Another Question For DD
Posted in Atheism, Blogosphere, Logic, Quickies, Religion, Responses, Skepticism on | 1 minute | 3 Comments →
I don't know if it's the full moon or last night's aforementioned adult beverages or what, but I simply cannot seem to stop thoughts of logic from forcibly invading my mind today. You implied that it's reasonable to want to be with those we love forever, and I agree, but assuming you accept stock claims of theism's irrationality, have you thought of the disadvantage this puts you at?
If loving others is at least a partial motivation for theism, are not the subset of theists who share said motivation at least partially sustained by a rational and reasonable proposition?
Brad
says...*checking linked-to post*
I think you misinterpreted DD. The following was not (I repeat, not) Duncan’s reasoning:
The actual reasoning (not in the original post but in DD’s subsequent comment to you) can be explicated as follows:
Your job is to challenge the statement “A1 & A2 =>B”, but you misinterpreted DD as saying “A1 => A2”, which is irrelevant here.
Sorry, have to go to work. I’ll drive by this later.
cl
says...Actually, I thought I addressed the statement A1 & A2 => B.
I noticed the subsequent comments over at DD’s, and I’m confused – should I consider this one retracted?
cl
says...Actually, I thought I addressed the statement A1 & A2 => B.
I noticed the subsequent comments over at DD’s, and I’m confused – should I consider this one retracted?