First things first

[Whateverist]

Starting to lose me. Even if I concede that the universe is not "an entity"

It is not, period.

Looks like you can take the fundamentalist out of the church but you can't always get the fundamentalist stain out of the atheist. While your argument is succinct it is not convincing.

The universe is not set up like a human brain, planets are not neurons and galaxies are not organs and the universe is not a human body.

"Entity" implies cognition, whereas "things" and "objects" do not. The universe simply does, it does not require a cognition to do that. The universe is a thing, not a who.

So many assumptions, so little knowledge. You certainly make your little bit stretch a right far distance, have to give you that.

So you are quite sure that what we know now is all there is to know and all we will ever know. We don't yet understand how the cold dead molecules which make up our warm, squishy neurons add up to what we experience as consciousness but Professor Abba-cadabra (get it?) has made his ruling. The cold dead molecules of the cosmos could never amount to a hill of beans let alone entity-ness. So since Brian's brain can't wrap itself around any known examples of cold dead molecules giving rise to any alternative, that's it. End of discussion.

Anyone suggesting such si fi woo is on par with the ancient superstitions. Pantheism is as much superstition as any other.

You are stupidly falling for a gap trap, "We don't know everything" is allowing you to project your human qualities on the universe and the two are completely different.

I actually don't think the cosmos as such has any teleological purposes nor any means to carry them out nor any means to assess its progress. It would be woo in my book too to think that. The difference is I know that I don't know that and so I'm never going to come down on anyone who does wonder about such things with the faux certainty of a revivalist preacher. To mislead someone in this way is a moral failing. You shouldn't do it.

---

I think the last point just shows how different we are as people. I'm not going to question a persons beliefs, that is personal. If they have questions, I will answer if I can. If I know someone with an outrageous belief, that doesn't hurt anyone, I'll let them keep it. I might research for myself, but you can not convince someone to change their beliefs unless they want to.

Whatever woo--shit you're doing seems to be making you a pretty good person. So carry on, fellow human wanderer. Go forth in wonder and keep calling them as you see them .. or hang it up see if Brian will go on feeding you everything you'll ever need to know.

That's some pretty weird shit alright. Did it seem spiritual? I admit I don't use that word a lot.

Oh, and "woo" is something I only use in a derogatory way.

It seemed religious. I'm sure they felt it was spiritual, but I found it ritualistic.
It probably used used mostly that way, but try to say woooooooo while wiggling your eyebrows. Can you keep a straight face?

You make a good point. If you're not laughing enough, you're not doing it right.