Does theism lead to immoral behaviour?

[Sgt. Pepper]

It was Christians.
Unless you want to join ranks with pinheads and bozos who want to insist I wasn't actually a Christian and didn't belong to a "real" Church.

Yes, it was Christians, and no amount of denial can alter the fact that Christians can be just as malevolent and immoral as anyone else. You and I have both personally witnessed and experienced it in our own lives, as have other people who are also former Christians. The majority of the people in my support group for survivors of childhood abuse are former Christians who suffered abuse at the hands of their Christian parent(s) or another Christian relative.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

No .. it is NOT my opinion .. no amount of refs. will change that fact.

ATHEISM IS A LACK OF BELIEF

Atheism is a lack of belief, but that does not mean that it is a lack of morality, as all the articles I posted clearly demonstrate.

And, undoubtedly, your religious beliefs influence your personal opinion.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Never said it was and thus, "In light of my signature" which states that other religions have different viewpoints.

Now I see your signature. It was my mistake for not reading it before commenting on your post. My apologies, Kenny.

 

[Kenny]

Well, Christianity did teach me to hate myself amd other queers and to be an insufferable jerk around others.
I'm not sure if theism in general works though, especially with things like Deism that lack the dogma and "divine" instruction.

So sorry to hear that. The Christian message taught me to love myself and to love others. I think religious people teach people to hate themselves.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Atheism is a lack of belief, but that does not mean that it is a lack of morality..

I didn't say it did.
@Subduction Zone claimed that "Atheism is more moral"..

Atheism has nothing to do with morality.
Correlating statistics of atheists v theists is merely a ploy. It tells us nothing about their morality.

A barrage of refs. is a desperate tactic.

 

[Kenny]

Just say "I'm sorry God, I won't never do that agin" and you are fine. That sounds much easier than righting the wrongs that one is responsible for.

I think there is some truth to this statement. I remember when I was a recent believer (maybe 5 years into my faith) when the pastor asked me to accomplish a task to which I completely forgot about (frankly, today I don't remember what that task was. )

A couple of weeks later he said, "How is the task going?". Caught without having done a thing, I concocted a story that was convincing enough to buy me time. I lied!

Leaving the office, I heard this voice in my head that said, "You lied".

My immediate response was, "Yes, I did, please forgive me".

The next set of words I heard was, "Now go back and fix it!"

I went back and fixed it.

Apparently "righting the wrong" is part of the equation.

 

[Kenny]

Now I see your signature. It was my mistake for not reading it before commenting on your post. My apologies, Kenny.

No problem. All is well. No offense taken.

 

[wellwisher]

Inspired by this thread:

Does Atheism Lead to Immoral Behavior?

I'd suppose this depends on what you view as moral behavior but I thought I'd ask the question to see what people would say. It is easy to justify one's personal morals but I'd like you to consider the world at large. Is the world becoming more moral or less moral? And, does this have anything...

www.religiousforums.com

Sauce for the goose and all that.

My personal take: yes, theism often - though not always - leads to immoral behaviour.

A better way to address this question, in a scientific way, is to compare purely religious people, with religious people who were partially seduced by Atheism and Liberalism, since the secular latter, will give you more freedom to be immoral. The source of immorality in Religion is not necessary due to religion, but the outside influences that apply pressure to religious people.

Both Atheism and Liberalism, as witnessed on this and other religious discussion sites, work to undermine religion. In my experience, those who can isolate in their religion, tend to do better those who are surrounded by secular peer pressure, since you will make yourself a target, if you do not conform or compromise to some degree. Used to get expelled from sites for not going along.

For example, a child in public schools in the USA, who proclaims to be religious, will have both teachers and indoctrinated students applying peer pressure or worse. Many Lefty teachers do not even want parents to have any input as they try to seduce young people to alter their natural sex. This hard reality can require religious student conform, even by lip service; lie, to avoid abuse. Then the Atheists will try to blame this conformity on religion gone astray, even if there is nothing in that religion that teaches such things.

When I was young and just became a teen, I left my formal religious training; by choice, so I could participate more in the secular world of the hippy generation, where "immorality" was more open and relative. It was not religion that taught me this. I left formal religion, so I would not become a hippy-crate and make trouble by not conforming.

At that time, one could still be moral, while appearing to be immoral; victimless crimes. The real bottom line, as taught by Jesus, was to maintain the feelings of love for God and Neighbor; Love Generation. Paul in the Bible says, all things are lawful, but not all things edify. All thing are lawful, but I will not be mastered by anything.

Addictive behavior was where you crossed the line. Jesus told us to drink wine in memory of him, but also that the drunkard was a sinner. There is buffer zone and a line in the sand. As such, to experiment, here and there, to gain reality data, for your own objectivity, edifies. Forgiveness of sins allows the Hippy Christian, freedom and a buffer zone to experiment, make mistakes going too far, and then finally learn moderation in the zone. The goal was to keep your eye on the ball; love.

Paul also made a distinction between the children of the bond woman and the children of the promise. The children of the bond woman are slaves to law and need to obey as close to 100% as possible.The children of the promise, on the other hand, are like children of God, animated by his spirit; real time, and are not under law for righteousness. To them all things are lawful, if received it with gratitude and prayer.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is less the problem for the misunderstanding.

It is this formulation. (Not your fault as you just copied it.) The formulation of the question is right in the middle of the alternatives we both brought up. It is less strong than "must" but also not as weak as "can".
I completely understand your position as it is comparable to answering "yes" to "do you have 5 dollar in your pocket?" - when you have $5 or more in your pocket.
My position is that "lead to" implies a causal link like if A then B which isn't there if an example of A is true and B is false can be found.

That's my position, too, but I think we're looking at things at different scales. As an analogy, think about the question "does smoking lead to cancer?"

- At the population level, the answer is "definitely yes." Get a million people to take up smoking, wait a few decades, then measure, and you'll see a huge uptick in cancer cases that can be traced back to smoking.

- At the individual level, the answer is something like "generally no." It isn't inevitable that someone who's smoke - to any degree - will get cancer because of it.

I'm looking at theism at the "population" level.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think there is some truth to this statement. I remember when I was a recent believer (maybe 5 years into my faith) when the pastor asked me to accomplish a task to which I completely forgot about (frankly, today I don't remember what that task was. )

A couple of weeks later he said, "How is the task going?". Caught without having done a thing, I concocted a story that was convincing enough to buy me time. I lied!

Leaving the office, I heard this voice in my head that said, "You lied".

My immediate response was, "Yes, I did, please forgive me".

The next set of words I heard was, "Now go back and fix it!"

I went back and fixed it.

Apparently "righting the wrong" is part of the equation.

It may be for you, but that does not seem to be the case for many, in fact probably not most Christians, and it certainly is not doctrine.

 

[Audie]

In general, I would say yes, and my opinion is based on my thirty years as a Christian and the years before that while growing up in a family where I was abused by Christian parents, and I grew up in a staunchly conservative Christian community where racism towards minorities was very common. I've also attended a few evangelical churches where the pastor and other churchgoers have made racist remarks about minorities, and some of these Christians have targeted, harassed, and threatened me because I voted for Biden and opposed Trump. Honestly, the most misogynistic, male chauvinistic, cruelest, hateful, and bigoted people I've ever met in person and also online are conservative evangelical Christians. Having said all of that, I know a few of these Christians who are truly kind and caring people (such as my beloved husband), but I definitely consider them to be the exception rather than the rule.

Could you imagine how Christianity looks to
one who like me grew up in a society where
that religion is an alien thing?

I've not experienced christianity as you have, my years in the USA were mostly on a NYC campus, and I had
little interaction with anyone overtly Christian.

Christian evangelical conservatism is mostly
what I've heard of. I don't know that I ever met
one.
From what I read, and orcencounter here,
they are an appalling bunch, ignorant
self righteous, utterly self assured that they
could be mistaken in nothing.

The aversion of the Chinese government to allow
expansion of Christianity should properly be seen
in this light.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

We are all in the same boat.

To some extent, yes, but many theistic belief systems - e.g. revealed religions - encourage their adherents to hold beliefs because "God said so," bypassing normal moral judgment.

This doesn't mean that beliefs adopted this way have to be immoral, and not all beliefs inform actions, but this difference does mean that, more often than not, theism increases the potential for a person to make poor decisions, including immoral decisions.

In light of my signature, it is Jesus and the word of God that moves us from immoral to degrees of moral behavior.

Quite a bit of Jesus's teachings would have to based in factual truth for them to be moral (or even good ideas).

 

[Audie]

A better way to address this question, in a scientific way, is to compare purely religious people, with religious people who were partially seduced by Atheism and Liberalism, since the secular latter, will give you more freedom to be immoral. The source of immorality in Religion is not necessary due to religion, but the outside influences that apply pressure to religious people.

Both Atheism and Liberalism, as witnessed on this and other religious discussion sites, work to undermine religion. In my experience, those who can isolate in their religion, tend to do better those who are surrounded by secular peer pressure, since you will make yourself a target, if you do not conform or compromise to some degree. Used to get expelled from sites for not going along.

For example, a child in public schools in the USA, who proclaims to be religious, will have both teachers and indoctrinated students applying peer pressure or worse. Many Lefty teachers do not even want parents to have any input as they try to seduce young people to alter their natural sex. This hard reality can require religious student conform, even by lip service; lie, to avoid abuse. Then the Atheists will try to blame this conformity on religion gone astray, even if there is nothing in that religion that teaches such things.

When I was young and just became a teen, I left my formal religious training; by choice, so I could participate more in the secular world of the hippy generation, where "immorality" was more open and relative. It was not religion that taught me this. I left formal religion, so I would not become a hippy-crate and make trouble by not conforming.

At that time, one could still be moral, while appearing to be immoral; victimless crimes. The real bottom line, as taught by Jesus, was to maintain the feelings of love for God and Neighbor; Love Generation. Paul in the Bible says, all things are lawful, but not all things edify. All thing are lawful, but I will not be mastered by anything.

Addictive behavior was where you crossed the line. Jesus told us to drink wine in memory of him, but also that the drunkard was a sinner. There is buffer zone and a line in the sand. As such, to experiment, here and there, to gain reality data, for your own objectivity, edifies. Forgiveness of sins allows the Hippy Christian, freedom and a buffer zone to experiment, make mistakes going too far, and then finally learn moderation in the zone. The goal was to keep your eye on the ball; love.

Paul also made a distinction between the children of the bond woman and the children of the promise. The children of the bond woman are slaves to law and need to obey as close to 100% as possible.The children of the promise, on the other hand, are like children of God, animated by his spirit; real time, and are not under law for righteousness. To them all things are lawful, if received it with gratitude and prayer.

"To them all things are lawful"

How well that illustrates how the Spanish
conquistadoes felt righteous and holy in their
slaughter and looting. The inquistors with
their torture. The slave trade helping the
Africans by saving their souls.

Utterly disgusting. As is the self congratulatory
pseudo piety of those who, like all the others,
proclaimmt THEY are the True Christians, it's all those
others who are corrupt and debased.

My good fortune is to live where teaching
such madness is not permitted.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course..
People believe all sorts of things .. including nothing.

You don't understand what atheism is.

I have no motivation to correct this.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The aversion of the Chinese government to allow
expansion of Christianity should properly be seen
in this light.

I grasp this, although that government's crackdown on Falun Gong makes me think its more of a grasp for political power than concern about a dangerous religion. Falun Gong seems harmless to me. Generally with governments of any kind the motives often aren't the same as what gets publicized.

Could you imagine how Christianity looks to
one who like me grew up in a society where
that religion is an alien thing?

Yes. I imagine that you are familiar with world history though, and you know some pros and cons of religions. They can be harmful though. I admit that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Absurd .. atheism is a lack of belief .. morality does not come in to it.

You are half right.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Could you imagine how Christianity looks to
one who like me grew up in a society where
that religion is an alien thing?

I've not experienced christianity as you have, my years in the USA were mostly on a NYC campus, and I had
little interaction with anyone overtly Christian.

Christian evangelical conservatism is mostly
what I've heard of. I don't know that I ever met
one.
From what I read, and orcencounter here,
they are an appalling bunch, ignorant
self righteous, utterly self assured that they
could be mistaken in nothing.

The aversion of the Chinese government to allow
expansion of Christianity should properly be seen
in this light.

Yeah, that is your point of view. There are others. As a scientist, yo should know that what you state there is not science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't say it did.
@Subduction Zone claimed that "Atheism is more moral"..

Atheism has nothing to do with morality.
Correlating statistics of atheists v theists is merely a ploy. It tells us nothing about their morality.

A barrage of refs. is a desperate tactic.

Atheists are more moral because we are not saddled with a false morality as most theists are. We tend to have a rational morality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Atheists are more moral because we are not saddled with a false morality as most theists are. We tend to have a rational morality.

Evidence please.

 

[Revoltingest]

So sorry to hear that. The Christian message taught me to love myself and to love others. I think religious people teach people to hate themselves.

I don't read any sacred books. But I observe that
they appear to offer mixed messages, as evidenced
by passages cited by believers. You're a peaceful
person, & glean that message. But others are
called to the message of vengeance or conquest.

I speculate that people with hostile tendencies are
inspired & inflamed when religion feeds their worst
natures with certainty & evil prescriptions, eg, death
dealing fatwahs, religious war, hatred of the other,
the need to lord power over others.