Does theism lead to immoral behaviour?

[Copernicus]

You need to stop your pedantic and presumptuous nonsense - clearly your hubris has rendered your understanding utterly oblivious to the topic at hand.
Jesus Christ defines Christianity. Technicians, as yourself, are not qualified to understand wisdom, and apparently culpability.

The self-appointed spokesperson for Jesus Christ accuses others of hubris. That projects a kind of poetic irony.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I think you did your thickness calculation incorrectly. You need for the two numbers to give a ratio of about 3.14. Calling one an inner dimension and the other an outer one was a good start. We need to know what inner diameter corresponds to a ratio of 3.14 when compared to 30, so we divide 30 / 3.14 = 9.554, so we need to shorten the 10 by 0.445 units, therefore, that was obviously the thickness of the perimeter.

Of course this works. But what always bemuses me is who when sent to measure the circumference of a large cylindrical object (larger than those sent can collectively reach around) measures the inside of the object. Imagine holding a tape measure to the inside of a tube that's 50 feet around. It'll keep slipping down and you'll struggle to coordinate with your colleagues. (Now imagine doing it with a rope/cord.) If you measure the outside, tension on the tape measure does most of the work.

The text could be improved by simply providing only one measurement and let the other be inferred. I.e., either "It was 10 cubits across", or "It was 30 cubits around".

An interlocutor suggested once that it was an ellipse because an ellipse is round (though it's not one first thinks of). Problem is, of course, you can't get that from the text AND you need BOTH a major and minor axis to make this clear.

Odd that any one of us could be clearer than an omnipotent, omniscient god.

Naw, Occam's Razor, the author was just wrong/imprecise/NOT perfect.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You don't actually expect me to respond to the entirety of your post, do you?

The entirely of my post? There's no evidence in your response that you read any of it.

You must even be surprised that I read it all

You read some of it? Are you claiming you did read some of it? I don't believe you. Why? Because None of your words look like mine, which are responsive after yours. Yours look like Chinese fortune cookies, the Chopra meme generator, and biblical prophecy - never wrong because they're never specific enough to be right.

if God does not exist, then theist need to be not taken serious in any aspect of their lives. But, if God does exist, then shame on all the atheists for being so oblivious and evil minded.

Here's more of your theistic teaching. Shame on atheists if they're wrong. If theists are wrong, well, that OK because they are good and loving people, but if atheists are wrong, they're evil-minded even in a godless universe, so shame on them. Why? Because atheist are just evil, that's why. The Bible says so. God says so right there in that sacred holy tome, the one that equates unbelievers with whoremongers.

The theist doesn't need to be taken seriously, but not because his god doesn't exist. It's because of thinking like that. Who teaches such things, and who believes them uncritically? Shame on you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Either way, if God does not exist, then theist need to be not taken serious in any aspect of their lives. But, if God does exist, then shame on all the atheists for being so oblivious and evil minded.

If God does exist, then shame on the theists like you for doing such a crappy job of arguing for his existence.

If God were to exist, it wouldn't vindicate you, because nothing you've said here in justification of your beliefs has made a lick of sense.

 

[Ashoka]

Quit trying to play bleeding heart, buddy, you're anything but.

How is the person a bleeding heart for asking you to admit that drowning innocent children is wrong? Like, I know that part of being a Christian is the cognitive dissonance, but come on.

Oh, I know why. Because admitting so would admit your god is a monster.

So instead of saying, "hmm, maybe what I believe is harmful" you'll defend it to the death and make excuses and say we "took it out of context."

But go off I guess.

 

[DNB]

The entirely of my post? There's no evidence in your response that you read any of it.

You read some of it? Are you claiming you did read some of it? I don't believe you. Why? Because None of your words look like mine, which are responsive after yours. Yours look like Chinese fortune cookies, the Chopra meme generator, and biblical prophecy - never wrong because they're never specific enough to be right.

Here's more of your theistic teaching. Shame on atheists if they're wrong. If theists are wrong, well, that OK because they are good and loving people, but if atheists are wrong, they're evil-minded even in a godless universe, so shame on them. Why? Because atheist are just evil, that's why. The Bible says so. God says so right there in that sacred holy tome, the one that equates unbelievers with whoremongers.

The theist doesn't need to be taken seriously, but not because his god doesn't exist. It's because of thinking like that. Who teaches such things, and who believes them uncritically? Shame on you.

Who didn't read/understand who's post?

 

[DNB]

If God does exist, then shame on the theists like you for doing such a crappy job of arguing for his existence.

If God were to exist, it wouldn't vindicate you, because nothing you've said here in justification of your beliefs has made a lick of sense.

Now,. c'mon penguin, if God were to exist, of which you currently cannot understand the reasons why He would, then if you discovered that He was real, how in the world can you say that I never made any sense - any logic and wisdom in His favour has already eluding you to begin with.
In other words, which came first, your rejection of my explanation for the veracity of God's existence, or your initial disbelief in God (rhetorical)?
Again, if God exists, then you don't believe in God because you're just oblivious, regardless of who tries to offer you the proof.

 

[DNB]

How is the person a bleeding heart for asking you to admit that drowning innocent children is wrong? Like, I know that part of being a Christian is the cognitive dissonance, but come on.

Oh, I know why. Because admitting so would admit your god is a monster.

So instead of saying, "hmm, maybe what I believe is harmful" you'll defend it to the death and make excuses and say we "took it out of context."

But go off I guess.

It's called virtue signaling. Similar to those who call anti-lgbtq advocates bigots - they are some of the nastiest and most judgmental people that i've met, seriously.
I forget who it was that I made that remark to about '..quit playing bleeding heart...', but all his post showed, in my opinion, a very punkish and abrasive attitude. He was trying to appear appalled at my remark, but did so in an extremely obnoxious manner - i said many things in that post, but he only heard that one - he's foolish. I believe that he was just using the issue to hide his real character. God haters and the defenders of sexual liberties are all hypocrites I've come to notice, they are trying to appear just and compassionate but they are anything but.

Drowning children does seem cruel, because it is presumed that they are too young to understand right from wrong, and therefore are innocent.
I forget exactly how i explained it in that post, but, first, what God has in store for all of us, despite how bad we've all been, will be ineffable, beyond description and justification. As far as children dying are concerned, in my own personal opinion, I believe that there may be extenuation on their behalf on judgement day - that is why this life is of very little concern as to who dies when - it is unjust for many people for that matter. What God has in store for the 'innocent' and repentant, will outweigh all suffering and sorrows that took place in this world.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now,. c'mon penguin, if God were to exist, of which you currently cannot understand the reasons why He would, then if you discovered that He was real, how in the world can you say that I never made any sense - any logic and wisdom in His favour is already eluding you to begin with.
In other words, which came first, your rejection of my explanation for the veracity of God's existence, or your initial disbelief in God (rhetorical)?
Again, if God exists, then you don't believe in God because you're just oblivious, regardless of who tries to offer you the proof.

There may be a God, but I doubt if you gave any "veracity" for his existence. And good news to Christians that abuse Genesis. We know that the myths of Genesis never happened. If God does exist he is not the incompetent, evil, vain God of the Old Testament.

 

[1213]

I think you did your thickness calculation incorrectly. You need for the two numbers to give a ratio of about 3.14. Calling one an inner dimension and the other an outer one was a good start. We need to know what inner diameter corresponds to a ratio of 3.14 when compared to 30, so we divide 30 / 3.14 = 9.554, so we need to shorten the 10 by 0.445 units, therefore, that was obviously the thickness of the perimeter.

Ok, thank you and sorry, I had wrong number there. The correct difference is 0.45 units (with more accurate value of pi).

Do you think that's credible? Do you think anybody believes you believe that that is possible? This you giving homage to a system of thought that you don't actually respect. That's what a critical thinker says. He doesn't believe Thor exists,

Actually, now that I have thought it, I believe there was a guy called Thor.

Why would that have happened? Those deposits represent millennia of deposition, not forty days worth of biomass.

The deposits would represent all organic material that was on surface of earth. There could have been lot of that, much more than what normally is deposited yearly.

 

[Ashoka]

Drowning children does seem cruel, because it is presumed that they are too young to understand right from wrong, and therefore are innocent.
I forget exactly how i explained it in that post, but, first, what God has in store for all of us, despite how bad we've all been, will be ineffable, beyond description and justification. As far as children dying are concerned, in my own personal opinion, I believe that there may be extenuation on their behalf on judgement day - that is why this life is of very little concern as to who dies when - it is unjust for many people for that matter. What God has in store for the 'innocent' and repentant, will outweigh all suffering and sorrows that took place in this world.

I'm sorry, but this is a horrible sentiment. The very same thing that you proposed for the murdered children was also proposed by Susan Atkins, who believes that she was doing Sharon Tate a favor by killing her and her baby "because we're saving them." You can believe your victim is going to the highest heaven, but in the end, you still murdered them and you still took away innocent life and committed a great sin.

 

[F1fan]

Who didn't read/understand who's post?

It was clearly explained, so apparently it is you.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It was clearly explained, so apparently it is you.

Thanks. Agreed. He's trying to save face now. He came on with assumed expertise, arrogance, and condescension but bellied up quickly when challenged on his hostility toward unbelievers. He was called out for a series of comments revealing his atheophobic bigotry and chose to ignore them all by instead deflecting away from his comments and my critique of them.

The modern religious apologist is disoriented by the modern skeptic's confidence. When I was born in the middle of the last century, theists were accustomed to silencing those critics foolish enough to challenge their cultural hegemony. Atheists were declared immoral, and it was accepted. They were deemed unfit to teach, adopt, coach, serve on juries or give expert testimony, and many considered an atheist marrying into the family worse than any other marginalized, law-abiding group including homosexuals and Muslims.

That's almost all gone now, although many still see atheists as unfit to hold public office. And with the rise of the best-selling atheist writers and the Internet, atheists have a voice and are respectable outside of church circles. It's the church that gets no respect now. Look at how it's treated in the entertainment media. When are priests or pastors shown as moral leaders, or the church as a force for good in movies and television?

This video from a hugely popular nineties sitcom says it all, and it's actually a little more balanced than most, with some semi-positive comments about God and the religious:

This one's pretty funny as well:

What's the message in those? Is it that the church is respectable or the opposite? And it's hammered into the culture 24/7 now. That can only lead to one outcome, and the rise of the "nones" confirms it.

But the believer isn't watching those shows. He's going to church, where things as are they were a half a century ago, where everybody still respects the pastor and nobody gives him back talk. Then he encounters modern secular culture as is the case here on RF, and he's surprised.

And this isn't his only cultural crisis. People are getting darker and gayer and coming up with new pronouns to offend and confound him. Women want to be treated as equals and not fondled at work. He's having more trouble hiring wage slaves. People are openly calling him bigot, and he really doesn't like that. His advantages all seem to be slipping away, and he is afraid of "being replaced." He can only take comfort by reporting to us that it is all foretold and part of God's plan.

 

[dybmh]

Probably better to ask of Immoral behavior leads to Theism. Based on the number of prison conversions I hear about.

super-good point.

 

[osgart]

Anything that replaces genuine love with false love is immoral. Since Christianity is false it's one brand of theism that is immoral. Not all theism is immoral. I could never trust Islam nor the Bible.

Anything that detracts from the actuality of genuine love is immoral. Often Theists are immersed in distraction from discovering reality into delusions of being able to answer grande questions about existence, and human nature.

There is no reason to conclude all human nature as sinful wretches. Humans are subject to faults, errors, deceptions, blindness, mistakes, and failures, but that doesn't necessarily mean we are all sinful wretches. Furthermore, it's terribly immoral to fall for a pseudo truth just for comforts sake, instead of actually seeking actuality.

With the case of actually knowing human nature, a lot of theism fails miserably. It's actually a barrier to genuine relationships, and learning about human nature.

 

[DNB]

I'm sorry, but this is a horrible sentiment. The very same thing that you proposed for the murdered children was also proposed by Susan Atkins, who believes that she was doing Sharon Tate a favor by killing her and her baby "because we're saving them." You can believe your victim is going to the highest heaven, but in the end, you still murdered them and you still took away innocent life and committed a great sin.

I'm trying to understand something appalling after the fact - not promoting a disregard for this life.
Every life is precious in God's eyes, and we are all here for a reason - premature and senseless deaths offer nothing but depression.
I'm merely trying to harmonize such occurrences with the holiness of God - how He can turn a bad or unjust situation into a good and justified one.
All should avoid death and killing humans at any cost.

 

[F1fan]

I'm trying to understand something appalling after the fact - not promoting a disregard for this life.
Every life is precious in God's eyes, and we are all here for a reason - premature and senseless deaths offer nothing but depression.
I'm merely trying to harmonize such occurrences with the holiness of God - how He can turn a bad or unjust situation into a good and justified one.
All should avoid death at any cost.

So explain why God will create some children with birth defects, or some sort of fatal cancer. Let's hear the justification.

 

[DNB]

So explain why God will create some children with birth defects, or some sort of fatal cancer. Let's hear the justification.

Earth to F1fan, earth to F1fan, come in F1fan, are you there (usually not)?
...try reading the flippin' posts???

 

[F1fan]

Earth to F1fan, earth to F1fan, come in F1fan, are you there (usually not)?
...try reading the flippin' posts???

You post a lot of unfactual claims that assert God does things that are clearly inconsistent with what we all observe, so I'm asking you to clarify. And you couldn't.

 

[DNB]

You post a lot of unfactual claims that assert God does things that are clearly inconsistent with what we all observe, so I'm asking you to clarify. And you couldn't.

Atheists are very irrational, I find them to be shallow and oblivious - if they can't see it, then it doesn't exist. How unperceptive and absurd.
Can you see the spirit in man, do you recognize a corrupt person when you meet them, do you know why one person feels compassion towards others and another doesn't?

What an 'atheist observes'? What's that, an oxymoron?
How would you know if any claim that I made was nonfactual? For one, only time will tell, and two, it aligns with Scripture which declares that 'God will wipe away all tears', and that 'one must become like children to enter the kingdom' - all children may be deemed innocent up to a certain age or exposure. The latter is just my personal opinion, which I have already explained in a previous post.

I don't have all the answers and I am troubled by many, but the questions that you god-hating atheists always pose are not deal-breakers for the faithful - we understand more of the spiritual realm than you atheists ever will.
There is much more evidence for God and the human spirit being created in His image, than you atheists can ever challenge with your impetuous and insincere contentions.