gods damn and I thought the original gave me chills
these responses
these responses
<Snipped quote by Balance>
There's still no procession go fighting, and assumptions don't play well in real life.
<Snipped quote by DarkwolfX37>
Humans have some of the highest endurance of all creatures.
<Snipped quote by DarkwolfX37>
But then you have the same problem: there's a lot of missing steps between "two realities don't mix" and "fighting".
<Snipped quote by Legend>
Entropy.


<Snipped quote by DarkwolfX37>
Ah, okay then. That makes sense from a naturalistic perspective, at least at first glance, but I don't have time to see if I can find any fallacies.
<Snipped quote by Legend>
Let's see if I can continue, then. "I won't change." Neither person will change their ideas, and therefore--wait, no. I can't go from "I won't change" to "fight" unless we assume that I and the other absolutely have to decide which one is right. It doesn't account for the possibility that I don't care about the other person believing in his idea. Well, actually, that wouldn't lead to fighting in any case, so I don't need to account for that possibility.
So, ignoring that tangent, let's assume that we both believe that only one of us can possibly be right, and that the other person being wrong is wrong. In this case, I will have to prove that I am right, and he will have to prove that he is right, so that each of us can correct the other's wrongness. This leads to an argument.
<Snipped quote by DarkwolfX37>
I'm actually curious about your answer, since you won't derive it from biblical beliefs--mine is based on the biblical idea that man has a fallen nature.
<Snipped quote by DarkwolfX37>
Loaded question. You already set yourself up psychologically as being right and me being wrong. I don't partake in discussions on unequal footing.
<Snipped quote by Balance>
You're jumping from pride to fighting. You're skipping steps.