Does theism lead to immoral behaviour?

[muhammad_isa]

And if you give those people a Bible or Quran, they'll still do it but sleep soundly at night "knowing" that they've carried out "God's will."

..has little to do with God..
..or are you claiming that Hiroshima was raised to the ground, carrying out "God's will"?

 

[Copernicus]

..has little to do with God..

No, but it has to do with religion-inspired terrorism. They believe that they are carrying out God's will, even if you don't.

..or are you claiming that Hiroshima was raised to the ground, carrying out "God's will"?

Inshallah. Doesn't everything that happens carry out God's will? I'm sure that the event was viewed as God's will by many believers. Are you of the position that no Muslims believe in holy wars? The Hiroshima bombing was not an act of religious terrorism, but the destruction of the Trade Towers in New York City was.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

You believe by faith. I don't think you have much to say to a critical thinker.

I have never argued for theocracy.

You've argued for the death sentence for adultery based in your religious belief.

You see religion as "the problem", whereas I see it as political.

Religion doesn't become a problem for the skeptic until its politicized. It can be a problem to the adherent without being politicized, because he welcomes religion into his life, trusts it, and is thus vulnerable to any bad advice it may offer. But if his religion gains access to the power of the state, then it can inflict itself on those who would avoid it if they could.

Religion by itself isn't a problem for the skeptic until it becomes politicized. I comment on that frequently:

has little to do with God

As far as we know, nothing has anything to do with any gods.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

..has little to do with God..

Religion in general - including yours - has little to do with God.

..or are you claiming that Hiroshima was raised to the ground, carrying out "God's will"?

If a monotheist sees the Hiroshima bombing as good, then they'll consider it "God's will."

God is nothing more than the relatable face that people project their own values and ideals onto.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The Hiroshima bombing was not an act of religious terrorism, but the destruction of the Trade Towers in New York City was..

Well, that's the thing .. it depends on whose eyes you are looking through..

You presumably view Hiroshima, as a "lawful" act that was designed to end Japanese aggression,
whereas Trade Towers you see as an "unlawful" act by religious fanatics.

 

[Copernicus]

Well, that's the thing .. it depends on whose eyes you are looking through..

Which, if you give it some serious thought, is why it is erroneous to say that religious morality is "objective". It very always depends on a subjective perspective, and different religious groups will define morality in very different ways.

You presumably view Hiroshima, as a "lawful" act that was designed to end Japanese aggression,
whereas Trade Towers you see as an "unlawful" act by religious fanatics.

Nope. I believe that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were immoral, unconscionable, and unjustifiable war crimes, although many Americans will disagree with me. The trade towers, likewise, although not as horrible as the obliteration and mutilation of all of those innocent people in WWII.

 

[DNB]

Or you had none to contribute, as you've thoroughly demonstrated.
You haven't responded to a single one of my arguments against yours.

I gave you all my points, and I don't believe that you understood any of them.
What am I to conclude?

 

[DNB]

No, just pointing out that there are more positions than just atheism and theism.

Who was unaware of that?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I gave you all my points, and I don't believe that you understood any of them.
What am I to conclude?

You couldn't even take the time to read through my two sentence post.

I said you did not respond to a single one of my arguments against yours. Why is that? Are you here to debate and have a discussion, or just to troll and make snarky comments lacking in substance?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Nope. I believe that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were immoral, unconscionable, and unjustifiable war crimes..

Easy to say from the comfort of your armchair reading history..
..but I think that the vast majority of humans see it as immoral, yes.

 

[Copernicus]

Easy to say from the comfort of your armchair reading history..
..but I think that the vast majority of humans see it as immoral, yes.

That's an easy criticism for you to make from the comfort of your armchair reading my posts. Is this your way of admitting that your telepathic powers were much weaker than you thought when you said that I presumably view Hiroshima, as a "lawful" act that was designed to end Japanese aggression? I have never viewed it that way. It was a racist field test of a nuclear capability on civilian targets that was unnecessary to end the war, when a negotiated surrender would have saved many more lives. It was not motivated in any way by religion, and the bomber crews did not shout "Praise God" when they dropped the bombs. Ground zero in Nagasaki was actually their Catholic cathedral.

 

[muhammad_isa]

That's an easy criticism for you to make from the comfort of your armchair reading my posts.

Snap!

..It was a racist field test of a nuclear capability on civilian targets that was unnecessary to end the war, when a negotiated surrender would have saved many more lives.

Hmm .. I didn't realise that you were an expert on WWII.
The Japanese were not ready to surrender. They were prepared to continue with suicide missions
against the odds .. "death was more honourable" and so on..

It was not motivated in any way by religion

I would agree..

, and the bomber crews did not shout "Praise God" when they dropped the bombs.

Probably not .. but unless you were there in the plane when they were dropped, it is
only an assumption on your part.

Ground zero in Nagasaki was actually their Catholic cathedral.

..and were there no Muslims in the twin-towers or vicinity thereof?

 

[Copernicus]

Hmm .. I didn't realise that you were an expert on WWII.
The Japanese were not ready to surrender. They were prepared to continue with suicide missions
against the odds .. "death was more honourable" and so on..

You were there? The information that I have had suggests that the Japanese were willing to negotiate a surrender and that the US knew it. However, it would not have been an unconditional surrender, and the US also felt that obliterating two cities of minor military significance but great cultural value would terrify Japan into capitulating. So they didn't bother trying to negotiate.

See: The Manhattan Project: Japan Surrenders

..and were there no Muslims in the twin-towers or vicinity thereof?

What difference would that make to religious fanatics? Do you believe that Muslims would never kill Muslims working for the Great Satan? There are Muslims working in the Pentagon. Collateral damage in the jihad.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Do you believe that Muslims would never kill Muslims working for the Great Satan?

Well, I see it regularly .. one group of believers calling each other disbelievers..
..not so much about others working for the "Great Satan", as being fooled by satan themselves.

 

[Copernicus]

Well, I see it regularly .. one group of believers calling each other disbelievers..
..not so much about others working for the "Great Satan", as being fooled by satan themselves.

Another possibility is that neither group is fooled by Satan or serving the interests of a god--just people being cruel to each other in the name of religious dogma. History is full of cruelty perpetrated in the name of religion, although there are certainly other motivations for that cruelty, too. Atheism or religious skepticism can even be a capital offense in at least 13 countries: Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Libya, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen. There is no reasonable excuse for that kind of extreme punishment other than fear and hatred rooted in religious fanaticism.

See: Wikipedia Discrimination against atheists (atheophobia)

 

[muhammad_isa]

There is no reasonable excuse for that kind of extreme punishment other than fear and hatred rooted in religious fanaticism..

I disagree..
Treason is not acceptable in most countries .. hence we have people being accused of being double agents etc.
Many countries do not want their citizens to be bombarded by what they see as negativity and dissent.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

..has little to do with God..
..or are you claiming that Hiroshima was raised to the ground, carrying out "God's will"?

Why change the subject? Nobody is talking about Hiroshima, nor is anyone claiming that was an act of religious violence, nor is anybody claiming that only religious beliefs inspire acts of violence.

I note you didn't bother to reply either to my post, where I informed you that the politics of the middle east / syria didn't bother the molenbeek terrorists like Abdeslam etc at all before they turned into radical muslims.

It's only when radical islam came into their lives that they suddenly felt like engaging in a "holy" fight against the "unbelievers", aka "enemies of islam".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, that's the thing .. it depends on whose eyes you are looking through..

The whole point of this exercise is to look through the eyes of the believers who engage in those attrocities.
Through the eyes of guys like Salah Abdeslam.

But you categorically refuse to do so. Probably because it will lead you to a place you are allergic too.

You presumably view Hiroshima, as a "lawful" act that was designed to end Japanese aggression,
whereas Trade Towers you see as an "unlawful" act by religious fanatics.

Here's the difference: one can make a reasonable argument based on evidence to show how the act of the hiroshima bombing in fact could, and did, end japanese aggression and shortened the war and thereby actually saved millions of lives.

There's an actual reasoned argument based on evidence to be made there.

This is not the case with islamic terrorism, which is motivated primarily by religious beliefs which by definition aren't based in reasoned argumentation.
There is no reasonable argument to be made to show how that act could ever amount to a positive outcome for anybody.
And the same goes for radical islamist suicide bombers blowing themselves up at concerts, hotels, mosques, bars, airfields, subway stations, public markets, etc.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

..and were there no Muslims in the twin-towers or vicinity thereof?

Dude.

Islamist terrorism kills more muslims then anyone else (including "the west")
It's okay. To the jihadi terrorists, they are the "wrong kind" of muslims.

The vast majority of victims of islamist terrorism, are muslims. Not non-muslims.

In fact, americans kill more americans in a single year then muslim terrorists have killed americans the past 40 years.

But all that is beside the point. Muslim victims are victims also. I speak of the Abdeslams because I personally have known them before they turned radical islamist. But the victims of the attacks in Paris and Brussels pale in comparison to the (mostly muslim) victims that ISIS and alike have made in Syria and Iraq.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What difference would that make to religious fanatics? Do you believe that Muslims would never kill Muslims working for the Great Satan? There are Muslims working in the Pentagon. Collateral damage in the jihad.

They are not seen as "collateral" damage at all. They are, to them, legitimate targets.

People seem to forget that the vast majority of islamist terrorism victims are in fact muslims.
MOST such attacks happen in the middle east in sectarian violence.
Mosques, market places, etc are bombed in the middle east by suicide terrorists all the time.

They are the "wrong kind of muslims". The "wrong" denomination.
Many of these jihadi groups are in fact enemies of one another.