Perhaps..

"Implying humans aren't also ~algorithm driven...."

No that's your interpretation. I was referencing algorithms that aren't humans.. hence the "AND NOT an actual human being" part of my comment.

"Even though philosophy and psychology headlines are often meaningless, writers should at least aim at presenting some meaning through them because meaning makes things important."

Honestly, I'm convinced it must be some algorithm spitting out these headlines and not an actual human being..

I wasn't claiming that ""liberation from worldly suffering"" was the only aspect of nondualism. In case you forgot, I was responding to you being unaware of anyone that explicitly promotes the idea of being free from suffering. Now you are attempting to school me on something that you were unaware of, after I brought it to your attention.. Hilarious.. 😂😂😂

"The question I would pose is, is it still necessary for religion to be the basis for uniting people?" - This question presupposes that united people weren't the basis for religion.

"CAN SUFFERING BE RELIEVED? Absolutely! Yes! It happens through an intuitive recognition that we’re not independent. Rather we are essentially linked to something vastly bigger." https://www.advaita.org/

"Vedanta is a systematic unfoldment of the teachings of the Upanishads. It deals with the question of self-identity and liberation from worldly suffering." https://www.unbrokenself.com/what-is-advaita-vedanta/

FYI Vedanta is the path/method to Advaita.

"Our moral obligation is to improve the society we live in, not the ones to come." - why not both?

"I don't really know of anyone explicitly promoting an attempt to live free of suffering either"

As far as I'm aware Nondualism, or Advaita (in Hinduism and Buddhism) does this.

"talking about how to actually get through the suffering instead of the implicit idea of forgoing it entirely."

I suppose that's what it would seem like (getting through the suffering) to those who haven't forgone it entirely. The suffering is just not experienced... But others might think the suffering is being experienced by the person they are observing because they imagine it through empathy.

Eg. If I say I haven't experienced racism.. despite being a middle eastern/south asian ethnic minority in a western country. Others might think I'm still living through racism.. like it's a tangible physical thing, when it's really just a matter of perception.

Sure, there are different uses of the word ideal.. but I still haven't heard anyone say philosophy is about focusing on being free of those things.

Maybe it's just my impression.. but philosophy is about discussing/exploring principals about life, meaning and the nature of knowledge.

I've never heard of anyone saying "The real practical value of philosophy comes through focusing on the ‘ideal’ life"

Either way.. doesn't "helping us deal with life’s inevitable suffering" and "navigating loneliness, grief, failure, injustice, & the absurd" practically result in some form of "ideal" life?

It's like saying "The purpose of breathing isn't to keep us alive, it's to pass air to the lungs, provide the body with oxygen, and remove carbon dioxide."

A scientific theory is only a scientific theory if you are allowed to question it...

"increasingly clear negative personal and societal effects of, for instance, vaccine and climate change denialism."

Aaand that's where they lose credibility for espousing dogmatic views compounded by mass hysteria.

"If the clinical trial process was truly rigged, wouldn't we see a much higher approval rate for them?" - Not necessarily. If a major factor for approvals is money then the most wealthy clients/applications may have a tendency for approval. Note that the FDA is massively funded by the same pharma industry they're supposed to be regulating.