You could also think that by definition, some parts of religion are impossible to prove / disprove, and different strokes for different folks, and then go have some tea. :)
What's your sample size for believing that people can't shoot fireballs out of their hands or walk on water?
(Where I’m going with that question is: “Well your sample size isn’t large enough.” See? There’s no way to argue against faith.)
I can't believe in 2022, on a website dedicated to tech and other interesting things, I'm having a conversation with some one ardently defending whether humans can shoot fireballs out of their hands and walk on water or not.
> I'm having a conversation with some one ardently defending whether humans can shoot fireballs out of their hands and walk on water or not.
You aren't.
You're having a conversation with someone trying to describe how other people look at the topic. (That's why, for example, I put quotes around “Well your sample size isn’t large enough.”) But since you're not interested in that, I'll stop.
I understand very well how other people look at it. They ignore logic when it is convenient. They say, "Yeah, look at those flat earthers, bunch of silly idiots", then turn around and swear they hear god speak to them at the same time. It's delusional.
Arguing by the year is a fallacy. It's a logic smell.
("I can't believe that in 2022, people still argue that way." See how that doesn't actually say anything that anyone ought to take seriously? It just uses the assumption of rightness to pressure anyone who disagrees.)
You could also think that by definition, some parts of religion are impossible to prove / disprove, and different strokes for different folks, and then go have some tea. :)
What's your sample size for believing that people can't shoot fireballs out of their hands or walk on water?
(Where I’m going with that question is: “Well your sample size isn’t large enough.” See? There’s no way to argue against faith.)