Believers VS Non-belivers

[edwardcullensotherwoman]

Why is it that if someone believes in something, they will talk about it as exactly that - something they believe in - and not portray it as absolute fact; yet if someone doesn't believe in something, they will say this as an absolute fact and ridicule those who believe?

It's almost as if those who don't believe (in whatever the subject: angels, God, reincarnation) consider themselves superior to those who do, and view those who do as stupid for doing so.

Surely everyone's beliefs are their own belief and opinion - nothing "woo" can be either proven or disproven, so therefore nobody is right or wrong.

It just seems that every thread that starts "Do you believe" on this board ends up in a bun fight with believes defending themselves against non-believers who tell them they're being ridiculous. The clue is in the title of the board - if you don't believe in anything that's likely to be discussed under that heading, just avoid the board!

peacefuloptimist As has been said it would have to be something impossible to explain by any other more likely means. That pretty much leaves miracles, but it's not that we're saying defiantly "I refuse to believe in you unless you take the time and trouble to produce a miracle".

It have to be something that others witnessed too so as to rule out simple trickery or the chance that I might be drugged. Turning water into wine isn't going to cover it or any 'magic' that can be performed on stage.

So it would have to be something large and very public. I honestly can't think of a sensible example. I mean if god turned up in the sky and said he was creating a new continent and there it was, complete with wildlife and huge trees (so not just a rock pushed up by an earthquake) that would prove that something stupendous had happened.

We'd still have to rule out the chance that 'god' was actually a technologically superior alien I suppose.

But worse still it wouldn't prove that your god existed or any particular god. After all it could be that Loki is real and playing games with us and pretending to be the Christian or Islamic god.

Another thought.

If a huge and seemingly impossible event were caused by a technologically superior alien then we wouldn't worship him would we.

If he was so powerful he could kill us all in an instant then we might be scared of him, but that wouldn't be a good reason to bow down and declare our love and obedience.

We wouldn't think it was right to worship him even if he was so advanced he could create whole planets or universes.

So if I ever meet a god it will be interesting and very exciting, but I won't be on my knees and will still decide for myself what is right and wrong.

I'd settle for somebody's leg growing back. So long as it was somebody with a missing leg that I knew personally.

Thank you for the replies. They have been interesting and at times surprising to read. I wasn't expecting that many people who place such an import on scientific proofs and empirical evidence would agree that the evidence they would require to change their ideas about God would be some kind of supernatural occurrence. Its interesting to me as well this idea of incontrovertible evidence and that 'all it would take was one decent miracle and everyone would believe'. It reminds me of two verses from the Quran:

"They said, “We shall never believe in you unless you cause a spring to gush forth for us from the earth. Or you have a garden of date palms and grapes, then you bring forth rivers from their midst in abundance. Or you cause the sky to fall upon us in pieces, as you claimed, or you bring Allah and angels before us face to face. Or you have a house made of gold. Or you ascend to the sky, and we will not believe in your ascension unless you send down to us a book we may read.” Say, “I proclaim the Purity of my Lord. I am nothing but human, a messenger.” Nothing prevented people from believing, when guidance came to them, except that they said, “Has Allah sent a man as a messenger?” (Chapter 17, verse 90-94)

The kinds of miracles they (the non-believers at the time of the Prophet Muhammed PBUH) wanted were more in keeping with what a 7th century bedouin would consider impressive but its still essentially the same kind of request. However, just as many posters here did which was to say that even if theoretically something did happen on that scale you would still need to make sure that its not a brain malfunction, drugs, an alien etc so too do we see this response from that same group.

But you wonder, while they mock, and when they are reminded, they remember not. And when they see an Ayah (a sign, a proof, a miracle, or an evidence) from Allah, they mock at it. And they say: This is nothing but clear magic. (Chapter 37, verses 12-15)

My point is that I dont think its a case of just give a decent miracle and everyone believes. You just need to type miracle in to youtube or google and you have hundreds of examples of so-called miracles but they are not enough to convince everyone (or for some of them anyone). What is incontrovertible to one person is not to another. Also what many of you made clear and what is the natural inclination of most people is to doubt or look for alternative explanations first. If God were to now regenerate an amputated person's leg people would not immediately attribute it to God. They would probably study that person to death to understand how it happened and if they couldnt work out how it happened they would just blame it on the limitations of human understanding at the moment and say sometime in the future will work it out. Even if it was effective to that particular group of people at that particular time and made them believers what about the people who did not witness it, or who were born after the miracle occurred etc. Would they believe in it based on the word of that original group of people or would they think we were just gullible, naive, deluded etc. Would they believe that a continent just appeared from nowhere with wildlife etc and that God appeared in the sky for us or would they think its just a myth/legend/collective delusion that people in the past believed in just like some people now do with the miracles performed by Prophet Jesus PBUH.

Looking at that example for a second did the miracles of Jesus convince everyone. I mean you would think raising someone from the dead was incontrovertible, healing at that time incurable diseases etc would convince people but it didnt everyone. If people have a vested interest in not believing you they will never accept your evidence regardless of how incredible or amazing it is. I loved reading the stories of the Prophets as a child (I know the words indoctrinated must be flashing through some of your minds right now but my brother read the same books and he is more likely to think like you - by the way he is not significantly more intelligent then me - I know thats what some of you are thinking that now too - in fact most people who know us would think it the other way round), and it used to always baffle me how even after being shown amazing miracles people would still reject faith or they wouldnt change their behaviour anyway (as someone earlier also mentioned about not worshiping God anyway even if they were to see a miracle). Take for example the story of Moses PBUH. After a number of miracles including splitting the sea in half did his enemies believe in him. No. They chased him across the sea until they were completely destroyed.

I know for atheists this is all mumbo jumbo fairy tales but its interesting the responses of some of you that would sort of fit in with this in that you would rather believe that you were collectively having a brain malfunction or hallucinating the same thing then believe that what you are seeing before you is from God. Also your doubt in these miracles mentioned in scripture is something else which is problematic about basing faith or beliefs on them. What good does it do us now that Jesus PBUh or Moses PBUH performed those miracles when we didnt see them and so dont believe they really happened. Just like people who come after us wouldnt believe a miracle that we saw actually happened. You could say we could film it or whatever but we know special effects can make literally anything look possible so why would people believe that what they are seeing is real instead of just some manufactured fantasy.

My end point is that the Quran does not encourage us to put such huge stock in miracles because even if miracles are effective at that particular time or for that particular place, they lose their power with time as people forget and begin to doubt. A miracle would have to be performed again and again for every generation to maintain people's faith which is not beyond God but does make a mockery.

"And they say, “Why is it that no signs (miracles) have been sent down to him from his Lord?” Say, “Signs are only with God, and I am only a plain warner.” Is it not sufficient for them that We have sent down to you the Book that is being recited to them? Surely in it there is mercy and advice for a people who believe. " (Chapter 29, verse 50-51)

But it would have to be a supernatural event by definition surely. Believers are saying that science is a sham and it all works because is god willing it to work. So it isn't possible to prove god exists using science is it because science is just an illusion.

As for youtube and 'hundreds of examples of so-called miracles' well I hope you don't take those seriously either. There's proof on there that our heads are full of lizards.

Most religious miracles are on the level of someone saying "look here's a hat, see nothing in the hat! Now everyone close your eyes and count to 10 and there will be a rabbit in the hat". You could say that not believing that was a miracle showed a lack of faith, but I'd say it showed a lack of stupidity.

As for 'rather believe that you were collectively having a brain malfunction' that is rational because we know that can happen. Just stick some drugs in the soup and watch.

"If God were to now regenerate an amputated person's leg people would not immediately attribute it to God."

No, but as CorusKate's link points out the lack of regenerated limbs is quite a good proof that the Abrahamic god is fictional. Because that god is supposed to answer prayers.

It's got to be about blind faith, hasn't it? Body parts can now be regrown, using stem cells and medical engineering. For me, this is evidence of the amazingness of nature + the wonders of human ingenuity. Believers will say both those factors are god's creation. In which case, I ask: why didn't god let people figure this out thousands of years ago? There's always an answer along the lines of 'god has a mystery plan'. Well, if this plan entails letting so many suffer for so long, I wouldn't say this god is much of a friend to humans!

As we, no thanks to any divinity, gain speed in understanding how stuff works, wouldn't we even now be finding evidence of some sort of planned direction? What we find, instead, is that everything started by accident and is heading inexorably toward extinction. I think these truths are unpalatable to believers, so they're comforted by thoughts of a divine plan. Fair enough - take what comfort you need - but, please, also respect that many of us are satisfied with thoughts of human life as a marvellous accident.

... and, honestly, that our thoughts of human life as a marvellous accident are not so very far from your thoughts of life as god's creation. None of us know how it all started, because you'll always end up with a mystery - where did the first atom come from, or where did god come from? Any of us can marvel at the bursting life in a summer woodland, with or without thoughts of gods. Any of us can choose to behave ethically; to think philosophically; to meditate; with or without blind faith. The difference is in the detail, not in the proof.

Thank you, choruskate- but I think I have lost the will to live....

Don't do that, Hak, god might be cross

would not immediately attribute it to god

Most people who were going to attribute a miracle to god would attribute it to their particular culture's god. Wouldn't god see the flaw in that?

If Moses supposedly lived around 1200 BCE, and the oldest books of the Torah were written around 800 BCE, that allows four centuries for his prophecies to be told after the fact. I could write some pretty good prophecies about things that happened in the past 400 years!

The Arabic word for the English word 'verse' (ayat) actually means 'proofs' or 'evidence', which is why many muslims would regard the Quran as an evidence or sign of God's existence

I missed the meaning of this line the first time round. Do Muslims really believe something is true simply because it is labelled 'proof'

And does that mean that Nursery Rhymes written in Arabic are also proof because they contain verses?

To be fair, the whole of the bible is called "testaments" which also means 'evidence' or witness statements - which they aren't

don't want you to have to have miracles, because then when you don't see any, you won't believe. All these religions want to you to believe with literally zero evidence

Its not that they dont want you to have miracles (whatever that means) its that the Quran doesnt want us to be dependent on miracles to have faith. Big difference. Miracles can happen. The biggest miracle that has happened to me is that two years ago I gave birth to a living, breathing, sentient being who could hardly do anything for himself and now two years on, he doesnt want me to do anything for him. That's my kind of miracle to be honest. I dont really need to see supernatural theatrics to believe. Again people have evidence for what they believe in. Belief isnt just based on nothing. The Quran actually encourages muslims to think, reflect and ponder for themselves about life, the world, the universe etc.

Were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]? Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain. (Chapter 52:Verse 35-36)

Those who remember Allah while standing or sitting or [lying] on their sides and reflect on the creation of the heavens and the earth, [saying], "Our Lord, You did not create this aimlessly"

We will show them our proofs in the horizons, and within themselves, until they realize that this is the truth.[Quran 41:53]

They know what is apparent of the worldly life, but they, of the Hereafter, are unaware. Do they not contemplate within themselves? Allah has not created the heavens and the earth and what is between them except in truth and for a specified term. And indeed, many of the people, in [the matter of] the meeting with their Lord, are disbelievers. Chapter 30, verse 8)

There is a famous hadith that states 'Seeking knowledge is obligatory on every muslim male and female' (yes I know a lot of muslims dont always behave as if they have heard this before but its more to do with selective implementation of the religion or they really have never heard it before) and this hadith does not just talk about religious knowledge it refers to all knowledge. Knowledge is not seen as something threatening but in fact something that strengthens your faith. The Quran uses reason a lot to try and convince people of God's existence and the Prophet Muhammed PBUH's truthfulness. Not believing is presented as being illogical and irrational. I know for most atheists its the opposite but hey guess we have to agree to disagree. For me I have evidences and proofs for what I believe but they are personal to me and convince me though I accept that for others they may not be quite as convincing.

Believers are saying that science is a sham and it all works because is god willing it to work. So it isn't possible to prove god exists using science is it because science is just an illusion.

Wow that is a pretty big statement to make about all the world's religions. In fact Science is not seen as a sham or an illusion. Historically there has never been a significant clash between science and religion with in the muslim world. In fact, the Qurans instructions to ponder and reflect on the universe and earth was seen as an encouragement or an endorsement of exploring science. There may be individual muslim scholars who had problems with certain aspects of science but it by no means is an orthodox position. Science just deals with a different realm of reality in that it deals with the physical whilst religion looks at the metaphysical if that makes sense. Different spheres of influence.

so-called miracles' well I hope you don't take those seriously either. There's proof on there that our heads are full of lizards.

I hoped the so-called would indicate that I dont but just to reiterate I dont believe in every 'miracle' that is presented to me but Im not required to either. The miracles I believe in are the ones that are mentioned in the Quran or hadith anything else I can take or leave to be honest.

Because that god is supposed to answer prayers.

Your comment is based on your Judeo-christian understanding of God. Yes God answers prayers but that doesnt mean you are always answered by being given what you want. There are physical and natural laws of the universe that God has established and at times we have to experience the cause and effect of them. It would be unjust of God to only spare those who pray to Him or those who are deserving from experiencing the impact of these laws. Can God interfere? Yes as a muslim I believe that. But is it right that God interferes all the time? I dont know but after watching many films and reading books about people who go in to the past and prevent an event from happening and the impact of that being huge on subsequent generations literally rewriting history, I dont think so.

You make an interesting point here - I find someone telling me about a miracle they claim to have seen a whole lot less impressive than seeing it myself, whether that's a person evangelising on the street or a person who wrote a religious text 1000 years ago. But I suspect the amount of corroborating evidence and the impossibility of other explanations for everyone witnessing this miracle would mean that, for a few generations, almost everyone would believe.

I agree with your first point. I think miracles lose their impact when they are related rather then being seen firsthand. Its like when you experience something or see something amazing you can describe it but it probably doesnt come close to the actual experience in itself. Does that make sense. I dont agree though that everyone would believe. I have already given examples from scripture about how people witnessing miracles directly did not believe. I think if someone chooses not to believe in something or doesnt want to believe there is little you can do to change their mind.

What I don't see is why it would make any more of a mockery of God for him to prove his existence to every person in every generation than for him to prove himself to the whole world just once. Or, in fact, how either of those are different to the fact that, supposedly, he does sometimes prove himself with miracles, but only occasionally, to certain people. If it's a question of God valuing faith over requiring proof, or of wanting to allow enough ambiguity in people's minds to make it a choice to follow God, then why did he perform miracles for the people you mention in the stories of the prophets?

Miracles are a double edged sword because they take away free will. When we have free will we have an excuse for being less then perfect, for making mistakes or for having doubts. When you have been given certain evidence of something you no longer have free will because you dont have a choice now you know its real. Your accountability sky-rockets. I hope that makes sense. Its actually a mercy in my opinion that God does not give us 100% indisputable, incontrovertible evidence of His existence through miracles because I think we are created fallible and so would never be able to live up to the expectations that would place on that. No muslim would say despite their belief that if they died tomorrow they would know they are in heaven. The Prophet Muhammed PBUH says to us in a hadith:

"No one of you will enter Paradise by his deeds alone." They asked, "Not even you, O Messenger of Allâh?" He said, "Not even me, unless Allâh covers me with His Grace and Mercy"

[Sahîh Muslim, 4/2170, no. 2816]

God does not require perfection from us but that is because we have an excuse. God places much higher expectations on the Prophet's Islamically because they have more proof of His existence and so have less leeway for falling short. I hope that makes sense. I have to go now but will be back later to answer more of the points posted previously.

I don't agree that proof of God would take away our free will (if we really have such a thing anyway). It would still leave us with the choice of what to do about it. Some people who say they truly believe in God often seem to act rather as though they don't.

Most people who were going to attribute a miracle to god would attribute it to their particular culture's god. Wouldn't god see the flaw in that?

If Moses supposedly lived around 1200 BCE, and the oldest books of the Torah were written around 800 BCE, that allows four centuries for his prophecies to be told after the fact. I could write some pretty good prophecies about things that happened in the past 400 years!

You both are kind of reiterating what I am saying about miracles not being necessarily the best way to get people to believe. They lose their power and credibility over time. They can be attributed to different things. So it doesnt make sense to base your whole faith on a supernatural, one-off, unrepeatable miracle. The best way I can explain to you is that I believe in the miracles of Prophet Moses PBUH because I believe in God and I believe the Quran is from God. I dont believe in God because of the miracles of Moses. Hope that distinction makes sense.

I missed the meaning of this line the first time round. Do Muslims really believe something is true simply because it is labelled 'proof'. And does that mean that Nursery Rhymes written in Arabic are also proof because they contain verses?

I wasnt sure if you were joking there or not. Of course we dont think that. Im not an Arabic speaker but from my lets say primary level studies of the language I know that Arabs have multiple words for something that they consider important. So the more important they think something is the more names it has. I cant think of one now off the top of my head but after doing some research I found that actually they have different words for the word verse. I presume they may use a different one of these words for verses in nursery rhymes or that the word can have two meanings just like in English some words have two meanings.

Catching up.

To start with:

The Arabic word for the English word 'verse' (ayat) actually means 'proofs' or 'evidence', which is why many muslims would regard the Quran as an evidence or sign of God's existence

peacefuloptimist I don't think that Muslims would be so foolish as to think that just because the word 'verse' can translate as 'evidence means that the Quran must be evidence, but I don't know how else to read what you said there.

Maybe you just mistyped it. I've often wished for the ability to edit.

facesofspinabifida.com/boy-six-worshipped-in-his-village-as-a-monkey-like-god-because-he-has-a-foot-long-tail-and-his-family-dont-want-to-get-it-cut/

One man's miracle manifestation is another's genetic mutation. What is considered miraculous to one person is not to another.