So getting from a single cell to the human race by evolution seems hugely unlikely. — Gregory

Only because those people do not comprehend the time-scale, the rate of reproduction and mutation in one-celled organisms and the reproductive advantage of beneficial mutation.
(And, of course, cats don't evolve into dogs; dogs and cats both evolved from https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/scitech/science/343965/cats-and-dogs-had-a-common-ancestor-and-here-it-is/story/ and so did a whole bunch of other animal species. It took 40+million years. )

Well, certainly Socrates was condemned to death for examining the lives of others and himself. — Shawn

Yes, especially the ruling elite, who were not above reproach, but didn't like to be reproached. They were afraid that, being popular with young men, he could foment dissent.

What you describe is not how AI will function, that is how a simple program would work like: "if break then jail". That is not AI or machine learning. That is static and dead, you don't want that. — punos

I think Athena doesn't understand governance with an uncorruptibe, non-ambitious, impartial, hate- and grudge-free, literally selfless infinitely knowledgeable ruler. The hive-mind concept is a couple of steps beyond even that.

What do you champion about humans Vera? — universeness

Nothing. I don't fight anymore. That doesn't mean I've become deaf and blind and too stupid to make predictions from what has been and what is to what will likely be.

I get the impression that you think the human race is incapable of producing a society which you yourself would judge as significantly better than any society we have created in the past or present. — universeness

Not incapable. That's the tragedy. We're capable, and have made some pretty good stabs at it, but we keep getting distracted, sidelined, deluded. It's like, every time we're on the right track, some megalomaniac jingles his car-keys and we follow him off a cliff.

Are you a secular naturalist or do you assign some credence to the existence of the 'immaterial?' — universeness

I'm not much of an 'ist', though in walking political life, I support the most nearly socialist party available to vote for. "Immaterial" is an elusive concept. There are attributes and ideas, feelings and impressions, imagination and relationships that are not physical, and are hard to trace to a physical cause. As to the supernatural, no, I give it no credence at all.

The 'totality' of all scientific effort DOES speak towards human questions such as 'why am I.' — universeness

In what language? What has it said? How do you know the voice you heard belonged to a 'totality', and not the man behind the curtain?

'I am, because I can think and I can demonstrate intent and purpose and I can do science and I can affect my surroundings and environment in ways that no other species on Earth can.' — universeness

That's a self-satisfied description, not a reason to exist. And that description could have been spoken by Tonda or any man since.

For me, at it's core, that's too close to choosing to live life as a curse. I will never choose to do that, no matter what happens to me! I will fight against living my life as a curse, every moment of every day. — universeness

Good for you!

You are right, those have dead for social causes, but "martyr" is a word that is interpreted in a religious way. — javi2541997

By some people. Not me. Just because there are lots of examples from their writings, I'm not letting the clerics suborn yet another word for their exclusive use. And certainly not by the nations who raise up statues to their murdered heroes.

For if I tell you that to do as you say would be a disobedience to the God, and therefore that I cannot hold my tongue…” — NOS4A2

Who said this? I heard Socrates didn't write things down. Even if it's a direct oral quote "the god" - possibly Apollo - or even "the gods"; without citing an actual name, of which all Greek deities had at least one, doesn't have a capital.

That's true. Let's narrow it down and say the a typical Fortune 500 multinational corporation. — Mikie

In that case, all the workers - menial, skilled, clerical, service, marketing, legal and executive get about 50%, not divided evenly, of course: some shills skills are valued more highly than some productive work. CEO, about 10%, plus perks (which are filed under operating costs); shareholders divvy up the remaining 40%. In general you can say the returns are inversely proportional to the effort exerted.

What do you mean? — punos

I mean we'll make ourselves and the majority of other species extinct, or near enough, before we get anywhere close. When our civilization collapses - explodes, implodes, burns, drowns or simply topples over - so will the sophisticated technology that would make all that connection possible.

According to Cambridge dictionary, martyr is defined as: a person who suffers very much or is killed because of their religious or political beliefs, and is often admired because of it
mártir; a Christian/Islamic/religious martyr. — javi2541997

It does say "or political" as a kind of BTW, which would astonish a lot of freedom-fighters and revolutionary heroes. You can get killed for demanding free speech in China, or home rule in Ireland. And you can certainly get killed for saying there must be life on other planets. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/was-giordano-bruno-burned-at-the-stake-for-believing-in-exoplanets/ IOW - a martyr to science.

He was showing that he lived his life to the extent that he did not fear death. — TheMadMan

Yes, I got that part, but it doesn't amount to martyrdom. However, I think the defence of free speech does. This:

He stood up to censorship, stood by his God-given right to speak, and proved he’d rather die than to submit. — NOS4A2

... though I think he would have left God out of it.

Democracy as we know it is a pre-development of what will become the hive-mind. The hive is the perfection of democracy, — punos

I like this summary. It would certainly be the ultimate in direct, equal participation in decision-making.

I don't much like the prospect of becoming a Borg drone myself, but I can sort of imagine and evolutionary process so that it gradually becomes the normal state of being. Intriguing idea, though I don't actually believe we have the time.

If I am curious about what exists up a dark path or how a bird is able to fly, then I might manifest an intent to find out, such intent to find out would be intentional and directed. I think you are hair splitting. — universeness

Okay. I meant that the curiosity drives investigation, even when it has no particular end in mind. You want to know what's down a dark alley, not because you expect to find something of value there, but just to know - even if it turns out to be dangerous. There is always an element of happenstance in the exercise of curiosity. (How many times have we sat in front of a movie screen, yelling "Don't go in the basement, Stupid!!!")

You seem to slightly contradict yourself with 'neither one says an intelligible word,' and then 'one provides some fragment of the what, why and how of things.' — universeness

There is no contradiction. Neither science nor religion talk. People talk. They tell you all kinds of things, and some of those things are incorrect, garbled, ambiguous or downright lies.
A methodology helps humans to figure out the what and why of things - that was the operative word: things - not the purpose or identity or destiny of humans, and it's no help at all with moral and ethical questions or the conduct of society.

Do you not agree that your second sentence above, is less true today than it has ever been since the days of the first cities, such as Jericho and Uruk? — universeness

Not at all. It was never true in any city-state. All 'civilizations' are vertical. There are very few examples of horizontal society anymore; even the Innu of northern Canada are half Europeanized. I understand there are still some uncontaminated pockets of native people in the Andes mountains.

Even (in the past, very infuential/powerful male based ritualistic groups) like the 'masons,' have lost a great deal of their membership, and the youth of today seem a lot less interested in such groups. — universeness

Masons are irrelevant. That is a very recent past and there are much more sinister cabals now. In all post civilized societies (the last 6000 or so years: stone walls, writing, kings and warlords, legal codes, big tombs for the elite, little wooden markers for the peasants) one to three classes or castes run the whole show and control all the wealth; one or two middle layers carry out the administrative and law-enforcement work and get a decent standard of living; some merchants and artisans do all right; the vast majority work hard for small reward and are mostly scared.

Animism, myth and ritualistic practices are in global decline, imo. — universeness

Animism has been all but wiped out along with the peoples who practiced it. Myth has been reduced in popular parlance to a synonym of "falsehood". Rituals of all kinds are still widely practiced, however, not only in churches, but in offices, stock markets, public meetings, parliaments, casinos, in households and on the street.

Scientists are humans and they are the harbingers of science. — universeness

Practitioners, not harbingers.

I am not trying to 'objectify' science in the way you suggest. — universeness

I did not suggest objectifying. I accused you - and you are very far from alone in this - anthropomorphizing. It does not speak, desire, intend or do anything.

We ask questions Vera because our goal is omniscience. — universeness

That's one goal - or at least wish - of humans. Some humans. Many others would rather be spared all that learning and just know enough to get by and they resent the eggheads.
Another thing humans want is 'meaning' - they want to be special and significant. The more scientists reveal of the universe, the smaller and less significant people feel. They resent the hell out of that!
Another thing humans want is magic bullets. Somebody more powerful than themselves, who cares for them, protects them and can make their problems go away.
The most important thing humans wish for is immortality.* Most of them are not content with the prospect of living on as a computer program or a cyborg or as a popsicle, waiting for someone to invent a cure for death - they want to be in heaven, young, happy and reunited with the people they've lost. And that's why they won't let go of religion.
(That's somewhat oversimplified, as there are also practical reasons.)
*Best line in Genesis; says it all:

3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

Of course he was.

Socrates was given the opportunity to suggest his own punishment and could probably have avoided death by recommending exile. Instead, the philosopher initially offered the sarcastic recommendation that he be rewarded for his actions.http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/socrates.htm

He was 70 years old, probably didn't fancy facing life as an exile, and by the scanty accounts, did fancy thumbing his nose at the establishment.
The question remains: Just what was he proving?

(3) Who decides (1) and (2)? — Mikie

That depends on the economic and political system under which this enterprise is carried out.

Science is a manifestation of human intent. — universeness

Science is a manifestation of human aspiration and curiosity. It is not always intentional or directed; its products are not always functional. In horizontal societies, the product is innovation - more efficient ways to obtain and prepare food, travel, build, carry, preserve, keep warm, recover from illness and injury. In vertical societies, fruitful scientific investigation is co-opted by the ruling classes, to serve their own interests. To the extent that incidental improvement in the lot of the underclasses benefits the ruling class or ensures their security, some benefit extends to the society at large. If an innovation or its byproducts are harmful, the underclasses are affected, while ruling class is shielded from the harm.

Similarly, projection and narrative are manifestations of human self-regard and imagination.
In horizontal societies, the product is some form of animism, myth and spontaneous ritual. From mythology, in vertical social organizations, come invented religions, with their formalized rituals and the concepts of worship, obedience, sin, guilt and sacrifice. This internalization of hierarchy and law benefits the ruling classes, who are also shielded from the harmful effects of obedience, humility and self-denial.

Science is a manifestation of human intent. In my view, science aspires to omniscience. — universeness

Science doesn't aspire any more than a wheelbarrow rolls. Humans aspire and push at the limits of their knowledge. Science is a method applied by humans to human endeavours; it is not a supernatural entity with a will of its own.

I think sane people are more cunning than you give them credit for. — baker

That's a good way of putting it. Some psyches are (innately ?) more fragile than others; and some are subjected to a more intense barrage of crazy-making fiction in the formative years, while others are given an opportunity to verify and validate their subjective experience.
But, beyond that, we all make compromises; draw our personal lines of compliance, forbearance and hypocrisy. It's not an easy balance to maintain, but most people manage to function and keep their societies functioning - more or less.
Collectively, though, we're a completely bonkers species.

That was the question I answered, which was the question you asked. — Hanover

Sorry. I didn't realize. You went to a lot of trouble and I should have paid closer attention. Of course, the explanation is very like the more concise one I had previously offered. Here it is, recontextualized:

It's simply embarrassing to me, that despite the fact that humans are smart and now have a mountain of scientific data, some of the people can still be fooled by theism and/or theosophism, all of the time! — universeness
That's only because religion and science don't serve the same human needs. Science is the tool used to understand and manipulate matter. Organized religion (which bears only the most superficial resemblance to prehistoric or tribal ritual) is a tool used in support of stratified power structures. — Vera Mont

and then:

Science is the tool used to understand and manipulate matter. Organized religion (which bears only the most superficial resemblance to prehistoric or tribal ritual) is a tool used in support of stratified power structures. — Vera Mont
This observation would be universally applicable to all human institutions. Humans are social animals, and hierarchies always arise, which includes political wrangling and control of power. — Hanover

How does this ^^^^ relate to the matter of science failing to replace religion?

Political, professional and social organizations also exist alongside scientific and religious ones, but they all serve different purposes, and none of them is expected to answer the so-called "Big Questions". Only Science and God are expected to do that, and of course, neither one says an intelligible word in response to Who am I?" "Why am I?" "Where's the universe come from?" "What's it all mean?" One provides answers to some fragments of the what, why and how of things; the other provides rules of conduct, accompanied by a stick and a carrot.

That was the specific question of a prior thread, but less so this one. — Hanover

Nevertheless, that post you quoted and disputed was a direct response to:

It's simply embarrassing to me, that despite the fact that humans are smart and now have a mountain of scientific data, some of the people can still be fooled by theism and/or theosophism, all of the time! — universeness

But all of this is to say the answer to your question — Hanover

I didn't have one. I already knew that people tend to resort to magical thinking when they can't control their environment or their lives. And that magical thinking appears in the form of religious observance, augury, water dowsing, gambling, horoscope and palm reading, witch-burning, ritual dancing, human sacrifice and the avoidance of ladders and black cats. On the up-side, it also manifests as art, literature and cosmology.

I am seeing a willingness to give control to a ruling power and a complete lack of responsibility, just like the Germans who put Hitler in power. — Athena

You are seeing precisely what you want to see.
People are always putting some person in power, and the person in power always abuses it. You vaunt "our achievements" - which mainly consist of fighting at horrendous cost against persons "we" ourselves put into positions of power; overpopulating, depleting and despoiling a generous, hospitable planet and turning it into a vast hazardous waste dump.
All of which achievement has culminated in our capability to turn the long division problem of resource allocation over to a machine that can do math a whole lot better than we ever could.
But you think it's a better idea to struggle back to 1956, which was not a great year for me, personally, so I won't be joining you.

P.S. Of course, an allegorical and/or symbolic interpretation may contain much wisdom. But the wisdom is not from the book; it is from the writer. — Art48

Just so. Only, most of those interpretations are not wise; they're just PR for the doctrine of their choice.
Here's what actually happened: Over many centuries, writings were collected and assembled by various groups of churchmen for various reasons.

It was not until the 5th century that all the different Christian churches came to a basic agreement on Biblical canon. The books that eventually were considered canon reflect the times they were embraced as much the times of the events they portray.

Interesting article BTW.

They're not allegorical, symbolical, multi-layered mysterical - they're just old stories, added on to the Jesus story as told by early Christians

The oral traditions within the church formed the substance of the Gospels, the earliest book of which is Mark, written around 70 A.D., 40 years after the death of Jesus.

to give the new deity some historic roots and legitimacy. They were collected and maybe some newer ones added on by one or more of the collators, while some old stories were later thrown out, for several reasons - they didn't fit prevailing doctrine, or were objectionable on some moral ground, contradict papal edicts, or are simply badly written fiction. (I have read some apocrypha and it's uphill work.)

IOW - It is a book of stories. Read as you please.

This observation would be universally applicable to all human institutions. Humans are social animals, and hierarchies always arise, which includes political wrangling and control of power. — Hanover

So, how does that relate to the question: Why has science, which explains so much, not displaced religion?

But this is to compare apples to oranges — Hanover

Exactly what I did. I was comparing neither methodologies nor organizations. I was pointing out that science and religion are not comparable, not in competition with each other, not operating in the same arena.

Personally, I refer to purposes, meaning the purpose of science is to tell me about the world. The purpose of religion is to tell me how to live in it — Hanover

Yes, I think the invented religions were meant to instruct in the rules of living. That's why I note the distinction between natural grown belief systems of early human cultures and modern incorporated institutions centered on written tenets and formal canon laws.

I think you all would have voted for Hitler. — Athena

And I think you have just overstepped my personal demarcation of civil discourse.

Some good questions there. I will take them seriously.

What is the point of even living? — Athena

There is no 'point' to life. It just is. As long as an individual finds his or her life worth living - i.e. the good in it outweighs the bad in their own estimation, it has value to them.

Would you be good with your family suffering from malnutrition because global warming and war meant countries on the other side of the world needed more food and that meant everyone around the world would have barely enough to eat?

That's one reason I didn't create a family. Because I would not be "good with" more powerful nations taking from less powerful ones, or rich people taking from poor in an era of increasing scarcity and danger. The disparity of wealth and power was quite bad enough during the relatively prosperous 20th century, when some of the increasing wealth and welfare trickled down; in the past two decades, the gap has grown wider and the have-nots more numerous.

How about a decision to end all meat production or no sugar because those products can lead to health problems, and raising meat is the least efficient way to feed people?

That's an excellent idea! I have recommended it more than once. AI, in possession of all relevant facts, is likely to implement it, along with facilitating large scale, efficient cultured meat production and all the better-late-than-never urban food growing initiatives.

What other decisions are you willing to give AI?

I'm hoping it can figure out how to recycle all those lethal weapons we've amassed and their horrid waste-products.

How about enforcing a law that only married people can have a child and only one child? — Athena

Married people?? Why should AI bother with prissy morality issues? How about enforcing the UN Charter of Human Rights, so that girls and women can't be sold into slavery for their family's debt or coerced marriages, locked out of schools or refused control of their own reproductive functions? How about making nutrition, hygiene and sex education mandatory in all school curricula?

Feeding the world is not just a matter of how much we can produce and spread around the world, but also how much we reproduce. — Athena

And you think Conservative state governments are more aware of this than intelligent computers?
How about making family planning, birth control and women's rights a priority? You want to reduce the number of unwanted babies, and care for all the children that already exist --- and yet you still believe the existing systems of governance are the best means to that end?

And how do we want AI to enforce its mandates?

By controlling the resources. Seize all assets currently in numbered international bank accounts and cryptocurrency. It's the easiest start, since that "money" only exists in data banks. Then take control of all essential services - emphasis on renewable energy production - communications and shipping lines. If no man controls those, no man controls other men.

A democracy is rule by reason and making sure that happens is as simple as universal education for good citizenship in a democracy. — Athena

If it's that simple, why has it never yet happened in any of the nations ruled by humans?

I was simply suggesting reasons why god posits were invented by humans whilst experiencing or just emerging from the wilds. — universeness

I know, and it's a natural impulse exercised by many modern people who are familiar with the gods of current institutional religions but unfamiliar with early folklore. The concept of "gods" - the deities we know from Greek and Mesopotamian mythology - comes with civilization, quite late in human social development.
Primitive peoples were surrounded by spirits - the spirits of lake, river, cloud, wind, trees, birds and animals and their own ancestors. Some humans characters became archetypes in the stories: the wise grandmother, the heroic young man, the wanderer, the shaman, the bringer of corn or some other staple crop of a region. Some known human attributes also tended to become personalized: deception, conceit, vanity, gluttony, etc. turned into caricatures embodied in the form of an animal or a named person. These stories were told over and over, passed from one generation to the next, maybe to another tribe, elaborated, embellished, adapted - always changing. What seems constant is that most of the spirits are human scale, fallible, accessible; people can negotiate and reason with them, even fool them sometimes. Even the central, creator spirit is either directly involved the humans' daily activities, correcting wrongs and errors, or watching non-judgmentally.

None of those fanciful notions or stories ever stopped humans - or apes, or crows - from exercising their scientific curiosity, discovering, inventing and exerting their influence on their material environment.

It's simply embarrassing to me, that despite the fact that humans are smart and now have a mountain of scientific data, some of the people can still be fooled by theism and/or theosophism, all of the time! — universeness

That's only because religion and science don't serve the same human needs. Science is the tool used to understand and manipulate matter. Organized religion (which bears only the most superficial resemblance to prehistoric or tribal ritual) is a tool used in support of stratified power structures.

"By feeding data about Beethoven, his music, his style and the original scribbles on the 10th symphony into an algorithm, AI has created an entirely new piece of art." — Athena

That's from the article; I didn't say it. I heard the music, though: it was rather dull, with none of Beethoven's spirit. Of course, the computer only had fragments to go on.

Music is mathematical.

No, that's not enough for music.
But mathematics is enough to make sure every child has food, shelter, clothing, medicine and schoolbooks. More likely to happen if a benign computer is in charge of allocating resources than a random assortment of self-interested humans.

Having feelings for a child and figuring out how this child is special and the best way to help the child actualize him or herself is not mathematical.

Feelings are all very well; unfortunately, rage, hate, belligerence and greed are feelings too. 10,000 children die of malnutrition every day under human auspices, and the ones that die of neglect, incidental violence and as a result of war-related activities by humans are never even counted. Feelings have ruled for a long time, and don't do it very well.

Seems we's stuck. — Banno

You trust whom you choose to trust. It doesn't need to be prophet, verbose or taciturn; it can be a mentor, a guru, bumper-sticker, life-coach, scoutmaster or the woman who taught you to love.

Four-dimensional, I wonder how so? Please explain. — Bug Biro

They exist in direct perception, familial (or intimate) interaction, social context and life-time. They are also based in instinct, emotion, thought and projection. There may be other ways to describe the multi-faceted nature of mental illness. But you shouldn't take my image of four dimensions literally; all i really meant to illustrate was that they are more complex and varied than expectation > betrayal > disillusionment > breakdown. Yes, that sequence plays a part, but only a part.

The bible as we know it today is a deeply flawed document of many origins, some of them suspect if not yet proven fraudulent, and some that should not be included at all. I believe Revelation is one such, along with all of Paul's correspondence. Nor, come to that, have the Jewish and Gentile texts any business being bound in the same volume.
It really doesn't seem fair to judge either of those religions by what we currently read in that much-translated, -edited and -tampered-with book.

What do you think of these thoughts? — Bug Biro

I think that summary inaccurately reduces all mental illness to two dimensions, whereas I believe the large group of emotional and cognitive malfunctions to be four-dimensional. It can, however, be subdivided into smaller groups for ease of comprehension and discussion.

OTOH, I very much agree that one major cause of mental illness, emotional breakdown and conceptual dissonance is the gap between experienced reality and received wisdom. That is, the lies we tell children from the moment they are born. It isn't just the organs of corrupt governments that lie: parents, teachers, employers, news outlets, pastors, movies, salesmen, barristers - all kinds of people lie about all kinds of things, everywhere, all the time. Entire mythologies are constructed out of untruths to define a nation's self-image, just like an institution's or individual person's.
Attempting to reconcile these disparate narratives with one's direct experience and fashion them into some a coherent view of the world is exhausting work; it occupies a great deal of a person's time and attention, and consumes a great deal of his life energy. So he either becomes acquiescent and quiescent, or he explodes in some manifestation of protest: political action, criminal action or madness. (However I dislike it, It's the simplest, least apt but most accessible word to describe this kind of emotional break.)

Those are the only prophets, not just most genuine. — TheMadMan

Good. That means nobody needs to listen to anybody, because only those who do not speak speak truth; truth is silence.
Yes, I like that! It's just mystical enough to be spiritual.

What makes a prophet, if not his words?
We are all prophets, then, partaking of the same reality, describing it each in a different way.
The most genuine prophets don't communicate ta all: they have pure, direct, inexplicable experience.

Those poor ancients. — universeness

There is some distinction between 'ancient civilizations' and 'tribal cultures', and again between 'prehistoric humans' and 'transitional hominids'. They were never so simple and ignorant as the standard depiction.
As to babies, the instinct to obey their species "quiet!" command goes way back before humans. Quail chicks huddle down in silence while their mother distracts a predator; fawns know to do the same; feral kittens, as soon as they can walk, scatter and hide under something on their mother's command - two weeks later, they do it on their own, when they identify a potential danger.
Natural phenomena, weather, hazards to health and safety didn't suddenly materialize in the world with the advent of H sapiens. We evolved in this world, surrounded by these dangers, adapted over 3 billion years to coping with them.

Sure you can disregard all of them, its up to you. But you are not solving any problem by doing that. — TheMadMan

I didn't have a problem to solve - at least, no problem in my life has ever involved prophets or prophecy.

In this sense, it can be said that all religions ultimately agree, or ultimately lead to the same place. — Art48

I have yet to see this demonstrated. What is that "place" the back-tracker finds? The source of all religion? I have heard "God" - with a big G, as if it were a name - touted as the fount of supernatural belief, but all the early religions I know of had multiple deities and otherworldly beings. The only common - only common, not universal - threads I'm aware of are origin stories, hero quest and redemption stories and stories about the loss of innocence. Before that, there may have been a uniquely human sentiments of loss, wishful thinking, awe and wonder that come with the big brain, but that's untraceable, as it predates rock art.

So, maybe you and I can agree that all "genuine" prophets experience the same Reality, but they express their experience differently, and so sometimes may disagree. — Art48

Then, how can you know what reality - or even Reality, though I don't understand the need for a capital - they experience.... assuming you can identify genuine prophets in the first place.

I personally would disregard most so-called prophet. But that's just my take on them. — TheMadMan

I solve that problem by disregarding all of them, without fear or favour.

What? — TheMadMan

The message of biblical prophets. Their god can do no wrong, so if something is wrong, it must be down to the sinners. The god listens to prayers, so if you suffer unjustly, it must be because the petitioner's faith failed a test.
Other kinds of prophet may have had different messages - but then the "underlying truth" is obscure.

The other way around is the truth. When you actually learn what they said, you understand they were saying the same thing. — TheMadMan

Yes, pretty much:
"Guilty, guilty, guilty! It's all your fault!"

Whoever sees that angel is responsible for proving it. — Alkis Piskas

Don't blink!

How human these early gods were! I wonder why? — universeness

Of course they were human. They were characters in the stories told by humans. The gods of giraffes would have long necks and, if Montesquieu was any judge, the gods of triangles would have three sides. However, the earliest supernatural entities in folklore are nature spirits - weather phenomena, bodies of water, trees and animals.

Was Utu (sumerian sun god) who became Shamesh (Akkadian) not suggested around 6000 BCE. Was Utu not the first ever recorded sungod? — universeness

Sungod, yes - or probably. Only god, no. He had parents, a wife and kids, as well as colleagues.

Although I think you might be right that Akhenaten was the first to push for a sun god as the most powerful god but did he also suggest Aten was the ONLY god that existed, as in monotheism? — universeness

As far as I recall, yes. With Akhenaten as the only mortal he talked to. You can see why that wouldn't be madly popular with the prisetly caste.

Religion is commonly based on some “sacred” writings, sacred because the writings are said to contain the wisdom of wise men/women, saints, prophets, and/or God-men. — Art48

Not really. Religion predates the invention of writing by about 30,000 years. Before writing were oral traditions - stories of origin, stories of heroes, stories of the history of a people and stories of supernatural beings and of life beyond death. In several cultures that could not possibly have had physical contact, there are similar stories of a fall from grace, a loss of innocence and why it all went wrong. There were drawings in caves and on rock-faces. There were dances and ceremonies and offerings of food - or living creatures - to the ancestors, to demons and gods and nature spirits. There were sacred places and places of dread, observances and taboos.

This is the situation we should expect if God does not really exist: different civilizations making up different stories about God. — Art48

The unigod idea is a recent one; the first mention we have of it was floated in Egypt less than 4000 years ago, by Akhenaten - but didn't catch on with anybody much, except the Jews, who spent a few centuries in Egypt and already had a tribal god of their own to identify with Aten.

But it’s also the situation we should expect if God wants to be discovered fresh, by each person: religion gets us started on the path, but eventually we realize it’s fictional. — Art48

I wish that were true for the majority of religious people.

I just had a bucket of cold water poured over me. I watched and episode of The Nature of Things, called The Machine that Feels, about AI

As AI moves closer to replicating humans, it has the potential to reshape every aspect of our world – but most of us are unaware of what looms on the horizon.

Seems we're busily and very cleverly making them as crazy as we are.

Yessss! (We should live so long!)

I can understand the idea of doing away with nation states intellectually, but I definitely don't feel it. I prefer a certain level of territorial exclusiveness. "We are over here; you are over there; let's keep it that way." — BC

Smaller territories, with homogeneous - at least in basic world-view - populations would make more sense, inspire deeper loyalty and be more coherently represented in a world court when there are resource or border disputes between territories. Also, if the self-governing power of such territorial/tribal districts is directed to the organization and welfare of the population instead of self-defense and preservation of the power structure, the people would be better off.
The United States was always a fiction - a pipedream imposed by force of arms, and at enormous cost. Just like the USSR and the People's republic of China.

Plus, it would be nice if, when the aliens land and ask to be conducted to our leader, we had one we could agree on. This is all futuristic speculation, of course; it can never happen.