Keep or Remove Religion Poll

[The Magic Pudding.]

Yes, I vote to unleash the wand.
Could be a reckless action though, it's not as though they'll all start thinking properly, like me.
People fight over football teams, and then there are antivaxers and Trump voters.
Couldn't we turn everyone into tulips or fruit trees or something?

[brewer]

And there is plenty of bad that has nothing to do with religion.

Which would be irrelevant to the equation.

Should we keep smallpox? Plenty of bad from it, little good.  It doesn't matter that there's many other bad things aside from smallpox.  We should get rid of smallpox with our wand.  Likewise poverty, ignorance, influenza, and anything else we are better off without - like religion.  The only real question is: Does religion do more harm than good.  I think it a clear yes.

Equating religion with smallpox, poverty, ignorance, or influenza is a false equivelence fallacy.

You can think what ever you want but don't use bad logic to justify a belief. The religious frequently use the same fallacy.

[FrustratedFool]

I wasn't equating them except in the singular idea that they are more bad than good. So no fallacy there. It was rhetorical, but not fallacious. However, if I wanted to play devil's advocate I could push the memetic idea of religion as a mind-virus, point out the great harms of religion, and assert they are more alike than you may suppose. But I have no need of that game. Rather it is obvious that my statement was designed to highlight why your prior comment was irrelevant to the argument at hand.

X is simply the set of things that are harmful. Both religion and smallpox belong to set X. Thus we should desire both to be eradicated. The only argument is whether or not you think religion doesn't belong in set X. That is all.

Or to put it another way, why wouldn't you want a religionless world?

[brewer]

I wasn't equating them except in the singular idea that they are more bad than good.  So no fallacy there.  It was rhetorical, but not fallacious.  However, if I wanted to play devil's advocate I could push the memetic idea of religion as a mind-virus, point out the great harms of religion, and assert they are more alike than you may suppose.  But I have no need of that game.  Rather it is obvious that my statement was designed to highlight why your prior comment was irrelevant to the argument at hand.  

X is simply the set of things that are harmful.  Both religion and smallpox belong to set X.  Thus we should desire both to be eradicated.  The only argument is whether or not you think religion doesn't belong in set X.  That is all.

Or to put it another way, why wouldn't you want a religionless world?

Religion bad equals smallpox bad is definitely a fallacy, singular idea or not. I disagree that they belong in a set of 'similar'. They same way that guns and fast food both cause harm/death but don't belong in the same set. Your creation of the 'set', for the most part, appears to be based on emotion.

It's not that I wouldn't like a world without religious beliefs, I would. But telling people that they can't believe what they want is wrong. Telling them that their religious belief is wrong I'm OK with. Telling them that false entitlement to enforce their religious belief on nonbelievers is wrong, that I'm OK with.

I think we can agree that we think religious belief can lack beneficial value, even have harmful value in thought and/or application. However I think that it does provide the believers with some benefits, mostly a sense of belonging. Nonbelievers can benefit also, i.e. charitable acts. If not the case then the belief system would die. Ridding people of their right to believe because you disagree............. I doubt you would like that applied to your beliefs when others disagree with you. Would you also want to do away with indigenous peoples spiritual religious beliefs? Aboriginal peoples spiritual beliefs?

It would be better to rid the world of people that apply their beliefs badly.

[FrustratedFool]

Yes, all spiritual belief systems would be included in the wand wave.

But note: I didn't say that religion was equally bad to smallpox, let alone say that smallpox=religion (which is absurd).

However, I would be prepared to argue that religion is in the same ballpark of harm as smallpox. You may disagree, but note then that's not a fallacy just a disagreement. No laws of logic have been broken (though I realise you're using fallacy in the expanded informal rhetorical sense - but even then, it's a misattribution).

If you want to discuss whether religion is as harmful as a terrible disease then we can. But it's not necessary for my argument. Let's say, instead, that religion is as bad as the common cold. It would still be worth eradicating, yes?

You agree that a world without religion would be preferable. And you say you wouldn't want to tell people what they should believe. But that's not part of the hypothetical. The wand wave doesn't require anyone telling anyone anything - it simply ensures by magic that everyone ceases to believe. So I really can't see how your scruple about telling people what to believe has any relevance to the thought experiment here.

The idea that religion is 'ok' because it gives believers a sense of belonging (although it comes with jihad, witch burnings, sexism, slavery, homophobia, crusades, creationism, inquisitions, and the rest of the horrors of religion) is odd to me, because so does Nazism yet I hope you would not hesitate to wave the wand to have Nazis stop holding to that ideology (yes, I'm implicitly comparing Nazism to religion, this is not a fallacy for multiple reasons). Besides, a sense of community and belonging can be had without religion, so here religion is providing nothing that couldn't be had without religion except harm (reminds me of Christopher Hitchens rhetorical challenge).

In short, I think religion is grossly harmful both to individuals and to civilisation and the mass of humanity would be better off without it. I guess you think otherwise. Fair enough.

[Angrboda]

What if you're wrong? What if you wave your magic wand and things get worse. What are you going to do then?

[FrustratedFool]

What options do I have after I wave my wand and things get worse? I don't think I have any. So it's a moot point.

What if we cure cancer and things get worse? What if we eradicate fascism, racism, and homophobia and things get worse? What if we replace the scientific method with supernatural revelation and things get better?

[Mister Agenda]

Does the question boil down, for most here, to simply whether you think religion is a force for good or ill in the world?

Not for me. It's about empathy and ethics. I wouldn't want someone to unilaterally change my own beliefs against my will. I don't have the right to forcibly change people's beliefs, because I believe in freedom of conscience, even if I think it's mistaken. No one should have that power and no one should use it.

As an aside, some religions aren't even really theistic; like Jainism, some forms of Buddhism, and Unitarian Universalism.

I would wave a want to, say, give everyone 15% better critical thinking ability. It would be something almost universally desired if offered and would indirectly have the result of reducing irrational beliefs overall, including any I might hold myself.

[FrustratedFool]

Wouldn't you want someone to enable you to realise which beliefs of yours were false and harmful?

If someone could magically have me stop believeing false and harmful things, I'd consider that a good service.

[Mister Agenda]

Wouldn't you want someone to enable you to realise which beliefs of yours were false and harmful?

If someone could magically have me stop believeing false and harmful things, I'd consider that a good service.

But that wasn't your question. If the wand wave was to have everyone stop believing false and harmfule things, I might be able to go along with that.