You need to be very careful not to trade one God (God) for another (science). Many former theists do just that, and fail to see the irony and hypocrisy.

Accepting science without question is just as irrational as accepting the Bible without question. — JustSomeGuy

This is typical theist nonsense. Did you not read my posts where I explained how I arrived at science providing the best answers? It wasn't without questioning everything, rather because I did question everything.

Science questions itself and it's explanations are only placeholders for better explanations. Science is nothing like religion.

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. — Pseudonym

I've not been convinced by anything you've said on the matter at hand, so I'd say it's on you to do a better job at that. You've suggested that the cons of religion outweigh the pros, but I can't recall you ever parsing such a list. Besides, your argument seems to be a tangent from this thread's OP. Perhaps you could start a new thread about religions' value, as theism and religion aren't mutually inclusive terms.

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. — Pseudonym

I will be charitable and call this disingenuous. You seem to be unwilling to take responsibility for the implications of your beliefs.

Theism CAN be brainwashing, depending on why a person believes in it. It’s not a mental illness. It spreads from one person to another, so maybe instead it would be classified as a pathogenic disease, but then again, it all comes down to choice.

I have to second what T Clark said, you're being disingenuous. I explained what your statements imply and why, and you essentially just responded with "No, they don't." It seems we can't take this discussion any further.

You seem to be an irrational and unreasonable person, at least with regard to this topic, so I see no point on wasting my time trying to have a real discussion with you.

This is typical theist nonsense. — Harry Hindu

I'm not a theist, I've just moved beyond the anti-theism which resulted from my initial rebellion against my former beliefs. As I said, it's clear you have not, and it's still clouding your judgement.

But each of our actions affects others, so each person's beliefs will affect you in some way, and your beliefs will affect others, because we act on our beliefs. — Pseudonym

Sounds like utilitarianism.

Sounds like it is the consequences of beliefs, not their correspondence or lack of correspondence to truth and reality, that they are to be judged by.

So if a belief adds 100 units of happiness to one person's experience but subtracts 200 units of happiness from other people's experience we have an aggregate net loss and every morally acceptable action to minimize that belief's presence will be justified, correct?

If somebody shows that science, democracy, free markets, etc. have given us that same aggregate net loss, we should, and will, discourage them with the same tenacity?

I was a theist, and my family are theists, so I know I'm not misrepresenting them because I've asked them and many others. — Harry Hindu

Anecdotal evidence.

Where is the scientific evidence? Anti-theists always make claims like, "Religious people believe in God because it makes them feel good", but they never provide scientific evidence in support of such claims. Then they beat their chests and say that they are champions of science and its superior reliability.

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. — Joel Bingham

Theism is belief in the existence of deities.

What truth/reality has science/technology revealed that theists deny?

Theism is not "Belief that the Earth is only 6,000 years old", so theists are not in denial of geologic fact or anything like that.

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. — Pseudonym

Sounds like the disciples of Ayn Rand I have known, not the disciples of Christ I have known.

And Rand disciples like to make it clear that she was no theist.

And how do you know that people are "fine with that"? Your only evidence seems to be anecdotal accounts of people making the marginal choice not to help a stranger they encounter on the street. How does that prove "fine with that"? They could, you know, among other alternatives to "fine with that", simply not know how to respond to every marginal situation. Overall, rather than in isolated marginal encounters, they could be living their lives in a way in which they are trying to minimize the suffering of others.

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. — Pseudonym

Where is the scientific evidence for such a claim?!

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 about what the root cause might be and try to change it? — Pseudonym

What does any of that have to do with theism being--or not being--a mental illness?!

If I asked if Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder is really an illness would you bring up the number of deaths attributable to ISIS versus other sources?

If I asked if Bipolar Disorder is really an illness would you bring up "I don't know what that's all about" or "are we going to have a serious about what the root cause might be and try to change it?" ?

I agree beliefs in religion have their consequences, but I don't think banning public religious practices is gonna lead to any positive outcome. Nor do I want to live in a society where people aren't allowed to preach irrational beliefs. The consequences for that could be more polarized religion and divisiveness. I think we should combat this with encouraging critical thinking, and do think society can change over time. Many other countries are becoming increasingly secular, and the US might also follow.

You seem to be unwilling to take responsibility for the implications of your beliefs. — T Clark

1. What beliefs? Which of the seven beliefs I have stated as being a summary of my position do you think I am "unwilling to take responsibility for the implications" of? Or are we still playing this stupid game where you second guess what you think I think and then argue against that because if that's the case then have a ball, why not reckon I think some really racist views as well, they'll be really easy to argue against?

2. I've listed what I believe to be a series of facts, some are empirical and others are logical conclusions from the empirical premises. I don't know if you've ever engaged in a proper philosophical discussion before, but generally we look to see if any of the empirical facts might be wrong, or if any of the conclusions might not actually follow. We don't generally look at the implications of what we conclude and then change our conclusions to whatever sounds best.

If you have any serious logical counters to any of the positions I've actually written (rather than the ones from your imagination) then I'd be interested to hear them, otherwise please refrain from making vague generalisation about my character.

. I explained what your statements imply and why, and you essentially just responded with "No, they don't." It seems we can't take this discussion any further. — JustSomeGuy

And I'm being disingenuous? I wrote what must have been over a hundred words detailing exactly why I disagree with most of the points you made and explained where I accepted you were right about one of them. Every single "no" was fully explained (within the limits of this format). If you disagree with any of my counter-arguments, the general response is to explain why, but if you'd rather join in this wishy-washy generalisation than actually engage with any of the arguments then yes, we have nothing further to say.

And how do you know that people are "fine with that"? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Because if they were not they would stop buying the stuff that perpetuates the situation. Fair trade products exist, we don't have to buy trainers made by children, we don't have to buy coffee picked by labourers paid under the poverty line. This excuse of "not k owing what to do" is exactly what I'm talking about, everyone's waiting for someone else to tell them what to do.

If somebody shows that science, democracy, free markets, etc. have given us that same aggregate net loss, we should, and will, discourage them with the same tenacity? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Yes, what other course of action would you advise we take if someone demonstrated something produced an aggregate net loss of well-being? Ignore it and carry on as we were? Why on earth would anyone advise that?

Where is the scientific evidence for such a claim?! — WISDOMfromPO-MO

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886905001601
"The over emphasis on personal faith as the primary route to salvation had the side effect of valuing a stance over rational deliberation about moral choices" - The Neuroscience of Religious Experience, Patrick McNamara 2009.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01416200903332056?src=recsys - Christian belief is correlated with higher social conformity
http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-009 - That rationality derives, at least in part, from the social environment.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00063.x - An article outlining the way religious morality is about protecting social groups and institutions rather than resolving moral dilemmas.

You may disagree with any of these and many very intelligent people have, but please don't insult my intelligence by presuming that I just made up stuff without researching it first.

What does any of that have to do with theism being--or not being--a mental illness?! — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Not a lot, It wasn't myn intention to hi-jack your thread and I'm sorry, I only asked what I thought might be a simple question arising from some comments here and it's turned into a massive debate only tangentially related. I should have started a new discussion. My apologies.

You've suggested that the cons of religion outweigh the pros, but I can't recall you ever parsing such a list. — Buxtebuddha

I can't believe how many times I'm having to repeat this. Where have I said that the cons of religion outweigh the pros?

I agree that banning public religious practices would probably lead to worse consequences than allowing them, but I do think we have to be more careful with what we teach our children. It is not possible to teach children critical thinking (as you so rightly point out is important) and teach them that the world is as it says it is in a certain book and that all your moral decisions have been made for you by God. The need to teach critical thinking rules out the possibility of allowing certain classes of faith school.

I was a theist, and my family are theists, so I know I'm not misrepresenting them because I've asked them and many others. — Harry Hindu

Anecdotal evidence.

Where is the scientific evidence? Anti-theists always make claims like, "Religious people believe in God because it makes them feel good", but they never provide scientific evidence in support of such claims. Then they beat their chests and say that they are champions of science and its superior reliability. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Sheesh! Don't you read before posting nonsense like this? The evidence is the religious people's answers and reactions (angrily, hostile, scared) to questioning their beliefs. All you have to do is ASK theists why they believe what they believe. I have done that - more times than I can count, of so many people that I forget how many. Have you?

Are there any actual theists that will honestly answer the question of why they believe what they believe? All I'm getting are people who act like theists, but say they aren't, yet don't explain their own position. Go figure.

I'm not a theist, I've just moved beyond the anti-theism which resulted from my initial rebellion against my former beliefs. As I said, it's clear you have not, and it's still clouding your judgement. — JustSomeGuy

And as I said, twice but you are ignoring it that I didn't change my mind because I'm being rebellious. I did it because there were questions that just couldn't be answered in a consistent way. So I found a better way. Is every scientist that challenges the status quo being rebellious or simply trying to have an open-mind in order to get at the truth?

What does it even mean to move beyond anti-theism? Is that what you think I am - an anti-theist? I'm not. I'm simply someone that needs more evidence to believe something that others find so little need of evidence to believe in.

I can't believe how many times I'm having to repeat this. Where have I said that the cons of religion outweigh the pros? — Pseudonym

First off, I don't recall you having to repeat this at all, but I'll "be charitable" as you say and assume I missed it.

However...

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. — Pseudonym

Why anyone would want to continue engaging with you when you have repeatedly been so intellectually dishonest is beyond me.

I'm sorry, as JSG has pointed out above I have mentioned the my personal view once, please accept my apologies for not noticing. The whole thrust of my argument really has nothing to do with my personal life answer and in all the long posts I had forgotten that I had mentioned it.

Really? One mistake regarding the only mention of my view in six pages of posts and I'm "intellectually dishonest". How convenient that you now have an excuse not to respond to the entire remaining argument.

You are unbelievable.

Where have I said that the cons of religion outweigh the pros? — Pseudonym

Religions have, at best, had a mixed consequence on the world — Pseudonym

Some people, myself included, look at this mix and conclude the bad stuff outweighs the good. — Pseudonym

I'm sorry, as JSG has pointed out above I have mentioned the my personal view once, please accept my apologies for not noticing. The whole thrust of my argument really has nothing to do with my personal life answer and in all the long posts I had forgotten that I had mentioned it. — Pseudonym

What is your argument, then?

I could be wrong, but it really seems to me as though Pseudonym has been trying his hardest not to share his actual beliefs, because the few times he has slipped up and shared them he has been called on their irrationality.

This would also explain why he has written pages worth of comments and yet doesn't seem to have actually said anything at all.

What is your argument, then? — Buxtebuddha

My argument;

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. You're not withholding judgement, nor being agnostic on the subject. Whatever effect religion has on your society you are deciding with conviction that you are happy to allow that effect to continue, by your failure to act against it.

To put it another way, 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? How is "none" any less valid an answer to that question than "some" or "loads"? No answer can claim to be more agnostic than any other, each person answering can do so with great hubris or with great humility, what they think the answer is has no bearing on the extent to which they consider themselves to be right. — Pseudonym

My argument again;

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

And again;

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? — Pseudonym

And again;

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) — Pseudonym

A brief summary here;

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. — Pseudonym

One last time;

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. — Pseudonym

Did you somehow miss all that but miraculously pick up on the two words "myself included" from which to base your entire response?

I will try to make this really simple

1. Everyone has to decide whether to restrict religion (further than it already is), encourage religion further, or leave it as it currently is. No one can not make this decision because the options are mutually exclusive. Inaction has no less of a consequence than action (without begging the question by pre-judging that everything is fine as it is)

2. A rational moral agent will make this decision, and therefore act/not act, on the basis of the amount of harm/good they believe religion causes.

3. The extent to which religion has caused net harm/good in any of its particular facets (preaching, praying, faith schools etc) is disputed, it is not a given fact.

Therefore it is not the case (as TC, JSG etc suggested) that someone who reaches the conclusion that things need to change (in either direction) must automatically have done so with hubris and zealotry, whereas someone who reaches the conclusion that things are fine must automatically be humble and skeptical.

Either position (that things must change, or that thinks should remain the same) can be held with great hubris or with great humility. They are both just responses to the evidence about the harms/goods of religion (which everyone agrees is mixed)

At no point does my own opinion (that religious practice is fine as it is but religious education needs to be further curtailed) have any bearing on the matter. If anyone wants to discuss this particular opinion I'd be happy to on a separate thread, but that's not what I'm arguing about here, I'm arguing solely that it is unfair to label those who think that religious activities need to be curtailed (or enforced) hubristic zealots, it is an entirely reasonable conclusion that can be held with any degree of uncertainty and humility.

If you have any serious logical counters to any of the positions I've actually written (rather than the ones from your imagination) then I'd be interested to hear them, otherwise please refrain from making vague generalisation about my character. — Pseudonym

The positions you have expressed in your posts on this discussion thread constitute advocacy for placing restrictions on otherwise legal religious practices. You try to hide that by playing silly word games saying "I'm not advocating anything." When I called your positions:

intellectually unjustified, morally unprincipled, and cowardly. — T Clark

And said you seem to be unwilling to take responsibility for the implications of your positions, that's what I was talking about.

Also, I made no comments on your character at all, only on your positions and statements. It bothers me that you call my statements "vague." I had intended that they communicate a clear understanding of what I think of your ideas.

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. You're not withholding judgement, nor being agnostic on the subject. Whatever effect religion has on your society you are deciding with conviction that you are happy to allow that effect to continue, by your failure to act against it. — Pseudonym

You're gonna have to explain your understanding of deontology with regard to the discouraging of religion before this makes any coherent sense.

To put it another way, 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? — Pseudonym

Who is we? If you're an American, there's something called the First Amendment - do you know it?

How is "none" any less valid an answer to that question than "some" or "loads"? No answer can claim to be more agnostic than any other, each person answering can do so with great hubris or with great humility, what they think the answer is has no bearing on the extent to which they consider themselves to be right. — Pseudonym

I'd find it hard to believe that anyone here has suggested that the allowance of religion in society comes without any strings attached. If you've looked up the First Amendment of the US Constitution, then take a gander at the Fifth Amendment - it ought to clarify what freedom of religion means in a free and civilized Western democracy like the United States of 'Murica.

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

You are claiming here that religion is more bad than good, so please provide me with a response that shows me why you think this. A simple, utilitarian list of pros and cons will do.

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? — Pseudonym

I dunno, you tell me. On the severity of inaction, I think we both would agree that radical Islam, for example, has no place in civilized Western society and so should be thwarted, but you seem to be lumping Jihadi John in with Methodist Matthew, which is what I find to be so patently absurd with your comments here. The overwhelmingly vast majority of religious practice that goes on around the world does align itself with civilized, Western society and its principles, which is why I do not agree that we ought to discourage the lawful protection of those who practice their religion. You can holler in the street and peacefully protest and discourage religion all you want, but the moment you try and take away the right to religion, you have gone too far.

It is possible that religion is harmful to society. — Pseudonym

It is possible that my dick fell off in the shower this morning, too.

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. — Pseudonym

Okay. I better go to the doctor, then.

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. — Pseudonym

Yes, just as dozens of Saudi terrorists flew planes into two skyscrapers employing the very same appeals to "duty" and "conviction" as you now are doing here.

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. — Pseudonym

Join me in the cockpit, will you? Let's do this.

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

I refer you back to the First Amendment.............

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

But not you, seeing as just about everything you've been saying in this thread flies in the face of the civilized principles that guide Western civilization to be different from the North Koreas and Saudi Arabias of the world.

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) — Pseudonym

Now you're attempting to veer away from discouraging religion in general to discouraging "public religious practices", whatever that means. I honestly think that you're subconsciously backtracking from a position you know on some level is retarded.

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. — Pseudonym

Pushing society in the direction that you want it to be pushed would entail the ripping apart of what has enabled Western civilization to flourish. If this discussion is pinned upon the veneer of deontology as I think it is, then I very much think it my duty to speak out against fascist-like loons like yourself.

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

A > B = B < A.

You're gonna have to explain your understanding of deontology with regard to the discouraging of religion before this makes any coherent sense. — Buxtebuddha

I don't understand why, I said 'whatever effect religion is having' so it's implicit that the discouraging will be related to the effect. One might feel that preaching itself causes harm (not me, seeing as my personal opinions are becoming so important) so in that case the discouragement would have to restrict preaching, but other cases would require less intervention if the effects to be mitigated were less.

Who is we? If you're an American, there's something called the First Amendment - do you know it? — Buxtebuddha

The next entire section make the same error, conflating law with moral duty. We are not morally obliged to uphold the law (thankfully for the citizens of repressive States. Your argument about the American constitution have no bearing on whether someone could rationally conclude any religious activity should be curtailed. Are you suggesting that the American constitution is so unaliably right that it would actually be irrational to believe something in opposition to it?

. A simple, utilitarian list of pros and cons will do. — Buxtebuddha

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

And before you argue that the cons are all present in atheists too, that is irrelevant. We are trying to eradicate cons, we can eradicate atheist cons too.

fascist-like loons like yourself. — Buxtebuddha

So now I'm a fascist too, I can add that to irrational, zealot as bad as ISIS .

Personally, I think we should limit faith schools and discourage religious attitudes by rational debate, if that makes me a fascist, irrational zealot then there's clearly no place for contrary opinions here.

I'm not even going to grace the rest of your facetious response with any serious consideration.

Personally, I think we should limit faith schools and discourage religious attitudes by rational debate, if that makes me a fascist, irrational zealot then there's clearly no place for contrary opinions here. — Pseudonym

You can spew nonsense all you like, but I won't be entertaining your idiocy any longer than I already have. 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.

We can only encourage critical thinking, and hopefully over time, people will become less religious. Although you say that the need to teach critical thinking rules out the possibility of allowing certain classes of faith school, you do acknowledge that banning public religious practices would probably lead to worse consequences than allowing them.

I don't share the same values. I don't want to live in a society that bans public religious practices. Regardless, why would you still support that, even with your values, when you think there would probably be worse consequences?

It is possible that my dick fell off in the shower this morning, too. — Buxtebuddha

chill lol