Atheists: What Do Gods Do?

[PureX]

I get what you are saying here, but what you advocate still requires a change in attitude, which may very well require a change in believe, of everyone. You are still asking for change from the current state of affairs.

All I'm saying is that if we'll set aside our ego and it's insistence that we be 'right', and focus instead on what constitutes wisdom (rather than righteousness) and we seek overall well being instead of ever more control, we might actually survive the next 50 years. And in 100 years be living long and well in a world renewed.

Repeating the word "superstition" like it rapes little children isn't going to give you any control over it. Or over those who engage in it. Because it's a significant aspect of human nature, fueled by our fear of the unknown and our desire to be in control of our own fate by any means available.

 

[PureX]

The power that keeps people believing in a higher power has always been the power of conditioning from birth, manipulation, intimidation, and (if all else fails) brute force. And it's been passed down from generation to generation for centuries. In more recent times, there have been more active attempts to break that cycle, along with an active promotion and encouragement of free thought, which is why religion is losing adherents and why there have been more open and brazen challenges to religion.

Without the ability to manipulate law and use brute force on people, religion will not survive.



Or it could be that atheists seek to identify, resist, and challenge attempts by religion to control thought or culture within society. Keep in mind that it's the theists who have a much longer and more atrocious track record when it comes to wanting to control others. Not just atheists, but even their fellow theists who don't believe in the exact same religion (and the exact same sect) as they do. Whatever conflicts or disagreements may exist between atheists and theists are nothing compared to the numerous and long-term conflicts of theists vs. theists.

I know you atheists love to presume that people are robots (except for you, of course) that blindly believe whatever they're told, but that's just a bunch of ego-centric nonsense. (Note that lots of fundamentalist theists also believe this about you.) People believe as they do because it works according to their experience. And that includes you, too. And we are willing to doubt and test our beliefs each according to our own natures. So complaining achieves nothing but stroking the ego at the expense of others.

And it should be obvious to us all by now that fighting the efforts of others to control us by trying to control them just doesn't work. All that results is an escalation of force, and usually violence.

 

[Stevicus]

I know you atheists love to presume that people are robots (except for you, of course) that blindly believe whatever they're told, but that's just a bunch of ego-centric nonsense. People believe as they do because it works according to their experience. And that includes you, too. And we are willing to doubt and test our beliefs each according to our own natures. So complaining achieves nothing but stroking the ego at the expense of others.

And it should be obvious to us all by now that fighting the efforts of others to control us by trying to control them just doesn't work. All that results is an escalation of force, and usually violence.

I can't really connect the dots between what I wrote and your response here. Where did I say that people are robots?

My point was that people are trained and conditioned, literally from birth, to believe in a certain way of thinking and inculcated in the cultural and religious beliefs of the society into which they're born. I don't say that humans are robots, but they can be molded and manipulated early in life - at least until they reach an age where they can start thinking for themselves and have the tools to challenge what they've been taught.

Back when society was more rigid and oppressive, people didn't really have a choice to speak up. If they did, they'd face serious consequences, so most people would just go along to get along - at least publicly. Once some of that oppression started to get lifted and the rigidity relaxed, people started feeling more free to speak out against religion - and that's why we might see more publicly visible atheists nowadays than we might have seen 50-100 years ago. (Atheists were also often associated with Marxists and Communists, so that was another inhibiting factor.)

I'm not really complaining. On the contrary, I think it's a sign of progress that human societies have embraced the concepts of religious freedom and free speech to the point where people can speak freely about topics such as these - and even more so now than even 50-100 years ago. The resulting decline in religious membership would indicate that, without the same level of rigidity and oppression existent in previous eras, religion clearly does not have the same staying power or hold over the hearts and minds of the masses that it once had. Does that suggest that people are robots? No, quite the opposite.

 

[MikeF]

All I'm saying is that if we'll set aside our ego and it's insistence that we be 'right', and focus instead on what constitutes wisdom (rather than righteousness) and we seek overall well being instead of ever more control, we might actually survive the next 50 years. And in 100 years be living long and well in a world renewed.

Well, this is a good place to start. The goal you are establishing, if I read you correctly, is for the species Homo Sapiens to avoid extinction within the next 50 years in a manner that eliminates the risk of extinction for at least the following 50 years after that. Fine. If that is the stated objective, then we can discuss how that may best be achieved. However, in my opinion, that means everything comes out on the table for evaluation and possible rejection. Would you agree, or in your view, are there beliefs and institutions that must remain inviolate, held sacred, and as a consequence, undisturbed?

Repeating the word "superstition" like it rapes little children isn't going to give you any control over it. Or over those who engage in it. Because it's a significant aspect of human nature, fueled by our fear of the unknown and our desire to be in control of our own fate by any means available.

Interesting how folks have no qualms about labeling the superstitions of others as such, but balk when the label is applied to their own.

I interpret your hyperbolic language as an attempt to bully me from labeling a spade a spade. Perhaps the cognitive dissonance created by use of the label initiates a deeper reflection upon one's belief and as a consequence engenders a greater tolerance for others.

 

[PureX]

I can't really connect the dots between what I wrote and your response here. Where did I say that people are robots?

My point was that people are trained and conditioned, literally from birth, to believe in a certain way of thinking and inculcated in the cultural and religious beliefs of the society into which they're born.

And at any point they can and very often do reject that training and adopt or develop their own preferred alternative. They may keep this to themselves, or they may not, depending on the individual and their circumstances, but no one is being enslaved by any ideology that they aren't agreeing to be enslaved by. And as we are all selfish by nature, we aren't going to agree to an ideology that doesn't serve us.

Once we understand this, we will also understand that we create our religions, they do not create us.

I don't say that humans are robots, but they can be molded and manipulated early in life - at least until they reach an age where they can start thinking for themselves and have the tools to challenge what they've been taught.

Even children will reject ideas that do not show themselves to be true in their experience if reality. This whole forced indictrination angle just doesn't hunt.

Back when society was more rigid and oppressive, people didn't really have a choice to speak up. If they did, they'd face serious consequences, so most people would just go along to get along - at least publicly. Once some of that oppression started to get lifted and the rigidity relaxed, people started feeling more free to speak out against religion - and that's why we might see more publicly visible atheists nowadays than we might have seen 50-100 years ago. (Atheists were also often associated with Marxists and Communists, so that was another inhibiting factor.)

I'm not really complaining. On the contrary, I think it's a sign of progress that human societies have embraced the concepts of religious freedom and free speech to the point where people can speak freely about topics such as these - and even more so now than even 50-100 years ago. The resulting decline in religious membership would indicate that, without the same level of rigidity and oppression existent in previous eras, religion clearly does not have the same staying power or hold over the hearts and minds of the masses that it once had. Does that suggest that people are robots? No, quite the opposite.

The problem was never religion. The problem has always been the human desire for control over our own fate, and our willingness to sacrifice almost anything, including each other, to get as much control as we can. Religion was just one of many mechanisms people have used to get and hold onto as much control over their world and everyone in it as they could (including even the illusion of control). Blaming religion is just blaming one of the symptoms, while missing the real problem.

 

[LuisDantas]

Not all humans see the world as you or I do. And not all of them are wrong. Nor is science the fountain of truth that you and others here so desperately want to insist that it is. And like it or not, you cannot control the minds of others. Nor can science. So you can learn to live with the beliefs of others and their odd behaviors as a result, or you can battle with them for control. Just as they will be driven to do with you.

Or we could seek the wisdom that would enable us to apply both our science and our superstitions to the service of the well being of mankind and the planet that sustains us. Maybe wisdom isn't a factor of who's right, but of inclusion under the umbrella of a greater cause.

You presume way too much and way too recklessly about other people, particularly atheists.

There is no point trying to follow your assumptions in order to map out whatever picture you have formed.

 

[PureX]

Well, this is a good place to start. The goal you are establishing, if I read you correctly, is for the species Homo Sapiens to avoid extinction within the next 50 years in a manner that eliminates the risk of extinction for at least the following 50 years after that. Fine. If that is the stated objective, then we can discuss how that may best be achieved. However, in my opinion, that means everything comes out on the table for evaluation and possible rejection. Would you agree, or in your view, are there beliefs and institutions that must remain inviolate, held sacred, and as a consequence, undisturbed?

It's should be quite clear to anyone at this point that there is a very deep and fundamental problem with how we humans are seeing ourselves and our relationship to the world and each other. And that the crux of the failure here is that it's based on competition for control. We humans want more than anything else in life, to be in control of our own fate: of our own destinies. And we want this so badly that we are very often willing to settle for just the illusion of our having that control. And worse yet, we are very often willing to sacrifice everything, including each other, to get even a sliver of that control.

We will use violence and threats of violence. We will use fear and intimidation. We will use science and superstition, and lies, and money, and anything else we can think of to try and gain control over the world and the people around us; over anything that can effect our well-being. Because we are not in control of what the world and it's people can do to us, and this rightly scares the crap out of us. And so we're willing to do and believe just about anything to gain back a sense of control.

And this is what humanity now needs to face, within itself, if it's to have any hope of moving forward in a NON-self-destructive way. We have to stop chasing after increased individual control and start chasing after collective well-being, instead.

Interesting how folks have no qualms about labeling the superstitions of others as such, but balk when the label is applied to their own.

You keep trying to use "superstition" as if it were some insultingly negative thing, because that's how YOU see it. But I see it just as an inevitable fact of human nature, with both positive and negative results.

 

[MikeF]

You keep trying to use "superstition" as if it were some insultingly negative thing, because that's how YOU see it. But I see it just as an inevitable fact of human nature, with both positive and negative results.

Why assume that my use is insulting and not simply expressing an inevitable fact of human nature? As to the positive or negative aspects, one would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis, and where there are both positive and negative affects concerning a particular superstition, one would have to evaluate the overall effect of those contrasting effects. However, wouldn't it also be wise to see if any positive effect elicited by a superstition could be achieved by other, non-superstitious means that have no negative effects? If so, one should concentrate their efforts there and set superstition aside, right? Why preserve superstition if it is not necessary?

 

[PureX]

Why assume that my use is insulting and not simply expressing an inevitable fact of human nature? As to the positive or negative aspects, one would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis, and where there are both positive and negative affects concerning a particular superstition, one would have to evaluate the overall effect of those contrasting effects. However, wouldn't it also be wise to see if any positive effect elicited by a superstition could be achieved by other, non-superstitious means that have no negative effects? If so, one should concentrate their efforts there and set superstition aside, right? Why preserve superstition if it is not necessary?

You're still assuming that the "other means" would be better, and you're still assuming that the human inclination toward superstition can and should be overcome. Personally, I find this whole debate a waste of time, as it does not address the real problem. Which is not religion, or non-religious superstition. It's the need for control, and the fear of our lack of it, that fuels our obsession with anything we think will gain us this control. We need to face this fear, and especially to face what it has been doing to us and causing us to do to each other, and to the only planet that we can live on. And instead of seeking ever more individual control, we need to instead start working together for our collective well-being.

 

[MikeF]

You're still assuming that the "other means" would be better, and you're still assuming that the human inclination toward superstition can and should be overcome. Personally, I find this whole debate a waste of time, as it does not address the real problem. Which is not religion, or non-religious superstition. It's the need for control, and the fear of our lack of it, that fuels our obsession with anything we think will gain us this control. We need to face this fear, and especially to face what it has been dong to us and causing us to do to each other, and to the only planet that we can live on. And instead of seeking ever more individual control, we need to instead start working together for our collective well-being.

And my point would be, if we need to start working together as you suggest, it is imperative that we fully and scientifically understand human behavior and psychology, along with all the external factors that affect that behavior. That would include superstition and its affects on individuals and society as a whole. It is not about assuming means other than superstition are better at achieving a stated goal, it is about asking the darn question in the first place. If you do not evaluate and explore your options you are not going to know if you have been working against your goal by maintaining the status quo. The better we understand what underlies fundamental behaviors the better able we shall be to evaluate these things.

As an example, if each religious myth has the positive effect of binding adherents together and aids in cooperation among themselves, yet has the exact opposite effect between adherents of different religious myths, then you are at an impasse and will never reach your goal of all people working together for our collective well-being. The same issue might be said of Nationality. What then would be the solution? Does everyone need to adhere to the same religious myth? Are there non-religious ways to bind people together that are more easily adopted globally? What might they be and what would it take to implement them? These might be questions to ask and investigate as the current arrangement does not seem to be achieving the results you want.

 

[Stevicus]

And at any point they can and very often do reject that training and adopt or develop their own preferred alternative. They may keep this to themselves, or they may not, depending on the individual and their circumstances, but no one is being enslaved by any ideology that they aren't agreeing to be enslaved by. And as we are all selfish by nature, we aren't going to agree to an ideology that doesn't serve us.

Once we understand this, we will also understand that we create our religions, they do not create us.

Even children will reject ideas that do not show themselves to be true in their experience if reality. This whole forced indictrination angle just doesn't hunt.

Children really don't have any choice to reject anything their parents force on them until they're legally adults.

And even for adults, it's not entirely true that "at any point they can...reject that training." I do agree that people have been more free to do that in recent decades, which is why we're seeing more people reject religion. But in the past, that was simply not an option (Christian prayer in school was still the law of the land until 1962). Your point in post #215 suggested that the belief in a higher power serves humanity sufficiently to "keep us believing it." That's what I've been taking issue with.

My point is that the reason people kept believing it for thousands of years is because they were forced to, and now, in these past few years, they've finally gotten the freedom to reject it, they're doing so in droves, exiting the churches and rejecting theocratic principles. So, whatever power exists to keep people believing in a higher power is obviously waning.

If religion can't count on the power of government to force people to believe, then they'll count on parental authority to condition their children to believe (and there are some horrific stories of child abuse by parents who believed they were acting in accordance with God's will). But if there are more educated, intelligent, liberal, progressive, and tolerant parents out there, then they'll likely allow children to make their own choices and won't force them to go to church if they don't want to. That will further reduce church attendance and the overall adherence to religion.

The problem was never religion. The problem has always been the human desire for control over our own fate, and our willingness to sacrifice almost anything, including each other, to get as much control as we can. Religion was just one of many mechanisms people have used to get and hold onto as much control over their world and everyone in it as they could (including even the illusion of control). Blaming religion is just blaming one of the symptoms, while missing the real problem.

Religion is a useful political tool to keep the masses in line, in order to condition people towards conformity and compliance. That's why a major hurdle was overcome when Western societies started practicing various liberal principles which included freedom of religion. Prior to that, for all intents and purposes, the state was the religion and the religion was the state.

Even in pre-Christian Rome, their leaders and aristocrats were said to have descended from the Gods, so when faced with that kind of power, what's a lowly pleb to do? That's the illusion religion brings about. "If you challenge our government, you're challenging God(s)." The opiate of the masses which keeps them compliant.

 

[Quintessence]

Children really don't have any choice to reject anything their parents force on them until they're legally adults.

All the children you've known in your life must have been... remarkably similar to doormats. You definitely didn't know any kids that were close to landing in juvie or anything other than totally obedient to their adult overlords.

 

[MikeF]

All the children you've known in your life must have been... remarkably similar to doormats. You definitely didn't know any kids that were close to landing in juvie or anything other than totally obedient to their adult overlords.

Anecdotally, I have been surprised in my experience of those who sowed their wild oats as teens or young adults only to later conform to the conservative expectations of their parents or socioeconomic group. I certainly don't have any data on what the statistical trends might be, but I have just found it fascinating that heavy drinking, dope smoking kids could turn into strict, conservative parents.

 

[Stevicus]

All the children you've known in your life must have been... remarkably similar to doormats. You definitely didn't know any kids that were close to landing in juvie or anything other than totally obedient to their adult overlords.

Legally, they're pretty much stuck. If the parents don't want their kid to get a blood transfusion for religious reasons, then the kid won't be getting a blood transfusion. Same with vaccines, homeschooling, even holidays. There are parents who have burned their kids alive because they thought they were possessed by Satan. And you're talking about juvie?

 

[PureX]

And my point would be, if we need to start working together as you suggest, it is imperative that we fully and scientifically understand human behavior and psychology, along with all the external factors that affect that behavior.

So ... we can CONTROL it better? The giraffe's neck is too long, so lets add a few more feet to it? Science is all about seeking more and more and more control. It's why so many people are so enamored with it that they have allowed it to replace their gods.

That would include superstition and its affects on individuals and society as a whole. It is not about assuming means other than superstition are better at achieving a stated goal, it is about asking the darn question in the first place. If you do not evaluate and explore your options you are not going to know if you have been working against your goal by maintaining the status quo. The better we understand what underlies fundamental behaviors the better able we shall be to evaluate these things.

I think we all know what underlies our damaging behaviors. Fear. The question is how do we choose to finally stop fighting it (and each other)? How do we face our fear of not being in control of our own destinies, or of the world around us harming us? How do we learn to accept that we are not gods, and work together instead of against each other, to help us deal with it? It's not a 'scientific' problem, and it's not going to have a scientific solution. All science does is feed our bottomless desire for more control. And for the illusion of it when we still don't have it. Just like a lot of religion does.

As an example, if each religious myth has the positive effect of binding adherents together and aids in cooperation among themselves, yet has the exact opposite effect between adherents of different religious myths, then you are at an impasse and will never reach your goal of all people working together for our collective well-being.

Religion has a lot of different effect on a lot of different people for a lot of different reasons. We need to isolate the good effects and support it, while revealing the bad and denouncing it.

The same issue might be said of Nationality. What then would be the solution? Does everyone need to adhere to the same religious myth? Are there non-religious ways to bind people together that are more easily adopted globally? What might they be and what would it take to implement them? These might be questions to ask and investigate as the current arrangement does not seem to be achieving the results you want.

This is not a religious problem, and it will not have a religious solution. Let's focus on the actual problem, and support anything that helps us to get past it.

 

[Stevicus]

Anecdotally, I have been surprised in my experience of those who sowed their wild oats as teens or young adults only to later conform to the conservative expectations of their parents or socioeconomic group. I certainly don't have any data on what the statistical trends might be, but I have just found it fascinating that heavy drinking, dope smoking kids could turn into strict, conservative parents.

It's a common trope in popular culture these days, the reformed former delinquents who became fine, upstanding citizens. The prison lifers forming "Scared Straight" is another example, rooted in the belief that yelling at children and verbally abusing them would scare them into becoming straight, law-abiding citizens. Another common example is the reformed former gangbanger who devotes their lives to helping youth stay away from gangs, giving them status, applause, and accolades that they never would have gotten if they had remained decent and honest all along.

 

[MikeF]

So ... we can CONTROL it better? The giraffe's neck is too long, so lets add a few more feet to it? Science is all about seeking more and more and more control. It's why so many people are so enamored with it that they have allowed it to replace their gods.

My dear PureX, you speak strongly and consistently about controlling selfishness, greed, fear, violence, willful ignorance and stupidity, and self-destruction. So yes, if one does not understand the source of these issues, one cannot adequately address them.

A scientific approach to understanding and solving problems is simply one that mitigates the inherent fallibilities in every human investigator. That's all that science means. So, in a discussion about understanding human behavior, it seems quite absurd for you to declare that a scientific approach to gaining that understanding of human behavior should be prohibited because it will result in the fiddling with the length of giraffe necks.

I think we all know what underlies our damaging behaviors. Fear. The question is how do we choose to finally stop fighting it (and each other)? How do we face our fear of not being in control of our own destinies, or of the world around us harming us? How do we learn to accept that we are not gods, and work together instead of against each other, to help us deal with it? It's not a 'scientific' problem, and it's not going to have a scientific solution. All science does is feed our bottomless desire for more control. And for the illusion of it when we still don't have it. Just like a lot of religion does.

You seem to be at cross purposes. You want to control fear without controlling it?

As to fear being the single thing that underlies our damaging behaviors, I have to disagree and emphasize that it is more complicated than that. At the core of all human behavior are unlearned instinctual and emotional behaviors. We can describe and label them in a variety of ways, but the main takeaway is that these various pre-wired behaviors are not expressed identically across all individuals. This means that we are pre-wired to be behaviorally unique within certain behavioral ranges. The differences are baked in, and will always be there from generation to generation. The goal then is how best to manage individuals with their own set of unique needs, wants, and desires in societies that grow ever larger and more complex, far surpassing the conditions to which the instinctual behaviors and emotions had evolved to meet.

Religion has a lot of different effect on a lot of different people for a lot of different reasons. We need to isolate the good effects and support it, while revealing the bad and denouncing it.

You want to double-down on an antiquated social management system that was born out of our ignorant past, rather than find more modern solutions that incorporate all that we have learned since then? You can't turn back the clock and have us revert to small bands of hunter/gatherers or nomadic tribes. We need solutions that are dynamic and adapt to ever changing societal conditions and our ever improved understanding.

This is not a religious problem, and it will not have a religious solution. Let's focus on the actual problem, and support anything that helps us to get past it.

What you are failing to acknowledge is the possibility that both religion and nationality create and exacerbate the same problem by triggering our instinctual desire to identify our in-group and distinguish it from that which is other. If we naturally extend cooperation within an in-group and withhold it from other, or not-us, those institutions and circumstances that trigger this behavior should be seen as counterproductive in reaching your stated goal of universal cooperation.

 

[PureX]

My dear PureX, you speak strongly and consistently about controlling selfishness, greed, fear, violence, willful ignorance and stupidity, and self-destruction. So yes, if one does not understand the source of these issues, one cannot adequately address them.

We know the source of these behaviors. We all want to be in control of our own fate, but we are not. So we are desperate to gain control of anything and everything that can effect our fate contrary to our desires.

A scientific approach to understanding and solving problems is simply one that mitigates the inherent fallibilities in every human investigator.

Science has done nothing to help us in this regard. If anything, it's made us worse by giving us the illusion that we are or can be in control of our own destiny by givingus ever an greater ability to manuipulate each other and the world around us. But all we ever do with it is try to control them to our own selfish advantage all the more-so.

You seem to be at cross purposes. You want to control fear without controlling it?

Yes, the solution is not to try and beat the fear with more and more control, but to accept it for wat it is, and let it be. And instead, to focus on working together to increase our collective well-being.

As to fear being the single thing that underlies our damaging behaviors, I have to disagree and emphasize that it is more complicated than that. At the core of all human behavior are unlearned instinctual and emotional behaviors.

If that were true, we would all be bio-robots and our fate would be sealed. But we aren't. We have choices that we can make. We can rise above those bio-instincts.

We can describe and label them in a variety of ways, but the main takeaway is that these various pre-wired behaviors are not expressed identically across all individuals. This means that we are pre-wired to be behaviorally unique within certain behavioral ranges. The differences are baked in, and will always be there from generation to generation. The goal then is how best to manage individuals with their own set of unique needs, wants, and desires in societies that grow ever larger and more complex, far surpassing the conditions to which the instinctual behaviors and emotions had evolved to meet.

None of this matters. What matters is that we can over-ride this bio-programming and make different choices for our future.

You want to double-down on an antiquated social management system that was born out of our ignorant past, rather than find more modern solutions that incorporate all that we have learned since then?

Why do you struggling to paint me in the worst light you can muster? I have not stated nor indicated any of that.

What you are failing to acknowledge is the possibility that both religion and nationality create and exacerbate the same problem by triggering our instinctual desire to identify our in-group and distinguish it from that which is other. If we naturally extend cooperation within an in-group and withhold it from other, or not-us, those institutions and circumstances that trigger this behavior should be seen as counterproductive in reaching your stated goal of universal cooperation.

Stop focusing on and blaming the symptoms, and start focusing on the real cause ... US. It's not religion, or politics, or commerce, or sociology, or culture,or even money; it's US. We are the problem. We are seeing and treating the whole world like it's a battleground populated by an army that's out to stop us from being the demigods that we so fervently want to be.

 

[MikeF]

We know the source of these behaviors. We all want to be in control of our own fate, but we are not. So we are desperate to gain control of anything and everything that can effect our fate contrary to our desires.

Science has done nothing to help us in this regard. If anything, it's made us worse by giving us the illusion that we are or can be in control of our own destiny by givingus ever an greater ability to manuipulate each other and the world around us. But all we ever do with it is try to control them to our own selfish advantage all the more-so.

Yes, the solution is not to try and beat the fear with more and more control, but to accept it for wat it is, and let it be. And instead, to focus on working together to increase our collective well-being.

If that were true, we would all be bio-robots and our fate would be sealed. But we aren't. We have choices that we can make. We can rise above those bio-instincts.

None of this matters. What matters is that we can over-ride this bio-programming and make different choices for our future.

Why do you struggling to paint me in the worst light you can muster? I have not stated nor indicated any of that.

Stop focusing on and blaming the symptoms, and start focusing on the real cause ... US. It's not religion, or politics, or commerce, or sociology, or culture,or even money; it's US. We are the problem. We are seeing and treating the whole world like it's a battleground populated by an army that's out to stop us from being the demigods that we so fervently want to be.

Of course it is us. That would be my point as well. I agree that we are not automatons that can only operate in accordance to fixed instructions, but by the same token, it doesn't mean that these underlying instincts can be entirely shut off or ignored to the point they have no influence whatsoever. Take the sex drive for example. The drive is always there during our reproductive years urging us to mate. We have the capacity to resist the urge, even become celibate, but it take conscious effort, and there has to be a reason to want to resist or restrain from the impulse.
Most everyone manages this adequately, but some small percentage do not. Even those who do manage it may still feel in conflict over it, especially in light of how they may have been socialized regarding the instinct.

Speaking of socialization, there are things we do that can exacerbate or play into underlying instincts like promoting and reinforcing racism, and there are things we can do to direct instinct to some positive use such as engaging empathy. So if we are stuck with these instincts and emotions, I suggest it is better to not ignore or discount them, but understand how they affect us and design social systems that utilize these instincts to advantage in meeting our goals as well as providing individuals successful and healthy strategies to moderate instincts that might have negative impacts to society.

 

[Copernicus]

Those attributes on your list are telling us why humans have been creating god-concepts and why they hold to and maintain them. The common element there is humanity. It's why most gods fit into a similar pattern conceptually. Humans need or want access to that 'higher power' that they believe they can influence to act on their behalf when they cannot do so for themselves. And this is the commonality of theism the world over, and throughout time.

Why some atheists are refusing to recognize this, is a mystery, unless they are just so beholding to their claims that gods don't exist because they are all so "different" that they simply cannot allow themselves to see how our gods are not really that different at all, in that they are all designed conceptually to fulfill the same purpose for humanity.

I was trying to explain the meaning of 'god' in terms of the concepts we associate it with, since meanings are essentially bundles of associated experiences that are more or less close to the core of linguistic usage, so not all of those attributes in my list pertain to every usage of the word 'god'. You run across the same problem when you try to define words like 'dog' and 'bird'--lots of properties associated with those concepts, but not every instance of a dog or bird species will possess all the attributes (e.g. that a bird must be able to fly, although there are flightless bird species).

The word 'god' is more fraught when you try to describe what it means, because there are so many different ideas about the nature of gods and what they do. Most gods are spiritual beings, but it is possible to have a godmen with real physical bodies. We associate omnipotence with the monotheistic God, but there are religions with lesser gods. Bodhisattvas are not defined as gods, but many Buddhists worship them and attribute godlike properties to them. Angels and demons can have godlike properties, but they aren't supposed to be considered even lesser deities. And different religious doctrines take various positions on whether there are lesser gods or angels and demons.

With all of that confusion, it is easy to simply walk away from it and say that the word 'god' is devoid of any meaning in the absence of some agreement on a specific usage of the word. However, every word has some ambiguity and vagueness associated with its meaning, so one might as well take the absurd position that no word in any language has meaning rather than acknowledge that meanings are very messy things determined by conventions of usage that shift around a lot. Definitions do not describe what a word means so much as point out some specific constellation of usage patterns. The actual meaning of a word gets lost sight of whenever people start arguing over specific word senses. English speakers know what the word 'god' means, because they talk about God and gods all the time, even those English speakers who deny that the word is coherent or meaningful.