No, I don't support the banning of public religious practices. What I'm speaking out in support of is the right of people to reach that conclusion if they genuinely believe it's in the best interests of society without being branded a fascist irrational zealot. I would disagree with them, but in a complex world where so many factors need to be taken into account I refuse to acknowledge that religion is somehow immune from that possibility.

So if a teacher in a faith school teaches that all non-believers are so evil that they deserve to be tortured for eternity, that's fine, but I'm not allowed to suggest that any religious practices not already illegal might be harmful, without being banned from debate?

And if the moderators here want to be consistent in upholding the forum's guidelines, fascist views like yours ought to be a ban worthy offense. — Buxtebuddha

Given the troubles you have had with moderation in the past, I'm surprised you would say that.

Although I find the positions Pseudonym has expressed in this discussion poorly argued and morally suspect, I have no question he should be allowed to make them on this forum.

Given the troubles you have had with moderation in the past, I'm surprised you would say that.

Although I find the positions Pseudonym has expressed in this discussion poorly argued and morally suspect, I have no question he should be allowed to make them on this forum. — T Clark

This forum isn't a shelter for every nutcase who fumbles through its doors. If Pseudonym wants to peddle his thinly veiled fascism, he ought to go here: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateFascism/

Oh okay I agree with you then. Under the right circumstances, people in a society will choose anything that suits their interests. If you were to even say that people can decide to support tyranny under the right circumstances, I still wouldn't call you an irrational fascist.

A lot of those circumstances however may be theoretical rather than practical. Like for example I can't think of a practical set of circumstances why choosing a dictator would suit the best interests of America. Doesn't seem like circumstances like that will ever arise, but then again we may never know. I thought you were saying that under the circumstances we have right now, faith schools should be banned. I'm not sure a case for banning faith schools will arise that will suit people's interests, but we will see.

First, I didn't say it, Wikipedia did.

Second, I didn't bold that particular line, so it doesn't even come into play.

Third, and finally, if a delusion was an idea that is out of keeping with the patient's social, cultural, and religious background, then that means that every new denomination or sect of an existing religion that forms is a delusion. This means that Jesus was delusional because his ideas were out of keeping with the social and cultural background he found himself in.

Obviously, thinking differently isn't a symptom of a delusion. It is thinking illogically on purpose, and only in a particular case or for a particular belief, in order to avoid the logical truth, that is a delusion.

Think, people, before posting your comments. — Harry Hindu

The definition of delusion is so framed as to exclude religion from being a mental illness. I don't know how justified that is but it is clear that those who made the definition wanted this.

Not all people who think differently are delusional, I agree but the definition clearly states that thinking differently and NOT accepting evidence to the contrary is a delusion.

It appears that the people who defined delusion forgot to mention that the belief itself must be well-supported by evidence. Perhaps they were not philosophers.

I'm sorry but that's twice you've openly called me a fascists and that's really not acceptable.

Fascism, according to Merriam-Webster, is a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

I have advocated none of the above;

I have not even mentioned nation or race (yet you have twice presumed that the laws of America automatically equate with moral virtue).

The only vague reference to the style of government I prefer was my statement that society should be made up of the action of all it's individuals (which is pretty much the definition of democracy).

We already live in a society where economics and culture are highly regulated, they're just regulated by cultural institutions, not governments and I'm advocating giving children the freedom to think for themselves rather than indoctrinating them in some arbitrary cultural value.

As for forcible suppression of opposition, remind who is trying to ban whom?

If you were to even say that people can decide to support tyranny under the right circumstances, I still wouldn't call you an irrational fascist. — SonJnana

Finally, someone gets it! I feel like I've been wading through treacle, thank you for sticking with it so calmly, my exposition must be considerably poorer than I hoped it might be.

I do think we are bordering on circumstances where an argument could be made for the banning of faith schools, but then I think the same is true of boarding schools too. Given the unacceptable rate of child abuse in both of these types of institution, I just feel that putting a load of children in any institution where they are told to unquestioningly accept the moral authority of a small number of adults is a recipe for disaster, which is a view shared by many prominent sociologists and child psychiatrists. When you add to this rather toxic cocktail the fact that religious schools teach children that to suffer in this life is noble and will be rewarded in heaven, the 'harms' list starts to look too large for me.

At the very least there should be much stricter regulation of these institutions, with frequent independent checks, but that's not going to happen whilst people blindly associate religion with moral virtue in the face of clear evidence to the contrary like Cardinal Law https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/20/cardinal-bernard-law-death-survivors-react

It's strange because on one hand I really wish institutions like this weren't a thing, but at the same time I don't want to ban them. I want people to lawfully be able to preach religion, but I don't want the people to preach it. I think the government should play a more active role to prevent that fucked up molesting shit in these institutions.

I'm against indoctrinating children in general. I think it's messed up that you can brainwash a kid into having a world view about the ultimate truth, one that isn't demonstrated and can cause traumatizing emotional fear for the rest of their life if they try to escape it. They should be able to decide for themselves when they get older. But of course I know I can't tell parents how to raise their children on this issue.

Regardless even if I did want to ban faith schools and public religion, I think the emotional reaction and divisiveness that would probably arise shuts down any practicality in that. There is no way that's gonna happen anytime soon.

most theists deny that evolution occurred and also deny that prayer cannot scientifically allow you to communicate with anyone or anything among others

most theists deny that evolution occurred and also deny that prayer cannot scientifically allow you to communicate with anyone or anything among others — Joel Bingham

Theism is belief in the existence of deities.

Please address how belief in the existence of deities is a mental illness, not arbitrary things like denial of evolution.

And please tell us that you are not implying that denying evolution is a mental illness.

No I am definitely not saying denying evolution is a mental illness I was referring to religion as a form of denial and I gave two examples and I must have forgotten to write ‘among others’ I was referring to religion as a denial of scientific evidence rather that a mental illness. I thought this was implied. I also stated in the same passage that theism was a denial of scientific evidence and not a mental illness. We have evidence of the Big Bang http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2014/06/gamma-ray-burst-after-big-bang-just-reached-earth.html
Furthermore if theism is a mental illness due to distorted reasoning then all people are mentally ill
You’re not ill because I disagree with you.

If someone believes X based on what they perceive as the evidence or reasons for their belief, it's not a delusion or mental illness. If this was the case, then all of us would have a mental illness or be deluded, because all of us have distorted reasoning to one degree or another. Are some religious people irrational? Yes. Are some atheists irrational? Yes. I dislike much of what religious people believe too, but I'm not going to say their mentally ill because I disagree with them. What's the next step, putting them in mental institutions? Giving them medication? And what if someone deems your belief to be a form of mental illness?

Delusional people twist certain evidence to support their belief, and ignore other evidence that contradicts their belief.

Everyone, to one degree or another, twists the evidence to suit their conclusions. Some more than others, but we all do it. None of us are immune from such behavior. One could say atheists are delusional because they ignore certain evidence. I say, stick to the arguments, and stay away from these kinds of attacks.

Everyone, to one degree or another, twists the evidence to suit their conclusions. Some more than others, but we all do it. None of us are immune from such behavior. — Sam26

I'm not sure what relevance this has. We all get colds and flu from time to time too, that doesn't stop us referring to them as an illness. Depression and Anxiety are both metal conditions dealt with by medical intervention. The fact that they're experienced by over half the population hasn't had any impact on that approach.

I don't see any need to medicalise normal, run of the mill religious behaviour because it doesn't objectively get in the way of people's lives, but if a young adult was experiencing some mental pain at the conflict between their normal desire for a sexual relationship and the fear of punishment in the afterlife for having sex outside of marriage, then I'd say the intervention of a therapist would be helpful. The fact that thousands of people have the same delusion shouldn't have any bearing on deciding objectively how best we can help people.

Not everyone. I simply take all evidence and bring it together into a consistent whole. My goal is the truth, not to support any particular idea. I'm open to better explanations if others have them and I expose my hypotheses to criticism in order to check them. I have done a complete 180 in my world view before and I can do it again if the evidence supports it.

What evidence do atheists ignore?

Cons -
The discouraging of critical thinking
The absolving of moral responsibility to an authority
Religious wars
Child abuse
Psychological abuse

Pros -
Nothing that is not already replicated in atheists — Pseudonym

Religion does not discourage critical thinking. "Absolving of moral responsibility to an authority" is neither a strictly negative thing nor one caused only by religions; every state in the world does that with their legal systems. Wars exist without religions, which are just excuses. Child abuse happens outside religions as well, you might as well say that religious people die and therefore list dying as one of the cons.

Delusional people twist certain evidence to support their belief, and ignore other evidence that contradicts their belief. — Harry Hindu

That doesn't mean anyone that twists certain evidence to support their belief and ignores other evidence that contradicts their belief is delusional.

So if a teacher in a faith school teaches that all non-believers are so evil that they deserve to be tortured for eternity, that's fine — Pseudonym

It's fine in the faith school, I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be tolerated here.

Religion does not discourage critical thinking. — BlueBanana

That's just your opinion, mine differs hence my inclusion of it on my list. If you read the posts this list derived from, they are all about personal moral responsibility and the need to choose even when evidence is scarce either way. Your response to this point is a prime example. You say it doesn't, I say it does, where do we go from there?

"Absolving of moral responsibility to an authority" is neither a strictly negative thing — BlueBanana

Again, I believe it is, so as far as my personal moral obligation is concerned, it is to act with the best will, based on what I believe to be true. If you'd care to actually present any arguments to back up your assertions I'd be interested to hear them. If not, that's fine, but you'd be crazy to expect me to act based on what you believe. I'm going to act based on what I believe, aren't I?

every state in the world does that with their legal systems. — BlueBanana

No, most states are democracies which means that each citizen has a part to play in devising and revising these moral decisions. Religion is not a democracy, it does not invite opinion on moral matters from its congregation. There was no vote on the ten commandments.

Wars exist without religions, which are just excuses. Child abuse happens outside religions as well — BlueBanana

This is a nonsensical argument. Racism exists outside of neo-nazi groups so we shouldn't act against neo-nazis? Sexism exists outside of men's clubs so we should not act to open up exclusive clubs? Corruption exists outside of secret lobbying interests so we shouldn't act to close that particular instance?

Religion gives people an excuse for war, restrict religion, that's one less excuse. Religion gives child abusers a way to access their victims and maintain their silence. Restrict religion, that's one less route for child abusers.

The human race right now does seem to be quite riddled with bad people. If we can't make progress by eliminating as many opportunities as we can for them to get away with doing bad things I don't see how we expect to make any progress at all.

It's fine in the faith school, I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be tolerated here. — BlueBanana

Again, it's fine if you just want to voice your opinion, but without an argument I've got nothing to consider. Why do you think it's fine in faith schools? It seems like a rather problematic thing to teach our young children to me. It seems obvious to me that such teaching is not going to help social cohesion, teaching that an entire group of people are evil. If you think it's fine I'd like to hear why.

No, most states are democracies which means that each citizen has a part to play in devising and revising these moral decisions. — Pseudonym

No single individual can affect the laws, so they're under the power of their authorities. And that the authority (state, society, laws) is chosen democratically by the people does not make it any less an authority.

There was no vote on the ten commandments. — Pseudonym

No, but they have so much space for interpretation they actually leave a lot more freedom for moral decisions and the choices and preferences of the individuals than actual laws.

An authority is needed for morality in any society, because otherwise we're left with pretty much an anarchy or the state of nature with everyone following their own interests. In my opinion that authority should be democratic, but also more open-ended like that of religions'.

Racism exists outside of neo-nazi groups so we shouldn't act against neo-nazis? — Pseudonym

Statistically neo-nazi groups have proportionally more racists than the general population, whereas priests don't have a higher probability to be child abusers than other men. Let's shut down hospitals and schools as well because then there are less opportunities for child abusers.

The reason the above isn't a good idea, even if stopping child abusers at any cost was the top priority, is that blocking a single way to do that won't stop the abusers, but instead they'll find another way. And on top of that I don't think any pedophile becomes a priest just because it's an easy way to abuse children; they're just priests that happen to also be pedophiles.

that the authority (state, society, laws) is chosen democratically by the people does not make it any less an authority. — BlueBanana

Of course it does, it means that any time they no longer represent the will of the people, they can be replaced. Moral laws resulting from democratic governments evolve, moral laws eminating from religions either do not evolve or are not what they claim to be (the word of God).

they have so much space for interpretation they actually leave a lot more freedom for moral decisions and the choices and preferences of the individuals than actual laws. — BlueBanana

This is just religious apologism. If having moral choice is a good thing then ditch religion, you have complete choice then. If moral authority is good then religious laws being widely open to interpretation is a bad thing. You can't have it both ways unless you're claiming that religion just happens to have exactly the right balance of authority to autonomy, in which case I'd love to hear your argument for that conclusion.

An authority is needed for morality in any society, because otherwise we're left with pretty much an anarchy or the state of nature with everyone following their own interests. — BlueBanana

And you know this how?

Let's shut down hospitals and schools as well because then there are less opportunities for child abusers. — BlueBanana

No, because hospitals and schools serve some demonstrable purpose without which the well-being of society would suffer (personally I don't believe this to be the case with schools, but that's another discussion). There is no reason to believe anyone would suffer if Sunday schools and faith schools were banned. Half the world are atheist, it doesn't seem to have done any demonstrable harm.

priests don't have a higher probability to be child abusers than other men. — BlueBanana

Yes they do. There are a greater proportion of child abusers in the priesthood than there are among farmers, or soldiers, or dentists. Just as there are among schoolteachers, paediatricians etc. Groups that have access to children, particularly where they have some significant authority and are implicitly trusted by parents tend to attract abusers. The priesthood is one such institution.

blocking a single way to do that won't stop the abusers, but instead they'll find another way. — BlueBanana

Again, it's fine just to hear your opinion on this, but an argument to support this conclusion would be more interesting. Personally I think that most people suppress their more base desires because they simply wouldn't get away with expressing them, they have a lack of facility. Therefore, the more facility we remove the less abuse will take place. If you followed your logic there would have been no child protection measures at all "why bother, they'll just find some other way".

That doesn't mean anyone that twists certain evidence to support their belief and ignores other evidence that contradicts their belief is delusional. — BlueBanana

Being delusional is holding beliefs that contradict reality or rational argument. I've posted the symptoms of Wikipedia several times on these forums and theists match up with a vast majority most of them. Look it up.

I'm not saying theists are psychotic. I'm saying religion is a means of coping with stress - a way of covering up what it is that they don't like about reality - a defense mechanism if you will.

Theists typically inject more into the empirical evidence than is necessary to explain it. They are inconsistent. They are defensive. It's emotional for them. They need it to be true.

Actually, some like me, didn't need it to be true. What I needed was the actual truth about everything; not what I wanted it to be. The truth isn't subject to my feelings. I learned about other religions, philosophy and about science's explanations. The bottom-up explanations of science appealed to me over the top-down explanations that ended up being inconsistent in order to explain the existence of God, and what it wants, in the first place.

When they realize that the truth isn't guaranteed to make them content, that is when they can actually start to question their own beliefs and develop an intellectually honest search for truth, where they apply the same rationality they do in the rest of their lives. Delusional people can behave normally and rationally in other aspects of life, but it is only when their delusion is challenged, or questioned, do they become defensive and irrational.

Yes they do. There are a greater proportion of child abusers in the priesthood than there are among farmers, or soldiers, or dentists. Just as there are among schoolteachers, paediatricians etc. Groups that have access to children, particularly where they have some significant authority and are implicitly trusted by parents tend to attract abusers. The priesthood is one such institution. — Pseudonym

That's reversing cause and effect. People who want to have easy access to children choose jobs where they do and who have enough authority to get away with it. But it is certainly very sad to see how many profess knowledge of the divine and yet allow themselves to do something as vile as to prey on children.

I didn't say that the priesthood or anything about religion caused priests to become child abusers and if that's the impression my comment has left then I'd like to make that abundantly clear. I don't like organised religion, but I'm not in the business of making accusations about it that aren't backed by evidence, it has enough issues that are to go on. All I said was that it is one institution (among a number of others), that allows child abusers access to victims and a means to cover-up their behaviour. The fewer such institutions we have the safer our children will be. It is a simple corollary of that fact that there will be more child abusers in the priesthood than in professions that do not have access to children.

I think the fact that a group supposedly professing knowledge of the divine manage to restrain themselves from abusing children to no greater degree than any other group shows absolutely clearly how utterly useless religion is at instilling moral values. If those at the very top of religious orders who have spent an entire lifetime studying scripture can't even stop themselves from doing something as blindly obviously wrong as abusing an innocent child how anyone could suggest that religion is responsible for morality is beyond me.

All I said was that it is one institution (among a number of others), that allows child abusers access to victims and a means to cover-up their behaviour. The fewer such institutions we have the safer our children will be. — Pseudonym

Well, the problem could be solved in multiple manners. The Church could be much much better at policing its own members and prosecuting them. There could be advisory standards in place so that priests never have much one-on-one time with children, if at all. Given that we are to trust, for the most part, total strangers on the basis of cloth and position alone, that would not be too much to ask.

I, perhaps, was lucky, but I was raised in a fairly conservative Catholic environment. Boarding private unisex schools, uniforms and all, and I yet I was never once alone with a priest more than, what, 5 minutes? Everywhere there was a mean-looking Sister or Mother watching us like we were vermin, and she was the eagle. So, as such, there is already a semblance of those standards in place.

On the other hand, this is not to say that there could not have been cases of such abuse in my vicinity. The spread of this vileness is always horrifyingly disconcerting.

I think the fact that a group supposedly professing knowledge of the divine manage to restrain themselves from abusing children to no greater degree than any other group shows absolutely clearly how utterly useless religion is at instilling moral values. — Pseudonym

Well, that is the moral problem of Christian religions : for all their claims about morality, the overall moral content of the Bible, once analysed, is, at least to me, relatively trivial. Its only a solid foundation if you give in to the reality of divine punishment, and I think that's not really as widespread amongst Christians as they claim it is.

Well, the problem could be solved in multiple manners. The Church could be much much better at policing its own members and prosecuting them. There could be advisory standards in place so that priests never have much one-on-one time with children, if at all. — Akanthinos

Absolutely, I think these are all good solutions, but in order to enact them there needs to be a culture that sees priests and nuns as just as much of a threat as other professions with access to children (which means more of a threat than average). With the continued attitude that religion is somehow equated with morality, I don't see how that's going to happen. We see it on this forum in most debates touching on religion, but also in my field, its pretty much automatic that a religious representative is on any board of ethics. Someone representing an institution that can't even prevent its own highest echelons from abusing children doesn't deserve any special treatment with regards to ethics.

I think that's not really as widespread amongst Christians as they claim it is. — Akanthinos

The trouble is early Christians knew they weren't going to get any takers if the offer was simply 'behave well and you'll go to heaven' that's far to much like hard work. The real advertising scoop for Christianity was the big emphasis on forgiveness. Now you can do whatever the hell you like in life as long as you get in a quick apology before death you'll be fine.

Honestly, Saatchi and Saatchi could not have come up with a better campaign.

The real advertising scoop for Christianity was the big emphasis on forgiveness. Now you can do whatever the hell you like in life as long as you get in a quick apology before death you'll be fine. — Pseudonym

Well, I was always taught absolution in Ultime Onction could only be given if the person was truly earnest in his repentance. But then again, it's not like the Church never sold any pardon. :(