This is on the front page of r/politics.

submitted by Orangutan from i.redd.it

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]aviewfromoutside 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

But it’s not the same logic, because the premise is dishonest. If they don’t truly believe in the devil, then the basis of their argument is obviously wrong. Which means they cannot admit they are telling lies. Why should I disbelieve them?

[–]whereswhat 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

They have just as much proof that their religion is true as any other: none.

[–]aviewfromoutside 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

They have less proof, because they don’t believe in it. Or they do believe in it, in which case OPs statement holds.

[–]whereswhat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Believing in something does not constitute proof.

[–]aviewfromoutside 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It does constitute evidence. Think it through. If you say something but don't believe it, then it is likely to be less true than if you do believe it.

[–]whereswhat 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nope. Do some reading on epistemology. You could not be more incorrect.