We always get to see people on modern social media circles talking about how they found atheism or agnosticism while being in a religion. So how about we flip that script?

Cliché or not, they do say that when you get into philosophy, you run far away from God. You become not only sceptical of God, but utterly bitter towards Him. But then the saying seems to add that when you go too deep into philosophy and its distinctions, you start finding God. I am not accepting nor rejecting this claim, but a saying is a saying.

About my journey.

The most freeing realization that I had the privilege of experiencing was understanding that every conversation, every moral claim, will eventually end in some sort of a faith claim. And I realized this while arguing with a rather old gentleman with anti-natalist ideals (I am a natalist), whom I had met in a political procession of all places.

At some point in our conversation, something just clicked in me. There are fundamental differences in our presuppositions that we cannot get over, no matter how much we try. Every single syllogism that we were coming up with was always just coming from those presuppositions that we simply could not debate around.

To him, with his anti-natalist viewpoint, potential suffering is the worst of all evils and should be prevented as a moral obligation. From this claim, he is ready to concede a universe without human existence or even the existence of life.

To me, with my natalistic viewpoint, the potential of experience itself, to exist, is better than non-existence. To me, human beings are the only 'things' in the universe that have the ability to create order in a fundamentally chaotic universe that is travelling towards the eventual absolute heat death. In a nutshell, existence > suffering.

And there is no objective way that any of these presuppositions can truly be proven invalid or unsound. That is an impossible thing to do.

Someone will just believe existence is better, someone will believe non-existence is better, and there is no way to empirically or logically measure which one is the 'better' path.

Then

The freedom that came with the realization of faith claims also came to bite my existential dread back with the good old question: why?

Why can two people, even if given the absolute same preconditions, still have different faith claims that they subscribe to? (Look up how twins can differ ideologically.)

I, during my raging teenage days, used to be a raging communist, an anti-natalist, and also a very pro-choice person. When I was 17–18, I literally used to go to union protests for our local garment workers with the communist student wing of our local university (fun fact, we got beaten by those same workers one day).

But now, I am not a communist anymore. My hate for communism is almost esoteric at this point. Somehow, I have decided that every single human life is worth living and then somehow told myself that grounding morality in something transcendental is better than morality being subjective and agent-dependent.

Why? Was it because I was exposed to more information about humanity, human life, political ideologies, and different philosophical schools of thought about morality? Is that why? Can't be, can it? Because everyone else has access to this same information, but they do not seem to subscribe to my framework.

Now, coming back to God.

I am not here to write about the transcendental argument for the existence of God, or the Watchmaker argument, the ontological argument, the first-cause argument, none of that. Because every single one of them requires a presupposition as a faith claim.

Rather, I want to talk about God as an archetype. An archetype of order, an archetype of 'good'. Well, I guess if you are someone who digs into this stuff, you can probably guess I am greatly influenced by Jordan B. Peterson here.

Every single human being is familiar with sacrifice, but what is sacrifice? Sacrifice is no different from the work we do or the process of gaining maturity. What it means to be mature is to replace our short-term, self-centered, biological whims with the ability to delay gratification, plan for the future, and engage in reciprocal play. This is also basically what work is: preventing ourselves from engaging in actions that immediately satisfy our urges, delaying that instant gratification in the hope of gaining something 'better' in the future.

I asked myself, what could be the ultimate form of this sacrifice? The answer that my mind gave me was sacrifice towards God. Is it absolute mumbo-jumbo that means nothing? Yes. But is there a chance that this archetype of God can create a better society from an utilitarian moral worldview? Also yes.

Then comes the problem of morality. How do you classify something as moral and something else as immoral?

You can say that whatever is in the natural order of things is moral and whatever is not is immoral. Cannibalism and sexual assault happen in nature very, very naturally. Are those morally justifiable behaviors?

Or you can say general consensus, but if tomorrow humanity wakes up and 51% votes that you need to be murdered because your face is funny, would that be a morally justifiable action?

If morality is just something subjective that the human mind came up with, what is truly wrong or truly bad? Anyone can just justify anything and condemn something else.

If morality, for someone means the least amount of suffering possible, the problem arises: who is going to define what that least amount of suffering is? Can someone just say, "This guy has been in a coma for two years, and if he wakes up, he is going to suffer, so we shall cease his life functions"? In that way, we can ensure the least amount of suffering.

Or, like in Hitler's Germany, if we find out that a seven-year-old girl is slowly going to develop polio-related complications, and for the greater good of the Reich we need to euthanize the girl, would that be morally justifiable? Because, at some point, it was a general consensus that such actions were justified.

What I am trying to say, without an archetype of God, as Jordan B Peterson once coined Him as the ultimate fictional character, absent God, morality becomes nothing. It becomes nothing but a tool for the ones' in power and with charismatic authority to use for their own benefit. No grounding of morality in an external is an invitation of the Chaos Gods from Warhammer40k.

That's all for now, I apologize for not structuring the writing properly. I am writing it on the go, but I want to end with the note that, I am still learning, going through everything. And so far, I have realized that I would rather like to live in a society, that has its moral code come from something of a transcendental archetype rather than vibes and feelings.

Thank you, looking forward to reading your replies.

The US petro dollar which was set up by the Richard Nixon administration in 1970s after moving the off of the Gold Standard. The country’s economic and financial system is completely dependent upon this system surviving and growing.

Every time a nation tries to move off of the petro dollar such as Libya and Venezuela there has been some kind of intervention. As long as these oil rich countries continue using this system and is closely allied to the US those governments are safe.

With the turmoil and war in Yemen the stability and continuity of the current Saudi government is in severe crisis.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/072915/how-petrodollars-affect-us-dollar.asp

The next step in human development is here and it’s going to be led by Artificial Intelligence. I have seen AI generated movies and short films and skits on YouTube and Tik Tok and other platforms. It’s incredible how far things have come in such a short time.

I actually think hundreds of writers, artists and musicians and directors who have struggled nightly to get their art produced are now going to be able to see their work developed without the gate keepers in Hollywood and the music industry. These revolutionary times. FYI AI is not going anywhere.

https://youtu.be/2AGegNK_dAY?is=No_YiSGk9x9sumXo

https://euromaidanpress.com/2026/10/12/ukrainian-drones-hit-three-of-russian-tech-giant-yandexs-data-centers-in-four-days-ukraines-president-says-the-bots-thinned-out-too/

You have to look and see where things are still beautiful. And where there's still something that's sustaining and you know, you narrow your timeframe. And you'd be grateful for what you have and that can get you through some very dark times.

And maybe even successfully if you're lucky, but even if unsuccessfully, that maybe it's only tragic and not absolute hell - and you can do that you know, in the worst situation, you can make it only tragic and not hell.

- Dr, Jordan Peterson

Wishing everyone a happy Thanksgiving to all our fellow Canadians. We tend to celebrate a tad earlier compared to our neighbors down south for those who are confused on the timing. Hope everyone's taking the time to count their blessings and is having a good time eating (or planning to eat!) with loved ones.

And if you're lucky enough to actually see a cat on the street today, don't forget rule 12!

I’ve been thinking a lot about the line between using AI as a tool for spiritual practice and allowing AI to become something it should never be: a spiritual authority.

People already use technology for Bible and Qur’an study, meditation timers, prayer reminders, journaling, religious calendars, habit tracking, podcasts, sermons, and access to sacred texts.

AI introduces something different because it can actually respond to us.

And that creates a much harder question.

If someone asks an AI:

“Help me reflect on this Bible passage.”
“Explain this Qur’anic concept from a Sunni perspective.”
“Give me journaling questions based on this Torah portion.”
“Help me understand a Zen teaching.”
“Help me reflect on something I’m struggling with spiritually.”

Is that fundamentally different from using a study guide, journal, commentary, or other digital tool?

I don’t think AI should tell someone what to believe.

It shouldn’t replace priests, pastors, imams, rabbis, teachers, sanghas, churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, sacred texts, or real human community.

And it definitely shouldn’t pretend to speak for God.

But I do think there may be a legitimate space for AI as a reflection, learning, journaling, and practice tool — provided the boundaries are extremely clear.

That distinction has actually become one of the things we think about while developing YeshiAI, a first religion and spirituality AI platform covering Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and Universal Spirituality.

The more interesting problem isn’t just making the AI capable of discussing religion.

It’s making sure it understands:

“I can help you explore this, but I am not the authority over it.”

I’m curious where other people draw the line.

What would you consider an appropriate use of AI in someone’s spiritual life — and what would immediately cross the line for you?

Understand that we were born into the scientific age.

What does this mean? It means we were born into a time when the foundations of order were shaken. Why is this important? It's important because a working system of order had to already exist for us to then develop the scientific method that, unfortunately, shakes the same foundations that erected it, while giving us an overwhelming amount of information to consider. Does this mean the scientific method is the problem? No, it's actually the key to securing those foundations even firmer. Let me explain what this means in further detail.

It means that before the scientific age we had religion. This was a system that built community and favoured understanding each other as equals, that everyone could believe in without a true means to discredit because it worked out: it built all the greatness they could see around. Once the scientific method was established however, we could now call into question the existence of what all this order was based on and be justified. Culture didn't magically change, and in fact, if our religions hadn't hammered into us the supremacy of Truth, identifying the God we worshipped as the Spirit of Truth, the scientific method wouldn't have had the ability to justifiably call into question the existence of God. We can all agree on the supremacy of the truth, because without it you can't build any structure whatsoever, and so with that, all of God's visible glory shifts over to truth in a more materialistic sense, while all the spiritual influence begins to look like misguidance that needs to be shaved off. In fact, atheists can clearly point out reasoning as to why it ought to be shaved off, citing instances where God wasn't so beautiful.

This means that, for centuries, generation after generation, we've been living with a set of values that we aren't justifiably attached to, such as treating others as truly equal, while being exposed to an ever-growing amount of information that can further be used to prove why we ought not to hold onto the cultural values that even promoted this growth.

The 'equation' that leads to ideal growth from a point of complete darkness can be thought in this way: with more eyes looking for insight, the more we uncover, and we therefore require a system that produces the largest number of the healthiest eyes working in coordination.

This still doesn't address why we want growth to begin with, or why darkness exists.

Once you realise that this is just how reality manifests due to our nature, and that we are naturally inclined to love each other, even if you are to reduce it to a survival instinct that emerged through evolutionary pressures in the wild, it starts to seem like the way reality manifests is rigged in our favour and that it's all quite circular if you try to logically explain it: as a human being, you are naturally set up to live ideally as a human being. Your values and how reality manifest are tied to your nature, meaning that beyond and within you are perfectly set up.

Religion captured this with statements like 'you are made in the image of God', which can be understood as that you are made in reference to the way reality is set to operate, which you can logically find out to be true through understanding how evolutionary pressures work and going beyond that to ask why limits exist on the existing pressures, but the statement can also be disregarded when taken at the surface level because 'you can't even prove God exists'. The feelings you may experience resting on a logical deduction and it producing the results you expected, is what they experienced before the scientific method because the beliefs were True in mysterious ways.

The disconnect, however, emerges in that generational move away from these mysteriously True values. Values shaping our consciences as they were weaved into the order we were nurtured in, weaving that deteriorates, along with the order, without recovery because there is no justification to recover it. People, in daily life, when at a crossroads where they must choose either their conscience or what they see before them, would 'logically' choose what they see before them, carrying that sentiment forward in life, raising the next generation in that more deteriorated structure. This creates a trend, where growth still occurs but at a dwindling rate and more power shifts over to what can be seen rather than our consciences.

What happens with less order?

We should first understand what it means for things to be in order. It's a sense of security, which is found through conscious control of one's own mind, but isn't entirely governed by the mind. This is why power shifting over to what can be seen results in a lot of disorder: what can be seen is the domain of the mind, but how we see it is determined by more fundamental forces that are more in tune with reality as it manifests. This is to mean that, if you focus too heavily on the external, you risk not paying attention to the internal which is what determines what drives your external focus/priorities, leading to a misguided pursuit, lots of confusion and discomfort along the way as you mentally have to bruteforce past unresolved subconscious drivers, only to receive something substandard as you are plagued by all the other subconscious drivers you ignored.

This is why the strategy becomes looking to those who already clearly appear to have established themselves, accumulating even the littlest amount of ground you can and defending it ferociously. The problem with this worldview, is that it leads you to see people in 'tiers'. This is the disconnect.

Certain people become higher quality than others because you can't see beneath the surface, but truly, they are all simply as profound as you are. In fact, they may see you the same way you see them, and how untrue is that? What's truly happening is that the mind is trying to establish order, but by 'logically' crediting to the egos and projections it sees, and the surface level value around it, varying levels of depth of character. This determines how you treat them, meaning those with a 'higher status' have their egos reinforced with less stressors around them altogether, while those with a 'lower status' get to experience the worst aspects of almost everyone they interact with. The sad thing is though, that in all this disconnection, no one really gets to experience the real person they interact with.

The further away the raised generation is from the foundational order, the deeper the disconnect, the bigger the egos and focus on egos. The more egotistical one easily rises to the top, as they give of 'logical' signals that their character is deep: 'why else would they speak with such authority?'. In reality, they see themselves interacting with cartoonishly small people. This happens because they are heavily pushed towards living through their minds because of how disconnected they were from those around them, making it easier for them to make 'logical' twists to themselves to game the system, and once it works out they are further reassured of the validity of this worldview. This explains why people with dark psychological traits tend to occupy positions of authority.

It can go further, as someone disconnected enough can meditate upon why they feel so disregarded, mentally isolating themselves, maximising this lack of vision for others. Such a person is expected to have experienced living at the bottom, seeing how different the faces shown to others are in comparison to themselves. They may come to understand the truth that they are truly not deserving of the differing treatment they receive in comparison to others, and even realise that it's actually a vision issue, maybe even the 'mechanics' of how that vision varies, and may use this to skyrocket themselves materially to the top. What they fail to address though is that they have a twisted worldview that sets themselves above the rest, founded in the system of disconnection they were raised within, giving them a substandard value structure, and that their new position is only reinforcing this worldview.

They may see someone at a 'lower' level, operate with grace because they seem less overwhelmed than they would be in that position, and rationalise it in many material ways because the sight of this person challenges the belief their worldview sits upon: 'this person's soul is not more profound than mine, they haven't experienced the stressors I have, and they lack the ambition necessary for their position to truly hurt them, both of which are proof that my soul is richer'. Such is how they defend the worldview that has gifted them so many valuable things, silencing the chaos that they fear reverting back to, that this graceful individual is convincing them they are still at risk of returning to.

For these people, hurt caused by those they respected is multiplied, as they not only feel devoured, but also subconsciously feel like the person devouring them might have a deeper insight, enough to pull one over them. Disagreements become way too chaotic and too frequent the higher up they go because their peers are either people with similar disconnected mindsets who easily can treat them cartoonishly, or people with natural grace who don't understand them and indirectly end up hurting them, both of which leave them feeling devoured and in the insecure mindset.

On a larger scale, everyone involved in such a disconnected system lacks faith in the idea that major change can be brought about, because even before the rationale on how that change is to come in, their nurture subconsciously convinces them that they'll have to do majority of the heavy lifting: 'who's really going to clean up that river? I can barely motivate myself to do it, and then someone else is just going to come along and misuse it again', or 'why care that much about littering? Who else does? Look, there's already a pile over there', not considering the fact that the pile was created by thousands of people rationalising similarly. So what ends up forming is an environment that even further emphasises the value of the material, by giving clear examples of what is horrible, what is ideal and how to categorise, on the surface level, the people who bring about what is horrible and what is ideal, rather than realising that, if we really saw each other's true capacity, everywhere has the potential to be ideal, because those categorisation criteria are purely surface level.

This isn't to say that no one has bad intentions, or that no one chooses to be bad, but rather that no one is as unrecoverable as it may seem, and that the reason they may seem this way is because of a worldview rooted in changes that far preceed them. People hurt others because they can't actually see them, and this doesn't justify the ways in which they hurt others, but it gives a clearer picture than the idea that someone sees exactly who you are and the good you do and still chooses to harm you because they are just that rotten: if they could see you clearly, they'd understand how much greater a benefit it would be to them to engage with you lovingly, as thats what their subsystems are calling for them to do, rather than consume you, which is what their twisted worldview has convinced them is the key to their security.

To truly be invulnerable, and set up to live ideally, you must see the world clearly. Otherwise, even in your attempts to secure yourself by devouring others, you may end up devouring someone with a similar mindset to you who you wrongly viewed as cartoonishly small, leaving you vulnerable to revenge you won't see coming, which is a subtle anxiety quite impossible to control. Beyond just internal security, it is the foundation for the creation of a harmonious developing society.

TL;DR: Matthew 22:35-40: 'One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”'

Also, to devour someone else is to treat them like the cartoonish figure you see them as, because you can't really love a cartoon as you would yourself, and can only use it to your own benefit