What can I read to learn to believe in God? I am brainlet atheist and view the world in a very material way.

What can I read to learn to believe in God? I am brainlet atheist and view the world in a very material way. I can't say I believe in anything spiritual without larping.
Are there any books that can fix this?

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    genuinely, why do you want to change this

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Seems to me most great people in history were religious. I want to understand how men who were 10x smarter than me could believe in supernatural things.
      As of now, those beliefs seem ridiculous to me but I want to make an effort to understand before I make up my mind.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Seems to me most great people in history were religious
        accurate observation
        >As of now, those beliefs seem ridiculous to me but I want to make an effort to understand before I make up my mind.
        herein lies your problem
        the greats didn't get there by memeing themselves into a state that's foreign to them. I think a much better way is to engage earnestly with philosophy, history, your country's cultural heritage, the sciences (to the extent you're capable of) and anything else you have the capacity to handle
        couple that with just living life I guarantee you're going to arrive at questions or live through *something* that you feel can only be explained if you accept that you have/are a soul
        it doesn't necessarily mean that you would become religious, but you'll have a much easier time seeing how the greats were

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        (OP)

        All of them were indoctrinated into religion as children, and for most of history, questioning these beliefs was a direct way to ostracize yourself from your community, if not be outright persecuted (hell, the church even persecuted you if you observed certain facts about the universe like Galileo did).

        Religion is foremost about deference to authority, conformity to the group, and subordinating your beliefs to dogma. These things are not desirable in the slightest. Also, if you examine current society, intelligence is correlated with lack of belief statistically, so if you are laboring under the belief that smart people are religious, so if you want to be smart you should become religious, you are simply mistaken.

        Now, if you have a desire for some kind of spiritual fulfillment, I can sympathize. However, unless you are able to suspend your critical thinking and believe what are patently absurd, fantastical fairy tales, religion won't fulfill this need. As an example, try to force yourself to believe Mohammad flew to the moon on a winged horse. This is, of course, laughable, but there are over a billion people on the planet right now who would hate you if you deny it.

        This is what religion boils down to, a larp so deep the people practicing it have become the larp. But once you see it is all larp, you can't join in, not really. Also, religion does not have a monopoly on community, connection, fulfillment, beauty, or even transcendence. These are things you can discover for yourself in life, and I sincerely hope you do.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Even modern astronomers recognize that Galileo did not have sufficient proof to make the claims he did, which was the principal objection of the Church. Astronomers in the Church recognized very early the superior predictive power of Copernican methods, and they were widely adopted. Even the Gregorian Calendar ultimately relied in part on Copernican methods. Rather, the Church told Galileo that he could not publish as certain that which did not have sufficient proof. Notably, this was in the middle of the protestant revolts; protestant leaders were widely calling the Catholic hierarchy unbiblical, and pointed to the spread of Copernican theory as evidence; however, even Charles Borromeo--the principal author of the Catechism of the Council of Trent--weigh in on the matter and wrote explicitly that if Galileo could establish proof, than heliocentrism could be taught, but given the general ignorance of the people it must be done carefully--a very fair assessment. Largely ignoring the counsel of many friends in the hierarchy, and even the favor of a Pope, Galileo continued teaching heliocentrism as fact without sufficient evidence. That evidence was later found does not change the fact that Galilo did not possess sufficient evidence. The very strength of science lies in the means and the method. Galileo's error was principally against science itself.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I view it as the reverse. The Church categorically rejected heliocentrism as heretical, as contradicting scripture. They claimed it was truth, FROM SCRIPTURE, and therefore to object was heretical. You want to talk about stating something as fact with bad evidence? Take a look at the Church itself, my friend, or are you admitting it's a straight up double standard, and you'll excuse the Church for stating AS CERTAIN things which were absolutely false and based, not on evidence, but on scripture?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You can feel it to be whatever you like, the but historical evidence stands in direct contradiction to your opinion. The trials of Galileo and the writings of him and his contemporaries bear rather clear witness to the reality of the situation. Protestant leaders categorically rejected heliocentrism. The Catholic Church did not. In accepting scripture, and receiving as the null hypothesis the ancient and almost universal ancient assumption--based on the evidence available at the time--that the Sun revolved around the Earth, the Church recognized that holding earth to be the center was the simpler solution. However, in light of the advanced made by Copernicus and others, many theologians and Popes recognized the possibility--given the new evidence--that heliocentrism was true. While it posed some difficulties in interpreting scripture, basically no objections were made in the Church until after protestants started raising objections. Yes, in Scripture we read that the Sun stopped in the middle of the sky; but what is impossible to God? If it was a miracle that the Sun should stop in its course before, it remained equally a miracle and a mystery in a heliocentric model. Galileo's opinion was never deemed heretical. Rather, as modern astronomers agree, he lacked sufficient proof to teach heliocentrism as certain and to publish his books without minor and basically superficial corrections. He agreed to this solemnly, and then disobeyed anyway. It was only after many years and many false promises that the Church took more serious action against him.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I view it as the reverse. The Church categorically rejected heliocentrism as heretical, as contradicting scripture. They claimed it was truth, FROM SCRIPTURE, and therefore to object was heretical. You want to talk about stating something as fact with bad evidence? Take a look at the Church itself, my friend, or are you admitting it's a straight up double standard, and you'll excuse the Church for stating AS CERTAIN things which were absolutely false and based, not on evidence, but on scripture?

            Copernicus was also a Catholic canon lawyer and dedicated the book that created heliocentrism to the Pope. Just because the Church had an incorrect reaction at the time does not change the basic fact that it was an intra-church debate and not one of secular rationality (Galileo) vs. the Church.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, but not quite. The Church had no negative reaction to Copernicus. Copernicus' theories spread very quickly and rapidly among the hierarchy. Again, the Gregorian Calendar relied in part on his advances. It was a generation later, when protestant leaders were challenging the scriptural legitimacy of the Church, that the Church insisted on caution in the explanation of heliocentrism, insisting on certainty before publishing it as certain.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >insisting on certainty before publishing it as certain.
            A standard they did not hold when originally publishing it's views based on scripture

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The Church called him a heretic and changed their mind. We also can't understand how controversial the idea of heliocentrism would or might have been in the 1600s for everyone. The Church is a living body and learns overtime so corrections are to be expected and we should get concerned if they stop correcting (won't happen) not if they were wrong in the past.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I'll just wait on the time when they realize they are wrong about God existing. At least one of the recent Pope's got close by saying even Atheists can get into heaven!

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I doubt there is any hope for you. You literally say Galileo did not have sufficient evidence on his side to teach one thing (which turned out to be accurate) but on the other hand you excuse the patently false teachings of the Church because they were based on scripture. You outline exactly the problem with the Church. Rule by authority and reference to dogma. You even admit it, the actual truth of reality was in conflict with scripture, so either the truth had to be rejected, or scripture had to be "reinterpreted". The Church chose the first for as long as it could until it was forced by the advances of knowledge to resort to the second. But don't pretend for a moment that the Church played some kind of noble role in keeping scientists honest with a standard of evidence, the Church itself has zero standard of evidence other than reference to scripture which, as this whole episode underscores, can be interpreted in literal opposite ways depending on convenience and the mood of the time!

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >as this whole episode underscores, can be interpreted in literal opposite ways
            Yes.
            >depending on convenience and the mood of the time!
            Let's basically look at something very central to the point you are making: the Catholic Church, a non-scientific body, held that it was Scripturally inaccurate to believe that the Earth was the center of the universe
            >In the year 1758, the Catholic Church made the official determination that it was not heretical to assert that the Earth rotates around the sun.
            Copernicus, again a devout Catholic, published in 1616 - and so the Church was wrong about a scientific fact for 140 years. This also holds for slavery, where you can see that the Church owned slaves. Because of this, the Church is wrong? No. This largely stems from the fact that you are painting Catholic dogma as singular in its form of authority and uniform in its type. The Church has levels to its certainty and none of these disagreements were at the highest level, which is de fide. Additionally, it is very hard to say what a typical Frenchman would have believed in the year 1730 and probably half of Protestants disagreed as well. All that to say that the Church has been wrong tons of time but its core teachings are correct. If you are curious of what this right yet wrong looks like, St. Athanasius's On the Incarnation is a pretty profound evidence of divine inspiration where St. Athanasius hits a level of philosophy that, becomes painfully clear, he is not capable of for the rest of the book.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Because of this, the Church is wrong?
            Literally yes, it does mean that. They claim they have knowledge directly from God. To be so categorically wrong on so many fundamental issues directly refutes the claim that the Church has access to divine knowledge or is even in the right ballpark.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >They claim they have knowledge directly from God.
            Nope - they claim they are Scriptures true interpreter and that's it. The rest is a massive demonically inspired cope at not liking God's true Church.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            And where do you think Scripture came from?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >knowledge
            Again you profoundly misunderstand the Church's understanding of itself. The Church is divinely inspired not it knew Planck's constant immediately. You're saying it claims the latter whereas It knowing that genetic engineering of humans or abortion is wrong is the former.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            It makes claims about reality, claims it bases on revelation from God. Yet it is not only repeatedly wrong on factual matters, it is wrong on moral ones as well (see slavery, which is also endorsed in the Bible). All this goes to undermine the idea that anything they say is true or correct. The entire structure of why you should believe anything they say is proven to be faulty and unreliable.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Divine revelation ends with the death of the Apostles - the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The Holy Spirit must be pretty shit at guiding considering the history of the church

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            the real Church is the spiritual body of the Messiah into which we are grafted by faith. you arent forced into it, and if you dont want to live in accordance with the Doctrine of Christ you can go your own way following after the ways of the world as the institutionalized religions have done 100%, but judgement begins at the house of God, and the hypocrites who use the Lords name in vain, soothsaying and gainsaying and bootlicking and ass kissing and ball licking for the elites, the false teachers who deny the love that ~~*He*~~ has for mankind. and feast on the naivety that all people have to one extent or another, especially poor people who have been denied genuine education and have only been trained as prussian worker bees for the eugenicists. they will get their reward too.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Bro, the Catholic Church has a dogma that the Pope can receive special revelation from God. Don't downplay the outrageous nature of the Church's claims.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You're right the Pope can discover fission by just phoning up God. Ex Catedra has been used twice and both for the Blessed Virgin.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            How about discovering a cure for bone cancer in children? Nah, guess having young innocent children die of excruciating pain is just part of God's plan, right?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >bad thing happen
            >no God

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >You literally say Galileo did not have sufficient evidence on his side to teach one thing (which turned out to be accurate)
            Galileo didn't have evidence for his position. You're arguing we should accept people pulling things out of their ass because they might be proven right in the future

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Mohammad flew to the moon on a winged horse
          >a billion people believe this
          You're a fool and an idiot

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            That's not an argument.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Ah yes, I am a fool, I apologize. ALMOST 2 BILLION!

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        (OP)

        All of them were indoctrinated into religion as children, and for most of history, questioning these beliefs was a direct way to ostracize yourself from your community, if not be outright persecuted (hell, the church even persecuted you if you observed certain facts about the universe like Galileo did).

        Religion is foremost about deference to authority, conformity to the group, and subordinating your beliefs to dogma. These things are not desirable in the slightest. Also, if you examine current society, intelligence is correlated with lack of belief statistically, so if you are laboring under the belief that smart people are religious, so if you want to be smart you should become religious, you are simply mistaken.

        Now, if you have a desire for some kind of spiritual fulfillment, I can sympathize. However, unless you are able to suspend your critical thinking and believe what are patently absurd, fantastical fairy tales, religion won't fulfill this need. As an example, try to force yourself to believe Mohammad flew to the moon on a winged horse. This is, of course, laughable, but there are over a billion people on the planet right now who would hate you if you deny it.

        This is what religion boils down to, a larp so deep the people practicing it have become the larp. But once you see it is all larp, you can't join in, not really. Also, religion does not have a monopoly on community, connection, fulfillment, beauty, or even transcendence. These are things you can discover for yourself in life, and I sincerely hope you do.

        Those “intelligent men” were just heavily indoctrinated by their parents while also growing up in a religious time like James Clerk Maxwell who had an outburst cause someone made a joke about Noah’s flood

        > “The conversation turned on Darwinian evolution: I can’t say how it came about, but I spoke disrespectfully of Noah’s flood. James Clerk Maxwell was instantly aroused to the highest pitch of anger, reproving me for want of faith in the bible. I had no idea at the time that he had retained the rigid faith of his childhood, and was, if possible, a firmer believer than Gladstone in the accuracy of Genesis.” - Karl Pearson

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          This James fellow seems immensely based.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You have never heard of James Clerk Maxwell? He’s the third great physicist in history after Isaac Newton and Einstein.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I knew who he was, I just never knew he was based.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Plotinus was indoctrinated by his parents
          This is funny because it's so obvious you're projecting your own Protestant biases onto theism as a whole. Like every Theist in history was only theist because their Mom dragged them to Church to hear Pastor Bob preach lmao

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Why Protestant bias? It's just the standard atheist midwit opinion

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Because American Protestants are the most likely to be resentful about their parents "forcing" Christianity on them. Most non-Americans see the faith as part of their cultural heritage. It's only mutts who are openly resentful of their own religious heritage.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Thomas Carlyle also had an outburst. Although unlike James Clerk Maxwell he was not religious, but he liked religion as he was raised by a religious Calvinist family and didn’t take well to the idea that religion might decline even more now with the help of Darwinism. A short time before his death in 1881, Thomas Carlyle made the following sudden outburst about Darwinism:

          > "The so-called literary and scientific classes in England now proudly give themselves to protoplasm, origin of species and the like, to prove that God did not build the universe. I have known three generations of the Darwins - grandfather, father, and son, atheists all. The brother of the present famous naturalist, a quiet man, who lives not far from here, told me that among his grand-father's effects he found a seal engraven with this legend: Omnia ex conchis (everything from a wienerle shell)! I saw the naturalist not many months ago; told him that I had read his Origin of Species and other books; that he had by no means satisfied me that men were descended from monkeys, but had gone far towards persuading me that he and his so-called scientific brethren had brought the present generation of Englishmen very near to monkeys. A good sort of man is this Darwin, and well-meaning, but with very little intellect. Ah! It is a sad and terrible thing to see nigh a whole generation of men and women professing to be cultivated, looking around in a purblind fashion, and finding no God in this universe! I suppose it is a reaction from the reign of cant and hollow pretence, professing to believe what in fact they do not believe. And this is what we have got. All things from frog-spawn; the gospel of dirt the order of the day. The older I grow - and now I stand upon the brink of eternity - the more comes back to me the sentence in the Catechism which I learned when a child, and the fuller and deeper its meaning becomes: ' What is the great end of man? To glorify God and enjoy Him for ever.' No gospel of dirt, teaching that men have descended from frogs through monkeys can ever set that aside."

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Based Maxwell

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            meds

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        do or dont bro, the world and the elites will give you a million reasons why God ought to be fake.
        but God justifies Himself, no one else can,because no one else can comprehend Him who is in fact beyond infinity. you have to believe in Him as Jesus reveals the Father to you, not in whatever this or that genius thinks God ought to be and can or cannot do.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          You speak rightly my friend, this is why you should dedicate yourself to the One True God, Allah, Praise Be to Him.

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Paulo Kogos (greatest thinker of our time) said that God never denies a pray asking for more faith.
    try it. Worked with me and many others.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Seems to me most great people in history were religious
      accurate observation
      >As of now, those beliefs seem ridiculous to me but I want to make an effort to understand before I make up my mind.
      herein lies your problem
      the greats didn't get there by memeing themselves into a state that's foreign to them. I think a much better way is to engage earnestly with philosophy, history, your country's cultural heritage, the sciences (to the extent you're capable of) and anything else you have the capacity to handle
      couple that with just living life I guarantee you're going to arrive at questions or live through *something* that you feel can only be explained if you accept that you have/are a soul
      it doesn't necessarily mean that you would become religious, but you'll have a much easier time seeing how the greats were

      Thanks for the advice.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Start a conversation with God by praying and asking for help and guidance. I personally believe that while He has the option to read minds and thoroughly understand His creations, God chooses instead to hide this knowledge from Himself about us. So unless we reach out to God and start learning about Him, He will not actually know that much about us before we consciously begin to build a relationship with God.
    Good luck on your journey friend, and remember that you can always say prayers in your head for free, but I started making sacrificial dinners for my Lord a couple days a week. I cook something really good and only take half for myself, and the rest I either burn on a large fire or leave outside in an ornate bowl. I state my vows to the Lord and meditate on what motivates me while asking for His guidance and touch.
    Make a real effort to get close to Him, and this type of thinking is non-denominational btw, so don't be afraid to walk into any type of church and sit in for a mass. Church going people will love seeing visitors 100% of the time, and almost always come up to talk with you after mass.
    Again, best of luck to you on this journey of discovery. You will see great things whether or not you expect them, and the mystery of life and its pleasures shall be returned to you 10 fold.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Thank you

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Just go to church and talk to a priest, you stupid tradlarper.

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Let's say a stranger comes to your house and tells you that your good friend who lives very far away has sent him to tell you to go to the train station at 3:00pm tomorrow, because your friend will be arriving at that time and will need your help. What will you do?

    What's more, this stranger not only knows your friend's name, but is very familiar with him. The stranger shows you his photo, and a letter. He gives your dog her favorite treat--the dog given to you by your friend. He comes also with money that your friend has owed you for some time. This man is a stranger to you, and yet he treats you as your good friend has always treated you.

    If you do not trust this stranger, is it not rather that you do not trust your friend? You might say that your mistrust is only in the stranger, but what has he done to cause your mistrust except to announce to you what should be good and encouraging news of the arrival of your friend? Do you consider it too good to be true and therefore suspect this stranger? But if it is too good to be true, it is not the stranger that you doubt, but rather the goodness of your friend that you doubt. You have no reason to think this stranger is evil except the extraordinary fortune of his arrival.

    It is clear from existence itself that it has been created. The artist is known by his work, so to speak. Even committed atheists look with some favor on the idea that what we call reality is a simulation--that is to say that our existence is created and not spontaneous. Furthermore, it is self-evident that existence is good, for even those who end their own existence do so not for a hatred of being, but out of a hatred of other things which cause them pain. Pain itself is the consequence of things which had existed and were good ceasing to exist. We enjoy youth, for example, and when our youth ceases to be, it pains us. It is not our breathing and being which ails us, but the memory of what was and is no longer.

    So if we know that we are made, there is a maker. Now, if the maker sends a messenger, and you say you doubt the messenger, do you not really doubt the goodness of the maker? Why would he who made you send you an evil messenger? And what could an evil messenger tell you except and evil message? So if the message is good, why should you think the messenger to be evil? If the maker is good, and what he made is good, and if the maker is true, and what he made is true, then his messenger and his message must be good and true. Only a false messenger could bring a false message. So, if you would avoid a false messenger--a messenger who has not been sent--then it is enough to judge the message.

    If a stranger comes to your house and tells you to hate your friend, will you believe him?

    When strangers come to you, then, and tell you to hate God, why do you believe them?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >It is clear from existence itself that it has been created
      lol, lmao even

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    god is geometry you fricking idiot

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Pray even if it feels silly, and ask God to guide you and to show himself to you, and he will when the time is right. Read the Gospels.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >All of them were indoctrinated into religion as children, and for most of history, questioning these beliefs was a direct way to ostracize yourself from your community, if not be outright persecuted (hell, the church even persecuted you if you observed certain facts about the universe like Galileo did).
    Wrong. I was raised as an agnostic and am now Roman Catholic. Atheism is a torture chamber for the prideful.
    >Religion is foremost about deference to authority, conformity to the group, and subordinating your beliefs to dogma. These things are not desirable in the slightest. Also, if you examine current society, intelligence is correlated with lack of belief statistically, so if you are laboring under the belief that smart people are religious, so if you want to be smart you should become religious, you are simply mistaken.
    Wrong again - incredible insight.
    >This is what religion boils down to, a larp so deep the people practicing it have become the larp.
    >truth is acting a certain way
    And so your criticism boils down to to the fact that you larp as an atheist and everyday you become the larp of someone who thinks it's logical that something magically is made from nothing by nothing.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Atheism is a torture chamber for the prideful.
      How so? Also, being an agnostic atheist is the farthest thing from pride since it is literally an acknowledgment that one does not know, and likely CANNOT know the ultimate truth of reality. Religion is the ultimate pride, a statement that, not only is the ultimate truth of reality, knowable, but you yourself have found it! Also, if you found atheism to be "a torture chamber" I suspect you're a somewhat disturbed individual to begin with.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Just say you're culturally israeli already and quite trying to pretend that you have said anything meaningful other than vaguely pointing at thought shadows of Jesus's face as Christ.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I am not israeli, nor do I have any affiliation with israelites. Also, so far, you have had nothing meaningful to say in the slightest. I point out legitimate concerns regarding religion, and all you have to say is "Wrong!" as if a simple denial is enough to constitute a defense. Perhaps you should read 1 Peter 3:15 before commenting again, or risk being a total hypocrite who betrays his own purported beliefs.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >give answer
            I missed your question in between the blithe nothingness and entry level atheistic takes towards what constitutes certainty of belief whereby you implicitly fantasized that rationality had a nexus of certainty from which you can judge probabilistic thoughts and thereby determine a credence factor from this objective stationary point and based on certain levels of credence factor ascent to a statement, which is nothing less than a second order objectivity but is merely the porn of objectivity, whereby belief is made as something you have and do not do and thoughts are things you ascribe as likely but the very ascription of likelihood itself is your dogma. TL;DR: What is truth isn't an argument.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Nonsense babble
            God is not needed for there to be truth, God is not needed for there to be an objective world outside our subjective experience. God is a product of human minds, nothing more.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >God is not needed for there to be truth
            logically speaking, there certainly has to be something that at least fills the shoes of God for there to be truth, otherwise the universe becomes a paradox

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You assume the truth must be comprehensible to the human mind. Also, define what you mean by "God", since I disagree that something fitting that description is needed.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Truth is the essence of infinity and is the thing that is more real than any other is thus is God.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Do you believe in objective morality? If so, where does the morality come from? Why are somethings morally good and not others?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Morality comes from objective facts regarding our subjective experience. Morality, "Good", must be rooted in positive subjective experience, otherwise it is meaningless. Again, I believe it is reasonable to assume that there is an objective world external to our experience, and that objective world has conditions which cause subjective experience which we feel. So, in so far as you can categorically call certain experiences undesirable, there is an objective root for morality, yes.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >"Good", must be rooted in positive subjective experience, otherwise it is meaningless
            So it's subjective. Basically "Morality is based on my fee fees". The great failing of atheism, relativising ethics is self defeating. You believe your position more justifiable epistemologically but you can't justify why anyone has an ethical duty to care about the truth.

            Ironically your moral arguments are philosophical, the exact same kind you deny can justify the existence of God so why the wishy washy position whereby you deny philosophical arguments for God but accept the ones that say killing is wrong?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Is a moral action good because God commands it to be good, or is there something intrinsic in it that is good? If the former, you submit wholly to authority and are a literal slave. If the latter, then you agree with me that a morality can be built based entirely on empirical observations. Morality is a tool to bring about desirable outcomes, specifically regarding groups of humans living together. Therefore, things which promote harmonious and beneficial outcomes are good. As I have just stated, the definitions of these words can be explored in an empirical way. Furthermore, I'll state again that "objective" morality from a supreme authority is an affront to human dignity and the essence of the human experience itself. Are you a slave to obey your master for fear of punishment, or are you a man capable of comprehending the consequences of your actions with the ability to moderate yourself accordingly?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Is a moral action good because God commands it to be good, or is there something intrinsic in it that is good?
            God is Goodness. So an action is good in so far as it conforms itself to God, and is evil in so far as it distances itself from God. As God himself cannot act contrary to what God is it follows that everything that flows from God is naturally good since it conforms to Gods nature.

            >Morality is a tool to bring about desirable outcomes
            Meaningless? What if my desirable outcome is to have my tribe eliminate your tribe by clubbing your skulls in? If you're a naturalist who doesn't believe in telology it would be entirely rational to believe this, just like how groups of apes attack each other in territorial disputes. The problem with the concept of "desirable outcomes" is that they're subjective, what is desirable for me might not be desirable for you. Basically this just reverts to being game theory, a big prisoners dilemma.

            >Furthermore, I'll state again that "objective" morality from a supreme authority is an affront to human dignity
            Wrong it is the source of human dignity. If there is no providence than the idea you have any more inherent "dignity" than an amoeba is laughable cope. Like a child who can't deal with the fact he was a cosmic accident with no purpose whatsoever.

            >Are you a slave to obey your master for fear of punishment, or are you a man capable of comprehending the consequences of your actions with the ability to moderate yourself accordingly?
            I adhere to the natural law, the Logos of the cosmos as the Stoics, Taoists, Hindus, Christians and Neoplatonists did.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            this

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Nonsense babble
            God is not needed for there to be truth, God is not needed for there to be an objective world outside our subjective experience. God is a product of human minds, nothing more.

            What is truth?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            That which comports with objective reality

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            What is objective reality?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The reality which exists independent of subjective experiences and which is the basis for those varied subjective experiences

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I highly recommend the Book of Job and Eccliasastes as those combined worked for me.

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    imagine being so desperate for friends you go out of your way to become religious so you can fit in with the other religious larpers on Oyish dot org
    why are white men like this

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I think this post could make anyone into a poltard wow

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >becoming a right wing incel because someone made fun of you for not having friends
        again i ask why are white men like this

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Books won't provide the fulfillment you seek. They can point the way, yet aren't the ultimate destination. That would be experiencing the divine for yourself. My recommendation would be delving into magickal and meditative practices of the non-denominational or Angelic sort.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >just open yourself up to demonic entities bro

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        ok churcher

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Spirituality is a meme, but so is pure materialism. Transcendental idealism makes more sense.

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Start with the greeks

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Read Plato's Phaedo for a belief in the supernatural (idealism), then Anselm's Monologion then Proslogion for the proof of God's existence

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I think for me some basic questions about existence led to believe in the gods. What is matter? Where does it come from? What started it all? Why are we conscious? Why do we love?

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    You need good pattern recognition ability+strong instinctual desire for meaning

    Believers are either sub 110IQ or 130+

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    What convinced me the most initially was Pascal and Kierkegaard, specifically Pensées and Fear & Trembling
    I strongly suggest you start reading the New Testament

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >ctrl + F
    >no Carl Jung piill
    Take the Carl Jung pill

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Carl Jung was a hack

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Your brain recognizes objects by recognizing relevance
    Relevance exists within the paradigm of a goal and the means to provide it
    The means = power (Nietzsche's will to power), which means that all phenomena you experience is literally manifest power
    Objects don't have independent existence, they are what manifests between your observation and the goal (telos)
    Power requires space and time in order to exist (as affect requires change, all things are in motion in the Aristotelian sense)
    The prime mover (Aristotle) is the power force that conditions all power and creates everything
    Nothing can exist independently of telos, which means the entire universe is contained by a creator
    Recommended reading
    >The Bible
    >Nietzsche
    >Plato
    >Aristotle
    >Jung
    >Nietzsche(again)
    >The Bible(again)

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    God is the anthropomorphic manifestation of the human's ability to perceive connections to people, places, things, ideas, experiences, etc... without being able to consciously define the phenomena (don't ask me why but it's probably neuro). All religion codifies and attempts to define it differently, and men pervert it to their will, of course, , but it is real in the materialistic sense (in that it is simply a biological process humans experience).

    to be with god is to be with compassion, so says jesus, buddha, maybe mohammed i don't recall,... and most other religions (some are shit though).

    That's it. That's all there is. The rest of it, all the mythos, is human ingenuity and perhaps extraterrestrial influence.

    The younger-dryas for flood myth. Three bible characters taken up into heaven by idk et's or whatever. True form of angels for xenobiodiversity.

    Annunaki were probably actual aliens; they modified genetics and had diverse personalities and goals wrt humans. Some may ask: How could that be? Where are they now? Why would they leave? And then proclaim, I don't believe you. Well, the galaxy is 13 Billion years old, and we've been around for roughly 300kyr. Supposedly writing for like 10k and building and shit for only 10k years. Out of 300k? Ok sure.

    Acknowledgement to homosexual Erectus with 2 million years of global dominance. No pyramids to show for it, though. Bummer.

    That's all spurious anyways God is farfetched top. Have a good day anon.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >God is the anthropomorphic manifestation of the human's ability to perceive connections to people, places, things, ideas, experiences, etc...
      You literally are just meming the Father in the trinity into a lie and not recognizing that the essence of God, in Catholicism at least, is defined as basically what Hermes and Plato saw but that the persons of God are persons.

  21. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    What worked for me was reading Jung.

  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I keep trying to explain what I know and hiw I got there but I jeep larping so All I will say is
    >Start cutting frivolous leisure out of your life
    >Learn to meditate (2x day)
    >Think about big problems only when exercising
    >Identify your values, principles and worldview (especially what you think is wrong)
    I never read the bible and still haven't despite wanting to. I'm pretty sure I'm a pseud but I now know there is something greater out there and it isn't just an escape like Buddhism but a path to follow through life and answer to problems.

  23. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Read the Holy Bible, but the only way to learn to truly believe is to *walk* it, humbly, earnestly, to the best of your ability (no matter how small that is right now) and to absolutely commit to sticking with it. Over time, things get revealed. If you use the benefits of those things properly and pay them forward, then more and more gets revealed. Never get greedy with it, let the gifts that God grants you be more than enough, your cup overflowing. All it should really take is one good gift from Him to last you a lifetime, but He is generous with those who walk with Him.

  24. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    In this order:
    -Prior analytics
    -Posterior analytics
    -Nicomachean Ethics
    -Metaphysics
    -Summa of the Summa (Kreeft)

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *