Does theism lead to immoral behaviour?

[SkepticThinker]

I don't think you can provide any reasonable argument against the Bible story, but I am not against you trying it.

Okay, so it appears my post didn't get through to you.
Let's state it more clearly then:
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. It's not on anyone else to disprove it. And it's not considered a true claim until someone disproves it. You've got it completely backwards.

You don't believe in leprechauns until someone shows you they don't exist, right?
You don't believe in Thor until someone shows you he doesn't exist, right?
You don't believe I have a magical invisible pink unicorn in my closet until someone disproves his existence, right?

 

[SkepticThinker]

In a very limited sense you can prove a negative, but that is only for formal thinking as per e.g. 2+2=5.

Well, yes. I guess I shouldn't use the word "prove" here, but I'm just trying to get a point across.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. It's not on anyone else to disprove it..

When it comes to belief in G-d, the evidence is in the lives of Jesus and Muhammad,
and those that follow in their footsteps.
Some people believe and some don't.
That is just as G-d intended.

You don't believe in leprechauns until someone shows you they don't exist, right?
You don't believe in Thor until someone shows you he doesn't exist, right?
You don't believe I have a magical invisible pink unicorn in my closet until someone disproves his existence, right?

Wrong .. we have no reason to believe in them .. well I don't.

 

[SkepticThinker]

When it comes to belief in G-d, the evidence is in the lives of Jesus and Muhammad,
and those that follow in their footsteps.
Some people believe and some don't.
That is just as G-d intended.

What evidence would that be?

Wrong .. we have no reason to believe in them .. well I don't.

Right. You just said "wrong" and then agreed with me.

You don't sit around waiting for someone to disprove the existence of leprechauns before you don't believe in them, right? You just don't believe in them because you haven't seen convincing evidence in favour of their existence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When it comes to belief in G-d, the evidence is in the lives of Jesus and Muhammad,
and those that follow in their footsteps.

Can you step through your thought process on this?

I mean, it sounds like you're suggesting something like this:

- we know that Jesus/Muhammad/someone else did (insert something they did or how they behaved).
- therefore, (insert next step in the argument)
- therefore we know that God is real.

How do you fill in those blanks to get to the conclusion?

 

[muhammad_isa]

What evidence would that be?

Read my last post again .. the answer is there.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Can you step through your thought process on this?

I mean, it sounds like you're suggesting something like this:

- we know that Jesus/Muhammad/someone else did (insert something they did or how they behaved).

We know they claimed to be inspired by G-d, and it changed their behaviour accordingly.
They practiced what they preached.

- therefore, (insert next step in the argument)

..therefore we need to consider whether they were speaking truth or not.
We have scriptures to read, and other historical documents.

- therefore we know that God is real.

..something like that.
G-d only allows whom He wills to believe.
He knows what is in our hearts, and our deeds.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Read my last post again .. the answer is there.

It isn't. Perhaps you could clarify.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We know they claimed to be inspired by G-d, and it changed their behaviour accordingly.
They practiced what they preached.

What does "accorrdingly" mean in this context?

..therefore we need to consider whether they were speaking truth or not.
We have scriptures to read, and other historical documents.

It seems to me that there are a few options when someone proclaims a belief or point of view:

1. They are insincere and what they claim is false.

2. They're insincere and what they claim is correct (without their knowledge).

3. They're sincere and what they claim is false (i.e. they're honestly mistaken).

4. They're sincere and what they claim is correct.

You seem to be jumping to that last conclusion without eliminating the other possibilities.

..something like that.
G-d only allows whom He wills to believe.
He knows what is in our hearts, and our deeds.

So what you said earlier ("When it comes to belief in G-d, the evidence is in the lives of Jesus and Muhammad") unless God intervenes to convince someone?

Why bring "evidence" up at all, then?

 

[muhammad_isa]

So what you said earlier ("When it comes to belief in G-d, the evidence is in the lives of Jesus and Muhammad") unless God intervenes to convince someone?

It is more subtle .. G-d is closer to us than our jugular vein.
It is not so much an "intervention" as part of our human nature.

Why bring "evidence" up at all, then?

Whilst we have a conscience, and have a built in grasp of morality, we are not smart enough
to keep from evil without G-d's guidance.
Those who turn away from it, do so with a reason.
i.e. there is a reason why they oppose it

It is not all about evidence/proof. If it was, we could all deny it saying "evidence is no good" etc.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is more subtle .. G-d is closer to us than our jugular vein.
It is not so much an "intervention" as part of our human nature.


Whilst we have a conscience, and have a built in grasp of morality, we are not smart enough
to keep from evil without G-d's guidance.
Those who turn away from it, do so with a reason.
i.e. there is a reason why they oppose it

It is not all about evidence/proof. If it was, we could all deny it saying "evidence is no good" etc.

These are just more claims, piled on top of claims. How do we determine whether they are actually true or not?

 

[1213]

Okay, so it appears my post didn't get through to you.
Let's state it more clearly then:
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. It's not on anyone else to disprove it. And it's not considered a true claim until someone disproves it. You've got it completely backwards.

Do I understand correctly, if someone claims Bible is demonstrably wrong, he should prove his claim is correct?

You don't believe in leprechauns until someone shows you they don't exist, right?

Actually, before deciding do I believe or not, I would need a definition for leprechaun. I really don't know what it is, therefore I can't say is it real or not.

You don't believe in Thor until someone shows you he doesn't exist, right?

I have not decided. I think it is possible he existed.

You don't believe I have a magical invisible pink unicorn in my closet until someone disproves his existence, right?

Also in this case I would first to need to know what it is.

 

[1213]

I don't know what you're talking about here, exactly, but evolution is a demonstrably true fact of life.

Only if you believe so. I think atheists should not be so gullible, they should be as critical about everything else as about the Bible.

 

[muhammad_isa]

These are just more claims, piled on top of claims. How do we determine whether they are actually true or not?

@9-10ths_Penguin asked the questions, and I gave my answers.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@9-10ths_Penguin asked the questions, and I gave my answers.

Well, no. You dodged my main question. I asked you to explain this:

When it comes to belief in G-d, the evidence is in the lives of Jesus and Muhammad,
and those that follow in their footsteps.

... and tell us how "the lives of Jesus and Muhammad" is evidence of God. You seem to have given up trying to answer.

 

[muhammad_isa]

... and tell us how "the lives of Jesus and Muhammad" is evidence of God. You seem to have given up trying to answer.

..there is no need for me to give you a 100 page thesis..
I have neither the health or time to waste on useless argument.

Perhaps you'd like to explain why they are NOT evidence of G-d?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

..there is no need for me to give you a 100 page thesis..
I have neither the health or time to waste on useless argument.

You would need 100 pages to explain how the lives of Jesus and Muhammad are evidence of God?

Perhaps you'd like to explain why they are NOT evidence of G-d?

Sure: there's no action, behaviour, or character of a person that necessitates God's existence, or even that fits better with God's existence than with God's non-existence.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Sure: there's no action, behaviour, or character of a person that necessitates God's existence

I thought you said evidence .. not proof.

Any evidence there is for G-d does not categorically prove His existence.
One needs to consider the concept of G-d first of all, and decide whether they think it more likely that
this existence has more meaning than "here today, gone tomorrow".

One can then look at evidence for G-d, and decide what makes the most sense to them.

If a person doesn't want to know about G-d, they are not compelled.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Do I understand correctly, if someone claims Bible is demonstrably wrong, he should prove his claim is correct?

If someone claims "such and such is wrong" then the burden of proof is on them.
If someone claims "I don't believe the Bible stories are all accurate" then they hold no burden of proof.

Actually, before deciding do I believe or not, I would need a definition for leprechaun. I really don't know what it is, therefore I can't say is it real or not.

The little green men who hang out at the end of rainbows with gold and treasures.

I have not decided. I think it is possible he existed.

Why?

Also in this case I would first to need to know what it is.

I think perhaps you can grasp the point I'm getting at here though? That we don't just believe in everything claimed to exist, until someone shows it's wrong, right? If we did it that way, we'd be stuck believing in all sorts of things that aren't true, simply because someone didn't show it to be false. That's not the pathway to take for people who are interested in believing in as many true things as possible while not believing in as many false things as possible.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Only if you believe so. I think atheists should not be so gullible, they should be as critical about everything else as about the Bible.

No, demonstrably so. As I've pointed out before, evolution is a fact of life that has been demonstrated by multiple independent groups of scientists from multiple independent fields of science, spanning the last 160+ years. Biology doesn't make any sense without it. Multiple independent lines of evidence from almost every different field of science has produced results that all point to the very same conclusion over and over again - that evolution is a fact of life.

When all of this evidence converges on the exact same conclusion time and time again, that's a demonstration that evolution is an accurate representation of reality.