Understanding Religion's Relationship To Human Social Systems

Does Christianity Direct Us  Seek Validation From Super-Daddy?   I said  yes (of course it does),  in a prior blog. That can be found here .  <<< link  -- To that blog, a Christian replied.  He said this:  "Christianity doesn't say your value depends on someone else externally. It's about finding inner joy and peace by allowing Jesus *inside* your life. Jesus said to take the plank out of your eye and then help your neighbor take the speck out of his. So the focus is on your own choices and authentically addressing others." ---- To that, I have replied: I'm not clueless. I see right through all of that. And you would realize I see through all of that bullshit  if you had actually read the prior blog in this 2-blog series. -- -- Jesus is a feeling.  And yes, that feeling is mainly one of joy.  Although, some call it euphoria. Some just call it a high.  It's created by tricking the body into releasing feel-good neurotransmitters. [Link: Your brain on go

 In a Stoicism group, someone posted this: Honestly, I'm not sure what the person who posted that meme  was trying to elude to. But what caught my attention was this: Some guy commented/replied by saying this: "Got what? A defeater for all rationality?" --------------- I knew I wanted to reply to this.  But first, I wanted to check on something. Turns out ... yep.  Just as I suspected. The guy is a bible-thumping Christian-religious fundamentalist. Now, it's time to reply. For this, I replied without words. I posted only this image, as my reply to him: In reply to me, he said this: " Charles Darwin - “Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” Of course Plantinga develops this doubt into an argument showing that the answer is an obvious no and rationality is not compatible with Darwinism. See "Plantinga evolutionary argument against naturalism." If you're actually interested in rationality

There are many ways that  people who are needy for validation  can acquire it. Consider: Someone external to me or you who validates our worth. Should we look for someone who isn't our own self to set the terms by-which our sense of worth and even our very identity are acquired and maintained?  I think that leads to worse problems than we start with.  Worse yet, when those terms and conditions are a mix of abusive and irrational. Worse yet, when we're told we better call abuse "love" and better call irrationality "wisdom". Worse yet, when their opinions of us are regarded as "fact". Worse yet, when that validation is contingent upon how useful we are as a utility; primarily for that Father's ego  and secondarily for his other personal interests.  Worse yet, when that "Father" is really only a mentally constructed puppet; whom preachers speak through.  Worse yet, when it's a parental figure who presumes to have ownership of us.  W

  Religion wasn't the topic here. But this does explain one reason (only one of many) why someone (anyone qualified) really should take the time  to call out bullshit ways of thinking;  whenever bullshit ways of thinking are undermining society's ability to progress. -- Before I launch into that effort, here,  let me say this first: I am NOT endorsing the speaker in this video-clip nor his organization. They (he and his organization)  are very ... hit-and-miss about social controversies.  Even in this video clip,  he makes a tremendously consequential error by verbally-violently attacking and conflating 1. a hypothetical "wacko" and "idiot" who claims squares and circles are fluid concepts, ...  vs 2.  factually-existing people  who propose that gender is fluid. Are people who propose that "gender is fluid" "wackos" and "idiots"? No.  They're simply mistaking an issue-specific fogginess  for a specific-issue clarity.  That d

Responding to this video: A friend (whom I dearly value and respect)  said this: "It's really funny until the end when he bashes transwomen.  " ---- That caught me off guard. I needed time to reflect on the matter. I took the time. I reflected. I'm ready to address this. ---------------------------------------------- Here's how it sounded to me, when I heard that part of the video:  "Trans people who are bio-male to identify-female are known even among conservatives as being unusually sane, chill, fun, and hot. He directly says this. To me, that doesn't sound like someone who is intended to be insulting to trans people. Now, granted, such trans people don't usually like being called "tranny". But that's old-school (boomer and Gen x) language and isn't automatically meant derogatively. The only word remaining that isn't going to set well with bio-male to female persons is "dude"; when he says "that's a dude"

  Whenever I hear secular philosophers using overly complex language, I recognize that they're being both practical and elitist. They're being practical, in the sense of employing a sort of "shorthand", so that complex ideas are being expressed in few words. This helps expedite the dialogue. They're also being elitist, via that same use of language; ensuring that outsiders are 'awed' by the advanced language, and at the same time ... kept out of (otherwise devalued in) the conversations they don't understand. But there is something more ... insidious about such behaviors when theologians do it. I say that because, as I see it, we should be much more critical of that behavior when self-identified "messengers of God" attempt to densely pack layers of complexity into language. It's bad enough for such "messengers" to presume that a best-possible-of-everything-possible BEING ... would find them to be ... ~uniquely worthy~ (worthy i

CONSENT.  There are many obvious things we can say about the concept of consent.  Let's start with an overview.   Basic and common concepts about consent: Consider: -- -- Now, let's talk about some non-obvious forms of consent and violations of consent.  Picture someone riding a loud motorcycle through subdivisions; - where any number of children with ear aches and sleep-deprived parents who work the night shift could be trying to catch up on sleep. Now, that has that peace been stolen from them. We have now forced an aggressive amount of noise down their non-consenting ear-holes.  We have forced them to experience something they were not wanting. We have now caused them consequences in their lives.  Physical pain, further sleep-deprivation,  and dramatic loss of peace. They might quickly recover from it. Or they might not. That child or parent might not get back to sleep today, as a result. In turn, any child or adult could experience a surge  (or resurgence) of mental-illness

When it comes to words that are no longer ok to use, ... There needs to be a daily-updated list of words it's ok to use vs not-ok to use.  Otherwise, I just can't keep up with it.  And honestly, that's one of the things that irk me about the far-left.  I'm not a fan of "safe zones" taken to those extremes. Those aren't as much a growth-catalyst as people like to imagine.   I think it ends up being a form of secular "purity culture", as we turn non-issues and petty issues into virtue-standards; for which the far-left will rebuke, censor, and (before long) cancel us for repeatedly violating; regardless of the context and spirit in which such words are spoken.  Safe zones reduce social and psychological durability.  It's like how a middle-aged Amish  (or Sharia-Law-Country-resident adult)  feels like it's scandalous for a young woman to show her ankles or a shoulder.  The greater lengths we go to,  in order to protect seeing and listening pe