What does it really mean when someone says “trans women are women” or “trans men are men” without throwing biology under the bus? This episode dives into how Mystrikism answers that question in a way that keeps both truth and compassion switched on at the same time.

We unpack four different layers hiding inside the words “man” and “woman”:

• Biological sex (developmental pathways, gametes, bodies),

• Gender identity (how a person experiences themselves from the inside),

• Social role (how they’re seen and treated in everyday life), and

• Legal category (what the forms, laws, and institutions do with all of that).

From there, the episode explains why Mystrikism insists that sex is a real, largely stable biological fact, and why gender identity and social recognition still matter enormously for mental health, well-being, and basic dignity. It looks at where biology has to stay on the table (sport, medicine, safeguarding, some areas of law), and where it is more ethical and rational to give gender identity extra weight (name and marker changes, everyday social life, anti-discrimination, basic respect).

We also talk about deception, consent, and harm: why simply being trans or gender-nonconforming is not “lying,” why hiding crucial facts in intimate or high-risk contexts is wrong no matter who you are, and why weaponising biology to bully or exclude is a moral failure.

If you’re tired of the culture war shouting match and want a naturalistic, non-supernatural, “spiritual” framework that treats both biology and human dignity as non-negotiable, this is a slow, careful walk through what Mystrikism means by “man” and “woman” — and why that nuance matters in the real world.

https://www.mystrikism.org

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1782830925522213/

[email protected]

In this episode, we walk straight into a feeling most philosophies try to sweep under the rug: disgust.

From a Mystrikal point of view, love and revulsion aren’t enemies – they’re siblings. Love pulls us toward kindness, honesty, and compassion. Disgust pulls us away from deliberate cruelty, malignant dishonesty, proud irrationality, and systems built on exploitation. Both are responses to reality. When you numb one, you blunt your moral intelligence.

Across this episode we unpack “principled disgust” – not rage, not prejudice, but reasoned antipathy: a clear, ethically grounded rejection of actions, institutions, and ideologies that knowingly and repeatedly cause serious harm.

We explore three key tests:

• Intentionality – the harm isn’t an accident; it’s built into the plan.

• Knowingness – they understand the damage and continue anyway.

• Consistency – it’s a pattern, not a one-off mistake.

From slave traders and clerical abuse cover-ups, to corporate opioid pushers, extremist preachers, conspiracy profiteers, and proud anti-reason influencers – we look at how principled disgust targets the architects of harm, not the confused or misled.

Then we shift from feeling to strategy. Ethical opposition is what happens when empathy and dialogue fail. It’s not about revenge. It’s about containment, resistance, and protection – saying “no further” in defence of well-being, evidence, and the conditions that make honest disagreement even possible.

Because this stuff is volatile, we spend time on safeguards:
Agility (letting our condemnation change when the facts change)
Proportionality (not turning every misstep into a monstrosity)
Evidence (never letting vibes do the work that proof should do).

Finally, we look at what happens when revulsion is buried instead of examined – how unprocessed antipathy can ferment into nationalism, scapegoating, and mass cruelty. Suppression isn’t peace; it’s a delayed explosion.

This episode is an invitation to stop pretending we’re “above” disgust, and instead to use it – carefully, consciously, and scientifically – as a shield for sapient beings, sentient life, and ecosystems, rather than as yet another weapon to hurt the already harmed.

https://www.mystrikism.org

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1782830925522213/

[email protected]

What does it actually mean to call something “right” or “wrong” if you do not believe in cosmic commandments, divine scorekeepers, or moral laws carved into the fabric of reality? In this episode, we walk through a Mystrikal answer: an ethic rooted in well-being across three intertwined domains — sapient beings, sentient life, and nature’s ecosystems.

You will hear how Mystrikism starts with honestly declared values (like reducing unnecessary suffering and increasing flourishing) and then hands the steering wheel to evidence and disciplined reasoning. No metaphysical moral facts, no supernatural rules — just a reality-facing, “method-first” approach where psychology, public health, ecology, law, and economics become tools for moral inquiry. We explore what it means for moral conclusions to be subjectively grounded yet methodologically objective, and why Mystriks talk about justice as “naturalised”: tested, measurable, and open to revision.

Across the episode we dig into how this framework handles intention and consequence, why compassion needs boundaries, and what Mystrikism calls Principled Disgust — a reason-governed refusal to tolerate deliberate cruelty, malignant deception, reckless exploitation, and sustained injustice. You will hear concrete ways this tri-domain view can guide personal behaviour, social policy, and our treatment of other animals and ecosystems, all while keeping “awe” fully naturalised through Aweism.

If you have ever wondered how to talk about right and wrong without appealing to gods or metaphysical absolutes, yet still care deeply about justice, kindness, truth, and the only world we have, this episode is for you.

https://www.mystrikism.org

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1782830925522213/

[email protected]

What if morality did not fall from the sky, but still was not “anything goes”?

In this episode, we dive into Meta-Ethics – A Mystrikal Perspective — a deep but down-to-earth tour of what morality actually is, how we justify “right” and “wrong,” and where Mystrikism plants its flag in the messy landscape between moral realism and “it is all just opinion.”

We unpack key ideas like moral realism, objective morality, and moral rationalism in plain language first, then pivot into the Mystrikal stance: morality is subjectively grounded yet methodologically objective. Our values and aims (like reducing suffering and promoting flourishing) are chosen by minds, but once we declare them, reality itself starts vetoing bad ideas. Evidence, consequences, and the well-being of sapient beings, sentient life, and ecosystems become the hard constraints on what can honestly count as “right.”

Along the way we tangle with big classic problems — Hume’s is–ought gap, evolutionary debunking arguments, moral disagreement and relativism — and contrast Mystrikism with emotivism, relativism, religious command theory, and “anything goes” cultural norms. We also bring it back to real life: how this framework actually guides decisions about justice, education, harmful traditions, policy, and everyday behaviour, without appealing to gods, karma, or cosmic scoreboards.

If you have ever wondered whether there can be honest, evidence-driven answers to moral questions in a fully natural universe, this episode is the start of that long, fascinating conversation.

https://www.mystrikism.org

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1782830925522213/

[email protected]

This is a six-part toolkit for earning beliefs, not inheriting them. It starts with the scientific method (from observation to replication), adds disciplined critical thinking, runs claims through ROVRRTELF evidence (reliable, objective, verified, reproducible, relevant, trustworthy, empirical, logical, falsifiable), blends abduction, deduction, and induction to reason well, uses analytical philosophy to clean up fuzzy concepts, and finishes with a tour of logical fallacies. Hence, you stop tripping over bad arguments. 

The point isn’t theory for theory’s sake — it’s a working method to move from “looks true” to “holds up,” minimise bias, maximise clarity, and let reality correct you. In Mystrikism, it sits alongside awe — our naturalised “spirituality” — so truth and meaning collaborate rather than compete. Provisional trust only: we will update as better evidence arrives.

https://www.mystrikism.org

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1782830925522213/

[email protected]

In this episode, we tackle a deceptively simple idea with big consequences: when a claim is the kind that should leave a trail, and the trail never shows up despite serious, sustained searching, that missing trail starts to count. Not as final certainty, but as honest, provisional weight against the claim. We walk through how Mystrikism applies this to miracle claims and gods, why “prove a negative” is a trap, and how the Rovrrtelf standard — Reliable, Objective, Verified, Reproducible, Relevant, Trustworthy, Empirical, Logical, Falsifiable — keeps us intellectually clean while leaving room for future discoveries. This is a naturalistic take that still leaves space for awe and a grounded sense of “spiritual” wonder at reality itself.

You’ll hear:

• The difference between a mere lack of data and a telling silence, with clear everyday analogies (the “tiger in the next room” test).

• How to avoid the black-swan/argument-from-ignorance pitfall by asking where evidence should appear if the claim were true.

• Historical case studies where no-show evidence changed minds (from phlogiston to Nessie), and what that pattern teaches us about miracle claims and prayer studies.

• Why Mystriks hold a provisional non-theism: not dogma, just method — open to being wrong, committed to updating when real evidence arrives.

• A practical way to carry this into daily life without becoming cynical: stay curious, stay kind, keep Rovrrtelf as your compass, and let reality lead.

If you’ve wrestled with “How much should the silence count?” — or you want a saner way to argue online without spiralling — this one’s for you.

https://www.mystrikism.org

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1782830925522213/

[email protected]

Here’s the episode where we take the shiny armour off the “Christian case for God” and see what’s actually underneath. We walk through the popular moves one by one — “necessary being” claims, God-of-the-gaps dress-ups, the BGV theorem waved around like a wand, the “DNA is a code so there must be a coder” leap, and the Hilbert’s Hotel party trick about infinity. We also get practical: why logic, morality, and consciousness don’t need ghosts; why “atheism is blind faith in randomness” is a cartoon; and why saying “God did it” tends to end inquiry instead of sharpen it. Expect clear definitions, testable standards, and a Mystrikal through-line: subjectively chosen aims, method-objective evaluation, and a naturalised sense of awe — our kind of “spiritual” that never asks you to switch your brain off. By the end, you’ll have a clean, portable toolkit for spotting special pleading, category errors, and arguments from ignorance, plus a calmer way to say “we don’t know yet” without surrendering curiosity.

https://www.mystrikism.org

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1782830925522213/

[email protected]

The Pitfalls of Indecision and the Illusion of Intellectual Freedom

“Freethinking” is often seen as the mark of an open mind—questioning tradition, rejecting dogma, and following reason wherever it leads. But what happens when the pursuit of truth gets tangled in ego, pride, or the fear of ever committing to a position?In this episode, we explore the paradox of the perpetual sceptic — the freethinker who refuses to take a stand even when evidence, logic, and ethics are on their side. We unpack how healthy scepticism can turn into an endless loop of indecision, how “intellectual detachment” can become a performance, and why true open-mindedness means knowing when to provisionally accept well-supported truths.We’ll cover:

• The balance between scepticism and rational acceptance

• How “freethought” can slide into self-worship

• The real-world dangers of unmoored scepticism in science, ethics, and morality

• Why the purpose of free thought is freedom and knowledge — not endless rejection. If you value curiosity, critical thinking, and intellectual honesty, this is for you.

https://www.mystrikism.org

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1782830925522213/

[email protected]

Is religion a mental illness, a memetic “mind-virus,” or a society-wide delusion we’ve normalised? In this episode, we unpack three competing frameworks — clinical pathology, social contagion, and mass delusion — then lay out the Mystrikal response: compassionate, naturalistic, and relentlessly evidence-first. We criticise ideas, not people. We keep the human in frame. What you’ll learn:

• How psychiatry distinguishes shared religious belief from clinical delusion — and where real overlaps occur (psychosis content, scrupulosity, temporal-lobe “hyperreligiosity”).

• How memes, incentives, and group dynamics help beliefs spread and entrench.

• Why “mass delusion” can explain history’s worst faith-driven harms — yet still misses human meaning if used like a sledgehammer.

• The Mystrikism stance: keep the community and meaning, ditch the unfounded claims; build awe, purpose, and ethics on reality, not wishful thinking. Truth over comfort. Compassion over contempt. Communities without superstition. Evidence where miracles used to be. “Awe” without the supernatural. That’s Mystrikism. We don’t medicalise ordinary believers. We target unsupported claims and the harms they enable, and we argue for better, reality-anchored ways to meet the exact human needs.

https://www.mystrikism.org

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1782830925522213/

[email protected]

Science, Dignity, and the Dawkins Debate — the Mystrikism way.

This episode tackles the hot zone where biology, identity, and public policy collide. We keep two lights on at once: scientific honesty and justice with compassion. We draw a clean line between sex (biological, tied to gametes/chromosomes, relevant in some domains) and gender (social/psychological/personal, how people live and express themselves). Both matter — just in different ways. That means: defend adults’ freedom to transition, use chosen names/titles/pronouns, and build evidence-sensitive policies for sport, healthcare, private spaces, incarceration, and legal protections — without vilifying anyone. We also address Richard Dawkins’s recent statements: why biological definitions aren’t an insult, where precision helps, and where diplomacy matters. Our stance overlaps on empirical facts and parts ways on the “oughts”: we bind ethics to measurable well-being. Speak truth without cruelty, extend care without self-deception, and let policy follow evidence while protecting everyone’s dignity. If you’re weary of culture-war shouting, this is a calmer lane: real data, real people, fewer slogans. “Live and let live,” plus careful design where biology truly matters.What’s inside: Sex vs gender: clarity without contempt.Why evidence-based policy doesn't equal the denial of identity.Dawkins, definitions, and the importance of tone.How Mystrikism balances facts and human dignity. A practical “is–ought” bridge: reduce suffering, promote flourishing.

https://www.mystrikism.org

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1782830925522213/

[email protected]