There are individual differences. A percentage of the population is born with some defect (blind, deaf, etc.), and thus more likely to perish or be killed by predators. With thusly defective entities, it is difficult or impossible to judge whether they are equipped with the species-specific instincts not. Because when dogs get hit by cars, this is utter anthropomorphizing rocket science, yes. That depends on what one knows and what one wishes to accomplish in each interpersonal interaction.
This is a misinterpretation of the intended meaning of "innate behaviour". Natural selection works to remove unfit individuals, and at the same time selects fit individuals via natural predation. What you seem to be saying is that being equipped to escape from danger means if you don't, you weren't equipped after all, a false conclusion. And not because dogs aren't equipped with an innate ability to detect dangerous "human" objects? Then, yes, what you have is a case of misplaced anthropomorphism, something which by definition always is misplaced.
No, I concluded that in those cases, it's not clear whether the individual is equpped with adequate instinct or not. You said: And you believe that dogs should know as you do, that cars are dangerous. And horses should know the noise a bucket makes isn't dangerous, and nor is the bucket. You aren't anthropomorphising. O. K. If cars - or tigers, or falling rocks or whatever - can cause injury or death to a dog, then a dog would benefit from recognizing said car, tiger, rock, or whatever, and avoid it. That's not anthropomorphizing. But that's a tangent here. What's pertinent are your ideas about your claim that you are God and that everyone is God.
I would say dogs probably do have an innate fear of tigers and other top predators. As to whether dogs should have the same innate fear of cars, that would depend on dogs having the ability to reason as humans do (about cars being dangerous). So it would seem that evolution has not equipped dogs to avoid dangerous human objects. But a lot of animals seem to suffer from this "inadequacy", and become road-kill. Your claim that this somehow makes evolutionary instincts adequate or inadequate is based solely (it would seem) on you being human. Hence, you are in fact anthropomorphising. Perhaps you don't really understand what the word means? To you this is pertinent. What's pertinent to me though, is your anthropomorphisms along with your apparent inability to recognise them. Since arguably God is the "ultimate" anthropomorphism.
No, it applies to people who don't know or believe they are too. Instead, they might imagine God is this "being" somewhere (some undisclosed location) who talks to the odd prophet. An anthropomorphism.
You seem to be referring to a more pantheistic approach to deity, or panentheistic perhaps. Which is quite popular among people in my religion, or rather among those in paths related to it. Even among my fellow polytheists, the gods are seen just as much as forces of nature, intertwined and intermeshed with the universe, as they are entities with personalities. Most people who identify as neopagan, such as myself, are mystics. We approach deity with the goal of understanding ourselves and the universe through them, and vice versa. Directly experiencing the divine in order to grow as a person, spiritually or otherwise.
Unless one suffers an apotheosis all the Gods should be thought of as myths. One cannot follow a God unless it is here. All one can do is follow the laws and commandments the believer thinks came from his imaginary God. God then should be defined as the best known set of rules that the believer can come up with. The Godhead I know is real. I know of no other Gods. This gent has it about right but then falls into idol worship himself. [video=youtube;SkZg1ZflpJs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SkZg1ZflpJs[/video] Regards DL
