Are you patrician enough to read the holy texts of all the world's major religions, and come to your own conclusions?
Only the weak of mind would turn down such a challenge.
>>8109285
Nah, I'm redpilled. All I need is Hitler, Schopenhauer, Evola, Sam Harris, and Oswald Spengler.
>>8109285
>holy texts of all the world's major religions
No it's waste of time. Those are all dense af; I'll take the time to learn about all the major religions though and I'll read the holy books of the ones that seem most interesting.
What does them being major religions have to do with anything? Their popularity has no bearing on whether they're right or not.
>>8109285
Why only the major ones? It's always possible that the oral traditions of a small tribe in Java are actually 100% correct and everybody else is a heretic.
>>8109312
Or just the ramblings of some random schizophrenic, or even what data you could retrieve by interpreting the way moss has happened to grow on a certain wall. I guess OP's too much of a pleb to understand this.
>>8109310
Their being right or wrong has no bearing on whether or not they have merit.
Surely you don't believe in the Greek gods, yet would that stop you from reading Homer and Sophocles?
The same can be said of the Mahabharata or Genesis. Their value isn't extinguished because their preachments aren't all true.
>>8109323
What does that have to do with conclusions? Go read some moss, pleb.
Allahu akbar
What are the holy books we're bothering with OP?
>Bible (Torah is covered by this)
>Qur'an
>Upanishads & Bhagavad Gita
>Guru Granth Sahib
>Avesta
Which sutras for Buddhism? Book of the Dead?
And are we doing the Gnostic Gospels, Hermetica or stuff like that?
>>8110115
Here's a good one.
>>8109285
Even the single mind is conflicted on the subject of religion when split...
>>8109285
You should try traditionalists, although they have a slighty muslim bias.
>>8109288
>Nah, I'm redpilled
>Sam Harris
