This makes perfect sense. Molecules cannot possibly be "more true" than others http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JObc07dFuqg

oh, and this is not a joke video.

wtf??

Anyway, inb4lok.

That sounded like a 5 year old trying to discuss philosophy.

He is saying that one thing can't be more true than another.

He is saying that truth is subjective.

BUT, statements are not made of molecules. Therefore, intangible things can be true and false.

Gold per unit volume is heavier than oxygen per unit volume would be a true statement.

He is saying that one thing can't be more true than another.

He is saying that truth is subjective.

BUT, statements are not made of molecules. Therefore, intangible things can be true and false.

Gold per unit volume is heavier than oxygen per unit volume would be a true statement.

even if it was valid, wouldn't that prove that both sides are invalid.?

even if it was valid, wouldn't that prove that both sides are invalid.?

How can anyone be this stupid?

How can anyone be this stupid?

By both sides, I meant atheists and religious people who happen to to be debating the atheist at the time. If "truth is relative" then neither side can claim that they are right, and the other is wrong. And I was referring to a situation where the the argument presented in the OP was valid in this context.

BUT, statements are not made of molecules. Therefore, intangible things can be true and false.

What are statements made out of then?

Atoms! :p

By both sides, I meant atheists and religious people who happen to to be debating the atheist at the time. If "truth is relative" then neither side can claim that they are right, and the other is wrong. And I was referring to a situation where the the argument presented in the OP was valid in this context.

Philosophizing is fun, but when it results in things like "everyone is right about everything", and logic, reality, and common sense go out the window...that's a bad sign.

It sounded to me like he was saying that because neither is inherently "true" they must be somehow judged to be "true". Proving some higher power must be the "judge of truth".

Which from an atheist standpoint is wrong because nothing is "more true" than anything else.

Philosophizing is fun, but when it results in things like "everyone is right about everything", and logic, reality, and common sense go out the window...that's a bad sign.

Which is exactly why the argument presented was a bad one.

The guy in the YouTube video was not saying that truth is relative. He was saying that it was objective, and that a god (presumably the Christian god) was the root of that objectivity.

He is saying that one thing can't be more true than another.

He is saying that truth is subjective.

BUT, statements are not made of molecules. Therefore, intangible things can be true and false.

Gold per unit volume is heavier than oxygen per unit volume would be a true statement.

correct me if im wrong but the sound waves made when making a statement are made out of molecules / matter which are equally true with all other molecules/matter.

same would go for typing on a screen as the liquid chrystals in my screen that form pixels are made out of equally true molecules.

correct me if im wrong but the sound waves made when making a statement are made out of molecules / matter which are equally true with all other molecules/matter.

same would go for typing on a screen as the liquid chrystals in my screen that form pixels are made out of equally true molecules.

Sound waves aren't molecules. They are waves.

This "true molecules" nonsense is fucking retarded, and you all should be ashamed.

They are waves..

Waves of vibrating matter, which is what he is saying.

That's not to say that his overall point is any good. I'm pretty sure 23 was talking about "truth statements" abstractly and yeah that part about "true molecules" is fucking stupid.

Rust got it. But I think the guy in the video is really using circular reasoning because of how he defines objective. It seems that to him objectivity is something which must be validated by some intelligent entity that stands outside of a system. Rather, it is something that can be inter-subjectively verified to correspond to reality.