Difference in moral thought between atheists and believers

[Valjean]

I choose to understand that God knows what He is doing.

So why doesn't he communicate it consistently?

 

[McBell]

I was debating the guy who brought it up.

and you used a definition that is not typical.
So i was wondering where you got your off the wall definition.

 

[Valjean]

Theists demonstrate far better morals.

No, they do not.
They do what they want and justify it with an appeal to religion. Read some history. There is no end to human atrocities justified by religion. God is always on everyones side, it seems.

Your problem is that you are calling some people theists who actually aren’t.

Part of being a theist is demonstrating good morals so if you aren’t doing that then you aren’t one.

So anyone behaving badly, according to you, is No True Theist?
What about all the "wrongdoers" who devoutly believe in God and believe their actions are in accord with His will?

Are you the arbiter of God's true will? Why? How? You don't even care about determining morality. You just believe what you believe regardless of the fact that you admittedly have no evidentiary basis for it.

 

[Valjean]

Everybody isn't an atheist here. Hell, my wife comes from a catholic culture.

Her religion has quite a lot to do with morality. Things like freedom, liberty, welcoming the stranger, etc.

But then, she doesn't call herself a "theist".

She calls herself a "Catholic".

Catholic is a subdivision of theist, like mammal is a subdivision of animal, or rodent of mammal.
Theist is a broad category.

 

[Valjean]

Being dunked in water doesn’t make someone a theist, their actions do.

No, their beliefs do.
If they believe in a God or gods, they're theists.Some theists are moral and well behaved, others... not so much.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

He can believe but he certainly wasn’t a Christian.

I suppose that all depends on your definition of Christian. I don't go in for the No True Scotsman fallacy. If someone believes Jesus is the messiah who died for your sins, that's a Christian, even if they were a guard at Auschwitz.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

I suppose that all depends on your definition of Christian. I don't go in for the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Some definitions are determined by war.

Holy Wars.

Changing the definition now would require re-fighting those wars.

 

[Watchmen]

I was debating the guy who brought it up.

And lost. Or at the very least stopped responding.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well morality does not actually exist in the world, neither do ethics or values.

They are defined by society but remove society and you have nothing.

For instance, if there are only two people in the world and one says, “I am going to kill you”, and the other says, “ you can’t because it’s wrong”, what is he basing that off of?

There is no society with laws saying he cannot be killed, there is nothing written in the cosmos saying it’s wrong….nothing.

Atheists inherently have nothing to follow until they make it up. This is why we see their morality fluctuate all the time.

Believers have inherent morality which is consistent because it comes from God.

In reality the above is not true. All cultures in human history had an have a moral code without regard to whether they believed in God or Gods. Some like the Confucian Code I prefer over the Biblical Code of morals and ethics.

The tribal nature of the Abrahamic Judaism, Christianity and Islam have a violent immoral history when it comes to those that are not members of the same tribe, Two thousand years of persecution, ethnic cleansing, and pogroms against Jews and other minorities excludes Christianity form any moral high ground

I personally prefer the moral and ethics code of the Baha'i Faith. It teaches the harmony of science and religion and the first Abrahamic religion to forbid slavery of all kinds, A more Universalist perspective without regard to the beliefs of any one religion broadens tolerance of those who believe differently and allows for change over time.

Buddhism is historically a more moral and peaceful religion,

Those that live in the more secular nations of Scandinavia are the happiest and have the most tolerant moral codes in the Western world. Likely in the world

 

[Tinkerpeach]

I suppose that all depends on your definition of Christian. I don't go in for the No True Scotsman fallacy. If someone believes Jesus is the messiah who died for your sins, that's a Christian, even if they were a guard at Auschwitz.

I believe you need to at least attempt to lead a Christian life.

Simply believing it is not a get out of jail free card. I’m sure Satan believes Jesus is the Messiah but it’s not going to save him.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

And lost. Or at the very least stopped responding.

I’ve learned it’s pointless to argue with non-believers.

There was no debate there.

 

[LuisDantas]

A Catholic BY DEFINITION is a kind of theist. The opening words to the Creed they profess at every Mass is "We believe in One God." So apparently you HAVE met a theist in real life.

It is quite a bit more fuzzy in practice, at least here in Brazil.

In a nutshell, it is bad manners to deny being a Catholic unless you claim to be some other form of adherent... regardless of whether you are a theist or not.

 

[LuisDantas]

I’ve learned it’s pointless to argue with non-believers.

There was no debate there.

You would have to make the attempt, so yes, it is probably pointless.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It is quite a bit more fuzzy in practice, at least here in Brazil.

In a nutshell, it is bad manners to deny being a Catholic unless you claim to be some other form of adherent... regardless of whether you are a theist or not.

Not only is it accurate to say a Catholic is a type of Christian, it is also accurate to say a Catholic is a type of theist. It is not a "different kind of adherent." It's no different than pointing out a chihuahua is a kind of dog. Do you think if you acknowledge a chihuahua is a type of dog, that it is somehow denying that it is a chihuahua? So please, we are NOT talking about denying one is Catholic.

 

[joelr]

Theists demonstrate far better morals.

It’s not even close.

Your problem is that you are calling some people theists who actually aren’t.

Part of being a theist is demonstrating good morals so if you aren’t doing that then you aren’t one.

The thousands of Priests who assaulted children, were the ones we found out about, but in prior generations it must have been the same.
They are theists.
The Bible itself says to stone children, take plunder of war, women remain silent in church, take slaves.

The Nazis were theists, they wore a cross on their belt. The Spanish Inquisition were definitely theists.

Now, we can solve this really easily. There are no statistics that demonstrate any large religious group commits less crime.
Taking any theists who is immoral and claiming they are not a "real theist" is a no true Scottsman fallacy.

Theists in Christianity admit they have bad morals, it's part of the doctrine? You confess and ask forgiveness and it's all good.
You just "try harder".

 

[joelr]

I’ve learned it’s pointless to argue with non-believers.

There really isn't such a thing. Everyone has beliefs. Not everyone has beliefs that are completely unsupported by evidence.

There was no debate there.

Because you cannot debate these issues.
Someone could say they believed in Thor and you could respond that he is a fictional character in comic books and fiction from Germanic myth, no evidence he was real or supernatural beings are real.
And they would say "But Thor is my savior and my personal experiences tell me he is real, I know 100% he is real and he loves me".

That isn't a debate. That is avoiding a debate with delusion and self self righteous beliefs. Often because someone learns basic apologetics and thinks for some reason they are excused from logic and empirical thinking. Repeating a belief isn't a debate.
If you can cross out "Jesus" in your exchange and replace it with "Islam" or "Mormonism", you are not really saying anything. In a debate you probably want to demonstrate good reasons why your position makes sense. Not preach beliefs you hold.

 

[LuisDantas]

Not only is it accurate to say a Catholic is a type of Christian, it is also accurate to say a Catholic is a type of theist. It is not a "different kind of adherent." It's no different than pointing out a chihuahua is a kind of dog. Do you think if you acknowledge a chihuahua is a type of dog, that it is somehow denying that it is a chihuahua? So please, we are NOT talking about denying one is Catholic.

Make no mistake, Catholicism is NOT restricted to true theists here in Brazil. Nor are other forms of Christianity, truth be said. Belief in not a requirement, once you are born into a certain kind of family. All it takes is the absence of a certain modicum of determination to protest against being baptized and called a "believer" by others in one's own stead.

I am not being dramatic, just truthful. I dealy wish that was not the case.

It is not at all a matter of belief, but rather of submission to social expectations of continuous intellectual dishonesty. For whole lifetimes.


There are really only three choices for about 95% of Brazilians: you are a Christian (if only by refusing to say otherwise). Or you are explicitly an adherent of some other creed (most often Umbanda or Candomblé, but often Kardecist Spiritism as well, although less frequent options exist). Or you are in some sense a rebel and people will actively doubt that you mean it.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

There really isn't such a thing. Everyone has beliefs. Not everyone has beliefs that are completely unsupported by evidence.




Because you cannot debate these issues.
Someone could say they believed in Thor and you could respond that he is a fictional character in comic books and fiction from Germanic myth, no evidence he was real or supernatural beings are real.
And they would say "But Thor is my savior and my personal experiences tell me he is real, I know 100% he is real and he loves me".

That isn't a debate. That is avoiding a debate with delusion and self self righteous beliefs. Often because someone learns basic apologetics and thinks for some reason they are excused from logic and empirical thinking. Repeating a belief isn't a debate.
If you can cross out "Jesus" in your exchange and replace it with "Islam" or "Mormonism", you are not really saying anything. In a debate you probably want to demonstrate good reasons why your position makes sense. Not preach beliefs you hold.

Exactly so there is no point in continuing on.

 

[shunyadragon]

Exactly so there is no point in continuing on.

The stoic fortress of self justified belief and denial of reasonable alternatives is not a coherent response, This view is part of what violently divides humanity along irreconcilable tribal boundaries.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Make no mistake, Catholicism is NOT restricted to true theists here in Brazil.

I'm not sure what you mean by "true" theists. A person is either a theist or an atheist.

I realize that there is a concept in Catholicism that once baptized, a person is a Catholic for life, whether they lose faith or not, whether they are serious sinners who will end up in hell or not. In the US, people who are no longer practicing Catholics are called "lapsed Catholics." Culturally, they are still Catholic, but they are no longer in line with Catholic teaching. Most of these are folks that the church considers to be in sin but they still believe, but there are also those who have given up belief.

Perhaps in Brazil, such people who no longer believe still identify as Catholic. Here in the US, they generally prefer the term ex-Catholic, meaning that while the CC may still count them as Catholic, they believe they have left the church and the label Catholic no longer applies to them.

If this is the case with Banach's wife, and she's actually an atheist but from a country that is Catholic and sees being Catholic as a cultural thing rather than a belief based identity, then yes, I can see what you are saying, and I really do appreciate your input on this. I can see how Brazilian culture may simply be different on this than American culture.

Nevertheless, Catholicism, as in the religion not the individuals, is a branch of Christianity, which is itself a branch of monotheism, which is a branch of theism. Can we agree on this?