Why is it so hard to find a religion you genuinely can believe in?

>OP never said
OP never said anything, thus his mind is void and lacks all kind of beliefs.

Fuck off.

Cringed.

Hard.

LARPers are more autistic than fedoras.

No arguments? As expected.

...

You had no argument

>no religious person can logically justify why their religion is the one true one.
you're looking at religion entirely wrong. noone can justify emotions either, but

User Error

I've considered myself agnostic for a long time, but I find Vajrayana compelling in a way no other religion has.

>make a claim
>lol cringe xD
>not an argum-
>YOU had NO argumENT! So fuck off.
Nope. Go hang yourself.

Not an argument lad

Lots of unproven assertions though

Exactly, I'm also just an atheist teenager who worships at the alter of reason and logic. In fact, worshipping at this alter induces a state of euphoria, because, I am enlightened by my own intelligence.

Why Vajrayana, specifically?

I'm in a similar boat, though Vaj (there must be a proper way to abbreviate that), just from my limited research, the whole tantra thing makes it seem so much less grounded in terms of applicable real-world philosophy than the rest of Buddhism. Again, I don't shit, really, so that may be way off the mark on that one. Or I could be lost just from trying to link Buddhism to the perceived world to begin with.

If enough belief systems you have experienced and held are doubted or found to be flawed, then you start to think that all belief systems are flawed and thus not worth trying to believe in or hold.

...

>it's hard to find a religion
>You just have to-
>not an ARgument!
Nope. Sorry, you got it wrong, sweetie.

fpbp

We don't pray because we believe but so that we may believe.

Because religion is very personal and requires years of intense reflection.

You're certainly not going to be religious because some NEET /pol/ack typed DOOS FAULT and called you a hat on an internet forum

/thread

Isn't there a branch of Christianity that cuts out the old testament? Leaving just the Gospel itself?

That's a pretty good religion.

This is what Marcion did in the 2nd century, one gospel and some of Paul's letters.

or you weren't elected the religion

noice

Marcion was also declared a heretic, is thought of as an anti-Semitic proto-Nazi for not sucking Jewish theological cock, and there are no actual groups that follow Marcion-esque doctrine.

>you need evidence to have a belief
why are atheists heads so far up their own asses

"Remember also that faith, (an unreasonable assertion of complete conviction which is not based on reason and is defended against all reason) —is the most dishonest position it is possible to have. Any belief which requires faith should be rejected for that reason." -Aron Ra

>Why is it so hard to find a religion you genuinely can believe in?

Investigate gnosticism, the belief that there's a creator "god" aided by other archons whom are evil trapping us inside this world.

>adhering to slave morality when its outdated
Shiggy diggy doo

>look boy humans are completely rational and we act every second using rationalization
Literal trash-argument.
>rmplying Jesus actually promoted the christianity of nowadays
Jesus was a man who did what he pleased because he could. Most ev. books are corrupted by paulo's disciples and later kangdomz.

investigate 3 / 11

??? original Christianity was literally as slave as it gets. Loser mentality philosophies pls go.

>follows old folklore created by thousands of years old niggas to control others
>thinks he has an argument
>thinks jesus existed
lol

>no U
>I came here to give you guys electricity tech
>why would you do that?
>for my interests
>ooga booga destroy technology!
Literally ebin.

No arguments in this thread.

Is this really how religious people argue?

BUT I've been confident in my Catholicism since I converted at 14 user

Because it develops in you, you can't just "find", or choose it.

Too bad.
Jesus's message is very brilliant.
I am sure he would attract more followers if he lost the contradictions and archaic tales of the old testament.

Meditate and look into Buddhism
The nice thing about it is that there's no dogma and the essential core teachings are pretty much universally recognized as the only necessary parts of Buddhism. Zen is like a stripped down Buddhism to its bare essentials, without all the mystery and storytelling, and it's completely legitimate

Emotions are some magical spirit shit. Read about the chemical basis of them. Everything that goes on in your head has a deterministic physiological cause.

I mean if you strip away his angsty and condescending tone he isn't entirely wrong.

I know that feel bro. Trying to get back to my catholic roots but whenever i hear about Jesus and Mary i can't help think Mary was just being a dirty whore and fucked someone behind Joseph's back.

>you need evidence to have a belief
>why are atheists heads so far up their own asses

Imagine this:
>you're hungry
>literally starving
>I give you a stone and say: "eat this"
>you say: "but this is not food!"
>"Yes, it is. Just believe in it! Have faith!"
>you eat it (or not, doesn't even matter), and you die

Or:
>you're hungry
>literally starving
>I say to you: "Have faith and you'll hunger will go away!"
>you die

3rd one
>I believe in a god, you believe in nothing
>you ask me how to follow my god
>I say to you "Say this prayer and walk through that over that precipice!"
>"But I surely will fall down!"
>"Nah. Have faith, and my god will help you"
>"C-could you give me some kind of evidence? I mean I don't want to fall down and die"
>and so I quote the great apeposter prophet, the Mighty user: "You do not need evidence to have a belief"
>so you try to walk over the precipice
>you die

And so on.

user, you've got it wrong.

14 is the age when you're supposed to be really shitty about the intellectual superiority of atheism and all that crap.

Now when are you going to get that out of your system?

Nah

Teenagers are just starting to become capable of thinking for themselves and naturally realize the supernatural doesn't exist. Assuming they haven't had religion drilled into them from a young age.

Every single attempt to prove the existence of supernatural activity has ended with complete and utter failure.

It's not a coincidence that high IQ nations have more atheists while low IQ nations are noticeably the most devoutly religious.

Gimme a call when you use faith for literally any position besides a theological one.

I like this quote from Eckhart Tolle:
“All religions are equally false and equally true, depending on how you use them. You can use them in the service of the ego, or you can use them in the service of the Truth. If you believe only your religion is the Truth, you are using it in the service of the ego. Used in such a way, religion becomes ideology and creates an illusory sense of superiority as well as division and conflict between people. In the service of the Truth, religious teachings represent signposts or maps left behind by awakened humans to assist you in spiritual awakening, that is to say, in becoming free of identification with form.”

I've always believe that my religion is love and humanity.

P.S: I was a Muslim.

Have you considered some of us have seen evidence?

>y-you were hallucinating!

And so on

You have to be crazy to believe in religions user. No this is not atheist talk I have tried to believe in God and it doesnt work because Im not nuts Im too intune with the reality.

youtube.com/watch?v=UFer9TeV5gU

Were you raised into a religion?
No?
Then odds are you won't buy into any of it, because they didn't get you while you were young.

>Im too intune with the reality

Find a good philosophy instead. Requires none of the retarded buy-in of abrahamic religions. Most religion has too much verifiably false baggage that is basically required to adhere to the faith, but at least if you adopted something like stoicism you could easily ditch their weird ideas of physics and still practice it pretty well.

Because you're a jaded cunt who's unable to trust anything or anyone.

>tfw believe in God but cannot bring self to join a religion

It's actually not all that difficult if you're not a brainlet.

No user Im not a instant gratification monkey so I dont care about heaven thus I have no drive to be christian at all.

Church is boring its just regurgitation of aesops everyone listening will forget exists as soon as they hit their car.

The way I see it only altruistic lunatics can be christian.

I know that feel

>Read about the chemical basis of them.
>Everything that goes on in your head has a deterministic physiological cause.

If you're just a chemical reaction, why exactly is it unethical to cut off your oxygen supply in order to disrupt your internal reduction oxidation reactions, but not unethical to cut off the oxygen supply to disrupt reduction oxidation reactions in other contexts, like camp-fires or candles?

It's the exact same reaction,it's just chemistry, and I have yet to encounter a materialist that can give me an answer.

In all the scenarios you provided, death is inevitable regardless of the individuals lack of faith so I'm not really seeing your point.
The starving man dies whether or not he eats the rock.

...

You're still operating under the (assumingly in your case) theological assumption of objective morality. Neither of those actions are inherently wrong on the basis of a universal or divine lawmaker or anything of the sort. Ethics and morality are human constructions based off of our own desires and necessities. We both agree that the former scenario is wrong because we understand the consequences and we feel empathy for one another. If you actually believe that you need a deity to tell you that its wrong in that situation to kill someone I can't help you.

Morals are human constructs thus subjective user, a cat doesnt see taking food away from another cat as "stealing, nor does the cat who's food was taken away see that as anything other than annoyance instead of a bad thing. Only highly intelligent social creatures have morality, and morals are really just emotional inbitions to keep your simian impulses in check, after all morals are the only reason you arent raping a woman right now or killing someone in the street for fun. There are millions of humans who can do that and morals are alien to their brain we call these humans psychopaths.

>We both agree that the former scenario is wrong because we understand the consequences and we feel empathy for one another.
and we should not reduce these feelings of "empathy" to mere meaningless chemical reactions as well why exactly?

I'm still not seeing an explanation as to why these chemical reactions matter so much more than other chemical reactions.

Here's what I'm getting at. If a human is just a sack of chemical reactions, and a subset of chemical reactions within those induce behavior that inhibits interfering with the chemical reactions within other chemical sacks, what exactly is the argument that stands in the way of altering that subset of chemical reactions so that they no longer induce inhibition of on interference?

I don't understand why you people feel comfortable reducing humans to simple processes in order to promote social change, yet fall back on those exact same chemical processes whose meaningfulness you just deconstructed in order to justify not pursuing social changes that make you squeamish despite their being logically consistent with your starting premise.

The "meaning" to all of these reactions can be derived from a mixture of survivability and positive and negative feedback on an individualistic scale if you want to be purposefully reductionist, and on a societal scale, from some variation or form of what we now call the social contract. Also I'm not sure exactly what social changes you're refering to.

It's easy, OP, the religions that are most aligned with the mystical truths of oneness, infinity, and universal consciousness are the correct religions! Oh wait... user, you have had a mystical experience, right?

I'm not christian either, so?
Just because you don't believe an obvious lie doesn't mean you are "in tune with reality" which you are not.

All those deluded christians had their mystic experiences by hands of a false god.

Gross

Well now get a load of this 15 year olds inability to grasp cause and effect

>Seen some evidence
>

Is this evidence verifiable? If you can provide verifiable evidence for a miracle, then that would change the world.

As of yet, there is no verifiable evidence for a miracle occurring.

I hope you one day come to understand that humans aren't that holy or special as you think we are, and we are in fact apes.

>no U
>wew you have no arg-
>LOL! Do religious people argue like this?
Not an argument, sweetie.

...

Why are you shit posting so hard in the face of discussion.

Why can't you defend your beliefs? Is it because they have no basis in reality and the easiest way to protect your delusions is to dismiss all criticisms of them?
lol

Buddy you still don't fucking get it.
You're justifying ascribing value to the chemical reaction by citing the exact same chemical reaction. How is that any different than a Christian citing the Bible to justify his Christian morals based on the fact it's in the Bible? If there's no objective value to these chemical processes then why pretend that they have anything meaningful to offer us. If I'm hallucinating and see a pink elephant in the corner and I justify my claim that this pink elephant exists by citing the chemical reaction that make me see a pink elephant would you accept that as an adequate argument to claim there's a pink elephant in the corner?

>Also I'm not sure exactly what social changes you're refering to.
The invalidation of traditional values under the assumption that scientific materialism has made them obsolete.

I hope one day you come to realize what it means for humans to be just apes.

>How is that any different than a Christian citing the Bible to justify his Christian morals based on the fact it's in the Bible?

I'm gonna sotp you right there, one is based on objective verifiable testable fact, and the other is based around old folklore that you follow in fear of a giant super eternal ghostman that'll torture you forever if you work on sunday or don't kill your sister for getting raped

>not an argument sweetie
>You can't defend your beliefs because they have no real basis, and you dismiss all criticism.
Lmao, "you are religious" is criticizing someone's belief?
Rational thinking can lead you to the ultimate question. Does God exist? If you think he doesn't. And you avoid all kind of question about why do you think that, then you can deceive yourself thinking you are atheist. If you don't avoid them. You can call yourself agnostic. The rest is up to you, honey *drops mic*

>lol you 15yo
Not an argument, sweetie.

God doesn't exist, you're literally saying nothing. There's nothing to avoid.

Any rational thinking person can see some ridiculous claim like a god and think "mmm no evidence? bullshit" like normal people do everyday.

Do you even know what atheism is? Literally without theism? There are not agnostic people, only atheists and theists.

>x is y fuck you
>ad populum
>z is @ believe me
mmm no, sweetie. Come on it's 2017!

Exactly, keep your pathetic fairy tales in the fiction section fampai

>They are fairy tales believe me
10^4 words, and I can't still find a single argument, bud. You tried at least.
>start using pic
wew lad triggered much? *sips tea*

not an argument isn't an argument desu

No I'm saying we all derive our morality ultimately from physiological phenomena whether you like that or not, just as the authors of the bible did when they wrote "God's" laws and commandments. The difference is that christians will argue that the morality outlined in their texts is objective and divinely inspired. Also Im asking what traditional values you are refering to in particular. Just because I'm not theistic doesn't mean I'm super left wing. As far as hallucinations go, the physical existence of your pink elephant can be verifibly proven false outside of the aforementioned molecular interactions in your brain. That has nothing to do with morality or ethics which I already said are a human constructs and therefore obviously not physical entities.

>Humans don't act completely by rational thinking
>but you follow someone else's past interests!
>That's not an argument against its valu-
>Not an argument!
Nope. *drops mic*

What does human not acting completely rational have to do with believing something completely and utterly false?

That has been proven multiple times by many different people to be completely untrue?

you dont use a parenthesis and a dash. It is one or the other. learn some grammar bitch nigga

>faith is irrational and bad! t. Amon Wuz Ra
>Humans don't act by pure rational thinking
...
>What does is have to do with [insert claim here]?
>x doesn't exist
Are you underage by any chance? Also you keep pushing the same claims without explaining anything, while my claims were against someone else's argument. My point has already been explained pretty well, their arguments against the possible existence of God aren't valid, yet you try to demonstrate that God doesn't exist, where is your proof?

If you close your eyes, do you believe the light has ceased to exist? Or do you still believe there is light, and you became blind? The proof demanding method is required by science just to avoid non-practical pov-s. Yet they are pretty much used by you and everyone, and a great example is the induction method or the holistic analogy argument.

Go back.

>If you close your eyes, do you believe the light has ceased to exist? Or do you still believe there is light, and you became blind?

Wow, you just gave me a hearty laugh. You're one of those aren't you. You haven't heard of Hitchen's Razor have you? It's as follows: Positive claims require positive evidence. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Basically fampai I can dismiss entirely whatever bullshit you say if you don't have the evidence to back it up, I don't have to "disprove" God if there is no evidence he exists. Your point is absolutely retarded, you can't prove a negative. Absolutely buffoonery.

>Positive claims require positive evidence. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Absolutely stupid argument. I know light exists because I can verify it outside my own perception and can test and prove its existence.

>one is based on objective verifiable testable fact
WRONG.
It's based on the product of chemical reactions that allegedly ascribe meaning to themselves. Your sense of "fact" is entirely at the mercy of those chemical reactions which is what makes mental illness as terrifying as it is.

>inb4 you start bitching about solipsism
>inb4 we should be hypocrites and inconsistently apply our materialist reasoning in order to avoid sinking into solipsism because it provides "useful" results
Religious traditions were pretty "useful" mechanisms of maintaining social cohesion yet that didn't stop your kind from undermining them in pursuit of materialist philosophy. You fuckers opened this can of worms called solipsism I see no reason why we should feel obligated to clean up your mess or pretend the worms aren't there.

>religion
>good for society
>you're on a fucking history board
You're either clinically retarded or just a downright dishonest person.

Even in modern day we have facts and statistics showing that religion does absolutely no good for society and areas that are less religious are far better off. And my dude, I'm sure you agree the dark ages were the fucking tip top era of social cohesion.