What follows intersects a point about OOM’s alleged “atheism”, which I had intended to cover in re discussion of the agenda to devalue the elderly; too bad these wordy-man posts take time...

inb4 Timothy Leary pops up with an obsessive rehash of MKULTRA agitprop about how I cannot judge drug use, unless I souse my own brain in drugs that destroy powers of sound judgment. /logic

With the overt glorification of self-induced extreme mental illness hereby highlighted—and oh, MKULTRA was an astounding success, you drugged-out egoless meat-robot who will never threaten the powerful:

Quote from: JayJuanGee on November 11, 2020, 03:52:38 PM

Quote from: OutOfMemory on November 11, 2020, 07:35:44 AM

I only went through ego death one time on LSD, which gave me some work to do about my personality and life as well, but in the end it turned out to be the very best that could happen to me.
So, people condemning drugs, because of "reasons", just don't know what they are missing.
It's all in the usage, like with guns. Nobody has to use em, but if only used for (ethical) goodness, nobody would be afraid of them either.

How would we know if our ego is too strong and/or needs to be put in check?

OutOfMemory has retained an essentially Christian Weltanschauung: He rejects fairytales about the big man in the sky, but he nonetheless parrots godly condemnations of the deadly sins of Pride, Vanity, and even Wrath. —On all such counts, I am a happy sinner!

Quote from: nullius on November 10, 2020, 04:16:48 PM

‘Wrath, o goddess sing...’

This is not uncommon. Indeed, most so-called “atheists” retain by cultural residue an irrational worldview and morality, which is all the more irrational for the rejection of its only plausible basis: The commandments of a god who contradicts and overrules the observed laws of nature.

“Secular humanism” is an attempt to reconstruct liberal Christian morality as an ostensibly non-Christian ethical system.
Sorry, theymos.
Quote from: nullius on October 16, 2020, 11:00:14 PM
The so-called “Singularity” is a religious eschatology for irrational fanatics who have swapped faith in gods for faith in technocracy. They want a god from a machine, a literal deus ex machina to save them from their own follies.
Communism is second-century primitive Christianity without Jesus.
Quote from: nullius on October 16, 2020, 11:00:14 PM
The true “Second Coming” was Karl Marx, who reformed the original second-century dogmata of the faith on a new foundation. In the Age of Science, fairytales became unsustainable, and rather embarrassing. The essence of Communism is a synthesis of Sermon on the Mount 2.0, Post French Revolutionary Edition, with the economic worldview of Capitalism—wherefore the Communist Bible is titled, Capital.
The Communist worldview is fundamentally, unavoidably compatible with the Christian worldview.
Quote from: nullius on November 10, 2020, 04:16:48 PM
—Surely, alas, Solzhenitsyn would object to this: I argue that from first principles, it is Tolstoi’s Christian worldview that provides a fertile soil for Communism.
Drug users are the most susceptible to religious ideations, for the obvious reason! Indeed, there is a credible theory that Christianity was proximately caused by the use of Amanita muscaria. (I don’t want to get too far into that; I consider the evidence to be tantalizing, but not quite sufficient to pronounce that an historical fact.)
Quote from: nullius on October 19, 2020, 11:17:36 AM
No doubt more than a few people would call me “ignorant” of Jesus.

The inversion of reality to proclaim inferiority and irrationality as superior knowledge is—typical of a certain type. And there is a pretty good historical hypothesis that much religiosity has been caused by “naturally occurring” drugs—much more Amanita muscaria than psilocybin. Hmmm.

I won’t deign seriously to argue with your druggie religion any more than I debate Christian evangelicals.
I should add that the so-called “Golden Rule” is an irrationality embraced by many religions. Of course, the “Golden Rule” is exactly backwards: It is irrational to “treat others how you want to be treated”. Retributive “tit-for-tat” treatment of others is rational.

I try to improve on tit-for-tat: If someone does good to me, then I strive to return better—if I can, which is not always within my ability. If someone does bad to me, then I pass judgment without even the slightest hint of Christian mercy.
Etc...

My ethical system does not derive from Christianity.

Quote from: nullius on October 17, 2020, 05:07:46 AM

I will quote “chapter and verse” from the greatest ethicist of the past two thousand years.

Quote from: Nietzsche, The Antichrist

2.

What is good?— Whatever augments the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself, in man.

What is evil?— Whatever springs from weakness.

What is happiness?— The feeling that power increases— that resistance is overcome.

Not contentment, but more power; not peace at any price, but war; not virtue, but efficiency (virtue in the Renaissance sense, virtù, virtue free of moral acid).

The weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of our charity. And one should help them to it.

What is more harmful than any vice?— Practical sympathy for the botched and the weak— Christianity...

By the way, I don’t think that Lauda wholly agreed with me; but she at least partly did:

Merited by Lauda (10)

Quote from: nullius on February 14, 2018, 02:40:28 PM

Quote from: Friedrich Nietzsche, “Twilight of the Idols”

I reduce a principle to a formula. Every naturalism in morality—that is, every healthy morality—is dominated by an instinct of life, some commandment of life is fulfilled by a determinate canon of “shalt” and “shalt not”; some inhibition and hostile element on the path of life is thus removed. Anti-natural morality—that is, almost every morality which has so far been taught, revered, and preached—turns, conversely, against the instincts of life: it is condemnation of these instincts, now secret, now outspoken and impudent. When it says, “God looks at the heart,” it says No to both the lowest and the highest desires of life, and posits God as the enemy of life. The saint in whom God delights is the ideal eunuch. Life has come to an end where the “kingdom of God” begins.

The above-quoted passage succinctly explain’s OutOfMemory’s fear of the “ego”. Whereas only brain damage from long-term hallucinatory drug abuse could explain this perfect inversion of reality:

Boldface is OutOfMemory’s:

Quote from: OutOfMemory on October 19, 2020, 12:56:22 PM

Quote from: nullius on October 19, 2020, 06:53:44 AM

Drugs tell no truths. They do not “expand” consciousness, but dissolve it. They can turn you into a superstitious nitwit, with voluntarily self-inflicted mental retardation plus schizophrenia. That is all.

[...]

Now, the ego, the mental entity that keeps talking trash and showing you pictures of future and the past, keeps you from learning and developing your spirit (aka. higher self, or whatever one may call it), which is often reffered to as (uncontrolled) "inner dialog", clearly is a sign of (common) psychosis. The root of many mental illnesses like depression, anxiety, violent thoughts/behaviour, many other bad manifestations.
Now tell me, isn't that a clear sign of psychosis?
You and your likes want to tell me who is the retarded, schizophrenic type here? LOL

Eh...

Quote from: nullius on October 19, 2020, 11:31:41 AM

Dunning-Kruger rather well explains the conceits of druggies about drugs—not so much why they rationalize (which is obvious), but why they cannot see through their own transparent foolishness. Well, um, they do drugs. Which wreck the brain. Duh.

It may also explain just how the Hell he failed to notice that I am far less a Christian than he is (LOL), and also failed to notice that I do indeed support druggies’ right to ruin themselves.

With restoration in the internal quote of important context that OutOfMemory snipped:

Quote from: OutOfMemory on October 19, 2020, 12:56:22 PM

Quote from: nullius on October 19, 2020, 06:53:44 AM

Don’t get me wrong. Self-harm and suicide are absolute rights, abrogated only by the worst of slave states. The solution to drug abuse is to give users more drugs; it is cleansing, and even eugenic.

Quote from: nullius on December 11, 2017, 01:19:45 PM

...self-limiting problem...

Have a nice trip! ☠

[...]
Congratulations. But stop talking about "freedom" then.

It was far from the first time that I have supported freedom!

Quote from: nullius on December 11, 2017, 01:19:45 PM

Druggies, don’t whine. I am supporting your freedom to kill yourselves!

Anyway, my point hereby is not to belabour the obvious about drugs, but rather, to illustrate by example the usual course of one who leaps from one irrational faith to another. Most arguments between Christians and “atheists” are only sectarian debates between votaries of the same essential spirit. Real atheists are rare.

Quote from: nullius on October 16, 2020, 11:00:14 PM

Dear Talking Monkeys:

Please get it through your thick primate skulls that you are alone in the universe, you are all going to die, there is no life beyond this world, and nothing whatsoever will remain of you if you do not safeguard your posterity.