Agnostic atheist here. How do I make myself believe in God? I hate this post-modern reductionist materialistic world...

Faggot

...

Why bother with God? Religion is useful for cultural and national unity, but if you can't believe it you should try something else. Read biographies of great men and emulate their heroism. Become heroic in the Carlylean sense.

You don't need blind faith and submission to do this. Just will to power, masculinity and nobility.

Hero-worship is the highest of religions, because it doesn't degrade you for your 'sins' but instead shows you your weak points and tells you: you can be like this, so be a man!

Übermensch, bro.

This. Never bother with /fringe/. They claim to be some transcendent magicians just because they read few 'occult' books and had few mystical experiences. Not to say that there's a lot of things we don't know or understand, but /fringe/ is full of LARPers and "muh esoteric beliefs xD" types.

You won't get any practical use from them.

It's quite simply really, you begin with this premise and extrapolate:

God is not a man in the sky, god is a metaphysical force.

what if the yearning for god is really a yearning for a benevolent dictator?

lolno

Sure m8, sure.

...

Kickstart the Imperial Cult

Don't believe in god.
BELIEVE IN THE GOD EMPEROR.

youtube.com/watch?v=dhlmTJaADXE

Read Nietzsche.

And saved.

...

youtube.com/watch?v=-fGxOCJCRpA

...

what are you sliding chaim?

SLIDE THREAD

I will give you two books and I guarantee they will convince you if you actually read them.

The Signature of God by Grant Jeffrey

Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell. I can lead you to water, but only you can drink. It's absurd you say things like there's no evidence when we have the dead sea scrolls, entire lifetimes of research proving the events of the bible happened

You simply have to embrace the fact that theism is the only logical explanation. You need not necessarily concern yourself with a good or bad relationship with God to acknowledge His footprints. I, myself, am a Roman Catholic, so I could go on for days about why God and His existence must necessarily mean He is good and that He loves you, but as an atheist trying to take his first steps into belief in a higher consciousness, that will simply bore you. Start with the essential philosophy and material evidence, and then work your way up to dogma.

I will say this though: even though God is the simplest (read: most likely) explanation, He is not the easy answer. I hear atheists drone on about how Christians scrounge for superstitious comfort in a dank, terrible world. The reality is that nihilism is far more comfortable; nothing matters, and so there's no need for worry. Even as a life long Christian who believes that God cares about me, I have zero affection for Him. Life is an agonizingly painful disease I don't believe I should have to put up with it, but apparently He does. So I can't see Him as anything other than a coercive force. This has made life very difficult for me. Might be the same for you.

Start with the basics: the intangible relevance of Metaphysics, Materialism vs. Idealism (check the embed), Anselm's Second Ontological Argument, and Ontological Empiricism. Less general, more specific sources would be St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine. However, philosophers such as Nietzsche helped narrow down the logic behind God's existence through observations of man's nature as well. As such, make note of his analysis but leave behind his conclusions. I also highly recommend that you read CS Lewis' Abolition of Man–in fact, the YT channel CSLewisDoodle covers his best stuff.

One thing you definitely need to keep in mind that is probably going to be the greatest obstacle between you and a divine epiphany is your perception of religion and what your told it's supposed to mean. i.e. people will tell you that if you believe in God than you're religious, but if you don't then you're not. The postmodern counter-cultural hat trick was managing to convince people that they cease to keep a religion once they disavow God and embrace Materialism.

…continued

...

…continued

Using my own experience, I've always believed in God, but my consciousness was too fixated upon the material aspects of the world around me to ever truly call me a practicing Christian since he wasn't my true center of attention. To best understand what I mean, it is necessary to corollary the phenomenon of religiosity in a historical context to ascertain how I fell into the trap of materialism. Even though I could blame this deviation on a lack of education, I see the more prevalent situation in which I was placed as being more indicative of exactly what happened to me. In which case, recall that the Catholic Church developed the scientific method as a means of observing the physical realm with respect to its metaphysical implications from which pontifical authorities would build upon Christian philosophy and its traditions. Theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas would establish a relationship between science and philosophy using Aristotelian logic as a bridge (i.e. Observing X logically demonstrates Y, thus assigning reality an XY meaning). It would only be later, toward the end of the seventeenth century that elites would claim that the theological basis for this format was unnecessary so that they might divorce all divinity from any discovery. The misconception on the part of ardent atheists was that, by removing a gravitational center of a given belief system from one of its components, you in turn remove any religiosity to which it was attached. Nietzsche's case study has already demonstrated that removing one aspect from the center of a given metaphysical construct does not remove the principle of a center from the isolated aspect. In fact, it becomes a center unto itself, thus achieving religion-status as a doctrine of material-driven atheism. At the point of offset, it begins generating its own colloquial truisms, codes of conduct, innate biases, and dogma (see also: "Because a science book told me so!"), all of which create a series of devotionals that are particular to the given center. Science doesn't leave God, it becomes god, and the atheist intellectuals adopt a zealotry appropriate of their new deity (read: Materialism). As such, Religiosity is not confined to the various mysticism-based philosophies. Science for instance, in the atheist elite's pursuit to separate it from the spiritually conscious Church, was both culturally and institutionally codified as a religion. As time has gone on, the fanaticism attached to the scientific method has progressed into a Saganite form of worship among an in-group fraternity of scientists, in which Dawkins, Tyson, Kaku, Cox, Nye, Hawking, etc. all speak of the majesty of Materialism in hushed tones, reverent whispers, and awed mania. One can never break away from religiosity. You can only replace it over and over again in the pursuit of supreme individuality–Nietzsche's so-called "Ubermensch". And if this gravitation towards a religious center is a natural phenomenon, it suggests that there is a particular one we're seeking that is most consonant to our nature.

This is some cuckchan tier crap. There have been many absolutist moral systems. I suggest you read Scorates & Plato as they are the first and the best. If you are 100% gay and need some father-incest figure to tell you what is right & wrong then by all means cuck out to an abrahamic religion although perhaps hinduism would let you move your body freer and help you free the gay inside.

...

You can (a) lie to yourself, (b) bullshit yourself with obscurantism, (c) believe in the god of the philosophers, or (d) believe in magic.

(a) is obvious: you just tell yourself that Almighty God visited a bunch of goatherders in the desert 3000 years ago, led them out of Egypt over the course of 40 years, had them build a temple, conquer an area the size of Iraq under their king named David, and lastly incarnated himself as the son of a carpenter to save humanity from a punishment he himself imposed.

Practically all the claims of the OT (the Flood, the exile, the 2nd Temple, the Davidic Kingdom) are refuted by archeology, but that doesn't stop the majority of Christians from believing in Jesus.

The practical problem with this sort of belief the state of Christianity, which is hopelessly cucked. You can find expositions on this elsewhere, but suffice it to say that you won't find many racialist Christians. Evangelicals, when they're not sucking Israel's cock, are busy performing interracial marriages and bringing Muslim "refugees" into the West.

(b) is for the more intellectually inclined who still want to believe what they were taught in Sunday school. They seek refuge in saying profound-sounding things that don't mean anything, e.g.

"God transcends existence"
"The Bible is true in a transhistorical sense"

You essentially occupy your mind with games and thus assuage the doubts that would otherwise arise as to the outlandish claims of the Bible.

(c) is basically Platonism/pantheism. You accept that the desert book is nonsense, but that there is a sort of God - a first cause, an origin of all things, some cosmic force, the Truth, etc. The upside is that you won't have to defend tales from the Iron Age. The downside is that most people won't find this view very emotionally satisfying.

(d) is what all the cool kidz are talking about. You see reality itself as subject of the minds and beliefs of conscious beings. Humanity is not just the plaything of heartless physical laws, but a force of nature unto itself. Our meme magic is our weapon, our collective consciousness a nascent god. Our very will alters reality, and this capacity will only increase as humanity as a whole becomes more powerful.

Modern Paganism dips into (a), (b), and (d). Some literally believe in Odin as a sky-man, some think of him as a symbol, and some as an expression of our völkisch spirit. Whatever you choose: good luck on your journey and Heil Hitler!

lul

>>>/christian/

Do not fall for Abrahamic Christcukery. That is the most important thing. If you go Christian suddenly, you might as well go full Jewish as well. The Jewish plan at the moment is to merge all Abrahamic faiths into one.

This means he cannot become subject to time, he must be above time. He cannot be influenced, he must remain what he is. He cannot influence the World as he would have to become subject to Time and Influence again. Therefore, the entire idea of "God" from Abrahamic faiths is nonsense.

The Perfect Being must have absolutely no influence upon our realm and therefore also ensures that we have freedom.

Not only do they represent our Ancestors, not only our Blood, but also our Spiritual Archetypes. They also represent what our Society and its leaders should look like.

By ensuring his continued existence. His immortality is his Blood and his DNA on top of the inheritance which he passes on. Man becomes God therefore both in the physical and the spiritual realm, where the spiritual is highly connected to the application of Wisdom as well.

The "God" you're thinking of is nothing more than conscious awareness. You're mistake is that you believe consciousness arises from the brain. It's the other way around. Everything arises from consciousness.

I went through an atheist stage too before I became religious.

I started to believe in God as a child, I lost faith as a teenager when my grandparents died and I learned about death, and then I regained my faith as a young adult when I started to study science.

In short, I have pondered the same conundrum. There is no simple answer to your question. It is impossible to prove that God exists. Similarly, it is impossible to prove that he doesn't exist. You either have faith or you don't.

Heil'd. And true.

This is a good post.

Consider how many of us arrived at unironic kek worship. When you understand the power of collective unconscious, egregores/thoughtforms, order out of chaos, the double slit experiment, quantum observation, etc, you can start to see the connections that will lead you to the conclusion that some kind of divinity is not only inevitable, but necessary.

A FUCKING KIKE ON A STICK AHAHAHAH

You don't have to believe in god to be non-materialistic or to have a sense of morality and compassion. Just take a look at the original buddhist tradition, theravada.

Can't even read text.
LOW ENERGY

This tbh OP.

Now for spiritual doctrine, I recommend having a look into Buddhism and hinduism to get the grasp of some concepts, then dedicate efforts to discover the true nature of the gods and the universe.

The universe is populated by systems that build towards greater complexity until they create something wholly different. Physics gave birth to Chemisty, and Chemistry gave birth to Biology. What of Biology though? What did it build into? Mythology. You are the story you tell yourself; this world is the story you tell yourself. The naive believe narrative has no substance, but it is still in it's early stages, and we are its first fruit. Biology does not build cathedrals, stories do, and one day long from now, whatever Mythology eventually gives rise to, those things will look at us and yearn to live when Gods still walked this Earth in flesh and blood.

Start by learning all things are connected.
Biologists have gone at pretty much lightspeed compared to the beginning of the last century once they stopped considering tiny tissue sample experiments as superior to organism experiments.
Now when chemicals are tested in the body there aren't just one or two results tested, there is blood work done, observation of dispersal, probing of receptor etc.

Think of all the things science can't explain at the moment. Now think of all the explanations that our great people have arrived to in the last five centuries to natural phenomena. All of them spell out the road to the "cause" that induces the "effect" that is desired and much of those explanations were obtained with experimentation and reasoning based on facts. But what if there are "effects" around us that have "causes" that are impossible to figure out based on either experimentation or reasoning based on facts because our society is incapable of taking those facts as facts and not opinions?

So, can there be explanations to things around us that are not known to man yet? This simple question drove our society from one extreme to another. And unless we get proof one way or the other, it is irrational to claim that there are supernatural elements in our society OR that there are no supernatural elements in our society. You can go full "OH, BUT THERE ARE NO CONFIRMED SUPERNATURAL HAPPENINGS THAT ARE ACKNOWLEDGED BY SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY" but this is bullshit because every time they stumble upon one, they handwave it, therefore you cannot trust them on this.

So basically, claiming that there's no god is stupid since there can be one.

Mythology only affects the real world throught the minds of men,though.
Not that it's bad, when you get deep enough into paganism you start to notice that all the mythos around the gods are nothing but means of making some concepts easier to get into the minds of the ignorants.
The true nature of the gods lie on their effect upon the universe, not on supernatural phenomenon, but on our daily routines.
An entity like poseidon, for example, the personification of all that is liquid is absolutely essential for our existance for once.
Anyways, study archetypes.

I don't buy this cause and effect narrative. If God is the cause of the universe, what's the cause of God?
It is simpler to assume that the universe is eternal and the big bang is simply a change of cycles caused by an object drawing all matter into a point due to its gravity.

If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then he could find a way to cause his own existence. Duh.

And the mind only affects the real world through chemical action, which only affects the real world through atoms. You, in your entirety, are a story. Without it, you're a monkey. Mythology is real; we are comparable to the first interactions of physics, the first reactions of chemistry, the first structures of biology; we are not what Mythology is, we are merely where it begins.

He doesn't need one if He exists outside of the universe.

It is the very opposite of "simple" to assume that something as complex as the universe (and us) is reliant upon nothing but its own evidence to exist.

that same argument can be used for god that you just used for the universe
smh fam when you dont realize this

Yes, but none of that verifies the Bible. Even if one were to grant that the supernatural exists, that there's an afterlife, that the universe had a first cause - all of that would say NOTHING about the veracity of the Bible.

But more to OP's question: if you're dead-set on becoming a Christian, I recommend Traditional Catholicism. There are various streams (Sedevacantists, society of Pious X), but they all reject Vatican II and the current faggot Pope. Catholicism, its current state notwithstanding, is also at least tolerant of national identity.

You get no such deal with the "we are all one in Christ" Protestants.

This.

How can you be agnostic and atheistic at the same time? This makes no sense.
You will never see god in something if you deny it in the first place. But believe me, you will when you die or have a NDE. In the meantime take some LSD, Mescaline or DMT - not a some shitty rave party - but in nature. Or work in a hospital for a while with dying people and watch what happens when a concious person dies.

Rosenberg was a big influence on me but I guess I just rationalized my way to it.
If there is no higher being then the left is right. If there is we are right.

I never said that God was one from the Bible. And while nothing ever confirmed the Bible or any religious texts, really, nothing really disputes them either. And a possibility of existence of supernatural directly contradicts the religion of atheism, so OP should just stop being a faggot, or at least try to.

How's his Myth of the Twentieth Century, bro?

Hard and kinda boring to read but the content and what he is trying to convey is incredible.
You can start with this abridged audiobook youtube.com/watch?v=X77dkiDpBoM&list=PL8N4Xw3MtJJzF1YzQJ-fq0r8qYqyLPQkv

lmao christcucks so dumb they cant even bait properly

convert heathen

Thanks.

Practically of the historical claims of the OT have been refuted by archeological evidence.

No evidence of such an event exists. If all animals existed concurrently and were killed at the same time by the Flood, we'd find the bones of dogs and cats mixed in with those of dinosaurs and trilobites. No such finds exist.
No archeological evidence of this exists. First of all, the distance from Egypt to Palestine is only around 200km, which can be surmounted on foot in less than a month (and one need only follow the coastline). Second: infrared satellite photography can detect ancient caravan routes, yet it failed to detect any movement of >1million people. Palestine would have also been unable to support such a huge population without modern agriculture.
No records of a kingdom of such extent exist. This is likely a wild exaggeration of whoever wrote 1 Samuel.
This is a retcon by later writers. The population of Palestine had always been polytheist. The monotheism that elevated Yahweh to the status of, first, the chief, and later, the only, god, was historical revisionism on the part of writers who wanted to explain why the land was full of Baal- and Ashtaroth-worshippers.
Again, there is no evidence of such a large movement and the Babylonians didn't and couldn't have practiced the relocation of entire nations. Only elites were killed/exiled, nobody cared about the peasants.

To speak nothing of the outlandishly specific claims about the will of God in the Bible:
etc. pp.

Suppose there is a cosmic force.
Why would it have such oddly specific wishes?
How would these people, and no others, and no others since, come to know its will?

...

God has always been a substitute for nature, for the biological imperative. The only other way to convince someone to act in the greater good of his race is Fascism.

God (and Fascism) is the answer for the what, whereas nature is the answer for the why. - Do not get that backwards.

Something can be both subjective and concrete. Say you are a White, for instance. You may quite rightly say "I am white". There are other people who are not white who would say that that statement does not universally apply, it is not objective. - But, dear Negro, that doesn't make it untrue. Do not be afraid to put your interests first, to surrender yourself to nature, to meaning, to be Fascist, to realize that you are a player in the game and not a referee. Move your chess pieces without consideration for the black pieces' wellbeing - for that is how the game is won.

Reddit faggots will never learn why this is stupid and will continue to use it to label themselves.