Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

[Skepdick]

Quine is a fool.

The same could be said about Ontological Objectivists (and I assume you are one).

Your religion goes against all Empirical and Historical evidence.

[Skepdick]

I'll keep it brief. By "believing" and "not believing", I mean believing and not believing.

So you can't tell me what those words mean to you? Oh well...

I am going to venture a guess that "communicating my beliefs" relays far more information about my vocabulary than my actual behaviour or thought-patterns.

[uwot]

I'll keep it brief. By "believing" and "not believing", I mean believing and not believing.

So you can't tell me what those words mean to you? Oh well...

Then let me give you an example: I don't believe you don't know what believe means.

I am going to venture a guess that "communicating my beliefs" relays far more information about my vocabulary than my actual behaviour or thought-patterns.

Well yeah; actions speak louder than words.

[Sculptor]

Quine is a fool.

The same could be said about Ontological Objectivists (and I assume you are one).

Your religion goes against all Empirical and Historical evidence.

1) No, you assumption is false.

2) I believe nothing, and so have no religon.

Your score 2/0

[Skepdick]

1) No, you assumption is false.

Just because it's not true it doesn't mean it's false.

2) I believe nothing, and so have no religon.

The absence of belief is a belief.

Your score 2/0

Indeed. I am in the lead.

[Skepdick]

Then let me give you an example: I don't believe you don't know what believe means.

OK, but I don't know what 'believe' means, because nobody knows what "meaning" is.

At best - meaning is contingent and highly subjective, so your sentence is meaningless to me.

[Sculptor]

1) No, you assumption is false.

Just because it's not true it doesn't mean it's false.

Your assumption is false, and that means it is not true.
You are just making an arse of yourself

2) I believe nothing, and so have no religon.

The absence of belief is a belief.

Again you are making a damn fool of yourself.
Absence of fish is not a fish.
Absence of reason is not reason. You have an absence of reason.

Your score 0

Indeed. I am in the lead.

Your new score 0/5

[Sculptor]

Then let me give you an example: I don't believe you don't know what believe means.

OK, but I don't know what 'believe' means, because nobody knows what "meaning" is.

That is meaningless.
What do you mean?

At best - meaning is contingent and highly subjective, so your sentence is meaningless to me.

You are meaningless to the world.

[Skepdick]

That is meaningless.

To you. Not to me.

What do you mean?

Why are you asking?

You are meaningless to the world.

Everybody is. The world doesn't care about meaning. Only humans do.

[Skepdick]

Your new score 0/5

I scored 3 more? Great!

[Skepdick]

Your assumption is false, and that means it is not true.

Second time I have to explain this to you now. False doesn't necessarily mean not true.

Absence of reason is not reason. You have an absence of reason.

Better an absence than a negative score. Either way - it's relevant to one's ontological conception of "reason".

Your new score 0/5

Yay! I scored 3 more.

[Sculptor]

That is meaningless.

To you. Not to me.

You just contradicted yourself.

What do you mean?

Why are you asking?

Nothing. This is irony

You are meaningless to the world.

Everybody is. The world doesn't care about meaning. Only humans do.

No. But you seem to be.
The "world" is the human on earth.
The earth does not care, true.

[Sculptor]

Your new score 0/5

I scored 3 more? Great!

You are obviously stupid.
score 0 out of 6

Can't you get anything right?

[Skepdick]

You are obviously stupid.

Relative to you that's not true.

[Sculptor]

You are obviously stupid.

Relative to you that's not true.

"Dick" is the only truth about you.