Hi from Logikos

[Logikos]

(In reference to Logikos' response to me.): Semantics. You know what I mean.

I did, but just wanted to check that we were on the same page.

There is no legitimate reason to believe the claim that god(s) exist. Therefore, there is no legitimate reason to believe the claim that god(s) exist. It's not a complicated thing.

Did you mean to say the same thing here? I'm guessing you meant that "therefore, it is irrational to believe the claim"?

Furthermore, I contend that belief (actual belief) in anything without a legitimate reason for that belief is irrational and deluded and that it is indicative of either willful ignorance or mental illness or both.

I'm happy enough with "irrational" (provided we can agree on what a legitimate reason is) but not "deluded", and certainly not the final conclusion. If you are deluded, it means that you have had or are having delusions. It does not follow that if you believe something without a legitimate reasons that you have experienced some delusion which has caused you to believe it. You might just think that you have a legitimate reason, or erroneously believe that it is not necessary to have a legitimate reason for such a belief. I think that you do not have a legitimate reason for believing that all theists are delusional; I do not therefore conclude that you must have experienced some delusion that has caused you to believe so.

---

Not all theists, theism in general. Many theists do good for society etc..

But the net contribution of religion to the world has been harmful, I'm not saying you are a bad person.

I'm not sure about "net contribution" (how could you go about calculating that?) but of course many religious people have caused harm to the world because of their beliefs. Equally, as you say, many religious people have done good things for society. So there is no implication from "X holds to theistic belief" to "X will cause harm to society". In which case, why are you antitheism? Why not just "anti-detrimental-theists"? Indeed, why not "pro-beneficial-theists"?