The Aeon of Science | Forum

Satanism, meanwhile, can survive quite well in a climate of rationality, science, materialism, and atheism, because it doesn't reject any of those, and in fact endorses them all. Its use of ritual is a deliberate counterpoint to all four principles, a release of the pressure valves, paradoxically strengthening the principles by providing a temporary escape from them, while giving free rein to those areas of existence where the principles have limited relevance: the appetites and passions.

I don't really give a fuck about hearing them sing about "letting the Sun shine in" one more time, but it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Aeon of Agriculture -  8000 BCE to 3500 BCE 

 First domestication of plants and animals by seasonally nomadic groups. 

Theologically myths were oratory and incorporated their environment. The animals to kill were provided by the whatever sky based superstition they had.  Worth noting is the Sahara and Arabian deserts were still grassland when the first domestication occurred. 

Signature Mode of Attainment :  Kindred practical superstition

Aeon of Commerce -  3200 BCE to 500 BCE 

After the Sahara and Arabian deserts dried up you had people in the desert belt settled along rivers. Mainly The Tigris and Nile. Once semi-nomadic agrarian folk had to share the only water. This Aeon includes the advent of cuneiform as a means to track commercial transactions and itemize receipts.  

Theologically the Aeon is ruled by a pantheon of carried over sky based things, now written about explicitly, but still serving same role of explanating bad hunting seasons. 

Towards the end of this Aeon monoaltry (like Ba'al) paved the way to a singular god.

Signature Mode of Attainment : ceremonial nondual polytheism 

Aeon of Abraham: 500 BCE to 1900 CE 

Starting well before 500, but coming into form with monotheist preference is The Aeon of Abraham. This is when the sky spirits became global policy. Books like the Torah gave rise to the use manipulative texts for territory acquisition and foreign affairs.  

In this Aeon theology became more authoritive and personalized. The precepts of absolute duality were born. A singular god, and a dismantling of more carnal ways. 

By 300 CE the monotheistic western world was set. 

This Aeon was a reversion. Advancements of the Hellenistic era were cast aside with polytheism and society became holier than thou. There wasn't a euthyphro dilemma after the god became absolute under penalty of death.  

This Aeon was truly the dark ages. 

Signature Mode of Attainment :  Repressive dualist monotheism 

Aeon of Science 1800 - Present  

This one could have started with DiVinci, or just have been a continuation of the commercial polytheism aeon. But the Vatican and Protestant church liked killing heretics so it was repressed maliciously. 

I start it with the industrial revolution and incorporation of mechanized technology. The scientific advances slowly suffocated the voices of clergy proclaiming blasphemy on knowledge. 

The current Aeon is as much the undoing of the last as much as that was the undoing of the previous. 

Signature Mode of Attainment :  nondual atheism 

Humanity knew intuitively that there was more to reality than what they could see with the naked eye. There were invisible factors at work. Books and priests purported to be portals into the invisible realm, but lo and behold, the true portals were products of the glassmaker.

Pretending to contribute to threads won't help you now, dipshit. You blew your cover with your stupid "watch me delete myself from the time line" stunt. There's no longer any question as to whether you're a troll. The jury has rendered its verdict.

Through what lens could we eventually discern that organizing principle? 

I agree though, the "need to see it" works both ways and could just as easily be used to  supress knowledge.  

The real difference I see is one likes being wrong, one doesn't. 

I can't handle this non-ammendable shit that refuses to drop extraneous placeholders and pull their head out of their specious logic. 

You see it with these "religious" accounts.  They might as well all be saying, "Lalalala, I refuse to hear anything except my narrow bias world view and refuse to accept anything that says I might be wrong". 

That's how human inventions like language and counting methods end up incontrovertible gifts to decode divinity. Troll or not its a very real tendency. The "Bible Code" (Equal letter distancing matrixes) are believed for the same bias and idiotic reasons. And good luck to those who try to point out exactly why they're uncritical idiots.  

Zach or Baphomets, will you make this the featured video since there's no 600 club anymore to keep it posted on the front page? 

But yes, the words were cool too.

For example, if you were outdoors at 3AM and looked up at the full moon, only to notice colossal words had been carved on its face, and those words said, "I AM" - would that suffice? (Not for me.)

I have to see it. It doesn't get the pass gravitational waves got through inferred existence and indirect data.  (Thanks LIGO!)

One could invoke the Proto-chicken and argue the physical and entropic laws of this universe itself are evidence of divinity and prior cause, but even that falls apart in the realm of causeless phenomenon, like spontaneous little ripples in a scaler field.  

The title of the article says it all, but at least the causeless is probable...

Yet the more they learn, the more prior cause looks superfluous. 

Quote from Wolfie I often like to pose the question: What evidence would suffice for you to believe in a Supreme Being of any kind?

For me nothing would suffice to make me a theist, because anything I can detect with my senses or instruments isn't God, and anything I can't detect with my senses or instruments isn't objectively real. This paradox makes theism impossible for me.

A super-colossal mouth in outer space, eating stars like jelly beans? Not God, because to know of the mouth's existence we would have had to detect it with our senses or instruments, which means the ultimate difference between it and ourselves is one of degree, not kind. It's not God, it's just big.

A postulated first cause, of which all we can detect with our senses or instruments is the effect? Not objectively real, because by definition it can't be detected with our senses or instruments, since all we can detect with our senses or instruments would be its effect.

The objectively real in its totality simply is, without need of explanation. Only its particulars require explanation, like moons and moths and mud pies.

A word means nothing without its' accompanying definition, and a mundane definition for "God" is the very reason why some would call themselves a deist as opposed to a "theist".

I suppose my belief is somewhat the opposite here, and that's okay. If the things I observe every day are not God(per my definition) nor evidence of it, then I don't what is, or could be.

In actuality, "real" only becomes what we are familiar with and accustomed to. Real is only what you see at the surface. It's superficial; it's an illusion, and the truth is much deeper than that. IMMHO.