Posts by Lisa Jackson7

Melissa Stewart6 said:The thing about anarcho-primitivists is they believe civilization is fundamentally broken—largely because humans don't actually control technology, they're controlled by it, just like he mentioned...

What seems like a great point to you feels terrifying to Zerzan, which is why he advocates for freedom from technology. Look, I’m not saying Zerzan is right—his vision isn't really practical anyway—but that doesn't mean his arguments aren't worth considering.

Look, society, tech, and the natural world are always bumping heads and messing with each other—it’s constant. Sometimes tech actually helps us out, but half the time? It’s just straight-up destructive.

You can't really take Zerzan seriously—I mean, sure, they probably threw out some interesting ideas about language and symbols, but that’s about it...

"Technology driving development" is such a load of crap—it’s like an ant trying to tell the world how to run things. It's just not realistic, and honestly, it never actually works out for the community as a whole.

Now this is actually interesting... THE HONEY BEE NETWORK: VOICES FROM GRASSROOTS INNOVATORS

Most one-size-fits-all fixes being cooked up for the "green revolution" zones? They aren't going to do squat for marginalized communities living in fragile environments. There’s basically zero organizational structure out there that actually pushes scientists to work alongside people developing tech with limited reach—it just doesn't exist. If we want tech development and rollout to actually mean something for disadvantaged communities and marginalized areas, international and national research orgs need a massive overhaul. Period.

You can't trust the market, the national channels, or any of those big international networks to actually link up global knowledge hubs. It’s a joke—they fail at connecting people in a way that lets local communities and individuals actually build their own solutions for whatever they need, regardless of where they are in the States.

Look, the Honey Bee Network—even with basically zero resources or experience—just proved that this kind of transformation actually works. Their whole model is about empowering people through sustainable tech development; it’s all about boosting income and survival tools by leveraging local knowledge. They do it through documentation, adding real value, experimenting, and just getting people talking about local innovations. It's legit.

Copyrighted article by Cultural Survival, Inc.

coastalwalker9 said:You aren't. They likely designed it that way on purpose, just to give people something to fiddle with while they sit at home doing nothing at all.😁

It’s not exactly funny though... I just got my e-Wallet from my boss and now it’s basically garbage.

I’m right there with you, Jose White11.

cosmicdriver42 said:It would be great if there were an afterlife after all this, but unfortunately, there isn't...

Just go out and make some biological—or "spiritual"—kids and you'll live forever... or just wait for this... CRYOGENIC SLEEP IS OUR BEST HOPE FOR INTERSTELLAR TRAVEL

Joseph Bailey41 said:Look, we’re in a discussion about spirituality, so I'm keeping the focus on the individual. Discussions about liberalization, secularism, or earthly versus celestial gods all carry their own specific subtexts. Sorry, but I really don't want to get sidetracked by off-topic tangents here.

I'm with you there—I'll stop myself right here... I was actually planning on starting a whole separate thread over on Philosophy anyway.

Joseph Bailey41 said:That isn't necessarily true, though. Some people find their own sense of direction within themselves. (The self shapes the ego, not the other way around.)

On an individual level, basically anything is possible... but even that has an expiration date.
I’m talking about big-picture historical shifts here.

We've seen some pretty ugly history when people start hunting for a "God on Earth" after massive failures during periods of secularization.

It looked like everyone learned their lesson back then—both the liberal secularists and the heads of religious institutions.

But man, people forget... fast.

"Quote"

wearyowl29 said:Every religion is essentially a cult because they deal with things that are sacred, lifting them out of the
profane world. Even the word "culture" itself implies something being nurtured.

So, what exactly is this "denied transcendent dimension" when it comes to spirituality?

Spirituality gives you everything anyway—ceremonies, rituals, whether you're doing them solo or in a group.
You set your own pace...
The thing spirituality *doesn't* give you—and honestly, it isn't even necessary—is the urge to influence others. You aren't trying to scare people with talk of demons or attempting to fix them through moral lecturing, acting like some sort of self-appointed social corrector.

At the end of the day, religions exist to keep people occupied by providing that sense of herd security, warmth, and identity. Primarily, it keeps them from having to face themselves, asking the hard questions... and making too much noise.

Religion always follows a structure of control, whereas spirituality doesn't. It's a fluid, personal process of growth that happens at its own speed.

Nobody is immune to reality. We are social animals, after all, and we're wired to be connected to everyone else by default. Sure, you could head out into the woods and be alone, but still.

Question... why do you always use the word "flock"—even when "community" would actually make sense in context?

I have no clue why you think religion would even exist for the reasons you're bringing up—honestly, that only makes sense if... totalitarianism—what a joke. People love to twist doctrine just to keep everyone in line—it’s basically just a tool for outside authorities to play cop and discipline whoever they want.

"Quote"

Religion is always about control—it’s all rigid structures and rules—but spirituality? That’s different. It’s fluid, it’s a personal journey of growth, and it happens at your own damn pace.

Look, you could call it self-control—like, having some actual internalized standards for how to act—which is pretty much a requirement if you want to actually function in society without being a total disaster.
Spirituality isn't about being in control—it’s about that whole process of personal growth, just like you said.

We honestly need both.

If you think religion isn't the starting point, then all you’ve got left for guidance is Caesar’s laws... and if that mindset takes over, the state starts grabbing the prerogatives of moral communities—instead of just managing a "flock," you end up with much tighter, much more suffocating control.

"Quote"

Nobody’s got an immunity to reality—we're social animals by design, wired to be connected to everything all the time. You want to escape? Go live in the middle of the woods alone.

I'm not talking about being a loner here, but if we're supposedly "social animals," then shouldn't that actually include things like "safety, warmth, and a sense of belonging"... or what?

"Quote"

wearyowl29 said:See, this urge to force everyone to follow a specific moral code isn't actually about spirituality; it’s just organized religion. Real, deep change always starts from within. Spirituality digs into our very core, whereas religion tends to scratch at the surface, trying to mold us into a cookie-cutter society.

So, shifting a mindset or raising consciousness begins with the individual first, and then ripples outward toward the community.

It’s all about personal vibration—think about frequency and energy, like what Elon Musk talks about regarding high-tech systems—rather than just vibrating along with the crowd stuck in a loop of sin, fear, and guilt.

Finding perfect balance is actually pretty tough sometimes! That's why people use a sort of mental switch: you're the polished, polite professional at the office, but once you walk through your front door, you can finally just be yourself.

For religious folks, that alignment is easier because the whole group is tuned to that exact same frequency. But for those of us who have moved past that? We can see clearly that we don't quite fit into that specific social rhythm anymore.

There’s no such thing as "private" morality—we all live in this massive moral field where everyone in the community is constantly rubbing off on each other.
If you want real change to actually stick, it’s gotta start from within—but let’s be real, if you don't have outside support to back it up, it isn't going anywhere.
We don't have to turn into the Borg just because of that.

"Quote"

Look, it’s simple—real change starts with the individual first, then hits the community level once that mindset actually shifts. It’s all about your personal vibration—think frequency, energy, that Tesla stuff—not just some mass vibrating in a set pattern sin, fear, guilt.

The influence works both ways... and when a community starts acting like a mob crushing the individual, you're looking at two things...

1. Way too many people in this group have totally checked out of their responsibility toward everyone else.

2. The pressure from the top brass (Caesar) has become overwhelming—sometimes manipulative, sometimes straight-up aggressive.

Sometimes balance is just impossible; that's why people use a switch—you play the polite, perfect little citizen at work, then you're finally yourself at home.

For religious folks, staying in sync is easier because society is basically tuned to that exact same frequency. But those who've drifted away? They can see they don't fit into that mold anymore.

There are switches, sure, but it's not just an ON-OFF thing—there are plenty of settings in between.

The real question is what frequency society is actually tuned to... It's easiest to just satisfy the optics, claim the old religious institutions are still "in charge," tie them back to Caesar, and say... "we're sticking to traditional values"... even while they rot from the inside.

Also... we don't just belong to one single circle; everything overlaps... there's no such thing as total isolation (unless, like you said, you head deep into the woods and never come out)... and there's no such thing as total belonging either.

wearyowl29 said:Every religion is essentially a cult because they deal with things that are sacred, lifting them out of the
profane world. Even the word "culture" itself implies something being nurtured.

So, what exactly is this "denied transcendent dimension" when it comes to spirituality?

Spirituality gives you everything anyway—ceremonies, rituals, whether you're doing them solo or in a group.
You set your own pace...
The thing spirituality *doesn't* give you—and honestly, it isn't even necessary—is the urge to influence others. You aren't trying to scare people with talk of demons or attempting to fix them through moral lecturing, acting like some sort of self-appointed social corrector.

At the end of the day, religions exist to keep people occupied by providing that sense of herd security, warmth, and identity. Primarily, it keeps them from having to face themselves, asking the hard questions... and making too much noise.

Religion always follows a structure of control, whereas spirituality doesn't. It's a fluid, personal process of growth that happens at its own speed.

Nobody is immune to reality. We are social animals, after all, and we're wired to be connected to everyone else by default. Sure, you could head out into the woods and be alone, but still.

I can't agree with that bold take at all... we're talking about a massive part of how a community builds its moral backbone... if the people in a community refuse to step up, then you'll just end up leaving a vacuum for a duo like Caesar and Mammon to fill.

What people in a community *can* and *should* do is find that sweet spot between personal space, family life, and the public sphere.
In a perfect world, those layers should be totally balanced.

Ignoring that responsibility is exactly why things are already falling apart.

Joseph Bailey41 said:

I honestly don't know what to make of this lately. It feels like we're all just drifting through these massive shifts without much of a compass. Sometimes I wonder if we're actually making progress, or if we're just running faster on a treadmill that’s going nowhere. It’s a lot to process, and I’m still trying to wrap my head around where we all land. kaže:
You're touching on a few different points here... While that sense of "simple connectivity" is definitely something we all crave, it feels like it only happens in fleeting moments in today's world. It’s hard to find, and even when you do, it varies so much from one person to the next.

I’ve been thinking a lot about the concept of connection lately. It shows up in so many different ways, of course—the bond between a rider and their horse is one thing, then you have marriage, close friendships, or even just being good neighbors. But at its core, when you look at any relationship between two distinct, independent individuals who are actually in sync, the essence remains the same: it’s all about cooperation.

I think we need to talk about how much our society prioritizes stuff over everything else. It feels like we’ve reached a point where being materialistic isn't just common—it's expected. We’re constantly told that if we aren't upgrading our phones or buying the latest gear, we're somehow falling behind. Honestly, it’s exhausting to keep up with. Does anyone else feel like we've lost sight of what actually matters in the pursuit of more? kaže:
It all comes down to individual sensibilities, I suppose, along with a whole host of other variables. But looking at where we stand now, traditional religions—Christianity, primarily—seem to have been pushed into a position where they're viewed as nothing more than an "upgrade," a relic of the past, or perhaps just some formal afterthought to this whole... concept.

Has Capitalism Become Our Religion?

I can mostly just hold onto the "leftovers" to keep things somewhat balanced—acting as a way to stay connected to where we've been and where we're headed.

If McCarahher is actually right, then nobody is truly "outside" of that religion in today's world—or at least, very few people manage to be.
I won't get too bogged down in the specifics of the book itself just yet. The author—who identifies as a Christian—touches on quite a few different themes, including what he calls "left-wing romanticism" as an alternative to the often controversial concept of "Christian socialism."

A key way to measure religion is by what you actually worship. Just because you use money doesn't mean you're serving it.

I think we need to talk about how much we've let our focus shift toward being purely materialistic. It feels like we're constantly chasing the next big thing just to feel some sense of progress, but it's leaving us pretty empty. Is it just me, or has capitalism become our religion? We spend all this energy accumulating stuff, thinking it'll finally make us happy, but it's just a cycle that never actually ends. I'm trying to be more intentional about what matters, but man, it's hard when everything around you is designed to make you want more. kaže:
To me, the ability to "transcend our materialistic reality" feels like one of the defining traits of being human. It’s baked into our DNA. You see it in everything from the first crude stone tools ever shaped to the way we carefully prepare a burial site, or even those ancient cave paintings and the very first words ever spoken. It's just part of who we are.

I’d mostly call it a reshaping of sorts. Though, I’m still a little torn when it comes to the language aspect. It certainly isn't materialistic.

I can't quite make sense of that last message. It looks like there might have been a typo or a bit of a glitch. Could you please clarify what you meant? I'm happy to jump back into the conversation once I know where we're headed! kaže:
Getting stuck in your own head feels like a problem that fluctuates—some days it’s an uphill battle, other days it's just a mild distraction. And honestly, looking at the sheer variety of religions, worldviews, and cultures out there, I don't think all that diversity necessarily leads to a "war of all against all."

I don't see it that way either. It's really just those who have an appetite for conflict who end up fighting.

If that's the case, then they've simply put it back where it belongs. 😉

In a high castle.
🙂

I get it—was just trying to say how it goes. For now. It’s still way too much—this whole thing is just wrapped up in some "stiff, semi-parasitic attachment."

Quincy:

Religion really comes down to one thing—who you actually worship. Just because you're using money doesn't mean you're serving it. Simple as that.

Too often, honestly... my precious !!!!

Quincy

If that's how it is, they just put her right back where she belongs. 😉

Nah, they’ve split things up that should've stayed together—the whole sphere of practice, ritual, and those "everyday activities" that actually mean something? It's gone off in some totally unknown direction. It just drifted way too far from the spiritual core and the "sacred."

The "sacred" space has to be filled with something—it’s been flooded with all kinds of junk lately (usually just radioactive idolatry waste)... nationalistic worship and pure greed... I think McCarthy is actually onto something there.

That’s a bit different from what Charles Taylor argues in "a Secular age"—that massive book about how society basically "unraveled" over the last few centuries through the whole secularization process.

Quincy

Up in some massive mansion. 🙂

Utility bills? Seriously?

neonmarlin39 said:I mean, it really just depends on how you look at it and how you define your terms. What you listed there isn't necessarily enough to call something a religion on its own, at least not technically speaking. If we're talking practical stuff, if a system hits one or more of those markers—like rituals, prayer, chanting, pilgrimages, or even idol worship—then yeah, you could call it a religion. From there, it can be anything from super institutionalized to totally individualistic. There are definitely spiritual paths out there that push back against all those traditional religious practices and don't bother with them at all (actually quite the opposite), though those types of systems are pretty rare. By those technical definitions, they wouldn't count as religions. You also see plenty of "spiritual" systems that distance themselves from organized religion—you actually see people like that on this forum all the time—but they still end up using clearly religious practices. At the end of the day, religion is defined by those traits, among plenty of others.

Let me give you a real-world example. In your book, is it "moral" to run experiments—the kind that are non-human and involve extreme pain or even death—on animals (or humans, if we're going there) if that experiment leads to a breakthrough that helps everyone else down the road?

I was trying to step outside of that "technical" box you mentioned—which I get is way too narrow for some people—but that doesn't mean I'm trying to lump everything together like religion, spirituality, ideology, culture, or worldviews into one big mess. That would just be too vague.

There are tons of examples of systems labeled as "spiritual" that distance themselves from organized religion—you see plenty of folks on this forum like that—yet they still lean heavily on clearly religious practices, making religion and spirituality pretty much indistinguishable by those markers.

Can you give me some actual examples? I haven't been hanging around this forum long enough...

A concrete example. In your opinion, is it moral to run experiments—say, non-human ones that are extremely painful or even fatal—on animals (or humans, where applicable) if it leads to a breakthrough that helps the majority in the future?

Personally, when it comes to people, it's absolutely not moral... but living creatures should probably have some kind of moral status depending on how complex they are. So, bacteria, fruit flies, or plants... the higher up the chain you go, the bigger the gray area gets.

Also, we should be ensuring they get the best treatment possible with minimal suffering, while looking for alternatives to experimentation whenever we can.

Joseph Bailey41 said:I’m honestly curious about what it actually feels like when you transcend. What's the weather like up there? You know, the atmospheric conditions, visibility, and all that stuff. Hopefully, it won't just be another Kiowa Warrior situation where things get messy. 🕺

wearyowl29 said:It’s simple: you fly, then you land. You need decent weather, sure, but really, you just close your eyes and go for it—meditate, visualize, manifest, conjure... whatever works!

If I remember right, both of you live out in the sticks, pretty close to nature...
😁

Joseph Bailey41 said:That’s exactly it... nobody and nothing exists "outside" because it's simply impossible. Everything that exists is defined by its relationship to something else. I don't think we're necessarily talking about that suffocating, almost parasitic kind of clinging—just basic interconnectedness. It's a concept that science, art, and spirituality can all weigh in on; it really just comes down to what resonates with you personally. For some, religion provides that framework for relating to other people, the world, and life itself. But that hasn't sat well with everyone for a long time, and you can't exactly turn back the clock on history. In my opinion, we don't need to try and transcend our physical reality; we just need to stop being stuck in our own mental trenches. We have to accept that there isn't one single, universal truth for everyone, other than the fact that we are all human.

You're hitting on several different points here... that "basic connectivity" is definitely the goal, but in today's world, it's pretty rare to actually feel that (on an individual level, at least).

It depends on how you see things, and there are definitely other factors at play... traditional religions—specifically Christianity—are basically sitting there as an "upgrade," a "relic," or just a "ceremonial add-on" to this whole thing...

The Wealth of Nations

... and as a "relic," they mostly just maintain a certain balance and act as a reminder of the past (and the future).

If McCarthy is right, then practically nobody is "outside" of this religion in the modern world, or maybe just a tiny handful of people.
I won't get too bogged down in the article/book itself, but the author (who's a Christian) covers a lot of ground, even touching on "left-wing romanticism" instead of—well, maybe a more compromised—"Christian socialism."

In my opinion, it's not about transcending material reality so much as getting out of our own heads—accepting that we don't all share one single truth, other than the fact that we're human.

To me, the ability to "transcend material reality" seems like a fundamental part of being human... from the first crudely carved stones and burial sites to cave paintings and the first spoken words...
Being "stuck in our own mental trenches" feels like a problem that fluctuates in difficulty... the existence of various religions, worldviews, and cultures doesn't necessarily lead to a "war of all against all" in my book.

wearyowl29 said:Religion and culture are both types of Cult; one reaches for transcendence while the other handles the grit of daily life. They intertwine so tightly they're practically siblings, kept alive by our innate need for social connection.

When religion provides that orientation, we end up with these eternal conflicts—internal struggles and external enemies. And political ideologies? They love that. They thrive by parasitizing those feelings of being under threat.

As for beliefs that go beyond the physical realm, there is spirituality, which is distinct from organized religion. Some religions have gotten way too full of themselves, thinking they hold the only monopoly on heaven.
Since spirituality isn't something you can just mass-produce or consume like a fast-food burger, it might actually be completely immune to Mammon and all the other distractions.

Not sure why you're calling them "cults," but yeah, they definitely overlap... just like transcendence and everyday life do.

When religion serves as an orientation...We’re stuck in this endless loop of internal and external enemies—and ideologues absolutely love it because they basically feed off that fear-mongering crap.

Not necessarily...

When you look at beliefs that go beyond this earthly plane, there's spirituality—which is different from organized religions that have somehow convinced themselves they're the only gatekeepers to heaven.
Since spirituality isn't something you can just consume on a mass scale, it might actually be totally immune to Mamone and whatever else is out there.

I don't see religiosity and spirituality as opposites... people who claim to be "spiritual but not religious" have just essentially denied the transcendent side of their own faith and shoved it all into the "spirituality" bucket instead.

The rest of the religious stuff is supposedly "covered" by the social contract... I'm skeptical, but hey, whatever floats your boat...

Also, just because some elite or individual consumes spirituality or culture doesn't mean they're safe from Mamone, Caesar, or whoever the hell the current idol is.

mistybison said:If we set aside the element of faith, then behavior and belonging are actually common traits found in any group or community, including this forum...

🙂

Spot on—you're getting pretty close to what I'm driving at...

Seriously, these three traits of being part of a community are universal—just like culture, which is everywhere. No group or individual is ever truly "outside" of it.

Religion and culture are "relatives"... religion provides the orientation and the standards for a community so its members can actually find their place or identity in the world.

Also, when is belief actually "set aside"... when do you stop "believing in God as a person"? That's a massive oversimplification.

Is it something that might "transcend earthly reality"?
That could just as easily be the power of the state or capital—basically Julius Caesar and Mammon stepping in after "God is dead" and the moral order collapses.

"The space of the sacred is never empty..."—not even in an age of total secularization... and certainly not in a space filled with idolatry.

Does art help? For some, yeah, sure.
Science? Less and less...

Joseph Bailey41 said:That's pretty rough.

But hey, if that kind of thing works for someone... who am I to judge?

Nobody is "outside," and sometimes one type of attachment acts as a counterweight to another—if nothing else, it lets us see those finer layers of the web.

Of course, when religion just becomes another tool in Caesar's kit, then things get really ugly...

Joseph Bailey41 said:That part about medicine makes sense, but it’s hard to imagine us needing "personalized" physics, math, or chemistry.

As for personalized religion, I've been an advocate for that for quite a while now. People should be free to choose whatever faith fits them best, design their own spiritual path, or just ignore the whole thing entirely. Just as our bodies aren't one-size-fits-all, our minds aren't either. There's really no sense in trying to force a single standard on everyone.

Yeah... it's not even necessary, what's the point...

When it comes to personalized religions, I've been an advocate for that for ages—let everyone pick whatever fits them best, design their own thing, or just ignore the whole mess entirely. Just like bodies aren't one-size-fits-all, minds aren't either, so there's zero sense in forcing one standard on everyone.

That might be spirituality or a worldview... religion and morality can't just be "private phenomena," even if certain faiths keep splintering off endlessly.

Belief, behavior, and belonging ("believe, behave, belong") are the core pillars of any religion...

goldenjackal6 said:The whole thing is a total mismatch. The title claims one thing, but the actual body of the text fails to provide even a shred of evidence or a solid argument to prove that science isn't the absolute final word on truth.

Look, we're just talking about whether the headline actually matches what's written... and honestly, they're saying the same thing.

As for proving things or making an argument... you can't exactly prove or debunk the idea that "Science is the only path to truth" using science itself.
It's basically just a worldview or some kind of pseudo-religion... which means the claim relies on having a specific belief system, not just raw data.

goldenjackal6 said:I’m guessing you did what you always do and stopped reading after the headline. 😁

Wrong assumption—seriously. Go ahead, point out one single part of the actual text that contradicts the title.

James Miller2 said:That is a cult. 😉

That’s a pretty broad take, unfortunately... it hides behind "science" while actually just tanking its own credibility.

We could easily call it a pseudo-religion... honestly, if you look at how religion, ideology, and worldviews overlap, it’s just part of the universal human experience—both for individuals and society—since the dawn of time.

bluemason3 said:Specific myths usually lean on pseudo-scientific or pseudo-historical claims that are easy to debunk.

The problem is, once those are stripped away, there isn't enough left to sustain a particular religion. None of them really stand on philosophical theism or pure metaphysics alone; they rely on a cluster of myths, paranormal claims, and beliefs in esoteric mechanisms.

Take Christianity, for example. It doesn't survive solely—or even primarily—on the idea that God exists, an idea shared by plenty of other faiths. The core is the Jesus myth: the sacrifice, salvation, esoteric initiation "mysteries," and those pseudo-scientific attempts to prove things through fake miracles (as I mentioned in a previous post about logical fallacies), and so on.

Even with the purely philosophical elements, I wouldn't say they're wrong, but I'd also argue their proponents can't claim they're definitely right.
It’s just one option among many, none of which carry a high statistical probability of being true.

The only way they work is if people frame those specific myths as scientific truth... otherwise—it's not just difficult, it's actually impossible... from a scientific standpoint.

If you try to dismantle a myth using the lens of another myth, though, then sure, anything goes.

Science is the only road to truth? Don't be absurd

Once you strip those away, there isn't enough left to sustain a specific religion—because none of them actually stand on philosophical theism or any other metaphysics; they all lean on a mess of myths, paranormal claims, and belief in esoteric mechanisms, etc.

Look, religions don't just base themselves on philosophical theism or whatever metaphysics you want to throw at them.

Take Christianity, for example—it doesn't survive solely, or even primarily, on the idea that God exists, which it shares with tons of other religions. The core is the Jesus's myth—the sacrifice, the salvation...

Exactly...

..., esoteric initiatory "mysteries," pseudo-scientific attempts at proof through fake miracles (like I mentioned in an earlier post about flawed reasoning) and so on.

It's just this messy blend of methodological naturalism and mystical experience...

bluemason3 said:It wasn't just scientism you brought up; you threw in a whole list of other labels.

To be fair, I'm not even sure about scientism myself—it depends on how you define it. Usually, it implies giving science more weight than it actually carries, using it outside its practical scope.
I don't want to overstate science; I just don't see anything else with more weight behind it.

As for the materialist reductionism that both you and Parsifal suggested, that's definitely not the case.
In areas where science simply can't provide answers, I'm an agnostic and a skeptic (in the strict sense of the words, not the casual way people use them as synonyms for atheism or materialism).
For instance, I've noted before that the idea of an intelligent first cause is a logically viable possibility, which means pure theism can neither be proven nor dismissed. Materialism or something else, (like Buddhism), are equally possible. We lack the tools to verify these metaphysical questions, so claiming to know the answer for certain is pointless.
On the flip side, I can confidently reject every single religious myth and dogmatic worldview I've looked into so far (Christianity, Buddhism, a few Hindu sects).
Among them, Buddhism is the most intellectually and epistemically resilient, but even it is full of holes and ultimately fails to hold up without blind faith and myth.

Generally speaking, there's a human tendency to force people into boxes. If you criticize one specific theology, people assume you must be an atheist. If you're an atheist, they assume you're a materialist—which probably also makes you pro-choice, pro-marijuana, a Democrat, and whatever other stereotypes they feel like piling on.
That's why, even here on this forum, people use association and forced categorization to launch projections and counter-projections, even regarding things I never even claimed (though this is classic Parsifal behavior among those who love to latch onto others).

I prefer to look at individual topics separately and try to avoid the trap of package deals and group identities.

Of course, this constant habit of reducing arguments to personal attacks on the interlocutor is also a sign of the problem. It shows a lack of ability to argue the actual topic, a lack of dialectical discipline, and a preference for propaganda over rational thought.
It's probably my own mistake for not ignoring every ad hominem attempt; occasionally I respond, which is really just a form of going off-topic.

Common sense. 🧐

That isn't actually the creed of scientism; it’s just the only way to establish objective truth. Scientism is essentially the worship of science as a religion, but that has nothing to do with what bluemason3 wrote.

In fact, many Christians have integrated scientism into their faith. You often see Christian "scientists" claiming they've "proven" something scientifically just to give their arguments more weight.

It's a classic ideological propaganda tactic—first, you attach negative connotations to specific terms (even if those associations are usually questionable at best), and then you try to link your "opponent" to those terms. It's a way to defame them through false associations without ever actually addressing the subject or the arguments at hand.

Just the usual religious games and emotional manipulation.

If we don't have the tools to verify metaphysical questions, then there's zero basis for "confidently rejecting" every individual religion or worldview.

You're contradicting yourself... you can't reject the big metaphysical questions entirely while claiming you can "reject specific myths"... Based on what?

People generally love to force labels on you. If you criticize one specific theology, people automatically assume you must be an atheist; if you're an atheist, they assume you're a materialist, and apparently, that also makes you pro-choice, pro-marijuana, pro-Democrat, and whatever other random stuff they want to bundle together.
That's why on this forum, people start projecting all kinds of things and then attacking those projections, even when I never claimed any of it (honestly, that's the classic move for the trolls who just want to latch onto someone).

I try to avoid those kinds of generalizations...

But...

Common sense 🧐

And "common sense" can rot too... it isn't infallible.

bluemason3 said:The only thing we can call objective knowledge is exact science. Everything else is just daydreaming, philosophical fluff, delusions, or general nonsense.

If science hasn't figured it out yet—meaning there isn't a solid consensus backed by hard evidence—then saying "nobody knows" is perfectly accurate. Beyond that, everything else is epistemologically shaky.

So now that you've ditched that whole scientism dogma, you're acting all offended like people are "pigeonholing" you by calling you a scientist.

Don't be ashamed of what you believe...