• voodooattack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 days ago

    No you won’t, because that’d be a knee-jerk reaction resulting from the lack of consideration/understanding of the other, so not so dissimilar to religious zealousness, which you disapprove of judging by that knee-jerk reaction.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      Ok then, please explain how “faith,” something that defies logic/explanation, by definition, can be “confirmed”.

      How would it still be “faith” in that case, and not just “reality”?

      • voodooattack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 days ago

        I don’t “owe” you an explanation, nor do I have to justify my worldview to you. Your excessive use of “quotes” and general tone imply you’re already assuming a condescending stance which would not be conducive to a constructive discussion.

        So I’ll pass on that one. Thank you though.

        Tap for spoiler

        And I hope this won’t follow the typical pattern I’m usually confronted with in this situation: the “you’re just evading because you know I’ll prove you wrong/roast you” comeback/argument. Because this isn’t a zero sum game, and if that’s the conclusion then I’m not interested.