Does theism lead to immoral behaviour?

[Copernicus]

Not at all the facts of history are clear: Theism in and of the nature of the beliefs do not cause immorality. The tribal nature and the nature of humanity determines the morals/immorality, and this is not only not caused by Theism, but morals are are natural outcomes over timem and variable and subjective over time and a poor measure of any generalization of what causes immorality.

Very bad wording of your argument against Theism based an unfortunate atheist/agnostic agenda. Theism is not the scapegoat for human immorality. Ancient Religions essentially fail to provide an adequate contemporary standard of morality that deals woth the diversity of evolving human cultures.

I agree with you about where moral and immoral behavior come from--the examples set by role models and peers. However, those same sources can teach reliance on religious doctrine, which can preach violence against people considered to deviate from the dogma. People who rely on authoritarian dogma may be predisposed to justify bad behavior, if they are convinced that a "higher power" ordains, excuses, and/or exonerates it. Those terrorists who crashed airliners into buildings considered themselves to be devout instruments of their God's will, even if most Muslims did not and rejected their behavior as evil. People who murder abortion doctors and blow up clinics can also do so in the belief that they are fulfilling a Christian God's will. It's not that religious morality predisposes people to violence, but it can often be a catalyst that magnifies a predisposition to commit violence.

 

[DNB]

Who says I did? I'm as prone to engage in such errors as much as the next person.
The only real difference is that I'm aware of the pitfall.
Being aware of it, helps you in guarding yourself against it.
But no matter how much you try to guard yourself against it, you will still be susceptible to it.




So? Tom Cruise has spent MILLIONS of dollars on scientology to reach the level of Operating Thetan.
Does that make scientology true?



Did you know that Newton's work in physics, is actually really just a footnote in his life?
The bulk of his energy was spend on alchemy. A pseudo-science that amounts to nothing at all.

Just because people spend a lot of money and energy on something, means diddly squat.

What you do here is just use a variation of the argument ad populum. It's a logical fallacy.

Also: of that 90% you are talking about, the majority actually spend all that money and energy on religions that you don't even believe / follow.

Mayans sacrificed countless human lives to their gods. Gods you believe are false gods and don't exist.
Islamist sacrifice their own lives on a god you don't believe exists.

The vast majority of gods that the majority of people have ever believed in, are gods that you don't believe in either.

Clearly you think that Mayans sacrificing humans was just a waste of human life, right?
The millions that scientologists spend on scientology courses, you also believe to be just a waste, right?

I believe the exact same thing: it's just a waste.
The only difference between you and me, is that I also consider the money and energy spend on YOUR religion to be a waste also.

You are doing your best to put ALL god believers in your camp. But the reality is that the vast majority of them aren't in your camp at all.
You view them just like I view them: misguided.

So really, your "90%" figure is just false. You think the vast majority of them were also wasting their time, money and energy as it was all dedicated to gods and religions you believe to be false also.


Think it through.

mama mia, unbelievable. Why do you not understand the flippin' point????

we were talking about 'type 2 cognition error'. How in the world did you think that i was directly trying to prove the existence of God???

 

[F1fan]

That's basically what I'm doing. Well, to be clear, I'm bringing together various theological concepts, finding a coherent god concept which matches the Hebrew bible, and renders a perfect God. And that's the God I believe in.

It sounds rather Frakenstein's Monster. It concedes that the Bible is vague and inconsistent with observed reality.

I'm not asking YOU to do anything. You asked a question, and most who ask that question in that manner are assuming it cannot be answered without compromising on the god concept. Yes, birth defects are a product of the chaotic nature of the material world. And that chaos is required.

That only makes sense in a godless universe.

LOL. You don't know if it makes sense. It's actually not that many assumptions. Strict monothiesm asserts that God is infinite, eternal and was solitary before creation. That's 3 assumptions.

Then assume that God is tri-omni, that's 3 more.

That's all I need.

Those are three huge assumptions. None are plausble. You claim God is tri-omni, yet somehow can't create auniverse that doesn't include birth defects. You casn't have it both ways.

It's counter-intuitive. The breast cancer itself is not a benefit. The capability to be inspired by those who are battling breast cancer is the benefit which overwhelms the required harm brought by chaos.

You are missing the forest. The question is not that some women fight breast cancer and win, the issue is why your "omnipotent" God couldn't avoid creating a universe that included breast cancer as a deadly lottery.

Your preference is noted. But that doesn't mean that the question you asked cannot be answered. Althoug it is complicated, and if you don't like complicated, then you won't be satisfied by the answer. None the less the answer exists.

Answers need to make sense to be valid. Answers can be lies, but they are lies, so not valid. Truth seekers require truthful answers, even if that means to admit there isn't one. I have seen believers try to give an answer to why there is bad things in life, like cancers. They try, but have I ever read an answer that is factual and is coherent? No. It is difficult for Abrahamics to work with the concept they adopt and m ake sense of it given what we observe as reality.

If chaos and randomness were managed, it would not be chaos and randomness. Managment is mutually exclusive from random.

I guess an "omnipotent" God isn't capable. Nature can have plenty of chaos and random wihtout cancer and defects.

My claim is, the question can be answered: it's required for a material world to exist, people have the capability to be inspired by it, people also unite when confronted with tragedy, tragedy is rare on a global scale, the innocent are rewarded greatly, the wicked are punished greatly.

How is cancer necessary for a material world to exist? How is a three year old kid being diagnosed with Luekemia a situation where an innocent is rewarded greatly? How can you honestly believe any of this?

Things could be much worse. If everything is completely random, over the course of millions of years, law of averages should produce 50/50 good/bad. But it's closer to 80/20. I estimate this on 10% world hunger, an 10% disease and deformity.

Things aren't completely random, there is a great deal of order. Material behaves according to the laws of physics, and it won't behave in alternative ways.

The planet froze over 700 million years ago and all land life died. Only some ocean life survived, and evolution resulted in new land animals that included dinosaurs. They lasted until about 65 million years ago and most land animals died again. Humans didn't exist until about 200,000 years ago, but we are special? The Black plague wiped out about 30-50% of all Europeans, about 200 million people. Sounds like a planet that doesn't value human beings much any than worms.

The material world requires the element of chaos to exist in order for it to exist seperate from God, and for each individual to exist seperate from each other.

I don't see "requires" as accurate, as it implies design. There is order in the laws of physics, but there is a lot of dynamic forces at play that will produce outcomes that are not entirely vredictable. For example if you have a pair of cats and you breed them, you get a little of kittens with various markings. Breed the cats a second time and there won;t be the same set of kittens, but different markings. Call it chaos if you want, but it is just a sort of randomness in biology that is like playing dice.

Knowing is virtually impossible if the goal is knowing an infinite formless being. That's why it's accurate to call us believers.

How is this different than thinking of an imaginary being?

You're not really believing in the being, you are believing what others told you about that being existing, even though there is no evidence for it.

When I was growing up I didn't get told about the Jewish version of God, or the Muslim version, not even the Catholoic version like my cousins, I was told about a protestant version. No one ever mentioned Hindu gods. So the God I pondered was the one i was told about, and only learned of other versions through life exverience. That didn't give me confidence in what others told me, it gave me doubts. That's when i started thinking for myself.

Not so vague. Just double meanings. The thing is, the idea that evil and chaos and all the other negative qualities which are opposite of God are required, and somehow can be converted into good, is a dangerous idea. People could misunderstand that, and use it to justify doing horrible things. And this notion that there is a flipped warped 2d reflection of God that is embedded on the physical world, embedded in everything, including the concept people call Satan, can be a bit disturbing. So, yeah, it's not out in the open.

This should give you reason to doubt your beliefs, not seek ways to make your beliefs justify all these conflicts.

 

[shunyadragon]

I agree with you about where moral and immoral behavior come from--the examples set by role models and peers. However, those same sources can teach reliance on religious doctrine, which can preach violence against people considered to deviate from the dogma. People who rely on authoritarian dogma may be predisposed to justify bad behavior, if they are convinced that a "higher power" ordains, excuses, and/or exonerates it. Those terrorists who crashed airliners into buildings considered themselves to be devout instruments of their God's will, even if most Muslims did not and rejected their behavior as evil. People who murder abortion doctors and blow up clinics can also do so in the belief that they are fulfilling a Christian God's will. It's not that religious morality predisposes people to violence, but it can often be a catalyst that magnifies a predisposition to commit violence.

We in part may be in agreement. The problem is may variables and beliefs, even atheism and various non-beliefs of various ilk justify violence against their fellow humans, and what may be subjectively called morality?/immorality?

Tribalism remains a primary cause of Violence between tribes, and some of those tribes are defined by ancient religions, and other tribal affiliations that advocate violence are not associated with a Theistic religion. Tribalism does dominate ancient religions and their divisions that some violently oppose each other like the Sunnis and Shia. The dominant divisions of Islam are tribal boundaries.

 

[DNB]

People who love Jesus have, and still do commit atrocities in his name. People who use the Bible to justify it.

Those who claim to love God (or Jesus, in this case) who they can't see, but don't love their neighbour who they can see, are liars. (1 John 4:20)

 

[shunyadragon]

It seems strange to me that you can't be bothered to read the posts you reply to, but then put so much effort into writing long replies.

I have read the whole thread and the premise of the thread from the beginning is false. First, concerning the subjective ambiguity on what is morality.

 

[DNB]

Likewise. So you're not going to address the fact that all you've made in that post were logical fallacies? You're just going to pretend like you didn't, and blame me for your errors in logic? Is that it?

I've done just that in response to your posts. That's how I was able to point out your obvious logical fallacies.
And you have nothing to say about it, except some attempt at psychological projection. Really?

You heavily implied it:

"You come back with idiotic replies about comparing the landslide majority of people who have ever lived on the planet having worshipped something, with that of the belief in Santa Claus. Where in the world did 90% of the human inhabitants on this earth acquire such a propensity, how did protoplasm and stardust endow man with such a spiritual dimension to his constitution?

Billions of dollars spent on religious edifices, religious education, literature, debates, degrees, sermons,. missionary efforts, martyrdoms, asceticism, dissertations on virtue and morality - you don't believe that man is a spiritual creature?"



So you did argue that the majority view is correct.

The irony - you call yourself a critical thinker. My stars, if you only were.

 

[DNB]

Assuming that Jesus actually lived and said the things attributed to him, it's would be Jesus' fault when none of it is comprehensible to those to whom you refer?

Me, too. I didn't expect you to like those scriptures.

No problem. It's one of the services skeptics perform on the Internet. Don't you think people should know about those scriptures and what that Bible teaches? It can help them identify where their atheophobic opinions arose even if they never went there themselves to read it. Who else is going to put all of those scriptures together in one place, summarize them like that, and disseminate it on the Internet? Not the church. Not the adherents.

The opportunities are seemingly endless:

View attachment 78026


Jesus without the magic and miracles was a mundane human being living a mundane life.

Probably. What was your purpose? If it wasn't to insult people, then yes, you did.

No, not just a type 2 cognition error. That's the ground up aspect of religion - people trying to control their circumstances by appeasing these imagined agents with ritual and sacrifice.

The genius comes in when somebody monetizes it - the top down aspect of religion. That's where all your religious edifices and collection plates come from. It's a business. There's a church on every corner along with a bank, a gas station, and a fast food restaurant, and they're all there for the same reason. The marketing begins at the point of a sword with Roman legions, crusaders, and conquistadores and continues to this day with free Bibles in every hotel room and now Superbowl ads for Jesus.

Even today, being clergy is a great gig. No manual labor or hot sun. No education or training necessary if you want to open your own church. No government oversight. No expensive equipment needed. People bring you money every week to do nothing except tell them how to live. Instant respect and social status, although not so much as before.

No type 2 cognition error there in the top down part, just humans exploiting other humans, which is a great motivator for many.

Ah, look at that, a cynic and conspiracy theorist. Such insightful and enlightening views.
...you atheists choose to be blind.

 

[Copernicus]

We in part may be in agreement. The problem is may variables and beliefs, even atheism and various non-beliefs of various ilk justify violence against their fellow humans, and what may be subjectively called morality?/immorality?

Tribalism remains a primary cause of Violence between tribes, and some of those tribes are defined by ancient religions, and other tribal affiliations that advocate violence are not associated with a Theistic religion. Tribalism does dominate ancient religions and their divisions that some violently oppose each other like the Sunnis and Shia. The dominant divisions of Islam are tribal boundaries.

But aren't religious communities in some sense tribes? That strikes me as especially true of religious and political cults. From my perspective, the weakness in religion-based morality is that it rationalizes behavior on authoritarian grounds rather than principled grounds (e.g. utilitarianism, consequentialism, etc.). People can be easily manipulated by religious authorities that play on their allegiance to God or the church in controlling their behavior.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

yes, but, radical religion is the outlier.

Is it?
I'm not so convinced of that.
A minority, perhaps.

But not a minority so small that is to be seen as "exceptional".

Also, did you speak to them after the bombing? Are there any interviews? Is there any real information about what transpired in their mind when they were radicalized?

Most of them are dead.
Some remain alive. Like Salah Abdeslam and Mohammed Abrini.
Salah in particular rambles on about nothing but religious islamic stuff.
Some also wrote opr recorded manifesto's, also riddled with religious motivations.

It could have been the religion, it could have been the drugs that made them more susceptible to manipulation.

Drugs?

It could have been something happened in their person life that contributed. A failed romantic relationship, leading to nihilism and suicidal ideation. It could have been that the potential for evil was always dormant in them, they had the predispostion.

Or, it could have been the obvious and that which they themselves state every time: radical islam.

All of this indicates that they may not have been an evil person, but they commited an evil act. They are just someone in the middle of two extremes. Not in the middle of the middle. But a person who would have benefited from having a strict code of conduct prohibiting harming others unless those others are actively engaged in harming them. A code of conduct which is enforced by an ever-watching-god.

I always wonder why people are so reluctant to accept the obvious.
Radical beliefs made them do radical things.

Islamist terrorism is a real thing. It has been for a long time now.
The islamists themselves shout it at the world from the rooftops all the time.
Why the denial?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am fortunate enough not to be in the middle of a war zone..

Neither were the Abdeslams.
Neither was Abrini.
Neither was Abaoud.
Neither was pretty much every "foreign fighter" that departed from western europe and joined Daesh and other terrorist groups in Syria and alike.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

mama mia, unbelievable. Why do you not understand the flippin' point????

I understand the point.
It's you who insists on dodging it and using logical fallacies to do so.

we were talking about 'type 2 cognition error'. How in the world did you think that i was directly trying to prove the existence of God???

What was the point of your ad populum, if not to try and claim that it supports theistic beliefs?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ah, look at that, a cynic and conspiracy theorist. Such insightful and enlightening views.
...you atheists choose to be blind.

What "conspiracy theory"?

 

[muhammad_isa]

I understand their intention, but they should have learned from the Russians how bad an idea it was..

You seem to be living in an alternative reality .. war is a part of human behaviour.
Sometimes, it is necessary to fight wars .. but the victors have their tests, just like the losers..

 

[muhammad_isa]

Those terrorists who crashed airliners into buildings considered themselves to be devout instruments of their God's will..

People keep saying that, as if it were true..
As far as I understand, it was politically motivated.

Bin Laden did not agree with his country's inviting US airbase into Saudi in the Kuwait war .. G-d was not talking to Bin Laden..
Pointing the finger at religion is superficial .. one has to look at the underlying reasons.
..such as the inequalities in Israel etc.

 

[1213]

Why? It's not like you attempted to explain why you think any of those points support your flood myth.

Hmmm... I think I have explained them many times already. Do you need explanation for the all points, or some specific case?

None are the result of floods,

So you believe. I think you are wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hmmm... I think I have explained them many times already.

No you haven't.
You made silly empty claims and plenty of people already explained your errors

So you believe. I think you are wrong.

What you "think", is irrelevant.

What you can demonstrate and support with actual evidence, is what matters.

Neither is it what I "believe". It's rather what is scientifically known.

 

[shunyadragon]

But aren't religious communities in some sense tribes? That strikes me as especially true of religious and political cults.

Yes ancient religions are tribal, but so are political cults, and political movements, such as Hitler, Stalin and Khmer Rouge ot Cambodia with violent death tolls that rival any violence committed in the name of religion. The point is the cause is the tribal nature of humanity, and the associated dominant motivation ot the sense of community and identity that drives individuals to bond wuth unquestioned loyalty regardless of the moral consequences both good and bad. This evolved as a social survival mechanism like that of herds, packs and flocks in animals.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

People keep saying that, as if it were true..
As far as I understand, it was politically motivated.

Bin Laden did not agree with his country's inviting US airbase into Saudi in the Kuwait war .. G-d was not talking to Bin Laden..
Pointing the finger at religion is superficial .. one has to look at the underlying reasons.
..such as the inequalities in Israel etc.

What about "the inequalities in Israel" can't be traced to religion, though?

The problem of multiple peoples thinking that God has promised the land to each of them exclusively? That's religion.

Or if we look at it in terms of the movement to create a Jewish homeland to protect against a repeat of the Holocaust... well, the Holocaust was motivated largely by religion itself. It very closely followed the playbook laid out by Martin Luther in his religious writings.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes ancient religions are tribal, but so are political cults, and political movements, such as Hitler, Stalin and Khmer Rouge ot Cambodia with violent death tolls that rival any violence committed in the name of religion.

As I just pointed out to @muhammad_isa, Hitler's actions were very much religiously fueled.

Regardless of Hitler's personal religious beliefs, he was very much inspired by Martin Luther... and expressed this at length in his writings and followed Luther's advice.

The Holocaust was religious violence. The alternative is to argue that Luther's beliefs - i.e. the core of Protestantism - are political and not religious, which is absurd.

The point is the cause is the tribal nature of humanity, and the associated dominant motivation ot the sense of community and identity that drives individuals to bond wuth unquestioned loyalty regardless of the moral consequences both good and bad. This evolved as a social survival mechanism like that of herds, packs and flocks in animals.

Right. And we should do what we can to break down those barriers and help people feel loyalty to all of humanity in all its diversity.

Now... would you say that religious sectarianism hurts us or helps us in terms of meeting that goal?