Logic, scientific method. These are tools you can use to determine truth for yourself. It's not some new age fag definition, truth is true from every angle.

How did you use logic and the scientific method to determine your worldview to be correct and that God not real?

Ones own truth isn't truth. It's just belief. Faith isn't truth. It's faith. It's true for you, but to someone else.

Is this statement your own truth or an objective truth?

So if God isn't real, and I can't prove that, then I would also not need to provide a new worldview that makes you feel good.

You're missing the point. There is a reason why you consider God not to be real - because you hold assumptions about the world being a certain way. Your worldview is the lens through which you observe the world and it determines what you consider to be possible, impossible, true, false, etc. That's why I go after the underlying assumptions about reality you have which are based on faith. No one can escape grounding their worldview on faith. I only argue on the worldview level because any other debates about God's existence lead to nowhere.

But for the simple things that we can determine with logic and observation and experience and everyone applies those tools will have to agree with something is true.

And what happens when people apply the same tools and arrive at different conclusions? We don't share the same conclusions. How is that reconciled?

Not all things are proven the same way though. If we argue whether it's raining we can check out the window and see. If we argue about universal concepts and the nature of reality the approach is different. I go the transcendental (meta) argument way and ask: what world does it take so that knowledge, the laws of logic, truth, etc are even possible? Which worldview can justify the things we both appeal to in our debate? You see, you can't escape from making a positive claim about reality.

I don't think there is an achievable universal truth, but I did want to bring up how much we limit ourselves from truth with things like religions dogma. Or pseudoscience.

"We shouldn't have dogmatic beliefs because they are limiting us" is a dogmatic belief itself. How do you know we're limiting ourselves, when you don't have access to universal truth? What if the religion's dogma is the truth? Is abiding by truth limiting oneself and should we not do that, because it makes us less free?

Note that this is pretty much the troonsgender argument: "Your socially constructed truth is oppressing my individual truth - who knows better what gender I am than myself?" This is what happens when perceived personal freedom, and not truth, is the ultimate virtue. This is exactly why the world is the way it is - because people don't love the Truth who is a divine person, but instead love themselves. Everyone thinks they're some sort of a mini-god and reject the universal truth for their relative truth leading to ultimate lolbertism (which is demonic): "I'll leave you being your own god and have your little truth, if you don't bother me being my own god and have mine." This is the greatest delusion of all times and people buy into this because of pride and lack of humility (that's how the snake seduced Eve in the garden). This is what they mean by diversity - a war on truth and meaning.

Logic, scientific method. These are tools you can use to determine truth for yourself. It's not some new age fag definition, truth is true from every angle.

How did you use logic and the scientific method to determine your worldview to be correct and that God not real?

Ones own truth isn't truth. It's just belief. Faith isn't truth. It's faith. It's true for you, but to someone else.

Is this statement your own truth or an objective truth?

So if God isn't real, and I can't prove that, then I would also not need to provide a new worldview that makes you feel good.

You're missing the point. There is a reason why you consider God not to be real - because you hold assumptions about the world being a certain way. Your worldview is the lens through which you observe the world and it determines what you consider to be possible, impossible, true, false, etc. That's why I go after the underlying assumptions about reality you have which are based on faith. No one can escape grounding their worldview on faith. I only argue on the worldview level because any other debates about God's existence lead to nowhere.

But for the simple things that we can determine with logic and observation and experience and everyone applies those tools will have to agree with something is true.

And what happens when people apply the same tools and arrive at different conclusions? We don't share the same conclusions. How is that reconciled?

Not all things are proven the same way though. If we argue whether it's raining we can check out the window and see. If we argue about universal concepts and the nature of reality the approach is different. I go the transcendental (meta) argument way and ask: what world does it take so that knowledge, the laws of logic, truth, etc are even possible? Which worldview can justify the things we both appeal to in our debate? You see, you can't escape from making a positive claim about reality.

I don't think there is an achievable universal truth, but I did want to bring up how much we limit ourselves from truth with things like religions dogma. Or pseudoscience.

"We shouldn't have dogmatic beliefs because they are limiting us" is a dogmatic belief itself. How do you know we're limiting ourselves, when you don't have access to universal truth? What if the religion's dogma is the truth? Is abiding by truth limiting oneself and should we not do that, because it makes us less free?

Note that this is pretty much the troonsgender argument. This is what happens when perceived personal freedom, and not truth, is the ultimate virtue. This is exactly why the world is the way it is - because people don't love the Truth who is a divine person, but instead love themselves. Everyone thinks they're some sort of a mini-god and reject the universal truth for their relative truth leading to ultimate lolbertism (which is demonic): "I'll leave you being your own god and have your little truth, if you don't bother me being my own god and have mine." This is the greatest delusion of all times and people buy into this because of pride and lack of humility (that's how the snake seduced Eve in the garden). This is what they mean by diversity - a war on truth and meaning.