If a religion doesnt attract your attention on its own, then its not the right religion for you.

That's why I listed three religions that do have my attention.

Honestly, religion is something deeply spiritual that YOU should decide on your own

I know this, but I was hoping to hear some arguments for why a certain religion is best. Also, I want to join a religion mostly for the sense of community and also for the aesthetic. I already have my own spiritual connection to God, regardless of religion.

I'm just your normal agnostic, desu. I believe it is likely that there is an entity that we cannot begin to understand by using science, and that (maybe) souls exist. I'm not a very believer in the supernatural, but I believe that some events are actually supernatural and cannot be explained by science alone. Are there ghosts? idunfukinno. Is there a god? idunfukinno, yes?

You only need three words to tell us you're an idiot, mate.

Zoroastrianism is really cleverly designed, maybe look into that.

But there aren't that many Zoroastrians where I live, so I wouldn't get that sense of community and belonging I desire. I could join it, but I'd have to join another one with more followers and structure in my area.

@knyte
Who me?

Just avoid Islam it is the worst by far.
Check as many options as possible and be critique
After that you will be ready to make the best possible choice for you.

You can always get in the line and worship me :P

Get involved in Identity Evropa or another right wing vanguard party. God has been dead in the West for centuries; the man rediscovers meaning in the fight for his physical survival against savages.

nah i prefer to meme

@Wulfhere, I could, but I'm not white by their standards so it probably wouldn't make sense.

Evola was right about God

kekism

Evola was right about God

Catholicism is the best out of those three (although personally I'm a Protestant). If you like science, Christianity actually makes a lot of things in this world make a lot of sense. A ton of things can be explained simply by using proper science and looking at it through a Christian worldview. I invite anyone to debate/discuss this with me, I'll try to b open-minded.

Buddhism, by the way, is... well... to put it frankly, a ton of rubbish that contradicts itself and doesn't makes any sense. Trust me. I went to a Buddhist monastery as part of a school (I go to a Christian one) excursion, and the people who were there to answer our questions either dodged our questions or explained some random stuff that didn't make any sense without even answering the question. Buddhism is basically glorified atheism, except it doesn't stand up to modern science and quite simply makes no sense.

Mind to elaborate the bit "looking at it through a Christian worldview."?
What is a Christian worldview, and how does it differ from other religious and non-religious worldviews?

Edited 4/26/2018 09:14:32

I will, when I have the time. I need to have dinner now... maybe in an hour or so.

God is dead in the West; that leaves men with few paths.

Christianity, faith in a theistic God which is a being represents a perverse understanding of reality. Without aristocracy and without the function of delivering cultural imperatives, there's no reason to practice it anymore. The Pagan Tradition was broken and thus the initiatory process halted so Neopaganism must be inorganic. The only acceptable faiths for Westerners now are ideologies, philosophies, and personal theologies deduced logically from the Western canon.

First of all, Wulfhere, you wrote lots of fancy words, but gave no evidence whatsoever for your claim. If you want us to take you seriously, give some supporting arguments and evidence. And a question for you: What do you think of Jesus?

Second, to answer your question, Cata Cauda (so that you will take my point seriously), I will use the example of geological features.
Looked at through an atheistic, evolutionary worldview, geological features (such as massive canyons, valleys and the like) are often explained by small amounts of erosion over a massive amount of time (millions, billions of years). Let's specifically use the example of the Grand Canyon. Most atheist scientists would agree that the canyon was formed by the small river slowly wearing away at the rock over eons of time until we get the Canyon we see today. It makes sense, if we look at it through that worldview.

However, if we look at it through a young-earth (creationist estimates are around 6'000 years old) Christian worldview, the formation of these features can be explained using Noah's flood. For those of you who don't know, Noah's flood was a flood, caused by God, which covered the whole earth completely for 40 days, and "flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days." (and (see Genesis chapters 6-9).

Now, when you consider the amount of water that would be required to cover the whole earth, and the huge currents that would be rushing about, imagine the huge amount of erosion this would cause. And when God told the waters to drain away, there would have been even massive-er amounts of erosion as the huge torrents surged through the weak points in the land. And God also "sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded." A wind sent by God to dry the entire earth must have been pretty darn strong, and would have itself eroded further the land. Lo and behold, with all this erosion caused by the cataclysmic conditions of a global flood, you have many of the canyons and valleys we have today (which have been eroded further by the creeks and rivers left behind).

Another way of thinking about it is this. You find a destroyed sandcastle on the beach. It looks as if it has been destroyed by water. It could have been a little kid who slowly trickled water from his bucket over a few hours, and it finally destroyed it.
Or it could have been a big wave, which surged up the beach and flattened the castle in 5 seconds.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, looking at the world differently can give you different explanations for how it works/came to be. Some of them make more sense than others, and that's what each person has to decide which for themselves.

DISCLAIMER: the views I have represented here (specifically about young-earth creationism) may not necessarily represent the views of all Christians; we do not agree on all things, and one of the problems I have with Catholics is that they believe that the Bible and evolution can be united, and I think that they cannot).
I also am only a high school student, so if I have not explained something properly or you want more detail, let me know and I will happily oblige in providing extra resources.

Thinking about Cata and Wulf's comment's earlier about the point of religion (or faith, if I may call it that. Faith that there is a higher being than ourselves. To me, religion is more the practise of that faith), I decided to add my opinion.
Firstly, I would like to say I am a very scientific person and very much like to see things verified by facts, or at least strongly supported by evidence.
That said, I think science is looking at this world and asking: What is happening here? How does this work? What causes this?
However, religion and faith is asking: Why? What is the meaning of this?
For example, I look at an awesome sunset and can't help feeling good about it; Why? Science would say, well, it's a big ball of gas burning away a few million kilometres away and because of the curvature of the earth it looks bigger than usual at sunset and it looks red because of the dust refracting light... It answers the how, the what. But it doesn't answer the why. The why does it make me feel good, or why do I like watching the sunset? These are questions only religion can answer. And the answers it gives, are what gives meaning to life.

According to a lot of scientists, the meaning of life, the point of living, is to survive and pass on our genes. We're nothing more than animals. Religion, however, particularly Abrahamic faiths (Christianity, Islam, Judaism), say that life has more meaning than that; we are more than just a species.