• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does theism lead to immoral behaviour?

Heyo

Veteran Member
It sounds more like you think theism must be narrowly defined in ways it just isn't.
What's your preferred definition of theism?
And can you point to a theist that fits that definition and only that definition?
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.
As I said, beliefs are diverse and many but there is no theist that doesn't have hundreds of beliefs they connect to being theists.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
What's your preferred definition of theism?
And can you point to a theist that fits that definition and only that definition?
Can you point to a baseball player who never plays on a specific team?
As I said, beliefs are diverse and many but there is no theist that doesn't have hundreds of beliefs they connect to being theists.
Sure, but the one - and probably only - thing that every theist has in common is that they believe in at least one god.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
:rolleyes:

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?

So, when I love on my child and they aren't reciprocating, I am stalking my own child?

Taxes? Aren't the prices of eggs in China $10 a dozen?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
What's your preferred definition of theism?
It's not my definition. The most widely used and accepted definition of theism is some who believes in one or more gods.
And can you point to a theist that fits that definition and only that definition?
Well, admittedly, it can get complicated because in some Eastern cultures, like Japan, theist is more used to describe Western monotheism and not their own traditional beliefs.
But we are Westerners and a theist believes on a god or two or a few.
As I said, beliefs are diverse and many but there is no theist that doesn't have hundreds of beliefs they connect to being theists.
But the one thing they all have in common is they believe in a god.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Have you ever considered that it might be you, that does not understand what we are telling you?
I consider the issues carefully.
But I given no weight to claims without evidence.
..of course, there's always the option of accusing billions of believers of being sub-human. ;)
Well, I'm glad I made no such accusation.
Magical thinking is very human...the most
common kind of human. Some are just
less prone to it than others.
 

Sgt. Pepper

All you need is love.
Not all experience liberation & love.
@Shadow Wolf can speak personally to this.

So, I can, and disavowing my Christian faith and belief in God was the best decision I've ever made for my mental and emotional health. I only wish I had done it years earlier so that I could have experienced emotional healing as well as peace, joy, happiness, and contentment in my life instead of spending years struggling with depression, guilt, fear, remorse, anxiety, an eating disorder, and suicidal thoughts. I compare my emotional dependence on God to being locked in a prison cell, except the door to my cell was open, but I never realized that I could leave whenever I wanted to. Being a devout Christian was detrimental to my emotional, mental, and physical health, and letting go of my faith was the best decision that I've ever made. The shame and guilt I once felt about forsaking my faith are gone. Christianity was a prison for me, but now I'm free from it. I've been in a survivors of childhood abuse support group for a long time, and I offer guidance and emotional support to other survivors of childhood abuse who've left Christianity or are considering it. The majority of people in this support group are former Christians who suffered abuse at the hands of their Christian parent(s) or another Christian relative.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
So, I can, and disavowing my Christian faith and belief in God was the best decision I've ever made for my mental and emotional health. I only wish I had done it years earlier so that I could have experienced emotional healing as well as peace, joy, happiness, and contentment in my life instead of spending years struggling with depression, guilt, fear, remorse, anxiety, an eating disorder, and suicidal thoughts. I compare my emotional dependence on God to being locked in a prison cell, except the door to my cell was open, but I never realized that I could leave whenever I wanted to. Being a devout Christian was detrimental to my emotional, mental, and physical health, and letting go of my faith was the best decision that I've ever made for myself. The deep shame and guilt I once felt about forsaking my faith is gone. Christianity was a prison for me, but now I'm free from it. I've been in a survivors of childhood abuse support group for a long time, and I offer guidance and emotional support to other survivors of childhood abuse who've left Christianity or who are considering it. The majority of people in this group are ex-Christians who suffered abuse at the hands of their Christian parent(s) or another Christian relative.
I'm glad you expanded on the post you deleted earlier.
Your experience is illuminating.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I don't think it only takes religion to do that. Just put two people together and it can do that. ;)
True, but it takes religion to tell people if your friend or a family member says to you lets go worship other gods, do not protect them but kill them and you are to cast the first stone (Deuteronomy 13:6-9).
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Sure, but the one - and probably only - thing that every theist has in common is that they believe in at least one god.
But the one thing they all have in common is they believe in a god.
And that that/those god(s) intervene in human affairs.
"Deism and theism are two religious beliefs about the existence of god and his intervention in the universe. While both deism and theism hold the belief that God is the creator of the universe and gave human beings the ability to think, they have different beliefs about God’s intervention in the universe. Deism holds the belief that God does not intervene in human affairs whereas theism holds the belief that God intervenes in human affairs through miracles or supernatural revelation." - from Difference Between Deism and Theism | Definition, Beliefs, Examples
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
And that that/those god(s) intervene in human affairs.
Again: no.

Edit: I'm having flashbacks to the time I was in a debate with a deist who insisted he wasn't a theist and he actually edited the deism Wikipedia page just to be able to quote it.
 
Last edited:

Heyo

Veteran Member
Again: no.

Edit: I'm having flashbacks to the time I was in a debate with a deist who insisted he wasn't a theist and he actually edited the deism Wikipedia page just to be able to quote it.
What do you think is the difference between deists and theists (and who besides you also think that)?
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
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.

Some of the terms here aren't defined with absolute certainty, and that's okay. Dillahunty drew an analogy with nutrition: we can have reasonable debate within certain limits about whether one diet is healthier than another while also recognized that arsenic or a rock are not nutritious for humans.

From the point of view of my wife's work, that is problematic, because you have can border cases of no or very little thinking in a cognitive sense, yet apparent feeling of discomfort.
Then there is the standard problems of utilitarianism.
 

Ella S.

Well-Known Member
Would we need to do that? Why would we consider those things "atheism"?

I mean,

1) AFAICT, none of them even require atheism.

2) It seems absurd and chauvinistic to me to frame things done by people who aren't theists as "consequences of atheism."

On the second point: would you say that the water pollution associated with golf courses, for instance, is a consequence of not playing baseball? How about bear attacks in national parks while people are camping? Both of these things are "consequences" of not playing baseball in the sense that if someone played baseball instead of engaging in those hobbies, the impact of those other hobbies wouldn't have happened.

Framing things done by atheists as "consequences of atheism" suggests a bizarre and IMO unjustified focus on theism - or the lack thereof - as the defining characteristic of a person or a belief system.

I specifically chose ideologies in which atheism is a core facet of them, in the same way that theism is a core facet of, for instance, Christian ethics.

Existentialism, Secular Humanism, and Social Darwinism were all philosophies formed in response to the loss of religion and the need for a new ethical system to replace it. They derive from atheism.

Stalinism, likewise, views religion (and theism) as a political obstacle and a lie that prevents people from recognizing the reality of their situation and staging a revolution. Similar to the above philosophies, it sees a necessity to replace religious devotion to God with a nationalistic devotion to the state, almost directly because there is no God to depend on and religion is an "opium of the people."

Machiavellianism is meant to be an atheistic description of secular power dynamics. It's essentially advice given from a position of atheism and from the perspective that all morality, which at the time was almost exclusively associated with organized religions, was an illusion. It can't wholly exist without atheism, because its entire position is based on a rejection of any sort of governing supernatural force of law.

So in all of these above examples, these philosophies are direct consequences of atheism in the same way religions can be direct consequences of theism. The only argument you're giving here to counter that seems to be some form of special pleading.

LaVeyan Satanism and Buddhism might be the only ones where your counter-argument holds that they're merely atheistic philosophies and not philosophies formed as a consequence of atheism. Except, historically, both historically differentiate themselves from their predecessors by the fact of their atheism and the consequences that atheism has on the religion. For LaVeyan Satanism, that's Thelema, and for Buddhism it's Hinduism. So while the case is looser, I still think it's a fair comparison.

So if we're going to consider Muslim terrorism a consequence of theism, we also have to consider the USSR a consequence of atheism.

I don't think we should consider Muslim terrorism a consequence of theism or the USSR a consequence of atheism. I think we should view them as consequences of particular individuals ascribing to a specific interpretation of certain philosophies, thus avoiding over-generalization. But if you want to make the comparison, then do it consistently and coherently. Don't special plead.
 

Ella S.

Well-Known Member
That's the easy part. I worry more about a definition of "morality" that allows us to judge the religious without imposing our subjective definition on them.

I have a minute nitpick with the wording here.

There are plenty of objective definitions of "morality" and there are whole ethical philosophies for extrapolating from these definitions in purely rational ways. While no two people practice the same ethical philosophy identically and many people have their own idiosyncratic moral intuitions, that doesn't necessarily discount objective critique from a given ethical position.

The messy part is when one definition of morality claims to be the only true one or the only valid one. Such as when a utilitarian calls deontology immoral or the other way around. That's not necessarily a subjective definition; it is ultimately deduced from objective axioms analogous to how math and logic follow from their axioms.

I think maybe a better way of wording it is that it's a "personally preferred" definition. That preference is subjective, but the definition itself technically isn't.

Does that make sense or am I just coming across as a sophist?
 
Top