Can one speak openly and personally of religion and spirituality when surrounded by oceans of ignorance and insincerity...

I feel you user. I think I finally get why the ancient mysteries, rosicrucians etc. were secretive. You gotta have a "safe space" to discuss these kinds of things with like-minded people and away from the fanatical masses.

So let's meet in /x/.

/x/ is fucking trash and the kind of bullshit you see posted it has done more to discredit genuine initiatic realization in the eyes of the masses than fedoras ever have

I'm from /x/, and it does what it's intended to do just fine. It's just that serious discussion of religion is not that thing. It's for creepypasta, vampire roleplayers, speculation about cryptids, urbex, and discussing dreams.

We treat God the same way we treat Bigfoot: an interesting notion, but all the proof is weak or disputed. So some of us believe, but we do so knowing it's faith over facts.

is right, if you want to discuss your beliefs, you need a place where only people with the same beliefs are, otherwise someone who doesn't share them is going to pop in and just pour out ridicule. If Veeky Forums isn't that place, /x/ certainly isn't.

There is enough people on this board to have an open-ended talk about spirtuality. However what would call it are the fedora and Christcucks.

Discussing the merit of any particular spirtual stance other than their own denomination's and own theology triggers them.

Fedora's are triggered at the thought of entertaining any sort of supernatural entity. Although honestly I am seeing a lot less fedora shit-posting compared to the past.

Ii have great knowledge but I've retreated from society because people say stupid shit and have plugged ears 20% of the time.

It's not a matter of the belief itself, more the meta-belief about belief. What I want to talk about is belief and practice from a less purely academic, more casual standpoint. The problem is that involves ones own personal beliefs and practices and those aren't things to be cast out for retards to deride because it's pointless.

There are plenty of boards where this sort of discussion happens all the time in different forms, where people don't take the shit they're into too seriously so as not to be able to have a discussion about it without getting shitter shattered, but not to the point where they cushion themselves with layers of irony to the point that they may as well believe nothing and hold no opinions.

>Nietzsche was right, wasn't he?
Nihilism isn't a coherent philosophy.

Nietzsche said we effectively will ourselves to live, in defiance of a dead universe.

It's not so much that we lie that there is no truth. We don't have some sort of magical truth-sensing organ. Our understanding is wrapped up in our own perspective which has all sorts of passions and emotions attached to it. Nor do or our 5 senses magically free from error.

We do not deal with "truth" we deal with our own perspective. This is the only realm where we can understand value in.

With this in place truth is innately good and falsehood is not innately bad. Rather what is useful, how far it gets you, is what matters. In his critic of the world's various religions he never really said they were true or false or even cared. He evaluated their effects and made this what decided their grade. It's probably the single most based way of viewing religions. It sure beats the hell out of petty theological squabble you see going on now.

Maybe I should have said Hobbes. Any number of philosophers on the edgy side of things, veterans of war, usually share the view that the only thing the things errantly called Man share are that they are made of ass, but some are made of less ass and are therefore meant to rule.

I didn't mean it as a stab at religion or to point towards nihilism, but that as a product of causality or karma, there are untermensch on the one hand and both related and as a result, comparing other people to myself yields very few 'humans' or even the potential or sleeping human of Diogenes. And yet even that isn't right. I've attained a nondual perspective on the matter.

Not that I really grok the whole master/slave Foucaultean S&M Übermensch thing, just that only sharing sentience and not even being sure of that is incredibly alienating and nearly two decades of intensive inoculation against memery while being an outsider to hegemonic sociocultural power structures has made it extremely difficult to take anything most people say or do seriously.

>Can one speak openly and personally of religion and spirituality when surrounded by oceans of ignorance and insincerity?

No, since liars will not listen and your image is already pretty ignorand and insicere.

I get the first half, but the second I'm at a loss on. The image is neither, at least compared to the edgy wicca shit I had originally chosen. Or are you just a christcuck shitting memes out his memehole at the behest of a some viral thoughtform's script? It's really hard to tell on this board.

I haven't really met any insincere people (nor that I seek or discuss religion in general) but there are lot of ignorant people. Ignorant as a lack of knowledge/understanding of certain dimensions of human knowledge, not as an insult. I am ignorant of many social things, as I'm bit asocial myself. People I've discussed with are ignorant of many things including basic ethical standards, standard logic, knowledge of fallacies and most importantly lacking the right outlook when discussions/debate take place. Instead of trying to learn from the others and yourself about their and your position. Almost everyone I've discussed/debated/argued with about events/religion/etc have simply been trying to push their own agenda and are simply too closed off on other ideas. You would really have to push hard and deep to even get them to consider other points of view, let alone consider that others might be right. They make so many fundamental logical fallacies that it hurts to discuss anything. Pointing those out makes me seem like I'm too nitpicky or avoiding the subject, etc. There is never really a way to discuss things properly in open scenarios with public.

Veeky Forums is great because it allows us unfilted way of discussion and without upvotes/downvotes to kill someone's opinion.

Discussion of religion/race/sex-gender are pretty much meme in public discussion. You will never really get serious discussions and only get regurgitated memes about taboos and their beliefs. They wont change on their stance or let alone consider others as those things are very personal to many of the general public.

If you put in doubt someone's worldview it is as if you were attacking him personally. Why is this?

People identity their beliefs, their personalities, their memories, their "things, their houses, their work, their clothes, their money, etc

The term is "anatta". Not-self.

Religions tends to make extradinary claims. If you perceive they are not backed up by anything good you are likely to feel that you are big idiot for going along with it for so long. In addition if your parents went along with it also makes your parents look pretty gullible.

Religions also make huge fucking promises. Lots of times it involves an enternity in paradise and the promise of ultimate justice against everything you ever felt was wrong. Calling that into question really takes people out of their comfort zone.

Apart from that a lot of theology basically says questioning the religion is wrong, so they point fingers at you.

Solipsism, for one.

The other possibility is, under the model of jungian cognitive functions, that you have two general trends. One, in its immature state, is to view your assertions as self evident. They see their view as inherently obvious and are shitter shattered that another doesn't see it that way.

The other is that they have made an assertion and you have attacked their logic. The thing wasn't self evident, but their logic was, to them, sound.

Something has to be taken personally to the immature individual and it takes a lot of maturation when it comes to worldviews. On the one hand, I was much more of the type to not realize that other people actually existed as sentient beings such as myself, while on the other, a friend of mine was more the type to mask his actual feelings with a sort of apathy that he then disguised as "to each his own" type aphorisms. I was an individual shunning things I needed to grow and he was a piss poor collectivist.

bunmp

bruh no one's talking about exoteric religion ITT

i really wish peeps would stop acting like regurgitating the same hackneyed dawkins trash is brilliant or profound, as if all religious thought ever directed to the ancient equivalent of moms who shop at wal-mart

Now you got me wondering what esoteric atheism is like.