Message from @vec
Discord ID: 368961054899961861
Types[edit]
Strong agnosticism (also called "hard", "closed", "strict", or "permanent agnosticism")
The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."[31][32][33]
Weak agnosticism (also called "soft", "open", "empirical", or "temporal agnosticism")
The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until evidence, if any, becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out."[31][32][33]
Apathetic agnosticism
The view that no amount of debate can prove or disprove the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little interest.[34][35][36]
they put Capitalism before blood and soil that is why they want open borders. @Zephial
i disagree
maybe with pure capitalism
Okay why is that
Okay the political ideas on the right can have capitalism as a financial system.
i can get behind that
But they don't put it before blood and soil
be·lieve
bəˈlēv/Submit
verb
1.
accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.
holy shit aryan republic
😫
I need sources for every single thing you've ever said in this chat
right now
go
> were TOTALLY getting to the bottom of the metaphysical realities of GOD - **TONIGHT** - right now
in this chat
I hope you folks appreciate the end of philosophy that's occuring tonight
<:wesmart:359946049588166657>
highest score
all time
@red to your claim that they are all wrong due to the amount of different interpretations. that is retarded, just because there are many doesnt mean that one is not correct
ok
i cant take it
Why would one be correct Zephial? The fact that many different cultures around the world developed religions over time with extremely similar aspects is pretty strong evidence that they were man-made.
>implying you can understand metaphysical phenomena
Derrida scoffs at you
just because they are similar means nothing
that is an assumption
not strong evidence
@Zephial how can you explain gods from religions from ancient egypt all the way up to zoroastrianism sharing similar stories to jesus?
What are we arguing for
I mean the only one i think is correct is christianity and the bible
no reason
just because
The bible can be deconstructed
that's the deconstructionist view