>>1201545>are you some kind of atheist?I am, but that's not the point here. The point is that he seems to think that whether or not something is true depends on its usefulness for human survival. This, of course, is completely incompatible with the normal meaning of the word "true", but the reason he's so obsessed with trying to use the word "true" anyway is to fool idiots using persuasive redefinition (which to him is not a fallacious, because he thinks it facilitates human survival).
