Does theism lead to immoral behaviour?

[mikkel_the_dane]

All countries have religion

Yeah, but that is not what was the point.

 

[Jimmy]

Yeah, but that is not what was the point.

Yeah it was see post 197

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yeah it was see post 197

Yeah, all degrees of religiosity are the same as just as all humans are exactly the same, because all humans have brains.

 

[Jimmy]

Yeah, all degrees of religiosity are the same as just as all humans are exactly the same, because all humans have brains.

I don’t think you’ve understood the conversation

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don’t think you’ve understood the conversation

Yes, I understand it. There are different versions of religion. And the results of them are different.

 

[Jimmy]

Yes, I understand it. There are different versions of religion. And the results of them are different.

Eh, if a low crime nation and a high crime nation had the others religion wouldve things been different? Doubtful. Like I said before. If religion Had never existed would the world be better? Chances are it would be worse.

 

[We Never Know]

I'm an atheist.

NSS!(No **** Sherlock). Your posts and your name are good clues of that.

If you paid attention you would know I am as well. Like I said before, that diarrhea of the mouth is interfering with your thinking

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Eh, if a low crime nation and a high crime nation had the others religion wouldve things been different? Doubtful. Like I said before. If religion Had never existed would the world be better? Chances are it would be worse.

There is no single one version of religion. That is the point.
And indeed we probably can't even agree on what religion is.

 

[Jimmy]

There is no single one version of religion. That is the point.
And indeed we probably can't even agree on what religion is.

43% pop in Australia are Christians 62% in USA . Not much difference yet Australia has a lot less crime so your observation is false

 

[F1fan]

Eh, if a low crime nation and a high crime nation had the others religion wouldve things been different? Doubtful. Like I said before. If religion Had never existed would the world be better? Chances are it would be worse.

Religions were formed as a way to organize early societies. They often had rules "from God" to be authoritative to the superstitious citizens. Notice how harsh many of the old Hebrew laws were, but today many of these would be crimes. Religion was the authority behind governing for many millennia until the Enlightenment when secular rule was considered the best approach. In Japan they had a divine Emperor until after WW2. They have since become secular.

So your assertion is that if anicent people did not employ superstition in their social management that there would have been less order? It's possible, as fear is a huge motivation against humans, expecially those without thinking skills. Look at the MAGA movement in the USA, that is an example of humans being motivated by emotions, even to the point of breaking laws.

 

[Augustus]

One is impacted by positive beliefs in the presence of things. Not by disbelief of them.

The idea that consciously disbelieving in something has no impact is obviously nonsense. Disbelief in the existence of gods obviously impacts attitudes towards theistic beliefs.

Being aware of either the presence or absence of things can be impactful.

I'm not impacted by my stance on unicorns, undetectable dragons or leprechauns.

Don't be silly. If someone said they saw a unicorn, I absolutely guarantee your stance on the existence of unicorns will impact your judgement.

In a world impacted by theistic belief systems, it is impossible that your stance on the existence of gods has absolutely no impact on anything whatsoever.

Humanism is not atheism. Atheism is not humanism.
The same goes for secularism.

Yes, that's why I said "secular humanism" and not atheism and said that atheism can form a significant component of belief systems.

Noting that something can be a component of an ideology is different from saying it is an ideology.

I disagree. Theism comes with doctrines on "how to live". Atheism does not.

There are no doctrines of theism any more than there are doctrines of atheism.

Here you are making the mistake of confusing theism with theistic belief systems like Christianity, Hinduism, etc.

Theism can form part of a broader ideology/worldview, just as atheism can.

This is why they are comparable.

True. Which is why in another post I put them all on the same pile.
For me, in such context, there isn't much difference between dogmatic theism and any other dogmatic ideology.
Take North Korea for example. Their ideology is like a "state religion". It's not theistic, but it certainly is dogmatic. Questioning and scepticism of the "recognized authority" is frowned upon, or even literally forbidden.

It's not just dogmatic ideology that can make good people do bad things, flexible and rational ideologies can do it just as well.

If you start from a utilitarian premise about the greatest good for the greatest number of people, you can have a very "rational" and evidence based set of policies where many people are killed to benefit the greater good.

Alternatively, you could decide that human exceptionalism is irrational, and because 1 human life results in the death of many other conscious creatures, killing humans is a good thing.

A more fact based worldview doe not equal a more humanistic one. Civilisation is really just a set of fictions we buy into because we see them as beneficial to our interests.

There's nothing wrong with this of course, the need to believe in narrative fictions are perhaps the defining characteristic of the human race that, as far as we know, best differentiates us from other animals and allows us to build more complex societies.

 

[Kenny]

You don't have to twist the message, it is about selecting what you want to believe. And even the most peaceful and moral of Christians refuse to edit or recompile the Bible. So everybody can read into it what they believed before.
If Christians were interested in spreading a consistent and moral message they would challenge the demagogues and crazies. Do they? Nope, they leave that to the atheists.

Yes... people read into it what they want to believe... but always, in the basic foundational beliefs, at the expense of other scriptures.

And who says Christians don't challenge what crazies say? (Not that we need to go chase fires... if you know they are crazies, it would be self evident.

Evolution.

Conscience is an evolutionary outcome? Science?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don’t think so

It's true from my perspective. I moved from the Bible Belt to an area that made the top post-Christian areas in America according to at least one Church survery. Amd things are so much better here that had I grown up here I probably wouldn't notice interracial couples because nobody here cares about things like that.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And, yes, a woman shouldn't usurp the authority of a man

That's some of the sexist garbage found in the Bible. Men do not inherently have authority ovwr woman, and there is nothing wrong with a woman having authority over a man.
And checking a noise? That has nothing to do with authority. Check it with a baseball bat? That's just paranoid to jump straight to that.

Not hard. Places of worship in those days were separated. Women in one area, men in the other. Trying to communicate to your spouse across the aisle in quite distracting.

It doesn't say men can't talk or ask questions, nor does it say they are to hang their heads in humility.

You aren't replaceable.

I'm not a possession.

apples and oranges - different religion. Not only do you go to the Law and out of the New Testament but then you also go to a different religion. Do you see why I say "You don't understand the bible?"

It's still the bull**** that honor brings.
And all I see is you wanting to pretend I don't understand the Bible as you make excuses to defend it's less savory parts.

Your point is quite hypocritical.

Nope. Just you making excuses for some of the indecency and inhumane aspects of the Bible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Or is it that you think that if a man is in the bedroom with a wife in the middle of the night and there is a noise outside of the house that the man should say to the woman, "OK, honey, it is your turn to get the bat and go check to see who is out there"?

The most Christlike approach to a break-in that I ever heard of was something that I read on a Quaker discussion board that I was on at the time:

The guy was awoken by a noise in the night. He went downstairs and found a burglar. Rather than attacking the burglar, he reassured him that he meant him no harm and started to talk with him, then put on a pot of coffee.

They talked about the burglar's life and choices until the morning, when the homeowner drove the burglar to a rehab facility as it opened for the day.

Apparently, the two of them still keep in touch.

 

[Ella S.]

I think that's an unfair comparison.

Atheism merely refers to the absence of a specific thing, while things like Humanism, Buddhism etc point to the presence of things.
Theism is a generalized term for the presence of a specific thing, which all theistic religions have in common.

You act as if the absence of something can't have consequences. If someone had their heart removed from their chest, there would be just as many consequences for the integrity of their body as there would be if the heart was present.

 

[Ella S.]

How about homophobic actions? Do you think christian fundies would be hostile to gay people if their religion didn't tell them that homosexuality is "an abomination"?
How about islamist terrorism? Do you think islamic fundies would be flying planes into buildings if their religion didn't glorify jihad / martyrdom?
How about the burning of witches? Do you think fundies in Nigeria would be burning women alive believing they are witches if their religion didn't tell them they shouldn't allow witches to live?

These are the exact examples I had in mind. In all of these cases, this behavior is not the result of theism. It is the result of a theistic religion or philosophy.

 

[Orbit]

These are the exact examples I had in mind. In all of these cases, this behavior is not the result of theism. It is the result of a theistic religion or philosophy.

It seems to me a distinction without a difference.

 

[Heyo]

And who says Christians don't challenge what crazies say? (Not that we need to go chase fires... if you know they are crazies, it would be self evident.

Examples?

Conscience is an evolutionary outcome? Science?

Empathy and reciprocity are evolutionary behaviors. We see it in birds and mammals but especially in primates and in social species more than in solitary ones.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You act as if the absence of something can't have consequences. If someone had their heart removed from their chest, there would be just as many consequences for the integrity of their body as there would be if the heart was present.

Your analogy suggests that we should take theism as the proper situation and atheism as a deficiency. This assumption is one that would need to be defended, not just taken as given.

What would make the absence of god-belief akin to not having a heart as opposed to, say, not having a potato in your pocket?