect themselves.

This is vastly different from the colony life, Due to the fact that colonies evolve as opposed to individuals the individuals do not care for their own lives at all, they are over 90 million years removed from solitary life so they've lost the grudge. All they care about is the colony.
Which would be the ideal for a civilised species.

But humans had the potential to live a form of civilised life anyway, all be it messy and rough around the edges, all that was needed was an altering of our views to make us cooperate like a colony. They built on the trait we have closest to altruism, love, making us love eachother(or making us feel like we have to) thus making us protect eachother like a giant colony.

Our mammal traits make it a strange and glitch ridden colony but it gets by anyway, producing technology and the like.

Jesus could have been injected by them to reinforce the love when it was getting a bit sloppy. And now they can let us go because after seeing what we can accomplish we sort of almost do want to act to benefit the colony. Just to see where it goes, also after a history of people becoming famous for bettering the colony our mammal selfishness is starting to aid the cause.

Bah, I wish I could explain this better. Even if it is an enormous coincidence it is quite strange how many indications point to this possibility. There is the fact the human species has the effect that an introduced species would on the environment. Name one other animal that acts like an introduced species in its own environment? Our behaviour has been altered and earth is rejecting it.

Also, I urge someone to read the bible while entertaining this possibility, you'll be surprised. Doesn't the bible or any religious litterature seem like a whole lot of work for people to just make up for no reason? If it were just attempts to explain I wouldn't be suspicious but it also gives orders and tells people how to act, thats just wierd, why would people make something like that up?
I'll come back to this thread everytime I see an indication, there is way more backing for my stance than this I just can't think right now.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
You are correct to call me out but only because I was over simplifying, you are wrong when you say our cousins and niche sharers aren't combative as a rule.
...
Chimpanzees flat out WILL kill any male chimpanzee in their territory that they are not familiar with.No, you cannot make such an unconditional assertion. (* See notes below) Troop interaction is far more complex than this and some of this competitive behavior is a form of interaction that works towards genetic cross-breeding (note: chimpanzee 'raids' and rape). The studies I've read seem to show that mating and territorial behavior is at least partially determined by the natural resources available.

And before we had the means to farm we couldn't have supported an overly large amount of individuals, the only practical political structure for us to naturally evolve would have involved the urge to compete with other clans of humans.Certainly, there is a large competitive component to our behavior. It is, however, fallacious to assert that tribal cooperation is non-existent or naturally impossible.

imagine if there was no law or police some of you aren't realising what this means historically or something I don't know.Groups make the laws, the laws do not make the groups. You keep suggesting that somehow the rule is intrinsic to the formation of societal groups, yet this is not supported by the historical evidence. In fact, it is counter-indicated as history is rife with groups forming to act in opposition to the established rules and then developing new rules of their own. Evolution in process.

We would have to, probably to a more violently cutthroat degree than ever before because there are so many people and so few resources.You hit upon my point without acknowledging it. It is technology (and thereby the increase in available resources) that makes such large organized populations possible. Imagine an alternative scenario; what if we had the technology to provide unlimited resources?

We are still animals, and we can never take that away, we are still completely controlled by our instincts IMO(and the opinion of all good neuroscientists and sociobiologists). You cannot have it both ways. If we are 'completely controlled' by our instincts then the rule of law would have no effect whether developed by man or given to us by someone else. Instinct is a rather vague term in any case; it's a catch-all for unknown factors that contribute to behavior. BTW, I find your suggestion that the only 'good' neuroscientists and sociobiologists are the ones that agree with your opinion ridiculous.

It truely is insane to think our intelligence alone could make us greatly alter the political structure our species functions on. It could better it, as in a clan with an extra intelligent member could be extra skilled at being a clan, but deciding to change completely in the way you propose humans did is beyond the mental capability of any animal that could possibly evolve anywhere ever.You miss the fact that society evolves as well. Historical evidence does not show that man suddenly and completely shifted to a global or even national communities. What it shows is a prolonged struggle of slowly increasing cooperation and interaction (including competition). Society grew and evolved, various social accomplishments proved beneficial to the various societies which grew in size and complexity. We moved from hunter gatherer tribes, towards nomadic societies (where tribes interacted more often in cooperation), towards agrarian towns, which grew and evolved ever larger and more complex, towards kingdoms and nations, there was the development of feudalism, then democracy, and socialism. I see nothing at all that points towards some miraculous leap of social organization either in history or in the behavior of man or the other animals.

Its not a brain action, brains don't do that. The main thing the brain obeys is instinct, are you "smart" enough to suddenly not be interested in sex at all? At all, of course not; the brain is a part of the body not some separate entity. But we are smart enough to override our instinct to procreate like bunnies. We override or control our basic instincts on a daily basis because we are able to comprehend the detrimental effects of following them or perceive a greater benefit to some alternative activity.

If you look at religion from a certain perspective, you can see how it looks like a tool for changing a species from one thing into another by playing on that species traits and subtely expanding on them.

This is vastly different from the colony life, Due to the fact that colonies evolve as opposed to individuals the individuals do not care for their own lives at all, they are over 90 million years removed from solitary life so they've lost the grudge. All they care about is the colony. You're missing a key factor. All colonial animals have a single genetic line carried on only by the queen; they are a single genetic entity. All the other members are genetic dead-ends.

But cooperation and even altruism (as opposed to pure competition) between genetic lineages is advantageous. It's a successful evolutionary behavior which alone would account for its development. It's even more likely in creatures that have the mental capacity to comprehend its benefit:

"I used the example of Prisoner’s dilemma because it can be viewed as a set of defining set of circumstances under which people behave well towards others. What Prisoner’s Dilemma presents us with is the notion of “enlightened selfishness” both on the personal and evolutionary level. Prisoner’s Dilemma shows that in the personal sense, selfishness is enlightened…if I cooperate with you, you will likely cooperate with me ( tit a tat strategy ) and we will both score “in the game of life” sort of speak. If we keep betraying each other, we will both be losers at the end."
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/berman/P4S3.htm

Even if it is an enormous coincidence it is quite strange how many indications point to this possibility. There is the fact the human species has the effect that an introduced species would on the environment. Name one other animal that acts like an introduced species in its own environment?Most of us are not in our 'natural' environment. We have expanded beyond our 'natural' confines precisely because we were able to develop the technology to do so. If it were not for technology we'd be just another group of primates living in a tropical forest or jungle.

Doesn't the bible or any religious litterature seem like a whole lot of work for people to just make up for no reason? If it were just attempts to explain I wouldn't be suspicious but it also gives orders and tells people how to act, thats just wierd, why would people make something like that up? You're used to a divisional categorization of these topics. They didn't start out that way. Religion, science (such as it was), government, social rules and taboos, were an amalgamated world view. You can see it existent in most individuals even today, each subject and belief affects the others.

Sorry, I just don't see any convincing reason to even begin suggesting that our social complexity is artificial, much less begin fantasizing about alien species interference.

~Raithere

*
"Flexible multimale-seen in rhesus, grey langurs, chimpanzees. There are lots of fights between males and there is a dominance hierarchy but only temporarily. There is a lot of exchange of males between troops and shifts in dominance position, not much sexual dimorphism, females and young form one group and males off forming another group is typical."
http://www.sfu.ca/archaeology/dept/fac_bio/skinner/arch131/lecture6.htm

"One of the most fascinating relationships here in Gombe is that between chimpanzees and baboons. Through his childhood, Ferdinand often took advantage of the many like-sized playmates within the many baboon troops here. During these interesting encounters I see all the play behaviors that I do between two chimps playing--wrestling, chase, hair pulling, even laughter.
Though I have not seen him play with baboons for a year or so, Ferdinand still has good rough and tumble play sessions with the other young chimps here. Many of the adult males continue to play on occasion throughout their lives. I suspect Ferdinand will be the type of adult who keeps his sense of humor throughout his life."
http://www.discoverchimpanzees.org/updates_gombe/updates.php

"However, it was found that the subordinate S. fuscicollis did not benefit from the opportunity to observe and interact with knowledgeable S. labiatus who aggressively defended and monopolized the most productive sites. Dominant S. labiatus, however, benefited through association with knowledgeable S. fuscicollis. This study highlights individual and species asymmetries in costs and benefits of mixed-species troop formation."
http://www.psgb.org/Meetings/Spring1999.html

"Chimpanzees - fluid alliances allow members to increase their proportion of copulations, temporary and reversible
...
-organized, intergroup conflict among competing coalitions existed well before the evolution of hominids, eg family-based wolf packs invade and kill neighbouring packs; spotted hyena family clans kill territorial intruders; lions commit infanticide; primate aggression is widespread - prosimians, baboons, monkeys, chimps’ “raids” on other troops are especially complex and well-organized
-females often move as the result of such intergroup conflict"
http://biology.queensu.ca/~mennilld/210/210lect3.html

(emphasis mine)

Originally posted by atheroy
[quote]why do you believe in god? why does anyone believe? all i ever manage to see is the wonder and power of nature

There is a very good reason right there, the wonder and power of this universe. All you need to do now, is realise that it did not come together by chance, but by a deliberate act. ;)

Love

Jan Ardena.