An axiom is basically a statement taken to be true without any evidence to support it.
What statement has evidence to support it, which evidence itself does not require evidence and so on ad infinitum? Therefore, as I said, all statements would be axiomatic.
That would be epideictic, however, that is not at all what I said. I said "...according to you, there could be no statements which are not axiomatic..."
My point is simply this. The idea of truth requires proof. The burden of proof lies in the positive, not in the negative. No such proof can ever be found. To negate a statement does not assert a reality, it merely asserts that there is no such reality. If you like to call that axiomatic, very well, but then I say your 'axiomatic' has no meaning at all. You might as wel call it a flibberglaster statement.
I suppose you could imagine that when I said "there is no truth", I actaully meant, "there is no truth, pending evidence to the contrary."