Anonymous
6/24/2025, 11:06:59 AM
No.24492208
>>24492200
You’re mistaking verbosity for substance. The criticism is simple, and that’s what makes it sting: theology generates endless discourse without resolution because it’s built on unverifiable premises. Its “truths” are narrative-dependent, circular, and immune to falsification. That's not deep — it's insulated. Philosophy can collapse or evolve under pressure — theology just metastasizes. That's the difference. And the fact that you need me to churn out a thousand-word essay to validate something so basic only proves how addicted you are to performance over clarity.
You don’t want critique — you want ritual. You want ten citations, flowery hedging, and a fake posture of seriousness, because that’s how you gatekeep bad ideas. You’re not defending truth, you’re defending the right to waste time arguing over fantasy in academic language. If you actually had a response, you’d give it — instead, you’re demanding formatting. That’s not intellectualism. That’s cope.
You’re mistaking verbosity for substance. The criticism is simple, and that’s what makes it sting: theology generates endless discourse without resolution because it’s built on unverifiable premises. Its “truths” are narrative-dependent, circular, and immune to falsification. That's not deep — it's insulated. Philosophy can collapse or evolve under pressure — theology just metastasizes. That's the difference. And the fact that you need me to churn out a thousand-word essay to validate something so basic only proves how addicted you are to performance over clarity.
You don’t want critique — you want ritual. You want ten citations, flowery hedging, and a fake posture of seriousness, because that’s how you gatekeep bad ideas. You’re not defending truth, you’re defending the right to waste time arguing over fantasy in academic language. If you actually had a response, you’d give it — instead, you’re demanding formatting. That’s not intellectualism. That’s cope.