Does theism lead to immoral behaviour?

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

He's not talking about treason.

He's talking simply about not believing in a certain religion.

Ironically, you are proving his / our point concerning the intolerance that is inherent to certain religious beliefs.

You are now literally defending the practice of killing people based only on their religious beliefs (or lack thereof)

How ironic can it get.................................

 

[lewisnotmiller]

DUI is immoral. But again, without an ever watching God, it can all be reduced to "will I get caught." If there's no divine justice, if you don't get caught, then, there's no consequences.

You think the only consequence to DUI is getting caught?
If that were true, we could just make DUI legal, right? No consequences!!

 

[muhammad_isa]

This is not the case with islamic terrorism, which is motivated primarily by religious beliefs which by definition aren't based in reasoned argumentation.

That's absurd..
I see that they are NOT motivated primarily by religious beliefs.
It is primarily the result of the World Wars, and their countrys' subsequent status.

In the same way, Irish Republican violence in NI was not primarily about religion.

There is no reasonable argument to be made to show how that act could ever amount to a positive outcome for anybody.

All 'terrorist' acts do not have a positive outcome for those targeted.

 

[muhammad_isa]

He's not talking about treason.

He's talking simply about not believing in a certain religion..

Yeah, yeah..
..not so different from working for 'the Eastern bloc' as an American citizen.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yeah, yeah..
..not so different from working for 'the Eastern bloc' as an American citizen.

So, are you actually defending the practice of killing people based only on their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) ???

 

[muhammad_isa]

So, are you actually defending the practice of killing people based only on their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) ???

No .. I've discussed this subject extensively, previously.
Would the US prosecute somebody for being a communist? No.
..but if a citizen steps out of line, and is guilty of treason, or inciting hatred, then they might.

 

[dybmh]

You think the only consequence to DUI is getting caught?
If that were true, we could just make DUI legal, right? No consequences!!

No, not me. The people who drive intoxicated can justify it in their mind that way.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No .. I've discussed this subject extensively, previously.
Would the US prosecute somebody for being a communist? No.
..but if a citizen steps out of line, and is guilty of treason, or inciting hatred, then they might.

We're not talking about prosecuting people. We're talking about killing people.

 

[Copernicus]

No .. I've discussed this subject extensively, previously.
Would the US prosecute somebody for being a communist? No.
..but if a citizen steps out of line, and is guilty of treason, or inciting hatred, then they might.

Nonsense. People are not being executed for treason, which is a political crime in just about every country. They are being executed for religious behavior that is defined as apostasy or denial of a religious claim. Laws designed to impose religion on citizens of a country are there because people who make the laws in those countries are religious bigots who, in fact, incite hatred against people who reject their religious beliefs. The people in control of government use the power of government to punish religious freedom, not sedition.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Nonsense. People are not being executed for treason, which is a political crime in just about every country. They are being executed for religious behavior that is defined as apostasy or denial of a religious claim. Laws designed to impose religion on citizens of a country are there because people who make the laws in those countries are religious bigots who, in fact, incite hatred against people who reject their religious beliefs. The people in control of government use the power of government to punish religious freedom, not sedition.

That is how it seems to you, from your viewpoint.
Nobody likes to see people treated badly without good reason .. including pious Muslims.

Ignorance can be found in the world in general, and it is not difficult to find Muslim-majority
countries that behave badly .. after all, Islam is the second largest populous religion.
Furthermore, many have development problems compared to the West, who are among the G7.

You want to make it all about Islam, when it is more complex than that.

 

[Copernicus]

That is how it seems to you, from your viewpoint.
Nobody likes to see people treated badly without good reason .. including pious Muslims.

If that were true, the world would be a far better place than it is.

Ignorance can be found in the world in general, and it is not difficult to find Muslim-majority
countries that behave badly .. after all, Islam is the second largest populous religion.
Furthermore, many have development problems compared to the West, who are among the G7.

I'm not disputing any of that. That isn't the issue here.

You want to make it all about Islam, when it is more complex than that.

No, I don't want to make it all about Islam. This is a discussion about whether theism can motivate immoral behavior. My position is that it can, regardless of the brand of theistic religion in question.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

No, not me. The people who drive intoxicated can justify it in their mind that way.

People can justify whatever they like. Saying that GROUPS of people do that...as in 'non-theists'...requires some sort of evidence or linkage above and beyond mere suggestion.
If I compared rates of religiosity with rates of drink driving in Australia, it wouldn't suggest what you're saying. I actually don't think it would suggest much of anything when it comes to religion and non-religion, but still.

 

[DNB]

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?

There is much good in life, as there is great potential for it when man makes a concerted effort to do so.

But, on the other hand, one cannot count, remember or even fathom the list of atrocities committed throughout the history of man.
And, these crimes are unnecessary, senseless and gratuitous.

Man, according to atheists, is a product of the universe.
Why then, does he act in such a manner that is so antithetical to his interest in survival. Why does he behave in a manner that defies his innate intellect?
Why do all the other creatures on earth conform to nature, their biology and their environment?

Man is subject to an influence that is beyond the material realm - he is fighting the conflict that takes place in his mind and heart.
Man is a spiritual being, and that spirit within man has a source outside of the physical realm. The transcendent God.

 

[dybmh]

People can justify whatever they like. Saying that GROUPS of people do that...as in 'non-theists'...requires some sort of evidence or linkage above and beyond mere suggestion.
If I compared rates of religiosity with rates of drink driving in Australia, it wouldn't suggest what you're saying. I actually don't think it would suggest much of anything when it comes to religion and non-religion, but still.

Stats or not an ever watchful judge prevents the problem. No group is being singled out. All people have the same potential problem.

The debate is about an ideology not a group.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Stats or not an ever watchful judge prevents the problem. No group is being singled out. All people have the same potential problem.

The debate is about an ideology not a group.

I'm somewhat confused what that last sentence means, though.
You said : DUI is immoral. But again, without an ever watching God, it can all be reduced to "will I get caught." If there's no divine justice, if you don't get caught, then, there's no consequences.

I read that as you meaning the absence of an ideology based around a watchful God increases the chances a group...atheists...will make an immoral decision. If I'm reading you wrong, I apologise.

 

[dybmh]

I'm somewhat confused what that last sentence means, though.
You said : DUI is immoral. But again, without an ever watching God, it can all be reduced to "will I get caught." If there's no divine justice, if you don't get caught, then, there's no consequences.

I read that as you meaning the absence of an ideology based around a watchful God increases the chances a group...atheists...will make an immoral decision. If I'm reading you wrong, I apologise.

No need to apologise. I think, and I hope I made this a little clearer earlier in the convo you are replying to.

This is what I mean:

People need rules. All people. Some people might say... "No I can rely on empathy and logic to make moral decisions." I think empathy and logic can be corrupted. From this a conversation can be had about how to develop a proper set of rules and how and when those rules get amended.

I also think that rules need enforcement. But there is no way for a human to monitor and enforce 24/7.

I also think no one should be above the law. But that is very difficult to accomplish with a human justice system.

I think all three of these needs benefit from belief in a divine ever-watchful judging god. And I don't see atheism or non-belief having any tools for accomplishing what the god belief can accomplish *especially* the 24/7 monitoring and enforcement.

But, people can escape from those beliefs too, or perhaps amend them with other beliefs which undermine the benefits. It's not perfect, if it's just a belief. But it's better than non-belief.

That's what I want to say.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's absurd..
I see that they are NOT motivated primarily by religious beliefs.
It is primarily the result of the World Wars, and their countrys' subsequent status.

Keep telling yourself that.
Meanwhile, most of the fighers that ISIS imported came from, and grew up, in europe where they lived rather normal lives prior to being caught up in the grips of radical islam. And those who were of arabic decent, their countries of origin (ie: where their parents or even grandparents came from) mostly weren't Syria or Iraq.

It's clear that you seem emotionally unable to see the obvious.

In the same way, Irish Republican violence in NI was not primarily about religion.

How many non-irish catholics / protestant were recruited and imported from foreign countries to fight there?
How many felt the need to?
Where / what are the equivalent groups of organizations like "Shariah4Belgium" that did such recruiting?
How does that compare to what we see in groups like ISIS?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah, yeah..
..not so different from working for 'the Eastern bloc' as an American citizen.

And again you continue jumping topics and dodging the obvious.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No .. I've discussed this subject extensively, previously.
Would the US prosecute somebody for being a communist? No.
..but if a citizen steps out of line, and is guilty of treason, or inciting hatred, then they might.

And again you jump topics and dodge the point at hand.

Nobody is talking about that. People are JUST talking about the different religious beliefs of people in the middle east and how that is handled by the authorities.

YOU are the one who's trying to make that about "treason" and absurd comparisons like "communists in the US" and whatnot.
And by pretending as if those are the same thing, you are actually showing how our points are more then accurate.

It's quite ironic actually.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is how it seems to you, from your viewpoint.
Nobody likes to see people treated badly without good reason .. including pious Muslims.

Ignorance can be found in the world in general, and it is not difficult to find Muslim-majority
countries that behave badly .. after all, Islam is the second largest populous religion.
Furthermore, many have development problems compared to the West, who are among the G7.

You want to make it all about Islam, when it is more complex than that.

Please.

If western countries would treat muslims like how you defend non- (or ex-) muslims are treated in islamic theocracies in the middle east, you'ld be on the first row screaming "islamophobia" and "racism".