This is insane. Religions have, at best, had a mixed consequence on the world, even the pope does not disagree with that as he has condemned past activities of the church.

Some people look at this mixed consequence and conclude that the good stuff outweighs the bad. I'm fine with that. I disagree but I can see these are mostly intelligent people and the data is, as I say, mixed.

Some people, myself included, look at this mix and conclude the bad stuff outweighs the good. But instead of our detractors being fine with that and accepting that we're also intelligent people looking a complex, mixed picture, I'm told that I'm actually irrational, that no rational person could possibly reach that conclusion, only a zealot as bad as ISIS could possibly reach such a conclusion.

Thank you for at least attempting to inject some charitable interpretation. No I'm not advocating intolerance, just the ability to express our opinions and try, no matter how futile, to persuade others of things we think are important without being accused of being irrational.

My use of the word 'allow' was poorly ambiguous but would require significant prejudice not to interpret charitably, for anyone to suggest I've said anything in my posts to justify a presumption that I probably want to forcibly ban religion is completely unjustified and I appreciate your effort to provide a more balanced interpretation of my clumsy phrasing.

What I actually meant by it was 'allow' within the moral limits of our actions, which I think is not far from what you suggested. The normal use of the word in fact, as in the way "we don't allow smoking in pubs" doesn't mean we're going to shoot anyone found doing it because that would be immoral. Most of the time people don't have to specify that they're going to stick within accepted moral boundaries when enforcing their use of the word 'allow' but apparently I'm an exception.

I think the only place we might disagree is that I do have quite strong views about religious education and would certainly consider that act of banning faith schools as within what I consider reasonable moral grounds for enforcing what religious activity we should 'allow', but imposing on someone's private practices would for example, be an immoral imposition on autonomy.

The point is, these are the normal moral dilemmas society had to face when balancing autonomy with preventing social harms.

I think the only place we might disagree is that I do have quite strong views about religious education and would certainly consider that act of banning faith schools as within what I consider reasonable moral grounds for enforcing what religious activity we should 'allow', but imposing on someone's private practices would for example, be an immoral imposition on autonomy. — Pseudonym

My parents believe in god. They are fine with my brother being gay. They are fine with separation of church. They prefer separation of church and state. They are fine with secularism. In fact they have encouraged me to become atheist in a society where it is looked down upon, after listening to my reasons.

Now this is a huge hypothetical (they don't care for preaching), but should they be allowed to preach if they wanted to? Would you say that they should not be able to have schools where, if people choose to, they come to learn because they are interested in their type of religious belief?

I think we have to consider what the faith school is teaching. If it is ISIS preaching then of course we ban it. But does the degree of belief and it's specific consequences matter? It seems as though the case I am talking about is only harmful in that it encourages forming a world view that may not be rational. And we may also have conversations about how far a belief can go before it is banned. But do you think all faith based schools should be banned?

Anyway, I agree with your position that we should be allowed to tell people they are wrong. I am a huge advocate for discouraging religion.

If you read Pseudonym's last comment, I think there was just more of a misunderstanding going on.

I read that quote as if Pseudonym is saying we should not allow religion when it's degrees of consequences have reached a point that is intolerable, like say ISIS for example. It is our duty to not allow that. While we should discourage in other cases. That was my interpretation, but I acknowledge that it was not my quote therefore I may be misrepresenting. — SonJnana

There is a big difference between tolerating ISIS's religion and tolerating their behavior.

There is a big difference between tolerating ISIS's religion and tolerating their behavior. — T Clark

I may have worded it strangely, but I mean we should be allowed to criticize the doctrines themselves, criticize people's interpretations of the doctrines, and not allow people to behave in the ways ISIS does.

Some people, myself included, look at this mix and conclude the bad stuff outweighs the good. But instead of our detractors being fine with that and accepting that we're also intelligent people looking a complex, mixed picture, I'm told that I'm actually irrational, that no rational person could possibly reach that conclusion, only a zealot as bad as ISIS could possibly reach such a conclusion. — Pseudonym

I'll say it again - here's what you wrote

how much religion do we think it is our duty to allow/encourage in our society — Pseudonym

My interpretation of that statement is that you support forbidding religion. Am I correct or have I misunderstood what you are saying?

I may have worded it strangely, but I mean we should be allowed to criticize the doctrines themselves, criticize people's interpretations of the doctrines, and not allow people to behave in the ways ISIS does. — SonJnana

Criticize it all you want, but you don't get to put limits on the legal expression of religious belief.

It depends on context. Consider this hypothetical example. If ISIS opens up a school in America, people allow their kids to go from like age 2. The kids are taught ISIS ideals. We end up with thousands of people going around killing people. The teachers of the school itself aren't killing, but the children that go to the school grow up and start killing in this situation. Do we just keep locking up the murderers that grow in population and never end? Or do we also ban the expression of ideals of the school because it is indoctrinating children from a young age to become murderers, which is a huge threat to our safety.

Thank you for at least attempting to inject some charitable interpretation. No I'm not advocating intolerance, just the ability to express our opinions and try, no matter how futile, to persuade others of things we think are important without being accused of being irrational. — Pseudonym

I went back and looked at every post you made in this discussion. I didn't see anything that is inconsistent with my characterization of your words in my previous posts. You ask for people to be charitable but I see no charity for others in what you write or what you propose. It seems to me you don't recognize how radical the position you are describing is.

I think you expressing these beliefs on this forum is a good thing. I'm not trying to stop it. I'm actually doing what you suggested earlier in a slightly different context:

So what I'm saying is that by failing to act in such a way as to discourage religion, you are expressing your sincere belief that it is at least OK to have religion in the world — Pseudonym

I am acting because I don't believe it is OK to allow restrictions on people's most deeply held beliefs.

Except that civilization owes itself in large part to the "religious gene." We'd have probably died out as a species many thousands of years ago had we not developed a mind for religious thinking. And, the common denominator for bad behavior is human nature, not religions in themselves.

It depends on context. Consider this hypothetical example. If ISIS opens up a school in America, people allow their kids to go from like age 2. The kids are taught ISIS ideals. We end up with thousands of people going around killing people. The teachers of the school itself aren't killing, but the children that go to the school grow up and start killing in this situation. Do we just keep locking up the murderers that grow in population and never end? Or do we also ban the expression of ideals of the school because it is indoctrinating children from a young age to become murderers, which is a huge threat to our safety. — SonJnana

There are laws against conspiracy to promote terrorism or provide support for terrorist organizations. Are the hypothetical schools violating those laws? If not, what business does the government have in putting restrictions on them. That doesn't prevent you from expressing your opposition to the school within the limits of legal restrictions on violence and intimidation.

I thought you had said free expression rather than legal expression as if implying religious ideals should be allowed to be expressed even when they are promoting terrorism. But yeah, I'm not saying that I'm trying to put limits on the legal expression of religious belief.

I suppose that theism could be viewed as a mental illness however we must remember that theism rooted from a want of understanding of the universe. Now that we have technologies to discover the facts rather than stories from constantly edited books, I would say theism is more a type of denial verging on Luddism than a mental illness.

I don't know how old you are, but your post is riddled with immature remarks that are clearly in reference to me, and you're trying way too hard to victimize yourself. I would strongly advise you to grow up and get used to people disagreeing with you. Seriously, this is a forum for arguing. You need to have much thicker skin if you're going to participate.

No I'm not advocating intolerance, just the ability to express our opinions and try, no matter how futile, to persuade others of things we think are important without being accused of being irrational. — Pseudonym

Clearly I hurt your feelings, which was not my intention, but when someone is saying something irrational I am going to point it out. I tend to assume that the person will be able to handle it, but apparently I was wrong in this case. For the record, though, there is quite a bit of irony in this statement considering it's coming from someone who believes he has the right to decide what other people are allowed to believe.

My use of the word 'allow' was poorly ambiguous but would require significant prejudice not to interpret charitably, for anyone to suggest I've said anything in my posts to justify a presumption that I probably want to forcibly ban religion is completely unjustified and I appreciate your effort to provide a more balanced interpretation of my clumsy phrasing. — Pseudonym

Do you not see the inconsistency here? You begin by admitting that your use of the word "allow" was poorly ambiguous, and then go on to insult me for misinterpreting the meaning you intended by it. Really?

What I actually meant by it was 'allow' within the moral limits of our actions, which I think is not far from what you suggested. The normal use of the word in fact, as in the way "we don't allow smoking in pubs" doesn't mean we're going to shoot anyone found doing it because that would be immoral. — Pseudonym

We don't allow smoking in pubs because it's illegal. So you're confirming that you are, in fact, suggesting we make beliefs you disagree with illegal? If not, then your example doesn't apply and you need to be more explicit in what you mean by "allow", because nothing you have said yet has given me reason to believe you mean anything other than a use of force. You claim I am misinterpreting your meaning, and I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you need to make clear what your meaning actually is.

Most of the time people don't have to specify that they're going to stick within accepted moral boundaries when enforcing their use of the word 'allow' but apparently I'm an exception. — Pseudonym

Again playing victim. Unbelievable.

I try to avoid speaking to people in a disparaging way like this, especially when having intellectual discussions, but your attitude here has been so ridiculous that I felt justified in ridiculing it.

Now if you actually want to discuss the topic, feel free to respond. If you're just going to whine more, then I wouldn't even bother.

I think we have to consider what the faith school is teaching. If it is ISIS preaching then of course we ban it. But does the degree of belief and it's specific consequences matter? It seems as though the case I am talking about is only harmful in that it encourages forming a world view that may not be rational. And we may also have conversations about how far a belief can go before it is banned. But do you think all faith based schools should be banned? — SonJnana

Yes, like with any moral dilemma in a society there will be a balance between respecting autonomy and restricting behaviour that it detrimental to society. It's great in the very clear cases like ISIS because we can practically all agree and the consequences are clear. What I think has not been addressed is that, given the significant effect of education on our children's development, how do we deal with the possibility that fairly benign religious teaching causes harm by its failure to teach critical thinking, moral responsibility etc. I only mention religious teaching here because this is a thread about how to treat theism (although it's strayed quite far off topic already). I would extend the issue to all forms of poor education.

The issue is this. Somehow we've ended up with a society in which millions are starving whilst others live in ridiculous excess and the majority of the population are fine with that. There's a story (maybe fancified, but it serves a purpose) about Sitting Bull when he first toured with Will Bill's Rodeo. After every show, he would give away all of his wages to the destitute he would be faced with in the towns they visited. He didn't preach about it or reprimand the others for not, but he could not believe that anyone would just walk past a destitute person, with money in their hand, and not help them out.

I'm not saying I blame religion entirely for the extent to which we have become so cold-hearted, but I think that the sense, imparted by religion, that some external authority figure provides you with the answers to moral dilemmas allows people to 'switch off' that sense that Sitting Bull had which made it simply impossible for him to ignore these people.

This is essentially the issue I was trying to discuss. What does one do if one's belief leads to a conclusion where the uncertainty is very high (my theory is shaky at best), but the consequences of being right and not doing anything about is are really severe?

Of course as soon as ISIS are brought up everyone rallies round agreeing with whatever measures are necessary, but something about modern society (capitalism, greed, culture, religion?) causes ten times as many deaths daily as ISIS have killed in their entire tenure. The question is, are we going to throw our hands up and say "I don't know what that's all about" and just let it carry on or are we going to have a serious conversation about what the root cause might be and try to change it?

My interpretation of that statement is that you support forbidding religion. Am I correct or have I misunderstood what you are saying? — T Clark

How on earth did you get that? The statement was "we each have the same choice to make - how much religion do we think it is our duty to allow/encourage in our society, based on its consequences?" Absolutely no mention of my opinion on the matter whatsoever, just a statement of fact that as moral agents, that is a decision we all must make. In fact, where in any of my posts (up to that point) have I expressed my personal opinion on the matter at all?

To be honest I'm glad I didn't. I've already been called an irrational zealot just for raising the possibility that we should not dismiss out of hand someone who thinks that religion might be a bad thing for society.

how much religion do we think it is our duty to allow/encourage in our society — Pseudonym


He is clearly proposing that we do not allow, that we forbid, religion in our society. That means significantly more than walking door to door. — T Clark

This is just insane prejudice. Again, how on earth did you get from a statement that we all have a choice to make, to a conclusion that I'm advocating anything at all, let alone going door to door banning beliefs?

The issue I was discussing is what moral duty becomes incumbent on such a person, holding such a belief? Do they act based on their level of uncertainty alone, or do they consider the magnitude of the consequences should the be right but fail to act?

Except that civilization owes itself in large part to the "religious gene." We'd have probably died out as a species many thousands of years ago had we not developed a mind for religious thinking. — Buxtebuddha

This is all a reasonable theory, but it doesn't answer the question I posed. You believe this theory of yours to be the case and so you act on it, that's fine because the actions you would need to take consequent to this belief are mild and in-keeping with society's current attitude. But you're not claiming (I hope) that you can somehow conclusively prove this theory, that every geneticist, anthropologist and neuroscientist out there have all reached the same unavoidable conclusion?

So the question is, what does someone do when their deeply held conviction is not the neat status quo theory you espouse, what if they believe that religion has, in fact, harmed society and continues to do so, but they (like any good philosopher) recognise that they very much might be wrong about that. Do they not act on that belief because of the uncertainty, or do they take the risk and act because of the severity of the consequences they fear?

There are laws against conspiracy to promote terrorism or provide support for terrorist organizations. Are the hypothetical schools violating those laws? If not, what business does the government have in putting restrictions on them. That doesn't prevent you from expressing your opposition to the school within the limits of legal restrictions on violence and intimidation. — T Clark

This is nonsense, particularly the bit about "what business does the government have in putting restrictions on them?" Who do you think made the laws? There didn't used to be laws against promoting terrorism, people saw that promoting terrorism was causing, or threatened to cause, harm to society so they exercised their moral agency to decide that the autonomy of people wishing to promote terrorism must be imposed on for the greater good of society. They discussed the matter, campaigned for it, voted for a party which promoted it and it became law.

The first bit is the bit that forums such as this get involved in. Discussing the matter. So it's circular to say that because there isn't currently a law against something we are not morally obligated to restrict it. We're asking the question should there be a law against it? Specifically in this case (the conversation about faith schools) we discussing whether the government should be allowed, by law, to prevent the teaching of certain values, not whether they currently are allowed by law to do so, that's a discussion for a legal forum. To just argue that they shouldn't be allowed because they aren't allowed is silly.

This is nonsense — Pseudonym

Ahem...

Several points:

• There are not currently laws against teaching unpopular religious principles in the US, therefore the government should keep it's hands off.
• In the US at least, it is unlikely there will be such laws. That's why we have the first amendment to our Constitution - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
• Even if it were legally allowable to put such restrictions on religious schools, or speech in general, it would be a bad idea. Any government that puts restrictions on Muslim schools will also put restrictions on expression of other unpopular ideas. For me, the most important political principle is fairness. I figure - if everyone get's treated the same, there will be no incentive to pass tyrannical laws. Free expression makes for better government and better society.
• Even if it weren't a bad idea to implement restrictions, it would be wrong. The government tends to put restrictions on unpopular and vulnerable people who go against the status quo. Black people who want to vote. Religious minorities who want to worship. Gay people who want to live inside society rather than outside. I take these words seriously - We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

you need to make clear what your meaning actually is. — JustSomeGuy

Seeing as you're having trouble I will break it down into simple statements.

1. It is possible that religion is harmful to society.

2. Someone could theoretically believe this with great hubris, convinced they are right, or with great humility, accepting they could well be wrong, but nonetheless concluding so on the balance of evidence. The nature of their conclusion does not in any way necessitate the degree to which they believe it.

3. Inaction has no less consequence on the world than action, it is no less a response to one's beliefs and can be carried out (if that's the right word) either with great conviction, or with great doubt.

4. It follows from 1-3 that any moral agent must make a decision about how to act (or refrain from taking action) in the face of their belief about the degree of harm/benefit religion causes society.

5. It is possible to ban all religious activity in public (no-one mentioned anything about private beliefs or private religious worship). It is possible to make religious activity mandatory.

6. People, by the collected effect of their individual actions, are responsible for the laws and customs of their society.

7. It follows from 6 that the decision one must make about one's actions in response to one's belief about the harms/benefit religion causes society will involve a decision about how much religious practice society should tolerate (by which I mean the individual exercising the small part they play in the adjusting the direction of societal laws and customs). It follows from 5 that the range of options any moral agent has to choose from with regards to the direction they wish to exercise their small influence in ranges from "none" (no public religious practices at all) to "loads" (mandatory religious practices)

Therefore;

1. No-one is withholding judgement, everyone has made a decision (at least for the time being) to either act to push society in a different direction, or not act and so leave society as it is, in this regard.

2. The decision we each make has no bearing whatsoever on the degree of hubris or humility with which we have made that decision.

Every statement in this post underlines, highlights, bolds, italicizes my earlier accusations against your position that you characterized as uncharitable. @SonJnana I'd be interested in what you have to say.

There are not currently laws against teaching unpopular religious principles in the US, therefore the government should keep it's hands off. — T Clark

I already said that, did you actually read my post? Why are you repeating that there no current laws when I just said that the issue is not the current state of law, but the desired state of law?

In the US at least, it is unlikely there will be such laws. That's why we have the first amendment to our Constitution - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. — T Clark

A jihadi terrorist's religion is that infidels must be killed in order to bring about an Islamic state. That is the stated intent of ISIS and ISIS is a religious group working on their particular version of Islam. So can the US government not intervene in the murder of infidels because it is the expression of their religious belief?

Any government that puts restrictions on Muslim schools will also put restrictions on expression of other unpopular ideas. — T Clark

This is a risk, but I haven't yet heard an argument that the severity of this risk outweighs the severity of allowing schools to teach doctrines of hatred, for example. Simply stating that the risk exists is not a sufficient ethical argument.

The government tends to put restrictions on unpopular and vulnerable people who go against the status quo. — T Clark

Last I checked the US was a democracy, the government does what it is given a mandate to do by the people. So if the people want to restrict unpopular and vulnerable people (such that they would vote in a government which seeks to do so), then they will do so, law or no law. The power of culture is stronger than any law, so our individual contribution to that culture will determine its course regardless of any restriction put on government.

Every statement in this post underlines, highlights, bolds, italicizes my earlier accusations against your position that you characterized as uncharitable. — T Clark

Great, now I might have a chance of actually understanding your position. Which of the statements do you think are false or do not follow from their premises?

Last I checked the US was a democracy, the government does what it is given a mandate to do by the people. So if the people want to restrict unpopular and vulnerable people (such that they would vote in a government which seeks to do so), then they will do so, law or no law. The power of culture is stronger than any law, so our individual contribution to that culture will determine its course regardless of any restriction put on government. — Pseudonym

Earlier you intimated I should be more charitable to your ideas. Wondering if you were correct, I went back and looked at the things I had previously written. I concluded that I my inferences from what you wrote had been reasonable and justified. Now it strikes me I have been much too charitable. I think your position is intellectually unjustified, morally unprincipled, and cowardly. Not to mention uncharitable.

Is thinking that theism is a mental illness itself a mental illness?

I don't think so.

But if we decide to call vaguely defined metaphysical positions we don't like 'mental illness,' then yeah.

And if you disagree with this (or with any of my barks), you probably have a case of silly-itis. It's a contagious disease of the pineal gland.

1 through 4 I'm with you, but my issues begin here:

5. It is possible to ban all religious activity in public (no-one mentioned anything about private beliefs or private religious worship). It is possible to make religious activity mandatory. — Pseudonym

You have been speaking (and continue to here) as though banning all religious activity is a reasonable option. Banning all religious activity is no more reasonable than making it mandatory. Your comment about "private" belief is meaningless, as it is clearly not possible for the government to allow or prevent anything you do in private anyway.

The decision we each make has no bearing whatsoever on the degree of hubris or humility with which we have made that decision. — Pseudonym

This isn't accurate. It takes some level of hubris to even believe at all--with any amount of conviction--that you know what is best for all mankind.

No-one is withholding judgement, everyone has made a decision (at least for the time being) to either act to push society in a different direction, or not act and so leave society as it is, in this regard. — Pseudonym

This also isn't accurate. There are plenty of us who believe that society is going to do what it does regardless of anything we, as an individual, choose to do or not do. This is another belief that requires some amount of hubris--that you, as an individual, can singularly affect society in any significant way based on your own personal convictions and actions.
What I'm saying is, failure to act is not necessarily due to an endorsement of the current state of affairs, as you imply. It can also be due to a belief that one's action wouldn't affect the current state of affairs anyway.

So can the US government not intervene in the murder of infidels because it is the expression of their religious belief? — Pseudonym

Murder is, by definition, illegal. Things that are legal do not cancel out things that are illegal. That's like asking of somebody can get away with vehicular manslaughter because they were driving under the speed limit.

This really gets to the heart of what you're implying with all of this, though, and where I (and it seems T Clark) take issue with your position. You are implying that our current laws are not satisfactory with regard to religion. It follows from this that you think we need to pass new laws, placing more restrictions on religious belief and expression. Seeing as how murder is already illegal, it doesn't make sense to assume that you're referring to religious extremists/terrorists. These extreme forms of religious expression are already illegal, so what forms of religious expression could you be referring to? Preaching? Praying? Worshipping? Teaching religion? Discussing religious beliefs?
It seems to me that you either didn't think through the implications of what you've been saying, or T Clark and I have been correct in our assessments of your position all along.

Firstly I'm not advocating any position at all, this is the first misconception both you and T Clark have made and I can't understand why. Apart from one mention of my views about faith schools to sonjnana in direct response to a question, I have not once said anything about my personal opinion about the extent to which society should tolerate or restrict religious practices. I honestly haven't the faintest idea why either of you think that you have any idea what I actually think about the restriction of religion.

My entire point I will repeat, is that;
1. it is possible for someone to hold the belief that religion needs to be restricted for the good of society yet to hold this view without any more hubris or certainty than someone who holds the belief that religion is currently restricted to exactly the right extent.
2. If someone were to believe such a thing their moral obligation to act on that belief would be no different to the moral obligation to not act of someone who holds the belief that things are fine as they are.

I repeat, at no point in time have I expressed my own views on the extent to which I think society should limit religious expression.

To the extent to which your post addresses my actual point of philosophy (rather than your wild speculation about my personal judgement);

You have been speaking (and continue to here) as though banning all religious activity is a reasonable option. — JustSomeGuy

No, I have not once said it is reasonable, I have argued it is possible (for public activities) and as such every moral agent has to decide whether to persue such an option.

This isn't accurate. It takes some level of hubris to even believe at all--with any amount of conviction--that you know what is best for all mankind. — JustSomeGuy

No, it does not. It is perfectly possible to have an extremely humble and speculative idea of what might be best for all mankind. For example, one might believe in ethical naturalism which may lead one to a conclusion that the wants of humankind are mediated by biology. They may consider then that what is good for them is probably good for all humanity based on the similarity biologically. Such a person might easily hold this belief with great humility, but it would nonetheless lead them to the conclusion that they did indeed know what was best for all humanity. Likewise someone who believes in a very strict religion such as a jehovas witness might hold their belief very tentatively, but it would nonetheless lead them to the conclusion that, whilst committed to the belief, they would know what was best for all humanity. It is sufficient for them to say that if their belief was right, then then would know exactly what was best for humanity.

that you, as an individual, can singularly affect society in any significant way based on your own personal convictions and actions. — JustSomeGuy

I don't understand what you are saying here. If each individual decided to take a particular position, then society as a whole will have adopted that position, how have the individuals taking their positions not been responsible for the position adopted by society? What you might be saying (charitably) is that in the specific circumstance where you can see clearly that your belief is very much in the minority you could justifiably reach the conclusion that there isn't any point in campaigning, but that's a very specific circumstance, not a general philosophical principle. Democracy is founded on the notion that each citizen expresses their wishes through voting and campaigning.

What I'm saying is, failure to act is not necessarily due to an endorsement of the current state of affairs, as you imply. It can also be due to a belief that one's action wouldn't affect the current state of affairs anyway. — JustSomeGuy

I understand this. I disagree, as above, but I get that it's a reasonable philosophical position to hold. I don't think it's any less hubristic, but it's just as valid as my position.

what forms of religious expression could you be referring to? Preaching? Praying? Worshipping? Teaching religion? Discussing religious beliefs? — JustSomeGuy

As I have repeatedly said, I have not advocated any position in this thread, but since you asked; no, based on my personal assessment of the harms I believe religious practices can cause, I do not think it would be advisable (let alone possible) to restrict praying, worshipping or discussing religion. I do think it would be advisable to restrict religious education and remnant religious influence on the state. But my reasons for reaching the conclusions are an entire thread's worth and totally off topic here.

Rereading what I wrote, I wasn't dismissive of your thoughts at all, I just disagreed with them. When I said you were dismissive, I was referring to the fact that you called theist's beliefs "delusions." — T Clark

I wasn't being dismissive. I was providing a scientific explanation for religious beliefs. Being dismissive would be to ignore the fact that anyone has an experience that they call religious. I'm not saying that they don't. I'm just saying that they are interpreting their experience wrongly.

This is more of the hubris I mentioned. It is infuriating to me when someone tries to explain my actions or beliefs in terms of their own preconceptions without knowing me. I'm not saying I'm angry at you, I am not a theist so your opinion here doesn't really apply to me, but if I were, I probably would be. — T Clark

And your anger would be part of the symptom of being delusional. Didn't you read the list of symptoms? Questioning your beliefs and providing a better explanation shouldn't make anyone angry if they are really trying to get at the truth. It would only make one angry if they have an emotional investment in their belief, the validity of which is being questioned.

Doctors, including psychologists, can explain your ailments, actions and beliefs based on their experience with other patients. The fact is that even though humans are different, we are also very similar.

Science's explanations aren't good enough for me either and, as I said, I am not a theist. I'm an engineer who loves physics. — T Clark

So, you disagree with what I have said, you'd get angry at calling your beliefs a delusion, and you don't think science provides good explanations, and you say that you aren't a theist? Mmmkkkkkay. If you really aren't a theist and don't want to explain yourself, and would rather just say, "I disagree.", without really explaining why you disagree, then I guess we are done here. Calling it hubris isn't disagreeing because you'd be calling all the doctors that diagnose people's physical and mental conditions by consulting others with similar conditions, hubris.

All I need is actual theists to respond to my posts and answer questions about why they believe what they believe. I find it strange that people who claim that they aren't theists are reacting so strongly to what I've proposed.

It's egotistical to claim that your singular life experience hasn't shown you an objective representation of billions of people?
I'm sorry, but claiming you know the personal thoughts and beliefs of billions of people because you think you know the personal thoughts and beliefs of a handful you've talked to is ridiculous. I'm surprised you don't see how irrational that is. In fact it's much more irrational than the belief in a deity.

You seem to be one of many people who have a bias against religion because you were raised religious and as a youth rebelled against it. It's very common for people who go through that experience to stay in that "rebellious" mindset for years, and indeed some never get past it. — JustSomeGuy

So it is rebellious to think logically and consistently? It does seem that way considering that most people don't seem to think that way.

I haven't spoken to just a handful of people about this. Your attempts to discredit my argument by claiming that I don't have the sufficient knowledge or experience to make that argument is ridiculous. Doctors and psychologists do it all the time.

You made the claim that belief in a deity is mental illness. Now you are implying that what you've been saying is that belief in a deity is irrational. By using these term interchangeably, you imply that they mean the same thing. Are you really saying that "irrational" is the same as "mental illness"? If so, we are all mentally ill. — JustSomeGuy

But we aren't always irrational. Religious people are only irrational when defending and explaining their delusion. That has all been posted before. You aren't paying attention.