Does theism lead to immoral behaviour?

[We Never Know]

Again:

Every actual example of theism is a belief in a specific god, including beliefs about what that god has done, commanded, promised, etc.

Atheism in and of itself is not an action or a belief. While people can hold beliefs or take actions that are consistent with atheism, these beliefs and actions are not atheism themselves, or even consequences of atheism.

Just as we don't call things a theist does that are unrelated to their god-belief "consequences of theism," we don't call things that an atheist does that are unrelated to their atheism "consequences of atheism."



Ironic.

The approach you're complaining about is consistent. The special pleading is all coming from you.

If Bob the christian gets drunk and lays with whores, he is sinning and disobeying god

.......

If Bill the atheist gets drunk and lays with whores, he is....?

 

[Heyo]

Maybe you have different definition for phobia.

There are different definitions or at least usages for phobia and philia.
The translation of "fear" for phobia only really works for psychology.
You wouldn't say that molecules can have feelings but chemistry describes them as "hydrophobic" or "lipophilic".
Being haemophilic in medicine doesn't mean that you love blood.
Xenophobia is not only the fear but also the hate of strangers in sociology.
So, it really depends on the context.

 

[Heyo]

I don't see any reason to think those needs magic. Only thing needed is right understanding.

Again, take that up with those Christians who insist to understand it as magical.

But just out of curiosity, how do you understand the fairy tales? Would you say that every story that alludes to magic is just a story and it didn't really happen?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don’t think so

This is not a matter of opinion. Numbers don't lie.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All countries have religion

And the more religion it has, the lower overall societal health indexes are.

Such statistics clearly demonstrate that having more religion does not, in any way, lead to a society with less crime or higher morality. Not even remotely.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

I don't bother with checking profiles of people. I just respond to what is being posted.
If your post was sarcasm, then it wasn't clear at all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You act as if the absence of something can't have consequences.

Well, they don't in the sense of influencing your actions and decisions.

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.

This is an equivocation fallacy. We are talking about beliefs.

Beliefs inform your actions and decision making.
Disbeliefs don't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Theism is the generalized word that encompasses all theistic religions.
Any theistic religion comes with doctrine.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I assume you would say there is a difference between atheism and an atheistic ideology, why not distinguish between theism and a theistic ideology too?

Because "atheistic" refers to the absence of a thing, while "theistic" refers to the presence of a thing.

The only thing you know about "atheistic ideology", is what the ideology does NOT include. You don't know anything else.
While a "theistic ideology" literally refers to the presence of very specific things.
You KNOW it centers around a belief in a personal god. As such, you can have a basic idea concerning what it is about.

Neither theism or atheism do anything on their own, although they can both form one part of a broader ideology.

This is just false.
Theism as a word tells you a whole lot about what a person believes.
Atheism only tells you about what a person does NOT believe.

What justifies the behaviour is the broader ideology,

True. But beliefs inform actions and decisions. Disbeliefs don't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Maybe you have different definition for phobia. I don't think it leads to fear of anything. But, why would fearing be immoral? Especially in today's world, it seem legitimate when it appears that homosexuals have also strong tendency to fascism and totalitarianism and other unrighteous things.

However, I think there is no reason to fear anything.

The word "homophobia" doesn't necessarily refer to a "fear of".
It rather refers to general negative attitudes towards it.

Note the use of the word "or".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't see any reason to think those needs magic. Only thing needed is right understanding.

All of them require the suspension and / or violation of natural / physical laws.

That's "magic" by definition.

 

[1213]

There are different definitions or at least usages for phobia and philia.
The translation of "fear" for phobia only really works for psychology.
You wouldn't say that molecules can have feelings but chemistry describes them as "hydrophobic" or "lipophilic".
Being haemophilic in medicine doesn't mean that you love blood.
Xenophobia is not only the fear but also the hate of strangers in sociology.
So, it really depends on the context.

Ok, thanks, that was nice answer. However, even if the definition for homophobia is homohate, I think it is not good generalization. People can be against many things without it being hate related. For example, if I am against robbing banks, does it mean that I have robphobia? No, it can just mean that I think the action is wrong. In my opinion the desire to pigeonhole all people under some insulting term is stupid and wrong. And it is interesting that the alphabet group seems to have very strong urge to pigeonhole all people under some word or letter.

 

[1213]

...Would you say that every story that alludes to magic is just a story and it didn't really happen?

I believe things went as told in the Bible, but I don't think any of it requires magic. But, obviously this depends on what do you think magic is? Is magic everything you don't understand or can't do?

 

[Augustus]

Because "atheistic" refers to the absence of a thing, while "theistic" refers to the presence of a thing.

The only thing you know about "atheistic ideology", is what the ideology does NOT include. You don't know anything else.
While a "theistic ideology" literally refers to the presence of very specific things.
You KNOW it centers around a belief in a personal god. As such, you can have a basic idea concerning what it is about.

Both give you information.

Given the difference between theistic belief systems throughout history is about as great as those between atheistic belief systems, it gives you about the same information, or close enough not to quibble it.

There is also debate if it necessarily refers to a personal god as you can see in this thread.

This is just false.
Theism as a word tells you a whole lot about what a person believes.
Atheism only tells you about what a person does NOT believe.

One says you believe in god, one says you don't.

Both are equally useful information.

If someone tells you they are an atheist, you know something about them and can often make assumptions with reasonable confidence based on the circumstances. Same if someone tells you they are a theist. No information exists in a vaccum.

If told "Person X was an atheist from Germany/Germania and Person Y was a theist from Germany/Germania", you would probably be better able to predict characteristics of person X imo (obviously with a significant margin of error).

All you know factually is 1 thing either way though.

True. But beliefs inform actions and decisions. Disbeliefs don't.

This really shouldn't be difficult to understand: disbeliefs inform actions and decisions too. Disbelief is simply adopting the position that X is not true.

You honestly don't think you are impacted in any way by things you decide are not true? As someone who cares about reason and rationality, you can't seriously be saying that surely?

My atheism certainly influences how I view theistic belief systems. My disbelief in ghosts influences how I view bumps in the night and 'faces' in the curtains. My disbelief in the healing properties of prayer and homeopathic remedies influences my response to illness, etc.

 

[Heyo]

I believe things went as told in the Bible, but I don't think any of it requires magic. But, obviously this depends on what do you think magic is? Is magic everything you don't understand or can't do?

Magic is everything that requires the suspension of general laws of physics. The Bible is full of those stories. They couldn't have happened. Some of the "miracles" of Jesus can be explained as stage magic, i.e. fooling people with smokes and mirrors. Stage magic, or better, illusion, is explainable by the laws of physics.
But you won't say that Jesus did fool people, do you?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Magic is everything that requires the suspension of general laws of physics. The Bible is full of those stories. They couldn't have happened. Some of the "miracles" of Jesus can be explained as stage magic, i.e. fooling people with smokes and mirrors. Stage magic, or better, illusion, is explainable by the laws of physics.
But you won't say that Jesus did fool people, do you?

Yeah, and now you are at it, solve the cosmological principle.
"The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists.
William C. Keel (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd ed.). Springer-Praxis. p. 2. ISBN 978-3-540-72534-3."

 

[Heyo]

Yeah, and now you are at it, solve the cosmological principle.
"The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists.
William C. Keel (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd ed.). Springer-Praxis. p. 2. ISBN 978-3-540-72534-3."

Where's the problem? What is to "solve"?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Where's the problem? What is to "solve"?

That the laws of physics are not a fact. They are based on a philosophical principle.

 

[muhammad_isa]

And the more religion it has, the lower overall societal health indexes are.

Such statistics clearly demonstrate that having more religion does not, in any way, lead to a society with less crime or higher morality..

Sorry .. more damned lies and statistics.
You are ignoring other factors altogether .. such as poverty.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Sorry .. more damned lies and statistics.
You are ignoring other factors altogether .. such as poverty.

In what way/s do you believe poverty and religion correlate?