Posts by Lisa Jackson7

bluemason3 said:The tendency to defer to authority doesn't seem to be distributed evenly across the political spectrum; it’s definitely more pronounced on the right than on the left. That might be the only real differentiator. Other traits (like hostility toward outsiders or rigid convictions) tend to spike as you move toward either extreme, though they do lean a bit heavier toward the right.

I haven't come across a study specifically focused on religiousness yet (though I'm sure one exists), but given how religion functions and its general proximity to those authoritarian archetypes mentioned above, I'd bet there's a measurable higher inclination toward authority within religious circles—whether we're talking about earthly or divine power.

Speaking personally, if you really want to get into it (not that it matters much), back when I was more inclined toward faith, I was also more prone to respecting authority. Developing critical thinking skills and gaining life experience tends to erode both tendencies simultaneously. Anyway, glad you found a little pigeonhole for me. I don't have one myself. 🙄

The problem is, nobody can even agree on what actually counts as "authority" when you're looking at the left or right sides of the aisle.

For the left, the only version of "evil authority" is basically the classic model—some king, pope, or dictator screaming hysterically at a hypnotized crowd.

They don't see things like administrative bureaucracy, paternalistic "welfare state" policies, or technocracy as authority at all.

I haven't seen a study specifically on religiousness yet (though I bet one exists), but given how religion works and its general proximity to those authoritarian types we just talked about, I’d guess there's a measurably higher leaning toward authority in religion—whether it's earthly power or divine authority from Krishna or something.

There’s nothing inherent about religion that forces it into an authoritarian mold... there's also a humanistic model that works totally differently.

Personally speaking, when you were really into it (even if it doesn't matter now), back when I was more religious, I was definitely more inclined toward authority too—developing critical thinking and just living life tends to kill off both. And hey, glad you found a little box to put me in, but I don't have one myself. 🙄

Maybe you just had teachers who interpreted everything through an authoritarian lens.
I don't get why my attempt to break down your worldview into a few "-isms" makes you so defensive... they aren't insults, or at least I don't see them that way.

If someone wants to label me, fine, go ahead...

James Miller2 said:Just relax.

First, take a breath. Go back to your own post. Read it again. Analyze the impression you actually left. Then, connect the dots and explain exactly why my post hits just as hard as yours.

Your perception is one thing. Someone else's reality is quite another.

Which religion condemns those who disagree? 🤔

Faith doesn't actually accomplish anything. It is the people that get the work done.

What specifically turned you off from faith?
Science, people, or something else entirely?

Can you write it?

I am a traveler on the road. Constant motion defines my existence. I move through the landscape, observing the asphalt stretching toward the horizon. There is a certain stillness found in the transit itself. It is not about the destination. It is about the rhythm of the journey. says:
For most atheists out there, this just isn't true.

Atheists and theists—though if you ask me, we’re all believers in something—share a certain commonality. Earthly authority sits above all else.
For theists, there is a distinct advantage in being able to relativize and challenge that earthly power through absolute authority.

Atheists (for the most part) lack that recourse.

bluemason3 was once a believer and remains one at heart; he simply swapped faiths. Now he identifies as a positivist, a physicalist, a naturalist, a scientist... some sort of blend of those things.

When you speak of earthly authority, are you referring to the government, the Constitution, or the legal system?

From my perspective, an atheistic way of life appears meaningless, depressing, and aimless. This isn't an insult, just my perception.

Yeah.

From my point of view—and I’m not trying to be rude, just stating my take—living an atheist lifestyle seems pretty pointless, depressing, and aimless.

I'm not offended—honestly, faith used to just be something I did out of habit back in the day... but now, I'm a true Christian believer.

Since you were just sharing your own perspective, I don't think anyone should take it personally.

James Miller2 said:Regarding morality, such conclusions can only be drawn on your own behalf, not on behalf of all mankind.
Without religious communities, man would struggle to find a sense of how to distinguish good from evil.

Most faiths preach peace, love, community, and forgiveness.
These are instructions for a happier life. Fantasy develops when a person refuses to engage with the world around them and stays trapped within the bubble of their own ego.

And I ask that people who have never practiced faith do not write about it. Passive observers should stay silent.

Sopdet, a believer has an authority above themselves. Someone watching and recording every thought and action.

An atheist has no one but themselves. They are "responsible" only to themselves.
That is a very dangerous territory for the development of the human spirit and soul.

Thanks for the detailed explanation.

Have you ever been a believer? Have you actually experienced what you are writing about?

Stories about seeing believers do non-religious things are nothing but old wives' tales.
You can find people like that on both "sides."

I am interested in your personal experience if you have ever been involved in this.
Then we might actually have a constructive conversation. You could present the facts that troubled you or things that didn't make sense to you.

The way you view faith is so lifeless, hollow, and purely factual.
It is all ideology, psychology, and philosophy.

If you lack the personal experience of feeling even a small amount of faith, you will never truly understand it; it will always remain within the realm of fantasy to you.

It is a different matter if you tried it and found it didn't work, or if too much remained unclear to you.
Otherwise, further discussion from my end is pointless. It would just be a waste of your energy and mine, and our precious time.

Most atheists don't see it that way.

Both atheists and theists (who, let's face it, are all just believers in something) deal with some kind of earthly authority above them.
The lucky thing for theists is they can push back against those earthly powers by leaning on an absolute authority.

Atheists mostly can't do that.

Thanks for the deep dive.

Were you ever a believer? Have you actually felt what you're writing about?

bluemason3 was a believer and still is, technically—he just swapped faiths... now he's a positivist, a physicalist, a naturalist, a scientist... some mashup of all that.

coastalwalker9 said:Alright, thanks for hearing me out and having my back.
You’re right—maybe once I finally grab a day off and let my brain chill for a second, I’ll start seeing things differently.
Let’s just get through this absolute madness first, then we'll talk.👍

I caught a few of your posts over in the Spirituality and Religion section... please, don't bail on this forum... casualcanyon3 and Anthony Nguyen81 already said it all.

I’ve told a bunch of other users that I’m bummed they left, but for you? I’m gonna be straight up right now... honestly.

Jose White11 said:Elvis Presley is a textbook example of what's wrong with believers. Why? Because he can't admit that he's seen ABSOLUTE, undeniable proof that the Earth is round countless times under his own videos—and yet, despite knowing that proof is right there, he still insists the Earth is a flat disc. I just described this exact brand of intellectual dishonesty from an entire army of theologians in my post about the problem of evil. It's almost certain that nobody (not even our esteemed forum regular Daniel Chase13) is even going to attempt to answer my recent post, given how much those questions jump around.

Since it seems like all theists have basically thrown in the towel, we have to ask ourselves: what actually separates the majority of theists from someone like Elvis Presley when it comes to intellectual dishonesty?

It's not that atheists (the low-brow kind who claim things pop out of nothing) are any less intellectually dishonest than theists, but since I'm currently dissecting the dishonesty of theists, I'm throwing this challenge specifically at them!

Just a heads-up... absolute, undeniable proof only exists in math and logic. In English, there’s a massive distinction between "proof" and "evidence"—something that gets totally lost in translation elsewhere—and honestly, that lack of clarity just causes more confusion.

So you gave your take on the problem of evil, but didn't drop any "irrefutable proof"—and then you go and link it to whether the Earth is round by bringing up some "army of intellectually dishonest theologians"... seriously?
Which ones? Like, in general, or specifically here on this forum? Look, I’m no theologian or philosopher, and aside from maybe a couple of exceptions, I’m pretty damn sure we don't have anyone like that hanging out here.

Look, you’ve already answered the problem of evil—not with some dry theological lecture or a bunch of philosophical jargon, but just straight from the gut, intuitively... honestly, it's hard for me to even wrap my head around how anyone lives with such a bleak perspective as yours, if you actually believe it.

The "Flat Earth" thing isn't even worth trying to debunk... Elvis Presley is just talking nonsense—people already addressed that on the first page of this thread, including plenty of believers (myself included). So what, are we supposed to start running ads for him now?

Since it’s obvious all the theists have basically thrown in the towel at this point—I mean, really—we have to ask ourselves one thing: what actually sets the majority of these theists apart from Elvis Presley, if we're talking about pure intellectual dishonesty?

Look, I’m not saying atheists—you know, the low-rent kind who think everything just pops out of thin air—are any less intellectually dishonest than theists. But right now we’re looking at the dishonesty coming from the believers, so that’s my challenge to the theists!

Look, since you're out here throwing Dostoevsky around—and let's be real, the guy was a massive believer, just not in the way the Russian Orthodox Church of his era would have ever signed off on...—just stick to his actual quotes.

Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky

If you’re actually trying to get somewhere but start stopping every five minutes to throw rocks at every damn dog that barks at you—you're never gonna make it. Period.

A true realist—if they don't believe—will always find the grit and the willpower to reject a miracle. Even if a miracle hits them right in the face as an undeniable fact? They’ll doubt their own damn senses before they ever admit what actually happened.

It’s crazy how many people out there don't even think for themselves—they just coast through life living off everyone else's wisdom.

Look, just having brains isn't enough if you want to actually act smart—you need more than just logic.

Virtue doesn't even exist without immortality.

Look, the whole point of being alive isn't just breathing—it's knowing *why* you're doing it. Without some rock-solid reason to get out of bed, people would just give up on life entirely—they’d destroy themselves long before they ever left this earth, even if there was a buffet laid out for them everywhere they turned.

Nothing pulls at a person more than the freedom of their own conscience, but man, nothing is harder to carry either.

In my book, choosing to sacrifice your entire self for the sake of everyone else—doing it willingly, fully aware, and without being forced—is the ultimate sign of self-control and true free will. Only the most evolved kind of person can voluntarily lay down their life for the common good, stepping onto the cross or the pyre for the sake of all.

Until you actually become a brother to everyone, real brotherhood isn't happening. People are never going to be able to use science or any other fancy tools to divide up goods and rights without screwing each other over. It’ll always feel like someone’s getting shortchanged, and people will just keep grumbling and tearing each other apart.

Charles Thompson2 said:And what exactly is the Catholic consensus on Elvis Presley and his pseudo-Christian cult?

Marino Miletić: Self-proclaimed prophet Elvis Presley and the Flat Earth madness

There's really not much left to say about this mess...

Sisyphus is still stuck in his usual loop...

- Sisyphus - said:No matter how many times you keep spinning these webs of lies and making excuses, I'm just gonna lay out the facts.

- Sisyphus - said:You—along with most of those Catholic Church followers posting here or anywhere else—don't sound anything like it. You don't have a conscience, you aren't ashamed of anything; instead, you just muddy the waters, make excuses, and hunt for some "loophole" to downplay the horrors that actually happened.

Chris Myers said:Just drop some examples right here so the supermods can actually see them—you gotta realize the forum mods don't have all day to dig through every single post every damn day.

Following @Intermezzo's advice, I'm dropping the link to that Philosophy thread...

...plus there are other posts over in the Psychology section, specifically in that locked thread , and then some stuff in Religion from earlier this year over at

Chris Myers said:Just drop some examples here so the supermods can take a look—you gotta realize the forum admins don't have enough free time to comb through every single thread every day.

Fine, whatever... I'll get to it once I'm actually free.

feralranger said:I’m just stating the facts here. KC believers have been systematically covering up crimes—there were very, very, very, very few exceptions—and the whole thing only flipped once the mainstream media finally stepped in.

What? Believers in KC? Everyone... Which ones got their initiation sacraments at KC?

"Somewhat more devout" believers? You mean the people who show up to church maybe a couple times a year?

"Even more" devout? You mean the ones whose families are tight with certain priests—or even the ones who are personally buddies with them?

Are they... everyone You religious types... Just some laypeople.So they were just shuffling priests who abused kids around to different parishes? Seriously?

So you’re basically accusing me of being a hypocrite? Because I was actually involved in my local parish life—and like, "above average" at that?
I didn't catch that in how you write—not like I'd actually ask for or expect it to be the same—but why the hell are you so obsessed with pointing fingers? everyone Catholic believers?

I just said "the king is a fraud" and "something's rotten in the state of Denmark."

That’s what a lot of people around here have been saying—Catholics and non-Catholics alike—including me.

Nah, you’re out here acting like a total Stalinist executioner—basically saying, "if you can't prove you're innocent, you're guilty." Real classy.
Look, I get that this whole inquisitorial vibe was a thing back in the day, but seriously—can we just drop it already?

Look, this wasn't just some random cover-up here and there—it was systematic. The KC faithful were actively burying these crimes. If even 1% of them had actually spoken up, this wouldn't have spiraled out of control. It’s that whole religious mindset where everyone just decides to "pray about it, forgive and forget, and leave it to Jesus"—which really just means doing absolutely nothing. It's messed up. We all know the fallout.

Some people... just can't help themselves. Religious folks have been systematically covering up the crimes within the KC—I wouldn't even call them believers at this point. If they’re acting like that—and we’re talking mostly about the KC hierarchy and priests here—then they’ve straight-up trampled over the Bible and wiped their feet all over it.

You can only really speak up if you actually know what kind of crimes we're talking about—and I’m pretty damn sure about this one, since it's not exactly some minor bullshit... I mean, unless someone wants to tell me I'm wrong, people weren't exactly throwing wild parties in the middle of Mass.

This whole "devout" mindset—where people think being religious just means "let's pray, forgive everything, and sing songs to Jesus"—is such a joke. It’s not even how actual Christians who actually bother reading the Bible operate. They actually follow them.... and I already gave you the proof for that.

It’s just that classic mentality—blindly following authority and acting like they can never be wrong... Idolatry—it’s all just pure idolatry.So, anyway...

Look, we're talking about a massive issue here—but it’s not some religious thing. It’s about the actual social conditions in a country, which basically boils down to its cultural and political baggage.
The centralized hierarchy at the KC is a massive burden—but only because it makes it so damn easy to cover up crimes. It’s not like most believers are just quietly nodding along to everything that happens... if that were true, it would basically mean they don't give a damn about their own kids' futures.

What even defines a "typical" Catholic to you? You just declared it a "fact" out of nowhere... probably because it fits your little narrative perfectly.

Chris Myers said:That guy is already on my ignore list*. You guys should probably do the same. ☕

(*I only ever see his stuff when I'm reviewing PDFs for moderation work—mostly just because it's my job to keep things orderly)

Could be, but hiddenhound3 pointed out why a lot of people on the ignore list still show up in threads... and honestly, I’m totally with her description of how feralranger acts. Nothing more to add there.

One more thing... would you (or any other mod) suggest blocking someone who writes off an entire nation as a bunch of lowlifes just because a few government officials committed horrific crimes? Or even worse—someone who identifies with that nation and gets personally attacked on the forum as if they were covering up atrocities, or "downplaying" them, simply because they identify as an American, a Mexican, or a Canadian? Just because of their heritage.

Just an example... look at the conflicts we had back in the 90s here in the States.

If that kind of rhetoric was allowed to spiral indefinitely on a topic like that, what would this place turn into?
Into pure hate speech in its worst form... and from what I know, that's strictly forbidden around here; people get flagged and banned for that stuff for good reason.

If anyone thinks I'm playing favorites, let me be clear: I'd want the same rules applied to someone calling all atheists immoral parasites, or someone attacking an atheist on this forum for "downplaying" atheist actions.

As for my views on crimes against children or anyone else—and the need to punish and stop criminals from hiding—I've said my piece before. I've tried to provide explanations (not excuses!) for such horrors.

So, I'm asking the mods to penalize feralranger for this kind of posting. Because if that isn't hate speech, then I really don't know what is.

Also, don't let his praise for Pope Francis or certain "decent priests" fool anyone.
What does it matter if he thinks the vast majority of believers—specifically Catholics—are total moral bottom-feeders?

I’m asking the mods to take a look at Sisyphus—this guy jumps at every single chance to bring up religion or the Catholic Church just to accuse people of "downplaying crimes against children" committed within the Church, regardless of where in the world they happened.

He won't back down, even when people try to clear things up—I know I've tried personally—by explicitly condemning those exact crimes... but apparently, in his twisted logic, being a member of the Catholic Church makes you automatically responsible for every crime some priest commits, especially when it comes to cover-ups.

It’s the exact same kind of warped reasoning used by someone like Andrew Visinski, that infamous Soviet prosecutor who carried out Stalinist purges.

My heart goes out to his family... may he rest in peace.

We really need to face facts about how our troops are getting pulled into these wars—conflicts where nobody actually walks away with a "clean" win in the end.

Vietnam War : What could peace look like?

Nicole James said:So, here we go again—yet another misguided ideology built on the flawed assumption that "the common good" can just be defined by a government decree.

Nah, it's not about decrees... it's actually about how you go about building consensus around the core issues facing a community.

The truth is—and plenty of authoritarian leaders have leaned into this too (in their own twisted way)—communitarianism is often used to push things like those "Asian values" tropes.

Just one example from an American perspective... The Forgotten Communitarian - Why Bill Clinton's contributions to restoring the language of civic obligation so regularly and casually overlooked?

vividfox9 said:Communitarianism...?!

Does anyone have a more straightforward definition for this term?

My bad—was typing too fast there—it should've been communitarianism...

Basically, I think this sums up the whole idea pretty well...

Communitarianism

To me, communitarianism is just an attempt to bridge the gap between individualism and collectivism.

Rachel Price6 said:People need a revolution to actually find their footing. We’re overdue for an aesthetic and industrial overhaul—something that's been brewing for decades and is basically why our society turned out this way.
Are we just circling back to some kind of mob rule? Capitalism and communism have both turned us into insects.
One side exploits you, the other tries to control you. We need to invent something that bridges the gap between individualism and collectivism. I haven't quite figured out what that looks like yet.

The concept of communitarianism has been around forever... it's about respecting individual rights while balancing them with community duties—basically building and recognizing shared goals.

jaderaven7 said:I live in the "big world," and reading your post makes me want to list a dozen examples of how senseless human existence has become. We rush through life without any real stimulation because we've been numbed by a constant bombardment of nonsense, losing almost everything that actually makes us human. And then, after spending a fortune on research, we "discover" that socializing is good, that kids need both a mom and a dad, that having grandparents around isn't a bad thing, that helping aging parents is important, or that helping a neighbor in need is just normal behavior...
We celebrate high mobility, workforce adaptability, speed, and efficiency. People sprint from job to job just to secure a future for their kids, and in that race, they forget to spend time with the very people they are running for. In this scramble, anything goes—there are no fouls, only those who are faster and craftier. Because the social component is totally missing, we're raising generations that lack the ability to form real friendships or romantic bonds—they're emotionally handicapped, which leads directly to things like mass school shootings happening "out of nowhere." We're raising generations of ignoramuses because they're getting their "knowledge" and social skills from social media feeds.

Exactly... you wrote that post in a burst of emotion, and that’s exactly how it hit me. 👍

A few days ago, I was talking to this guy—super educated, really bright—who ended up homeless after his perfectly fine life just fell apart... it was a heavy situation, a total family tragedy.

He’s living out of a beat-up car on the outskirts of town, near some orchards and vacation homes. He gets help from neighbors, but he’s actually the one helping others—fixing things, mowing lawns, trimming trees. He’s incredibly grateful for every little thing, even just a quick chat.

He told me over and over: hold onto your family, that’s the main thing, everything else is temporary... don't you dare take them for granted.
Get the kids off their phones and away from social media... just be present with them and get outdoors with friends. This guy was literally finding designer clothes and shoes in the trash... man, there are so many people out there who just don't know what they have until it's gone.

Really makes you think...

Brian Gray5 said:And while we’re on the subject, what’s your take on the typical profile of Trump's voters?

Man, those Pentecostals... shabba yabba dabba doo... 😁

Look, they—at least the ones in the room—are just projecting their own story onto Trump. To them, he’s been "born again," guided by a biblical David or whatever... even if his actual behavior gives them absolutely zero reason to believe that. It doesn't matter to them.

But let's not kid ourselves—they aren't the only type of people voting for him. Basically, any "globalization loser" in the USA is a potential Trump voter.

Can someone actually explain why Elvis Presley is such a massive threat to society?

I mean, there are way more dangerous lies floating around the public square anyway.

Daniel Chase13 said:Exactly.

God is perfect—perfect love, perfect goodness, and perfect truth.

Originally, before the first couple, Adam and Eve, fell into sin, a perfectly good God didn't create a world defined by physical death, disharmony among creatures, pain, infections, or disease. There was no struggle for survival, no "survival of the fittest" where one species thrives at the expense of another (in the beginning, there was no such hierarchy), and no natural disasters. This current version of the world—this broken reality—was never His intention.

In the Book of Genesis, chapter 1, it keeps repeating... "And God saw that it was good."

It was good, sure—but not "perfect" in the way you're describing.

Otherwise, Adam and Eve wouldn't have had the chance to sin in the first place.