We just passed the 50th anniversary of “2001: A Space-Odyssey” (11968-04-02 HC (HoloceneCalendar)). In the movie, the HAL 9000 onboard the Discovery 1, a scientific computer, programmed never to hide or distort information, had instructions to not inform Astronauts David Bowman and Frank Poole about the true purpose of their mission. Its solution was to murder all humans onboard Discovery 1, including 3 Astronauts in hibernation and cutoff communication with Earth.

It occurred to me that this is why religion exists:

We have an instinct to continue, but the knowledge that we shall not. Inventing an afterlife solves the crisis, at the cost of our mental health (believing without evidence is irrational*).

* One should not except claims without evidence, but when sufficient evidence exists, accept the claim. Accepting claims without evidence is gullibility. Rejecting well supported claims is denialism. The Principal of rejecting claims without evidence, but accepting well-supported claims is Skepticism.

This mental illness can lead to flying æroplanes into buildings, killing thousands of innocent people. The solution is to accept that one will seize to exist. This resolves the conflict and leads to mental clarity, skepticism, and mental health.

6389727

This mental illness

Maybe you shouldn't call religion a mental illness, this is kind of why Muslims are more popular than we are.

6389746
“Maybe you shouldn't call schizophrenia a mental illness; people suffering from schizophrenia might not like you.”
“Maybe you shouldn't call major depression a mental illness; people suffering from major depression might not like you.”
“Maybe you shouldn't call religion a mental illness; people suffering from religion might not like you.”
I'd love to hear an explanation for why the third one supposedly makes more sense than the first two.

6389831
because it makes people angrier I guess lel

6389879
There's this idea that you shouldn't say or do things that could make your ‘group’ (if you could call atheism a group… but that's another discussion) look bad in the eyes of others. But what's often missed is that there's a difference between presenting your best side, and presenting a false side. One of these is being polite… the other is lying. If you stand for truth, which is what an atheist is generally trying to do when they combat religion, lying in order to promote your position is inherently hypocritical.

I'd love to hear an explanation for why the third one supposedly makes more sense than the first two.

I'd love to hear how religion constitutes a mental illness comparable to schizophrenia or depression.

6390361
A mental illness is is any mental pattern that causes an impairment of personal functioning. Religion is a mental pattern. It impairs basic reasoning. It interferes with the ability to recognize reality. It causes social conflict on a massive scale, including a significant impairment of people with different brands of the disorder from getting along and not slaughtering each other. It justifies paranoia. It encourages delusions (being watched by invisible things; thinkings everything is done for you).
In short, it impairs personal functioning. It fits the definition. Therefore, it is a mental illness.

6390361
The description of a few mental illnesses describe symptoms, but then offer an unjustified caveat that if those symptoms are the result of a religious belief, they don't count.

It would be like saying that a "drawing" is when you take a piece of paper and leave marks upon it to suggest some kind of image. You could then list examples of ways to leave marks, such as pens, pencils, or crayons. Then specify that it doesn't count as a drawing though, if you use a particular brand of pens. Bic being a commonplace brand around here.

Religion is a mental illness, but those who suffer from it are in denial over the fact, in high numbers, and willing to use whatever power they possess, to include violence, to insist otherwise.

6390803
6390397
That's funny because when I consulted the World Health Organisation's website they don't mention religion at all in their mental health section.

I think that while you've come pretty close, it doesn't seem the definition of "mentally ill" is "someone I don't agree with." It was cool when Khrushchev did it. Not so much the pair of you.

6390841

it doesn't seem the definition of "mentally ill" is "someone I don't agree with."

Funny, I remember giving a detailed account of what a mental illness entails and why religion fits, and I don't recall putting ‘someone I don't agree with’ on that list.

That's funny because when I consulted the World Health Organisation's website they don't mention religion at all in their mental health section.

Odd, I didn't know that the WHO was the arbiter of truth. It's almost like they took the advice you gave earlier of not daring to call religion what it is because religious people get violent.

I used to share the same anti-religious viewpoint, but I've come to realize that blaming religion for all the world's problems is simply a convenient way to ignore the truth; that zealotry, violence, and madness are fundamental aspects of mankind.

If you removed religion from our history, the world would be no better, the people no more wise or tolerant. Believing otherwise shows you are just as susceptible to fanciful delusions as the people you are denigrating.

Oh, and if religion is a mental illness, almost the entire human race - living and dead - is/was mentally ill, which means the term is completely meaningless.

6390897
There's quite a difference between saying religion is a problem, and saying it is the source of all problems. Just because you once thought the latter doesn't mean that everyone who's against religion is also taking that position. Worse, you go on to make the opposite claim: that religion has no negative effects at all. That's just as sensible, and just as justifiable, as the idea that religion is the source of any and all evil… that is, not at all.

Your last paragraph also has an unjustified leap to an absolute; see if you can spot it.

6390915

There's quite a difference between saying religion is a problem, and saying it is the source of all problems. Just because you once thought the latter doesn't mean that everyone who's against religion is also taking that position.

That was somewhat hyperbolic, I'll admit. Still, you just stated that you blame religion for a whole host of major societal problems, and that's what I was referring to.

Worse, you go on to make the opposite claim: that religion has no negative effects at all.

I wouldn't say that I believe religion has no negative effects at all, because I don't know for certain. What I am sure of is that practically every problem religion is blamed for can be found in secular contexts, and quite easily too.

Your last paragraph also has an unjustified leap to an absolute; see if you can spot it.

What, that if almost the entire human race is mentally ill, the term means nothing? Perhaps it wouldn't literally mean nothing; just about as much as calling someone a mammal.

6390841
I disagree with a great many people, but not all of them have mental illnesses. I don't disagree with everyone who has a mental illness. There are some people who I disagree with and they have a mental illness.

You're erroneously focused on the overlap and drawing false conclusions.

Religion is not a mental illness just because I disagree with it. It is a mental illness because it fits the descriptions of one. I disagree with religion not because it is a mental illness, but because of the things it does wrong. Again, there is an overlap, but the two traits operate independently.

6390897
I don't blame religion for most of the world's problems. I see religion as a force multiplier for a lot of the world's problems. It serves as a layer of armor for those things you point out, and I feel the removal of religion will help us focus on those traits and seek solutions for them. Removing religion is but one step in the process of a solution.

I disagree with your assertion that if we remove religion the world would be no wiser. I feel the best way to remove religion is to promote critical thinking and value on evidence. Doing that will naturally lead people to abandon religion as nonsense. Ergo, by encouraging people to be wiser, religion will be discarded voluntarily as an unwise thing. Removing religion will leave us with a wiser population.

I mean, if we somehow forcibly held people at swordpoint and forced them under duress to recant their religion, that would totally not work to improve the wisdom of the general world populace. Sure. Funny how religion seeks to do that with their religion and it has indeed not been all that effective, so I don't see why you'd assume anti-theism would choose to make the same mistakes?

If 100% of the people on the planet suffer from various health problems which are lumped under the umbrella term of "getting old" and in 100% of cases this umbrella term results in death, it must be totally useless to seek to advance medicine and fight individual causes under the umbrella and generally improve life expectancy and quality of life. We can't just give you a magical potion of immortality and perfect vitality, so it's useless to discuss the problem of aging.

If 100% of people suffer from some form of mental illness, to include religion, it seems all the more important to ease the suffering of said conditions. Or are you suggesting we stop trying to cure cancer, just because it may be the leading cause of death in many places?

You're welcome to not take part in the process of solving complicated issues. But I think those who are interested would generally appreciate it if you didn't go around trying to claim that such things are impossible, just because you personally can't fathom the problem as a whole, the individual parts, or focus on either as needed to make progress.

6390961

That was somewhat hyperbolic, I'll admit. Still, you just stated that you blame religion for a whole host of major societal problems, and that's what I was referring to.

The evidence that religion contributes to major societal problems is abundant. Your argument was hinged on the idea that it's some sort of convenient coping mechanism to pretend that religion is the cause of all major issues. Without the hyperbole, your argument falls apart; I don't dispute that humans have problems in secular contexts as well, so you can't claim that me denying this is a motivation for speaking against religion.

I wouldn't say that I believe religion has no negative effects at all, because I don't know for certain. What I am sure of is that practically every problem religion is blamed for can be found in secular contexts, and quite easily too.

Practically every problem the flu virus is blamed for can be found in contexts without the flu virus, as well. Do we conclude that the flu virus is harmless? Or is there a possibility that the symptoms correlated with it are sometimes caused by the virus, but not all cases of said symptoms are caused by the virus?

6390968

I would say that religion is closer to flavoring than a force multiplier; people use it to justify beliefs that they would have anyway.

Ergo, by encouraging people to be wiser, religion will be discarded voluntarily as an unwise thing.

That would seem to carry the implication that one cannot be both wise and religious at the same time, which history has shown is complete nonsense. Many of the world's wisest and most intelligent men were highly devout.

Also, what makes you so certain that religion is wrong? How can you be any more certain of your beliefs than religious people are of theirs? I know what you are going to say, that science has evidence and religion has faith, but what if that evidence is wrong? What if we are misunderstanding something important, and we just don't realize it?

so I don't see why you'd assume anti-theism would choose to make the same mistakes?

I didn't. If you are referring to my comment about removing religion, I was talking about a theoretical world in which religion had never existed. I apologize if I didn't make that clear.

Or are you suggesting we stop trying to cure cancer, just because it may be the leading cause of death in many places?

No, because I can recognize the difference between harmless personal beliefs and one of the most destructive and deadly diseases mankind has ever known.

You're welcome to not take part in the process of solving complicated issues. But I think those who are interested would generally appreciate it if you didn't go around trying to claim that such things are impossible, just because you personally can't fathom the problem as a whole, the individual parts,or focus on either as needed to make progress.

Just so you know - and I have personal experience in this matter - it is hard enough to convince people to change their minds when you aren't being insufferably arrogant about it.

6391029

The evidence that religion contributes to major societal problems is abundant.

A lot of things contribute far more and are much less ambiguous. Famine, disease, poverty, crime, natural disasters. How about we focus on those things instead of chasing after an abstract concept?

I don't dispute that humans have problems in secular contexts as well, so you can't claim that me denying this is a motivation for speaking against religion.

Sure I can. Just because you acknowledge that evil and violence aren't always caused by religion doesn't mean you aren't still trying to blame religion for problems that stem from human nature.

Practically every problem the flu virus is blamed for can be found in contexts without the flu virus, as well. Do we conclude that the flu virus is harmless? Or is there a possibility that the symptoms correlated with it are sometimes caused by the virus, but not all cases of said symptoms are caused by the virus?

You're comparing apples to oranges here. Religion is not a virus.

6391084

Sure I can. Just because you acknowledge that evil and violence aren't always caused by religion doesn't mean you aren't still trying to blame religion for problems that stem from human nature.

If you want to be technical about it, you can keep claiming anything you want. But it's still baseless.

You're comparing apples to oranges here. Religion is not a virus.

I am aware that religion isn't a literal virus. That wasn't integral to the comparison. Try again. (Although there is good theoretical work on religion being a form of ‘mind virus’.)

Your objections are all impotent, so I'm left to wonder what your motivation is for the position you take. You said you ‘used to’ be against religion, but your mode of argument hints that this has been reversed rather thoroughly. This in particular:

Also, what makes you so certain that religion is wrong?

Are you, perchance, currently under the influence of the thing that this discussion is about?

Edit: Oh God, you have a quote from Afterburn on your userpage, under the heading ‘Words of Wisdom’. You're a certified religious nutter, aren't you?
Now I find myself questioning whether you're being honest in your position at all. You earlier said “I used to share the same anti-religious viewpoint”, but did you, really?

6391126
That paper was written by a member of the ‘Christian Medical Fellowship’. Would you trust a paper written by someone with paranoid schizophrenia that claimed they weren't delusional? Or would you consider that, perhaps, they lack the ability to objectively assess something that directly affects them, and that more than that, they should acknowledge this and not pretend they have no motivation for the conclusion they come to?
A study on smoking health effects published by someone with stock in a cigarette company is questionable based on motivation alone. So is this.

Though I'm intrigued enough to read it… after I finish the show I was watching.

6391134

Your objections are all impotent, so I'm left to wonder what your motivation is for the position you take.

I'm just not convinced that religion is inherently harmful. Extremism certainly is, but any ideology can be taken to extremes.

Are you, perchance, currently under the influence of the thing that this discussion is about?

I am an agnostic. I don't know the truth about the universe and I don't pretend to know.

Edit: Oh God, you have a quote from Afterburn on your userpage, under the heading ‘Words of Wisdom’. You're a certified religious nutter, aren't you?

Please look at the other two comments I have in that little box. You may notice something.

6391150
Oh. I didn't recognize that you were Captain Hammer. Even worse. And it makes the first line of your comment incredibly ironic.

6391169

I figured you might not have. And how does it make my comment ironic?

6391208
You're a liberal extremist.

6391266

And how do you figure that?

6391150

I'm just not convinced that religion is inherently harmful

Here's a list of some of the effects of religion I've observed:
It's inherently divisive.
It actively hinders scientific progress.
It employs brainwashing and fear tactics to gain members.
It encourages making conclusions without deep examination.
It tries to void individuals of accountability.
Most promote homophobia rather adamantly.
It's used to justify fighting, prejudice, and intolerance (and before you say that this would still be around even without religion in the world - it's one thing for atrocities to happen, it's another for people to try and justify them).
It promotes the limiting of free thought.
And it instills this twisted idea that one group of people is inherently better than another with about the same level of competence as a kid calling another kid stupid for not believing in Santa.
And that's not even recounting the specific examples of all the horror that's been committed in the name of religion over time.

Extremism certainly is

And who has the last say in where that line is drawn? Why would someone else have the same exact idea as you of what counts as extremism?

Religion can be explained in two words: Cognitive bias.

The superstitious delusions religious people are infamous for are dogma(s). Those are extremely destructive. One can be religious and sane, as long as they are not dogmatic in their beliefs. That is a narrow path indeed.

6391394
I agree that religion(almost any religion) is closely tied with fascism, either as a tool, excuse or cause.

6391394

It's inherently divisive.

People hardly need the help of religion to divide themselves.

It actively hinders scientific progress.

Do you even Islamic Golden Age?

It employs brainwashing and fear tactics to gain members.

I am getting very sick of people accusing anyone who disagrees with them of being brainwashed. I keep seeing this on both sides of the aisle, and it's both utterly ridiculous and toxic to any kind of debate or compromise.

As for fear tactics, that is objectively true, but I would like to point out that fear tactics are also used by practically everyone, from political parties to parents telling their kids that their brains will rot if they sit too close to the television.

It encourages making conclusions without deep examination.

It can, but I think the root of the problem is that a large section of the population prefers to not think critically about things, and will blindly accept whatever is told to them. It's not a matter of religion, it's a matter of who they are.

It tries to void individuals of accountability.

That is an extreme generalization, and in any case, people hardly need the help of religion to do that. Our brains are masters at devising complicated webs of nonsense to get us out of feeling guilty for our actions.

Most promote homophobia rather adamantly.

Then go after that instead of all religion.

It's used to justify fighting, prejudice, and intolerance (and before you say that this would still be around even without religion in the world - it's one thing for atrocities to happen, it's another for people to try and justify them).

The Nazis and virtually all Communist nations justified their atrocities without religion. There is no logical reason to believe that a lack of religion would decrease the number of atrocities or prevent people from justifying them.

It promotes the limiting of free thought.

You keep making these massive generalizations.

And it instills this twisted idea that one group of people is inherently better than another with about the same level of competence as a kid calling another kid stupid for not believing in Santa.

You mean like nationalism and political divides? Besides, if it's that damn easy to get people to believe that in the first place, maybe you should lay the blame on human nature.

And that's not even recounting the specific examples of all the horror that's been committed in the name of religion over time.

And do you really think that identical horrors would not have been committed without religion? People still would have fought over political differences, over land and resources, and over ethnic conflicts. Those have always been the main reasons we fight, and a lack of religion would not have changed that.

And who has the last say in where that line is drawn? Why would someone else have the same exact idea as you of what counts as extremism?

The line can be somewhat vague, but I would generally say that you've crossed it if you have come to believe that it is acceptable to kill people in the name of your cause, particularly the innocent.

6391740
Instead of bothering with any specific problems, I'm just going to spell out the ultimate consequence of your position. If you want to make the argument that if religion were removed nothing would change because ‘human nature’, then you can make that same argument about every other factor. This leaves you with the conclusion that there are no factors you can modify or remove to improve the human condition. Your reasoning leads inevitably to a form of nihilism. If you've failed to reach that nihilism, that just means you've failed to apply your reasoning universally.

If you want to believe that literally nothing can be done to fix anything, go ahead. Most people aren't going to follow you, on account of it being a self-defeating position.

6389831

I don't think religion can be called a mental disorder or a disease because it's more of a cultural element.If one person were to decide that Christianity were true in isolation that'd be a mental disorder for sure, but because people are pressured into believing it I don't think it's a mental disorder.People mostly base their thoughts on what they're told and what people around them believe.It's not optimal but it is normal.Cognitive bias is also a normal thing humans have and so wouldn't be a disorder or a disease.

Also I wouldn't call it a diseases because it would promote the same sort of bigotry that I hate from religious people.

6391740

First something doesn't have to be the source of every problem to be a problem.Cancer doesn't cause every problem or even most of them so should be make no attempt to cure or treat it?

And I do think religion is a net evil.It's a golden pillar that people can put any idea they want on top of and once it's on there everyone will rush to defend it, feel obligated to.Do you think Jehova witnesses all just coincidentally feel the need to shun their families and turn down blood transfusions?I imagine instead it's because these things were put on the golden pillar of religion and thus their society pushes it on them.We still see plenty of problems being propped and legitimized by religion from science denial to bigotry to the promotion of bad critical thinking.Absolutely you could have all of those problems without religion, but religion legitimizes all of these things and is the last refuge of bad ideas that no longer have any other defense.

But of course, none of that really matters because you said:

Also, what makes you so certain that religion is wrong? How can you be any more certain of your beliefs than religious people are of theirs? I know what you are going to say, that science has evidence and religion has faith, but what if that evidence is wrong? What if we are misunderstanding something important, and we just don't realize it?

You know, I've never once met an agnostic who actually believes this outside of as a way to defend religion.Is there anywhere else in your life that you accept something as perfectly legitimate because it can't be absolutely disproven (and even if we could we could be mistaken about it being disproven)?You would need to have exactly zero opinions in order to hold to this ideal, and I know you don't because you're arguing right now and will argue against me.

Shouldn't you accept this guy's point that religion is a mental disorder as legitimate because you can't disprove that it's primarily caused by a brain defect?Shouldn't you accept the idea that religion is harmful and that people's attempts to destroy it are just as legitimate as yours because you can't prove that religion isn't harmful or that if it were eradicated all (literally all) of our problems would vanish?

And I know claiming that every problem would vanish without religion seems ridiculous to you (and it's ridiculous to me as well), but to quote you.

What makes you so certain that [this belief] is wrong? How can you be any more certain of your beliefs than people [who hold this belief] are of theirs? I know what you are going to say, that [you have evidence to support your side], but what if that evidence is wrong? What if we are misunderstanding something important, and we just don't realize it?

Again, religion is held up on a golden pillar in our culture so I imagine in you and many other people's eyes it should get this special treatment that you'd think would be stupid if given to anything else.

6391802

I don't particularly feel like arguing about this anymore, but I will try to clarify my beliefs on this subject.

I am vehemently opposed to religious fundamentalism, whether that be in the form of violence and persecution or the denial of science and medicine. However, I do not believe that it is accurate or helpful to act as if religion is a mental disorder and that all of its followers are stupid or delusional.

I am not religious, but I have come to accept that religion has always been and likely always will be a major part of human society. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as people remain open-minded and tolerant of others.

6391802
Other mental disorders, such as depression, can also be caused by external factors, so I don't see why that would stop religion from being an illness.

For the bigotry thing… Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but wouldn't that require being bigoted against people who have mental disorders? Being cruel to the sick isn't a commendable thing in the first place, and adding to who might be considered ill shouldn't change that.

6390857

Odd, I didn't know that the WHO was the arbiter of truth.

World
"Health"
Organisation.

I imagine they'd be a pretty good go to for matters pertaining to "health"

6390968
Well Good Old Doctor WHO told me "that Mental disorders comprise a broad range of problems, with different symptoms. However, they are generally characterized by some combination of abnormal thoughts, emotions, behaviour and relationships with others."

Now, considering that religion is a pretty common and normal thing, and even Muslims are more esteemed, at least in America, then for any group to be considered mentally ill its actually us atheists.

So, not quite sure how

Religion is not a mental illness just because I disagree with it. It is a mental illness because it fits the descriptions of one.

Meshes in with all that.

6392238
That is so pathetic it's not worth rebutting.

6391084

Also, what makes you so certain that religion is wrong? How can you be any more certain of your beliefs than religious people are of theirs? I know what you are going to say, that science has evidence and religion has faith, but what if that evidence is wrong? What if we are misunderstanding something important, and we just don't realize it?

As others pointed out, certainty is irrelevant here. I too am an agnostic. I don't know things. Unlike someone who attempts to say they are an agnostic, and not other things like atheists, I'm not a dishonest coward.

Agnosticism is concerned with what we know. Anyone who has put any amount of thought into things is a solipsist. In that "I think, therefore I know" is about as far as you can get with certainty. Your senses are easily deceived, and you may well be a brain in a vat, under the effects of a curse or enchantment, in a Matrix-like simulation, dreaming, under the effects of a hallucinogenic drug, or any number of other things which would render what you sense not matching to reality.

We move past this stage in order to have useful conversations. None of us know, with certainty, anything. Including the other common agnostic dishonesty of, "nothing is knowable." Even if we tighten things down to just the certainty of the existence or not of a god or gods, It is still an unfounded assertation that we can't know.

Either we can know things and have useful pursuits of knowledge, or we can't know things but we need to move forward in some way. Regardless of which you think/believe is the case, we move forward. Solopsism, agnosticism, and nihilism require nothing more than a nod. Yes, we understand those philosophical concepts exist. Now, let's move forward.

Atheism is concerned with belief. As an agnostic, I don't know God/Allah/Thor/Zeus/Mithras/Erebos, and various others exist. I also don't believe they exist. I do not know the state of reality in which they don't exist is the true state of reality. I do believe that is the case, as there is evidence that convinces me of that. There is no evidence that convinces me that these characters are non-fiction. Whether I can ever know which state is true is not all that relevant, but the possibility exists at some point I can know for certain. For now, I operate on belief.

Certainty and knowledge are not what is under discussion though. It is about a method of operation. Does one operate via the "faith" method or "rational thought and valuing evidence?"

Faith begins without knowledge. Many faithful claim to know things dishonestly. Regardless of their honesty, those operating under faith essentially accept a proposition in the blind. They simply decide to believe it, then defend that belief in spite of evidence. Some evidence, no evidence, or evidence to the contrary to their position is all unimportant to their belief. Using faith strongly or "correctly" results in maintaining a belief in the face of opposition.

Let's call the other version "science." Science also begins without knowledge. It can produce a hypothesis out of the blind. But then it seeks to actively disprove that hypothesis. Find evidence through experimentation to show that the hypothesis is wrong. Once falsified, the hypothesis is discarded as wrong, or modified to lose the wrong parts, then go through the process all over again. Science done well seeks to be the least wrong.

I simply cannot accept faith as a good thing when I understand "science." I simply cannot devalue evidence.

I don't need certainty. I have confidence. I also have a willingness to discard the wrong once falsified.

That would seem to carry the implication that one cannot be both wise and religious at the same time, which history has shown is complete nonsense. Many of the world's wisest and most intelligent men were highly devout.

This is another tired argument theists try to tout out.

When the environment is heavily religious, the culture steeps people in it, offers real consequences in the form of physical harm and death to heretics, social consequences in the form of ostracism and exile, and so on, then it is of no surprise that any given person is religious. Indeed, a great many people were religious but had their faith shaken by their discoveries of reality.

Newton was religious and invented calculus. However, calculus is not reliant on Jesus to work. We can use calculus because it is objectively useful. Calculus also does not contradict Jesus, and unsurprisingly, faced no major opposition from The Church.

Galileo discovered things which do contradict the Bible and was imprisoned and excommunicated. His discoveries also are not reliant on Jesus to work.

Einstein is often misquoted as being religious. He used god-language to ascribe wonder to the workings of reality, in a poetic manner. He was at worst a pantheist, which is most accurately described as a form of atheism. "God" as Einstein spoke of it, was a non-anthropomorphic force of nature. It was not a god in the theological sense. But it is of no surprise that when you seek words to describe the awesomeness of reality, our religion-poisoned language offers god-words to communicate that awe.

Wise men in history were wise in spite of their religion, and at least occasionally alongside the discarding of that religion. Missing from history are wise men who were wise because of their religion.

So, yes. Wisdom and religion are not really compatible. The best we can hope for is that religion doesn't find offense at the discoveries of the wise, and continues to operate neutrally. This lucky coincidence produces the rare few "wise and devout" folks you speak of. Those same people would be similarly wise in any environment, and their discoveries useful and wise in a hypothetical non-religious environment. But religion is a fickle and easily offended thing, and a great many wise men would find themselves flourishing more in such a non-religious environment.

What you don't know about from history are the uncountable wise men who failed to shine under the thumb of religion. How many had their creativity stamped out at a young age? How many were drawn to waste time fawning over this delusion? What wonders and innovation might we have had without the stagnation of religion?

Do you even Islamic Golden Age?

A period noteworthy for the governing entities being less insistent on their religion, and allowing visitors from other lands to trade and share ideas. It was an incredibly liberal period of history, and it was ended by the resurgence of much more conservative sects of Islam from northern Africa gaining power.

I mean, do you even history? Or are you just tossing out things shallowly?

No, because I can recognize the difference between harmless personal beliefs and one of the most destructive and deadly diseases mankind has ever known.

Just so you know - and I have personal experience in this matter - it is hard enough to convince people to change their minds when you aren't being insufferably arrogant about it.

I recognize the differences too. And recognize the similarities. Religion is the most destructive and deadly disease mankind has ever known, and worth more effort seeking a cure than mere cancer. Cancer only afflicts the body of those unlucky enough to develop it. Religion is pervasive, intergenerational, and seeks to spread its misery to children and the elderly and everyone in between, to instill fear and conformity, and deny every living person on the planet the comfort and easement of pain that innovation seeks to offer.

In any way you look at the problem of religion, it is glaring back defying a cure. You could describe it in secular, organizational terms and point to the evil that is the Catholic Church. You can look at how, as an organization of human beings with their own agenda, The Church has had its fingers in the affairs of nations, and used the influence of money and faith to politically control and diminish many.

Encouraging others to think critically, rationally, skeptically, and to value evidence would be a worthy goal. Maybe it would cure the underlying problems you identify as not being religious. Perhaps religion is merely a symptom of those underlying problems, and it would fade, as I hope, under this treatment. Like Einstein though, I find it fine to word things the way I do. Religion appears to be at the forefront of the mind of those most in need of this curative therapy, and framing it as an illness in need of a cure is a fine way to move forward towards the goal of reducing the faith in the world, and faith-based thinking, and faith-based poor decision making.

I also have personal experience with being arrogant towards others. Seems not to be that much of a hurdle to changing minds, honestly.

6392238
Both of you now have mentioned the WHO.

Both of you are making the fallacy of argument from Authority. "I don't know medicine, but here is an authority on medicine, and they say diseases are abnormalities (uncommon things.) Religion is common, therefore not a disease."

Turtle and I have both stated that religion being common isn't a concern. It is that religion causes harm that we see it as a thing in need of a solution. Referring to it as a disease/mental illness is a way to convey that. Consider it a metaphor if it helps you set aside your pedantic dictionary-thumping.

I don't know what the "cure" looks like to Turtle or others, but it certainly doesn't look like a pill or a surgery in my imagination. It might take on a form similar to the kind of therapy that takes place in a psychologist's office. I don't really think it would though. I feel like it would be itself a very complicated and incremental solution.

One component of that cure is in action right here and now. On the Internet, we have people who disagree talking. Arrogantly, insultingly, in a human way. Some are hardened in their beliefs and entrench. Some just turn off their brain and shitpost. Some are charismatic, gentle, and accommodating. The important part is that we've moved away from the pockets of isolated humans cut off from the knowledge of the world around them. A few individual people might isolate themselves into echo chambers, but many others wander from chamber to chamber. All of them are at least aware that others such pockets exist. Agree, disagree, tolerate, or hate, they know they aren't alone.

Some people see a group of children with mobile devices in their hands and frown, complain about them not talking to each other face to face, maybe complain about them not running and having more exercise. I see a group of future adults who spent their childhood connected to a bigger world.

We each know more history and cultures and details of our world than many people ever learned in hundreds of years, across many generations. To even have this conversation about religion and hypothesize a world lacking it as a thing to discuss, we have to know more about the world that we do have that the majority of humans who have lived on this Earth ever imagined.

Steve Jobs was a pretty awful person if you knew him personally. He didn't make the impact on society that he did through humility and soft-spoken dialogue. He caught the imagination of a lot of society and put iPhones and iPods in the hands of people who, before him, would have turned their nose up at "gadgets." Mike Zuckerburg didn't invent social media, but he pushed it into the common everyday person's day to day schedule.

I see these advancements as corrosive to the insular and controlling ideals of religion. These things aren't going to suddenly turn everyone into a rational atheist, but it is a step in the process. It won't convince everyone to agree and find the truth. But it will force people to admit other options exist if only to voice their opinion that those other choices are wrong.

Religion is harmful. Like a disease, it is bad for the person suffering from it, regardless of whether they know or understand how it is bad for them. Religion on a societal level is a retarding force against the efforts of everyone, religious or not, in seeking out the best answers to important questions. Questions like, how should we treat each other in society? What is the best way for us to get along and seek out happiness? How can we reduce the pain and suffering people endure? What are art and beauty?

People will continue to disagree in the absence of religion. Some may still disagree so vehemently that they turn to violence to resolve their disagreements. But religion, for thousands of years of efforts, has not resolved this issue and instead has exacerbated it and stood in the way of solution-finding. Rational discourse and an agreement upon the value of evidence promotes a non-violent resolution to disagreements simply by creating the space for those resolutions to be suggested and accepted. Willingness to drop false beliefs once proven false is a necessary component to accepting resolutions to disagreements without resorting to violence.

It doesn't matter if you agree that religion is the source, a source, or not a source at all to the problems of the world. Solving the problems of the world correlates to religion falling from power it has held historically, and that correlation (independent of causation) is interesting to discuss.

Perhaps if we move towards this hypothetical religion-free world, we'll find a good stopping point. One in which people retain private, personal beliefs, but lose the harmful parts of religion to a satisfactory degree that conflicts in the world manage to drop to peaceful levels. Those "harmless personal beliefs" might survive this shift in social environment, and never fully go away. I don't particularly care. I recognize the difference between those "minor, personal religions" and the much more rampant and caustic plagues to humanity of organized major religions.

6392349
You don't need to get salty because you can't match the word "health" with "health."

6392501

Both of you are making the fallacy of argument from Authority.

I was waiting for one of you muppets to say that.

Consider it a metaphor if it helps you set aside your pedantic dictionary-thumping.

Now isn't that Christians always use to get out of difficult situations?

After that we've got a few paragraphs that are pretty irrelevant. I mean,

How can we reduce the pain and suffering people endure?

When people use religion to alleviate pain and suffering you call them mentally ill

Rational discourse and an agreement upon the value of evidence promotes a non-violent resolution to disagreements simply by creating the space for those resolutions to be suggested and accepted.

There's nothing bloodless about utilitarianism, I recommend having a poke at Crime and Punishment.
And finally:

What are art and beauty?

Amazing Grace is a pretty phat beat.

6393614
When there are a dozen arguments that I would actually have to work to dismantle, but you decide to forgo all of them in exchange for the same argument North Korea uses to claim they're a Democratic People's Republic, there's no point in getting salty. Just laughing at your stupidity.

6394043
Why is it that my last reply was "so pathetic it's not worth rebutting." But you respond to a mere one line with much more length? I mean seriously, your standards are about as flexible as that survival games my furry friends play but say I can't join in on.

6396004
And now you're just criticizing my comment length. How do you think that's useful?

6396036 I'm just curious as to whatever happened to:

That is so pathetic it's not worth rebutting.

It's like you intended to stop talking but when I replied you hadn't anticipated that and now am in this strange imbroglio

6396411
That something isn't worth rebutting doesn't necessarily mean it won't be rebutted. It just implies the person doing the rebutting is bored. Your nonsense is mildly entertaining.

6396526 Considering you said:

That is so pathetic it's not worth rebutting.

It did

mean it won't be rebutted.

You should try familiarising yourself with what you've said.

6396947
And you continue to be entertainingly short on reasoning skills. It's fascinating how much you want to poke a hole in… um… what are you even trying to poke a hole in? This is another case of you having plenty of options for a response, and choosing the silliest possible one.

6397055

It's fascinating how much you want to poke a hole in… um… what are you even trying to poke a hole in?

This

That something isn't worth rebutting doesn't necessarily mean it won't be rebutted.

That is so pathetic it's not worth rebutting.

In case that quote is not enough to demonstrate it

The entirety of what you said. No addendum, simply that.

There's no rebuttal there. Your application of alleged rebuttals is spotty and pretending otherwise isn't particularly becoming.

In this case you saying "that's so pathetic" did mean you weren't going to rebut it. Playing around with it doesn't work when people can just scroll up.

This went off-topic.

6397080
You can repeat yourself all you want. That doesn't magically make your spotty reasoning work.

6397156
Just saying the reasoning is poor and not demonstrating how doesn't prove anything.

I understand that at this point you're just here to say something, regardless of what it is. You could though, at least have dignity about it.

6398021
I already explained how. Refusing to acknowledge that also doesn't prove anything.

I understand that at this point you're just here to say something, regardless of what it is.

And what are you here for, I wonder? I already admitted that I'm just responding because I'm bored; it's not a revelation to anybody who's been paying attention… so, not you.

6398147

And what are you here for, I wonder? I already admitted that I'm just responding because I'm bored;

You're replying because, as is common on this group, you've got some compulsion to feel smarter than other people and being the last to post is your way of feeling that.

6398168
Thank you for answering my question. You confused your pronouns, though.

6398179
"No, u" isn't very funny.