Why atheism cannot escape absolute truth

[Mothonis]

In a different thread, an atheist indicated that absolute truth is a difficult view to give up. He's right. 

But it's worse than that: It's impossible to give up absolute truth.

The reason is, in any conceivable universe, operating under any given specification of natural laws, if we reject absolute truth, we reject the ability to say anything meaningful about these possible universes. The very claim "In universe1 there are no absolute truths" is either true or false, and absolutely so. Once you jettison absolute truth, your statements about this possible universe become meaningless.

But the problem goes further than that. If you simply want to reject absolute truths in our world, you demolish the foundations of reason and science, which are irreparably dependent on absolute truth.

Hitting closer to home, the claim "There are no absolute truths" held as a claim cannot be rationally affirmed or denied if it is true. 

Thus, atheists cannot escape absolute truths, on any level.

The theory of gibberish pt 2.

[dyresand]

In a different thread, an atheist indicated that absolute truth is a difficult view to give up. He's right. 

But it's worse than that: It's impossible to give up absolute truth.

The reason is, in any conceivable universe, operating under any given specification of natural laws, if we reject absolute truth, we reject the ability to say anything meaningful about these possible universes. The very claim "In universe1 there are no absolute truths" is either true or false, and absolutely so. Once you jettison absolute truth, your statements about this possible universe become meaningless.

But the problem goes further than that. If you simply want to reject absolute truths in our world, you demolish the foundations of reason and science, which are irreparably dependent on absolute truth.

Hitting closer to home, the claim "There are no absolute truths" held as a claim cannot be rationally affirmed or denied if it is true. 

Thus, atheists cannot escape absolute truths, on any level.

What if i said that is complete and utter bullshit to the power of 8

[ignoramus]

No more turtles guys!

[robvalue]

The only hard conclusion I can draw about what is real and what is not, is that things are as real to each consciousness as they appear to be.

If there is an objective reality, and it's defeatist to assume that there isn't, then all we can do is try and see how closely our experiences match it. This requires introspection and verification against the findings of other supposed consciousnesses.

[Silver]

Though theists combine consciousness with religion, creating a delusion that is clearly the opposite of reality.

[ignoramus]

There is one possible way for God to be as real as we are.
That is if our reality is an illusion like in a sim, etc. Then both perceived realities are programmed by Kevin...

Theists, that's your next job... Try to prove we are in a sim and we'll be on equal footing...
By that I don't mean that God exists, but that we also have never been real ...

Then again, saying depressing things like this is what keeps them attached to religion in the first place!

[Fidel_Castronaut]

The above is a strawman.

"Fashionable" to reject absolute truth? You think this is a matter of aesthetics? No, it's a failure of the proponent of a claim (i.e. you) to produce something worthy of consideration.

I'm not convinced by unargued assertions like the above. You certainly haven't demonstrated any claim of mine unworthy of consideration, after all.

Rather, it might just be that my framing of the issue triggered a defense mechanism in you (and other atheists), who instinctively sought out a way to "escape" absolute truths. This would explain why there's so much resistance in this thread to a view that doesn't exactly threaten one's atheism.

What on earth do you mean 'unargued assertions'? Let's take a look at who is making a claim here. Is it me? No. Is it you? Yah, looks like it. Looks like you're making a claim about the existence of objective truth(s).

This whole nonsense about defence mechanisms and all that bollocks, stick a sock in it yeah?

You give yourself far too much credit. To us you're just another person trying to peddle the same claim that's been peddled on here and elsewhere a million times but still hasn't presented an ounce of evidence for it. Indeed it seems like you've reverted to utilising straw men in your attempt to grasp at straws.

Let me be clear for clarity, you are delusional both in your beliefs and the level of effect you think you are having. You are not original, none of your thoughts to date on here are original, and there is nothing you have said or presented that makes me or anyone else want to reconsider their stance that there appears to be no such thing as an 'objective' truth. None. Feel free to think that is a defence mechanism or whatever such nonsense you can contrive, it doesn't make a difference to the reality of your delusions.

[brewer]

I can tell an absolute lie/falsehood when I hear one.

[Delicate]

I'm not convinced by unargued assertions like the above. You certainly haven't demonstrated any claim of mine unworthy of consideration, after all.

Rather, it might just be that my framing of the issue triggered a defense mechanism in you (and other atheists), who instinctively sought out a way to "escape" absolute truths. This would explain why there's so much resistance in this thread to a view that doesn't exactly threaten one's atheism.

What on earth do you mean 'unargued assertions'? Let's take a look at who is making a claim here. Is it me? No. Is it you? Yah, looks like it. Looks like you're making a claim about the existence of objective truth(s).

This whole nonsense about defence mechanisms and all that bollocks, stick a sock in it yeah?

You give yourself far too much  credit. To us you're just another person trying to peddle the same claim that's been peddled on here and elsewhere a million times but still hasn't presented an ounce of evidence for it. Indeed it seems like you've reverted to utilising straw men in your attempt to grasp at straws.

Let me be clear for clarity, you are delusional both in your beliefs and the level of effect you think you are having. You are not original, none of your thoughts to date on here are original, and there is nothing you have said or presented that makes me or anyone else want to reconsider their stance that there appears to be no such thing as an 'objective' truth. None. Feel free to think that is a defence mechanism or whatever such nonsense you can contrive, it doesn't make a difference to the reality of your delusions.

If I didn't know any better, I'd think you were a Southern Baptist preacher.

Amen brother!

And yet, when I look closely at what you're saying, it's nonsense. You can't handwave away evidence and then claim no evidence was presented. That makes you look like an idiot at best, or an intellectually dishonest charlatan at worst.

I suggest you avoid looking like an idiot or a charlatan. What you can do is look at the OP, look at the reasons given for why absolute truth cannot be dispensed with, prove them wrong, and then maybe you can get some of your credibility back.

[The Grand Nudger]

Meh, what's the harm?  You can have absolute truth, no need to argue it in. Now what...is that as far as this goes?