Hi from Logikos

[Shinylight]

Causing harm

OK, so are you saying that all theists cause harm to the world? That's a strong claim.

Logikos

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.

[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"?

[Paul the Human]

(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.

Then I am right in saying that you were playing semantic games.

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"?

I meant what I said. There is no legitimate reason to believe, therefore there is no legitimate reason to believe. As I said, it is not a complicated thing.

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.

Delusion is defined as: a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact. Delusions are not necessarily hallucinations, delusions are belief in something that is not real. I contend that god(s) are not real and that believing that they are is a delusion. You know exactly what I am saying and have repeatedly used semantics to cloud my point. I have no more patience for such things.

If you would like to make a point of your own or, perhaps, refute anyone else’s directly, rather than circling them with word games… feel free.

[Shinylight]

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"?

What I am saying is, it has done more bad than good.

I am antitheism because theism has caused many tragedies in the past few centuries.

Hitler was a Catholic and he caused the death of millions, Catholic priests have raped innumerable children, Muslim suicide bombers and fanatics have caused the death of countless innocent people, the Serbian war was a religious one, the conflict in Ireland is also religious, and then there was the many Crusades.

Also religion has halted the advancement of knowledge, it spreads intolerance and bigotry, it changes otherwise healthy minded people into crazy shells of humans driven to do unjust actions like starving their own child because their religion has told them it will lead the kid to be healed.

[Logikos]

Delusion is defined as: a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact. Delusions are not necessarily hallucinations, delusions are belief in something that is not real. I contend that god(s) are not real and that believing that they are is a delusion. You know exactly what I am saying and have repeatedly used semantics to cloud my point. I have no more patience for such things.

If you would like to make a point of your own or, perhaps, refute anyone else’s directly, rather than circling them with word games… feel free.

Sorry to have got on your nerves Paul, that wasn't my intention. My understanding of a delusion is somewhat different to yours, and that's probably why we've been going in circles - let's go with your definition.

All I can say is that my belief in God (and Christianity as a whole) is not fixed, resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact. I simply believe that theism makes more sense of the world (for various reasons) than atheism, and that Christianity in particular has the most evidence for it than any other worldview. In my experience that is also the way that many other Christians see it (though certainly not all). So I do not accept the inference from "theism is false" to "all theists are deluded". The fact is that there are many theists who are so not because of their upbringing, dogma or some psychological illness but because, in their best judgement, the way the world is points towards the existence of God. To say otherwise is to make a claim that there is no legitimate reason to make - it is a complete over-generalisation that is not grounded in fact.

[Paul the Human]

You haven't gotten on my nerves. I simply have little patience for going in circles and felt we'd completed enough revolutions on that particular merry-go-round for my taste. I can accept that that (your post above) is what you believe, but I happen to be of the opinion that your beliefs are not supported by anything tangible and are therefore a delusion.

I am more than happy to agree to disagree on that. Perhaps you could begin a thread to express what you feel are legitimate, rational, tangible (what have you), reasons to believe in god(s), or the Christian god in particular. It is guaranteed to generate discussion.

[Logikos]

What I am saying is, it has done more bad than good.

I am antitheism because theism has caused many tragedies in the past few centuries.

Hitler was a Catholic and he caused the death of millions, Catholic priests have raped innumerable children, Muslim suicide bombers and fanatics have caused the death of countless innocent people, the Serbian war was a religious one, the conflict in Ireland is also religious, and then there was the many Crusades.

Also religion has halted the advancement of knowledge, it spreads intolerance and bigotry, it changes otherwise healthy minded people into crazy shells of humans driven to do unjust actions like starving their own child because their religion has told them it will lead the kid to be healed.

I've no idea how you make the judgement that it has done more bad than good, but I'll leave that to one side.

You have given examples of theists who have caused harm. I might have some issues with the details, but that is a tangent not worth bothering with. The point is, is it the nature of theistic belief that causes theists to cause harm, or is it the nature of the person. As you already admit, plenty of theists do not cause harm - proving that the harm that some theists have caused is not necessarily due to their theistic beliefs. So again you are not antitheist but anti-detrimental-theist. I am exactly the same - in fact I am anti-detrimental-anyone.

Again, some religious beliefs halt the advance of science, but not theism in general. In fact I would argue that the pursuit of science actually makes more sense within a theistic belief system than an atheistic one.

Does theism lead to intolerance and bigotry and starving children? Again, it depends on which theists we're talking about.

The simple fact is that the nature of theistic belief does not cause harm. This is obvious when we see that theism is perfectly compatible (in fact I would argue there is even an implication to) the belief that the world and the people in it are of value and should not be harmed. Theism does not cause harm; twisted people do. There is simply no implication from "X believes Y and causes harm" to "Y causes harm".

---

You haven't gotten on my nerves. I simply have little patience for going in circles and felt we'd completed enough revolutions on that particular merry-go-round for my taste. I can accept that that (your post above) is what you believe, but I happen to be of the opinion that your beliefs are not supported by anything tangible and are therefore a delusion.

I am more than happy to agree to disagree on that. Perhaps you could begin a thread to express what you feel are legitimate, rational, tangible (what have you), reasons to believe in god(s), or the Christian god in particular. It is guaranteed to generate discussion.

You have loosened your definition of delusion again...but I agree that enough is enough for now. Thanks again for your welcome and the discussion. I'll start some threads explaining my views soon, once I've got a bit more of a feel for the place.

Logikos

[Paul the Human]

I am not trying to answer for Shiny, but when I use the argument that theism is a detrimental force (and I am not an anti-theist), I am referring to the fact that the majority of wars and atrocities committed since time began were committed in the name of one religion or another. That can be taken to indicate that organized religion is the culprit, but organized religion is a natural consequence of theistic belief, so there is, indeed, a correlation to be made.

[Shinylight]

You have given examples of theists who have caused harm. I might have some issues with the details, but that is a tangent not worth bothering with. The point is, is it the nature of theistic belief that causes theists to cause harm, or is it the nature of the person.

Christianity and Islam's doctrines contain within them submission to the higher power, they follow what they believe their God tells them to do, a Christian would not kill a Muslim if there was no order from a deity. Thus I deduce that is the nature of their belief that leads them to do those things, with the exception of maybe the Hitler example, that one could be debated for years with no clear winner.

Again, some religious beliefs halt the advance of science, but not theism in general. In fact I would argue that the pursuit of science actually makes more sense within a theistic belief system than an atheistic one.

There are many types of theism, Creationism certainly halts scientific advancement, the Church in Europe definitely halted the pursuit of knowledge.

Many different areas of biological genetics have been slowed down because of the religious throwing the 'playing God' card, Stem Cell research, cloning etc...

Does theism lead to intolerance and bigotry and starving children? Again, it depends on which theists we're talking about.

Agreed

The simple fact is that the nature of theistic belief does not cause harm. This is obvious when we see that theism is perfectly compatible (in fact I would argue there is even an implication to) the belief that the world and the people in it are of value and should not be harmed. Theism does not cause harm; twisted people do. There is simply no implication from "X believes Y and causes harm" to "Y causes harm".

Theism does cause harm, theism causes twisted people, it gives people an excuse to murder and rape etc...

[fr0d0]

Welcome Logikos

I too hold scepticism of highest importance to my faith. Perhaps that should be part of my belief statement somehow too.