>>48376421No, you're making assumptions. I had my own theology phase, I've looked into this stuff with sincerity and genuine interest only to conclude in a bout of lucidity that it was all inherently unverifiable and not particularly compelling. I know about the purported evidence for Christianity, most of it is built on extremely shoddy foundations (testimonies of miracles being verified under oath by extremely devout scientists, for example, of the absence of any actual historical evidence for the testimonies concerning Jesus' resurrection aside from Paul's and his own allegation that there were testimonies... etc) and even past that, looking at it with a certain objectivity, it's just not particularly believable, even compared to some other religions for which I'd be more willing to suspend my disbelief on some aspects of their teachings.
>I am openly learning from DharmismI find those philosophies more interesting in terms of metaphysics and phenomenology. Many things could be said about this but this is /vp/
>what is pushed as "fact" about certain groups and events in modernityI am not a reductive physicalist. Some things about the (post)modernist viewpoints I agree with, other things I deny (if postmodernists had been honest in the first place, they'd have applied their relativism and anti-foundationalist deconstructionism to marxism and feminism as well, but they never had the balls to do that)
Today everyone thinks you need to be an extremist to be right. I don't think that is wise
