Posts by bluemason3

David Vaughn75 said:So, what happens if you’ve gone through three or four different wives in your lifetime—which one actually gets to go to paradise with you?

None of them. You go there with the sirens and the honey wine. 🧐

Unless you were a total jerk, though. 😁

I follow her, but I don't even bother watching those video clips.

It’s actually more fascinating to watch just how far human stupidity can go. 🤣

I think I'm in the majority 🧐

Joseph Bailey41 said:That's how Americans played games with things in Vietnam. They didn't exactly love the outcome.

But that's exactly why Manson was successful 🤣

goldenjackal6 said:Evolution is actually pretty brilliant, which is exactly why high IQ shows up so frequently among psychopaths.

Using the word "normal" is really just a synonym for whatever trait most people happen to have. It doesn't mean something is inherently "good" when you step back and look at the big picture or try to plan long-term.

Affective empathy is only one side of the coin; the other is cognitive empathy. And honestly, depending on the situation, sometimes being driven by emotion works, and sometimes being rational is the move. Usually, being rational is the better bet.

Another non sequitur.

It's also just incorrect. At most, you could argue the link between Intel and psychopathy isn't fully settled since research results vary, but meta-analyses actually point toward a negative correlation—psychopaths tend to be less intelligent than the general population average.

It’s mostly a myth born from media tropes and some early theoretical speculation that lacks any real research backing.

goldenjackal6 said:Evolution is actually pretty brilliant, which is exactly why high IQ shows up so frequently among psychopaths.

Using the word "normal" is really just a synonym for whatever trait most people happen to have. It doesn't mean something is inherently "good" when you step back and look at the big picture or try to plan long-term.

Affective empathy is only one side of the coin; the other is cognitive empathy. And honestly, depending on the situation, sometimes being driven by emotion works, and sometimes being rational is the move. Usually, being rational is the better bet.

Once again, this has nothing to do with what you were responding to.😁

goldenjackal6 said:You’ve gotta remember that most of the research on psychopathy is done on inmates in state prisons. It’s incredibly hard to spot functional psychopaths in the wild—most regular people wouldn't even realize they're dealing with one, and honestly, a lot of them don't even know they fit the profile themselves.

That’s completely beside the point here. Psychopathy is defined by a lack of affective empathy and a lack of "normal" emotional connections with others—essentially just having a different kind of emotional life, not an absence of feeling altogether. That isn't part of either the theoretical construct or the diagnostic criteria (which, granted, aren't standardized since psychopathy itself isn't included in official medical diagnostic manuals, though certain traits have been profiled as dominant in research).

goldenjackal6 said:Psychopathy is basically a disorder where a person's brain functions totally differently when it comes to spontaneous emotional reactions.

Let me break it down: in neurotypical (non-psychopathic) people, the centers responsible for generating specific emotions send signals to other parts of the brain whether they want to or not. But in a psychopath, there's this "switch" that stays stuck in the "off" position by default—especially when dealing with anxiety-spectrum emotions triggered by stress.

There are pros and cons to that. For instance, psychopaths are practically immune to PTSD and can be incredibly high-functioning in high-pressure situations (basically, they stay extremely cool under fire). On the flip side, they can become absolute monsters if they were raised in a dysfunctional environment, which is unfortunately the extreme version we see most often in Hollywood movies. Because of that, "psychopath" is probably one of the most stigmatized terms today. In reality, most psychopaths are perfectly functional people who just seem a little "off" if you observe them closely; they aren't out there fantasizing about murder or anything crazy like people imagine when they hear the word. If you think about it, Mr. Spock and Tuvok are essentially highly functional psychopaths because they suppress emotions entirely and think purely through logic—that’s the definition.

Common sense can substitute for any spontaneous emotional function; you don't need to be gripped by fear to recognize a threat and react appropriately.

Besides, emotions are a double-edged sword. When you're terrified, you stop thinking straight and end up doing something moronic, like running away from a lion. That's the dumbest move ever, because turning your back and presenting an easy target to a predator is basically just telling them you're an easy meal.

I disagree. At an analytical level, data processing is just too slow, making that kind of reaction highly inefficient. In many environments—especially those we were evolutionarily exposed to for much longer—the speed of an instinctive reaction offers enough of an advantage to outweigh errors in judgment. It’s better to jump at a twig in the dark out of pure instinct than to get bitten by a snake while you're still busy analyzing what it was.

The few examples we see of people whose affective or instinctive functions are impaired while their rational ones remain intact haven't exactly turned out well. They end up completely dysfunctional, even in a modern urban setting.
We simply don't have the cognitive bandwidth to make every single daily decision based purely on reason; if we did, society would grind to a halt.

goldenjackal6 said:Psychopathy is basically a disorder where a person's brain functions totally differently when it comes to spontaneous emotional reactions.

Let me break it down: in neurotypical (non-psychopathic) people, the centers responsible for generating specific emotions send signals to other parts of the brain whether they want to or not. But in a psychopath, there's this "switch" that stays stuck in the "off" position by default—especially when dealing with anxiety-spectrum emotions triggered by stress.

There are pros and cons to that. For instance, psychopaths are practically immune to PTSD and can be incredibly high-functioning in high-pressure situations (basically, they stay extremely cool under fire). On the flip side, they can become absolute monsters if they were raised in a dysfunctional environment, which is unfortunately the extreme version we see most often in Hollywood movies. Because of that, "psychopath" is probably one of the most stigmatized terms today. In reality, most psychopaths are perfectly functional people who just seem a little "off" if you observe them closely; they aren't out there fantasizing about murder or anything crazy like people imagine when they hear the word. If you think about it, Mr. Spock and Tuvok are essentially highly functional psychopaths because they suppress emotions entirely and think purely through logic—that’s the definition.

Common sense can substitute for any spontaneous emotional function; you don't need to be gripped by fear to recognize a threat and react appropriately.

Besides, emotions are a double-edged sword. When you're terrified, you stop thinking straight and end up doing something moronic, like running away from a lion. That's the dumbest move ever, because turning your back and presenting an easy target to a predator is basically just telling them you're an easy meal.

I don't know. Theoretically, the construct of psychopathy implies low anxiety and low stress, as well as low empathy, but if I recall correctly, it doesn't mean immunity to anger or other feelings. Rather, one of the subtypes of psychopathy (which is more or less analogous to antisocial personality disorder, if I'm not mistaken) is characterized by poor impulse control.

It’s probably a good thing he never messed with psychedelics 🤣

Thomas Nelson25 said:Fear, mostly.

A guy like that would be more than ready for Valhalla

That sounds pretty foolish and counterproductive to me. Fear exists for a reason; having too little of it is just as dysfunctional as having too much.

It’s better to stay stone-cold calm when a lion is attacking you.😁

Priests overcomplicate things. They’re always chasing after some nonsensical unicorns and trying to manifest these naive, impossible fantasy projections about what should or shouldn't happen.😁

The whole point of a hallucination is how convincing it feels; you can't tell it apart from reality. So, just because someone subjectively feels like something is real, it doesn't actually mean anything.

On the flip side, every religion comes loaded with these claims about mystical insights or what happens after death. But funny enough, those specific religious concepts always seem to perfectly align with that particular cultural and religious background.

It’s the same deal with spiritual experiences. In my own experimentation with different faiths, I noticed those experiences just adapted to whatever "movie" was playing at the time.

Objective reality, however, doesn't shift just because your worldview changes.

We have zero evidence for these religious narratives outside of someone's subjective experience—or a lie. On the other hand, we do have evidence for hallucinations: how they are shaped by an individual's mental framework, their susceptibility to suggestion, how they can be triggered by the exact same methods used by religious contemplatives, and the fact that people experiencing them (or perhaps delusions) simply cannot distinguish them from reality.

I'm not saying this implies madness; that isn't a medical term anyway. Anyone can experience hallucinations in certain situations, though some mental health conditions might make them much more frequent.

All things considered, based on what we know right now, a hallucination or a lie is a far more probable explanation and a more logical conclusion than religious faith in their reality.

You either lie, lose your mind, or end up with a brainwashed perspective that treats hallucinations like they're some profound truth.

I’ll use Buddhism as my example here, mainly because it’s probably the most rational one—there's just less to argue about.

Sure, it comes with a whole catalog of myths, but you can toss those aside without any trouble and still call yourself a Buddhist. For instance, I could doubt whether (Gautama)Buddha actually existed physically, or question the various mythological tales and local cultural elements that have layered on over time.
No one is going to argue that you can't still identify as a Buddhist, whereas for about 99% of Christian denominations, it’s practically impossible to be a Christian if you start doubting Jesus, baptism, Bible stories, or prayer.

However, at the same time, you can't just discard the idea of karma and reincarnation—the metaphysical transfer of ethical consequences beyond a single lifetime—if you want to maintain the integrity of that specific religious metaphysics. If you strip that away, all you’re left with is modern Western secular Buddhism, and I’m honestly not sure that should even be called by that name.

Similarly, some ancient schools of Buddhist logic actually advocate for an epistemology that closely mirrors the scientific method (rejecting authority and texts as primary instruments of knowledge), though they then perform all sorts of philosophical acrobatics to force the scriptures, Buddha's authority, and "mystical insights" back into the equation.

I still can't completely rule out the possibility that karma and reincarnation exist, but I can reject all the arguments and epistemological foundations used to try and prove they definitely do. And if those foundations fail, everything else comes into question.

Even if it turned out one day that they were right, they still wouldn't be *right*. In that scenario, them being correct would just be a pure fluke—a total cosmic accident—rather than actual knowledge, since they lack the epistemology required to provide solid reasons for believing they have any insight beyond mere blind faith.

Generally speaking, my reason for rejecting certain religions is always fundamentally epistemological rather than metaphysical. If their epistemology is unsatisfying, there's no point in wasting time. On the flip side, if they had a sound epistemological basis, then the likelihood of all their other ideas being accurate would naturally increase. Unfortunately, none of them do.

Lisa Jackson7 said: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.

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.

Lisa Jackson7 said: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...

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.

goldenjackal6 said:A cult of what?

Look, it isn't about some "creed of scientism"—it's literally just the only way to actually pin down objective truth. Scientism is basically just worshipping science as a deity, which has nothing to do with what bluemason3 was getting at.

Actually, if you look closely, plenty of Christians have baked scientism right into their religion. You see it all the time where these "Christian scientists" claim they've "proven" something through science just to give their religious arguments a little extra punch.

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.

hollowpuma762 said:Honestly, if you don't know your philosophy from a hole in the wall and you're already swallowing whatever ideology is being spoon-fed to you, I guess that's the kind of impression you're gonna get.

When you lose common sense to sectarian indoctrination, you end up fantasizing about "truths" that aren't actually there.

James Miller2 said:My view of faith doesn't primarily revolve around sects or organized religion. It isn't about that sort of thing.
Even if I weren't Catholic—if I were from some other faith or even an atheist—I would still arrive at the same conclusion. God exists. Regardless of what people choose to call Him these days.

Do you know anyone in your area who has converted?

That feels like a bit of a non sequitur, if you ask me. 🤔

I mean, cultists will be cultists.

hollowpuma762 said:And honestly, this whole argument is a total wash.

Someone's personal take on what "counts" as knowledge—using their own subjective value system as if it were some universal yardstick for reality—doesn't hold water. They're trying to define what can or can't be known based on their own narrow view, acting like it's an objective truth when it's really just one person's opinion. You can't claim "knowledge" is just a matter of belief, because if you actually *know* something, it isn't just a belief anymore; it's fact. To suggest otherwise is just circular nonsense.
It’s completely nonsensical.

Intellectual blindness, fueled by subversive ideologies and conditioned idiocy, is a constant hurdle for both individuals and society at large.

If you've got the capacity, you'll find a way to dig deeper and figure things out.
If you don't, well, just keep swallowing whatever they shove down your throat.

It's just Deleuzian self-defense through sloppy pseudo-philosophy.

hollowpuma762 said:Look, if you can't possibly know what everyone else already knows, then the whole statement is just plain nonsense.

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.

casualmoose82 said:Before Jesus died on the cross, he said, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit."

So where does the soul fit in there?

Maybe check with an American Catholic theologian.😁

Joseph Bailey41 said:You're trying to Distort things. If you look at most faiths, the entire reason and purpose for a human being's existence—just like everything else—really boils down to two words: God's will.

So, it’s not like you were trying to rule or control material reality or anything like that. God willed it, and you don't get a vote. How you choose to deal with that is entirely up to you.

While some argue Prabhupada was influenced by Christianity regarding the idea of the "fall," (more so than traditional Vaishnavism), it's questionable how much of it is actually Christian. And it certainly isn't universal.

As for mainstream Christians, the pre-existence of the soul is rejected (Origen), and God creates the soul (in Protestant views, parents create it, not God) along with the body. It doesn't exist beforehand to choose to fall because of certain desires. The fall itself is conditioned by original sin and passed down from parents (in both versions of soul creation—whether Divine or parental), rather than being a result of a decision, karma, or the desires of a soul in a non-existent pre-existence.

In Prabhupada's cosmology, however, souls pre-exist in the spiritual world in their eternal, natural relationship with Krishna, from which they fall into a conditioned material birth and subsequent karmic entanglement.
Of course, this isn't a universal view, not even among theistic religions, nor even all Gaudiya Vaishnavas to whom he belongs—many traditional Gaudyas (who are outside and precede the Gaudiya Math and its successors like ISKCON, though I'm not even sure if the GM necessarily shares Prabhupada's views here, I don't know) believe that developing a relationship with Krishna means establishing that connection, not necessarily returning to a pre-existent state (which is partly tied to the conflict over siddha deval, which holds different values depending on whether one believes in a pre-existent relationship in the spiritual world or a newly established one).

And, as I mentioned, there are religions that aren't even part of this entire debate because they don't have a creation or a creator, and some don't even have a soul.