atheism is purely retarded

Truths are not eternal in any way.
Truths are logical sentences who are verified by human senses, the sentence is a formula made of language that has a sintaxis (like what I'm saying right now) and it can't prove or disprove beings.

They don't hold up any metaphysical form.
The subject of the sentence is not a being that has to be discovered, rather a point of anchorage where a certain number of logical sentences are valid.

You need to believe in something without proving it, an axiom. Then you can use the axiom to say whatever is true or false. This axiom can never be proven or disproved, it's up to you. Senses give you certainty in a moment but the moment changes and your beliefs also change. Other people can agree or not, the ones who agree share the same axioms.
Ah, great now we’ve got the philosophy major from Reddit stepping in to save his buddy with a word salad. You’re basically saying “truths are just sensory-based logical sentences” while casually admitting they shift with time, context, and subjective anchorage. Congratulations you’ve just defined relativism, not truth. You admit that your entire worldview rests on unprovable axioms, then act like that’s a mic drop. It’s not. That’s like saying, “We’re all making things up, but I’m doing it in a more rational tone.” If truth changes with the moment, then it was never truth to begin with just temporary agreement. And if your anchoring point is arbitrary, then so is everything you derive from it. Thanks for stepping in, though it really helped prove my point.
 
  • Hmm...
Reactions: Klasik616
Calling it cope doesn’t save you from the fact that your argument’s hollow. You dismissed transcendence, claimed meaning still matters, then ran when asked to ground it. That’s not reasoning, that’s bluffing. You do bear the burden because you’re the one pretending subjective feelings can magically become objective truth. If you can’t define or defend your version of meaning, then you’re not arguing you’re just coping harder than anyone here.
You’re just playing with the semantics of “meaning.” If we only accept eternal meaning as valid, you’ve rigged the word in your favor from the start. No point arguing, just lowiq
 
  • +1
Reactions: Klasik616
Ah, great now we’ve got the philosophy major from Reddit stepping in to save his buddy with a word salad. You’re basically saying “truths are just sensory-based logical sentences” while casually admitting they shift with time, context, and subjective anchorage. Congratulations you’ve just defined relativism, not truth. You admit that your entire worldview rests on unprovable axioms, then act like that’s a mic drop. It’s not. That’s like saying, “We’re all making things up, but I’m doing it in a more rational tone.” If truth changes with the moment, then it was never truth to begin with just temporary agreement. And if your anchoring point is arbitrary, then so is everything you derive from it. Thanks for stepping in, though it really helped prove my point.
Yea I guess you're mad because you completely understand why I wanted to say. Yes truth doesn't exist, change your concept of truth to "relativism" which is actually the study of logic and language, before language we only had senses and the only way of sharing truth was by certain habits.

Then when humans created language they thought language had the power to discover the world, greeks thought metaphysics were real. Actually no, even science is not about the truth but rather an infinite discussion. I'm describing what every human has to experience.

You trying to say something that has to hold up eternally is funny and really childish. Language actually can't prove anything because everything we believe comes from human senses which are not made of language, understand? Before language "truth or false" didn't exist.
 
Last edited:
  • JFL
  • +1
Reactions: StacyRepellent and ikramy
You’re just playing with the semantics of “meaning.” If we only accept eternal meaning as valid, you’ve rigged the word in your favor from the start. No point arguing, just lowiq
You’re accusing me of “rigging” the word meaning because I’m asking you to define it beyond personal feelings. That’s not semantics that’s basic intellectual honesty. If your version of meaning dies when you do and changes with mood or moment, it’s not meaning, it’s just emotional noise. And calling that “low IQ” while dodging every serious challenge like it’s a fire drill? That’s rich. You haven’t refuted anything you’ve just gotten frustrated that shallow thinking isn’t enough here. If asking for coherent definitions and objective grounding is too much for you, maybe stick to fortune cookies. They use your level of depth, and they don’t argue back.
 
This is copying and not only the date was copied but also the „Christmas“ trees, stars, lights

Or at easter the easter bunny the eggs and easter fire, christians still do nowadays all of this its PAGANISM
easter bunny and the trees have nothing to do with Christianity
 
Yea I guess you're mad because you completely understand why I wanted to say. Yes truth doesn't exist, change your concept of truth to "relativism" which is actually the study of logic and language, before language we only had senses and the only way of sharing truth was by certain habits. Then when humans created language they thought language had the power to discover the world, greeks thought metaphysics were real. Actually no, even science is not about the truth but rather an infinite discussion. I'm describing what every human has to experience. You trying to say something that has to hold up eternally is funny and really childish.
Ah yes, the classic “truth doesn’t exist, but here’s a bunch of truth-claims about reality” routine. You just denied truth exists, then made sweeping statements about science, logic, language, metaphysics, and human experience as if those aren’t truth-claims. That’s not philosophy, that’s intellectual faceplanting. If science isn’t about truth, why do we trust it to build planes, cure disease, or send rockets to space? You can’t use logic to deny logic without self-destructing, and calling it “relativism” doesn’t save you it just gives your contradiction a name. You’re not describing human experience, you’re describing confusion. And the worst part? You’re acting like this is deep. It’s not. It’s just noise in a desperate attempt to sound profound. Try again when you’ve figured out whether you actually believe the words you’re using.
 
You’re accusing me of “rigging” the word meaning because I’m asking you to define it beyond personal feelings. That’s not semantics that’s basic intellectual honesty. If your version of meaning dies when you do and changes with mood or moment, it’s not meaning, it’s just emotional noise. And calling that “low IQ” while dodging every serious challenge like it’s a fire drill? That’s rich. You haven’t refuted anything you’ve just gotten frustrated that shallow thinking isn’t enough here. If asking for coherent definitions and objective grounding is too much for you, maybe stick to fortune cookies. They use your level of depth, and they don’t argue back.
It's literally semantic at this point, are you not even reading what your AI is printing?
 
Ah yes, the classic “truth doesn’t exist, but here’s a bunch of truth-claims about reality” routine. You just denied truth exists, then made sweeping statements about science, logic, language, metaphysics, and human experience as if those aren’t truth-claims. That’s not philosophy, that’s intellectual faceplanting. If science isn’t about truth, why do we trust it to build planes, cure disease, or send rockets to space? You can’t use logic to deny logic without self-destructing, and calling it “relativism” doesn’t save you it just gives your contradiction a name. You’re not describing human experience, you’re describing confusion. And the worst part? You’re acting like this is deep. It’s not. It’s just noise in a desperate attempt to sound profound. Try again when you’ve figured out whether you actually believe the words you’re using.
Yes because philosophy doesn't have to sound deep, that's why you're mad at me. You can't change your idea of truth "something that has to hold up eternally doesn't matter if time and matter changes" because you're a retard who doesn't know how science works and probably has never learned a single academic article. Even the article uses certain key words which are the "axioms" of the article to hold up the argument. I'm not deying logic but your idea of truth.

You are using words like meaning or eternity without defining it because those words are actually not possible to define, as I said truth doesn't come from language but rather your senses (which are not made of language) and when people agree they don't agree on words but rather their mental images of what those words mean. The discussion starts when people have different beliefs, when people agree there's nothing to be said. There is no first or last belief that has been proven, because if it was there would be a previous one and so on aka eternal truth doesn't exist and you're debunked.
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: StacyRepellent
It's literally semantic at this point, are you not even reading what your AI is printing?
Calling it just semantics is a classic move when someone runs out of real arguments. If you can’t clearly define the core concept you’re debating, you’ve already lost. Pretending this is ai won’t cover up how weak your position really is I’m just making you look foolish because you can’t handle a clear argument
 
Calling it just semantics is a classic move when someone runs out of real arguments. If you can’t clearly define the core concept you’re debating, you’ve already lost. Pretending this is ai won’t cover up how weak your position really is I’m just making you look foolish because you can’t handle a clear argument
If your entire position relies on redefining meaning to suit your point, then yes, it is semantic. Don’t blame me for pointing it out. You're the only fool here bud, I IQ mog you to death
 
Yes because philosophy doesn't have to sound deep, that's why you're mad at me. You can't change your idea of truth "something that has to hold up eternally doesn't matter if time and matter changes" because you're a retard who doesn't know how science works and probably has never learned a single academic article. Even the article uses certain key words which are the "axioms" of the article to hold up the argument. I'm not deying logic but your idea of truth.

You are using words like meaning or eternity without defining it because those words are actually not possible to define, as I said truth doesn't come from language but rather your senses which are not made of language and when people agree they don't agree on words but rather their mental images of what those words mean. The discussion starts when people have different beliefs. There is no first or last belief that has been proven, because if it was there would be a previous one and so on aka eternal truth doesn't exist and you're debunked.
You’re basically saying philosophy isn’t supposed to be clear so you can hide behind confusion and insults That’s not insight, that’s intellectual laziness You claim eternal truths don’t matter because science changes but fail to realize science relies on consistent foundations without which it falls apart Your demand that words like meaning or eternity be undefinable is just a cop out to dodge accountability for your own shaky ideas And the idea that truth comes only from fleeting mental images and senses ignores that without shared definitions communication and knowledge become impossible If there were no objective or at least stable truths you couldn’t even say you’re debunked because that itself relies on something more than shifting beliefs You’ve just tangled yourself in contradictions while thinking you won a debate Sorry but confusion is not a winning argument. I think you should just stop replying you are making your position worse with every reply just like the other dumbass
 
If your entire position relies on redefining meaning to suit your point, then yes, it is semantic. Don’t blame me for pointing it out. You're the only fool here bud, I IQ mog you to death
To suit my point? Meaning is literally the entire point. The fact that you think defining it is semantic just proves you’re in over your head. Ironic that you’re throwing around IQ talk while missing the most basic part of the argument.
 
You’re basically saying philosophy isn’t supposed to be clear so you can hide behind confusion and insults That’s not insight, that’s intellectual laziness You claim eternal truths don’t matter because science changes but fail to realize science relies on consistent foundations without which it falls apart Your demand that words like meaning or eternity be undefinable is just a cop out to dodge accountability for your own shaky ideas And the idea that truth comes only from fleeting mental images and senses ignores that without shared definitions communication and knowledge become impossible If there were no objective or at least stable truths you couldn’t even say you’re debunked because that itself relies on something more than shifting beliefs You’ve just tangled yourself in contradictions while thinking you won a debate Sorry but confusion is not a winning argument. I think you should just stop replying you are making your position worse with every reply just like the other dumbass
Even language has a physical entity, their signal form. If I don't use the correct sintaxis and typing you would not understand me. People who are blind and deaf use rythm and touch to understand ideas, they don't need words. There is plenty of knowledge like scents that are also real and can be learned if you go through every of them. Continental philosophies are so out of touch with reality with their metaphysical debates. I only consider philosophy those who agree with common sense and the most basic "truths" which are beliefs people never have questioned but could be debunked because they come from culture and not meaningless ideas.

Science depends on certain truths but those truths can also change depending on the variables they're using, theories can be replaced and experiments or phenomenoms which are founded on common ground reality can also challenge the main beliefs of the people. Read any book on history on science they same the same thing. You're trying to defend truth as something eternal is being incompatible with our reality, life is much simpler and that's why I'm atheist. Nobody in philosophy is defending your position today, at best there are correlativists who still think beings and words are the same thing.
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: StacyRepellent
People who truly believe that there is no greater meaning or rule to anything truly boggle me. In my opinion its one of the worst things for humanity and doesnt make sense what so over. The more i go into theology and life the more clear it seems.
Agreed
 
To suit my point? Meaning is literally the entire point. The fact that you think defining it is semantic just proves you’re in over your head. Ironic that you’re throwing around IQ talk while missing the most basic part of the argument.
If your argument hinges on redefining "meaning" into something unfalsifiable, you’ve already lost.
 
zero proof there is no proof it is just a belief, Christianity and Islam are in reality pagan religions there is enough evidence for this
The collective IQ in this thread is like 4.
 
  • +1
Reactions: ikramy
There is definitely evidence backing the claims of Christianity with historical evidence. Along with logical evidence.
No there isn't. And what do you propose for "logical evidence" for something that isn't empirically verifiable? Idiotic baboon.
 
Why are you mixing up atheism and nihilism? Maybe learn the definitions before you start talking.
Nihilism or existentialism are the only logical conclusions of atheism.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 148623
Even language has a physical entity, their signal form. If I don't use the correct sintaxis and typing you would not understand me. People who are blind and deaf use rythm and touch to understand ideas, they don't need words. There is plenty of knowledge like scents that are also real and can be learned if you go through every of them. Continental philosophies are so out of touch with reality with their metaphysical debates. I only consider philosophy those who agree with common sense and the most basic "truths" which are beliefs people never have questioned but could be debunked because they come from culture and not meaningless ideas.

Science depends on certain truths but those truths can also change depending on the variables they're using, theories can be replaced and experiments or phenomenoms which are founded on common ground reality can also challenge the main beliefs of the people. Read any book on history on science they same the same thing. You're trying to defend truth as something eternal is being incompatible with our reality, life is much simpler and that's why I'm atheist.
Saying continental philosophy is out of touch and only counting ideas that align with common sense isn’t a critique it’s just cherry picking You’re dismissing entire fields of thought not because they’re wrong but because they challenge your comfort zone And calling basic beliefs truth just because people haven’t questioned them doesn’t make them immune to scrutiny That’s exactly what philosophy is for not to confirm assumptions but to test them What you’re doing isn’t grounding philosophy in reality it’s filtering it through personal preference and calling that objective
 
If your argument hinges on redefining "meaning" into something unfalsifiable, you’ve already lost.
If you think defining meaning clearly makes it unfalsifiable, then you’ve misunderstood the entire point of argumentation You can’t even debate without first agreeing on what a word means If you dodge that step you’re not engaging with the argument you’re avoiding it Meaning isn’t unfalsifiable it’s foundational Without it your whole position falls apart before it starts
 
Nihilism or existentialism are the only logical conclusions of atheism.
Yeah but he’s talking about atheism, so maybe let’s stick with that. Like I said just because there’s a causal relationship doesn’t mean they are the same
 
I’m not dodging meaning, I’m pointing out that your version rests on assumptions you treat as axioms. You never defined it; you inherited it. If I have to repeat this ten times and you still can’t grasp it, then there’s nothing more to say
 

Similar threads

Hagman
Replies
4
Views
65
ascendingalways
ascendingalways
phencyclidine
Replies
0
Views
22
phencyclidine
phencyclidine
Molgam
Replies
4
Views
125
Enfant terrible
Enfant terrible

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top