You have claimed that you view religion as a "net negative." Do you not then view it as being immoral or bad (if it isn't inherently bad then you have other serious problems with your claim. Anyway, none of this is relevant to my criticism of your view. Everything I said still applies to your view even with these corrections.

If not then your view becomes false. E.g. if some religion are not pernicious, then there is nothing wrong in principle with supporting religion.

Yes, a good behavior. What I am challenging is your assumption that perpetuating religious behavior is always bad, even if you think that all religions are pernicious.

My point was a theoretical one. Your claim about collective guilt is just wrong if people are not doing something immoral. That is, if they should support Religion B, even though it is slightly harmful, why would you say they are collectively guilty of supporting religion? They should support Religion B under my counterfactuals.

But the reverse is false. If you don't do anything, things will still change because lots of other people will still do things.

This makes no sense. There are a lot of ways that religion could cease to exist. For instance, the earth is hit by a giant meteor that kills everyone. Boom, no more religion. Or everyone tomorrow just stops being religious. What possible relevance does that have to our own individual actions in the absence of those things happening? The fact that if we all cooperated in some activity we would achieve some positive end doesn't mean that we should still do that thing even though other people are not.

For instance, if everyone decided tomorrow to always follow laws we would no longer need police or prisons. Thus, we should get rid of police and prisons now. Wut?

You may have to restate it yourself. To my knowledge, MB has me on ignore over this (start from #31):

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...liefs-1329197/

I choose to respond to the most problematic of his statements for others to pursue if they desire to do so.

Apropos of nothing here, people's preference for whiskey over wine has a large impact on their health as red wine is good for you and whiskey is not.

This statement is what my counterexample proves to be false (given certain assumptions). Another example: Let's say that there are two religions: Religion A which is very harmful, and Religion B which is only slightly harmful, and no religion which is neutral. However, no religion is very unlikely, but Religion A and Religion B are equally likely. Under these assumptions, the expected utility of advocating for Religion B can still be higher than advocating for no religion.

I only spoke the to first bit of this and missed the bit bolded.

I was leading with this to a point. You've failed so far to make a case that either my faith is a contributing factor to religion, which you consider a net negative, or indeed that opposing religion is any more important than any of the issues I listed above. Having failed to make the case so far that religion and faith in each and every guise is a problem each of the issues I listed, poverty, racism, homophobia, sexism, inequality, injustice, all have very tangible negative societal consequences. Your actions in opposing religion may be less morally good than someone who tackles all of the issues above.

I'm not including myself in that group I, like most, do much less than I should. But the point remains, you consider me part of a problem that, on the strength of the case you've made thus far, is less consequential than other issues we face. A rational decision should be for us to maximise the good we can do when we choose to do good. The opportunity cost would seem to suggest our time better be spent on more pressing issues.

I was considering a post I wouldn't a debate because I think the topic would be much better served by someone else. I'd be very interested in the topic though.

I think the distinction between considering something a net negative and advocating it's removal is a really important one but it's only a part of the problem I have with opening a post.

It seems to me that I can take one of two positions.

1) I effectively argue that religion is a net positive on the basis that I consider the good to have come from religion to outweigh the bad. This seems really complex given the scope of the subject and would have to be much narrower to be of any use. Go with a specific church or tradition.

2) It's a trivial discussion given that we can't just compare the good to have come out of religion against the bad we have to compare all effects of religion against models of the world that exist in the absence of religion. I don't know we can answer this. This sort of fits with your point about distinguishing a negative and advocating somethings removal but it's not about the negative consequences of restricting our choices to doing things that are good for us it's about our inability to effectively model a world without any religion.

I think both positions have merit, as does the position religion has been a net negative, but I find the second position much more compelling and much less interesting. It seems dishonest to argue 1 when believing 2.

It's possible to restrict the scope of the discussion but I'm always going to struggle to get from 2 unless the discussion was made entirely contemporarily. It may then be possible to build the types of models necessary but then I'm absolutely convinced I'm not the poster to do that.

I definitely view it that way, there's no need to regard it as a claim, it's a fact. Religious activities and ideas aren't totally harmful, I can see that some have benefits.

Religion can't be inherently bad, there's nothing wrong with the idea, only how humans then behave as a result of religious beliefs. This is why I object on principle but have no illusions that anything will actually change.

What I was objecting to was that you said 'always pernicious', it's not.


The manner in which the religion is perpetuated by an individual may not be 'bad', but it perpetuates something which has a net negative overall effect. I don't think that any individual can just distance themselves from that and say 'well it's not me'. The church example specifically gets my goat because it's the manner in which Christianity is 'sold', everything about churches and cathedrals is purposely designed to reinforce the message, like some marketing campaign, and like some of the more unethical companies, this company isn't afraid to target children, starting at birth.

Debatable but not relevant, the comparison was made to illustrate that I consider one to be my problem, where the other isn't.


Yeah, I already responded to this.


Dammit, I was really trying to avoid proving Godwin right yet again but the example of the collective guilt of the German people is too juicy not to use here. I'm sure I don't need to elaborate.

The 'you' was a general you, i.e. everybody. If no one does anything, nothing will change but you as an individual are part of that collective.

I was simply making the point that religion is nothing more than a shared idea and like many other ideas, it would die if we decided not to share it anymore. I'm commenting more on the nature of religion than the form it's demise could take.

I think to be an accurate analogy you should get rid of the motivation for crime, then you wouldn't need police or prisons.

Then what is the christian church? You don't think that as an orgnisation it is also a system? Seems to me that it fits the definition perfectly.


I did infer it but if it's going to cause a digression then I retract it, it's not relevant.

Since you keep using the phrase 'holding to account', I have to ask you at this point what you mean by that?

Yes, to stop being part of my problem you would have to change your beliefs.

The frequency is irrelevant, you asked me how "How can you expect me to stop believing in that which I believe?". The answer is that you might just change your mind, plenty of people have.

True, but again, not really relevant to our discussion about religion being a net negative and the discussion will naturally encompass both faith and religion.

I'm working on it.

I don't belong to a church.

Don't say things that aren't true especially when you are inferring a position I had actually opposed.

Holding to account in this sense may be that you consider my beliefs a problem. You now admit that I can't stop being a problem unless my beliefs change. All you know of my beliefs is that I believe in God you aren't judging me by either the implications of my beliefs or their consequences

If you posit a solution that my beliefs are a problem and the problem can only be addressed by changing them you need to make a much better case that they are a problem. You don't know what my beliefs are so your arguing from a position of ignorance, this should be enough for you to actually consider what you're saying.

We aren't discussing whether religion is a net negative.

My action or inaction with regard to the other issues are completely irrelevant to how I feel about religion and our discussion. Unless... you want to get into specifics about why I consider religion a net negative and then we can talk about the religiously inspired poverty, racism, homophobia, sexism, inequality and injustice? I can actually add more to that list when I start thinking about the misery religion has caused over the centuries. I wonder by what percentage, global suffering of the type you've described would be relieved by the end of religion. I think it would be a significant number.

I fail to see how you can be part of a system of faith and not believe that your beliefs help perpetuate that system. Do you use money? Then you help to perpetuate the belief that those bits of paper and metal have a value, because actually they don't, it's just us agreeing that they do that makes money work. Like religion, money is just a shared idea, and when you use it, no matter how innocently or for what purpose, you help perpetuate that belief.

I'm not holding you solely to blame for religion, you're just the guy that's discussing it with me and yes, we undoubtedly could spend our time in more worthy activities. Again, not relevant to the discussion.

If you really don't think that you help to perpetuate religion then there's little to discuss. I could infer that since you don't think you help to perpetuate religion, that you must then either have no effect at all within the Christian church (presumably then you don't go to church?), or have a negative effect yourself and are actually helping in it's demise.

It may have gotten lost above, so I'll give it another try: (longer version above)

My point is that you wish to oppose religion for a reason. That reason is, or it seems should be, that religion and religious activities are immoral. If they aren't immoral why would it matter that they are wrong? If they are immoral then you are opposing them because you think it's morally good to do so, my point is that it may be morally better to spend your time opposing things that are morally bad or at least make the case you are trying to make better than the case that you are.

I'm borrowing an argument that Original Position used with regard to newguy but if my actions aren't immoral why do you care what beliefs I hold.

I'm interested in this because of my own attempts to understand my own moral positions. I got help from zumby, thankfully, and what I've come to understand is that we need to ground our morality. It's the problem of arguing for how things ought to be. It seems to me that we have to consider the intentions and consequences of actions and beliefs in order to call something moral or immoral. You aren't doing that, you're talking of my faith but you don't actually know what it is.

In fairness you aren't talking about my faith because you don't know what it is you're talking about some generalised aggregated belief system that you seem unable to define. This is why this discussion hasn't offended me, you can't be talking about me because you don't know me, what you are talking of is some superficial representation of my beliefs and this goes to the very heart of your problem you're lack of specificity. Even when talking in terms of an individuals beliefs you seem unable to talk to specifics rather than some generalities like system and religion.

It's relevant to the discussion if what you are trying to do is morally good and you could be doing something morally better.

You haven't made the point that I do.

I'm going to do you a favour. LessWrong is a blog/wiki that I found through Original Position, many thanks OrP. There's a sequence of posts from a atheist rationalist that I think could be very useful to you. Start maybe with this sequence

How To Actually Change Your Mind

Pay special attention to death spirals and the halo effect. If you haven't read these do, if you have read them read them again.

No, I haven't introduced morality because we couldn't really go any further without agreeing what morals really are and that would bog the discussion down endlessly I think.

One specific issue I have with religion is the way that curiosity can be stifled by 'goddidit' and that some religions have deliberately suppressed learning that contradicted their explanations. Are those immoral acts? I don't think it benefits this discussion to introduce morality as a means of defining the harm that religions can cause.

You believe in the christian god and you are publicly expressing that belief here on this forum. By that action, you help perpetuate the idea that there is a christian god in the minds of anyone reading this. In the act of saying it, you help keep alive the idea that there really is a god. There's nothing vague or unspecific about that, it's a fact.

I can't know in what other ways you help perpetuate that belief system IRL but unless you live in a cave completely cut off from society, which we know you don't, you will in some way be perpetuating the christian belief system.


Yes, so could you. How does that advance this discussion?


Ok, since you don't often require me to spend time reading linked info I'll read this. I'm always willing to learn.

Whatever it says, can't change the fact that you actively help perpetuate the system that you are part of. You might see yourself as just one individual having a barely negligible effect on how that system survives but you are actually part of a belief system of an estimated 2.6 Billion individuals and cumulatively, that's an awful lot of reinforcement going on every day.

Perhaps you consider it normal and don't think to question that there is a church in every village and town in this country. That's just how things are right? But, it's not how they need to be or might have been, that was a quite deliberate action by the religion that you are part of to ensure it's own survival. I wonder if you see the way that Christianity pervades our society the way that I see it.

Sorry, I had missed these.

Good question. I think there's a difference between Faith and what I'm doing. Faith can't be required unless there is a complete lack of evidence and I don't completely lack evidence. I simply don't have enough to build a convincing case and I'm limited in my ability to do that too. So, I have a general 'impression' that religion is a net negative in the same way that you presumably have an impression of whether or not that is true? Or do you have no opinion on it?

I've referred to Dawkins when I've felt that certain of my positions, ones that I know he shares, are being weakened by the fact that it's me arguing them. I've said this before. I'm not committing the Argument from Authority fallacy simply because I refer to an authority source.


Yes, I was wondering if this would occur to someone. However, during the discussion, I am also furthering the idea that religion is a net negative so I believe that my purposes are being served and I'm not inadvertently helping to perpetuate the system.

I'm not even sure at this point what debate I'm having. That one can be part of a system without necessarily helping to perpetuate that system? I need no knowledge of a system to argue that position. That I have knowledge of the system we're specifically discussing helps me to outline the ways in which it's followers help to perpetuate it, perhaps I should be listing those, I just didn't think I needed to, I was expecting resistance to the idea that religion has a net negative effect, not the suggestion that it's followers help to perpetuate it. As usual, the battle has been joined on a front entirely different from the one I'd expected.

So, here are some specific ways in which followers (and others inadvertently) may help to perpetuate the system of Christianity:

1) Publicly discussing a belief in the Christian god, thereby reinforcing the idea that there is a Christian god.

2) Attending church, thereby reinforcing the belief system amongst other followers through reassurance of it being shared by the peer group, and in being witnessed attending that ceremony, reinforcing the idea within the community.

3) Wearing the symbol of the cross

That'll do to start with.

The thing is morality in some sense has to be at the heart of your position because if an action has no moral consequence why should we care/

And curioisty can be stifled by not being curious. I agree with you here to a point fwiw but then you may want to make the case that curiosity is a good thing and that it being stifled is bad.

Do I and have I? Be careful that you aren't inferring this because I don't think I've said anything other than I believe in god.

You may want to consider whether I believe in the christian belief system before suggestng that I help perpetuate it.

Because I think it's reasonably important to know why you are having this discussion.

It's a great blog/wiki/site

In order to combat bias we need to understand them. Try reading this without any preconceptions of how it addresses some of the stuff that's come up in this thread.

I see representations of Christianity everywhere christianity is I won't judge it for being though I'll judge only it's consequences and it's intentions. Where I believe them to be wrong I will say so and where I believe them to be good similarly.

Bolded: sorry, not true.

From the other thread: You're invoking different standards: In the other thread, your expressed desire was to link faith and lack of evidence. To that end, you posited an extremely strict notion of evidence to the end that evidence that doesn't successfully lead to the "required conclusion" is, effectively, no evidence FOR the conclusion at all. If you want to posit that definition, you'll have to accept it for yourself as well. Given that no evidence you have leads to the "required" conclusion (otherwise, why not simply present it), by your own standards you have no evidence.

You have a general 'impression' that religion is a net negative - I have a general 'impression' that God exists. We both have evidence for our impressions - but no evidence that in any reasonable way could be deemed sufficient to lead to a "required" conclusion of religion being a net neg/God existing.

I will not let this slip into a discussion about the legitimacy of a belief in God - the only point I'm making here is what you're doing regarding your 'impression' is pretty much the same what I am doing regarding my belief. Something needs to give here - either you loosen your view of what can be evidence of something - which should have pretty sweeping ramifications regarding your entire view of the religious belief, or you accept that your statement that religions are a net negative has significant elements of statements of faith.

Only if you are succeeding in that regard. Do you think you're currently succeeding? Well, you're at the very least guilty of 1. I have just outlined above (and in that recent evidence-thread) how your current view lacks persuasive power. Insofar as it does, you all but advertize the rationality of my position. That's my entire point - either you want to argue the extreme view that basically ANY prima facie bona fide interaction with "the system" perpetuates to observes (and the people you interact with) the respectability of "the system". Then you're also guilty of it, and with you pretty much every human being in contact with "the system". Or you can't continue to hold your sweeping view.

You know what really sucks about this board? I really would have liked to talk and see what others say about some certain kinds of things, like this one in particular, but so many of these threads I can only get through a couple pages because by then everyone is chasing MB round and round the mulberry bush. I can only face-palm so much.

place people on ignore.

This is a reasonably low traffic forum and if the more interesting discussions, to those involved, include trying to get MB to state his position better then that's what is going to be talked about.

MB does appear to have a stalker...

see this is kind of ****house to be honest

I wasn't referring to you. I've just noticed that MB's posts on every thread get pounced on by someone. No offence to the parties involved but I tend just to skip past them these days so I have no idea if they are on topic or derails etc

I'm on my phone so can't provide a link but there are some solid studies that indicate that the presence of weak arguments for a position in proximity to strong arguments actually diminish the persuasiveness of the strong arguments. As a result, I see someone like mightyboosh as more detrimental to the advancement of secularism than someone like, say, dereds and that's why I argue with mb more often.

(Obviously not suggesting mb is some real irl problem for atheism...just in the RGT goldfish bowl)

Fair enough though I do think that accusation of stalking should be addressed to the stalker.

I've come to an accommodation with MB and I kinda think his heart's in the right place even if he doesn't but if he's going to post the volume he does it really would be better if he addressed those recurring weaknesses in his posts.

I was thinking of this point earlier even personally I know my weakest arguments do my best a disservice.