Does theism lead to immoral behaviour?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The ice age begun after the 40 rain season was over and dry land had sunken. It is one reason why the water level begun to go down after the flood.

This claim sounds like it would have many testable implications. Do you have any thoughts on what they would be?

 

[ChristineM]

This claim sounds like it would have many testable implications. Do you have any thoughts on what they would be?

I put like but it deserves sn

::OPTIMISTIC::

 

[Audie]

I put like but it deserves sn

::OPTIMISTIC::

I will rate it
:AS IF::

 

[Heyo]

This claim sounds like it would have many testable implications. Do you have any thoughts on what they would be?

I think it's absolutely reasonable to expect that the Earth would cool after the rain.
Given how much heat would be added to Earth by the rain as described in the Bible, and the rapid plate tectonic that is claimed by YEC, a massive increase of the albedo would get rid of the heat until equilibrium is once again reached.

 

[Audie]

I think it's absolutely reasonable to expect that the Earth would cool after the rain.
Given how much heat would be added to Earth by the rain as described in the Bible, and the rapid plate tectonic that is claimed by YEC, a massive increase of the albedo would get rid of the heat until equilibrium is once again reached.

Sometime long after all life had ended.

 

[DNB]

Inspired by this thread:

Does Atheism Lead to Immoral Behavior?

I'd suppose this depends on what you view as moral behavior but I thought I'd ask the question to see what people would say. It is easy to justify one's personal morals but I'd like you to consider the world at large. Is the world becoming more moral or less moral? And, does this have anything...

www.religiousforums.com

Sauce for the goose and all that.

My personal take: yes, theism often - though not always - leads to immoral behaviour.

I find it a bit bizarre to ask such a question that, in and of itself, implies morality, virtue and holiness, and ask if it promotes immorality without a single explanation as to how such an antithetical reaction would occur?

In other words, how in the world can theism lead to immorality, when everything that it stands for is the demand for moral conduct?
Unless one is a hypocrite or charlatan, or has a wicked view of God, then without theism the world would be just as the animal kingdom - dog-eat-dog, looking out for number one, the survival of the physically fittest, kill or be killed, with absolutely no remorse when an injustice is committed.

Again, outside of the immature, insincere or those with ulterior motives, theism always leads to morality, with, of course, periodical back-sliding or failures along the way.

 

[Heyo]

Again, outside of the immature, insincere or those with ulterior motives, theism always leads to morality, with, of course, periodical back-sliding or failures along the way.

That is a contradiction in one sentence. You say theism always leads to morality and in the same sentence you make exceptions.
So, theism does not always lead to morality.

 

[1213]

This claim sounds like it would have many testable implications. Do you have any thoughts on what they would be?

It would be difficult to test in practice what would 40 days of rain and drowning of most land animals cause.

 

[1213]

"Researchers believe they have figured out a way to make a promising biofuel that is cheap enough to compete with gasoline"
I guess their belief wasn't strong enough. The article is from 2013, do you have bio fuel in your tank?

Apparently it is still too expensive to make. But, isn't it still possible to make it as they did? Only right pressure, temperature and mix is required in that, not extremely long time.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I find it a bit bizarre to ask such a question that, in and of itself, implies morality, virtue and holiness, and ask if it promotes immorality without a single explanation as to how such an antithetical reaction would occur?

In other words, how in the world can theism lead to immorality, when everything that it stands for is the demand for moral conduct?

Sounds you're working from quite a few assumptions that aren't universally shared.

Personally, I would say that theism overall is a more of a force for bad than for good.

Unless one is a hypocrite or charlatan, or has a wicked view of God, then without theism the world would be just as the animal kingdom - dog-eat-dog, looking out for number one, the survival of the physically fittest, kill or be killed, with absolutely no remorse when an injustice is committed.

Again, outside of the immature, insincere or those with ulterior motives, theism always leads to morality, with, of course, periodical back-sliding or failures along the way.

Have you ever heard that Steven Weinberg quote?

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion."

Even setting aside the deliberate evil that religion often abets or at least protects, a huge amount of harm has been wreaked on the world by theists who sincerely believed they were doing the will of God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It would be difficult to test in practice what would 40 days of rain and drowning of most land animals cause.

Yet you're here making claims about what this would cause.

But we don't need to drown the world for 40 days to test your claims. You don't think that your story has implications for, say, how soils respond to being submerged?

If I understand you correctly, I think you claimed that the flood brought about an ice age, right? Do you think that has any implications for how our climate works that we might see in other situations?

 

[Heyo]

Apparently it is still too expensive to make. But, isn't it still possible to make it as they did? Only right pressure, temperature and mix is required in that, not extremely long time.

You mean, is it possible that the conditions had been the same as natural crude oil formed? In principle, yes. Practically you'd have to show that they were so. I.e. the depot had to have been sealed, otherwise the oil would have simply floated to the top. A blanket of loose sediment won't do it. You can convince yourself of that. Fill a container to a third with oil, pour sand on it (to 2/3) and fill up with water. Observe what happens.

 

[wellwisher]

Inspired by this thread:

Does Atheism Lead to Immoral Behavior?

I'd suppose this depends on what you view as moral behavior but I thought I'd ask the question to see what people would say. It is easy to justify one's personal morals but I'd like you to consider the world at large. Is the world becoming more moral or less moral? And, does this have anything...

www.religiousforums.com

Sauce for the goose and all that.

My personal take: yes, theism often - though not always - leads to immoral behaviour.

We need to better define morality and immorality, since there currently two conflicting sets of definitions.

Morality was originally designed by religion for optimizing social living; group needs. It was not designed for the individual ego, which is how the Atheists try to characterize morality; relative to ego morality. These two approaches lead to two different results.

The ego approach is far more subjective, since each person has unique needs, talents and wants, for self optimization, which can intrude on each other. The group approach is far more objective and rational, since not all the ego choices will optimize the group. Everyone has to narrow down choices for full group optimization.

As a sports analogy, ego based morality make have everyone wanting to play particular position. This is not good for the team since there are other position that have to be filled, but this may subjectivity inflate each ego. The coach will apply group morality and assigned positions. This may not help all the egos, but now he has a good team.

As another example, thou shall not steal. There are many people who make a living off stealing. To them stealing is relative morality and this satisfies their ego needs. However, thieves cause stress in the group. If we all stole the group becomes divided, wasting resources on defensiveness. If we all could agree that nobody steals, some egos will feel less full, but this reduces social costs for all, since everyone is now more relaxed. This can be measured in an objective way. Old fashion morality was helping to develop the power of reason; logical sweet spots, instead of the diversity of irrational impulsiveness that cannot always overlap.

In the US, we have two major political parties with very different ways for organizing the group. This leads to a social split of the group into two halves, but neither can unify all. To do so, compromises would be needed that may not satisfy the egos of the leaders and members of each group. It is this ego subjectivity that divides; atheist relative morality. But if they all manned up and sacrificed part of the ego subjectivity, the full group could unite; less rat race fighting for ego pie.

Religions, like Christianity, are all over the earth and unite people of different social situations, because it teaches old fashion group morality and not the ego-centric Atheist definition of morality. Instead each person uses will and choice to find common culture, which may not always give you what you want, but it helps keep all together; Religious morality.

 

[Heyo]

We need to better define morality and immorality, since there currently two conflicting sets of definitions.

Morality was originally designed by religion for optimizing social living; group needs. It was not designed for the individual ego, which is how the Atheists try to characterize morality; relative to ego morality. These two approaches lead to two different results.

The ego approach is far more subjective, since each person has unique needs, talents and wants, for self optimization, which can intrude on each other. The group approach is far more objective and rational, since not all the ego choices will optimize the group. Everyone has to narrow down choices for full group optimization.

As a sports analogy, ego based morality make have everyone wanting to play particular position. This is not good for the team since there are other position that have to be filled, but this may subjectivity inflate each ego. The coach will apply group morality and assigned positions. This may not help all the egos, but now he has a good team.

As another example, thou shall not steal. There are many people who make a living off stealing. To them stealing is relative morality and this satisfies their ego needs. However, thieves cause stress in the group. If we all stole the group becomes divided, wasting resources on defensiveness. If we all could agree that nobody steals, some egos will feel less full, but this reduces social costs for all, since everyone is now more relaxed. This can be measured in an objective way. Old fashion morality was helping to develop the power of reason; logical sweet spots, instead of the diversity of irrational impulsiveness that cannot always overlap.

In the US, we have two major political parties with very different ways for organizing the group. This leads to a social split of the group into two halves, but neither can unify all. To do so, compromises would be needed that may not satisfy the egos of the leaders and members of each group. It is this ego subjectivity that divides; atheist relative morality. But if they all manned up and sacrificed part of the ego subjectivity, the full group could unite; less rat race fighting for ego pie.

Religions, like Christianity, are all over the earth and unite people of different social situations, because it teaches old fashion group morality and not the ego-centric Atheist definition of morality. Instead each person uses will and choice to find common culture, which may not always give you what you want, but it helps keep all together; Religious morality.

Amazing. Everything you just said was wrong.
Morality is a concept from philosophy, religion just borrowed it.
Morality is about personal conduct. Communal rules of conduct are summarized by ethics.
Religions are usually more about ethics than about morality and they have only united those within the tribe - and cause strife with other tribes/religions.

 

[DNB]

That is a contradiction in one sentence. You say theism always leads to morality and in the same sentence you make exceptions.
So, theism does not always lead to morality.

For the sake of this question, yes it does. If we're talking about human frailty, when they deny their convictions, then they act immorally. But, obviously, it is not their belief in God that causes the sin, but, rather, their occasional lapse in belief and wisdom.

 

[DNB]

Sounds you're working from quite a few assumptions that aren't universally shared.

Personally, I would say that theism overall is a more of a force for bad than for good.



Have you ever heard that Steven Weinberg quote?

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion."

Even setting aside the deliberate evil that religion often abets or at least protects, a huge amount of harm has been wreaked on the world by theists who sincerely believed they were doing the will of God.

Both you and Steven Weinberg are referring to the misguided, exploitive and/or insincere.
Many atrocities have been committed in the name of religion - but what fool would call those people devout theists? And, if they are devout to anything, it is not the holy God of love and righteousness, but more likely His arch-enemy.

 

[Heyo]

For the sake of this question, yes it does. If we're talking about human frailty, when they deny their convictions, then they act immorally. But, obviously, it is not their belief in God that causes the sin, but, rather, their occasional lapse in belief and wisdom.

Then let me ask a slightly different question:

Does the teaching of theism lead to moral actions?

By your own logic it doesn't. It leads, in most cases, to the profession of theism - which is, in most cases, a lie.
And, depending on if you call deception amoral or immoral, we could even say that the teaching of theism leads to immorality in most cases.

 

[1213]

If I understand you correctly, I think you claimed that the flood brought about an ice age, right? Do you think that has any implications for how our climate works that we might see in other situations?

Yes, I think 40 days of rain, the flood and dying of most land animals caused cooling. Reason why I think so is for example, if the sun light is prevented by clouds long enough, planet cools down.

"Clouds can block light and heat from the Sun, making Earth’s temperature cooler. You’ve probably noticed this kind of cooldown on a cloudy day."

How Do Clouds Affect Earth’s Climate?

In general, clouds help Earth cool off — but that isn’t the whole story. Read on to learn more about how clouds affect climate!

climatekids.nasa.gov

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Both you and Steven Weinberg are referring to the misguided, exploitive and/or insincere.

Well, I'm talking about sincere theists, though I agree that sincere theistic religion is often exploitative.

Many atrocities have been committed in the name of religion - but what fool would call those people devout theists? And, if they are devout to anything, it is not the holy God of love and righteousness, but more likely His arch-enemy.

I'm not even necessarily talking about full-blown atrocities. I'm talking about things like:

- LGBTQ kids in religious homes being driven to suicide by their parents and their church.

- legislators denying funding for important research to cure diseases because it involves stem cells, which they're opposed to for religious reasons.

- how some Mennonite denominations are so anti-education that they will shun members who get university degrees.

- the mistrust and xenophobia that religion often fosters by making its members think that those who hold different beliefs from them are, as you put it, "devout to [...] not the holy God of love and righteousness, but more likely His arch-enemy."


... just as a few examples.

 

[wellwisher]

Amazing. Everything you just said was wrong.
Morality is a concept from philosophy, religion just borrowed it.
Morality is about personal conduct. Communal rules of conduct are summarized by ethics.
Religions are usually more about ethics than about morality and they have only united those within the tribe - and cause strife with other tribes/religions.

Ethics is about placing social restrictions on the Atheist version; ego-centric style, of relative morality, for the needs of the team. Religious morality has ethical considerations built into their moral system, from day one. Both approaches can lead to the same end result. However, religious morality cuts to the chase, and does not allow the ego to over develop into relative morality, to where their future ethical foundation will become compromised, by bad impulse habits and ego bias. This is where philosophy often comes in; Epicurean justifying their narrow ego centric world view.

An analogy of the difference would be a child learning how to play a sport, on their own, in the parking lot with other pick up players; ego learning by watching and imagining they are a star. This is in contrast to the same child having a coach from day one, who can develop the solid foundation needed for their future needs in that sport; anticipated adult ethics. The former can develop bad habits, easier, falling short of the full ethics needed for an effective group building morality. The latter uses that foundation to evolve their ego in a test proven direction.

When a solider enlists and goes to boot camp, the first thing they do is break down their ego; bias of relative morality. You will forced to become lower than a worm, until the ego gives up. Once you hit rock bottom, the training starts; born again. This training has its eye on the ball. It sets the foundation for a team spirit that can work together even under dire stress. Religions tend to start basic training earlier; childhood, while atheist morality starts later. If the ego over develops; spoiled child, it can resist being born again, instead it will justify itself with a narrow philosophy.

Religions have been around for a long time and they have tried many ways; both ways. Every now and then prophets find the sweet spot allowing basic training to begin with the children. They learn ethics first, and then the ways of the ego, second; secular needs. This is like the trained team solider given freedom to improvise in the field, while always looking out for his team. Atheist morality does it backwards, as expected; ego first and ethics last, with the ego not always able to stay with the big team without supervision; law and police. Religious morality is often more self policing; first lessons of God.

As an example of the contrast, thou shall not steal is a nebulous commandment since there are hundreds if not thousands of subtle differences in terms of what constitutes stealing. The ego-centric may come up with the argument, if someone was poor and starving, and they needed to steal to eat and live, is stealing food from the farmer, stealing? The stronger ethic foundation does not try to make exceptions and loopholes for the ego. It may say, I need to ask the farmer for food and hopefully he has the same foundation as me; share and not an ego-centric greed philosophy.

I was brought up as a Catholic, which was not about fire and brimstone. It was more about the New Testament philosophy of Jesus; love and community in a beautifully appointed Church. It was about trying to be honest, fair and look out for each other. This was part of the foundation of the Love Generation. By my early teens; 13 years old, after my Confirmation; graduation from foundation building, it was time to feed the ego, while always weighing my choices based on that foundation. I never went too far, but was table to dabble in most things. All things are lawful, but not all things edify. Many thing open to learning, can still adversely impact others and harm the team.

I would like to see the Atheist develop an optimize ethical foundation for their children, before encouraging the spoiled ego who then has to find this sweet spot, after a rocky adolescence start, that can embitter them. This approach also requires a later ego building stage; teen years, but with this good foundations of basic ethics in place.