The new review feature confuses me and I feel insecure using it.
Now the editor is complaining about my rejection and while I think that my rejection was correct, I also undestand the editor’s position and I wish I didn’t have to be the only person to make the decision here. The score is 1 vs. 1 here and I get to decide, purely based on seniority.
The contentious point is, very briefly:
The original question isn’t strictly concerned with atheism at all, and arguably off-topic:
It seems to me that many pieces of advice from wise people are easy to dismiss rationally, using critical thinking, simply because the advice does not make sense to you at the time. Once you gain more experience, you begin to understand what previously seemed illogical.
Solus changed the bold part (my emphasis) to “religious leaders”. Now the question is on topic but I think it’s a completely different question:\
Before the edit a valid answer would be (strongly simplified) to reference the Dunning-Kruger effect.
After the edit this is arguably no longer the case: if we accept the tenet of atheism, i.e. that religion is fundamentally wrong, then the question doesn’t really make sense in the first place: religious leaders are wrong, this is implied in the definition of atheism.
To recap: I believe that my decision was correct but (1) am not perfect, and (2) I admit that a different argumentation may yield different results (in particular, since the original question is off-topic, it’s fair game for whatever edit).
So I would prefer that rejecting an edit in a review wouldn’t be an all-or-nothing decision that is made by the person who happens to be the fastest. I would prefer requiring e.g. two votes before it takes effect.