Does theism lead to immoral behaviour?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Where is your evidence they were truly christians? IMO a large proportion of church goes are hypocrites.

But not you, right?

 

[Augustus]

Atheism merely refers to the absence of a specific thing, while things like Humanism, Buddhism etc point to the presence of things.
Theism is a generalized term for the presence of a specific thing, which all theistic religions have in common.

In reality, rather than as some textbook concept unrelated to how the human mind actually works in the world we actually live in, atheism is usually a stance one holds in relation to the existence of gods.

Anyone who consciously holds a stance relating to the existence of gods is impacted by that, and anyone who is consciously an atheist holds a stance.

In a world where people believe gods exist and where god beliefs have been very important in shaping the world we live in, atheism does not have to be an important part of your worldview, but for many people it is (Secular humanists for example). It underpins numerous components of their worldview and how they view the worldviews of others.

Even if we say it does not have to have an impact for all people, it is perfectly obvious that atheism can be a significant component in a broader worldview, just as theism may be a significant component in a broader worldview.

In this sense they can be compared, semantic quibbling aside.

I think it's even worse.

Theism can lead to the most immoral behavior imaginable, while believing that very behavior is not only righteous but even a moral duty

As that infamous quote goes:

Good people will do good things.
Bad people will do bad things.
For good people to do bad things, that takes religion

While some theistic belief systems can do that, there is nothing special about theistic belief systems that make them better or different at doing that than other ideologies.

Good people can do bad things based on secular ideology just as easily as theistic ideology.

What matters are the tenets of the ideology, not whether it is theistic.

For example, people in Nigeria wouldn't be burning "witches", if the bible didn't tell them that they exist and must be killed.

This isn't remotely true as is clear to anyone who has lived in a country where belief in traditional magic is widespread. Many people in many countries genuinely believe in magic, both white and black. These are legacies of pre-Abrahamic cultural practices far more than being products of them.

Hostility to black magic is something that has been present in basically all human cultures up until fairly recently where it has died out in some. Why do you think the Old Testament proscribes it?

While they can become enmeshed in a folk Christianity/Islam, Abrahamic clerics actually often see such all belief in folk magic as being foolish or heretical and act as a counterpoint to such beliefs.

The idea that witchhunts are the product of Christianity and wouldn't happen without it is an assumption completely divorced from factual reality though.


In Ghana and Burkina Faso, there are makeshift shelters where alleged witches take refuge. Hundreds of alleged witches, mainly women, who fled their homes and communities after being accused of perpetrating occult harm live there. In Ghana, these shelters, popularly known as witch camps, predate colonialism. In fact, in recent years the government of Ghana has threatened to close down these witch sanctuaries instead of tackling witchcraft allegations that force people to flee their homes and communities. Suspected witches are treated as undeserving of state protection in Zambia, Zimbabwe, Malawi, South Africa, Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania.

Meanwhile, it is not only in Africa that states have failed in their responsibility to protect citizens who are accused of witchcraft. On the Indian subcontinent and Oceania, alleged witches suffer a similar fate. Suspected witches are targets of mob violence and extrajudicial killings. In India, it has been reported that four persons who were suspected of practicing witchcraft or black magic have been murdered in the village of Jharkhand in the district of Gumla. Their killers stormed their homes in the early hours of the morning, dragged the alleged witches to the village square, and lynched them. Suspected witches are subjected to similar horrific abuses in Nepal and Papua New Guinea.

 

[Kenny]

I'm interpreting what is there. That's not hard to do.
All your doing is just saying I'm wrong but with nothing to back the claim up. But in truth there are very, very few Christians who actually have listened to me and considered what I say. They don't dismiss me just to safeguard their ego.

Not hard. Places of worship in those days were separated. Women in one area, men in the other. Trying to communicate to your spouse across the aisle in quite distracting. And, yes, a woman shouldn't usurp the authority of a man, but likewise, a man shouldn't be a dictator.

Or is it that you think that if a man is in the bedroom with a wife in the middle of the night and there is a noise outside of the house that the man should say to the woman, "OK, honey, it is your turn to get the bat and go check to see who is out there"?

Yeah, guarding a possession most likely isn't going to be worth it. Most the time it's replacable or the risks are just too great.

You aren't replaceable.

We see how nasty this is in places like India or Pakistan where they have honor killgs, sepuku and kamikaze in Japan, or even an idea of masculinity in America that is self destructive and eager to look down on women as, as the definition of #3, possessions to be guarded.

apples and oranges - different religion. Not only do you go to the Law and out of the New Testament but then you also go to a different religion. Do you see why I say "You don't understand the bible?"

Seems to me you're more sorry for the damage suffered to the cult called Christianity than you are sorry about my, or others abused by the Church, suffering that happened.
If this isn't the case then why keep insisting I'm wrong and was in with hypocrites? Amd that's what so very many Christians do. It's nothing wrong with the Bible saying people deserve death and are abominations and have done sin with just a thought, it's me and how I just wamted to sin. It was a false church. My faith was never true.
But the icing on the cake is how these behaviors help drive people from Christianity. After all, you dismiss the complaints of those who leave as.nothing to be concerned about amd try to downplay the garbage and baggage found in the Bible.

Your point is quite hypocritical.

 

[Kenny]

I agree.
But (most) people aren't born with a fully fledged moral system. They have their instincts and they have their socialization. Part of the socialization are the books that influence them. And the Bible (or other religious texts) are not a positive influence. Given the numbers of people who read the Bible and how they turn out to be compared to people who read, let's say Kant, and how they turn out to be, there is a bad track record for the Bible.
Yes, there are very moral Christian people, even by modern standards. But for every Dietrich Bonhoeffer you get a Greg Locke, a Fred Phelps and a Kent Hovind. Did the Bible help them on their path? They claim so and the later three sure like to cite the parts they find most influential.

Yes... people are people. Won't deny that. And certainly people can twist the Gospel of Love. Do you think that those "Christians" who supported slavery were actually "Loving their neighbor as themselves"? Anyone can twist the faith that Jesus presented but does that change the true Gospel?

Ever thought of "Who hardwired the initial moral system"?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Or is it that you think that if a man is in the bedroom with a wife in the middle of the night and there is a noise outside of the house that the man should say to the woman, "OK, honey, it is your turn to get the bat and go check to see who is out there"?
...

That is too simple an example. But I get it now. You are the standard for all humans, because you are that special. The true human to God. Anything you say, can't be any different, because you are the truth on earth.

 

[Kenny]

That is too simple an example. But I get it now. You are the standard for all humans, because you are that special. The true human to God. Anything you say, can't be any different, because you are the truth on earth.

this is a great example of how one can twist what is written (even as people do with the Bible).

Reminds me when they tried to trump charges against Jesus.

Jesus is the standard for all humans.

 

[1213]

It demands belief in magic.

Why do you think so?

 

[1213]

Doctrine.

For example: Leviticus 18:22,Leviticus 20:13

That is like saying, a law book leads to immoral behavior. But I agree, lying with a man, as with a woman, is detestible.

 

[1213]

So many reasons, so little space. I guess the most ridiculous is the ritual cannibalism.

Ok, I would also think cannibalism is wrong. Luckily Christianity has no ritual cannibalism, if Christianity is what the Bible teaches.

 

[King Phenomenon]

The difference is that there is nothing inherent to atheism that motivates such bad behavior, while there absolutely is in plenty of theistic religions.

For example, people in Nigeria wouldn't be burning "witches", if the bible didn't tell them that they exist and must be killed.

Without religion the world might even be worse.

 

[Heyo]

Ok, I would also think cannibalism is wrong. Luckily Christianity has no ritual cannibalism, if Christianity is what the Bible teaches.

Take that up with all the Christians who celebrate the Eucharist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In reality, rather than as some textbook concept unrelated to how the human mind actually works in the world we actually live in, atheism is usually a stance one holds in relation to the existence of gods.

Yes. The stance of disbelief. Which, as I said, points to the absence of a specific thing. That thing being "belief".

Anyone who consciously holds a stance relating to the existence of gods is impacted by that, and anyone who is consciously an atheist holds a stance.

Not if that stance is the absence of something.
I'm not impacted by my stance on unicorns, undetectable dragons or leprechauns.

One is impacted by positive beliefs in the presence of things. Not by disbelief of them.

Consider the belief that a pile of invisible rocks are blocking your lane on the high way.
This belief impacts your driving style. You might slow down / stop or change lanes.
Disbelieving such a pile of rocks blocks your way, does not impact your driving. You'll just continue driving as if said pile of rock isn't present.

In a world where people believe gods exist and where god beliefs have been very important in shaping the world we live in, atheism does not have to be an important part of your worldview, but for many people it is (Secular humanists for example).

Humanism is not atheism. Atheism is not humanism.
The same goes for secularism.

It underpins numerous components of their worldview and how they view the worldviews of others.

Even if we say it does not have to have an impact for all people, it is perfectly obvious that atheism can be a significant component in a broader worldview, just as theism may be a significant component in a broader worldview.

I disagree. Theism comes with doctrines on "how to live". Atheism does not.

While some theistic belief systems can do that, there is nothing special about theistic belief systems that make them better or different at doing that than other ideologies.

True. Which is why in another post I put them all on the same pile.
For me, in such context, there isn't much difference between dogmatic theism and any other dogmatic ideology.
Take North Korea for example. Their ideology is like a "state religion". It's not theistic, but it certainly is dogmatic. Questioning and scepticism of the "recognized authority" is frowned upon, or even literally forbidden.

Atheism by itself, doesn't have such.

Good people can do bad things based on secular ideology just as easily as theistic ideology.

True. Which is why I tend to put all (dogmatic) ideology on the same pile.

What matters are the tenets of the ideology, not whether it is theistic.

True.

And as such, atheism is NOT an ideology.

This isn't remotely true as is clear to anyone who has lived in a country where belief in traditional magic is widespread. Many people in many countries genuinely believe in magic, both white and black. These are legacies of pre-Abrahamic cultural practices far more than being products of them.

Belief in magic isn't the issue here. The dogma that witches must be killed, is.
If they followed a dogma that said witches are to be protected and revered, they wouldn't be killing those who they believe to be witches, now would they?

 

[Heyo]

Yes... people are people. Won't deny that. And certainly people can twist the Gospel of Love. Do you think that those "Christians" who supported slavery were actually "Loving their neighbor as themselves"? Anyone can twist the faith that Jesus presented but does that change the true Gospel?

You don't have to twist the message, it is about selecting what you want to believe. And even the most peaceful and moral of Christians refuse to edit or recompile the Bible. So everybody can read into it what they believed before.
If Christians were interested in spreading a consistent and moral message they would challenge the demagogues and crazies. Do they? Nope, they leave that to the atheists.

Ever thought of "Who hardwired the initial moral system"?

Evolution.

 

[We Never Know]

But not you, right?

Sure. I'm a strong believer in god just like you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why do you think so?

Resurrections of the dead, physically impossible floods, physically impossible celestial events, magical plagues, magical splitting of seas, the magical appearance of food from the sky, turning water into wine, making the blind see through what-I-can-only-call magic spells, talking burning bushes,......



Need I go on?
Did you even read the bible?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is like saying, a law book leads to immoral behavior.

If the laws in that book call for people to behave immorally, then yes.

But I agree, lying with a man, as with a woman, is detestible.

Takes for proving my point.
It calls for homophobia. Which is immoral.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Without religion the world might even be worse.

Every social health index / statistic in the world tells us that countries with low religiosity (incl dogmatic ideology of any kind) tells us that the opposite is true.

The best countries to live in today (in terms of life expectancy, literacy, overall societal health indexes across the board) are secular democracies with low levels of religiosity.

The higher the religiosity / authority imposed dogma, the more of a hellhole it tends to be.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sure. I'm a strong believer in god just like you.

I'm an atheist.

 

[King Phenomenon]

Every social health index / statistic in the world tells us that countries with low religiosity (incl dogmatic ideology of any kind) tells us that the opposite is true.

The best countries to live in today (in terms of life expectancy, literacy, overall societal health indexes across the board) are secular democracies with low levels of religiosity.

The higher the religiosity / authority imposed dogma, the more of a hellhole it tends to be.

I don’t think so

 

[King Phenomenon]

Every social health index / statistic in the world tells us that countries with low religiosity (incl dogmatic ideology of any kind) tells us that the opposite is true.

The best countries to live in today (in terms of life expectancy, literacy, overall societal health indexes across the board) are secular democracies with low levels of religiosity.

The higher the religiosity / authority imposed dogma, the more of a hellhole it tends to be.

All countries have religion