Debate: Is it okay for a public school to put up pro-atheism posters?
Side: It's okay

This got lengthy rather quickly... pick and choose as you like?Regarding whether teaching critical thinking constitutes indoctrination, and the implications.You observe that indoctrination is to teach one to accept (or reject) a belief uncritically, so teaching people to accept beliefs (or reject them) critically would be the opposite of indoctrination. However, this confuses the axiom of critical thought itself with the observations drawn from it. While something like v=d/t may taught critically, that is different from a critical instruction in criticality itself. But you further observe that the only thing that can be taught without criticism is criticism itself, there's no other way. Maybe you could criticism critical thinking, but that would be circular.* That is precisely the dilemma, though. Criticality cannot prove itself, and to step beyond it to prove it would necessarily disprove it.You draw a parallel between needing to indoctrinate against indoctrination and the problem of claiming that there's absolutely no possibility of absolute knowledge, highlighting both as self-contradicting expressions. Somewhat unexpectedly, I find that I disagree; I think that we can be certain that we must be uncertain and that this isn't as contradictory as it seems. Critical thought is unprovable and non-falsifiable not because of some certain extant fact of the matter, but as a consequence of its own internal nature. In other words, both the concept of certainty and the the instruments to prove it are internal to the axiom itself. That we can be certain that we must be uncertain is only a contradiction if we presume that certainty is extant outside the axiom of critical thought rather than being of that concept.Because critical thought cannot be proved or disproved, whether one believes in it is a consequence of its intuitive appeal taken on faith. Therefore, it is indoctrination so long as critical thought is taught as a proved and certain thing because by virtue of itself it cannot claim to be that. Now, it is of course possible to teach critical thought adjacent to this epistemic nihilism... but whether that is desirable or feasible are other matters entirely. I'm dubious most people could grasp the certainty of uncertainty, and attempting to instruct critical thought with that acknowledgment of its nature seems more likely to turn people off of critical thought than towards it. Epistemic nihilism is regularly taken to devalue critical thought although it doesn't disprove it or make any observation of its value to individuals. The effect of teaching critical thought in order to avoid its constituting indoctrination, then, runs a reasonable risk of undermining the very thing one hopes to develop esteem for: criticality.Because I'm a value nihilist, this isn't a particular issue for me. The course of action is clear: indoctrinate people into critical thinking at the expense of other beliefs that run contrary to it. Consistency in opposing indoctrination strikes me as an impractical exercise in principles I don't place value in. But for you, navigating the trade-off between the practical and the principled effects of the decision seems trickier. Is it possible for you to just accept that you are doing a bad thing as the lesser evil to permitting a worse thing to be done by others? Is there an ethical justification for that, do you think, and if so is it really a bad thing? I guess I'm wondering if "indoctrination is morally wrong" might be a bit less absolute, with certain allowances granted by a broader ethical framework.Regarding the existence of societyIf what is meant by 'society" is "the indeterminant, dynamic and complex series of innumerable interpersonal interactions between persons which affects the conditions of their existences", then I would say that it exists. However, this is not what is commonly meant by it so I say that I disbelieve in its existence. What is commonly meant by 'society" doesn't correspond with an extant phenomenon. It's an abstract concept used to transform complex and dynamic phenomena into simple and fixed ideas, in order that we might discuss that phenomena which is otherwise to complex and dynamic to refer to. I'm not categorically opposed to that, but to the confusion of a simplistic representation as the actual phenomena. In other words, I'm against usage which projects that simplified version of extant reality as a truth. For instance, when society is conferred agency or singular interest as a body itself; things like the "collective well-being" or "social welfare" require an actual object to adhere in - "society" - which I don't believe exists. Put another way, I think there are only individuals and that the collective exists only conceptually. There is social interaction between persons, but no society.Regarding egalitarianism and egoismI wouldn't go so far as to say that anyone deserves anything by their merit, but simply that people do get what they get by virtue of their merit. That merit might be provided to them through the power conferred by others valuing their existence and condition, and that sort of transference of power by merit is what underpins the concept of egalitarianism. But it's not even a borrowed power, because one never really owns it. It's a condition of reliance, and not one which the conferrer or the conferee necessarily have the interest or power to assure. I just don't think egalitarianism is practicable, among other concerns.The idea of "better for society" is not coherent to me, as you know now. I'm curious how you go about determining it though. You say you might rather see NASA funded than things that will directly help people, but also that ultimately you would act contrary to that. This leads me to wonder whether you really would rather see NASA funded more than tings that will directly help people. I think everyone is descriptively egoistic, and that our behaviors as much as our thoughts demonstrate the hierarchy of our interests. In your case, there seems to be interest in the social betterment that you conceive of independent from your own interests though; I'm interested in what that looks like if you'd care to elaborate...As a practicing as well as descriptive egoist myself, I tend not to have so much discrepancy between what I feel I want and what ends I act to achieve. For instance, if I'd rather see NASA funded then I wouldn't vote for someone who would fund the alternative first. People are often somewhat repelled by my approach, but frankly I find altruistic claims disgusting (but that's rather another matter I suppose).