I want to deprogram my brain from Religion

[Anonymous No.22746712]

Give me a book that tells me what's real and what's just fake bullshit. I don't want to be a schizo anymore

[Anonymous No.22746717]

>>22746712
Then why are posting coomer pictures?

[Anonymous No.22746722]

https://youtu.be/xqY08gN_FCM?si=oTMFmfLTbjEtcnRm

[Anonymous No.22746723]

iq issue

[Anonymous No.22746735]

>>22746712
Are you a literal schizophrenic? If so, no book can actually help you and you should cherish your connection with the divine.

[Anonymous No.22746738]

>>22746712
Imagine raping her

[Anonymous No.22746747]

>>22746735
Nah, just a dude who grew up in a religious environment. I rationally know what's true and what's not but damn so much pseudoscience fucks with the brain.

[Anonymous No.22746752]

>>22746723
My IQ is fine, though I would say I am lobotomized due to CPTSD for sure.

[Anonymous No.22746774]

>>22746712
There are no books like that. That's why pilosophy still exists, as it tries to answer the same questions it gave birth to thousands of years ago. If someone had the true, right answers it would show in some unequivocally, proven way, which it hasn't. The human spirit is religious in nature, we always believe and have faith in questions. The reasons why people keep living is because they think this life is better than the one after death, or uncertain. They don't have the answers. When people stop believing in religion they start believing in ideologies. And everyone has one or more, in one way or another. Schizos aren't far from the truth sometimes.

[Anonymous No.22746792]

>>22746774
>There is no truth but schizos aren't far off from the truth?

[Anonymous No.22746813]

>>22746747
Only things you can prove are real, the rest are just like an opinion man.

I saw that relgion was bullshit when I was a kid and they were talking about how all cults will base themselves on the essential lie, trust your feelings and have faith. Then they would insulate people from outsiders.

I didn't see any difference between that and how churchpeople lived. They'd try to tell me it's different because they've been around hundreds of years and people wouldn't all be wrong. Which is bull because people thought the world was flat for a long time.

The way the scientific community does things is they post their data to other scientists for their experiments, and other people try to do the same things and prove them wrong. They'll admit when they're wrong. It's not bull, but it doesn't explain everything.

The rest that isn't explained, you don't need it. You don't need fairy tales about what happens after you die because you'll be dead then and it won't matter.

That's it. You don't need a book to tell you what to do. No one has control over how they're born or how they die, and spirituality steps in and try to take advantage of that.

I think you were in it longer than if that feels like that's not enough. Enough answers, enough comfort, enough emough.

I can't make it be enough, but I can say you're not alone in the world. It'll be fine.

[Anonymous No.22746819]

Ban zoomers.

[Anonymous No.22747095]

>>22746813
reddit-tier mindset. But why do you blindly believe "science" but not other things? How do you know these labcoats aren't lying, spinning their own narrative, being paid off by companies endorsing whatever study etc. Your own logic shows fault in your beliefs.

[Cult of Passion No.22747096]

>>22746712
>Give me a book that tells me what's real
Religion was literally made for you, you seem to be a Satanist.

Go...do what thou wilt...you always could...but your soul will punish you for it.

[Anonymous No.22747101]

>>22746813
Explain using science why murder is wrong

[Anonymous No.22747110]

>>22746712
Esotericism and the Academy by Wouten Hanegraaff

[Anonymous No.22747175]

>>22746792
The truth being that there is no truth. I don't believe that since I'm not schizo and actually believe in truth and God.

[Anonymous No.22747194]

>>22747101
Its not, fucking pussy faggot. Right and wrong is a tool just like religion, made up by those in charge to stop the peasants from rising up and slaughtering them all. There is no right and wrong, only might and strong. And even that doesn’t matter in the end, because we all die. Its all meaningless man, everything else is cope

[Cult of Passion No.22747197]

>>22747101
>using science
What field of science are you trained in?

[Cult of Passion No.22747211]

>>22747194
What a coping take...

[Anonymous No.22747283]

>>22747095
>science
>trust
Results are testable and repeatable. Read papers and test results while recording your results. Publish results. Did you do experiments in science class with chemicals? It's not a matter of trust.

>>22747101
Murder is not wrong. Soldier, if this country goes to war and you're sent to the front I expect you to kill your fellow human being. I expect you to grab both your ankles real tight and pull your head out of your ass.

Killing a person outside a war is a crime. It is criminal. Things can be wrong and not be a crime. The right thing to do can be criminal.

Law, morals, and science are three different value systems. Do not expect them to overlap. Another value system is fair play. When you play Monopoly, I expect you to play fair and to not cheat. When you go to war, I expect you to be the most unfair son of a bitch you can be, choking them with smoke and shooting people in the back.

You always understood overlapping value systems. Religion just taught you how not to think, unless it was thinking everything revolves around religious morals when clearly it does not.

Are you okay with murder during war or self defense? Thou shall not kill.

Be honest, OP and I grew up in the church and we know what lying sons of bitches you can be.

[Anonymous No.22747374]

>>22747283
my point is that science can lie. I don't know what religion you grew up in, but Science and humanities both agree on Jesus being a real person who existed. Does that account for anything to you? I'm just curious.

[Anonymous No.22747385]

>>22746712

[Anonymous No.22747416]

>>22747374
the fact that you are directly comparing science and religion like this is low iq
how can anyone ‘debate’ your points if they have to give you therapy first?

[Anonymous No.22747495]

>>22747374
Lie? People just have experiments and publish their results. Others try it and reproduce them they publish their results. It's what's proveable and not a matter of opinion. It's things that are solid and real, how much things weigh, how magnets and batteries work, what happens when you add numbers together. Like how you can't divide by zero.

If you multiply 2x3 and get 6, the divide 6 by 3, you get 2. In a Euclidean system those functions are reversible. If you divide by zero 6/0, there is no result you can multiply your answer by to get back where you started.

If you don't understand why I'm talking math and weights and physics and things that are just real and not a matter of lies, ambiguity and opinion, it's because religion filled your head with bullshit about what science is.

Now as for the Jesus matter there was no one named Jesus. Are you referring to Yeshua Bin Yosef? Claimed to be the son of God, King of the Jews, murdered by a conspiracy between the church and the state who worried he would lead his followers out of the city and not pay taxes, as offerings to the gods were sold by the state to collect revenue.

In every time period, in every different place in the world people seem to find different ways to interpret Yeshua. The gospels are your earliest record of that. The gospel that starts with linking Yeshua to the line of Kings was written for a Jewish audience. The ones that did not start with that were written for Greek and Roman audiences. They were compiled later into various versions of the Bible, each with more or less versions, each with something taken away or added in translation such as 'pass a camel through the eye of a needle' likely being a mistranslation or the Book of Ezra being outright Persian propaganda.

I've studied, likely more than you. What happened in the past matters to me quite a bit. If there was anything that wasn't leading me to the conclusion that it isn't all a bunch of bullshit I'm sure I would have rested easier instead of wondering why my family had lumped Jesus, guns, America, the death penalty, and being full of shit behind people's backs while trying to appear happy and pious in front of them all together under the banner of religion and the Bible.

[Anonymous No.22747540]

>>22746813
>atheist employs extreme reddit-spacing to deliver midwit platitudes
imagine my shock

[Anonymous No.22747568]

>>22747540
Insults is all you've got left? You guys need to get your shit together. I shouldn't be suprised, you guys believe in magic. Santa Claus stories for adults.

[Anonymous No.22747579]

>>22746712
Things don't get any more fake than thinking "nah there's no such thing as valor and maliciousness it's just electrons in peoples brains and arrangements of atoms"

[Anonymous No.22747630]

>>22747579
But we can prove how that works. People with brain injuries to certain parts of their brain stop being able to use parts of their body or remember things. Atoms can be measured. Those chemistry charts work.

If someone showed up today claiming to be the son of God you'd be skeptical, wouldn't you? If someone said there were miracles but you can't see them, you'd call bullshit on it.

Where's the sense in not doing that with these old books with stories about people coming back from the dead and stuff that you wouldn't believe if someone told you today?

[Anonymous No.22747639]

>>22746712
Don’t. Let time do it for you, trust me, hold on as long as you can

[Anonymous No.22747659]

>>22747568
The non-midwit way of thinking would be to realize that there's a pretty obvious difference between religion, which is any organized metaphysical claim, and a cult, which is fundamentally founded on secrecy and unhealthy power dynamics. And that unhealthy power dynamics aren't some kind of arbitrary byproduct of non-atheism, but are just a fundamental part of how people interact. They happen in totally non-religious contexts and even in anti-religious contexts (Communism, The Paris Commune) too, so attaching that to any sort of religion is conflating correlation and causation.

[Anonymous No.22747813]

>>22746813
You understand that "real" is a metaphysical claim that cannot be proven by science? Science just studies the effects of phenomena, not the nature of those phenomena themselves.
>The way the scientific community does things is they post their data to other scientists for their experiments, and other people try to do the same things and prove them wrong. They'll admit when they're wrong. It's not bull, but it doesn't explain everything.
Yes, they measure phenomena, what it does, the effects of it, and are able to repeat the experiments done in that context. They understand, through empiricism, the measurement of phenomena, the effects of it, what it does, but they do not understand what the nature of the phenomena is ITSELF. This is the fundamental problem with people who make claims like you do, you make unsubstantiated claims about the nature of reality itself when you can't get that through empiricism. You go as far as to say that's all there is, again, inadvertently making a claim about the nature of reality ITSELF and not it's appearance. To understand this more simply, the logic of someone like you is to look at the sun and think it actually rises and sets because that's what it appears to do, extend that logic then not to what we can know empirically to be a false appearance, like the sun rising and setting, but to what we cannot know empirically because of the very nature of it is beyond empiricism. You can never know the true nature of something by just studying it's appearance, tl dr.

[Anonymous No.22747924]

>>22746712
From my experience time does a pretty good job. For a while you'll flip flop but that'll happen less and less.

[Anonymous No.22747949]

>>22746712
Beyond Free Will by Robert Sapolsky

[Anonymous No.22747951]

>>22747949
Whoops it's called Determined: The science of a life without free will

[Anonymous No.22748235]

>>22747813
I'm talking about 2 plus 2 equalling 4. All of my claims are rooted that deeply in what can be observed. The implied space of the unknown and unexplained and unobservable is a place I understand as being unknown, unexplained, and unobservable. Stop trying to put religion into it. It's a void anything can fit into, as in your religion is no more proveable than any other.

2+2=4 however is real. That is my claim, that's how proveable things have to be fire me to say they're real, that's what you've got to argue against if you're trying to unseat my understanding of what's real. Got it?

Adjust your argument for someone who's got both feet firmly planted in reality. As in I know how far off you guys can get. My mother believes demons make people do things and she would talk about hearing them when the records would play backwards. She thought people influenced everyone around them and no one made decisions for themselves and that she was always right because she was with God.

2+2=4. Everything has to add up. Stuff about what was going on in religious families when they're trying to appear perfect and they're clearly not doesn't add up.

You're trying to argue against me in the position of saying the sun goes around the earth. I never made that claim. That doesn't add up. Don't argue against claims I never made, that's manipulative and dishonest.

[Cult of Passion No.22748260]

>>22747813
>You understand that "real" is a metaphysical claim that cannot be proven by science?
Let me grab you ear and twist it...you feel no pain, youre simply "singing", a purely chemical response.

Sing your song, human, sing for me your soul.

[Anonymous No.22748275]

>>22746717
Asking the real questions here

[Anonymous No.22748279]

>>22747416
Why do leftists always bring up psychiatry without being asked?

[Anonymous No.22748284]

>>22747951
Jewish anti religious clap trap

[Anonymous No.22748321]

>>22746712

[Anonymous No.22748357]

>>22748321
>The psychiatrist Carl Jung, the founder of analytical psychology, wrote that The Future of an Illusion "gives the best possible account" of Freud's earlier views, "which move within the confines of the outmoded rationalism and scientific materialism of the late nineteenth century."[4] The critic Harold Bloom calls The Future of an Illusion "one of the great failures of religious criticism." Bloom believes that Freud underestimated religion and was therefore unable to criticize it effectively.[5] Today, some scholars see Freud's arguments as a manifestation of the genetic fallacy, in which a belief is considered false or inverifiable based on its origin.[6]
Freud was always a neurotic coombrained assclown.

[Anonymous No.22748361]

>>22746712
You're never going to get better because you are still trying to sort everything into categories like true and false. Whether something is true or false doesn't matter as much compared to your problem of compulsive sorting. Sort that out first.

[Anonymous No.22748362]

>>22748279
>why so people bring up my mental state when i schiz about religion?

[Anonymous No.22748384]

>>22748357
>Outmoded rationalism
kek, imagine a self own like rejecting reason. Sorry, but projecting a literal "Heavenly Father" into the sky is almost too much. You don't even need analysis, it's just overt. The claims of religion are incompatible between rival religions, thus there are at least two religions with over a billion adherents each which are entirely false. It's only a complete fool who thinks that, by using the same mechanism of belief as the other false religions, he has found the "true" religion. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out. The desire for a "god" is the ultimate bias, it's the ultimate confirmation bias, it categorically distorts people's view of reality as evidenced by the numerous religions which cannot be mutually true. Even if you presuppose that there is a God, 99.999% of religions would still be false because they all make fundamentally different claims about God. Thus, in the final analysis, man makes religion, and he makes religion when he is at his most primitive..

[Anonymous No.22748390]

>>22748357
Jung was a literally schizo, entirely detached from reality. No wonder Freud was so ashamed of what he became.

[Anonymous No.22748404]

>>22748235
I'm not religious, claims about something as "real" is a metaphysical claim that cannot be proved by empirical evidence. Empirical science studies phenomena's effects, not the nature of the phenomena itself. The effects of phenomena are appearances, it tells you nothing about the nature of it in it of itself. So 2+2=4, but to say 2+2=4 is "real" is non sense. If you were truly empirical you would stick with the first instead of veering off into metaphysical assumptions that are unsubstantiated. I don't want to get caught up in semantics, so it doesn't matter to me what you mean by "real" only what the implication of that actually is, the implication being that you're making an unsubstantiated metaphysical claim in ignorance thinking that empiricism can tell you the nature of reality, in other words you think appearance IS the nature of reality, you throw out metaphysics when you're still making a metaphysical assumption, just a backwards and illogical one. You are completely stuck on appearances, this is what my example of the sun rising and setting is supposed to illustrate, the sun rising and setting too is "real" but that says nothing about what it is actually doing, it isn't a perfect example because empirical science can actually answer what it does, but it cannot answer anything beyond what it "does", it's effects, it's measurements, it does not answer what the nature of it IN IT OF ITSELF is. It could only reveal just how little you actually know and the limits of empiricism when you dig deep down enough into appearances and realize how deceptive they are.

[Anonymous No.22748419]

God is formless emptiness. Embrace atheist theism bros.

[Anonymous No.22748428]

>>22748384
Reason is based on faith just like religion is. Trusting the word of God the holy Bible is your best bet.

[Cult of Passion No.22748442]

>>22748384
>genius
Every point you made is from a false truth made from assumptions in certainty.

t.Knower

[Anonymous No.22748443]

>>22748419
Empty of what? True atheism is materialism, that appearances are reality and there's nothing but inanimate matter. Theism usually means a belief in a personal creator. "god" if we are talking in terms of the one, is absolute, and atheism in reference to a lack of a personal creator, now that would actually make sense. The absolute cannot be personal or a first cause, or a creator. It cannot be material but it isn't immaterial either.

[Anonymous No.22748445]

Atheists don't have any morality. Atheist want sex and drugs and virtue signaling and when they are told all they want is just debased orgies without moral judgement, they respond that their bonobo dad and their fish grandad had orgies too so it's OK to continue this way.

[Anonymous No.22748447]

>>22748428
A = A is not an article of faith

[Cult of Passion No.22748464]

>>22748443
>It cannot be material
If humans were told it was then the first thing they would think of is killing it to take its place.
>it isn't immaterial either
"Now it can be whatever I want it to be and I will speak for it until it shows up, making me defavto God. Infinity+1."

This is the Way of Man...

[Anonymous No.22748469]

>>22748447
nta, but in regards to phenomena, you only know effects and measurements of A, not what A is. You cannot actually say what A is in accordance to empirical science, that is completely outside it's bounds, to make a claim on that is metaphysics. To make a claim that A equals itself, in other words, that it's appearances are what it fundamentally is, that is faith, that is belief.

[Cult of Passion No.22748479]

>>22748469
>not what A is.
You seem rather certian about that.

[Anonymous No.22748484]

>>22748479
I am saying within the context of empirical science and phenomena, you cannot know what A is, A being phenomena, and studying A using empirical science. You'll never know what A is with empirical science, only it's effects and measurements. Once you start talking about what A is, that is metaphysics, not empirical science.

[Anonymous No.22748496]

>>22748469
A is an abstract concept which you are literally defining as A. To even refer to it as A is to admit A = A

[Cult of Passion No.22748502]

>>22748484
>you cannot know
>>22748464
>"Now it can be whatever I want it to be and I will speak for it until it shows up, making me defavto God. Infinity+1."

Youre using man made logic to the universe, not universal laws. David Hoffman, "You cant know nuffin." Midwit tier Phenomenologist.

Your sensory organs are a measure of reality, made by reality, TO measure reality.
>Thats a measure, not it.
The measure of Man is his capacity for objective truth, not the atoms to which he is made.

Tell me, young boy, what is your measure?

>That still isnt what it is.
It is whatever I fucking say it is. Youre "Infinity+1-ing". If I start to cut off greater amounts of your body you will come to certainty about a lot of things life...the reason you have a "***WE*** cant know nuffin." perspective is because you have never dealt with life and death and been forced to fogure out reality real quick.

Ergo, young boy.

[Anonymous No.22748513]

>>22748484
Every time you use a word, you implicitly acknowledge that A = A, since you presuppose that each word means what it means.

[Anonymous No.22748524]

>>22748404
I think you're copying an argument you've seen other people use for more assumptive arguments that self-evident truths such as "addition" can be a basis for what's real, and sticking to it because you don't want to look weak by backing down. I think you're better off admitting at the very least there's been a misunderstanding.

I don't need a system that explains everything. If I didn't make that clear by how I described how I'm okay with what's scientific, what's moral, what's legal, what's right and wrong all being possibly different, I am explicitly saying that to you now.

Please infer as little as possible by that because I think it's a very empty statement to say what's known is known, what's not known is not known, things can be classified in different ways.

To people other than myself and this anon, don't worry about our exchange. I think we'll get to a point where we can agree adding numbers together works, and we don't know things we don't know, but we'll have to argue semantics whether or not counting can be considered a reliable presumption upon a bit first.

You're still trying to talk about the sun. I did not mention the sun. I am that specific about breaking down what we can agree on. I'm talking about things that "are" as being real, not things that "are like" being real. If there is a "like" or "as if" or other simile or metaphor being used to describe something, you and I are talking about different things.

I've said the unknown is unknown, and I think that's much of your point you're trying to make about scientific systems. In religion, religion tries to explain the unknown. I'm fine with it being unknown because it is unknown, and how that applies to my life is I don't need a fairy tail about what happens when I die.

Are we getting closer to English to English translation?