>>24492271
Not really; I am refuting your post and your entire position as completely meaningless and self-contradictory. You have not demonstrated that either is more valid than the other—and, unlike me, only you demand something empirically real
>It’s not profound, it’s parasitic — feeding on people's fear, ego, and need for meaning without ever producing anything real.
something with resolution or consensus where it does not even exist in your rational philosophy:
>Thousands of years of arguing about made-up metaphysical blueprints with zero resolution or consensus
Something that is not
>endless discourse without resolution because it’s built on unverifiable premises
like any othet philosophy, or
>"truths” [that] are narrative-dependent, circular, and immune to falsification.
Yet you provide nothing, falsify nothing, make no point, and do not even successfully declare one side more valid than another. This is more a
>glaring symptom of intellectual failure
as your beliefs feed on your ego, fear, and need for meaning without providing anything real.

Try again.