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

I wouldn't say we are born atheists. I for one was in no situation to make metaphysical assertions at the age of say, six months. Later you hear it, it never really connected with me. Later, you understand it. I think it's at that point that one can really make the choice.

RDO painted a picture of ignored cats in cages, all pent up and unable to get out, look around or meet anybody. It's a sad picture, but as an analogy doesn't resemble monotheism at all.
We're not forbidden to meet anyone, and can discuss with them their experiences - in fact we're encouraged to. That doesn't mean we're going to accept someone else's experience as valid for us, and fall gratefully into their arms - we're not lonely or neglected at all!
Neither are we isolated, treated cruelly, harshly and beaten and starved.

Surely in this case, the cat's interaction with humanity is meant to be humanity's interaction with gods.

So although you may find out about them, you wouldn't actually, say, pray to Allah, would you?

So to continue the example, although the cat might see other people in the distance, it'd never be able to up and snuggle around their legs, as it were.

<>
But in my analogy, or my picture if you like, she wouldn't want to snuggle their legs, though she could greet them... She has her human, and is content with that. (Cats, unlike dogs, who are not as intelligent) are not promiscuously affectionate - as a cat person, and sharer of many cats in my lifetime, I am aware of that.)

Sorry to disappoint you della english is my native tongue,and have only lived abroad for less than two percent of my life.But have lived with Cats for seventy five percent

(Cats, unlike dogs, who are not as intelligent) are not promiscuously affectionate

depends on what you term intelligent cats are distrustfull by nature they also can be devious, this will include promiscuously affectionate
behaveiour, with the ulterior motive of scent marking,dogs on the other hand prefer to trust first and move around in packs for safety letting strongest lead unlike cats who live a solitary or close knit life.
A lot of what we class as intelligent behavior in our "pets"is only transfered instinct suriveal tools.

Greet perhaps, but not be able to interact with.

Is it ethical to keep someone in slavery because they don't want to be freer?

Tangential point, not meant to be a reaction to (though it was a thought arising from) your post, Della.

I have a problem, Roadkill, with your word 'slavery'. What makes you think that's the appropriate way to regard following God?
(I've heard Randists, as in Ayn, say that, but then they say that about anything they don't like. )

"<>
It's not like that at all!"


Frankly, there are two problems with my attempted cat metaphor for monotheism. First of all, a better anaology would be a "cat lady" who has dozens of cats in their house, but who never lets them meet any other humans. They contact many cats, but no other humans, like people who contact many other people, but only one god.

The real problem, though, is that the cat metaphor is a polytheistic metaphor. It only makes sence if there are multiple gods. After all, a world with one person and many cats makes little sence. Since the metaphor is slanted towards polytheism, it doesn't really make sence to describe a monotheistic worldview in terms of it. On the other hand, my second cat metaphor for monotheism describes the actions of a monotheistic god in a polytheistic universe (ie Jehovah if he is really one of many gods but won't admit it).

"<>
No, that hasn't been my experience at all! I was interested in learning about God/faith etc., long before I was five years old, and I asked my (then) non-Christian parents for advice...
LTP, I gather you are not a native English speaker - sometimes I find you quite hard to understand, because of your syntax - sorry..."

I'd say we're all born agnostics, but don't stay that way. No infant can be aware of the world's religions, or comprehend a deity (especially yours, Della--omnipotence and omniscience are pretty difficult concepts). In order to understand the world, we form our own theories or accept others'. We want explanations, so we don't usually stay agnostics; but we are born that way.

"We're not forbidden to meet anyone, and can discuss with them their experiences - in fact we're encouraged to. That doesn't mean we're going to accept someone else's experience as valid for us, and fall gratefully into their arms - we're not lonely or neglected at all!"

But you are kept from contact with other gods, if they exist. You're told that they are either nonexistant, or, as parts of the Old Testament seem to say, they are real, but you will be punished for associating with them.



"Neither are we isolated, treated cruelly, harshly and beaten and starved."

I don't know about that. Allowing evil into the world and condemning people to eternal tourture for not believing very sketchy evidence fit some people's idea of being treated cruelly or harshly. And ejection from paradise and causing death to exist might qualify as a divine beating.

I don't recall saying anything about starving them!!!

I think cats are a bad anonlogy for humanities relationship with their (fictional) gods or actual religions, because the're cats and we are humans.

more intelligent than , oh please. Who's standards are we using to judge that? Dogs are very good at dog things and cats are very good at cat things. You may as well say architects are smarter than dieticians.

All these comparissons are flawed because the anology will not work across the divide in capabilities and skills needed by architects/dieticians, /, humans/animals.

Ofcourse we cant really know today if we are born atheist or not as we are surrounded by people who try to influence us, accidentaly influence us and a world of literature and songs that carry references to faitj and religion. What is certain is that people who believe tend to believe more readily. I think it is a genuine human dispostion to be a believer or sceptic. There is a difference either behaviourally or even possibly physically in the brain between the two and no amount of evidence or evangilising can sway someone who is one to being the other.

Put a beleiver in a Hindu village and they will grow up Hindu, put a non beleiver in a sun worshiping culture and they will learn to keep their trap shut and enjoy the feast days. In modern Western society we have more freedom to follow our own path atheists like me can say what we want without fear of losing our jobs or home and being chased out of the hamlet. Believers can pop into town and buy what ever bunch of new age stuff takes thier fancy or go with one of the established churches. Anglicans can switch to catholic when they dont like the ordination of women. Belief has no rules only a need to find something to believe in.

Della,

The slavery example wasn't meant to be a dig at monotheism, which is why I put this:

"Tangential point, not meant to be a reaction to (though it was a thought arising from) your post, Della."

after it .

I think Blicky's right to say that some people are temperamentaly (sp?) inclined to belief, and others to scepticism, but this divide doesn't fall strictly along religious/irreligious lines because of other factors such as tolerance/intolerance of uncertainty, temporal lobe excitability (activity in the temporal lobe seems to be associated with things like a sense of "presence"), and others, all of which seem to have some genetic basis, and some environmental modification.

And as Roadkill said, some of us are brought up with religion, but it just doesn't get a grip on us, others are brought up without but are still susceptible. (All this without any prejudging of any Truths that there may be, BTW).

For the average atheist (and many agnostics) God is not a possible being who happens not to exist. He is a being for whose existence there is no logical space in the scheme of things.

Less sure of the polytheistic gods, as some polytheists view them as being within the laws of nature, and not "supernatural". Although if this is true there should be, in principle at least, some way of testing their existence empirically.

Noggin

Grey. So I must do it once again! The empirical evidence is that the material world exists. It is not infinitely old, therefore it had a beginning and so a cause. Clearly it was not a material cause, therefore it must have been an immaterial cause. Further considerations suggest a personal cause. Some call that 'God'.

toxx

That is assuming that we are correct in our thinking of how the universe "worked" in the distant past and that all the presently observable principles that govern it aloowed for what we see as causality now. things may have been different to what we can ascertain *now*. One explanantion of how things may have happened is the bigG theory, but putting the bigG where humanity cant see whats happening is an old cop-out that has been refuted time and again.

My view is that it would be very hasty and rash to jump to that conclusion once again no matter how logical it seemed. Afterall it must have sounded logical every other time it was proposed as an explanation, for the origin of species, why the sky was blue, why people die, why the seasons change, why the crops have failed.......

blicky,

I don't think toxx specifically means 'bigG' when he refers to 'God'.

az

az

Nice to see you.

Jez - who doesn't like the cat analogy, preferring to see the gods and wights as friends - or at least acquaintances of long-standing.

Badge. <...putting the bigG where humanity cant see whats happening is an old cop-out that has been refuted time and again.>

It's a point that has been raised time and again. If it has been refuted, please say how. Do you actually have a better hypothesis of the origin of the material universe?

toxx

It hasn't been *refuted*, per se, though reasons have been given as to why it may well not be a meaningful question. It all depends on what you mean by *material universe*, of course, but I won't say more for the moment. Let people think about it. It took me about three years, so if anyone comes up with the answer in the next post, I'm not talking to them again.

Now *there's* an incentive.

Noggin

marking..


Literal god/s = fact of fiction

Tangible god/s = fiction

Spiritual god/s = fiction