Does theism lead to immoral behaviour?

[muhammad_isa]

Apostacy however, is only a crime in countries that have no respect for freedom of religion and / or individual freedoms and basic human rights.

There is a fine line between apostasy and treason, imo.

The topic is leaving a religion - not "preaching against a government"

Incidentally, why would "preaching against a government" be treason?

Speaking bad stuff about God is treason .. MAJOR treason.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Double standards..

Nope.

If I say "yes" .. which I have

Not once have you just answered the question in a straightforward manner.
Every time it was shrouded in "buts" and "ifs" that were neither here nor there.

Quote the post where you supposedly answer the question with an unambiguous "yes".
There is none.

.. you come up with the ruling/fatwa about apostasy in Islam.

I came up with nothing at all. I just asked a straightforward yes / no question.
I didn't even mention the word "fatwa". That's all you again, pulling all kinds of "buts" and "ifs" which seems only designed to avoid answering the question in the same straightforward manner as it was asked.

..which I have explained.
It is pointless going round in circles.

You're the one who's insisting on going in circles.
I'm the one asking to stop it and just answer the question.

If it's "no", then just say so.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So you choose a secular democracy?

No .. I am a poor man, and my ancestors and I were born here.
I have little choice.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is a fine line between apostasy and treason, imo.

No, there isn't.

Speaking bad stuff about God is treason .. MAJOR treason.

Not if you don't believe said god exists.
"blasphemy" is a crime that only exists in the mind of believers.

To accuse a non-believer of it, is like accusing me of having raped a non-existent woman.

But again, none of this is relevant.

I ONLY asked if a person should be free to leave the religion they happen to follow. That's it.
Look at how you feel the need to dance around that.

It's a pathetic sight. And that, coming from the guy who said this:

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.

You would think that if you truly believed what you said there, that you would not have a need to dance around this much when asked if you think that the utopian form of government you are talking about, should prevent people the freedom to follow, leave or stay in a religion against their will.

Apparently all such beliefs go out the window once it concerns a specific religion in this supposed utopian form of government.

The hypocrisy here is so obvious, it's not even funny

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No .. I am a poor man, and my ancestors and I were born here.
I have little choice.

I just told you that you can choose any existing country you wish.

If you want to do some research first, go right ahead. Nobody said you have to answer now. You don't even have to answer.
The thought experiment was for yourself primarily.


Because I am absolutely convinced that any honest person crunching the numbers, the real world data, honestly, will always end up choosing a secular democracy.
Even if they can list 1000 things they feel are "wrong" with such nations.

And the reason for that is the part where you don't know in advance who you'll be.

I'm sure life is great in Saudi Arabia if you are a prince and an auto-shareholder of a gazibillion dollar oil company.
But you wouldn't want to live there if you are a gay atheist.
You likely also wouldn't want to live in Taliban ruled afghanistan if you are just a woman of any faith or orientation.

Everybody who seriously contemplates this stuff and gives the thought experiment an honest run, will quickly realize that living in a secular democracy is going to give you the best chances of a good life, regardless of who you are.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A bunch of atheists against one voice?
Bah! Just a load of bullies.

That's one way of looking at it. I see it more as an intervention for an apologist for rape and other heinous things.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Not if you don't believe said god exists.
"blasphemy" is a crime that only exists in the mind of believers.

Well, we have different moral standards.
In the UK .. and I presume in the US, it is not acceptable to blaspheme in the govt. parliament
..so why should it be acceptable for any decent citizen?

 

[muhammad_isa]

I just told you that you can choose any existing country you wish.

You want me to choose "a pig in a poke" .. sorry no.
I wouldn't mind living in Medina in Saudi Arabia.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, we have different moral standards.

It's not a moral standard if you can't explain the underlying reasoning other then "this book says so".

In the UK .. and I presume in the US, it is not acceptable to blaspheme in the govt. parliament
..so why should it be acceptable for any decent citizen?

I know of no such rules or laws in Belgium.

Do tell, when was the last time that a British or US official or citizen was convicted, or even only charged, for "blasphemy"?

Knowing how common god-curses are, especially in english, there should be lots of such I would think then ha...

Like "sheez!" You know what that stands for, right? It's short for shouting "jesus christ!!!" which is using the "lord's name in vain".
Or "god damned..." or alike.

Or just talking junk about the bible / christianity as a whole.
There are entire TV shows and stand up comedians that literally center around that very topic.

Have you seen the Life of Brian?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You want me to choose "a pig in a poke" .. sorry no.
I wouldn't mind living in Medina in Saudi Arabia.

As a gay atheist?
Or a lesbienne woman of any faith?

 

[muhammad_isa]

There are entire TV shows and stand up comedians that literally center around that very topic.

I know .. that is the state of the society today.
..and you won't be happy until the whole world descends into such disarray.
It is not heaven, when a society becomes decadent.
It self-destructs eventually.

 

[muhammad_isa]

As a gay atheist?
Or a lesbienne woman of any faith?

You live with "your stuff", and I'll live with mine.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That I can't do something, is not enough proof for that it would need magic.

Yes, usually it is so. That leads to question, could Jesus alter his weight, and how did he do it. By current knowledge, I don't think it can be said to require magic, which I don't believe exists. But, obviously, for some even electricity can be magic, so, maybe it the word can be used lightly.

How exactly does someone "alter his weight" instantaneously in such a way that would allow him to walk on water, without using magic? Is there some law of physics that can account for that? If not, sorry to tell you, but you've just described magic.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

this is adding to what I said.

It would have been nice if you had rebutted my comment instead of dismissing it with a wave of the hand. You wrote, "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" and I responded, "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." If you think I'm wrong, you ought to be able to say how and why. You ought to be able to quote words in my response that don't derive from anything you said. You say that the two, atheism and theism are equal in terms of promoting immoral behavior, and then follow it with a claim that immorality follows from a lack of God-thinking, all other thought apparently being stinking-thinking.

Speaking bad stuff about God is treason .. MAJOR treason.

It's called blasphemy, and it's not a crime in secular democracies like yours and mine. It's a religious concept that has no meaning except metaphorically outside of Abrahamic religions. Words like blasphemy, sin, grace, and salvation in the literal sense have no literal referent in reality if the god they're centered around doesn't exist.

In the UK .. and I presume in the US, it is not acceptable to blaspheme in the govt. parliament..so why should it be acceptable for any decent citizen?

Why should free citizens be limited by the sensibilities of the religious? If someone is offended that his god didn't get the respect he thinks it deserves, that's a result of choices he made and is on him. In another thread, we were discussing whether we would prefer that the Abrahamic god existed or not, someone asking who wouldn't want a loving god to exist, and my response was based in that god not being so loving or honest as is claimed for it, including an unflattering (but accurate in my opinion) summary of that deity by Dawkins, which can be found at the bottom of this post. You would probably call that blasphemy and would probably like to see such things forbidden and even punished, but I don't see it that way, and appreciate the freedom to express such opinions.

That I can't do something, is not enough proof for that it would need magic.

That "you" in "You can't make a human being from dust" didn't mean just you. Nobody can do it. For starters, we're mostly water, and unlike the dust, we contain almost no silicates.

Yes, usually it is so. That leads to question, could Jesus alter his weight, and how did he do it. By current knowledge, I don't think it can be said to require magic

Where did the weight go and how was it jettisoned? Physics has assorted conservation laws, violations of which constitute magic.

for some even electricity can be magic

If you mean that literally, that's a result of failing to learn the relevant physics, which describes how matter including charged particles behave.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It's called blasphemy..

Yes..

Why should free citizens be limited by the sensibilities of the religious?

In a society where the majority take it seriously, it is not acceptable for "Ladies and Gentlemen"
to blaspheme. If allowed, it demeans the society, and moral values plummet.

 

[Heyo]

That leads to question, could Jesus alter his weight

Nope.
That would violate the law of conservation of mass/energy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I know .. that is the state of the society today.

Yeah, it's called "freedom". So horrible, right?

..and you won't be happy until the whole world descends into such disarray.

The type of "disarray" that results in the best societal health indexes.
The type of "disarray" that results in the lowest infant mortality, the highest life expectancy, the best quality of living, the best medical care, the best education, individual freedoms, freedom of thought, freedom of and from religion, etc.

Yes, it's ow so horrible.

It is not heaven, when a society becomes decadent.
It self-destructs eventually.

I prefer a society where it's okay to make a joke and where there's a woman in a bikini washing a car over a society that doesn't grant individual freedoms and which has a lady in a bag being stoned to death.

And I don't consider the first to be "disarray".
I'ld rather say "free".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You live with "your stuff", and I'll live with mine.

The point of the thought experiment is to think about how a certain society is like for people who have other stuff then you.

Now we are at the core of the matter.
People other then you also live on this planet.

So when you are thinking about how society should be like, you might want to think about that... that you have to share said society with other people. And those other people have other "stuff" then you. So the type of society that works best for all, is a society that can accommodate for different kinds of "stuff" and grant people the individual freedom to be able to live their life, regardless of what their "stuff" is.


This very concept is what seems to be completely absent from your worldview.
It certainly is absent from theocracy...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes..


In a society where the majority take it seriously, it is not acceptable for "Ladies and Gentlemen"
to blaspheme. If allowed, it demeans the society, and moral values plummet.

I would say that moral values would plummet the second a society (of whatever majority) decides it is ok to revoke basic individual freedoms.

About your emphasis on the "majority" part..
Democracy doesn't grant the majority the right to do and decide whatever it wants. Laws can't just be sucked out of the thumbs.
They have to comply with constitutional rules and other laws and basic principles etc.

In a secular democracy, it would be close to impossible to actually attach real-world consequences for a non-crime like "blasphemy".
It would be in defiance of a whole bunch of constitutional rights and even the charter of universal human rights.


Freedom doesn't just mean that you get to do whatever you want.
It also means that your freedom ends where the freedom of another begins.
It also means that you will have to live with other people exercising their freedom in a manner you might disapprove of or not like.


But as I explained in a previous post, you seem to have problems with this idea that you don't live alone on this planet, and that there are other people who have to share this space with you and that their "stuff" is different from yours.

 

[1213]

Nope.
That would violate the law of conservation of mass/energy.

And if so, it could mean that we just don't understand the laws correctly.