Does theism lead to immoral behaviour?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I get that deists would feel more connected to theists than to atheists but when you start to rationally compare them, there is exactly one difference between a deist and an atheist (and a pretty inconsequential one) while there are hundreds of difference between a deist and a theist.

There's no difference. Deism is a subset of theism.

What's the difference between a Wendy's hamburger and a hamburger?

 

[Heyo]

I generally approach it from a viewpoint I got from Matt Dillahunty; I can't remember where he got it from (Dan Dennett, maybe?): morality concerns actions that affect the well-being of thinking agents. Actions that improve that well-being are moral and actions that diminish that well-being are immoral, all else being equal.

A point of view I'd agree to but not a Catholic, at least not a Catholic like Mother Theresa who thinks that suffering is a good thing.

 

[Heyo]

There's no difference. Deism is a subset of theism.

What's the difference between a Wendy's hamburger and a hamburger?

It's the other way around. A hamburger is just a hamburger, a Wendy's hamburger is a hamburger with the additional feature of being from Wendy's. So, hamburger is the super category.
Same for deists and theists. A deist believes in a creator god. A theists also believes in a creator god but has the additional feature of also believing in magic. And, depending on the implementation of the theism (and there is no such thing as an abstract theist), souls, heaven, hell, reincarnation, prophets, commandments and hundred other things.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A point of view I'd agree to but not a Catholic, at least not a Catholic like Mother Theresa who thinks that suffering is a good thing.

... because it earns the sufferer reward in Heaven.

She probably would have agreed with the framing, too. My disagreement with her is about factual premises: she thought that maximizing a person's net well-being involved suffering now with the expectation of that reward later, but I think that her expectation was incorrect.

If I thought that Heaven and God were real and that God works the way Teresa believed, I'd probably accept that her approach maximizes well-being, too.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's the other way around.

No, I know what I meant with my analogy.

A hamburger is just a hamburger, a Wendy's hamburger is a hamburger with the additional feature of being from Wendy's. So, hamburger is the super category.
Same for deists and theists. A deist believes in a creator god. A theists also believes in a creator god but has the additional feature of also believing in magic. And, depending on the implementation of the theism (and there is no such thing as an abstract theist), souls, heaven, hell, reincarnation, prophets, commandments and hundred other things.

No, theism is just belief in at least one god.

Polytheism and monotheism are both subcategories of theism. Classical monotheism (what you described as "theism") and deism are both subcategories of monotheism.

 

[Heyo]

... because it earns the sufferer reward in Heaven.

She probably would have agreed with the framing, too. My disagreement with her is about factual premises: she thought that maximizing a person's net well-being involved suffering now with the expectation of that reward later, but I think that her expectation was incorrect.

If I thought that Heaven and God were real and that God works the way Teresa believed, I'd probably accept that her approach maximizes well-being, too.

Which is just the problem we run into when trying to define "morality".
I guess that even then we could show that theists have to be more immoral because of inconsistencies and irrationality of the morality they themselves believe in but that would take some work.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Which is just the problem we run into when trying to define "morality".

What problem?

I guess that even then we could show that theists have to be more immoral because of inconsistencies and irrationality of the morality they themselves believe in but that would take some work.

I think that's part of it, yes.

Someone who's significantly mistaken about how things work will be at a disadvantage when trying to take actions that improve the well-being of others.

The point where honest mistake on the part of the theist becomes a moral error is when they decide not to examine the justification of their foundational beliefs, but use those beliefs as the basis of decisions that affect others anyway.

 

[Kenny]

It may be for you, but that does not seem to be the case for many, in fact probably not most Christians, and it certainly is not doctrine.

Actually, restoration is a doctrine. - But we are all debtors in respect to my signature.

 

[Kenny]

I don't read any sacred books. But I observe that
they appear to offer mixed messages, as evidenced
by passages cited by believers. You're a peaceful
person, & glean that message. But others are
called to the message of vengeance or conquest.

I speculate that people with hostile tendencies are
inspired & inflamed when religion feeds their worst
natures with certainty & evil prescriptions, eg, death
dealing fatwahs, religious war, hatred of the other,
the need to lord power over others.

The way I say it is "religion binds people and uses laws for control". Faith liberates people and uses principles of love.

With that premise, yes, the first will demonstrate hostile tendencies while later will free people.

 

[Revoltingest]

The way I say it is "religion binds people and uses laws for control". Faith liberates people and uses principles of love.

With that premise, yes, the first will demonstrate hostile tendencies while later will free people.

Not all experience liberation & love.
@Shadow Wolf can speak personally to this.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think there is some truth to this statement. I remember when I was a recent believer (maybe 5 years into my faith) when the pastor asked me to accomplish a task to which I completely forgot about (frankly, today I don't remember what that task was. )

A couple of weeks later he said, "How is the task going?". Caught without having done a thing, I concocted a story that was convincing enough to buy me time. I lied!

Leaving the office, I heard this voice in my head that said, "You lied".

My immediate response was, "Yes, I did, please forgive me".

The next set of words I heard was, "Now go back and fix it!"

I went back and fixed it.

Apparently "righting the wrong" is part of the equation.

In all the organizations I've had business dealings with, one of the slipperiest and least honest was a Christian church.

I got the impression that they thought it was them and their fellow believers against the world, and they had no problem screwing over people who they considered to be on the opposite side from them.

 

[Kenny]

Christianity is a religion, those who are Christian are religious, so what you say doesn't make much sense.

People can make Christianity a religion. I see it more as a relationship and not a religion.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The way I say it is "religion binds people and uses laws for control". Faith liberates people and uses principles of love.

With that premise, yes, the first will demonstrate hostile tendencies while later will free people.

Yeah, that's what the say. And they do talk a lot about love and the freedom from sin. But abusive types frequently spin things around so the hatred and bitterness and intolerance are viewed as love.
And just like most others who adhere to the religion called Christianity you are doing all kinds of mental and lingual gymnastics to avoid confronting an uncomfortable reality and fact, and that is your religion is a living, hellish nightmare for very many people. Amd that is because the Bible--not hypocrites or fake Christians--goes on at length as it frequently condemns, ridicules and mocks the unsaved sinner, atheists, queers, and a host of other petty and trivial things that it's no surprise when someone is traumatized by it.

 

[Kenny]

Not all experience liberation & love.
@Shadow Wolf can speak personally to this.

which goes back to "religion" vs "relationship". I think she just supports what i said.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

People can make Christianity a religion. I see it more as a relationship and not a religion.

A "relationship" with someone who doesn't reciprocate is called "stalking."

Is it still "not a religion" when it comes time to claim the tax breaks religions get?

 

[muhammad_isa]

The point where honest mistake on the part of the theist becomes a moral error is when they decide not to examine the justification of their foundational beliefs, but use those beliefs as the basis of decisions that affect others anyway.

No .. that's a mistake on the part of the atheist who ASSUMES that believers follow blindly without thinking.
Some might, but most do not.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I get that deists would feel more connected to theists than to atheists but when you start to rationally compare them, there is exactly one difference between a deist and an atheist (and a pretty inconsequential one) while there are hundreds of difference between a deist and a theist. Theism, or more precisely, the implementations of theism, called religions, bring a lot of baggage with them you have to believe (and often you have to believe opposing things at the same time). Deism rejects all of those beliefs but the one of a creator god.

It sounds more like you think theism must be narrowly defined in ways it just isn't.
And must believe? Biblical literalism isn't universal. I also knew an Episcopalian priest who openly welcomed gays into his church long before affirming church was a word.

 

[Revoltingest]

which goes back to "religion" vs "relationship". I think she just supports what i said.

Religion sure can enhance & even create toxic relationships.

 

[Revoltingest]

No .. that's a mistake on the part of the atheist who ASSUMES that believers follow blindly without thinking.
Some might, but most do not.

Belief without solid evidence does
mean following people blindly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No .. that's a mistake on the part of the atheist who ASSUMES that believers follow blindly without thinking.
Some might, but most do not.

If I hadn't had more conversations than I can count with theists trying to explain why they believe in their gods, I might have believed you.