How realistic is it really?

[Rokcet Scientist]

Covering your ears and going LALALALA will not change the obvious fascistic elements which have emerged in American society since WWII, Void. And the rich business criminal cocksuckers , who YOU champion, are the prime beneficiaries.

Amen.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, No, GC wants it, very badly presumably, but he wants it. The kind of myths people needed were myths that served to provide a point by point overview of some difficult task, like crop planning. Myths corresponding to plants, planting seasons, hunting trails or breeding habits were the backbone of "professional" education early on, and were the very foundations of later, more organized traditions. The faiths we're left with are bankrupt regarding practical know how. What pisses me off, is that the pagan revival faiths are into fucking magic and not nature....and there was so much potential. The things that religion offers today are wants and wishes, not needs or requirements.

(there we go, let some deity reveal an owners manual for earth..as it's designer he'd know it pretty well..then I'll be converted)

[Rokcet Scientist]

let some deity reveal an owners manual for earth..as it's designer he'd know it pretty well..then I'll be converted

Well, it is My Pleasure to reveal a few Earth owner's manuals to you here, Rhythm. So I must be God, right? And now you can be too! Isn't that great?

Try these for starters:
http://www.biblegateway.com/
http://quran.com/
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...n_Law.html
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archiv.../red-book/
http://www.theneworder.org/
Etc. etc.
(I'm an equal opportunity employer)
So take your pick. Plenty more where those came from.

Are you converted yet?

[The Grand Nudger]

Lol, not looking for ethnocentric ramblings (yes all of those). I want a power station design, efficient systems of water capture, movement, and conditioning. Food production systems with maximum possible yield and minimal input/impact. I want to know the working bits that will help us to survive into the far future. If a god wants my vote he's gonna have to put up or shut up.

(Since you did bring owners manuals on bigotry you get to be the god of bigotry.)

[Rokcet Scientist]

I want a power station design, efficient systems of water capture, movement, and conditioning. Food production systems with maximum possible yield and minimal input/impact. I want to know the working bits that will help us to survive into the far future.

So what are you doing here?
You oughta be in class.

[The Grand Nudger]

Heheh, I am working on all of that, right from my home.

[orogenicman]

More to the point, my paleontology professor from, the 1980s wrote in his memoirs:

"In the great classic, near eastern religions, man's life on earth is
conceived as pain and suffering, and an inheritance of man's fall from
grace (or Paradise Lost). According to these traditions, after man's
expulsion from paradise, because of his disobedience to his "God", man
alone could not recover his erstwhile innocence, even by striving to become
a superhuman of humility, submission, and kindness, etc., but only by an
intercession of a god, or God-man sacrifice, could man ever hope to regain
paradise, in another world, a spirit world. This "New Jerusalem" is a
concept which it contrary to the universal order of things which man's
science has inductively gleaned from the study of nature, and as such,
man's concept of morality is a product of his vision of the world and his
hope to regain lost innocence.

Man's concept of morality has most recently been connected with what he
conceived to be good (moral) and to be bad (immoral). Man's immorality has
been equated with "sin" in his apriori understanding: this idea of morality
has changed tremendously during his short tenure on earth. But contrarily,
what is moral in Nature? And has this natural morality altered through
time? "Truth" and "falsehood" are important ingredients in man's
consideration of morality, but truth may be defined, in the sense of
subjective truth with its definitions and criteria, differing from person
to person, institution to institution, place to place, and time to time.


Man is essentially incapable of committing "sin" beyond the magnitude of
the individual and collective sins, for the universe is independent of
mankind's hopes, fears, aspirations, and indeed, complete understanding,
past, present, and future. We may, however, admit a possible transient
misdemeanor in that man's efforts have had some deleterious effects on the
earth, and even possibly on parts of the solar system, but certainly this
can have little or no effect on the galaxy or the universe at large.
Further, the earth and sister planets and their satellites are almost
insignificant parts of our almost insignificant star system in an almost
insignificant galaxy, and in an almost infinitesimal speck in our universe
(be it cosmos or chaos matters not).


Man's paradigm of morality is religion based on axiomatic reasoning, not
subject to objective proof, personified as God, omnipotent throughout time
and space. According to this paradigm, Man need not strive to obtain
knowledge from any source other than religion for all is given by God;
submission to his God will make all known which man needs in his life, and
the rest on a "need to know basis" will be revealed to him in the after
world. This is a lazy system for man need not strive to find truth, but it
is handed down from above: All things are known to God and all man needs
to do is apply and follow these laws which are made known by individual
revelation from God to man.


Man's concept, and Nature's concept of reality and harmony differ in the
highest order. Man has accused his a priori deities of duplicity, for men
have always asked the question, "Why should good men suffer", and very
often the misery of good men is far greater than that of those who do not
conform to the highest criteria for goodness as defined by man's totomic
customs and religions. This question has been asked and answers have been
attempted ever since man realized his "selfness" and became an
introspective creature.


In the last analysis of the morality of Nature, we see no evidence of mercy
in the cosmos; its indifference extends to the lowest forms of life to that
of man. The cries of humanity, whether the suffering is imposed by man upon
himself or upon other men, or by natural laws operating independantly of
man, echo down the corridors of time and space and evoke no response from
indifferent Nature.


These anguished cries and pitiful prayers for help are merely cosmic
background "noise" to which Nature must (not out of evil intent, spite,
revenge, or punishment, but by necessity) turn a "deaf ear"; for were it
not so, Nature itself would be destroyed by these same laws which Nature
had ordained "in the beginning" (if there was one) and must continue to
operate in perpetuity (if
time and the universe are truly eternal), or there would be and ending to
the cosmic laws: a true "twilight of the gods", and of cosmic harmony,
Chaos never returning to Cosmos."
- James E. Conkin, Professor Emeritus, University of Louisville, 2002