There are times I would never attempt to debunk it, such as the time my very Catholic aunt lost the baby she was carrying and desperately needed to think the baby was in heaven.

Unfortunately from personal experience I know some people that would be terrible human beings, unless they have a fear of a higher power and the threat of eternal punishment unless they behave.

You can't debunk it and why do you want to? It is 100% true that for some people religion is an important psychological support. In the US we have this freedom thing that you're free to believe what ever you want to, and if it makes them happy or give psychological support I'm very happy for them. Now if they wanted me to share the delusion there would be some strong disagreement.

If myth can serve useful purpose, while still being mythical, then why choose myth that is full of bigotry, judgementalism and tales of savagery?

If myth is beneficial, at least chuck out religion and choose a GOOD myth!

Why de-bunk it? It's true. Marx wasn't wrong, it's the opium of the people.

I've never felt the need to debunk another person's happiness or comfort, so long as it does not directly involve hurting anyone else. Live and let live: a lesson learned in life, known from the dawn of time.

Nod and smile and go on with my happy life.

Not possible to "debunk" feelings.
And, the fellowship provided by the gathering of like-minded persons is of significant social value. That is why there are all kinds of forums, meetings, organizations that provide such.

Here:

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality." -George Bernard Shaw

Why debunk it?

I don’t … I don’t take my disbelief to their front doors, their schools, their places of employment, their government, their military or their courts… But they do. So, they force me to defend my disbelief on a daily basis..

I laugh....

I don’t; it does. Doesn’t mean it’s advisable, prudent, intelligent, or wise to rely on, but it’s certainly an important placebo to those who are stuck on it, otherwise they wouldn’t be stuck on it. I make no judgement calls or attempts to talk anyone out of anything. It’s pointless. Lead a horse to water n whatnot. Whatever gets you through the night is fine as long as you don’t try to legislate it or shove it on me. I can only argue why I don’t need, nor would I be capable of accepting the placebo since I know what horseshit it’s made of already. And even that is usually a waste of time to try to explain to someone who thinks you need Jesus or whatever. You have to regard the makers of mentally ill claims as they are: mentally ill. You can explain to the schizophrenic why their paranoid delusions aren’t true all you like, but until their chemical embalances are treated you’re not gonna get anywhere.

As with addiction; -they state you cannot intervene until until the person is ready to change(however small that change;its a start
& shows open minded willingness).Its also
preferable to have objective;factual;reasoned;
and reasonable paths to facilitate the exceptance that a view(belief)or,or in case of addiction the relationship to substance or activity is causing very real harm.
I do not say it's impossible to get a "religious" person to change-just that ,until they themselves are open & looking critically
at thier beliefs it's like pouring gas on a fire.
They are obligated to defend+in some cases
promote the tenants of thier beliefs. Alot of harm can occur(especially deep seated SOCIAL religiosity/life long belief) if a patient,
-Do No Harm -approach is used/like with family;co-workers;spouses is not used
Thank you for the ques.!

Only people with a weakness need crutches.

This would be true for many people and that's why you cannot debunk it. This will remain true for them their entire lives or they might slowly change in time.

I don't. It does.

I wouldn't know what to say because everyone console themselves in their best way. I'm none to say what to use as a placebo.

It does serve this purpose for those with faith
Why would I debunk it?

We could ask them if the positive benefits are derived from the veracity of the religious claims, or other factors (social support, etc.) that are not predicated upon holding beliefs that are inconsistent with our understanding of how reality operates.

If we are willing to live in a world where we don’t value objective truth, then yes, let’s validate gods, unicorns, fairies, and leprechauns. Unfortunately, we would have to admit that we don’t care about reality, and are content living in epistemological anarchy.

I gave that up decades ago. Too much time and energy, to me it was wasted time. When it comes up I try very hard

A. To not smirk.

B. Not wrinkle up my nose in disgust.

C. Try very hard to not make them appear less intelligent.

While I see both sides of this, to answer your question, simply point out that

just because a medicine works doesn't necessarily mean that it's worth the side effects.

You agree with them and then point out that that just means those people have a mind that is easily tricked.

first they need to give examples, since people making the claim have the burden of proof. of course people making such claims often deny that the burden of proof is on them, since common knowledge is an exception to that rule, and they share common knowledge -- of something that is patently false. you could ask for medical sources that back up their claim. they won't have them. then you can say that anything could serve as the psychological support or placebo, without burdening them with rules of behavior that might be harmful to them, or to others. you might also find a rental copy of "dumbo" and point out that in the end dumbo flies WITHOUT the feather.

g

You can't debunk it if it's true...and it is.