Side 1 ... called Person A ... states a premise as the truth
Side 2 ... called Person B ... opposes the premise as absolutely false
Side 3 ... called Person C says, maybe, maybe not to both A, and B, so disagrees with both
I'm rarely on side 1 because I rarely see faith in black and white. In terms of science versus false science, I could be on side 1 for sure.
In terms of faith, I'm almost always Side 3.
I see dogmatic folks as being just as adamant about their position when they debate either person B or C. That puzzles me somewhat, as it seems to me Person C is at least allowing for the possibility that A has it right, whereas Person B clearly doesn't.
Why do you think person A is adamant regardless? Other thoughts?
Side 2 ... called Person B ... opposes the premise as absolutely false
Side 3 ... called Person C says, maybe, maybe not to both A, and B, so disagrees with both
I'm rarely on side 1 because I rarely see faith in black and white. In terms of science versus false science, I could be on side 1 for sure.
In terms of faith, I'm almost always Side 3.
I see dogmatic folks as being just as adamant about their position when they debate either person B or C. That puzzles me somewhat, as it seems to me Person C is at least allowing for the possibility that A has it right, whereas Person B clearly doesn't.
Why do you think person A is adamant regardless? Other thoughts?