Why atheism cannot escape absolute truth

[Edwardo Piet]

But what really does "absolute" add to "truth".  Truth is simply a concept regarding the fit between language and the state of affairs it describes.  Truth is already contingent on the correct use of the language so that it correctly maps to the way things stand.  I simply don't understand what additional condition must be met in order for a bit of language to be not just the truth but also the "absolute" truth.  Is this a coherent idea?  I don't get it.

QFT. This is what I have been trying to say about objective/absolute truth being a tautology  

From #16 on this thread:

---

Truth is always absolute. Something either is or it isn't . Whether we know what the actual truth is is another matter.

Religious and woo nutjobs like Deepak try to turn the meaning of the concept of absolute truth into more of a big deal than it actually is.

Basically the term "absolute truth" is a tautology.

Think of something relatively true, so it is partly true. Well the parts that are true are either true or not. Truth is ultimately a black and white thing. It's subjective certainty - and evidence and knowledge that are another matter.

There either is or there isn't a God. Whether we believe, know of a god or have evidence is another matter.

He almost certainly is nonexistent and there is no evidence for him and we don't absolutely know he doesn't exist.... but it's absolutely the truth (which is just a tautology for saying it's true) that God either does or does not exist.

There is nothing hocus pocus about absolute truth for the same reason there isn't any hocus pocus regarding truth. It's the same thing! Stop mis-defining the meaning into a bunch of bullshit woo you superstitious irrational people out there!

---

I then repeated the point a few times in posts later. Whateverest explained it so much better than I did. Thank you Whatev.