Might get some hate for this one
(imgflip.com)
Comments (25)
sorted by:
The presumption that the burden of proof was on the believer of God is false. I argue that it is the defacto state of human consciousness to seek out a higher power and the presumption of intelligence design was correct all along.
The burden of proof to disprove intelligent design was in the atheists court the whole time but they rejected the idea.
Now that Science is coming full circle don't flip script now.
you think you’re a god yet you’re still paying taxes to pedophiles, sounds like some wishful thinking to me but hey you do you
That’s the definition of self-deification.
That’s the definition of the word.
“Even the very hairs on your head are numbered” is from the Bible... sounds like a computer programmer to me working on the latest pixar.
Just because all you consume are kids movies, doesn’t mean everything is a kids movie or video game
Just because all you watch is porn doesn’t mean we’re all fucked.
I don’t think we’re all fucked.
OP believes in an old man in the sky who loves hom. LMAO
To be succinct, the idea that the Universe came about in either a completely scientific and rational manner or as the intentional and exact creation of a sentient being compatible with any popular religion, is the mother of all false dichotomies. For all we know, it might have been an accident spawned by some eldritch monstrosity that has since completely abandoned and forgotten about it.
If anything, the instinctive search and supposition of a creator of anything resembling humanoid sentience, is no different than what's called pareidolia - the penchant for seeing human faces in otherwise random objects. It's simply the first reaction in our own minds, since humans are social creatures to begin with - seeking out other humans tends to have advantages, even with a mechanism that's prone to false positives like that.
Respectively, this resulted in even the initial ideas of gods - beings of humanoid sentience, responsible for natural phenomena. Only even their number has dwindled considerably since the olden days. It's like the Face of Mars - the closer we got in exploring it, the less it looked like it was ever a face to begin with.
a) Universe; from U'NITY, noun [Latin unitas.] - "the state of being one; oneness". First consider your position as the ONE within ALL perceivable reality. Comprehending this represents self discernment; which only then allows to further discern about the ONEness of ALL aka EN'ERGY, noun [Greek; work.] - "internal or inherent power".
b) "came about" represents your consent to suggested creationism; which implies out of nothing. As ONE within ALL you ignore that you cannot perceive creation; only transmutation out of everything perceivable that already exists. Try it out...create a new thought without shaping it out of already perceivable inspiration.
Spawning implies form (life) out of flow (inception towards death). The source for all existence implies movement; hence energy (internal power). Reasoning about suggested labels (words) for perceived movement (sound) is what corrupts ones comprehension of being moved.
Not just sentience; but the choice to ignore need (sustenance of self) for want (temptation of seeking suggested outcomes). Comprehension needs to be grown within already perceived inspiration; while others suggest information to trick you to want to understand (standing under) it. Understanding suggested information implies ignoring perceived inspiration....understanding affixed meaning (words) ignores comprehension of ongoing meaning (sound).
Understanding suggested "insane person" tricks you to ignore perceived "in sanus" (within sound) and "per sonos" (by sound) aka being within and by sound; hence being response to sound aka choice of need (resonance) or choice of want (dissonance).
In other words, "The Tao that can be described, is not the true Tao." I can work with that.
Funnily enough, the very idea that the Universe "began" might not be so solidly based in scientific fact. The concept of the Big Bang depends on a particular understanding of the physics of light. Namely, that the speed of light is constant, and the observed Doppler effect - that light seems to redshift, or "slow down", the further its source from us is - is explained by these sources moving away - ergo, they were once far closer, down to a defined moment of beginning.
However, if light can slow down otherwise - perhaps as a property of spacetime itself - then redshifting would be a natural result of sheer traveled distance. And the Universe might thus be considered eternal, having no need for a designated moment of creation to begin with, let alone a creator.
"can be described" implies by those who grew comprehension of perceived inspiration. The issue stems from suggesting this as information towards others; which tempts those to ignore perceived inspiration for suggested information. What they ignore is to grow comprehension by themselves out of perceived.
The perceived Tao cannot be unlocked by accumulating information; it offers constant inspiration to allow each one within the ability to grow comprehension of it. Each of us needs to grow self; not trying to accumulate as much suggested information about nature as possible.
The Tao offers ALL to each ONE within as perceptible inspiration at every moment; yet comprehending what one perceives requires effort; struggle; resistance; adaptation; balancing by choice...it requires temporary growth (form) within ongoing loss (flow). Me describing all of this represents adaptation to perceived inspiration for me; yet the temptation of suggested information for you.
I cannot make the choice for you to choose perceived inspiration (need) over suggested information (want). Inspiration cannot be shared; since it's ALL already offered to each ONE within. It's suggested words like "Tao" that deceives us to collectively consent to an affixed brand; label; umbrella; idol for a system that describes itself by simply moving those within.
SCI'ENCE, noun [Latin scientia, from scio, to know.] from knowledge - "to perceive". What one perceives with ones senses represents the different consequences of being moved.
A system that moves doesn't offer those within to FACT, noun [Latin factum, from facio, to make or do] anything; only to respond to being done by everything moving.
Suggested science represents scientism aka being deceived to understand (standing under) the suggested information by others; while ignoring to grow comprehension (compressed within self) perceived (science) inspiration.
Those with eyes to see (those who resist the temptation to ignore perceived for suggested) can easily spot notices of liability (sleight of hands) by the parasitic few; such as science (to know) as the contradicting umbrella for all those in ignorance of perceived (knowledge) underneath it.
Take all the suggested information aside and question "the moment of beginning". Moment implies the ever changing moment (um) of ongoing flow; which is only perceivable by the temporary form within. Therefore; momentum implies being in-between (life) beginning (inception) and end (death).
Look at a sinus curvature...you can see the beginning and end of the temporary curvature (form); yet also the ongoing base line (flow). That's transmutation of form out of flow. Both beginning and end of one thing exist within the ongoing everything.
Question the difference between you being within the source of light; while perceiving it, and the movement required to differentiate you as the perceiving from the light as the perceivable? Velocity of flow has to be constant to sustain the momentum that hosts the temporary form within. All slow/fast perception implies as choice as the center of balance (momentum).
SPACE, noun [Latin spatium; spatior, to wander.] represent as form within flow; while time (tick; tick; tick...) represents the perceivable momentum of ongoing flow. Spacetime represents allegory for form within flow, and consenting to the word "spacetime" gives those suggesting it the power to define; redefine and contradict the meaning thereof at their will.
Everything the few suggest deceives the many from ignoring the perceived; like being form (life) within flow (inception towards death); which when comprehending implies self discernment.
Comprehending the eternal ONEness of ALL (energy) implies being the transient ONE within ALL.
a) the suggested creator not just deceives from perceived transmutation (shaping out of all); but also suggests a choice above the free will of choice required for ONE to shape out of ALL perceived.
b) alone represents another sleight of hand by the parasitic few...alone represents allegory for being ALL(in)ONE (energy). Meanwhile; the many who ignore this are being suggested togetherness under the umbrella of "unity"; while also ignoring that unitas - "the state of being one; oneness".
No, no.
They are VASTLY stupider than the average religious. But the mechanisms are certainly related, if not the same.
For example, believing that a virgin gave birth to a baby that could immediately speak, walk on water, and wish large quantities of booze into existence on a whim is far less stupid than simulationism.
Even those people that believe stuff like that, know it doesn't in any way happen today; but "once upon a time" in the age of myth.
If god wants it can anytime
You mean change the water to "party liquor rain"?
Yeah, I suppose they could - but they don't.
Ultimately there is only 1 truth, how it's interpreted is up to the user.
a) consent to want or not want any suggested -ism puts one under contract of those suggesting it and into conflict with all those who chose the opposite side.
b) SIMULA'TION, noun [French from Latin simulatio.] - "the act of feigning to be that which is not"...suggested information represents the simulation of perceived inspiration.
c) before the suggested word; comes the perceived sound; which makes suggesting words the act of feigning that which is not.