I guess he's talking of me, but I'm sure both MB and I agree that neither of us is stalking the other. As he said, I'm his favorite Neo Nazi. What's not to love.

And as Husker stated that he based his comment more on the visible back and forth rather than the content of it, I didn't take it to be meant in bad spirit or something.

Yeah that's fair enough I may have been a little presumptive.

okay, well, I've proven the bolded is only sometimes true, so you should stop saying it as an absolute statement.

No you didn't. You need to read this closer because you don't seem to understand it. Your antireligious views are based on a utopianism and here I'm providing anti-utopian arguments. I don't agree with your views about collective guilt and responsibility, but my argument shows that even if religion is a net negative it is not always wrong to perpetuate it (in fact, it would be the right thing to do). Under my argument, it is you pushing your antitheism that is perpetuating an evil system.

Yes, you do need to elaborate. Anyway, my guess is that you didn't actually understand my post, so you should probably read it again first. I'm not challenging the idea of collective guilt, I am challenging the claim that we shouldn't seek to perpetuate something just because it is a net negative. That has nothing to do with the Nazis.

I can't answer that, I simply don't have the philosophical tools to even try. If the conversation relies on that then I guess it won't be going any further for now.

Of course it could be argued that some types of curiosity are bad (what happens if I press this red button?) but in the context of this discussion I thought it would be obvious that I'm talking about the type of curiosity that drives some individuals to understand what they observe in the way that Galileo did. That type of curiosity can be stifled by goddidit and I doubt anyone would agree that that's a good thing for us as a species.

lol ok. Where do you stand on your beliefs, what faith are you part of, which god do you believe in? This isn't a trap, I don't mind if we use you or a hypothetical believer to discuss the subject.

Because I should be working and this is more fun. I do occasionally think about giving some time to something more worthy but I can't choose what that should be.

Sure. It looks very interesting.

So there are occasions where you will espouse the 'good' about Christianity?

It was wasn't it? Husker quoted Duco and Duco certainly fits the bill.

What can I say except ouch and thanks.

Heck no, I'm really glad you're back posting here.

Do I have to write 'I have this impression that' before 'religion is a net negative' every time I write it ITT?


Ok, then I didn't understand the logic of either point and need to have another look.

Urk. The dreaded 'evidence' problem. I haven't followed through on my intention to clarify this on a legal forum. Between this and the apparent requirement to clarify the moral consequences of religion, I don't see this discussion going much further.

Unknown, you don't know how many lurkers might be influenced one way or the other.

So by drawing attention to Male Chauvinism, Emily Pankhurst was in fact just reinforcing the respectability of it? Gays are just drawing attention to the respectability of heterosexuality by challenging homophobia? Ect etc. 'I'm gay, deal with it' is a more convincing argument against homophobia than my 'net negative' viewpoint?

Sometimes, all that is required for change to occur is for enough people to say 'but the emperor has no clothes on' and let's face it, that's what has been happening for the last few hundred years and look where we are now with regard to religion and the level of belief/criticism. I don't think that I'm strengthening religois beliefs by attacking them, no matter how incompetent that attack might be.

The tools are only a part of it albeit a useful part but if you are going to rail against something like you do religion you need to know what it is your attacking and you need to be able to describe that adequately. I don't think you do this.

I'm just trying to encourage you to not post assumptions as facts,

I don't belong to a church, I posted this up thread and you missed it. You've assumed this though I will have posted about my prior christian affiliations before so you may have picked it up there. I've also mentioned before why I left the church also in response to a post of yours.

I'm not ever going to argue more worthy only maybe more effective.

I will espouse the good about whatever I feel is good and rail against the bad whatever I feel is bad. I'm trying to understand this better but it's going to be based on intentions and consequences rather than trying to establish a worldview that dictates my position before I have evidence to support it.

I think it may have been Fret either way I was a little quick.

I'm sure we could both find religiously inspired harm and agree it immoral but you're asking a higher level question when you ask " if an action has no moral consequence why should we care?"

How am I supposed to counter that and if I can't, can the discussion continue? I tried to sidestep the morality issue but I'm not sure it's possible. If we include faith in this then there's the debate about what constitutes evidence. there doesn't seem any way to avoid regressions, no one seems prepared to accept common assumptions.

So there have been times when you've said things that could be considered as positively helping to perpetuate a religious belief? I.e. you weren't being negative (which in any case Fret posits could still be considered helping to perpetuate the belief).

Have I identified something that fits my criteria for you having helped perpetuate religion?

I don't think it's a higher level question I think it's fundamental. If we engage in the kinds of discussions we do about problems and issues especially relating to religion then it has an inherently moral aspect which we can't ignore.

To the second point then possibly. But if you take that in isolation I think you're committing an error. Firstly it's going to need some context and secondly it should probably be weighed against the criticisms I've had of churches and church policy.

Sorry, I can sympathize with you trying to disregard the elephant in the room, but that doesn't make the elephant go away. Let me restate a condensed version:

Either your views about religions and evidence have merit. Then your position about the net negative of religions is not substantiated by evidence because the evidence you propose does not meet your own standard. Thus it becomes little more than a statement of faith, a religious statement if you will, regarding which you can then be rightfully accused of delusion (a connection you invoked yourself earlier).

Or your views about evidence for/of <something> are indeed wrong. Then your position about the net negative of religions is substantiated by evidence (and we could go on to discuss whether it's enough or persuasive), yet your entire critique of religions fostering a climate of faith without evidence implodes.

I am not asking you to state definitively for WHICH side you're opting (I suggest door # 2), but you must acknowledge that it's gotta be one of the two. Hence, it appears you're holding a double-standard when it comes to evidence you accept for your own views, compared to evidence when it comes to religious views of others. You should acknowledge (from a strategic argumentative PoV) that holding positions that let you get put on the spot like this are likely incorrect (the opposition you're getting itt from both sides should tell you the same, but that's a different matter)

You're evading. We could put this in more definitive terms if you wish: Suppose you and I had this discussion in a debate format and OrP, Zumby and Aaron had to judge who comes out ahead. The point stands (and the comments of zumby regarding the persuasiveness of arguments echo this): Your statement "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." is only true if you actually win these discussions. Otherwise you ARE actually perpetuating the system (whatever that might be; something you've still not answered, I think). Given that, don't you think you should actually start with a restrictive and well-defined set of core assertions of which you are certain that you can defend them, rather than more or less always start with the most sweeping view possible and then get reined in further and further? As zumby indicates, this runs the risk of even the final position (as it's one arrived at by retreat) to appear much weaker than the other side. This can't help your case, can it?

Nope, that's not what I said. I was referring to a specific point (you arguing the existence of a christian god) and you generally not making a highly convincing appearance in these discussions. If you were indeed just doing what Pankhurst did, you'd simply call attention to the degree in which religions indeed ARE causing problems. No one will object (not many anyways) if you like the hardcore right and anti-abortion/anti-contraception crusades. It's the sweeping claim that all religions in general are a net negative that gets you into trouble.

Insofar as these attacks fail, Zumby might just have indicated otherwise (I hope he can provide some links).

I rank theism as about third on my list of "do not wants" in a wife.

It's behind being a Sheffield Wednesday fan, and liking Thatcher.

I could probably overcome any of them, but she'd have to be a pretty good cook.

Ok then take my example of the side effect of religious beliefs which is the stifling of curiosity of the type that furthers our understanding of what we observe (think Galileo), is it moral or immoral?

The point is that you have engaged in behaviour that helped perpetuate religious beliefs. In your estimation, have you done more to perpetuate religious beliefs or to bring them into doubt?

Well that explains the name. I'm from Sheffield, I was once a pretty hardcore Wednesday fan too.

At least you're not from Leeds.

You say you are interested in learning, but you keep coming back to that naive and simplistic viewpoint, thereby demonstrating that you have not yet learned anything.

I do understand your point. In no way am I engaging faith but I suppose the only way to settle it is to present evidence for why religion is a net negative. I was put on the spot the second I opened my mouth.

This discussion won't stay in one place, first it's about perpetuating the system, then it gets sidetracked by issues of morality why we should care about anything that doesn't have a moral consequence, and then by exactly what faith is, then it becomes about whether my 'impression' that religion is a net negative or not is me using faith because I can't offer evidence to prove it...

I had been hoping to have this discussion from the premise that IF religion is a net negative then.... blah blah blah. It seems I won't be allowed to.

No I don't think I have to win to further that goal. If someone reads this who had never even considered that possibility before, it's furthering that goal.

Yes, that would be much better wouldn't it. I can see now how it would go though. I wouldn't even get past the very first assertion.

Can I ask whether you feel that religion has a net positive or net negative effect?

We all hate Leeds.

Tracing backwards, it looks like "that goal" stems from the following statement:

Is "that goal" to further the idea that religion is a net negative? Or is "that goal" to not help to perpetuate "the system" (whatever it is)?

If it's the first, then putting forth bad arguments does not further that goal, as Zumby noted. If it's the second... what is "the system"?

I'd say it depends on the motivations. I think it's possible to be wrong on certain questions and it not be a question of morality but of science. I also think it's possible to be wrong on the same questions and for it to be immoral. I think we need to understand this as a position on certain questions rather than trying to generalise past the point of usefulness.

The honest answer is that I don't know but I'd argue that irrespective of that answer I hope I've done more to perpetuate moral beliefs than immoral ones and that's much more important.

Sorry, you are evading (perhaps unwillingly). The point was not that you have to present evidence or else... The point was that the definition of evidence you've so far espoused leads to one of two conclusions.

Allow me to remind you yet a third time:

"Evidence relevant to murder isn't evidence of murder. In the context of murder, murder being the required conclusion, it's therefore not evidence."

Either you have evidence of the required sort. In your diction "Evidence, that would require one to draw the conclusion that religions are a net negative influence." If so, your requirements of evidence for religions' claims were consistent with your requirements for evidence for your present claim.

However, you've stated multiple times in this thread, that you don't have this kind of evidence, that this is (just) an impression of yours etc. (see your latest reply to OrP). According to your own definition of evidence, that would mean you have NO evidence for religion being a net negative. So you have two choices: Either you abandon your previously held position on evidence (as you just realize that in other situations where you CLAIM you have evidence, you don't match the standards you've set yourself) OR your view regarding evidence when it comes to religion is inconsistent with the conditions you hold yourself. That would mean you employ a double standard.

Third time's the charm: What is it?

. OrP demolished your position under that particular assumption like 50 posts ago.

I think the question borders on unintelligible. What is "religion"? Everything from the last tribal cult in back-ass Sahelzone to Catholicism? Just Catholicism? Every religious system that ever was and will be? "Just the bad ones"?
What is a "net positive/negative" effect? How would I even attempt to measure that? Happy-points? Life expectancy? Wealth? Utility-quants? So far, your position is just a statement. I might just as well say "Green leaves are inferior!" and dare you to prove me wrong.

But to the extend that I can make sense of the question - sure I'd say that historically (in a comprehensive view) religions have had a net positive effect. If you wish, we can take some subset of this entirely untenable broad claim and discuss that further. How about science - this is probably where you can make the strongest claim? So have at it - try to show that religionS have historically had a net negative influence on science.

Quick observation while I have a moment free: to say that religion is a "net negative" is almost certainly a de facto moral claim.

Yes this is a classic example of lack of specificity. I'd compare it to a statement like "culture is a net negative" - so much needs to be unpacked and made explicit that discussing it without further clarification is impossible. Which means it's hard to get any traction when you (mb) call such requests for clarification "diversions" or "sidetracks" or w/re (not got time to look back through the thread for exact quotes right now)

MB,

I echo Frito's comments regarding the use of the word "religion". Saying that religion does "x" or causes "x" is so vague it is almost void of meaning. Would be very helpful to have comments specified to a time period and religious group.

Do I have to write 'I have this impression that' before 'religion is a net negative' every time I write it ITT?

Absolutely! And not only IIT, probably beneficial IRL too. Qualifying this statement makes all the difference. It is important to let your listeners know that this opinion is merely based on an impression, otherwise it sounds like a statement of fact (or what you think is fact). If you don't qualify statements like this you will continually be called out for hyperbole and exaggeration.

Any thoughts on the examples I gave in post #88? Does this help to balance your impression at all?