Posts by bluemason3

David Vaughn75 said:Whether Buddhism counts as a "religion" really just boils down to how many rituals and ceremonies Buddha cooked up for his new movement versus how much of it was just him blending in with the local folks over in Asia.

But honestly, this whole debate kicked off because of that one thing Joseph Bailey41 said—you know, that claim that there's absolutely no reason for our existence other than basic biological copulation. Are you seriously telling me Buddhism teaches that we just popped out of nowhere without any kind of purpose whatsoever?

Even Krishna didn't invent specific rituals; those things develop later.

Rituals have certainly been part of Buddhism since its early days and are documented in the oldest texts, likely starting with those centered around stupas.
All religions are essentially blends. It’s not like Jesus dictated every single Catholic rite either—there’s plenty of pagan influence in there too. And don't even get me started on Hinduism. Even your entire bhakti movement would probably look very different if Islam and Tantra hadn't woven themselves into the foundation, which was already a mix of local tribal cults and Vedic religion.

Our personal goal might be escaping samsara, but if there wasn't a moment of creation and we didn't come from nowhere—if there isn't some spiritual essence that makes an individual separate from conditioned processes, or if nothing began from a recognizable starting point—then where would any inherent purpose come from? We're just a collection of cause-and-effect processes with no clear beginning, just like everything else.

James Miller2 said:I believe those personal testimonies aren't bad since they encourage people to change.
Human beings rarely change (unless something is life-threatening).
And improving one's life is necessary for health and survival.

How would you explain it if, for example, a doctor told someone they had an incurable disease, and then that disease vanished after prayer and fasting?
You cannot simply dismiss that as fantasy or positive thinking.

There are specific conditions and miracles required for shrines; I am not particularly familiar with them, so I cannot comment.

In a way, that's true. Because stories hit you on an emotional and symbolic level, they bypass the rational, critical part of the brain. That allows them to trigger shifts in behavior at a more instinctive, irrational level.
It can be a positive thing, but it can also be negative.

There are psychotherapies and therapists who use carefully crafted, suggestive storytelling and communication styles for that exact purpose. If that’s what someone needs, it’s better to turn to professionals who follow established ethical guidelines and professional oversight.

With religions (including cults and sects—they're essentially the same thing), the primary goal is indoctrination. At the very least, it's about maintaining the flock, and for most, it's about recruiting new members. Everything else is secondary to that goal, including (more often than not, highly exaggerated if not outright fabricated) potential benefits.

The other issue is that these benefits are often short-lived—more like a temporary fix than a permanent cure.
Personality traits are hard, if not impossible, to fundamentally change in adulthood. However, through constant indoctrination and social pressure, a person can develop a sort of "pseudo-ego"—a permanent role they play just to fit into the religious narrative.
That said, you usually notice that once someone leaves a religion, sect, or cult, they revert back to their core personality. There wasn't actually any lasting change.

How would you explain it when, for example, doctors tell someone they have an incurable disease, but then that illness vanishes after prayer and fasting?
You can't just dismiss that as fantasy or positive thinking.

There are specific conditions and miracles required at shrines; I'm not really familiar with how that works, so I can't comment.

I will say, however, that the "fantasy" lies in how those events are interpreted.

Reality isn't binary. Nothing is strictly mortal or immortal. There are cases where people die laughing, and others who survive free-falling from a plane (without a parachute).

Both are extremely rare, but they happen. The reason we consider falling from a plane deadly and laughter healthy isn't based on absolute certainty, but on high probabilities.

Take a disease with a 99% mortality rate. We call it fatal, but there is still that 1 in 100 who survives.
Most people are believers, and everyone prays when their life is on the line. Even people who aren't religious tend to find faith in those moments.

This means it is statistically quite likely that the one person who was going to survive anyway happened to be praying. That single instance is then held up as proof of a miraculous healing, while completely ignoring the thousands of people who prayed and didn't get better.

It's the same story with shrines or canonizations—"miracles" are pulled out of thin air without context, relevant data sets, control groups, or statistical analysis. How many people visit a famous shrine? Hundreds of thousands a year? Millions? It's incredibly easy to find a cluster of healings in a group that large. It isn't evidence; it's just math.

The only way to actually prove something like this would be to demonstrate that, in practice, people experience significantly more healings through prayer or divine intervention than a control group of similar individuals who don't engage in those rituals.

As far as I know, the only studies of this kind I've come across were conducted right here in the States, and they failed to show any solid positive correlation.(One study even suggested a slight negative correlation—worse health outcomes for the group being prayed for, which most likely points to a nocebo effect.)

Since there are plenty of educated people working within the church who understand how to conduct research aimed at objectively testing a hypothesis, I’m left with one conclusion: when it comes to formal procedures like canonization, they intentionally use outdated methods. It doesn't prove anything; it just creates a pseudo-scientific illusion of proof. In other words, it feels like a deliberate hoax.

David Vaughn75 said:Look, Buddhism isn't really a religion in the way most people think; it's more like a philosophy that’s cool with whatever local religions the people who adopt it happen to practice. All those different faiths usually have their own ways of explaining how and why nature works the way it does.

As for Jainism? Beats me. I don't know the first thing about it.

It’s definitely a religion. And philosophically speaking, it doesn't exactly tolerate other faiths—at least not before you factor in the animistic or local elements that don't mess with the core cosmology. In that sense, there's no issue if someone follows Krishna to ensure a better harvest, but you can't be a Buddhist while simultaneously believing in Vaishnava creation myths or treating Krishna as the supreme deity. That’s fundamentally at odds with Buddhist doctrine.

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.

It’s irrelevant to the discussion, and I have no interest in derailing the topic with useless tangents.

There’s also this excessive obsession with personal anecdotes—everything from seminar testimonies to "proof" of miracles or canonization processes. It's a hallmark of indoctrination propaganda and a major flaw in logical argumentation. You see the same thing with other religions, obviously.

That happens because

1) stories (like personal testimonies), whether they are individual accounts or myths, capture the imagination and emotion more easily. They bypass critical, rational analysis, making them perfect tools for indoctrination or maintaining belief, but they are useless when trying to grasp factual reality. Only logic and data matter here, and even then, an individual is far too small a sample size for any meaningful sociological or psychological analysis.

2) at the level of individual data ("evidence" or "miracles" involving saints and canonizations), without a proper sample size and analytical framework, it’s just a pseudo-scientific attempt to create an illusion of objective proof for people who don't quite grasp how the scientific method works.

David Vaughn75 said:logos, Tao, Brahman

You don't find that concept in Buddhism. I doubt you'll find it in other Shramana traditions either—though some might claim otherwise. Even those with an idea of essence, like the Jains, seem to focus on individualizing it rather than connecting it to a universal like Brahman.

David Vaughn75 said:Look, I wasn't talking about how the universe started, I was talking about why we're actually here.

Are you absolutely sure they're claiming humans were born without any purpose or reason?

Exactly—God is just a giant jukebox meant to grant everyone's wishes. 👍

The real question is whether you're such an idiot that you wish for something stupid—which, let's be honest, happens way more often than people wishing for anything smart.

What do you mean "niche"?
The whole concept of having to surrender control and your entire self to some higher being who takes over—that’s not rare at all. You see that everywhere, from major mainstream religions to basic shamanism.

Remember when you tried to explain to me that theology isn't about gods and deities? That really stuck with me. 😁I just happened to be well-mannered enough not to laugh in your face.

If there's no Creator and no act of creation, then what defines the purpose of anything beyond its own existence?
Not to mention Buddhism, where there isn't even a soul—just a collection of elements and karmic traces.

The mere possibility of escaping Samsara doesn't necessarily mean that was the intended purpose of creation.

hiddenpuma75 said:It’s all true: Bell-Sauron has basically become a STEM 🙂 fun😵-damentalist,

but if you ask me, his defining trait is how much he glosses over the messy details while obsessively relying on negative cherry-picking

Well, at least my main personality trait isn't using ad hominem attacks, strawman arguments, and every other logical fallacy in the book just because I lack a coherent point. 🕺 😁

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. 🙄

rustymaker5 said:But is it really just a property of matter?
I mean, what if matter is actually being forged by pure energy instead? Take the energy behind a thought, for instance... because honestly, nothing physical can ever truly come into existence unless there was first a spark of thought behind it...

And what if it’s actually being created by a pink gay unicorn wearing thongs on a rhinoceros?

The only kind of energy we actually know about—the physical phenomenon this term describes—has nothing to do with that.

So, what exactly do you mean by "pure energy"?

rustymaker5 said:Energy-wise, they are definitely non-material, but since they mostly build upon our empirical perceptions within the physical world, it seems most logical to me that they are—as a product of the mind, which is that third aspect of being—sort of a tool provided to us so that we, as spiritual beings, can actually navigate this material reality at all...

To me, it’s perfectly logical that the first is tied to the second—meaning karma, or more accurately, the natural law of action and reaction, of cause and effect. Everything strives toward equilibrium, including the Universe itself, and to a person caught up in the concept of linear time, it looks like some kind of karma, a consequence or punishment (whether immediate or carried over from previous lives) finally catching up to them. But in reality, everything is happening simultaneously, right here in the present moment, and a person has the ability at any given instant to shift their mental framework, to change their reactions to material experiences, and thereby find freedom. It's just like a radio where various stations exist at different frequencies all at once, and it's up to the person to choose which one to tune into. It would be pretty foolish to suggest you're forced to listen only to whatever happens to be broadcasting right now; you can always just change the channel, can't you? 😉

What’s that supposed to mean? Energy is inherently material—it's a property of matter itself.

David Vaughn75 said:Every single religion out there operates on the idea that there's some kind of underlying purpose or reason why we're even here.
Sure, your physical body is just biology—conception, cells, all that jazz—but your spirit, or soul, or whatever you want to call it... that's supposed to come from some higher calling.

No religion on this planet claims that everything is just a massive, random accident.

Most shameful religions don't even bother with a creation myth—they just assume existence is either eternal or completely unknowable.

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.

Yes.

You can find people like that on both sides.

That's exactly the point.

The way you view faith is just so lifeless, hollow, and purely factual.

The fact that religions are based on claims doesn't bother me.😁

James Miller2 said:Could you elaborate on that?

Isn't it pretty obvious? 🤔

There’s no reason to assume religious affiliation is such a decisive factor in someone's antisocial behavior, though context matters. I'd argue the best predictor is actually personality structure (or perhaps a dysfunction therein), which remains fixed in adulthood regardless of whether someone embraces or rejects faith.

Low impulse control—especially when paired with "dark triad" traits, specifically certain types of psychopathy (where impulsivity is a core component)—is likely a much more reliable predictor than whether a person is a believer or not.
In short, at the individual level, the dangerous cocktail is poor emotional regulation combined with a lack of empathy. Both are largely fixed personality traits that are nearly impossible to change once you're an adult, making them independent of religious identity.

When you look at group dynamics, however, things shift slightly, particularly when there's a heavy "us vs. them" divide. In those cases, the exact same person can be viewed as a hero by one side and a villain by the other.
While it isn't the sole driver (existential threats and economic conditions play a major role) and we shouldn't reduce complex behaviors to a single cause, intense ideology usually goes hand-in-hand with deeper social divisions, tighter group cohesion, and the demonization of an "outgroup."
In this sense, a highly ideological person is more dangerous to anyone outside their tight circle because they can be easily swayed toward actions against the opposing community (like the aforementioned attention-seeking attacks). This doesn't have to be religious ideology; it could be political or otherwise, but religion certainly possesses that kind of potential.

These elements can overlap quite clearly. Just as someone prone to pedophilia might seek out professions involving children—whether they're a youth soccer coach or a priest at a Catholic parish—someone with antisocial traits is more likely to gravitate toward social positions or groups that accommodate them. But again, that can happen within a religious organization just as easily as any other institution. We could also speculate about an overrepresentation of certain personality structures within group dynamics, but let's not get carried away.

On a more positive note, I'd suggest that a similarly strong ideology can act as a stabilizing force for individuals with moderate, manageable issues with empathy or impulsivity. It functions as a sort of "exoskeleton," provided they don't turn that strength against an "outgroup" as mentioned earlier.

James Miller2 said:Understanding what? A child cannot grasp the concept of morality without guidance. People need a compass in life. Without one, they are nothing.

A man without faith is a dangerous man. That is all I have to say regarding the rest of your comment.

Unlike some suicidal amateur and the Grand Inquisitor😁

If you can't get a psychiatrist to help, just try letting an adult tiger loose in the room with them. If they make it out alive, their existential pseudo-philosophizing will basically just be shouting into the void. ☕ 🙄

On a serious note, I have to agree with Enchi—if someone doesn't think they have a problem and refuses to seek help, there isn't much else anyone can do.

Would you turn down a gastroenterologist for diabetes, a cast for a broken bone, glasses for vision issues, or wound care after an amputation?

There isn't really a fundamental difference when it comes to psychiatry and medication.

If anything, the issue is that at our current stage of development, diagnosing neurotransmitter imbalances is incredibly difficult. For instance, the only way I know to actually measure serotonin levels—which is used in some research settings—is through spinal fluid sampling. That’s far too invasive and impractical for routine diagnosis.
As a result, most treatments currently rely on symptomatic assessment followed by trial and error. This leaves a lot of room for mistakes and long waiting periods before finding the right approach.

Still, there isn't a better alternative, and principle-wise, I don't see a specific problem here. If there is one, I’d say it’s the irrational resistance and the unfounded attempt to separate psychological processes from physiological ones.

If someone refuses treatment, I don't see how listening to people rambling on a forum—people who don't know them and lack any expertise to offer advice—is going to help. Just deal with it.
To be clear, I'm not implying that pharmacotherapy is the absolute best solution in this specific case, but none of us here can actually know or assess that. A decent psychiatrist will send a patient through a battery of tests—medical ones to rule out organic causes like thyroid issues, plus psychological testing and interviews—and then they'll likely adjust the medication over time. I don't see how laypeople on a forum can speculate about what's happening based on just a few sentences in an opening post.

One could potentially take a roundabout route by seeing a psychiatrist who also practices psychotherapy in a direction that aligns with their worldview (there are quite a few who flirt with philosophy and spirituality, and much of New Age spirituality actually stems from humanistic schools of psychotherapy)), and who won't jump straight to medication (which is sometimes prescribed unnecessarily), to suggest therapy instead. However, you won't get that covered by Medicare.

I suspect they're new here.

Other than that, everything seems to be running fine today. 😵

The chicken or the egg—does spirituality lead people toward depression, or does a predisposition toward depression drive them toward spirituality?

It really depends on what’s actually causing it:
a psychiatrist prescribing an SSRI,
or
a psychiatrist recommending psychotherapy.

Then there's the physical side. Hit the gym and grab some supplements when your testosterone starts to dip, and that might help too.😁

Same story here.
The first time this happened was right after I added another SSD.
The next two times, it occurred after putting the laptop to sleep by closing the lid.

A few restarts eventually got it working again.

But now, it happened after a standard shutdown (though I can't be 100% sure I didn't accidentally close the lid before it fully powered down) and I'm officially over it.

What I've tried: plugging in an external monitor, performing a hard reset (pulling the battery and draining the power), swapping out the Microsoft memory, pulling the SSDs (tried testing them one at a time), and resetting the BIOS (using the Win+B+Power combo).
Nothing works. No luck.
The LED turns on when I hit power, and the fans spin up too. The keyboard backlight flickers once during the initial failed boot, but then stays dark.

🤔

Well, look who decided to show up, my personal little troll 🙂 😍 😁