h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi Eddie

As I said I aspire to being an intellectual, I don't pretend to be one.

As you being sad and lonely I only have to point out how much time you (and I) spend here....

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Being sad and lonley, here, how?

Im happy that in H2G2 aside from making some real friends i can say htings and ask questions that if i did the same in RL then Id soon end up lonely for being that boring twit always on about the lack of any evidence of a link between teh physical world and alleged other realms, yada, yada, yadda. I think you are being deliberately wrong to be wry.

But what is this?
"I know that I am the March Hare at this particular tea party, but amongst the ramblings I am glad someone can occasionally discern a nugget of truth.


Tut tut,Math do not be so presumtuous, I have always seen you as honest, that doesnt necessarily mean to say that I think what you say is the truth.


one love

But being serious for a minute, I assume that you (Math) do think that atheism is sadder and lonelier than other...er...'paths'. Why so? OK, so I won't get to play with all my pals when I'm dead. Don't matter to me. I won't be there.

Hmm i dont jut think its the after life. Faithers have extra friends in this life too.

Im not sure if the spirits just live in the trees and rocks or are the spirits *of* the trees and rocks themselves, but thye "talk" to people like Math.

Now it would be easy to mock the level of conversation you might get chatting to a rock, but Im in no position to take the mikey, afterall I have conversations with SWL.

I have felt different when Ive been places where bearded robe wearers of diffferent persausions tellme i ought to feel things, but I come from a place that once had the worlds highest density of industrial buildings, I have Europes busiest road junction on my doorstep. Its hardly a surprise that when Im up a mountain with nothing but the sound of birds singing, brookes babbling and feral goats making goat noises Im going to feel different.

one love

>>"This includes those atheists who simply deny the truth of anything that has the faintest taint of the supernatural or superstition."

Rather, I think they deeply suspect the truth of things for which there is no apparent evidence.
If someone said there was a horse in their garden, I'd presume I'd be able to see it.
If they said there was a *supernatural* horse in their garden, I'd suspect that only they or a few like-minded individuals might be able to see it *unless* there was an actual horse there which they claimed had supernatural properties, in which case I'd suspect those *properties* would be less than evident.
From the mouths of some people, 'supernatural' really does translate as 'suspect'.

A superstition without any discernable underlying reason is almost by definition arbitrary, and can be followed or ignored on a whim - whatever makes one feel better.
However, given a superstition with some more or less identifiable or arguable foundation, it seems to make sense to explore it properly and see if the foundation might leads onto a better (expanded, contracted, different, possibly opposite) rule of behaviour.
Some superstitions could be positively negative - "Don't go in the woods to play, Johnny, there be evil spirits there! Go and play on the main road instead."

I agree with Blicky. Of course we *all* feel those same 'spiritual' emotions in 'sacred' places. Leafy glades are nice. Stonehenge is imposing. Churches are impressive. Mosques are contemplative. Etc. etc. etc. This is no surprise; all humans are biologically similar.

All I'm doubting is that these phenomena are anything to do with the supernatural. Yes, it does leave me with the problem of explaining how the faithful claim to *see* certain things that I don't. They might say that I fail to see them because of my closed mind. I politely suggest that autosuggestion and groupthink are common human traits and nothing particularly to be ashamed of.

There does seem to be a tacit assumption that we Atheists lack a 'spiritual' dimension: That we are willfuly failing to see certain wonders or admit to certain emotions. But I suggest that we *do* feel the same sorts of thing. We just don't call them 'spiritual' in the sense of 'to do with spirits'.

So what does it matter? They call it 'spirit', I call it 'biology'. It matters because when push comes to shove we have to be able to distingush between the actual and the imagined.

Spot on comment.

I get moaned at for being a reductionist and taking emotions etc down to the base chemical reasons i.e. why one loves someone, the feeling one gets when listening to certain music. It is as though people think yuo stop feeling the wonder when you reduce it down and just think of it as neural inputs and chemicals...not at all. Just because I understand why my physiology makes me react in a certain way it does not stop me feeling.

I know why and understand when I stub my toe I scream bloody murder but I it still hurts.

Therefore, knowing why I feel 'good' does not reduce the feeling. It, in fact, enhances it.

Feelings are not magic...when you find out how magic tricks are done most people are disappointed as the 'magic has gone'.

Not with feelings though.

Hi Eddie

Ah yes leafy glades - nice but not always spiritual. Though I do prefer them to concrete plazas in city centres I must admit.

Stonehenge is a badly reconstructed dump which turns, once a year, into Britain's largest neolithic rave house. I am afraid the hippies have reclaimed the old henge - so you won't see me thereabouts (too much temptation to smack their heads into the Heelstone).

Again with this redundant descriptor - supernatural. When will you get over it and move on? That I experience things that you don't when out and about in the less diminished places is no reflector on your 'spiritual emptiness' but more on my differently attuned perceptions.

And as for 'autosuggestion' and 'groupthink', well they are convenient pseudo-psychological put-downs aren't they?

I came very late to the 'druid-scene'. I practiced my own thing out on the land for the best part of thirty years before I even knew there were others as deluded as myself. To many I am a feral-druid - uneducated, except by what I have observed and experienced. Yet when I emerged I found many others who had had similar experiences as myself, although we had not had the same upbringing or cultural influences.

I am afraid we are not so easiy labelled and categorised as you would like us to be. We are theists, yet we accept science, even support it wholeheartedly. We are 'religious', but hold to no common or concrete doctrine, believing more in working with the truth. We are a community, but set no boundaries for our membership.

I wonder if atheists are so free?

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Hi all

What I don't understand is this need to believe in a god/gods. I think it is an absolute wonder that matter has become conscious of itself, as we humans demonstrate on this planet. I'm fully able to experience the pleasure of being in nature, the pleasure of love, and yes the pleasure of watching a football match.

I know the molecules of my body will feed back into the system when I die. And yes the loss of my consciousness scares me. But why oh why I should stick something called 'theism' onto what I feel and know?

>>Again with this redundant descriptor - supernatural. When will you get over it and move on?

Well - I have to say I'm struggling. When you refer to the River Severn as a god and tell me that blackthorn bushes have spirits...I'm confused as to whether you are refering to their supernatural properties or merely using self-aggrandising, obfuscatory terms to mean what we both understand to be 'a river' and 'a bush'.

Apologies for motoring on ahead when I haven't read the backlog, but:

<>

I see and feel nothing that suggests that there is any divine presence in my life - in that regard, I am believing *exactly* what I see and feel. And I'm not lonely - I'm in pretty good company, actually.

<>

Perhaps more so, if anything. Atheism isn't a religion, it's a lack thereof, and thus there are no criteria at all for membership. I presume that to be a druid one must have at least some beliefs or tenets in common with other druids, just as to be a Christian one generally shares at least some basic creeds with other Christians. There are no creeds in atheism - and thus no criteria. Anyone can really be an atheist, if they choose to call themselves such.

Hear, hear, EMR.

As usual, the voice of reason.



(a voice lost on one side of the discussion, of course.)



Honestly, I simply don't understand the theist argument(s). Correction: I simply don't understand the theist language. I recognize (most of) the words, but the meanings seem to be completely different. Or maybe the meanings keep shifting as the discussion progresses through the hours and days and years and centuries . . .

Hi Fanny

"What I don't understand is this need to believe in a god/gods."

There is no need to believe in a god/gods. (Waits for Edie to pick himself off the floor.)

However...you just knew there'd be a 'however' didn'tcha

However, what if you find one/them anyway? What if you experience things that have no scientific explanation, yet?

I am a cynical, hard-nosed and curious individual. It's probably why I am a professional quality manager. Yet I do experience these things and have spent 3/4 of my life seeking explanations for them.

As I have said before on numerous occasions I am willing to concede that I may be delusional, how would I know otherwise? But what If I am not...

Blessings,
Matholwch .

"However, what if you find one/them anyway? What if you experience things that have no scientific explanation, yet?"

Isn't the 'yet' a pretty key word in that sentence? If there was nothing that has no scientific explanation yet, there wouldn't be any scientific research happening in the world.

Hi Eddie

"Well - I have to say I'm struggling."

The natural human condition...

"When you refer to the River Severn as a god and tell me that blackthorn bushes have spirits...I'm confused as to whether you are refering to their supernatural properties or merely using self-aggrandising, obfuscatory terms to mean what we both understand to be 'a river' and 'a bush'."

You see the term 'supernatural' is your problem not mine. I find these things to be entirely natural.

A couple of points; Sabhrina is a Goddess and the Blackthorn are entities in their own right not mere 'spirits' as in 'spooks'.

I would like to know in what way parading my quite possibly delusional nature on a public forum, where 99% of the potential audience will think me a fringe nutter is self-aggrandising? I know what I look like, and it ain't always pretty.

The thing to consider is this, what do I have to gain from explaining my beliefs? I have no wish for followers, I don't need your money, and I am sure not going to get your respect holding the position I do. My own community thinks I am mad talking to you at all, they say I am wasting my time.

I have no special powers, I am not divinely blessed, I am just a man.

I am here because I have what I believe to be a few truths that are worth standing up for. And like all truths they must be tested.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Hi EMR

Always a pleasure to see you.

"I presume that to be a druid one must have at least some beliefs or tenets in common with other druids, just as to be a Christian one generally shares at least some basic creeds with other Christians. "

It is more a case of people who have found that their life experiences and researches have led them to similar places and conclusions. You will not find a common druid creed, and if someone offers you one they are a fraud.

This lack of a central doctrine is a key to the power of druidry. It frees its members to investigate and pursue truth without fear of being declared heretic. It also means getting any three druids to agree on anything is an absolute beggar.

It is said that one druid is a bore, two are an argument, three an almighty row, four a brawl and five or more a ceilidh.


Blessings,
Matholwch .

Hi KB

"Isn't the 'yet' a pretty key word in that sentence? If there was nothing that has no scientific explanation yet, there wouldn't be any scientific research happening in the world."

'Yet' is indeed the key word, well spotted.

Every day our scientists and mathematicians are pushing back the darkness and revealing things that only years before were considered to be fantasy. Take multiple realities as an example.

There is far more truth to reveal out there that we will ever see, ain't it great?

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Well, yes, scientists and mathematicians are indeed pushing back boundaries, and there's still much we don't understand. However, i'm sorry - but with the best will in the world I don't see how any insights are delivered by introspective druidry, no matter how talented the druid. I'm really not convinced that they have the sorts of inquisitive tools at their disposal that those engaged in purely rational enquiry have. And they fail to explain their methods, findings or anything else that they blither on about in any kind of language that I can understand. They require me to make a leap of faith - If I accept them at their word, I'll understand.

Anhaga nails it well:

>>Honestly, I simply don't understand the theist argument(s). Correction: I simply don't understand the theist language. I recognize (most of) the words, but the meanings seem to be completely different. Or maybe the meanings keep shifting as the discussion progresses through the hours and days and years and centuries . . .

And this is what I'm getting at with the self-aggrandisement and obfuscation. I have empirical knowledge, but they have some sort of 'deep understanding'. I see a bush, they see an 'entity' (Would that be a prickly entity with berries? Dunno.) I'm deeply suspicious. It sounds like this language is designed to separate them off in their own special world within which they can feel clever. They can set the parameters of the discussion and nothing can be gainsayed by non-initiates.

>>"You see the term 'supernatural' is your problem not mine. I find these things to be entirely natural.
A couple of points; Sabhrina is a Goddess and the Blackthorn are entities in their own right not mere 'spirits' as in 'spooks'."

To me, for something to be accepted as natural, it does first need to be shown to exist.

>>"It is more a case of people who have found that their life experiences and researches have led them to similar places and conclusions. You will not find a common druid creed, and if someone offers you one they are a fraud."

Still, presumably their life experiences don't give names to rivers?
If you take away the learned/cultural stuff, what is actually left - the *feeling* that there's something vaguely animate about a river?