Does theism lead to immoral behaviour?

[dybmh]

It’s pretty dishonest for believers to promote their religions as being a crucial path and source for morals when so many of their fellow believers do horrific acts and harm. When challenged they retreat to “God says…” or “the Bible says…(their interpretation)….” As if either have any authority. The only reason religious ideas, beliefs, morals carry any weight in a secular society is because of the significant traditions of belief. There’s no way the current Supreme Court would exist without evangelicals wanting Roe v Wade overturned.

No, thats not true. Most people say that evil people will find any reason or excuse to do harm or to unjustly profit. You're welcome to think that anti-choicers are doing harm, but that's debatable. It's certainly not the horrific harm that you;re talking about in the beginning of your post.

 

[dybmh]

The problem for many believers is that they think they are following God's orders so can't consider themselves "falling short". That's why being accountable for your own acts as your own moral arbiter is a more humble approach.

But that permits a person to justify anything. Without the ever watchful God, all that's really preventing anyone from doing whatever they want is, "will I get caught." Even empathy and "logic" can be twisted to justify harming others.

People need rules, those rules need to be enforced. And no human enforcer is watching 24/7.

 

[F1fan]

No, thats not true. Most people say that evil people will find any reason or excuse to do harm or to unjustly profit.

And whther they are religious or not is irrelevant. They will use religion and God as an additional reason to act with evil intent.

You're welcome to think that anti-choicers are doing harm, but that's debatable.

They clearly are doing harm as explained in the class action lawsuit in Texas by women whose pregnancies almost led to their deaths due to the new Texas laws after Roe was overturned. They were denied healthcare because doctors feared they would be seen as breaking the law to abort roblematic pregnancies. There are many other red states, the old Confederate states and a few others up north, that have passed laws that put woman's lives in danger if their conditions become dire.

It's certainly not the horrific harm that you;re talking about in the beginning of your post.

Are you suggesting that there hasn't been horrific actions by religious people? I can make a list for you.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Atheism isn't a doctrine.

To ask if atheism is "moral" is like asking what the color purple tastes like.
It's an invalid question. It doesn't apply

Atheism is mere disbelief of theistic claims.
Not a doctrine that comes with rules and guidelines on how to live your life and treat people.

Exactly.

 

[F1fan]

But that permits a person to justify anything.

As if religious conservatives and extremists don't use God as an excuse for their character flaws.

Without the ever watchful God, all that's really preventing anyone from doing whatever they want is, "will I get caught."

It's funny that if many believers really thought God was watching them they would be bending over backwards working to be kind, decent, charitable, avoid lying and deception, being neighborly, etc., but we don't. I have seen believers act in ways that led me to suspect they were actually atheists because what they considered good and moral was the antithesis of basic decency.

Even empathy and "logic" can be twisted to justify harming others.

Great, give us some examples.

People need rules, those rules need to be enforced. And no human enforcer is watching 24/7.

Even Jews don't follow the hundreds of rules set out in the Old Testament, as if they did they would likely be miserable and committing modern, secular crimes. But your God is watching, dang. Some of those laws treat children inhumanely. Don't wear mixed fiber fabrics. Screwy dietary advice, etc. It seems many believers aren't interested in what God thinks any more.

Modern, secular laws are practical and have real legal consequences. They don't make any claims about Gods or morals. It's not immoral to drive over the speed limit, but it could have negative consequences.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

That is true. But atheism at least does not get in the way of moral behavior. Many religions have immoral behavior built into them. For example the Abrahamic hatred and ordered persecution of LGBQT people and also people with differing religious views.

Well, I agree it doesn't get in the way, and feel that I'm a moral and upstanding person. I'm just pushing back on the idea that atheism drives moral behaviour. Atheists determine their own worldviews (or adhere to broad philosophies above and beyond mere atheism).

I'm also a little unsure on how to judge relative moral views in a general sense. I'm not going to tie myself in knots, and I'm comfortable saying equitable treatment of people regardless of gender, race or religion is clearly more moral than the alternative. But those are kinda edge cases.

As an example;
I've seen...and intensely disliked...some missionary work in very remote places. However the people performing the work in some cases were respectful of local custom, performing practically helpful work, using funds donated by congregations, and giving up a lot of time to live in uncomfortable and dangerous surroundings.

Meanwhile I was doing the same, to teach children. But was getting relatively well paid for it by a Korean company legally cutting down rainforest.

These things aren't so cut and dried once we move past some clear generalities.

 

[dybmh]

As if religious conservatives and extremists don't use God as an excuse for their character flaws.

Sure, but that just makes it a draw. The idea is, God ever-watching is better than no God at all. Evil people will do whatever they want regardless. A saint ( atheists included ) will always do good, regardless. What's best for the folks in the middle? Probably best to have the ever-watching God.

It's funny that if many believers really thought God was watching them they would be bending over backwards working to be kind, decent, charitable, avoid lying and deception, being neighborly, etc., but we don't.

Sure we do.

I have seen believers act in ways that led me to suspect they were actually atheists because what they considered good and moral was the antithesis of basic decency.

It depends on what they believe in. If they think they're perfect and infallible due to some magical thinking, then yeah, that's a problem.

Great, give us some examples.

Oh, that's easy. "If I don't take it someone else will, so I might as well steal it." That's perfectly logical. And FOMO, fear of missing out, can easily be exploited to justify harming others or unjust profit. Self-love, wanting to make oneself happy, self-empathizing, can justify immoral actions. "This will make me so happy and feel so good, that will overwhelm any feelings of empathy for the person I'm harming." Or, "They'll never notice, they have so much, it's not really harming them if I steal." That's pretty typical shop-lifter mentality.

Even Jews don't follow the hundreds of rules set out in the Old Testament, as if they did they would likely be miserable and committing modern, secular crimes. But your God is watching, dang. Some of those laws treat children inhumanely. Don't wear mixed fiber fabrics. Screwy dietary advice, etc. It seems many believers aren't interested in what God thinks any more.

Many aren't, but many are.

Modern, secular laws are practical and have real legal consequences. They don't make any claims about Gods or morals. It's not immoral to drive over the speed limit, but it could have negative consequences.

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.

 

[F1fan]

How many times do I have to tell you..
We are not automatons .. we all fall short.

I'm not talking about little mistakes. I'm talking about Christians torturing people and executing them for witchcraft. I'm talking bout Muslims capturing journalists and beheading them on video. Am I being clear that what I am talking about is not "falling short"? You eem oblivious of the evils that religious people do. And these are the very people that are supposed to be the most exceptional examples of humanity because they are religious?

Many people are duped into following evil .. and some purposely follow evil.

Just as God made them. Too bad God didn't make humans more consistently speptical and thoughful. Instead there are many humans who are blind, lazy, sheep just looking for some truth to follow and they lack the cognitive skills to understand what they are getting themselves into.

You are a human .. you should understand .. or are you claiming to be somehow Holy / Divine?

No, but I am thoughful and realistic. I think for myself, and have no need to be a follower of some sort. You've admitted to being a follower, and part of this behavior has led to you adopting attitudes about wives that most every member on RF finds repulsive and disrespectful. I read your comments as you seemed completely unable and/or unwilling to consider your attitude immoral. That's the automaton that you want to deny is real. Do you really not think you have the final say about those Muslim rules you follow?

 

[F1fan]

I've tried to explain it to other people, it always falls apart because the full explaination takes hours and hours, and the person needs to be willing to understand.

But the simple answer is, those things are a result of chaos and randomness.

So God is chaos and random. If God can't create a universe that doesn't have birth defects and cancers then it isn't almighty. The whole point of being almighty and perfect is being able to do exactly what you want, and clearly your explanation is that God is incapable.

And chaos and randomness are required for the material world to exist.

Who says? You're not dealing with facts here, so you could make up anything, yes? Could it be this is just an excuse to make your od fit what we observe as reality, which is often horrific? If you were God would you design a system where any child has a chance to have defects or cancer? I sure as hell wouldn't.

What we observe makes much better sense that we live in a universe that has no intelligence and no purpose.

If that is stiffled, then everything gets reabsorbed back into God. Sluuuuuuuuuuup.

Why isn't God everything anyway? Are you suggesting God gave up all of his material to create matter for the universe? Where did you read that in the Bible?

 

[F1fan]

Sure, but that just makes it a draw. The idea is, God ever-watching is better than no God at all. Evil people will do whatever they want regardless.

Right, the 9-11 hijackers were following God's commands, and they knew God was watching. How aboiut the Lutherans and Catholics who committed the Holocaust, they surely knew God was watching and must have been pleased. So explain how it is worse that non-theists don't think a God is watching.

A saint ( atheists included ) will always do good, regardless. What's best for the folks in the middle? Probably best to have the ever-watching God.

It's called character, and I suggest those who are thoughtful people, whether religious or not, will assign value to being ethical and moral. Blind followers will find satisfaction in following, even if it is immoral. So where is the advantage in being religious? It's obvious that going to church doesn't inform a believer of introspection and thinking for themselves.

Sure we do.

That goes back to your good people being good because they are good people. Sometimes being good takes work. Being a follower offsets the need to work.

It depends on what they believe in. If they think they're perfect and infallible due to some magical thinking, then yeah, that's a problem.

The question is: why is it a problem when religions are supposed to be a solution to immorality? Being a follower is not always a solution, but feeds the problem. And where is the absent God helping keep people on track? If we are going to be on our own then we should prioritize thinking for ourselves instead of being followers.

Oh, that's easy. "If I don't take it someone else will, so I might as well steal it." That's perfectly logical.

Not if you have character. And if this is logic, then the person isn't logical at all.

And FOMO, fear of missing out, can easily be exploited to justify harming others or unjust profit. Self-love, wanting to make oneself happy, self-empathizing, can justify immoral actions. "This will make me so happy and feel so good, that will overwhelm any feelings of empathy for the person I'm harming." Or, "They'll never notice, they have so much, it's not really harming them if I steal." That's pretty typical shop-lifter mentality.

We huimans are animals that fight for resources like any other, and our challenge is learning how to tame the monkey mind, and value right action. What do religions do to actively teach anything but compliance to rigid sets of rules, often which conflict with other sects and other religions.

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.

Yup, I have lost 5 bike racing friends to drunk drivers over the years. Do you think drunk drivers are all atheists? If not, how does your comment here apply? Religions teach many things, but not mental discipline or high moral standards that offset primal urges. So explain why religions fail to do that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How many times do I have to tell you..
We are not automatons .. we all fall short.
Many people are duped into following evil .. and some purposely follow evil.

... all of which would reflect on our creator, if we were to have one.

 

[DNB]

Jesus may not have explicitly said to kill in his name, but Christians have. And do. Many of them were and are "devout believers."

Your accusations make no sense. You either love Jesus, or you don't. Do not blame Jesus for those who misunderstood everything that he said and stood for, obviously.
I can't believe that this has to be clarified?

 

[DNB]

Of course you do. You've been trained to. According to your holy scriptures, unbelievers are corrupt, vile, wicked, abominable, godless vessels of darkness in the service of evil, not one of whom does any good, to be shunned, and all of whom are fit to be burned alive forever as enemies of a good god and the moral equivalent of murderers and whoremongers. Is it any wonder people that read those words or hear sermons from others that do are filled with hatred for atheists?

[1] "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good" - Psalm 14:1

[2] "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." - Revelation 21:8

[3]"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?"- 2 Corinthians 6:14

[4] Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ." - 1 John 2:22

[5] "Whoever is not with me is against me" - Luke 11:23

You simply weren't able to defend yourself from your religion's bigotry, and so here you are on the Internet telling everybody who will listen what failed people atheists are. Of course, you only reveal the ethical shortcomings of your religion.

Yes, but you can't.

You flatter yourself, atheist-hater. Nothing that you say isn't simple.

What's the difference except the particulars of the beliefs? Santa's jolly and Jehovah is angry. Santa gives coals to bad kids and Jehovah sends bad kids to hell. Then there's the overlap. Each keeps a naughty and nice list, and their is no evidence that either ever existed. Believers are routinely offended whenever their god is compared to any other fictional character, but that's your cross to bear.

A propensity for religion? Biological evolution combined with cultural evolution.

Man is adept at exploiting his fellow man. That's what the priesthood is all about. Religion is big business now, although it seems to be meeting the fate of Blockbuster Video as churches close left and right for lack of relevance. Being a priest has always meant not having to work outdoors or labor. No special talent is needed except the gift of gab. There are no qualifications. And people will take a day off from work each week and bring you money if you tell them to.

The question always arises with outrageous claims whether the claimant actually believe them himself, but why should one care? I steer clear in either case.

I knew that you were going to make me regret taking you seriously.
But, thanks for quoting the Scriptural verses, despite the intent - it's nice to hear words of actual wisdom among such a rebellious and secular crowd.

 

[DNB]

These are the same greedy, selfish, arrogant, entitled, perverted, depraved, etc. beings that are made in the image of God?
Yikes! This god must be one terrible, horrible, awful being.

Jesus, the man, and nothing but a man, was the perfect image of God. We never attained to it due to our lack of faith and selfishness.

 

[DNB]

Perhaps if you had something more to offer than logical fallacies,

So far you've offered an argument from personal incredulity. You can't fathom the way the world is, or that it is the way it is, so there must be some god pulling all the strings.
And now with an argument ad populum. The number of people that believe in something, has no bearing on whether or not said thing actually exists. Lots of people believe in all kinds of false things all the time. This is why critical thinking is so important.

These are not evidence. These are errors in logical thinking and reasoning.
Present some more compelling evidence, and I'll consider this. These are not compelling.

Honestly, honestly, honestly, you atheists just make me regret taking any of you seriously.
I wish that you could think, let alone sound and critically, for if you could you would at least understand half of what I said?
No one flippin' said that the majority's views are correct. But, rather, that the majority's views expose an element within their cognizance and constitution - a spiritual endowment that no other creature has.

...I just wasted my time again, didn't I?

 

[DNB]

Humans, like most animals that are also the prey of another, are very prone to type 2 cognition errors (the false positive and a propensity to infuse agency in otherwise random events).

It's the basis for superstition.
Ironically, our intelligence is also the cause of our tendency to invent such elaborate imaginary patterns around those cognition erros.

Good for you, you've avoided that pitfall.
Whereas 90% of all the humans that have ever lived, in one way or another, have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for a religious education. Wrote academic papers and literature on the subject, taught as professors in schools, debated, fought, made countless hours of prayers, spent countless days in Church or other religious edifice, caused familial divisions, etc.. all in the name of religion.
And your best assessment of this most prevalent and predominant phenomenon, is that it's just a type 2 cognition error.

Unflippin' believable, like really.

 

[dybmh]

So God is chaos and random. If God can't create a universe that doesn't have birth defects and cancers then it isn't almighty. The whole point of being almighty and perfect is being able to do exactly what you want, and clearly your explanation is that God is incapable.

No, but the material world has elements of randomness and chaos. It can still be perfect even with the randomness and chaos.

Who says? You're not dealing with facts here, so you could make up anything, yes?

I mean, kind of. All I need is a plausible explanation, and I have that.

Could it be this is just an excuse to make your od fit what we observe as reality, which is often horrific?

Maybe a little. But it still makes sense.

If you were God would you design a system where any child has a chance to have defects or cancer? I sure as hell wouldn't.

In the beginning, there's one binary choice. Create or not. That choice to create has a lot of baggage that comes along with it. If you think you know better, how do you propose to go from an immaterial God-only reality to a reality that includes material multiplicity?

What we observe makes much better sense that we live in a universe that has no intelligence and no purpose.

Well, that's basically what I'm describing. But God of course can intervene, but cannot stifle the chaos, nor completely neuter evil.

Why isn't God everything anyway?

Kind of, but not really. God is the source and maintainer of everything. God supplies the vitality for everything on an ongoing basis.

Are you suggesting God gave up all of his material to create matter for the universe?

God isn't material.

Where did you read that in the Bible?

It's in the bible, but you have to know where to look. These are deep concepts that are not written or spoken of directly, usually.

 

[dybmh]

Right, the 9-11 hijackers were following God's commands, and they knew God was watching. How aboiut the Lutherans and Catholics who committed the Holocaust, they surely knew God was watching and must have been pleased. So explain how it is worse that non-theists don't think a God is watching.

Like I said, evil people will find any excuse.

It's called character, and I suggest those who are thoughtful people, whether religious or not, will assign value to being ethical and moral.

Sure, but without rules and enforcement, all of those ethics and morality are flexible and can be corrupted.

Blind followers will find satisfaction in following, even if it is immoral.

That's a problem.

So where is the advantage in being religious?

No one is above the law.

It's obvious that going to church doesn't inform a believer of introspection and thinking for themselves.

That's a rather large generalization.

That goes back to your good people being good because they are good people. Sometimes being good takes work. Being a follower offsets the need to work.

Yeah, it makes it easier to be good.

The question is: why is it a problem when religions are supposed to be a solution to immorality? Being a follower is not always a solution, but feeds the problem.

It CAN be a problem.

And where is the absent God helping keep people on track?

God is probably helping in ways that are not obvious and apparent. But, chaos and evil are still needed to maintain the material world. Chaos isnt always bad, of course. That's where biodiversity comes from. There's a lot of benefit and stability there. Evil just needs to be ignored. Not evil people, they need to be contained. But those evil impulses, need to be ignored.

If we are going to be on our own then we should prioritize thinking for ourselves instead of being followers.

Sure, but we still need rules and enforcement.

Not if you have character. And if this is logic, then the person isn't logical at all.

Logic can be corrupted. Anyone can prove anything to themselves with faux-logic.

We huimans are animals that fight for resources like any other, and our challenge is learning how to tame the monkey mind, and value right action. What do religions do to actively teach anything but compliance to rigid sets of rules, often which conflict with other sects and other religions.

Taming the monkey mind sounds like what most religions teach. It's just not formatted in a way that you will easily recognize.

Yup, I have lost 5 bike racing friends to drunk drivers over the years. Do you think drunk drivers are all atheists? If not, how does your comment here apply?

I'm sorry for your loss. Drunk driving is stupid, though.

It applies because, check points work, but checkpoints aren't everywhere. If a person believes it's immoral and God will punish them, that's a checkpoint everywhere.

Religions teach many things, but not mental discipline or high moral standards that offset primal urges.

They do teach that.

So explain why religions fail to do that.

It depends on the religion, of course. It sounds like athiesm isn't teaching it either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

False .. G-d does not like those who start aggression.

Except when she does

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Good for you, you've avoided that pitfall.

Who says I did? I'm as prone to engage in such errors as much as the next person.
The only real difference is that I'm aware of the pitfall.
Being aware of it, helps you in guarding yourself against it.
But no matter how much you try to guard yourself against it, you will still be susceptible to it.

Whereas 90% of all the humans that have ever lived, in one way or another, have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for a religious education. Wrote academic papers and literature on the subject, taught as professors in schools, debated, fought, made countless hours of prayers, spent countless days in Church or other religious edifice, caused familial divisions, etc.. all in the name of religion.

So? Tom Cruise has spent MILLIONS of dollars on scientology to reach the level of Operating Thetan.
Does that make scientology true?

And your best assessment of this most prevalent and predominant phenomenon, is that it's just a type 2 cognition error.

Unflippin' believable, like really.

Did you know that Newton's work in physics, is actually really just a footnote in his life?
The bulk of his energy was spend on alchemy. A pseudo-science that amounts to nothing at all.

Just because people spend a lot of money and energy on something, means diddly squat.

What you do here is just use a variation of the argument ad populum. It's a logical fallacy.

Also: of that 90% you are talking about, the majority actually spend all that money and energy on religions that you don't even believe / follow.

Mayans sacrificed countless human lives to their gods. Gods you believe are false gods and don't exist.
Islamist sacrifice their own lives on a god you don't believe exists.

The vast majority of gods that the majority of people have ever believed in, are gods that you don't believe in either.

Clearly you think that Mayans sacrificing humans was just a waste of human life, right?
The millions that scientologists spend on scientology courses, you also believe to be just a waste, right?

I believe the exact same thing: it's just a waste.
The only difference between you and me, is that I also consider the money and energy spend on YOUR religion to be a waste also.

You are doing your best to put ALL god believers in your camp. But the reality is that the vast majority of them aren't in your camp at all.
You view them just like I view them: misguided.

So really, your "90%" figure is just false. You think the vast majority of them were also wasting their time, money and energy as it was all dedicated to gods and religions you believe to be false also.


Think it through.