Does theism lead to immoral behaviour?

[SkepticThinker]

No not that .. the fact that the West is dominating the world, and is not happy until Muslims have the same moral values and religion [or none] as them.

I want all human beings on the planet to be treated with dignity and equality. If Islam is against that, then I'm against Islam.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Rubbish!
I said "I never said it was .. but it might be .. particularly in war."
..so "leaving Islam" MIGHT be treason .. defection in a war is a good example.

That still doesn't make sense. Islam isn't a country.

 

[muhammad_isa]

That still doesn't make sense. Islam isn't a country.

..and nor is "the West"

 

[Heyo]

Rubbish!
I said "I never said it was .. but it might be .. particularly in war."
..so "leaving Islam" MIGHT be treason .. defection in a war is a good example.

So, you refuse to answer the question. That's telling. It tells me that you know that Islam is immoral and self contradicting but you are not willing to talk about it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

..and nor is "the West"

Yes, I'm aware.

But what's that got to do with anything?

Are they also free to quit following whatever religion they happen to follow? Without any consequences whatsoever?

You: That depends..
Treason is punishable by law.
..much like when people become spies in the West, and default to the East or what have you.

 

[ChristineM]

No not that .. the fact that the West is dominating the world, and is not happy until Muslims have the same moral values and religion [or none] as them.

The west does not give a damn about muslims just so long as they don't fly planes into buildings or impose their totalitarianism on democratic countries.

Is that what you mean by moral values?

It's actually islam that is intolerant of other religions.

 

[ChristineM]

Oh .. come on..

"..much like when people become spies in the West, and default to the East or what have you."

It was your answer and reproduced exactly. And I'm not the only one to notice

 

[muhammad_isa]

The west does not give a damn about muslims just so long as they don't fly planes into buildings or impose their totalitarianism on democratic countries..

Not true.
Capitalism has spread all over the world.
..when Muslims decide they don't want it, they are judged to be in the wrong,
despite the fact that they might be in the majority.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So, you refuse to answer the question..

I did better than answer the question .. I explained my answer!

 

[ChristineM]

Not true.
Capitalism has spread all over the world.
..when Muslims decide they don't want it, they are judged to be in the wrong,
despite the fact that they might be in the majority.

And islam is spreading at greater rates than any other religion, so your point is?

It is allowed to build its mosques anywhere. The small town of 140k residents that i used to live and work is 12% muslim with 10 mosques. How many muslim towns can claim the same for non Muslims?

Capitalism is accepted and revered by most Muslim countries. Certainly the ones who want to sell their oil to the west.

 

[Heyo]

I did better than answer the question .. I explained my answer!

By alluding to treason - which you later recanted.

You also said "it depends" but you didn't state what it depends on.

This conversation reminds me off a TV debate where it took Richard Dawkins multiple tries to get a Muslim scholar to answer the question "what is the punishment for apostasy under Sharia law?". It was very clear that the scholar knew the answer but wasn't willing to give it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Christianity teaches that if you sin all you need to do is to apologize to God and everything is okay.

Just close your eyes, bow your head, put your palms together, and mutter at the ceiling fan, and get you some forgiveness on demand, and no need to get it from whomever you have harmed.

"Christianity is not a moral system. It is an immoral system, because it specifically says that there aren't necessarily consequences that you have to pay because of a loophole. And what is the loophole? It has nothing to do with how good you are or how morally you act. It has to do with whether you are willing to be a sycophant to an idea." - Matt Dillahunty

I can't think of any immoral action that I have ever seen that was justified by theism.

What do you suppose underlies American Christianity's efforts to make women breed mares for the state and to persecute LGBTQ+ if not the belief that this is what Jesus wants (I'm assuming that you consider both of these immoral)? It informs their voting such that they will vote for monsters if they think the monster will promote Jesus' will, and they got what they wanted. Now, certain states are seeing OB-Gyn services contracting or disappearing as clinics decline to incur the liability and as physicians move out of such states.

The common justification I've heard from Christians for their bad behavior toward others has been "hate the sin, love the sinner."

And they do as they understand love. Look at the Christian model for love. The ultimate act of love required a blood sacrifice. This deity's love includes the creation of a torture pit stocked with demons. It's love includes marginalizing gays and atheists, both described as abominations worthy of eternal punishment. By that understanding of love, hate is love. Bigotry is love. That's considered loving the sinner.

I would say that both are wrong. Neither theism or atheism leads to immoral behavior. It is the spiritual state of man and/or the failure to renew one's mind (from stinking-thinking to God-thinking) - that leads to immoral behavior.

This is you saying that theists are more moral. Just trade out one's atheistic stinking-thinking for some theism to trade failure for renewal and less immoral behavior.

And islam does its fair share of "squabbling" between shia and sunny

I think they got divorced eventually before he died. And you misspelled Cher. And Sonny.

I don't know what magic Bible requires to be true. I don't think any of it goes against the laws of physics.

You can't make a human being from dust, and if you use a man's rib to create a female, you get a clone of the man.

I don't know how Jesus did it. But, that he did so, is not necessary against laws of physics.

Walking on water violates the laws of physics if one is above a certain weight. Spiders can do it, but not you and me.

There is not much point in saying "sorry" if you don't mean it. Serious sins need more than "sorry" .. they need a serious commitment not to repeat them.

Millions of Christians would disagree with you in practice, and what they believe is what matters in determining their behavior, not what you believe. They would say that they mean it and are being serious, but I'm sure you've also seen what passes for that.

@Subduction Zone claimed that "Atheism is more moral".. Atheism has nothing to do with morality.

You're making an uncharitable semantic argument. You have a duty to try to understand what those words mean to the writer. He should have used the words "Atheists (or Humanists) are more moral," and you should have included his reason. Correct, atheism itself doesn't suggest any moral precepts, but it makes room for humanism, which does.

It's not rocket science

That was a response to, "You don't understand what atheism is." Theists routinely fail to understand what atheists say they believe. Can you find three that understand the difference between not believing (atheism) and believing not (strong or gnostic atheism)? How many theists don't understand that it's possible to have no god belief, instead insisting that atheists actually do believe in a god that they are hiding from to live a hedonistic life with themselves arrogantly usurping the role of a god in their lives? How many imagine that atheists are empty vessels with no more inner life than a robot vacuum bumping into walls because they won't believe by faith?

morality is what I say it is

That's true for all of us, even those who imbibe religious moral codes uncritically. They will tell you what is moral and what is not just like the humanist will, although in the latter case, the humanist does not call his moral intuitions objective, eternal, absolute moral truth like the believer often does.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Capitalism is accepted and revered by most Muslim countries. Certainly the ones who want to sell their oil to the west.

I know, but I was referring to those that do NOT want it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You also said "it depends" but you didn't state what it depends on.

I thought I was being quite clear, but I'll try again.
Leaving Islam is not a crime UNLESS you are guilty of treason.

Incidentally .. opposing the govt. by preaching against it is a form of treason.
Where does one draw the line?
If somebody preaches against the govt, because it believes in Islamic law,
I don't find that acceptable.
..and then we come to the subject of blasphemy.

"what is the punishment for apostasy under Sharia law?". It was very clear that the scholar knew the answer but wasn't willing to give it.

Well, I don't follow any particular sheik .. I have my own brain.
There is a hadith that mentions apostasy.
There are different opinions on its interpretation.

Any extreme view .. such as cut-off the hand of a person who steals a dime .. is unreasonable
to any intelligent person.
One would hope that a mature democracy would include intelligent people.

 

[Heyo]

Well, I don't follow any particular sheik .. I have my own brain.

Nice to read that, I also have my own brain and think blind followers are dangerous.

There is a hadith that mentions apostasy.
There are different opinions on its interpretation.

But that still doesn't answer the question. Here it is again:

Tell me, in a country that implements "Islamic Law", are people there free to follow whatever religion they like? Are they also free to quit following whatever religion they happen to follow? Without any consequences whatsoever?

@TagliatelliMonster asked about countries, not about your personal opinion.
So, are there countries who interpret the Hadith as you do - and are they calling that "Islamic Law" (Sharia)?

Any extreme view .. such as cut-off the hand of a person who steals a dime .. is unreasonable
to any intelligent person.
One would hope that a mature democracy would include intelligent people.

We agree on that one. (And I think the majority of Muslims does also.) Just like most Christians agree that it's wrong to burn "witches". The problem are those who don't agree - and they are the ones leading Muslim countries where hands are cut off and people are killed for leaving Islam.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So, are there countries who interpret the Hadith as you do - and are they calling that "Islamic Law" (Sharia)?

You tell me .. I haven't researched it.
I live in the UK.

I do have conversations with Muslims, and often disagree on their "fatwas"..
..but then I don't have experience of living in their countries.
I find many Muslims who agree with me as well.
It is usually to do with education.

The problem are those who don't agree - and they are the ones leading Muslim countries where hands are cut off and people are killed for leaving Islam.

Are they? I don't see that many people in the world with their hands cut off.
I also don't see mature democracies where the majority are Muslims.
Many so-called Muslim countries have a complex past, and the days of the Islamic Golden age are
well gone.
Never say never.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have already discussed that. One has to consider economics.

One doesn't. Because we are comparing similar societies where the main difference is religiosity.
Is the US so much poorer then all other secular democracies? Nope, it is in fact the richest.
Yet it scores worse pretty much accross the board concerning societal health while having the most religion.

The Qur'an expicitly says that there should be no force in religion.


That depends..
Treason is punishable by law.

Can't you see the irony / hypocrisy between these two answers?

..much like when people become spies in the West, and default to the East or what have you.

Right, because leaving a religion is like "become a spy".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I never said it was ..

You did because that was your answer to the question "are people free to quit following the religion they happen to follow?"

Nobody was talking about treason or spying or whatever.

With your answer it is YOU who implies that apostacy = treason.
Not us. We didn't even mention it.

And by doing so, you have also showed perfectly the hypocrisy of your last few posts....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's the impression I got as well. So, that's two of us.

Make that 3 of us.

And I'll happily bet that everybody else that reads his response will conclude the exact same thing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Rubbish!
I said "I never said it was .. but it might be .. particularly in war."
..so "leaving Islam" MIGHT be treason .. defection in a war is a good example.

You make no sense and you continue to dig a hole for yourself.

Defection in a war is not the same as apostacy.
Apostacy does not require defection in wars.

They are two different things.

I only asked by quiting a religion, nothing else.
You insisting on dancing around this simple straightforward question, speaks volumes though.

And it shows the immense hypocrisy when you said the following a few posts back, which actually triggered me in asking my questions:

What do you think .. that people should be forced to follow religion against their will?
I don't think so.

..but I can understand why some authoritarian countries might attempt that..
..frustration.

So now, you are showing that under Islamic Law, forcing people in a religion (or at least to stay in it) is exactly what is the natural order of the day.
You also show that such a society is inherently authoritarian and riddled with frustration.

These are your very own words.