• voodooattack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 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
        ·
        2 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
          ·
          2 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.