Does theism lead to immoral behaviour?

[dybmh]

Usually by people who have neither, LOL.

Well, I can't disagree with you anymore, right? That's dangerous territory and I'm liable to embarrass myself.

 

[F1fan]

No .. I don't.

Then where do you think the STRUCTURE of government came from if not beliefs?

I have already said that there is an overlap between religion and politics.

There can be, but not always. The subject of politics is very broad and includes secular government to theocracies. So your broad claim here isn't correct in the breadth, only in specific cases.

However, I do not believe that an Islamic republic/nation needs to be a dictatorship.

They are theocracies, and have their own problems with human rights violations. This is the problem with any government that has no accountability for it's leaders, even religious.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

immoral - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

en.m.wiktionary.org

And?

A wiki definition? Okay. Hmm…

Usually immoral is defined as breaching of moral and moral is always a set of normative code against a particular ethic principle.

That means that the ethic principle (utility, categorical imp., divine, etc.) must be named before we can speak of what is moral vs. not.

In secular societies, a divine ethic principle for example, is not the moral basis but in a religious one, it is.

That’s what I meant.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[muhammad_isa]

Then where do you think the STRUCTURE of government came from if not beliefs?

There can be, but not always. The subject of politics is very broad and includes secular government to theocracies. So your broad claim here isn't correct in the breadth, only in specific cases.

They are theocracies, and have their own problems with human rights violations. This is the problem with any government that has no accountability for it's leaders, even religious.

The term "Islamic republic" has come to mean several different things, at times contradictory. To some Muslim religious leaders in the Middle East and Africa who advocate it, an Islamic republic is a state under a particular Islamic form of government. They see it as a compromise between a purely Islamic caliphate and secular nationalism and republicanism. In their conception of the Islamic republic, the penal code of the state is required to be compatible with some or all laws of Sharia, and the state may not be a monarchy, as many Middle Eastern states presently are.
Theocracy - Wikipedia

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am merely explaining the rationale behind prosecution of those citizens who become opposed
to the state.

Again: nobody but you is talking about that.
The point made was about prosecution of citizens because they have the wrong religion / left the religion

One cannot, in reality, completely separate religious and political beliefs.

That is demonstrated by the idea that Islamic governments are seen as "theocracies" by the West, whilst liberal Capitalist govts. are seen as democracies.
It's a misnomer

It is not. The first enforces religious rules derived from the religion of islam.
That makes those forms of rule theocracies.

The later makes a point about NOT enforcing religious rules derived from any religion.
That makes those forms of rule secular.

.. China and Russia are not Islamic, but they do not follow Western democracy either.

Indeed. They follow facism and totalitarianism. Life isn't great there either, but enough with the derailing already.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Exactly .. it is not about belief systems per se, but about the structure of govt.

//facepalm

It's about the ideology underpinning it.

The ideology underpinning Plutin's russia is what makes the structure be what it is.
The same is true for islamic theocracies. The ideology underpinning it is islam.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not necessarily .. there are "Christian Democrat" parties in European politics,

And their policies are all secular in nature. They have to be.
What they call themselves does not matter.

They can be the largest party, in some countries.

And yet those countries remain secular.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is not an either/or situation, imo.
Nevertheless, pious Catholics and Muslims for example, have moral values from their scriptures,
while atheists obviously do not.

Indeed atheists do not.
Most atheists tend to go for a reasoned morality instead of one that based on obedience to a perceived authority

 

[muhammad_isa]

The later makes a point about NOT enforcing religious rules derived from any religion.
That makes those forms of rule secular.

Yes, I understand why you might think that..
However, take murder for example .. most secular states penalise it.
Some with capital punishment, and some with life imprisonment.

It is up to the government to pass the necessary legislation for change.
The govt. depends on the people who form it.
Constitutions can usually be amended.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The same is true for islamic theocracies. The ideology underpinning it is islam.

Of course it is.
A nation is the product of the people of the nation.
If the majority of people in a nation overwhelming want Islamic law, for example,
the only thing standing in their way would be members of a govt. who oppose them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A wiki definition? Okay. Hmm…

Usually immoral is defined as breaching of moral and moral is always a set of normative code against a particular ethic principle.

That means that the ethic principle (utility, categorical imp., divine, etc.) must be named before we can speak of what is moral vs. not.

In secular societies, a divine ethic principle for example, is not the moral basis but in a religious one, it is.

That’s what I meant.

Humbly,
Hermit

That's all fine, but you asked about my view, not yours.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

People of religious faith don't seem to understand how it is that atheists would be motivated to behave morally without some divine authority watching over them to motivate such behavior when they can get away with doing something immoral. Atheists have the same trouble imagining what would motivate a person of faith to behave morally if that person suddenly experienced a crisis of faith leading to loss of belief in their moral authority. When religious legislators get together to pass a bill banning, say, homosexual behavior, is it because they fear they would become homosexuals if they didn't fear God's disapproval?

I think that the reason people behave morally has little to do with obedience to moral authority. That is how we all came to acquire our sense of right and wrong in childhood, but do we really need something to replace parental authority when we get older? To me, it seems that the main driver governing behavior, if fear is involved, is fear opprobrium--fear of public disapproval of one's behavior. Most of us want to be respected and feel a part of society. We want those close to us to admire us and respect us. But then there is a personal sense of respect for oneself, too. We want to feel good about ourselves and to contribute to the general welfare of the society that we benefit from. So there are a lot of rather mundane reasons for exercising self-restraint and treating others as we would like them to treat us. Morality doesn't really come from fear of a vengeful god's punishment or some high-minded principle. It comes from a sense of self-worth and social integration.

Well, only some religious people. I am one and I don't believe in any form of objective authority but that that is not limited to standard religion.
There are in effect non-religious systems that have the same claim of objective authority.

 

[Copernicus]

This recent incident of stabbing in France is a case in point. You have two people who considered themselves devout Christians. One was quite mad, but he thought he was doing God's will when he stabbed four young children and two adults on a playground in Annecy, France. He apparently crossed himself and claimed to be acting in the name of Jesus. A young, skinny man--a devout Catholic backpacker on a pilgrimage around France to visit cathedrals--chased after the larger man to stop him from committing his acts.

Told the knifeman had crossed himself and claimed to be acting in the name of Jesus, D’Anselme added: “I don’t know what he claimed. It is profoundly anti-Christian to attack innocent, unarmed and weak people. I don’t understand how someone can claim to be Christian and attack children in this way.”

Source: France salutes ‘backpack hero’ who challenged Annecy knife attacker

Did religion have anything to do with these acts--one of insane depravity and the other of heroic altruism? Yes and no. Both men felt themselves to be profoundly religious, but both were acting from their gut feelings, not really religion. They could both even have been atheists, in principle. What made their acts moral or immoral was not religion, but religion figured in the way they rationalized their behavior. It was an amplifier, not the root cause of their actions. Two atheists would have sought other rationalizations for their behavior.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course it is.
A nation is the product of the people of the nation.
If the majority of people in a nation overwhelming want Islamic law, for example,
the only thing standing in their way would be members of a govt. who oppose them.

Or a just constitution. Just imagine.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, I understand why you might think that..
However, take murder for example .. most secular states penalise it.
Some with capital punishment, and some with life imprisonment.

It is up to the government to pass the necessary legislation for change.
The govt. depends on the people who form it.
Constitutions can usually be amended.

So?

 

[Copernicus]

However, take murder for example .. most secular states penalise it.

No, ALL secular states penalize it. That's the point. You don't need religious instruction to understand why allowing people to murder each other is a bad idea for everyone in general. The problem is that theocracies also impose laws against behavior that harms nobody, although it might offend people who feel that their god opposes such behavior. If someone chooses to deny the existence of their god, their faith should be strong enough that they don't need to silence the god-denier. Indeed, one would think that the god who opposes god-deniers would take care of the job itself without need of human intervention, thus sending a message to believers and nonbelievers alike. OTOH, if the god can tolerate those who deny its existence, then faithful believers can afford to show the same tolerance.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..The problem is that theocracies also impose laws against behavior that harms nobody,

..and that is purely your perception.. that it harms nobody to commit adultery or to blaspheme etc.

If someone chooses to deny the existence of their god, their faith should be strong enough that they don't need to silence the god-denier..

If it is simply a matter of a person privately cursing G-d, that is not an issue.
The issue is when they bring it to the attention of the authorities, by causing public dissent.

Indeed, one would think that the god who opposes god-deniers would take care of the job itself..

G-d is not a person .. we are ALL part of G-d, in a sense.

 

[Tinker Grey]

If it is simply a matter of a person privately cursing G-d, that is not an issue.
The issue is when they bring it to the attention of the authorities, by causing public dissent.

I think people worshiping a god brings public dissent. Ergo, you should be silent. No?

 

[Copernicus]

..and that is purely your perception.. that it harms nobody to commit adultery or to blaspheme etc.

Divorce court is where unhappy couples can settle their marriage difficulties without bothering the police. Violence is not a solution. Blasphemy can upset people, so they can learn to just walk away. Learning to tolerate public dissent is the price we pay for freedom of conscience.

When I said "harm", I meant it in the sense of "cause injury", as in this famous quote from Thomas Jefferson:

The error seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, are subjects to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.​

If it is simply a matter of a person privately cursing G-d, that is not an issue.
The issue is when they bring it to the attention of the authorities, by causing public dissent.

The solution to that problem is simple. Allow free speech and freedom of conscience. People of faith will still be indignant at blasphemers, but they can learn to tolerate those kinds of insults. The police won't waste time and resources trying to find and arrest people for verbal offenses that don't actually cause injury to others.

G-d is not a person .. we are ALL part of G-d, in a sense.

If that's your opinion, then the blasphemer is also a part of God and can be left to deal with himself without the intervention of others. Sounds like God has got some issues to work out with himself.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..Allow free speech and freedom of conscience. People of faith will still be indignant at blasphemers, but they can learn to tolerate those kinds of insults. The police won't waste time and resources trying to find and arrest people for verbal offenses that don't actually cause injury to others.

That's obvious..
The same applies to drugs offences .. it depends on the individual's case whether a person will be charged.