Fake News

[Speaker to Animals]

And your argument against moral relativism is "there is a God."

Because God is Truth itself.

So if you don't believe in God you don't believe in truth.

No. My argument is realism; that objective truth exists and we directly experience it.

This is the philosophical difference that matters, and why folks like libertarians are just liberals.

How can Objective truth exist without God?

How can morality exist without God?

To posit that any morality exists outside of the belief that God exists is either a fallacy or intentional dishonesty, yes?

Well, I have demonstrated my argument. You do not believe in truth.

[jediuser598]

No. My argument is realism; that objective truth exists and we directly experience it.

This is the philosophical difference that matters, and why folks like libertarians are just liberals.

How can Objective truth exist without God?

How can morality exist without God?

To posit that any morality exists outside of the belief that God exists is either a fallacy or intentional dishonesty, yes?

Well, I have demonstrated my argument. You do not believe in truth.

So that's your argument? Just to make sure I'm getting it right.

[Speaker to Animals]

How can Objective truth exist without God?

How can morality exist without God?

To posit that any morality exists outside of the belief that God exists is either a fallacy or intentional dishonesty, yes?

Well, I have demonstrated my argument. You do not believe in truth.

So that's your argument? Just to make sure I'm getting it right.

If nothing you say can be objectively true, then what is it?

[jediuser598]

Well, I have demonstrated my argument. You do not believe in truth.

So that's your argument? Just to make sure I'm getting it right.

If nothing you say can be objectively true, then what is it?

A=A is objectively true.

No?

And your question is a loaded one, I'm not saying nothing I say can be objectively true.

I'm saying your basis of truth relies on the existence of God. If God doesn't exist, then nothing could be true.

At the very core of your reckoning of objective truth, is God. You believe that if a person doesn't believe in God, they're missing that core, it's a house without a foundation and easily toppled.

So does A=A?

[Speaker to Animals]

So that's your argument? Just to make sure I'm getting it right.

If nothing you say can be objectively true, then what is it?

A=A is objectively true.

No?

And your question is a loaded one, I'm not saying nothing I say can be objectively true.

I'm saying your basis of truth relies on the existence of God. If God doesn't exist, then nothing could be true.

At the very core of your reckoning of objective truth, is God. You believe that if a person doesn't believe in God, they're missing that core, it's a house without a foundation and easily toppled.

So does A=A?

Your trying to make this about religion does not work. My argument is philosophical.

You cannot have liberalism without idealism, and idealism always always always results in sophistry.

To the man who disbelieves he can know objective truth, all language is nothing more than a weapon to use in manipulation, deception, or the achievement of power. There is no other reason to engage with another outside mundane communication problems.

Men like me seek to argue about what is best and true, whereas the liberal man only uses argument in the pursuit of power and influence. At best it is a game to the liberal that he characterizes as "competing narratives".

[jediuser598]

If nothing you say can be objectively true, then what is it?

A=A is objectively true.

No?

And your question is a loaded one, I'm not saying nothing I say can be objectively true.

I'm saying your basis of truth relies on the existence of God. If God doesn't exist, then nothing could be true.

At the very core of your reckoning of objective truth, is God. You believe that if a person doesn't believe in God, they're missing that core, it's a house without a foundation and easily toppled.

So does A=A?

Your trying to make this about religion does not work. My argument is philosophical.

You cannot have liberalism without idealism, and idealism always always always results in sophistry.

To the man who disbelieves he can know objective truth, all language is nothing more than a weapon to use in manipulation, deception, or the achievement of power. There is no other reason to engage with another outside mundane communication problems.

Men like me seek to argue about what is best and true, whereas the liberal man only uses argument in the pursuit of power and influence.

1. Does A=A?
2. So according to the bold part, all liberal men are evil?

[heydaralon]

So that's your argument? Just to make sure I'm getting it right.

If nothing you say can be objectively true, then what is it?

A=A is objectively true.

No?

And your question is a loaded one, I'm not saying nothing I say can be objectively true.

I'm saying your basis of truth relies on the existence of God. If God doesn't exist, then nothing could be true.

At the very core of your reckoning of objective truth, is God. You believe that if a person doesn't believe in God, they're missing that core, it's a house without a foundation and easily toppled.

So does A=A?

Only with God, do we get truth, according to you. As an aside, if God didn't exist, and you said "There is no God," then would that be true?

[jediuser598]

It appears to me that people who think they're being 100% factual aren't in fact being 100% factual, that their inaccuracies aren't intentional.

[jediuser598]

If nothing you say can be objectively true, then what is it?

A=A is objectively true.

No?

And your question is a loaded one, I'm not saying nothing I say can be objectively true.

I'm saying your basis of truth relies on the existence of God. If God doesn't exist, then nothing could be true.

At the very core of your reckoning of objective truth, is God. You believe that if a person doesn't believe in God, they're missing that core, it's a house without a foundation and easily toppled.

So does A=A?

Only with God, do we get truth, according to you. As an aside, if God didn't exist, and you said "There is no God," then would that be true?

I would say DSL would say, "God can't not exist, then nothing would exist, thus you wouldn't be around to say 'there is no God.'"

[heydaralon]

A=A is objectively true.

No?

And your question is a loaded one, I'm not saying nothing I say can be objectively true.

I'm saying your basis of truth relies on the existence of God. If God doesn't exist, then nothing could be true.

At the very core of your reckoning of objective truth, is God. You believe that if a person doesn't believe in God, they're missing that core, it's a house without a foundation and easily toppled.

So does A=A?

Only with God, do we get truth, according to you. As an aside, if God didn't exist, and you said "There is no God," then would that be true?

I would say DSL would say, "God can't not exist, then nothing would exist, thus you wouldn't be around to say 'there is no God.'"

If God doesn't exist, then who created this thread? Who created the code for this website? Stupid son of a bitch...