Does theism lead to immoral behaviour?

[shunyadragon]

Anti-Jewish attitudes were quite prevalent in Europe, and even America, before the war, and I suspect Hitler adopted these views from his social experience growing up. He was raised Catholic, and Catholics were very anti-Semitic at that time. Hitler surely took this social attitude and applied it in political policies, so not a huge step. Many dictators take social attitudes and use them to exploit the public for support. And no wonder the public at large just stood by and watched attacks on Jews in their neighborhoods. So I think it is safe to say that Hitler went along with many in Europe who were Catholic or Lutheran (Christian) yet their beliefs in Jesus as savior did not help them consider that Jews had human rights. If the Christians of Europe had been MORE Christian, and accepted Jews as humans who deserved rights and dignity, there would not have been a rise to the Nazi party and their anti-Semitic policies. The Nazis rose to power by exploiting the citizens over the economics of Depression era Germany, and their anti-Semitic biases.

We look at the issue of whether religion influenced Hitler's attitudes and policies against Jews, but has anyone questioned why Christians didn't put a stop to the Holocaust?

I repeated that the Holocaust had both Political and Theist motivations. Yes, Hitler was influenced by his upbringing as a Catholic.

Why did the Christians not intervene? Because of the very strong open anti-Semitism and even hostile anti-Semitic sentiments among the Christians ot Europe, USA and Latin America there was little motivation to help the Jews. The passion plays calling the Jews ;Christ killers' was wide spread in Europe at the time. Some did object and made efforts to help the Jews, but the over whelming power of Germany dominated Europe even before WWII.

This is big example of the failure of ancient tribal religions failure to address the moral and ethical issues of the contemporary world. The tribalism of ancient religions rules the world.

 

[muhammad_isa]

He clearly believed that his god was talking to him and inspiring his movement..

No he didn't .. he had his political views .. as did President Bush.
Both of them probably thought that "God was on their side" ..
Human understanding is limited. Politics is complex.

What happened in WWII?
The bombing of cities, where "innocent" civilians were killed.
Mankind have powerful weapons. It becomes harder to act morally,
when such things are going on.

Terrorism is an extreme reaction to superpowers. It results
from frustration. I most certainly do not condone it.
..but it certainly isn't all one sided, as many people claim it to be.

 

[shunyadragon]

No he didn't .. he had his political views .. as did President Bush.
Both of them probably thought that "God was on their side" ..
Human understanding is limited. Politics is complex.

What happened in WWII?
The bombing of cities, where "innocent" civilians were killed.
Mankind have powerful weapons. It becomes harder to act morally,
when such things are going on.

Terrorism is an extreme reaction to superpowers. It results
from frustration. I most certainly do not condone it.
..but it certainly isn't all one sided, as many people claim it to be.

Your neglecting the fact that there is no separation of politics and religion in most governments and history.

Ben Laden and others advocating violence believed they were following the scripture of the Koran, which may be clearly interpreted as they do.

 

[Copernicus]

No he didn't .. he had his political views .. as did President Bush.
Both of them probably thought that "God was on their side" ..
Human understanding is limited. Politics is complex.

I agree with shunyadragon on this point. It really isn't possible to separate religion from politics. Secular government is a relatively recent development in human history. Bin Laden wasn't a political leader in the sense that Bush was. He was a jihadist. That is, he saw himself as engaged in a holy war. I don't think that you are going to be successful in convincing anyone otherwise.

What happened in WWII?
The bombing of cities, where "innocent" civilians were killed.
Mankind have powerful weapons. It becomes harder to act morally,
when such things are going on.

No, it is just as easy as it always was. The weapons people use are just more destructive. It's not as if Sunnis and Shias never committed atrocities against each other because of their religious differences. Tolerance of religious diversity is a lot easier in countries that are explicitly secular. It is worth remembering that the people who ratified the US Constitution as a secular state were largely devout Christians, not atheists. They took the position that government should not meddle in religion and vice versa. In the modern US, the struggle to keep religion and politics separate still goes on. Whether or not laws can be based on religious ideals of moral behavior (e.g. reproductive rights) is at the heart of the struggle.

Terrorism is an extreme reaction to superpowers. It results
from frustration. I most certainly do not condone it.
..but it certainly isn't all one sided, as many people claim it to be.

I would say that terrorism has nothing at all to do with superpowers. It has to do with political and religious minorities that feel powerless against governments that have policies they disagree with. It's not that atheists are incapable of committing terrorist acts, but they don't have any clear motivation to bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors who perform abortions. Those acts tend to be carried out by people who feel that their interpretation of God's law supersedes civil law and that their behavior is moral on religious grounds.

 

[shunyadragon]

Your neglecting the fact that there is no separation of politics and religion in most governments and history.

Ben Laden and others advocating violence believed they were following the scripture of the Koran, which may be clearly interpreted as they do.

To add: recently the more liberal governments with a secular democratic government like Turkey are hedging back to a more conservative Islamic influenced government giving up democracy, and other governments are adapting archaic Sharia Law over secular law.

This is a similar problem in the USA with the growing dominance of Fundamentalist Christian government like a Theonomy. Our current Court system and legislature is becoming dominated by Christian Conservatives.

This trend has increased the violence against minorities worldwide.

 

[dybmh]

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".

It's been a long time since any religion as a majority, started a religious war.

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.

Seems weird. I'd be interested to read that stuff.

Drugs?

Yeah, that was part of the story you told in another thread. That's how you knew the bombers were sweet fun guys before radicalization. No judgements towards you for hanging with them. But, there is some level of susceptibility to influence there that shouldn't be ignored if they were getting high and someone started incepting ideas.

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

Sure, just don't drop that radical qualifier.

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

Radical. Yes. conventional, no.

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?

Let me go back and re-read what I said. Maybe I mispoke. Something is being misunderstood. Maybe it's my fault.

...

OK! You reacted to my statement that "evil people will always find an excuse".

I still think that's true. But when you talk about people being radicalized, maybe those people weren't actually evil. The people who radicalized them could have been evil. The religion isn't evil, if a person cherry picks and becomes a social predator looking for people who can be manipulated, that person, the predator, is evil.

So, yeah, I'm denying that Islam is evil. I'm also denying that religion itself is evil. Why Am I denying it? Because I don't think it's true. There's too many counter examples to make a strong correlation. For example, here where I live, religious people are the ones championing gun control, and that's not a new thing.

 

[shunyadragon]

It's been a long time since any religion as a majority, started a religious war.

In the religious wars between Judaism, Islam, within Christianity and within Islam there was never a question of which was a minority religion. Though different religions and their varieties carried out religious cleansing of minorities.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Ben Laden and others advocating violence believed they were following the scripture of the Koran, which may be clearly interpreted as they do.

How exactly?
Does the Qur'an tell Muslims to kill all non-Muslims on sight?
Is that what you think the Qur'an teaches?

Furthermore, does it teach Muslims to kill people indiscriminately?
Of course not .. you paint billions of believers as bufoons.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How exactly?
Does the Qur'an tell Muslims to kill all non-Muslims on sight?
Is that what you think the Qur'an teaches?

Furthermore, does it teach Muslims to kill people indiscriminately?
Of course not .. you paint billions of believers as bufoons.

That's the fun thing about the Quran: it has enough vague stuff in it that someone can find support for pretty much any position.

 

[muhammad_isa]

.. it has enough vague stuff in it that someone can find support for pretty much any position.

You mean that people will believe what they want to believe?
..nothing new there, then.

There is no serious, scholarly opinion that believes that indiscriminate killing is ever lawful.
..and that would include exploding nuclear bombs on enemy cities.

Can human beings make decisions to do just that?
..we know the answer is yes.

 

[DNB]

Nonetheless hatred of the Jews can be motivated by direct citations from the Bible. Also the tribal Christian Manifest Destiny and Dominion over the Earth have also been a source of violence against those that 'do not believe' in history and even today.

This a problem with the scripture of all ancient tribal religions.

Scripture is not the problem, for I can show you some of the most peaceful, benign and altruistic Christians also.
The problem is interpretation of Scripture. Jesus never said or did anything offensive.

 

[DNB]

I read the whole thing. The facts are against you. Hitler's motivation were not religious. He did exploit the hatred of Jews by Christians to achieve his goals. Hitler was fundamentally irreligious.

Your premise here was 'Does theism lead to immoral behaviour?

Hitler's motivation nor personal beliefs was NOT Theism. There is reference in Hitler's writings nor speeches that he was motivated by Theistic beliefs nor that he believed in Theism. His motivation for hatred of the Jews and Communists was political

Why did Hitler hate the Jews?

Hitler used antisemitic ideas that had been around for a long time. Read more about Hitler’s hatred of Jews.

www.annefrank.org

During the First World War (1914-1918), Hitler was a soldier in the German army. At the end of the war he, and many other German soldiers like him, could not get over the defeat of the German Empire. The German army command spread the myth that the army had not lost the war on the battlefield, but because they had been betrayed. By a ‘stab in the back’, as it was called at the time. Hitler bought into the myth: Jews and communists had betrayed the country and brought a left-wing government to power that had wanted to throw in the towel.

. . . and as previous noted he was motivated by Aryan supremacy.

...I know, they keep using the charlatans, misguided and insincere to make their points against theism.
How does one impress upon them the futility and ignorance of such an argumentation?

 

[DNB]

Do you have anything useful to contribute to the conversation at all?

Sorry, they fell on deaf ears, and blind eyes.

 

[dybmh]

In the religious wars between Judaism, Islam, within Christianity and within Islam there was never a question of which was a minority religion. Though different religions and their varieties carried out religious cleansing of minorities.

i said it's been a long time. when did those wars occur that you are referencing?

 

[shunyadragon]

i said it's been a long time. when did those wars occur that you are referencing?

The current war between Israel and The Islamic nations, and the conflicts between Muslims and minority groups in Iraq and Iran, and the conflicts in what was Yugoslavia between Moslems and Christians.

The conflicts in Africa between Muslims and Christians in Africa. The includes conflicts between Christians.

Tolerance and Tension: Islam and Christianity in Sub-Saharan Africa

As of 1900, both Muslims and Christians were relatively small minorities in the region. Since then, however, the number of Muslims living between the Sahara Desert and the Cape of Good Hope has increased more than 20-fold, rising from an estimated 11 million in 1900 to approximately 234 million...

www.pewresearch.org

 

[shunyadragon]

Scripture is not the problem, for I can show you some of the most peaceful, benign and altruistic Christians also.
The problem is interpretation of Scripture. Jesus never said or did anything offensive.

Yes, there are peaceful references in the Bible, bit there are references that advocate violence against and ancient tribal views toward non believers. I can cite parables, Book of Revelation, and the common tribal theme of the OT to support this, The history of Christianity in forced conversion and religious persecution and killing are well documented. The history of anti-Semitism is Biblical based.

My objection to the thread is the vague selective generalization that Theism causes immorality and not the fact that the history of Christianity and other ancient religions are responsibly for persecution and widespread slaughter of non-believers like most ancient religions.

Buddhism is an example of a historical ancient religion that is mostly peaceful, but of course lile all fallible humans not totally innocent.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The problem is interpretation of Scripture. Jesus never said or did anything offensive.

That's debatable, to say the least.

Jesus:

- advocates hating one's family
- calls a woman a dog
- gleefully revels in imagining future torture in Hell of people he disapproves of
- attacks a fig tree in an irrational rage

... and all that is just off the top of my head.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The history of anti-Semitism is Biblical based..

We know that it started mainly as a European "Christian" issue,
but I don't think it is because they blamed Jews for the death of Jesus.

Why would they? If Jesus hadn't "died for mankind's sins", there would be no Orthodox Christianity.

 

[shunyadragon]

We know that it started mainly as a European "Christian" issue,
but I don't think it is because they blamed Jews for the death of Jesus.

Why would they? If Jesus hadn't "died for mankind's sins", there would be no Orthodo x Christianity.

you have to better understand the relationship between Christianity and Judaism and the very matter of fact history of anti-Semitism, persecution and attempts of forced migration and slaughter of Jews. When I have more time I will cite Biblical support for this,

The history of Islam is also problematic at time persecuting Jews even though the scripture may not support this as well as the NT Bible.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

And no human enforcer is watching 24/7.

Neither does God. It took 400 years to realize His chosen were suffering in slavery.