• Strider@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Define winning.

    I could win why there is no god but many people can not accept this since it would literally destroy them with this belief, hence reject it as self protection. That’s just how humans work.

    Bringing me back to the question. What even is ‘winning an argument’?

    (If you feel the urge to downvote: go ahead but ask yourself - do you feel threatened?)

    • boydster@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      24 hours ago

      (If you feel the urge to downvote: go ahead but ask yourself - do you feel threatened?)

      lol no I just think what you said is wrong and arrogant about being able to win that argument from even a logic perspective. Arguing the absence of lowercase-g god is a Sisyphian task if ever there was one. It reads like a teenager who binged Dawkins videos wrote it.

      • Strider@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        I don’t care how it looks and it would take time etc sure, but I am convinced. I could go on ranting about arrogant views of neurotypicals always assuming the wildest stuff but I simply don’t care.

        Just rest assured this is not an edgy teenager statement.

        (I’m used to being called arrogant. That comes with the specialist field I am in and also due to the double empathy issue)

      • angstylittlecatboy@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        24 hours ago

        60% of Lemmy users are that teenager but they’re 35 and still haven’t grown out of it.

        So many people here don’t even accept historian consensus that Jesus was a real person