[Saeko]

It doesn't have to.

To say that all thought is legitimate; would still legitimize the opposite claim as it is a thought; therefore creating a contradiction.

Or am I missing something?

There is no contradiction.

[Victoribus Spolia]

There is no contradiction.

Why?

When I see the following statement: "All thought is legitimate, including the thought that all thought is illegitimate." I see a plain contradiction.

Unless the claim "all thought is legitimate" is itself not a thought, which would be a weird claim (and likely indefensible).

Of course, I am open to the possibility that I might be reading you wrong; however, that would require you to explain yourself a bit.

[Saeko]

Why?

When I see the following statement: "All thought is legitimate, including the thought that all thought is illegitimate." I see a plain contradiction.

Unless the claim "all thought is legitimate" is itself not a thought, which would be a weird claim (and likely indefensible).

Of course, I am open to the possibility that I might be reading you wrong; however, that would require you to explain yourself a bit.

Why is there a contradiction? I don't see any.

[Sivad]

I can't tell what the OP means by atheist? There are a lot of nontheistic religious traditions that would technically qualify as atheist, there are a lot of non-materialist, non-naturalist schools of thought that are strongly atheistic. As a transtheist I'm technically an atheist. I think the OP is referring only to internet atheists and while they are pretty stupid it's just a small cult that really isn't any more or less civilized than a lot of the religious fringe groups the internet is infested with.

[SSDR]

Atheists are the most civilized because the most moral people don't need religion to motivate them to be good. The greatest of the great don't do good so they can go to a "heaven," they do good because it needs to be done, or it helps others. I am an atheist and I never understand why people need religion to motivate them to be good people. But that is my opinion.

[XogGyux]

Who is the necro pulling threads years old?

If you focus that argument on the lower-classes and exclude the middle and upper-classes, then I think you can possibly say yes. It depends on which social demographic your refer to. There are social demographics for which religion has a very positive civilising role, compare an atheist chav family to a poor religious family, the chav family is being raised like in a stable while the poor religious family is being raised with a moral compass and social rules. And there are other social demographics for whom religion has a net negative impact.

All other things being equal, No-religion > religion every time. A hierarchy of beliefs and behavior based on the pompous whimsical claims of the clerical class is always inferior to a belief system based on facts, empiricism, and reality. You would never say "John would be better off believing in horoscopes" or "Mary would be better off believing in Zeus and Minotaurs" or "Cassandra would be better off believing on Osiris and Ptah" or "Ameh would be better off believing in lucky duendes and gnomes". In the same way, you cannot claim that I would be better off believing in Allah, Budah or Yahweh. Religion as a mean to controlling the masses is not only inefficient but actually offensive. It is an insulting everytime a religious person tries to link morality to religion, especially when religious people are just as immoral, if not more immoral than those without.

[noemon]

Who is the necro pulling threads years old?

All other things being equal, No-religion > religion every time. A hierarchy of beliefs and behavior based on the pompous whimsical claims of the clerical class is always inferior to a belief system based on facts, empiricism, and reality.

Facts, empiricism and reality are no more abound in an atheist social unit than in a religious social unit.

You would never say "John would be better off believing in horoscopes" or "Mary would be better off believing in Zeus and Minotaurs" or "Cassandra would be better off believing on Osiris and Ptah" or "Ameh would be better off believing in lucky duendes and gnomes". In the same way, you cannot claim that I would be better off believing in Allah, Budah or Yahweh. Religion as a mean to controlling the masses is not only inefficient but actually offensive. It is an insulting everytime a religious person tries to link morality to religion, especially when religious people are just as immoral, if not more immoral than those without.

Sure but it is nevertheless a rigid social institution with a defined social order and social order in a fully atheist environment is not a given but it is required for sanity, business, civilisation, etc.

[XogGyux]

I'm going to say no. I will go further and say that civility and stance on religion are mutually exclusive.


Then again, I don't like to call myself atheist, because I feel like Atheists have a habit of being militant with their beliefs. Although I am agnostic/atheist, I do recognize that the world needs religion. We are better off with religion than without it. Many Atheists would want to skewer me for saying such a thing.

Atheism and Agnosticism are different unrelated and non-mutually exclusive labels. Theism and Atheism refers to whether you believe/not-believe whether gnosticism and agnosticism refer to whether you claim to KNOW. Basically you can contruct the following diagram.


Notice that everyone will get 2 labels, one in terms of gnosticism and one in terms of theism. Basically, it is unjustifiable to be gnostic whether you are a theist or atheist because the god claim is unfalsifiable (therefore nobody should be an atheist gnostic) and without proof (therefore nobody should be a theist gnostic). Finally, because the rational stance for all claims is reservation of belief until there is any evidence, the stance of "theist agnostic" is also unjustifiable.

[XogGyux]

Facts, empiricism and reality are no more abound in an atheist social unit than in a religious social unit.

Sure it is. Like I said, all other things being equal believing in something you have absolutely no good reason to believe and with no evidence is at best neutral but with a very high potential to be detrimental. It is NEVER advantageous. Reality > Religion.

Religion is based on faith. Faith is the excuse people give when they believe in something and they don't have a good reason for that belief. If you had good reason for the belief, YOU GIVE THE GOOD REASON and not claim faith. For instance, if I ask you what time it is. You tell me it is 5:40pm EST time. If I ask you why do you believe it is this time? You don't say "I have faith" you tell me, dummy I saw my wristwatch and it says 5:40 and since my wristwatch have been reliable for years, it is ticking away and it is consistent with my expectation that it should be around ~5-6pm I believe it is 5:40" Again, if you claim "faith" not only it is odd, it is silly. How come you we all realize this is dumb but when it comes to believing in magic old people all of the sudden faith is a good thing? No wonder it takes years of indoctrination to strip kids from rational thinking.

Faith if not a reliable path to truth, you can take any stance based on faith. You can believe based on faith that Blacks were put in this world to serve as slaves and you can believe based on faith that Blacks and Whites are identical. Since you can arrive to the same conclusion using a faith-based belief system, it is quite clear that this system is unreliable.
Living your life-based in such an unreliable system not only is silly and sub-optimal but very likely dangerous.

Sure but it is nevertheless a rigid social institution with a defined social order and social order in a fully atheist environment is not a given but it is required for sanity, business, civilisation, etc.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Please clarify.

[noemon]

Sure it is. Like I said, all other things being equal believing in something you have absolutely no good reason to believe and with no evidence is at best neutral but with a very high potential to be detrimental. It is NEVER advantageous. Reality > Religion.

It's a false dichotomy because the absence of religion does not imbue one with the ability to deal with reality. In fact, religion, meditation and self-awareness is all about training yourself to deal with reality in an orderly fashion. It's absence has had detrimental effects to social order with divorce rates, mental health issues, excessive medication reaching epidemic levels. An atheist declaration is not a passport to reality.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Please clarify.

You can try addressing the arguments already provided.

Faith if not a reliable path to truth, you can take any stance based on faith.

Arguing against faith is like arguing against compassion or love or hate, it would be like trying to sever a piece of your humanity.

[Sivad]

All other things being equal, No-religion > religion every time.

The secular mentality hasn't overcome the religious impulse, all it has done is secularize religion.

A hierarchy of beliefs and behavior based on the pompous whimsical claims of the clerical class

"60k pediatricians"

Irony.

is always inferior to a belief system based on facts, empiricism, and reality.

The scientistics aren't interested in facts and reason, their worldview is based on unwarranted presupposition, institutional authority, and official doctrine. Same as any religious cult. It is really funny how they fancy themselves as super rational hard nosed empiricists though.

[XogGyux]

It's a false dichotomy because the absence of religion does not imbue one with the ability to deal with reality. In fact, religion, meditation and self-awareness is all about training yourself to deal with reality in an orderly fashion.

IDK what you talking about. There is no dichotomy nor did I try to set one forth. What do you mean with "meditation"? if you talking about "THINKING" say thinking, if you trying to slip something "spiritual" good luck with that, first you would have to prove that it exists before trying to use terms that make reference to the spiritual.

It's absence has had detrimental effects to social order with divorce rates, mental health issues, excessive medication reaching epidemic levels. An atheist declaration is not a passport to reality.

Blatantly and utterly non-true.
First and foremost what makes you think divorce is a bad thing? Again, all of this is under the presupposition that marriage or monogamy is good. I see absolutely no evidence that this is the case.
Second and perhaps more importantly to your point, your claim is false. Just search around a little bit before posting. Divorce amongst atheist is actually lower compared to Christians. I hate breaking it to you but that's what happens when 2 adults, with a completely unrealistic set of expectations, that don't know how to approach reality because they have been brainwashed since being kids get together "for life".
So in short, you have no reasonable stance to claim divorce is bad, and 2 your claim is false, atheist, actually have a lower divorce rate.
The rest of your claims are just as bogus.
It is not a matter of "Declaration."
As a matter of practicality (and to protect ourselves from con artist), humans are skeptic and that is the APPROPRIATE approach to our lives. You don't believe the nigerian prince emails you get in your inbox, or the penis enlargement spam email or the make 10000/week scams on youtube. Why is that? How is it, that suddenly, someone pulls a magic old dude that "created the whole of existence, but he himself for some fking reason existed before existence and he himself has always existed but there is absolutely no evidence that he exists but somehow he wants you to believe he exists even though he supposedly made you with a brain that is skeptic". No, a declaration of atheism is not a passport to reality and nobody claimed such a thing. It is a declaration of freedom. Freedom from the oppressive lies that the cleric class and its followers impose without evidence or thought for the sake of controlling the masses and masturbating their ego.

You can try addressing the arguments already provided.

Try providing actual real arguments and making them clear.

Arguing against faith is like arguing against compassion or love or hate, it would be like trying to sever a piece of your humanity.

No. Arguing against faith is like arguing against faith. Faith is not compassion nor is it love or hate. Stop trying to muddying the waters with wishy-washy comparisons. When you have good reasons to believe in something, you do not claim faith. You don't have faith that driving at 150mph is dangerous, you have evidence in the form of physics, biomechanics, mathematics. Evidence that says that when you crash at 150mph your brain is gonna become goo and you gonna die quickly and gruesomely. Faith is useless.

@Sivad
You are a troll. Im not going to lower myself to argue your sillyness.

[noemon]

IDK what you talking about. There is no dichotomy nor did I try to set one forth.

Of course you did. If that is your retraction of it, then you should say so.

This:

Reality > Religion.

Is not true.

What do you mean with "meditation"? if you talking about "THINKING" say thinking, if you trying to slip something "spiritual" good luck with that, first you would have to prove that it exists before trying to use terms that make reference to the spiritual.

Meditation is about self-awareness both physically and spiritually, reasoned and sensed, same with prayer.

It is not a matter of "Declaration."

Of course it is and just because one declares to be non-religious or religious it does not actually give them any advantage over the other.

As a matter of practicality (and to protect ourselves from con artist), humans are skeptic and that is the APPROPRIATE approach to our lives. You don't believe the nigerian prince emails you get in your inbox, or the penis enlargement spam email or the make 10000/week scams on youtube. Why is that? How is it, that suddenly, someone pulls a magic old dude that "created the whole of existence, but he himself for some fking reason existed before existence and he himself has always existed but there is absolutely no evidence that he exists but somehow he wants you to believe he exists even though he supposedly made you with a brain that is skeptic". No, a declaration of atheism is not a passport to reality and nobody claimed such a thing. It is a declaration of freedom. Freedom from the oppressive lies that the cleric class and its followers impose without evidence or thought for the sake of controlling the masses and masturbating their ego.

You must be very ignorant of religious services to compare them with such things. Are you telling me you will not be a godfather in a church if someone asks you to do that to their child because you will not open that spam email?

No. Arguing against faith is like arguing against faith. Faith is not compassion nor is it love or hate. Stop trying to muddying the waters with wishy-washy comparisons. When you have good reasons to believe in something, you do not claim faith. You don't have faith that driving at 150mph is dangerous, you have evidence in the form of physics, biomechanics, mathematics. Evidence that says that when you crash at 150mph your brain is gonna become goo and you gonna die quickly and gruesomely. Faith is useless.

If you are saying that religious people are more likely to die in car accidents because of faith making them irrational, then I do not think that is true at all.

[Victoribus Spolia]

So @XogGyux, are you looking for a real debate about the Existence of God?

If so.....

[XogGyux]

Of course you did. If that is your retraction of it, then you should say so.

Where is the dichotomy I supposedly try to sneak in? Please point towards it, quote it, please.

Is not true.

It is.

Meditation is about self-awareness both physically and spiritually, reasoned and sensed, same with prayer.

I knew it. You were trying to sneak in some wishy-washy stuff without evidence. What is a spirit, how do you know it exists? Until then we can talk about thinking or concentration or even relaxation but I don't care for what you have to say regarding "meditation".

Of course it is and just because one declares to be non-religious or religious it does not actually give them any advantage over the other.

The declaration is just a matter of catharsis. And yes it does carry an important role in liberation.

You must be very ignorant of religious services to compare them with such things.

Or not. One of us is wrong and I am not the one claiming the existence of a magical being.

Are you telling me you will not be a godfather in a church if someone asks you to do that to their child because you will not open that spam email?

I would happily pledge my willingness to raise and care for the children of some of my best friends and family members should I be the closest and most immediate family figure and should they want me to do so. I would reluctantly participate in some of the rituals if that makes them feel better but I will explicitly let them know of how silly I believe them to be (I have in fact participated in baptism of family members as well even though neither myself, not the baptized child nor the parents of the baptised child believe this nonsense, it was a matter of political convenience). Furthermore, I will be very clear that I do not believe in their non-sense fantasy and should they die I will take care of their children but I will not teach them nonsense. Should I be the "godfather" of teenagers that were already indoctrinated I would very well show them reality to the best of my abilities but not force them to do anything or reject their beliefs but I will certainly do my best to teach them critical thinking and I am sure that alone will take care of the rest. I don't have many "strong" religious friends and I am sure even if they do believe in some sort of nonsense they probably would not care if I follow that path with their children as I don't fraternize too much with religious fanatics anyway.
For the record, I do not give any significance to marriage either other than the contractual obligations it entails due to the exact same reasons.

If you are saying that religious people are more likely to die in car accidents because of faith making them irrational, then I do not think that is true at all.

That is not what I said. I gave an example of how faith is not a reliable path to truth, that's all. You don't use faith for ANYTHING else other than religion, so of course, it has little impact on anything else other than religion (e.i car accidents). But if you did, (that is, use faith for things other than religion) the world would be chaotic. Now you can refer back to the example I gave you why.

So @XogGyux, are you looking for a real debate about the Existence of God?

If so.....

There is no debate about the existence of God. I don't debate on the existence of unicorns, duendes, witches, thanos or gods.

[Victoribus Spolia]

There is no debate about the existence of God. I don't debate on the existence of unicorns, duendes, witches, thanos or gods.

So was that your response to my challenge?



Your are out of your league anyway my friend......probably wouldn't be that much fun anyway.

[XogGyux]

So was that your response to my challenge?



Your are out of your league anyway my friend......probably wouldn't be that much fun anyway.

I agree with you. IM way over your league, you would probably end up crying.

For the record, you are misusing straw man. Read your own fking meme. I see why you think you are not on my league, you don't even understand how basic logic works.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I agree with you. IM way over your league, you would probably end up crying.

talk is cheap.

My challege stands, the refusal amounts to cowardice and no amount of childish banter on your part can cover for it.

As for my use of strawman, I used it accurately, you mischarcterized the theisic argument and belief as the same as belief in arbitrary human creations in works of fiction.

This is a strawman, by definition.

[XogGyux]

talk is cheap.

My challege stands, the refusal amounts to cowardice and no amount of childish banter on your part can cover for it.

Your challenge is stupid.
I challenge never eat any other food other than rice for the rest of your life.
Your refusal to do so would amount to cowardice and no childish banter on your part can cover for it.

As for my use of strawman, I used it accurately, you mischarcterized the theisic argument and belief as the same as belief in arbitrary human creations in works of fiction.

No. Strawman was if I had said that you believe in unicorns or Odin and then go ahead to disprove unicorns or Odin. I did not such thing. I said all of those things are equally credible, which they are as there is no proof for any of them. Your confusion is understandable but then again that is what happens when you forgo critical thinking.

This is a strawman, by definition.

It isn't, as I pointed out just above. By definition you are wrong.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Your challenge is stupid. I challenge never eat any other food other than rice for the rest of your life.Your refusal to do so would amount to cowardice and no childish banter on your part can cover for it.

So you refuse to debate me then?

Thought so.

Strawman was if I had said that you believe in unicorns or Odin and then go ahead to disprove unicorns or Odin. I did not such thing. I said all of those things are equally credible, which they are as there is no proof for any of them. Your confusion is understandable but then again that is what happens when you forgo critical thinking.

mischaracterizing someone's position and doing a critique of it, is what you did. That is exactly the criteria of the definition.

It isn't, as I pointed out just above. By definition you are wrong

Opposite actually.

Anyway, when you are ready to leave the high school lunch table and engage in real philosophy with a soon-to-be doctor of philosophy. Let me know.

I live to educate.