Like, to give an example (beware migraines): https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?p=652101#p652101

If all meaning is assigned, then meaning is relative (right in one context and wrong in another) thus the points you make are just opinionated assertions from other points of view.

Dude is literally arguing against philosophy, meaning, and logic. Bear in mind this applies to HIS STUFF TOO!!!

Additionally from the same page:

As to the futility, if I practice philosophy it is futile. If I do not practice philosophy then I am practicing a philosophy of no philosophy and a contradiction occurs. I am simply pointing to the nature of contradiction in things, as well as absurdity, to practice 'unlearning' things.

As to point 2.

1. If we define terms we make distinctions.
2. If we make distinctions we make things which stand apart (otherwise there would be no distinction as there would be no comparison).
3. If we make things which stand apart then we make contradictions (as contradictions are that which stand apart, i.e. an opposition).
4. If we make things which contradict then it does not matter what results as the premises are grounded in contradiction.

Now as to a more precise explanation. If 'belief' and 'style' contradict then there is a continual opposition between the two, there is no way to present a unified argument where both work together (for if both worked together then in effect they would be "one" and creating the distinction between them would be pointless). If neither work together, i.e. are not 'one', then a continual string of opposing arguments and definitions follow and whatever results is grounded in opposition. If opposition is the end result, or just the form and manner of the continuum of arguments/definitions which follow from them, then anything can be justified including the observation that there can be a contradiction to the contradiction of 'belief' and 'style' (i.e. to oppose opposition).

You say that but if you take a look at my discussion with them in the threads where I replied it seemed like there wasn't any point to what they say. They're just asserting things and then when questioned attempt to refute me by saying what I am saying is a contradiction or paradox, even though every criticism could apply to them.

well if we are using two definitions then we’ll be arguing past each other. I would argue it is necessary because there are slippery folks out there who don’t clarify their position to hide behind the shield of being “taken of of context” or “misinterpreted” (cough Jordan Peterson cough).

so if it just stays in this obscure realm of “what if”?

Yeah unfortunately the forum I got it from has people who think that metaphysics means I can just say vaguely say spiritual bullshit and call it philosophy.

So it’s just nonsense?

you may have a point there. I guess some part of my brain thinks it’s some cryptic wisdom only discerning minds can understand

not some sort of secret mystical wisdom if you look hard enough?

Number 1 was about the most clear thing said, and that's being generous. Though transparency has more to do with making something understood. To make something clear means it's understood, like what someone means by a word or something.

Though number 4 is just...nonsense. Doesn't explain how order is a contradiction. It might have something to do with 2 but 2 is playing with a MASSIVELY loose definition of transparency. Though even by all definitions it still doesn't make sense. The word has nothing to do with barriers but understanding.

Overall though it's just a bunch of assertions without anything to back it.

I don’t know, ask that dude in the quote

I don’t think that’s what the OP had in mind.

You might be right but the rules and methods of argument are vital to civil rights today where the rhetoric is important and terms matter A LOT.

No it’s not a problem the guy on the forum was just spouting nonsense.

Even by his own points he wasn’t right as I showed. This was from the metaphysics sub forum which apparently to some means they can just preach whatever spiritual nonsense they want without logic or argument and people need to just accept it.

We aren’t talking about the incongruity of different ideas but more just knowing what we are talking about. If you can’t define the terms and what they mean then it’s not two ideas it’s just folks talking past each other

Well they managed to convince populations they’re broken for doing nothing.

Yeah. Even though ostensibly they might say they’re not when you actually get into them you’ll find they’re not that welcoming.

The ones that are are pretty far removed from Christian teachings.

But that doesn’t change the fact that the reason the current environment in the states is hostile to most progressive attempts is due to Christianity. Without that there wouldn’t be anything in the way, or rather a significant roadblock would be gone (though I’d argue the only one since the roots are God based).

I know that without Christianity my childhood could have been spared soooo much grief and many others too.

Some religion, yes. I’d be reluctant to categorize all religion as anti-LGBT though.

Here in the US, there’s a particularly vocal and powerful group of the evangelical persuasion that’s behind a lot of this— as well as being anti-abortion.

But you see it elsewhere, too. Uganda just passed a highly restrictive law, for example. — Mikie

You’d be hard pressed to find one that doesn’t. Most religions have something against it.

I agree, if by salvation you mean securing a place in heaven (or at least believing you have). Your list of social benefits is well thought out. — Janus

They invent the problem and sell the solution.

People seem to forget that religion is the reason LGBT people, who merely just exist, fear for their lives and rights.

You're ignorant of history and current events, this was already a waste of time.

Then you don't understand dogma.

Providing facts isn't dogma last I checked.

Plenty of atheist dogma on display in this thread, but then, that's what you're going to get as soon as post an OP with such a title. Like tossing bloodied meat into the Piranha River. — Wayfarer

Atheist dogma is an oxymoron.

Religion may provide many benefits besides eternal life for the chosen believers: it can provide tribal unity, community, emotional and material support, relief from labour via festivals and holy days, some minor protections from the depradations of overlords, rites of passage, guarantee of bloodline descent of property via marriage laws, supremacy of a caste or gender, education of a sort, moral guidelines for the making of legal systems (uneven, at best, justice-wise), work for builders, artists, artisans, third sons and sadistic thugs, escape for the marriage-averse, comfort, merriment and feasts. — Vera Mont

That doesn't sound like a religion thing that sounds like a community thing, which you can have without religion.

The minor protections from overlords is laughable though as the faith in question historically was often such a thing. Education is a bit complex as with the religion in charge you got what they said you should know, which was an issue with church folk in the past usually being among the few learned folk.

Not to mention the hundreds of years of persecution of minority groups because of it: blacks, asians, native americans, LGBT people. As I said before, it was only recently that being atheistic isn't some blight on your character. Growing up you're pretty much taught that those without religion are evil or backwards (heard it alot in my faith as a kid).

There really isn't a good reason to keep it around. You can have all that stuff without religion, but a lot of the evil in the world had religion at it's heart. You'd be surprised what those who believe they are "God's chosen" can be capable of.

I'm honestly shocked this is even up for debate.

Again, that's a simplistic assessment, as though there are no other political and economic factors in play which could determine which are the happiest countries (a metric which is itself contentious, because hard to measure).

Many Buddhist traditions are just as religious as Christianity or Islam. It seems you don't want to educate yourself, but prefer to confine yourself to hasty, simple-minded judgments. As such you will remain part of the problem, not the solution. — Janus

Sounds like you don't understand Buddhism that well, which is understandable, most don't.

It just sounds like you really don't want to accept the facts that overall it looks like religion is a net negative, especially given how a lot of the social issues in the US are rooted in it.

If anyone here isn't forming a cogent argument, it's you. You keep insisting it's not when the evidence is plain to see. All you have is indignation, and that ain't worth much.

I'd be glad to see religion phase out over time, at least then you'd be able to reason with folks better.

Can you cite some sociological studies that show that religion has been a net negative for society? What leads you to think your unargued opinions are true? On what basis do you think you can speak for others as to what makes life worth living or bearable for them? And what makes you think Buddhism is not a religion? If you think that, you are woefully ignorant. — Janus

Considering that some of the happiest countries on the planet are atheist and some of the worst aren't that's a good start. Buddhism is a religion but not to the extent others are, if anything even Buddhists themselves wouldn't call it that.

Sounds like you're just scared.

Not really. You presented the question starkly enough that the response seemed unavoidable. If it's nothing but trouble, like a broken leg, then why wouldn't you cure the fracture? This isn't to condemn those with broken legs, but it's not to humor those with broken legs either by suggesting broken legs are as good as unbroken ones.

I'm also very open to the idea that autism offers some advantages, even if it's just a certain pride in uniqueness, but I defer entirely to those in the know on that as to whether it is worth it for the individual to protect.

This is to say, if you tell me you've got a problem, real or perceived, and there is a cure, why would I intervene on that decision? By the same token, if you have what I think to be a problem, but you don't think it that way, why should I intervene there either. — Hanover

The response was treating trouble like some kind of human or solid entity, it had nothing to do with the question.

The rest isn't relevant to the question.

You're kidding right?

Is that a spiritual yearning, though, or an intellectual desire to make sense of things? — Vera Mont

There is no such thing as a spiritual yearning.

What isn't? — Vera Mont

Well for one I just explained why it's a fiction. Nothing is really alive, it's just matter. Life is an illusion.

This is too simplistic. Organized religion is inevitably political, that is, concerned with control, like any collective ideology. I believe there are also countless people who are religious in various personal senses, and provided they don't attempt to foist their own beliefs on others I can see no harm in that.

Some people are simply not satisfied with this life; they just can't accept that this life is all there is. If it makes them happier and healthier, and hence more socially benevolent, to believe something for which there can be no evidence for or against, what's the problem?

Religious institutions should be judged, not on the basis of their doctrines, but on the basis of their actions. Are they more beneficial overall than otherwise or not, and do they stand in the way of socially progressive and inclusive values and environmental healing and sustainability or not: those are the salient questions. — Janus

Except it is that simple, sorry you can't accept that. Religion overall has been a net negative for society, it's stagnated progress, and as we have seen recently it has reversed it in some ways.

It was useful for a time but if people aren't satisfied with this life, that is their problem. Life has more than enough in it but people don't know how to see it. It doesn't make them happier or healthier as it's more like a drug that you have to keep pumping to feel like it's all ok. But look at stuff like Buddhism which works to peace by accepting things as they are rather than trying to make them what we want them to be.

You're kinda just proving my point on why it's not good.

Nature works. Just go out in the woods, or walk along a beach; gaze at stars or learn about coral reefs. Our earliest conscious, reasoning connection to the universe was through the earth, air, water and other life all around us. Urban civilization creates artificial barriers between our inner life and the sources of life. We need to reconnect for full physical, mental and spiritual wholeness. We don't need supernatural or philosophical intermediaries. — Vera Mont

From a certain standpoint nothing is alive, it's all just matter and how it's arranged. That what looks alive is just an illusion since it's really all just matter, nothing dies matter just rearranges.

Also that reconnection isn't a real thing it's just a fantasy we made up in our heads.

I would argue that religion isn't either. Religion is more about making their truths reality.

Though IMO there are no existential truths, just opinions.

Listening to many of the voices on this forum, you'd be convinced that the history of religion is the history of evil and that all we can do is struggle to free ourselves from it. What that doesn't see is what calls forth the need for religion in the first place (because anthropology and history have shown that it is utterly ubiquitous in human culture). That is invariably depicted by atheism as a kind of sense of dependency which also needs to be thrown off. — Wayfarer

It effectively is as you can find thousands of examples of that, even to this day. Religion was an old form of trying to understand the world but as time moved forward it became evident that it wasn’t as more scientific explanations proved better. But given that power structures are entrenched in our society that operate on it and people don’t like change it persists.

It served its purpose for a time but now needs to be let go.

Dogma is not only religious. 'The central dogma of molecular biology is a theory stating that genetic information flows only in one direction, from DNA, to RNA, to protein, or RNA directly to protein.' Political orthodoxies have their dogmas, as do many other disciplines - Soviet Communism was notoriously dogmatic. Dogma is simply the regular form of an accepted principle or axiom. In itself it is not necessarily problematic, but becomes so when it is allied with authoritarianism, which is often is. — Wayfarer

That’s kinda a misunderstanding of what dogma is. Especially trying to liken it to molecular biology.

"I have no cause for complaint on the grounds that the power of understanding or the natural light which God gave me is no greater than it is... I have reason to give thanks to him who has never owed me anything for the great bounty that he has shown me, rather than thinking myself deprived or robbed of any gifts he did not bestow." (Italics mine)

Of course, non-religious people would call this "nature", not God. But it's a valid perspective.

Even with this, some people won't be satisfied, and that's OK too. — Manuel

Too bad he’s wrong about that. It’s not a valid perspective but rather a naive one.

I'm also not a fan of ironing out all the wrinkles in human variability. Doing so might well eliminate musical prodigies, business geniuses, brilliant and productive writers, the rare very gifted inventor, etc, as well as eliminate problematic variations such as mental retardation, schizophrenia, epilepsy, and so on. — BC

This doesn’t seem like a bad thing. I think the world could use less geniuses, inventors, etc considering most of the issues today were caused by them. The world will also survive without writers or musical prodigies.

Though I’m not really seeing your point with the rest of your statement.

But I'm against such a pill being available to the general population. That would mean the end of autism. My son would be in the last generation. Parents would give it to their autistic children en masse. — bert1

You say that like it’s a bad thing. Also you could just not take it or give it. I’m sure there would be folks who would do the same, but they don’t get to speak for all and neither do you.

I'm just making the point that there is no necessary connection between having a shitty time and wanting not to be autistic. — bert1

Except there is.

Well, sort of. You could maybe develop a medication or surgery or something that turn people from being autistic to neurotypical, but such a thing could only correctly be called a 'cure' by people like you who conceive of autism as a disease. Neurodivergence is generally not conceived that way, so 'cure' would be the wrong word. Unless you want to say that you could 'cure' bipedalism by hacking someone's leg off. — bert1

This is a bit of a strawman. Autism is very much an impediment to one’s life, trying to liken it to bipedalism is woefully wrong.

Not to mention the neurodivergence is kinda divided on the matter. I mean you have blind people who view blindness being cured as offensive. I think those who don’t view it as a disease are blind to the full scope of how it manifests. Like I said, I’m not the only one who feels like I do.

There is an irony in atheism insofar as it is a theological position. It both requires study of theological arguments, epistemology, metaphysics, and religion. In order to be without gods he must first have gods to be without. In some sense he never leaves religion, always keeping one foot in its sphere. — NOS4A2

This is a wild misunderstanding of atheism.

It’s a non position. Also you don’t need gods to be an atheist.

Like…this is just wrong

No it really isn’t.

The Nazis didn't murder the Jews because of religious differences. A Jew who disclaimed his Judaism was no safer than a devout one.

Nazi Germany is a good example of a war that was not about religion. It was about ethnicity.

Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Un, Putin, all devotly religious folks I suppose, trying to impose their brand of religion on the masses. I'll have to read up on that. I wasn't aware of that. — Hanover

Factually incorrect. Nazi ideology was religiously motivated, as fascism tends to do. Also I said most not all.

Also you don’t have to believe the ideology just weaponize it, trump is an example of this. They invoke religious language with their message. Stalin did it too, though he was kicked out of the orthodoxy for stealing for the church.

Like I said before, folks here seem ignorant of how this works in real life.

most of those were religious though, trump too (or at least uses it well)