Does Atheism Lead to Immoral Behavior?

[muhammad_isa]

Women usually do not scream, and often don't fight back..

Right .. I'm sure it depends on the situation.

It would be better to avoid being alone away from public places.
In public places, one may scream and expect to be heard.

 

[Valjean]

Right .. I'm sure it depends on the situation.

It would be better to avoid being alone away from public places.
In public places, one may scream and expect to be heard.

How often do rapists pick public places to comit their crime?

 

[nPeace]

Yes, it is.

???
Then I must have misunderstood what you are saying...

They don't say that they are modifying their understanding. They say that the scripture always meant what prevailing understanding and sensibilities deem correct, or try to as much as possible - what I call motivated reading. I explained already what that term implies regarding their agenda, values, and methods. Ther purpose is to try to make what can now be seems an intellectually and morally flawed holy book consistent with the claim that it is the word of a tri-omni deity.

Would it be asking too much for you to simplify on my behalf?
It's not necessarily you fault. My brain might not be working so well.

Why would such thoughts be of interest or importance?

Since some people think that only certain people are allowed to express thier view of others, or others' 'way of life' or beliefs, etc., they ought to be of great interests and importance.

Agreed. Why did you want to tell me that? I'm calling the parts of scripture I cited hate speech. You haven't tried to rebut that. If you disagree, and it seems you do, please provide your reasons. Why in your opinion are those words not bigotry encouraging the demonization and marginalization of atheists?

I thought I did explain. In the same post you are responding to. I think I did, before also.
Were you referring to speech, other than what I mentioned?

Why do think I did? Morton described his experience with confirmation bias. If you think he's wrong, rebut him. Explain how and why what he said is not correct in your opinion

I'm saying you cannot use Morgan to describe the general populace of Christians... In the same way you wouldn't want me to use Charles Dawson to describe the general populace of scientists.

Only critical thinkers can defend one from indoctrination.

That's a myth. Factually - well educated people can avoid indoctrination. It just depends on the education.

The demon is a literary device, not an actual demon

That was in response to "My parents and teachers taught me right and wrong, as did friends later, but in the end, my system of values was built alone from the ground up beginning with the irresistible moral intuitions of my conscience. That process began in my mid-thirties, not long after leaving Christianity."

Yes, I meant that they all taught me right and wrong as they understood it.

Would you say your 'education' well before your mid thirties had a 'hand' in shaping your conscience?

I met a woman, fell in love, decided to live my life with her, and asked her to move in with me. She wanted the benefits of marriage, and I was happy to marry her.

It's optional. I don't consider cohabitating outside of marriage immoral.

So, you aren't married because it is the right thing to do, but because the other party wanted to.
I won't ask, since I don't want to get too personal, but in such a case, I wonder how much value the marriage vows really have.
I'm not asking, so please don't feel obligated to respond to that.

I would assume their parents, teachers, and friends as was the case with me. But I can't be more specific than that.

That's fair enough.
I suppose it's not possible to say how much of their 'values' were shaped by their own thinking, or religious thinking.

Yes, of course. He was a conservative American high school graduate and blue-collar worker, and were he alive today, would probably be MAGA. He and I didn't share many values.

Something we agree on.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We just want people to think twice, before being involved in such behaviour [adultery].

Didn't you also want adulterers executed?

Would it be asking too much for you to simplify on my behalf?

No problem. My comment was, "They don't say that they are modifying their understanding. They say that the scripture always meant what prevailing understanding and sensibilities deem correct"

You grow up learning that the seven days of creation are literal days, then discover they couldn't be, then say that that is what the scripture always said. Not for them it wasn't.

I'm saying you cannot use Morgan to describe the general populace of Christians

I used Morton to share his insights on confirmation bias. Not every Christian demonstrates one.

Factually - well educated people can avoid indoctrination. It just depends on the education.

If you don't have a means to recognize when a claim is justified and a commitment to rejecting unsupported claims, you are susceptible to indoctrination.

Would you say your 'education' well before your mid thirties had a 'hand' in shaping your conscience?

Yes. I remember many teaching experiences.

you aren't married because it is the right thing to do, but because the other party wanted to.

I would have been fine without being married if my wife preferred to remain unmarried, but I believe that I would have asked her eventually for her legal and financial protection, and if she were still uninterested, made equivalent arrangements for her future perhaps in a will.

I won't ask, since I don't want to get too personal, but in such a case, I wonder how much value the marriage vows really have.
I'm not asking, so please don't feel obligated to respond to that.

The vows are a gesture. My commitment was and still is real, but not because I uttered those words. If it had turned out that I had made a mistake, I would have divorced vows or no vows.

 

[nPeace]

No problem. My comment was, "They don't say that they are modifying their understanding. They say that the scripture always meant what prevailing understanding and sensibilities deem correct"

You grow up learning that the seven days of creation are literal days, then discover they couldn't be, then say that that is what the scripture always said. Not for them it wasn't.

Ah, thanks. That makes it very simple.
Although I know persons who taught that the seven days of creation are literally seven twenty-four hour days, still think that way, unless they either changed their religion, or left religion entirely, let's suppose that there are actually persons like that.
Suppose they adjusted that understanding based on the fact that the scriptures actually did not refer to those days being 24 hours long, and this they realized from other verses.
How is that not adjusting their view based on understand the scriptures through careful study?
Why do you think there is some kind of agenda there?

I used Morton to share his insights on confirmation bias. Not every Christian demonstrates one.

What... insight, or confirmation bias?

If you don't have a means to recognize when a claim is justified and a commitment to rejecting unsupported claims, you are susceptible to indoctrination.

Fair enough.
That goes for everyone who isn't given the best education, and critical thinkers, as well.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Didn't you also want adulterers executed?

I would prefer to live in a society, where people think twice before committing adultery.
i.e. they know it's wrong, and they could be punished

Today's Western society have no law against it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Right .. I'm sure it depends on the situation.

It would be better to avoid being alone away from public places.
In public places, one may scream and expect to be heard.

Are you trying to suggest that adult women should be chaperoned?

 

[F1fan]

I would prefer to live in a society, where people think twice before committing adultery.
i.e. they know it's wrong, and they could be punished

What sort of punishment, beheading? Why not just teach children to be honorable people instead of threats of death?

Today's Western society have no law against it.

Why would it need one? As it is divorces have ways of negotiating the division of assets that can punish an offending partner. That's not good enough for you?

 

[F1fan]

Ah, thanks. That makes it very simple.
Although I know persons who taught that the seven days of creation are literally seven twenty-four hour days, still think that way, unless they either changed their religion, or left religion entirely, let's suppose that there are actually persons like that.
Suppose they adjusted that understanding based on the fact that the scriptures actually did not refer to those days being 24 hours long, and this they realized from other verses.

Since you are going to be so liberal at supposing why not suppose the Bible is mostly symbolic and not literal?

How is that not adjusting their view based on understand the scriptures through careful study?

Study what? You admit there is a discrepancy with literal interpretation. I suggest studying how ancient people thought and believed, and realize they did not write stories to be assumed literal. I don't see many literalist Christians studying that set of facts. This only helps them ignore facts in science.

Why do you think there is some kind of agenda there?

What, do you mean with creationists, or other types of Christians proliferating bad interpretations of the Bible? Yes, they do have agendas, and the core agenda is to spread bad religion to as many people as they can influence. Back in the 90's there was a Christian right movement that worked to get a majority of the Kansas state school board. They got 6 of the 10 and started working to eliminate evolution in public schools. Lawsuits followed and slowed them down but they had ordered new biased text books that promoted intelligent design, and ordered teachers to stop teaching evolution, which teachers ignored due to protection from lawsuits. The citizens were largely duped because the movement didn't mention creationism, but intelligent design, and this fooled many people.

This whole scandal was resolved within a few years as one of these evangelical Christians got caught cheating on taxes, and resigned. And another was caught having an affair on her husband, so she resigned. The evangelicals tried again but the citizens were having none of the chaos.

 

[nPeace]

Since you are going to be so liberal at supposing why not suppose the Bible is mostly symbolic and not literal?

Liberal at supposing? What are you talking about.
Did I say anything about supposing? The Bible is not one Chapter, where one reads Chapter one, and conclude anything under the sun.
This is why Psalms 10:14 is quite fitting of the atheist.
We read and study the scriptures to understand.
Chapter by Chapter. Verse by verse.

Why would one need to suppose something when they have an explanation?
That doesn't make any sense, does it.

Study what?

The scriptures.

You admit there is a discrepancy with literal interpretation.

I have no idea where you got that from. I'd be interested to know where though.

I suggest studying how ancient people thought and believed, and realize they did not write stories to be assumed literal.

Sounds a bit biased to me.
The ancient tribe of Z did this, so all ancient people did this.
Let's apply the same principle to our modern people.
The modern people of V did this, so all modern people do this.
Unless of course we are really biased.

I don't see many literalist Christians studying that set of facts. This only helps them ignore facts in science.

That's probably because there aren't fact. Just the ideas some people dream up, in their quest to support their agenda.
We've studied modern behavior, you see, and we noticed that modern people have an agenda to promote atheism, and destroy anything opposed to it.
See how easy that was?

What, do you mean with creationists, or other types of Christians proliferating bad interpretations of the Bible? Yes, they do have agendas, and the core agenda is to spread bad religion to as many people as they can influence. Back in the 90's there was a Christian right movement that worked to get a majority of the Kansas state school board. They got 6 of the 10 and started working to eliminate evolution in public schools. Lawsuits followed and slowed them down but they had ordered new biased text books that promoted intelligent design, and ordered teachers to stop teaching evolution, which teachers ignored due to protection from lawsuits. The citizens were largely duped because the movement didn't mention creationism, but intelligent design, and this fooled many people.

This whole scandal was resolved within a few years as one of these evangelical Christians got caught cheating on taxes, and resigned. And another was caught having an affair on her husband, so she resigned. The evangelicals tried again but the citizens were having none of the chaos.

As shown above, we can use examples of certain people, to castigate all people of that 'occupation'.
So, in the light of that argument, all scientists are frauds, like the Piltdown Man clan.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why not just teach children to be honorable people instead of threats of death?

It doesn't seem to be working in the US.

Human beings need to understand the severity of wrong in adultery/fornication.
If the law does not reflect that, it is human nature that they might seek pleasure in something that not all people might see as "not honourable".

 

[Revoltingest]

It doesn't seem to be working in the US.

Human beings need to understand the severity of wrong in adultery/fornication.
If the law does not reflect that, it is human nature that they might seek pleasure in something that not all people might see as "not honourable".

Teaching kids religion doesn't seem to work in other countries.
My kids have no religion (atheists), yet they're honorable.
They've bombed no abortion clinics, embarked on no violent
jihads, attacked no mosques, waged no wars (neither religious
nor secular), stolen no land, never committed insurrection,
& never advocated socialism.

Tis better to be good than religious (IMO).

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

It doesn't seem to be working in the US.

Human beings need to understand the severity of wrong in adultery/fornication.
If the law does not reflect that, it is human nature that they might seek pleasure in something that not all people might see as "not honourable".

Frankly, what other consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of your business. Why are you so fixated on the sexuality of other people? As long as the sexual activity is consensual, it isn't against the law, nor should it be. It seems to me that you (and other Abrahamic theists like you) should be more concerned about the plank in your own eye than the speck of dust in someone else's eye. In other words, you (and other Abrahamic theists like you) need to learn to mind your own business and keep your nose out of where it doesn't belong. I assume you believe in sin against God, so I will ask you: are you without sin yourself? I seem to recall something in the Bible about the one who is without sin being able to cast the first stone. And, of course, there is this timeless adage: "Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones." Honestly, I wish that you and other Abrahamic theists like you would stop trying to push your religious beliefs onto other people. I prefer to live and let live, as long as other people aren't causing harm to others or violating the law.

 

[Revoltingest]

Frankly, what other consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of your business. Why are you so fixated on the sexuality of other people? As long as the sexual activity is consensual, it isn't against the law, nor should it be. It seems to me that you (and other Abrahamic theists like you) should be more concerned about the plank in your own eye than the speck of dust in someone else's eye. In other words, you (and other Abrahamic theists like you) need to learn to mind your own business and keep your nose out of where it doesn't belong. I assume you believe in sin against God, so I will ask you: are you without sin yourself? I seem to recall something in the Bible about the one who is without sin being able to cast the first stone. And, of course, there is this timeless adage: "Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones." Honestly, I wish that you and other Abrahamic theists like you would stop trying to push your beliefs off onto other people.

Muslims have very different values from
people who lean even slightly libertarian.

Edit for elaboration...
I prefer to limit my criticism to their religion.
I cut believers some slack for sincere practice
of morality based upon such beliefs.
And before anyone might get the mistaken
impression that I'm tolerant, I loathe Islam.
And Christianity & Judaism.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Teaching kids religion doesn't seem to work in other countries.
My kids have no religion (atheists), yet they're honorable.
They've bombed no abortion clinics, embarked on no violent
jihads, attacked no mosques, waged no wars (neither religious
nor secular), stolen no land, never committed insurrection,
& never advocated socialism.

Tis better to be good than religious (IMO).

I believe that your response is yet another excellent example that people don't need the Abrahamic God (or any gods) to be good people and make moral decisions. In fact, I believe that the belief in sinning against God (who may not even exist in the first place) is self-defeating and potentially harmful to a person's mental health and emotional well-being. Honestly, I think that Penn Jillette was spot on when he said, "The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want?" And my answer is: I rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them, they would go on killing and raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine." When I was a devout Christian, I believed that I had sinned against God, and this belief was detrimental to my mental health and emotional well-being. In fact, renouncing my belief in God and my Christian faith was the second-best decision that I've ever made for myself, and it has led to emotional healing. It was second only to the decision I made to confront my abusive mother and brother (who abused me for years) when I was eighteen years old. To be quite honest, I don't need or want the Abrahamic God in my life. There's no doubt in my mind that I'm much better off emotionally and spiritually without believing in this God. I finally feel peace in my life, and I feel content with my life.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Muslims have very different values from
people who lean even slightly libertarian.

A sweeping generalisation, of course..
Some people would see praying 5 times a day as extreme .. whilst others would not.

The same goes with so-called "Sharia law" ..
"Sharia" is a framework .. the law is for individual countries to decide on.

 

[Audie]

I believe that your response is yet another excellent example that people don't need the Abrahamic God (or any gods) to be good people and make moral decisions. In fact, I believe that the belief in sinning against God (who may not even exist in the first place) is self-defeating and potentially harmful to a person's mental health and emotional well-being. Honestly, I think that Penn Jillette was spot on when he said, "The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want?" And my answer is: I rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them, they would go on killing and raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine." When I was a devout Christian, I believed that I had sinned against God, and this belief was detrimental to my mental health and emotional well-being. In fact, renouncing my belief in God and my Christian faith was the second-best decision that I've ever made for myself, and it has led to emotional healing. It was second only to the decision I made to confront my abusive mother and brother (who abused me for years) when I was eighteen years old. To be quite honest, I don't need or want the Abrahamic God in my life. There's no doubt in my mind that I'm much better off emotionally and spiritually without believing in this God. I finally feel peace in my life, and I feel content with my life.

II've robbed every bank I ever wanted to rob.

If religionists want to set themselves up as my moral
Inferiors because only fear of God keeps them in
line, that's their business, and, maybe they are correct.
as

 

[Revoltingest]

A sweeping generalisation, of course..

You disagree?
I wouldn't prosecute anyone for marital infidelity,
sex outside of marriage, blasphemy, immodest dress,
& other "crimes" that harm no one.

Some people would see praying 5 times a day as extreme .. whilst others would not.

It certainly seems extreme to me.
But this is to be expected.
I've never prayed.

The same goes with so-called "Sharia law" ..
"Sharia" is a framework .. the law is for individual countries to decide on.

What Islam commands of Muslims shouldn't
apply to non-Muslims. We have our own laws.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Edit for elaboration...
I prefer to limit my criticism to their religion.
I cut believers some slack for sincere practice
of morality based upon such beliefs.

To be quite honest, I don't care what religion other people practice as long as they don't preach, proselytize, or threaten me with eternal damnation in hell if I don't convert. Likewise, I won't try to convert them by reciting the Wiccan Rede, woo them by telling them that my gods love them and want to save them, guilt-trip them by telling them that they've transgressed against my gods, which has angered them, and threaten them with eternal damnation in hell if they don't convert. In other words, I don't expect or demand that they accept my spirituality, and I won't try to convert them by forcing it down their throat. I think other people should be free to practice whatever religion they want, but I will confront them if they continue to try to convert me after I've told them I'm not interested. I will also stand up and confront someone if it becomes evident that their religious beliefs are causing harm to others, such as a fanatical husband beating his wife because she does not submit to him like the Bible instructs wives to do and/or abusing his children because they dare to question his purported authority as the spiritual leader of the home, as the Bible also teaches. As a legal advocate for battered women and their children, I've assisted many Christian women (as well as Muslim women) in escaping abusive marriages in which they and their children suffered abuse.

And before anyone might get the mistaken
impression that I'm tolerant, I loathe Islam.
And Christianity & Judaism.

I'll be honest and say that I had a negative impression of Islam before I began participating in this thread, but the replies from the Muslim member in this thread have permanently sealed that negative impression. I also have a negative impression of Christianity, and if it weren't for the few Christians whom I know who practice what they preach, I would loathe Christianity. I don't know enough about Judaism to provide an accurate evaluation of the religion.

 

[Revoltingest]

To be quite honest, I don't care what religion other people practice as long as they don't preach, proselytize, or threaten me with eternal damnation in hell if I don't convert. Likewise, I won't try to convert them by reciting the Wiccan Rede, woo them by telling them that my gods love them and want to save them, guilt-trip them by telling them that they've transgressed against my gods, which has angered them, and threaten them with eternal damnation in hell if they don't convert. In other words, I don't expect or demand that they accept my spirituality, and I won't try to convert them by forcing it down their throat. I think other people should be free to practice whatever religion they want, but I will confront them if they continue to try to convert me after I've told them I'm not interested. I will also stand up and confront someone if it becomes evident that their religious beliefs are causing harm to others, such as a fanatical husband beating his wife because she does not submit to him like the Bible instructs wives to do and/or abusing his children because they dare to question his purported authority as the spiritual leader of the home, as the Bible also teaches. As a legal advocate for battered women and their children, I've assisted many Christian women (as well as Muslim women) in escaping abusive marriages in which they and their children suffered abuse.



I'll be honest and say that I had a negative impression of Islam before I began participating in this thread, but the replies from the Muslim member in this thread have permanently sealed that negative impression. I also have a negative impression of Christianity, and if it weren't for the few Christians whom I know who practice what they preach, I would loathe Christianity. I don't know enough about Judaism to provide an accurate evaluation of the religion.

I imagine that some religious folk have a negative
impression of us. Even non-religious people often
express disdain for being too permissive, eg, free
speech, free economic association. They want a
more authoritarian society, but for secular reasons.
Happiness & well being depend upon government
controlling us to those ends.

Homer enters an alternate reality where Ned Flanders
ensures everyone's happiness....