RE: xmas
November 29, 2011 at 12:43 pm
(This post was last modified: November 29, 2011 at 12:50 pm by mayor of simpleton.)
(November 29, 2011 at 10:23 am)TheReal Wrote: Speaking of fairy tales, since we both believe in the Big Bang tell me: How exactly does light become conscious?
So... if I understand you correctly here, if one cannot answer this question of how did the "light" that was spit out from the Big Bang became "conscious", then we are let with no option but to throw away all research and empirical evidences we have gathered thus far and , due to your personal impatience, create a deity as a sort of one-size fits all trumps card out of the frustration over our limitiations to understand how such a phenomena can occur?
Is this not an act of creating a deity as a monument to our personal shortcommings and current status of ignorance?
Again...
If I cannot explain to you, in a short post here in this Forum, how Primordial Nucleosynthesis that occured between 100 seconds and 30 minutes after the Big Bang over the course of 12 to 14 billion years, then we should simply claim it to be a "God did it" and call it a day?
Your appeal to god is, in this case, no more than an appeal to convenience. Perhaps I cannot answer this questions as of yet, maybe never, but I do (atleast) have the good taste not to make a god out of everthing I'm not intelligent enough to understand, then insist that other follow behind me, like it or not.
What about that "eliminating ego" stuff you've been ranting about? Isn't this command of your's to simply give up all future study and blindly follow you and your deity of convenience, the deity here being a proxy of your ego and personal ignorance of how the universe came into being, simply egotistical and selfish?
Meow!
GREG
btw... what the hell does your protest against the Big Bang have to do with Christmas anyway?
Moral is as moral does and as moral wishes it all too be. - MoS
The absence of all empirical evidence for the necessity of intuitive X existing is evidence against the necessary empirical existence of intuitive X - MoS (variation of 180proof)
Athesim is not a system of belief, but rather a single answer to a single question. It is the designation applied by theists to those who do not share their assumption that a god/deity exists. - MoS
I am not one to attribute godlike qualities to things that I am unable to understand. I may never be in the position to understand certain things, but I am not about to create an anthropomorphic deity out of my short-commings. I wish not to errect a monument to my own personal ignorace and demand that others worship this proxy of ego. - MoS
The absence of all empirical evidence for the necessity of intuitive X existing is evidence against the necessary empirical existence of intuitive X - MoS (variation of 180proof)
Athesim is not a system of belief, but rather a single answer to a single question. It is the designation applied by theists to those who do not share their assumption that a god/deity exists. - MoS
I am not one to attribute godlike qualities to things that I am unable to understand. I may never be in the position to understand certain things, but I am not about to create an anthropomorphic deity out of my short-commings. I wish not to errect a monument to my own personal ignorace and demand that others worship this proxy of ego. - MoS
