I was going to make my own thread about this website. I have my own issues with it, many of the harms do not seem directly caused by belief in the thing in question. Sometimes the relation between the harm and the belief being talked about is shaky. Often I feel the failure of critical thinking lies elsewhere then the actual belief itself such as in reckless behavior or something else.
Examples;
The ghost section asks "What's the harm in believing in ghosts?". Several of them seem to be caused more by believing ghosts are dangerous rather than simply that they exist and a few others, such as the second one, are caused more by people recklessly trespassing on other people's property which is foolish regardless of basis in unscientific beliefs. I think the fourth one is the most convincing though, since the harm was directly caused by ascribing unexplained events to ghosts rather than doing a proper investigation, though. I would've included "catfish" under the lister parties harmed, though.
Of the four cases cited in the evolution denial section, 2 were caused more by the fact of disagreement than by whether or not creationism is foolish. The confrontations could've just as easily been between people of differing political or moral philosophies. Both examples were caused as much by people believing in evolution as they were by people believing in creationism. Same with the single example in the moon landing hoax section, which was caused by not thinking critically, but that lack of critical thinking was in the decision to harrass a stranger about a touchy subject, not in the personal belief itself. I would class these as "hate crimes", which I don't think the site's creator wanted to include. The other two examples were caused by people not paying heed to rules they should've been wello aware of, and again, the decision to be reckless in breaking rules is separate from the decision to believe in pseudoscience. I don't think one caused the other.
In the UFO section, again, 2 of the three examples were caused by sheer recklessness/rule-breaking. The third example is the famous Heaven's Gate cult.
In the Holocaust denial section, all but one example is due to laws against it in France/Germany. So the harm relates more to rule-breaking. The remaining example is someone being fired when their boss found stuff they posted on the web. If this counts as harm caused by thinking uncritically, I can list cases of atheists being fired in the bible belt as harm caused by thinking skeptically.
Some of the examples under "Scientology" sound more like rumor-mongering and implying correlation is causation, with descriptions such as "His body was found floating, fully clothed, off the Dunedin shore. His wallet was missing and his apartment back in Switzerland had been burglarized. He had been a member of Scientology." and "Philip was a promising student at MIT who was raised in Scientology. He committed suicide by jumping from a classroom building, on L.Ron Hubbard's birthday. His friends and classmates could not understand why." or "Originally from San Francisco, she was aboard a Scientology ship docked in Morocco when her body was found with a bullet wound to the head. There was no coroner's investigation of the death and many strange circumstances surrounding it.". One example even says, "He achieved a high level in Scientology, and then moved to Nova Scotia. There he was accused of sexualling abusing a girl. He committed suicide. His story is illustrative of how Scientology can ruin lives." How? It just says he got accused of sexual abuse after moving to Nova Scotia to do Scientology. Either some of these descriptions are very badly written, or some of these examples are fear-mongering. (I just read another example "He travelled to Clearwater, Florida to get a refund from Scientology. He was killed in an accident the day after he arrived." Which reads like conspiracy weaving. This one too, "He lived, ate and breathed Scientology, and traveled to Los Angeles to study it further. He fell to his death from the sixth floor of a church building in Hollywood. His mother said the suicide note found was not in his handwriting, and sued." These are mostly the only ones that sound like the site's contributors were just finding any mysterious death of a scientologist and attributing it to spooky shenanigans. Fortunately the other examples are less rumor monger-like and go more into people being driven in debt or harm from not treating psychiatric disorders.
Other examples;
Rituals are harmful because "During a social club ritual initiation, someone mistook a fully loaded gun for one loaded with blanks. He died of a gunshot wound - Unless practicing carelessness was part of practicing the ritual this is simply a basic violation of basic gun safety.
Voodoo is harmful because - "Coworkers accused Amy of placing "voodoo powder" on another coworker's doorstep. She was fired, and sued to get her job back" - Believing accusations of other people without evidence is always foolish whether those accusations involve voodoo or non-supernatural misdeeds.
That pretty much covers all the specific examples I think are problems on the site. most of the other examples do seem to cite harm caused by the belief in question.
