"Why not a proof/Sign/indication" - challenge and various responses to it in Quran.

[The Grand Nudger]

No; I don't agree to many of the OPs other points; but on this topic he is spot on !
He actually based the belief he preach on the same verses I believe; so...spot on !

I guess it's a shame that the verse in question is batshit crazy, huh?  The only thing you two warring islamists agree on is lunacy.  

If angels showed, heaven came in front of our eyes, would a non-believer believe?

Belief would be a non cognitive.  No one -needs- to believe in what they can see.  

I don't think so. It's lack of faith in humanity. Actually; MK brought a verse about God showing the signs for humans, and God did; the recent mind blowing evolution in cosmos discovery is just an example of that; but still humans won't believe.

That's the point.

Hardly, the point is that you both conflate belief with obedience, as magic book does..in it's ignorance.  If you and mystics shared djinn were really real..I still wouldn't be a muslim.  I'm just not that shitty of a person. Don't feel bad, I tell the christers the same. It's not your fault. It's magic book's fault.

[Aoi Magi]

---

So allah wants the preachers to continue humiliating themselves infront of skeptics as usual? That's really benevolent of him

No; I don't agree to many of the OPs other points; but on this topic he is spot on !
He actually based the belief he preach on the same verses I believe; so...spot on !

If angels showed, heaven came in front of our eyes, would a non-believer believe?
I don't think so. It's lack of faith in humanity. Actually; MK brought a verse about God showing the signs for humans, and God did; the recent mind blowing evolution in cosmos discovery is just an example of that; but still humans won't believe.

That's the point.

Atlas, what you take as proof or evidence can be biased, right? We tend to ignore viable explanations if they don't match our preconceived notions, and it's not just you but even the best scientific minds on this planet are susceptible to this, and that's why the need of peer review or getting others to fact-check your ideas exist. Saying someone won't believe your idea just because they are closed minded doesn't validate your idea rather it shows a lack of proper evidence on your part.

Also regarding your argument, let's say i make some assertions like
The blue sky and oceans are proof of Krishna. Thunder and lightning are irrefutable evidence for Indra, but you won't believe this evidence because you are a non-believer in Hinduism.

Do you think just because I made these assertions, Hinduism has been proved?

[WinterHold]

No; I don't agree to many of the OPs other points; but on this topic he is spot on !
He actually based the belief he preach on the same verses I believe; so...spot on !

I guess it's a shame that the verse in question is batshit crazy, huh?  The only thing you two warring islamists agree on is lunacy.  

If angels showed, heaven came in front of our eyes, would a non-believer believe?

Belief would be a non cognitive.  No one -needs- to believe in what they can see.  

I don't think so. It's lack of faith in humanity. Actually; MK brought a verse about God showing the signs for humans, and God did; the recent mind blowing evolution in cosmos discovery is just an example of that; but still humans won't believe.

That's the point.

Hardly, the point is that you both conflate belief with obedience, as magic book does..in it's ignorance.  If you and mystics shared djinn were really real..I still wouldn't be a muslim.  I'm just not that shitty of a person.  Don't feel bad, I tell the christers the same.  It's not your fault.  It's magic book's fault.

Earth was round all along; but people never saw it that way; despite some saying that it was.
Saying that it was meant burning the person who says so alive.

I don't care about the OP's faith actually; until it starts to bash me and my people.
Pretty much the same concept with anybody else: my opinion in him never changed; we share different faiths, but one this point we agree.
Just like I agree with atheists on that the religion institution (with all its flavors) is quite...stinky.

[The Grand Nudger]

Earth was round all along; but people never saw it that way; despite some saying that it was.
Saying that it was meant burning the person who says so alive.

...............................................?

I don't care about the OP's faith actually; until it starts to bash me and my people.
Pretty much the same concept with anybody else: my opinion in him never changed; we share different faiths, but one this point we agree.
Just like I agree with atheists on that the religion institution (with all its flavors) is quite...stinky.

-and the thing that you both agree on is still absurd.

[WinterHold]

No; I don't agree to many of the OPs other points; but on this topic he is spot on !
He actually based the belief he preach on the same verses I believe; so...spot on !

If angels showed, heaven came in front of our eyes, would a non-believer believe?
I don't think so. It's lack of faith in humanity. Actually; MK brought a verse about God showing the signs for humans, and God did; the recent mind blowing evolution in cosmos discovery is just an example of that; but still humans won't believe.

That's the point.

Atlas, what you take as proof or evidence can be biased, right? We tend to ignore viable explanations if they don't match our preconceived notions, and it's not just you but even the best scientific minds on this planet are susceptible to this, and that's why the need of peer review or getting others to fact-check your ideas exist. Saying someone won't believe your idea just because they are closed minded doesn't validate your idea rather it shows a lack of proper evidence on your part.

Also regarding your argument, let's say i make some assertions like
The blue sky and oceans are proof of Krishna. Thunder and lightning are irrefutable evidence for Indra, but you won't believe this evidence because you are a non-believer in Hinduism.

Do you think just because I made these assertions, Hinduism has been proved?

Peer reviews of one's conclusions is a correct thing Magi; but even the jury that might produce these studies is not quite "unbiased".
Eventually it comes to you and listening to your inner voice.

The more you become honest with yourself, and study the case right; the more you take the proper choice.
Nobody should pick for you.

It's never about "Them", but it's about "You".

It's always about our personal choices, we are the own masters of our own universes; or let's say life? we will never convince all people, people will always be biased on way or another. Except for the ones listening to the right voice. I personally think I'm listening right. Either I lose or win.

[Edwardo Piet]

Oh for fuck's sake. Every one of his threads is the fucking same horseshit over and over.

[Aoi Magi]

Atlas, what you take as proof or evidence can be biased, right? We tend to ignore viable explanations if they don't match our preconceived notions, and it's not just you but even the best scientific minds on this planet are susceptible to this, and that's why the need of peer review or getting others to fact-check your ideas exist. Saying someone won't believe your idea just because they are closed minded doesn't validate your idea rather it shows a lack of proper evidence on your part.

Also regarding your argument, let's say i make some assertions like
The blue sky and oceans are proof of Krishna. Thunder and lightning are irrefutable evidence for Indra, but you won't believe this evidence because you are a non-believer in Hinduism.

Do you think just because I made these assertions, Hinduism has been proved?

Peer reviews of one's conclusions is a correct thing Magi; but even the jury that might produce these studies is not quite "unbiased".
Eventually it comes to you and listening to your inner voice.

The more you become honest with yourself, and study the case right; the more you take the proper choice.
Nobody should pick for you.

It's never about "Them", but it's about

It's always about our personal choices, we are the own masters of our own universes; or let's say life? we will never convince all people, people will always be biased on way or another. Except for the ones listening to the right voice. I personally think I'm listening right. Either I lose or win.

Yes, the jury is not unbiased but such a collective opinion is often a lot better than one single individual's, as it decreases the chance of being wrong. In a court of law, a jury only becomes essential when the proofs and evidences are not sufficient enough to reach a verdict, and that does indeed indicate a failure on the part of those presenting the evidence rather than the judge.

You might believe the voice you are hearing is the right one, and that might be the case. I am not saying you can objectively determine if you are right or wrong in every scenario, but being a skeptic and exploring alternate explanations for your experiences helps you get the closest to the truth as is possible for you. If you choose to solely rely on your own interpretations and beliefs while disregarding reality, what sets you apart from any other delusional person?

[WinterHold]

Peer reviews of one's conclusions is a correct thing Magi; but even the jury that might produce these studies is not quite "unbiased".
Eventually it comes to you and listening to your inner voice.

The more you become honest with yourself, and study the case right; the more you take the proper choice.
Nobody should pick for you.

It's never about "Them", but it's about

It's always about our personal choices, we are the own masters of our own universes; or let's say life? we will never convince all people, people will always be biased on way or another. Except for the ones listening to the right voice. I personally think I'm listening right. Either I lose or win.

Yes, the jury is not unbiased but such a collective opinion is often a lot better than one single individual's, as it decreases the chance of being wrong. In a court of law, a jury only becomes essential when the proofs and evidences are not sufficient enough to reach a verdict, and that does indeed indicate a failure on the part of those presenting the evidence rather than the judge.

You might believe the voice you are hearing is the right one, and that might be the case. I am not saying you can objectively determine if you are right or wrong in every scenario, but being a skeptic and exploring alternate explanations for your experiences helps you get the closest to the truth as is possible for you. If you choose to solely rely on your own interpretations and beliefs while disregarding reality, what sets you apart from any other delusional person?

The brain has "Mirror Neurons":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron

That's why I mainly don't trust humans. People copy each other and they have the organs to do so; I can't assume that anybody has a strong mental control to ignore what they filled their minds with.

A jury can always judge with a biased majority; since all its members have mirror neurons: just like Domino pieces if one made a move; the whole can so copy-cat him/her.

What I can do on a personal level; is shut the door in front of copy catting others. Doing what my own brain says; and watching what others say and learn from them. But my inner voice is always heard. It's not like I claim total independence; but I'm trying to discipline these mirror neocons.

[Cyberman]

Atlas, what you take as proof or evidence can be biased, right? We tend to ignore viable explanations if they don't match our preconceived notions, and it's not just you but even the best scientific minds on this planet are susceptible to this, and that's why the need of peer review or getting others to fact-check your ideas exist. Saying someone won't believe your idea just because they are closed minded doesn't validate your idea rather it shows a lack of proper evidence on your part.

Also regarding your argument, let's say i make some assertions like
The blue sky and oceans are proof of Krishna. Thunder and lightning are irrefutable evidence for Indra, but you won't believe this evidence because you are a non-believer in Hinduism.

Do you think just because I made these assertions, Hinduism has been proved?

Peer reviews of one's conclusions is a correct thing Magi; but even the jury that might produce these studies is not quite "unbiased".
Eventually it comes to you and listening to your inner voice.

That's not how peer review works. If scientist x makes an observation, it doesn't count as evidence if scientist y can't make the same observation. If scientist x obtains data from an experiment, that data - even if it's accurate - must be discounted if scientist y can't reproduce the experiment.

Scientists are just as biased as everyone else; but the scientific method is deliberatly designed to reduce or even remove those biases as much as is possible.

[GrandizerII]

Note to self: MK is making these threads for himself, not for others. He needs to keep convincing himself through forumulating these terrible arguments that his shit is real.