CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Not if it their religion doesn't encourage it, or is against it for that matter. You seem to be picking on Christianity, does being like Christ lead to immoral behavior?
Just because some psychopath says "God told me to", doesn't mean Christianity is to blame. I hope that for your sake you where just being a jerk picking on Christianity.
The statement is that Religion leads to immoral behavior. Now that's open to so many damned interpretations its ridiculous. Ill specify what i think is fair. Religion = Organized doctrine that attempts to reach something which empirical data has not been able to. Immoral = Something that is the opposite of moral.
Morality is subjective, like how it is seen as normal to circumcise men in America, but we see it as disgusting that women in Ethiopia and other countries are being circumcised.
Were all a Western audience for the most part, and we all use Christianity as a basic grounds for argument, for and against our claims. People target Christianity just as much as Christians attempt to use argue its legitimacy.
Most religious books are so large, encompassing, and vague, that there are many interpretations that can be drawn. Christianity for example states that eating food from the sea that has no scales or fins is unclean, as is laying with another person who is the same sex as you. Unclean gets interpreted to mean sinful, then other scripture is interpreted to include the stoning of homosexuals.
The original claim is correct either way, and whoever posted this obviously did not want a specific conclusion. Of course religion leads to immoral behavior, but it also leads to moral behavior as well...so it is unfair to force people to decide.
"You can justify any action with religion", if the action is not justified, then you change the religion around. The Catholic Church was extremely good at that.
"Religious people have no inner strength." Arguable, but not strongly. Everyone has some degree of "inner strength". But I think that religious people have LESS inner strength than people who do not believe in organized religious doctrine.
No, if it were about our society, it would have to explicitly state Religion in heavily Western influenced cultures. or something to that extent. Im pretty sure the argument starter wanted the answers to be all encompassing. since that allows for more subject matter to be discussed.
I've heard the argument from atheists before about the statistical difference between the number of non-believers on the street to the number of non-believers in the system, however this is the first time I've been informed of a scientific study of it. The fact that this is a study which covers numerous countries is encouraging, it lessens the chance of statistical anomalies.
In discussions with theists I'm often asked the question "If you don't have a set of rules to tell you what to do, why wouldn't you go out an steal, rape, and kill?" The fact that they can't comprehend basic ethics is astounding. I'm sure there must be non-ethical atheists out there (they must be, because there ARE atheists and non-theists in prison), but the atheists and non-theists that I know are all very cognisant of the fact that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
I cannot speak for other religions, but within Christianity there is the overriding concept of forgiveness. Jesus will forgive you of your sins. And that's dangerous, because it says to people, "Sure, you can have that plasma TV you're thinking of hoisting, just remember to come back to church on Sunday so Jesus can forgive you again."
Yeah. My first guess would be that these get out hell free cards that churches pander and wave to simpletons as a discount for joining their team, so to speak; is what can indirectly cause, or at least breed the idea of (wrongfull) entitlement.
I think this sort of hive mentality is often prominent in wars (especially when religions are involved)
The catholic church then went even further and did not just give get out of hell free cards to child molestors within its establishment, but also did their best trying to keep them out of jail - even after numerous instances of criminal behavior, as if their buisness in airy fairy things, gave them jurisdiction in very dark and earthly matters. Having read the bible (for laughs) I would have to assume that their creeds are sure to damn them to Hell. Lucky for them that chances are it doesnt excist, but It would be fair for them to fear it for the rest of their lives - judging by their actions though, I doubt they will.
I think beleifs are natural, the world is to a huge extent chaotic and we have to make alot of bets (chance takings) in our live time. It helps to form accessions and beileifs for the game of life - but it also helps to be aware that entropy makes sure that nothing lasts, even our beileifs have an expiration date and it is healthy to newer stop searching and be aware of people who try to sell you on they claim that they have a better connection to the almighty then you have. They might have have big, show-offish buildings and garments but those are no less earthbound than your average MTV cribs.
The real lord, the only things that we cant escape from, that controls us, sustains us and that we cant argue away; are natural laws - but lucky for us that we can and have evolved to deal with those harsh laws better and better. And with moore´s law we are getting better and better processing and sensory equipment at an exponentially faster and faster rate. We need to stop living in worn out fantasy´s, for the power we are attaining at a constantly more rapid rate could be dangerous if we keep on approaching them with broken goggles feeding each other spins to further our "sanctimonious" incompateble splinters of thought habits (incompateble both to each other and nature)
With the coming technology, lets hope we can build a virtual reality that we can put them in where they can bomb people and molest virgins without hurting anybody
Anyone can say that they are religious; they have to perform the actions of a religious person also. If they are out committing crimes then I don't think they're very religious.
Sorry Brycer, but this is what's called the "no true scotsman" argument. If someone identifies themselves as belonging to a religion, then they belong to that religion, whether they follow that religion well or not.
The primary fallacy of the study is known as “post hoc ergo propter hoc” (after this, therefore because (on account) of this); it’s also called: “the fallacy of faulty cause”.
Mainstream media, particularly popular television news sources, panders to infantile intelligence with anything that promotes and emboldens the same.
Actually, those were my first thoughts when I saw the article. I laughed a little. However, just because he's an expert in one particular area doesn't mean that he's not versed in the methodology of research in other areas, and specialising in one field doesn't mean it happens to be the only field he's interested in.
And yes, he has only found a correlation, not a cause. Finding causation would be something that would require a much broader study, and I admit that there is an enormous difference between the two. However I fail to see the correlation that you have made between liberalism and incarceration of people with religious beliefs. Please expand.
I wasn't very clear with the liberal part. That's not what I meant to say.
But forget that.
The point is that the question is saying religion is the cause. Obviously there's a correlation. A bad correlation at that. Anybody who had sense wouldn't have bothered publishing results like that because there is NO DOUBT that religion does not lead to immoral behaviour. Whoever thinks so is a stupid fucking spasticated mutt. I'm pretty sure everybody knows that religion cannot be the cause of immoral behaviour. Any retards who think so should make a debate about it. Then you will look like a retard who made a debate on their own retardidness.
I agree with you. Having thought it over, I cannot win this debate based upon that study. However, that study refers to criminal behaviour, not necessarily immoral behaviour. Thus, I am going to argue for the question rather than the study which led me down an insupportable path.
In any society where there exists more than one conflicting religion, it is inevitable that religion leads to immoral behaviour. This is because morality is a relative stance.
For an example, lets take the Christian Commandments, simply because I know them best. They are a pretty cut and dried basis for Christian morality. I see from your profile info that you're Hindi. This automatically makes you an immoral person in the eyes of the Christian. Why? Because of the first and second commandments. The first stipulates "1 And God spake all these words, saying, 2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Hinduism, by it's nature as a polytheistic religion, breaks this commandment in a pretty big way.
The second commandment stipulates "4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."
So, if you have anywhere in your house a statue of Ganesha, or a picture of Brahma, or of any other of your religion's Gods, you break the second commandment of Christianity. Thus while you may believe that you lead a moral life, to a Christian who bases their views strictly on the Bible, you are immoral.
To a Muslim, the Jehova's Witness practice of shunning congregation members who have strayed would be immoral. The Witnesses are not allowed to speak to or make eye contact with shunned members, or in any way acknowledge them. Muslims have been commanded to give hospitality in the time of need. Thus, if a shunned member of a Witness congregation requires aid, they cannot seek it from the people they know.
The practice of Jihad is a moral act in Islam, but to people affected outside of the religion, it happens to be a highly immoral act.
Any time one religions moral views clashes in any way with another religion's moral views, this is going to happen.
"For an example, lets take the Christian Commandments, simply because I know them best."
First, the commandments you cite are in the Hebrew Scriptures. Call them "The Jewish commandments Christians must also follow" if you like. But you can't claim them as the "Christian Commandments".
Second, which set of commandments are you citing? There are 3 sets of so-called ten commandments in the Hebrew Scriptures, one most favored by the Jews, one most favored by the Catholics, and one most favored by the Protestants. There are also lots of other commandments in the Hebrew Scriptures, some say as many as we have bones in our body, and ignored by Christians
I think the only commandment Jesus gave was to love one another. And also that if a child curses his parents, he should be killed. That one is largely ignored.
Thanks, Hadrian, my bad. Yes, the Commandments I have sourced are from the Old Testament, Exodus 20:1-6 to be specific. Having not been Christian since I was a child, the basis for my understanding is simply from memory and direct reference. These were the rules laid down to me in the Uniting Church and by family, and are the ones I'm most familiar with.
I know of the commandments laid out in Exodus, and of the ones in Deuteronomy, but I don't know where the third set are. I'd greatly appreciate their location, if you have the time.
And I can't resist this one: "And also that if a child curses his parents, he should be killed." I hadn't noticed that one before. Where is it? And ironically, I think a great many Christians would find that an immoral commandment.
[3] Deuteronomy 5:4-6 (A review of the previous two sets).
The "Ten Commandments" usually refer to the similar passages in Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:4-6.
However, Exodus 34:11-27 can not be dismissed. This second set, also brought down from Mount Sinai by Moses like the first set, was placed in the Ark of the Covenant, a vessel of considerable importance in Judaism.
I misspoke when I said that the Jews, the Catholics and the Protestants each favored a different one of these 3 sets of commandments. Instead, they each group these commands and prohibitions differently.
"Lack of agreement among various divisions with Christianity and Judaism makes it very difficult to reach a consensus about how the Ten should be printed for display in public locations. Usually, the preferences of Jews, Roman Catholics and some Lutherans is overruled, and the Protestant format is chosen." [1]
Jesus discussed the commandments and reduced them to the two essentials: love god and and love one another.
While it was not a direct commandment from Jesus, he did criticize the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as required by Old Testament law (Mark 7:9-10).
For example:
He that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death. Exodus 21:17
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. Leviticus 20:9
Wow, that second set is somewhat epic, isn't it? All that breaking of stuff, and whoring, and animal sacrifice, and God telling them that he's going to whup ass.
I have read it before, I just didn't equate it to the Ten Commandments because it was so different to the other two passages.
And yes, I am aware that the Commandments tend to drift slightly from sect to sect. I have seen "Thou shalt not kill" in one sect, but "Thou shalt not murder an innocent man" in another sect. Which, IMO, is a massive difference. Especially as I was never given any consistent definition of "innocent" by the members of that sect. Without that definition, it was basically a free-for-all. Simply by altering those key words, it put the two sects into opposition on a single element. So whilst the members of the first sect must be , for example, totally against capital punishment, the second sect can be pro-capital punishment, and immoral in the eyes of the members of the first sect.
Thank you. I've bookmarked that link, I'll probably find situations where I'll use it again.
I'm not sure of the figures now, but years past that site had the highest traffic of web sites in the category of Faiths and Practices. Another good site is Beliefnet. It is the largest spiritual web site on the Internet. They are independent and not affiliated with any spiritual organization or movement.
Yes, the second set is very much unlike the first set, yet god said he was giving Moses a copy of the set he had broken.
The Catholics translate the commandment to read "kill". The Protestants translate it to read "murder". And yet, the Catholics have the doctrine of a "Just War".
You might be interested in my debate, "'Thou shalt not kill' only applies to members of your own tribe. Everyone else is fair game."
That's not really immorality. It's just difference in religions. If people choose to call those differences immoral then we're only taking personal opinions into account rather than a universal view on morality. This means that two neighbours are immoral. 1 believes in beating the child while the other believes in not beating the child. One believes in individualism while another believes in collectivism. One is conservative the other is liberal. According to you this means they believe each other to be immoral.
When definind morals you have to take into account the differences, not use the differences.
Where is this universal view of morality you are speaking about? It needs to be defined.
Morality is a RELATIVE point of view. It changes depending on the culture and religion you've grown up in. By following one religion, you are automatically immoral in the eyes of another. The question didn't ask if religion led to immoral behaviour as defined within that religion. It simply asked if it led to immoral behaviour.
And yes, as a Liberal I have often been told that I am immoral by Conservatives simply for being a Lib. From my perspective, my lifestyle is in no way immoral, however, they have a differing viewpoint.
You're basing immorality strictly on personal religious beliefs.
Using your 'logic' technically everybody is immoral to everybody else. That means conservatives are immoral according to you. If everyone is immoral, then nobody is moral, which means religion doesn't lead to immoral behaviour - because there's no such thing as right or wrong as that is technically subjective.
Let's forget this whole path of determining what morals are. It will go nowhere.
You want to redefine the question to- Does religion lead to criminal behaviour?
Obviously not. You tell me where religion advocates breaking the law - and practices it. That is essentially something you must prove in order to give your stance.
I don't find conservatives immoral. What I may find is that they are sometimes unethical. This is because I don't subscribe to a moral creed; instead I attempt to live my life in as ethical way as possible. Morals are set down by religions. You said so yourself. "Morality and religion live side by side. One cannot be without the other." I agree with that statement entirely.
And no, I'm not trying to redefine the question to "Does religion lead to criminal behaviour?"
What I AM doing is arguing that religion leads to immorality. The question did not define perspective. Thus, everybody WHO PRACTICES A SPECIFIC RELIGION is immoral to everybody WHO PRACTICES AN ALTERNATE RELIGION where those religions have incompatible doctrines.
So according to you religion doesn't lead to immoral behaviour. Only that religions percieve each other to be immoral. Well wasn't this a waste of time.
It still doesn't mean that religion leads to immoral behaviour.
Unless you plan on arguing that the human sacrifices committed by the Aztecs during the reconsecration of the Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan was moral behaviour (I have seen resource books that claimed it to be over 80,000 deaths over a period of 4 days).
Or that 9/11 was a moral act.
Or that the tortures inflicted upon people accused of witchcraft in the middle ages were morally correct.
tortures inflicted upon people accused of witchcraft in the middle ages were morally correct.
...well according to them it was
Apart from the aztec sacrificies (which I know little about and feel we should stay away from such topics) they were not acts of religion. Fanaticism or extremism is religion taken out of context and abused upon ignorant people. They are not acts of religion but acts of extremism or fanatics.
Basically what you have just argued is that people who believe in their religion too much, or that people who believe in an extremist sect, cannot be used as a basis for stating their individual moral beliefs or the moral beliefs of their sect. You don't get out of that one that easily. I expect better from you.
I agree with you that these were moral acts from the agressors point of view. It's the answer I was looking for. You stated earlier in this thread that there was "a universal view on morality". If that is a correct statement, then these acts which you have stated were moral from the point of view of the aggressor should logically be moral from all points of view, yes? We don't find that as the case.
However, I will concede you that when you were speaking about your "universal view on morality", the entire sentence read "If people choose to call those differences immoral then we're only taking personal opinions into account rather than a universal view on morality." You declined to specify what this universal view comprised of. Thus I can only speak of individual views on morality which happen not to fall in line with the moralities of other religions and/or sects.
I will honour your request not to follow up my line of reasoning with the Aztec sacrifices.
There are specific texts in the Qur’an which can be read in a way which says that it's okay to kill people of other faiths, especially Christians, Jews, and possibly Zoroastrians. Most Islamic sects take these as entirely conditional texts even though there are unconditional texts; they hold that the condition present within one text holds power over all texts of that nature. However some sects disagree and take unconditional texts to be wholly unconditional.
I just took a look online for examples, and found enough to fill this page. Nobody wants to read through that much scripture at once, so I've cut it down to six examples, but I can provide you with more if you wish. They clearly show that Muslims are told that they must fight and kill unbelievers, and that there will be punishment for them if they don't. There are also texts that state that people who take up arms against unbelievers will have greater glory in the afterlife, but I didn't include them mainly for space issues. I've faced Wall of Text replies on other sites, they're not fun to wade through.
Qur’an:9:5 “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”
Qur’an:9:29 “Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission.”
Qur’an:8:39 “So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).”
Qur’an:8:65 “O Prophet, urge the faithful to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination they will vanquish two hundred; if there are a hundred then they will slaughter a thousand unbelievers, for the infidels are a people devoid of understanding.”
Qur’an:9:38 “Believers, what is the matter with you, that when you are asked to go forth and fight in Allah’s Cause you cling to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? Unless you go forth, He will afflict and punish you with a painful doom, and put others in your place.”
Qur’an:5:94 “Believers, Allah will make a test for you in the form of a little game in which you reach out for your lances. Any who fails this test will have a grievous punishment.”
As for the witchcraft, it's a case of a religion killing its own off. In the search for witches, they killed off a large proportion of their believers across Europe. And while the Inquisition actually started in the 1200's, it didn't actually gain a lot of headway until the papal bull, "Summis desiderantes affectibus" was issued by Pope Innocent VIII in 1484. Rather than posting the entire thing here, you can find it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summis_desiderantes_affectibus
(I double checked it with a reference text I have here at home, it seems to be accurate.)
By declaring witches to exist, it became heretical to believe otherwise.
At this stage I'd like to point out a disparity within the Bible. On the one hand, we have the whole "thou shalt not kill" thing happening (which was discussed with Hadrian in an offshoot of this thread). On the other hand, in Ex22:18 we've got the verse "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". Which is the moral text? And if we take the protestant version, which I have seen written "Thou shalt not murder an innocent man", we come to the point where many innocent people were tortured to death. I realise that the Bible has been written and rewritten so many times that it is difficult to know what the scripture actually stated at that time, but as there was debate in the Sixteenth Century as to whether or not the word "kashaph" in Ex22:18 meant witch or poisoner (cross reference with other points in the Bible suggests that witch is the more accurate), I think it remains safe to assume the text remains the same. This meant that the acts carried out by Inquisitioners were moral (Ex22:18) and immoral (Ex20:13 and Deut5:17)at the same time.
"You tell me where religion advocates breaking the law"
She just quoted a passage where the bible says in so many words that to curse at your parent should be punished with death. - That is just one of the instances where the official creed of a religion states something that is clearly against the law in all western country´s today.
"A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin she shall be execuited."
In what context would this be moral :)
You mean to say that on either side of that sentence there where some quilifications that made this fit totally with modern law and moral sentiment ???
This is the text according to the King James bible, and in so many words it says that she shall be stoned if she lies to her husband about being a virgin: And dude; that is illegal (and immoral) to modern standards. Maybe you need to read the bible better
Deuteronomy 22:13-21 (King James Version)
13If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
14And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
15Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
16And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
17And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
18And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
19And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
20But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
You seem to have some grudge against liberals. You end up blaming them for strange things, even for the religious belief of inmates. I don't undetstand. Care to explain?
Ohh yeah more than likely. But I'm talking about liberal thinking in general.
Legalise drugs, prostitution, homosexuality etc. etc. The only thing they are not keen on liberalising is violence (probably because they're all pussies) which I find funny due to it's relation to drugs prostitution and other illicit behaviour.
All in all liberalism is the most short sighted form of thinking I can think of. Let's not forget selfish. Greedy. I'm going to stop.
Republicans attemt to end prostitution and drug use by enforcing laws against them. As where this may work for some time, eventually it gives rise to organized crime, as was the case with the prohibition.
-
Democrats attempt to legalise these things as to hopefully reduce the presence of organised crime, which in idyllic conditions would turn the mafia into common buisnessman. However this does not work either because there is always something to smuggle, whether it's marijuana or uranium. The more illegal, the more profitable.
-
So it ends up in either case that no matter what you do, crime and scum continue. So what do we do?
I know. I don't truly follow any of them, but you're right the golden question is what do we do?
The world is such a big place and is so fucked up at the moment that any change I could propose (they will sound farfetched) would take years to produce any results. I'm not thinking short term like all of these stupid incentives and liberal ideas etc. In general we're throwing sand against the tide. All this bullshit has picked up too much speed. There used to be a time when crime was much lower, people had respect for the right people (.....and my usual ramble). They had that before liberalism, before sexual revolution, before all of these taboos were broken.
The only way possible I see that things can go back the way they were (the good parts) is a iron fist, police state. What would happen during that time - I'm not even going to bother going into it.
I wouldn't claim that liberalism 'fed adam the apple', if you don't mind my figure of speech. In fact, liberalism in early society was the catalyst for change.
-
Reguardless, ruling with an iron fist mandates a totalitarian rule. So you have your choice; Communism, Fascism or Imperialism?
-
Also, feel free to add to my debate 'Your first ten degrees as (evil) dictator of the world'. That might be a good start.
Ahh but my friend, I wouldn't claim to be evil. Being a dictator doesn't necesserily mean bad. You can dictate everybody to have free will... the ability to play and have fun... the ability to do this and that.
Liberalism used to be good in early society. Free speech used to be good in early society. Everything used to be pretty good in early society. Now it is all abused.
Liberalism didn't feed adam the apple. It allowed him to get away with it. Thus by not learning his lesson, Adam decided to feed on the apple again.
I would've said communism. But our two definitions of comunism vary by a great degree. For me it is people living in communities - with communities generally running themselves. Strong communities would eradicate 80% of the 'immoral' behaviours. Obviously a lot of other factors must be accounted for - but I'm pretty sure you know what I mean.
Maybe very often, but not all politicians have much power to do immoral things - If we wanna be very general then I would just say that Power is probably the greatest vessel of immoral behavior. And I do think that organized religion, given the established power that they have gives immoral people sanctity they do not deserve and appeal to immoral people more than your average Joe.
Come to think of it I should have named the debate "Established Organized religion leeds to immoral behavior" for I think that for institutions to be immoral they have to first established some sort of sanctity so that they´re actions and the actions of their minions can go uncritisized.
A lot of prisoners go to jail and, while there, repent for their actions and find God. It's not the other way around. Therefore, wouldn't it be correct to say "Immoral behavior leads to religion,"?
well around 80% of released prisoners go back to jail within one or two years (cant remember which) so you might be right that immoral behavior sparks the incentive for people to seek forgiveness (get out of hell free cards - for joining a team) but it doesnt seem that their morality improves much
Well yeah, because their morality can't just change overnight. Your morality is influenced by how you were raised as a child. That's when your initial understanding of right and wrong are established.
That is also the time when you get indoctrinated with religious beleifs. Maybe, just maybe the understanding religions teach about right and wrong are themselves wrong and/or diluted.
A convenient argument, but completely untrue. He was Catholic, although I don't think he was a particularly religious one. Even so, he made frequent references to God in his speeches.
Of course, it could be argued that he was a secret Atheist who only used God to further himself politically, and that may very well be true. If so, it is probably equally true of many of our Bible-thumping American politicians.
Religions often share the same basic moral code, which is something like 'do good and pray'. Radicalism is religion taken to an extreme in which moral codes are besided by forceful opression in attemt to end opposition or begin conversion.
Religion leads to immoral as well as unethical behaviour when it turns man against man. When religion demands intolerance towards other religions, or condemns others based upon their belief systems - and is even prepared to wage war and other forms of violence against others - then that is surely immoral behaviour. War and violence presuppose deliberate infliction of either injury and/or death. Such outcomes are surely the height of immorality as well as unethical behavior. Religions across time and space have much to answer for regards intolerance and violence in their own name - and that of their particular definitions of deity and truth.
The only reason Muslim extremists, or Christian extremists, or Jewish extremists or whatever do the stuff that they do is because they are just that: extremists. The majority of the religious population of the world is religious.
95% of inmates are religious? Many people who go to prison convert or become born again. So even if that figure is statistically significant (given that all conditions for a statistical find are right) it wouldn't matter much as to try and suggest that religion is what made these people commit crimes.
There are actually so many factors as to why inmates or criminals are religious that suggesting that religion is the cause of immoral behavior (which isn't illegal, by the way) is intellectually dishonest.
I dont think either that organized religions directly cause immoral (or moral) behvior. I just think that with the sanctity those establishments have aquired, they do provide subterfuge and attract people who would like to cloak their immorality with said sanctity - and therfore In another argument here somwhere I went through the history of how the catholic church tried to hide the crimes child molestors within their organisation to show how immorality can become institutionalized in these cults. I imagane the reasoning of those priests and high priests was "our religion is the high pillar of morality (as they all assume) and therfore a member of our cult cannot by defenition be immoral (even if he rapes over 100 kids) because he is part of our holy communion"
with the actual problems with the Vatican, saying that their cover ups are from a grandiose sense of being is kind of jumping the gun.
What is more likely is that the cover ups can just be for PR sakes. What they say is that they wish to deal with it the Catholic way. Catholicism is a religion of forgiveness, and if a priest is to commit a sin, he seeks forgiveness from his church. The Catholic church, despite people like Bill Donahue and jackholes like that, forgives those who truly repent. They believe that the sins a Holy Father commits is between him and God.
I believe, in all actuality, it has to do with both the policy of the church and PR. I think the Vatican is annoying and kind of stupid, but I don't really see them as evil as they once were. They, like all other ideologies, are blind.
But people seek some kind of justification or sanctuary from anything they can get their hands on. It's human nature. Sociopaths justify their misdeeds and they are usually far from religious. Secular Humanists will try to justify their own "sins" just as much as religious people will.
It might be that they have some bad apples but I sort of doubt that alot of prisoners would describe themselves as Secular humanists, so if there are alot of immoral criminal secular humanists, they sure are smart, not to get caught.
This has got to be one of the stupidest things I've heard.
Religion does its best (and in general extremely well) to make people lead moral lives. Morality and religion live side by side. One cannot be without the other.
Just because people claim to be of a religion, but choose not to follow its rules - you cannot say religion is the cause of it.
Only retards believe that. Whoever voted yes is retarded.
religion leads us to a moral behavior ....all the good things we learn from religion and from our tradition....it helps us to learn about faith,to respect others,and binds us with our ancestors and with our forefathers....those who think that religion leads to immoral behavior this is because they are born immoral....
Christians generally have better morals because of their religion. That doesn't mean every Christian has good morals hence "nobody is perfect" we accept that. We all sin. (and it doesn't mean atheists have bad morals or are bad people so calm down)
People do all sorts of bad things, and if they are "Christian" that means they aren't truly being Christian. It happens all the time and religion is not to blame. It's happening despite their religion.
Christianity doesn't change, people do. And Christianity doesn't promote things that are immoral to our society therefore Christianity isn't to blame for any immoral behavior.
Now if it's a religion that says "go kill people", then yes. That religion would lead to immoral behavior.
While I come down on the same side of the debate as you, I disagree with virtually everything you said.
First of all, your notion that Christians generally have better morals. I strongly doubt that you have any support for that statement and frankly your caveat that that doesn't mean that Atheists are bad people doesn't carry much weight since your argument is that Christians are better.
Your statement that Christians doing bad things are not truly Christians (or are not being Christian) is a self-serving argument that is known as the Scotsman fallacy. (All Scotsmen wear kilts and eat haggis. My Uncle Angus doesn't do either. Then he's not a true Scotsman). It's an argument that can be used on any group to support anything, and it is utterly meaningless.
I agree that that Christianity should not be blamed for every evil act that is done in its name, but neither can it be absolved in every instance. The Southern branches of Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian and Episcopal churches (as well as others) all came into existence through schisms over the issue of slavery and those churches found plenty of scriptural support for their position. You can argue that they misinterpreted the Scripture, and that’s fine, but the fact remains that in the area of the country that was (and continues to be) the stronghold of American Christianity, millions of passionate committed Christians lacked the moral compass to identify and oppose one greatest evils in American history.
And it didn’t stop there, these same churches, and the decedents of these same Christians championed Jim Crow and segregation and bitterly opposed integration and Civil Rights for more than a century after the Civil War. It was only a few years ago that one of these churches, the Southern Baptists, admitted that they were wrong.
Yes, there were Christians in the North who were on the other sides of these issues and we should give credit to the Christians and churches that fought slavery and segregation, but Christianity itself cannot be absolved for its part in the evil, the condoning of evil, or the ignoring of evil in this case.
No, that's way too general a statement, even when it's spelled correctly. Religion certainly has been causal to some of the most horrendous immoral acts in history, but so too has politics, philosophy and greed and none of those things (even greed) necessarily lead to immoral behavior.
Religion is very often used in an attempt to excuse or justify immoral behavior, but there again, so are a lot of other things.
Basically, the Proposition keeps arguing that religions are immoral. But fundamentally, what you deem immoral may be considered moral. So, it is ultimately not for you to determine what's moral, and what's immoral. So what you have said makes no sense.
