4 ms·
For clarity on my thought process: I had interpreted lisper’s original comment as “Religions aren’t true because no afterlife exists.” After what lisper’s said
by gbear605 8y ago
For clarity on my thought process: I had interpreted lisper’s original comment as “Religions aren’t true because no afterlife exists.” After what lisper’s said in responses, I see that their actual argument is “Religions aren’t true because no afterlife exists because no deity exists.” The claim about no deity existing had been assumed implicitly in their original post. I hadn’t thought that it would be taken as a given, since we were discussing the truth value of religion. I’m now satisfied with the chain of logic now being strong; it just requires assuming the given that no deity exists.
- lisper 8y ago> After what lisper’s said in responses, I see that their actual argument is “Religions aren’t true because no afterlife exists because no deity exists.” No, that is not my argument. My argument is that it is just as easy to disprove religion as it is to disprove a flat earth, which is to say, very easy if your target audience is already on board and nearly impossible otherwise.
- gbear605 8y agoI agree with that argument 100%.