Why do sceptics and atheists post on this and other (soul, after life)

[monumentus]

Over? I would see it as only beginning at that point. There are multiple questions that can start from that point. Such as - what specifically is harmful or potentially harmful - what benefits are connected with those harms - are there ways to keep the baby without the dirty bath water and obtain the same benefits in other less potentially harmful ways - and much much more.

I would also make a distinction between beliefs and religion. They are not direct synonyms. One can be a member of a religion without beleiving any of it. One can hold many beliefs without being a member of any religion. One can abandon - say - their religion while still holding on to most if not all their beliefs.

But yes many beliefs can be harmful too. Beliefs matter - especially in so far as the do or do not manifest in the real world in word or deed.

Anyway my point was just that when evaluating peoples presence on a forum like this - interest in religion and concern for the dangers of religion - are not mutually exclusive motivations by any means. Quite the opposite - they can be quite complementary.

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by monumentus

^ Or both which is even better again. One can be interested in the topic - because it is an interesting topic - and be concerned about how harmful religious can be - because very often it very much can be.

I suppose. Religion "can be harmful" in the same way that consuming things can be harmful, in my view. It depends on which doctrines you hold and why. What I meant by saying some are convinced that religion is harmful is that they think religion in and of itself causes the harm.

And even that's not 100% accurate language if we want to split hairs. They normally oppose theism, not religion per se.

Originally Posted by gabfest

The discussion is pretty much over once someone characterizes another's belief system as harmful. The only question that remains is "When are you going to abandon your beliefs?"

That's a good point. And of course, religious people can be just as bad about that.

[gabfest]

Originally Posted by monumentus

Over? I would see it as only beginning at that point. There are multiple questions that can start from that point. Such as - what specifically is harmful or potentially harmful - what benefits are connected with those harms - are there ways to keep the baby without the dirty bath water and obtain the same benefits in other less potentially harmful ways - and much much more.

I would also make a distinction between beliefs and religion. They are not direct synonyms. One can be a member of a religion without beleiving any of it. One can hold many beliefs without being a member of any religion. One can abandon - say - their religion while still holding on to most if not all their beliefs.

But yes many beliefs can be harmful too. Beliefs matter - especially in so far as the do or do not manifest in the real world in word or deed.

Anyway my point was just that when evaluating peoples presence on a forum like this - interest in religion and concern for the dangers of religion - are not mutually exclusive motivations by any means. Quite the opposite - they can be quite complementary.

Yes, as some posters have stated there's not much to discuss when discussing atheism singularly... you need something to juxtapose or to act as a host.

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

I suppose. Religion "can be harmful" in the same way that consuming things can be harmful, in my view. It depends on which doctrines you hold and why. What I meant by saying some are convinced that religion is harmful is that they think religion in and of itself causes the harm.

It can do in so far as the more separate from reality a person's world view is - the more potential for harm it therefore contains. The extreme example is obvious - if you believe you can fly then the moment you put that into practice by stepping off a roof - you are likely to be injured or killed.

But extreme examples aside - that potential always exists in any world view. The more divorced from the reality in which the world view finds itself - the greater the potential form harm is.

But the important word is potential. Potential does not mean actual. And 100 people with the exact same world views might find only 1 of it's members actualising that potential. Who knows. It depends - as you yourself say - on what doctrines they hold to specifically and how they manifest in the real world in word and deed.

So when people such as myself call religion harmful they do not mean always every time ever. Rather they are making a relative comment about the potential for harm it represents compared to anything else. And in that sense religion is indeed quite harmful. Just like I can call Bacon harmful because I not only know it is a Class A carcinogenic but I know what that actually means. I also without any hesitation or pause whatsoever had a large bacon sandwich for my breakfast this morning and am likely to do so at regular intervals in the future.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

And even that's not 100% accurate language if we want to split hairs. They normally oppose theism, not religion per se.

I think in general they oppose claims that are without evidence - rather than theism or religion specifically. That is my experience anyway.

Theism and Religion both have their fair share of those - most often the same ones but not always. They certainly very often share the core claim that there is a god however - a claim we currently have absolutely no evidence at all to think true at this time.

Originally Posted by gabfest

Yes, as some posters have stated there's not much to discuss when discussing atheism singularly... you need something to juxtapose or to act as a host.

I suppose insofar as some words only exist to describe things that in and of themselves do not exist. The usual example offered for this is the word "hole". Holes tend in most cases not to be a thing that actually exists. Rather the word "hole" is a human only narrative established in contrast to something else that actually does exist.

Similarly in the absence of theism - the word atheism likely would not exist nor would we have much of a use for it. In fact theism not only has to exist but has to exist with some dominance for the word atheism to be of utility. After all we do not have similar words to describe the absence of other things.

We do not have many people identifying themselves as non-stamp collectors (a-philately?) and very few of us have a word defining us as non-believers in leprechauns. I am also not currently aware of a word for _not_ thinking that political elite are actually alien lizard people in human disguises.

[gabfest]

Once anyone can explain away (regenerating) nature, will there will ever be any evidence that will suffice? After that, it appears to boil down to adults pleading with other adults to abandon their worldview(s).

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by monumentus

So when people such as myself call religion harmful they do not mean always every time ever. Rather they are making a relative comment about the potential for harm it represents compared to anything else.

But as you yourself recognize, it's not religion itself but whatever doctrines may be included, that has potential for harm. So personally I think it's very misleading (of your own views as well as of what we should think about "religion") to say that "religion is harmful" when that's not really what you mean.

Just like I can call Bacon harmful because I not only know it is a Class A carcinogenic but I know what that actually means. I also without any hesitation or pause whatsoever had a large bacon sandwich for my breakfast this morning and am likely to do so at regular intervals in the future.

I wouldn't call it harmful either. Nor would I (and I realize I'm in the minority here) call it "unhealthy" in most contexts. All of this is to pass judgment and imply that one should not eat this or believe that. Except that there is quite a movement going on against religion right now, if only in pop culture, making it somewhat more irresponsible to say "religion is harmful" than "bacon is unhealthy".

I think in general they oppose claims that are without evidence - rather than theism or religion specifically.

That can't be it, because many of them make claims without evidence. "God is a delusion", "There's no god", etc. And this borders on evidentialism, which is dead. One would need only to change it to "We don't think you should believe things without evidence" and you'd be promoting a view that is invalid and self-refuting.

They certainly very often share the core claim that there is a god however - a claim we currently have absolutely no evidence at all to think true at this time.

How are you defining "evidence" here?

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

But as you yourself recognize, it's not religion itself but whatever doctrines may be included, that has potential for harm.

That is _one_ mediation point sure - happy to acknowledge that. But religion in and of itself tends to be an evidence devoid world view that does not map onto reality. And as I said I _also_ think the potential form harm goes up in proportion to how much a belief or set of beliefs are divorced from the reality in which they are found.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

So personally I think it's very misleading (of your own views as well as of what we should think about "religion") to say that "religion is harmful" when that's not really what you mean.

Except it is what I mean. This might work better if you allow me to tell you what I mean rather than have you tell me what I mean?

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

I wouldn't call it harmful either.

Perhaps you wouldnt but you not doing it does not negate correct usage. Cancer is harmful. Things known to cause cancer are harmful. Therefore it is linguistically correct to call Bacon harmful. But in that context we are referring to it's _potential_ for harm. In that someone like me could eat it every week for their entire life and be fine. Someone else might only eat a small amount of it and not be.

This is what we mean when we say religion is harmful. Yet my doting lovely little Aunt in Scotland who is the second most religious person I know (my nutjob of a fundamentalist neighbour being the most religious person I know) all her life - has in no way experienced any harm from it and I doubt she ever will.

But religion does cause harm at individual and global levels. The divisions caused between religions - or even between adherents of variations on the same religions - in our world are an example of this. The parents who watched and allowed their own children to die of relatively treatable illnesses for purely and solely religious reasons - are an example of this. The hindrance of useful and beneficial scientific progress because of messed up and otherwise unjustifiable religious nonsense such as with stem cell research is an example of this.

Religion _is_ harmful precisely because there is no evidence for it's core claims and it is divorced from the reality in which it resides.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Nor would I (and I realize I'm in the minority here) call it "unhealthy" in most contexts. All of this is to pass judgment and imply that one should not eat this or believe that.

Except I made no such implication. Exactly the opposite in fact in that I explicit said I would continue to eat it. So not only did I not imply it - I explicitly stated the opposite of it. So it is weird to have my view summarized back at me as being a mere implication of the exact opposite of what was explicit in it.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Except that there is quite a movement going on against religion right now, if only in pop culture, making it somewhat more irresponsible to say "religion is harmful" than "bacon is unhealthy".

I think it very responsible to say both - and how responsible it is even goes up in proportion to how clear you are about what you are saying and why you are saying it. Bacon as a Class A carcinogen _is_ unhealthy relative to foods that are not class A carcinogens for example. It is very responsible to say that. What was not responsible _at all_ are the news media who misrepresented what that actually means - where we had shock click bait misleading headlines likening the danger of bacon to that of cigarettes. That was wantonly irresponsible of them.

Similarly world views divorced from reality are harmful and unhealthy in many ways relative to world views that are not. There is nothing irresponsible at all from pointing that out. It is not responsible however to misrepresent what that means or to not be clear what one means when one is saying it. Which is why I am always clear - like here today - what I mean by it.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

That can't be it, because many of them make claims without evidence.

So? The two are not mutually exclusive even a little - let alone to the point of "cant be" as you claim. It is perfectly possible to be in principle against claims without evidence while mistakenly making some of your own. Nothing at all precludes that.

So if you see someone making a claim without evidence by all means pull them up on it. That is not my problem. Take it up with them. If you see _me_ making a claim without evidence - by all means let me know. You yourself made quite a few claims without evidence in the past and I in turn pulled you up on them. No evidence came. This is a _good_ thing. It is how conversation should work.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

How are you defining "evidence" here?

Anything that suggests a claim is actually true. I will leave it to the people claiming there is a god to actually define what they think is evidence for their god however. Then we can evaluate that openly.

[gabfest]

There will never be any evidence that will suffice ( at least none that any other human can offer); it's like shooting fish in a barrel while sitting on a throne.

[monumentus]

I would say until we get any evidence for the claims at all - whether it "suffices" or not is a separate conversation.

[gabfest]

Originally Posted by monumentus

I would say until we get any evidence for the claims at all - whether it "suffices" or not is a separate conversation.

Once one has decided (regenerating) nature is not evidence, there's nothing anyone can say that's going to suffice... then there's the slight of hands used to place the onus on theist only, where some get to make the unsubstantiated claim there's no God(s) all the while saying no atheist on earth has ever made such a claim.