Not at all. I just think that, whilst attacking the first premise would invalidate the argument, the argument can easily be reformulated as, 'For an assertion to be reliably capable of truth or falsehood it must come from a rational source'. Thus, to deny the first premise would be to deny the efficacy of reason. Attacking the second premise seems to avoid this problem, however the argument is formulated. Not that you weren't technically correct that the first premise is unsound.
'We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.' H.L. Mencken
'False religion' is the ultimate tautology.
'It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.' Mark Twain
'I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.' Abraham Lincoln
'False religion' is the ultimate tautology.
'It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.' Mark Twain
'I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.' Abraham Lincoln
