Never call other humans disbelievers!

[Mystic]

I think you should understand the term as Quran meant to what it means per Quran terms.

If I disbelieve after the knowledge I have, then I am a disbeliever. You said this yourself in an earlier post, and I argued that I do have enough knowledge to consciously disbelieve. In fact, that's what explicit atheists (which is a thing) are doing. They consciously disbelieve the existence of God after much reading and pondering.

I don't think you understand. Moses proved God when he spoke, but Pharaoh and his people were truly in that state of disbelief, per Quran, and the truth only came when his hand turned into a bright light that didn't harm with evil people's eyes (ie. the brightness though super bright cause no damage to eyes and they all saw it bright).

It was then truth became that apparent.

And it was only when Pharoah and his people had a resolve "no matter what signs you bring, we know that you are only a sorcerer", that God judged them too stubborn, because it didn't matter at that point, what level of miracle and sign and proof, but even then, he brought a punishing sign, and they swore they would accept him if he lifted the punishment but they didn't.

Sometimes people are stubborn to what Quran says, like people denying Wilayah of Ali in there even when they know better, but often, people are heedless and don't know better.

All I'm saying is I withdraw judgment.

[GrandizerII]

If I disbelieve after the knowledge I have, then I am a disbeliever. You said this yourself in an earlier post, and I argued that I do have enough knowledge to consciously disbelieve. In fact, that's what explicit atheists (which is a thing) are doing. They consciously disbelieve the existence of God after much reading and pondering.

I don't think you understand. Moses proved God when he spoke, but Pharaoh and his people were truly in that state of disbelief, per Quran, and the truth only came when his hand turned into a bright light that didn't harm with evil people's eyes (ie. the brightness though super bright cause no damage to eyes and they all saw it bright).

It was then truth became that apparent.

And it was only when Pharoah and his people had a resolve "no matter what signs you bring, we know that you are only a sorcerer", that God judged them too stubborn, because it didn't matter at that point, what level of miracle and sign and proof, but even then, he brought a punishing sign, and they swore they would accept him if he lifted the punishment but they didn't.

Sometimes people are stubborn to what Quran says, like people denying Wilayah of Ali in there even when they know better, but often, people are heedless and don't know better.

All I'm saying is I withdraw judgment.

Read the appended edit in my prior post. Again, you can't get any worse than that as a "disbeliever". I'm not that different from Pharaoh, except I would intellectually acknowledge that it's god, I just wouldn't emotionally accept it as god. If anything, the Pharaoh in your example was a more mild "disbeliever" than I am because he was still convinced that your god wasn't the true god (but just a sorcerer).

Edit: Had to add some scare quotes because what's happening is that two senses of the term "disbelief" and its derivatives are being used interchangeably, leading to a lot of confusion. And all because you want to keep living in this fantasy world where people like me don't really disbelieve but are just ignorant and don't know any better. Yeah, because we're just cattle and sheep here, we don't know shit. Talk about such a low [implicit] view of atheists.

[Joods]

I don't give a shit what the fucking koran means or doesn't mean.  What will it take for you to catch on?

Why are you here in this thread then?

Because you post in a fucking forum and we, as members, are allowed to respond. If you don't like it, then stop posting your worthless drivel.

[Belacqua]

often, people are heedless and don't know better.

All I'm saying is I withdraw judgment.

I think you're making two good points. I hope that lots of believers agree with you, as it would make for more tolerant relations.

1) You seem to be saying that simple lack of belief isn't the definition of this usage of "Disbeliever." For the term you're using, a Disbeliever is someone who has been offered good proof and chooses to reject it.

This reminds me of the endless Internet debates among atheists about who is really an atheist. Some people want to claim that babies are atheists because they lack belief. Others say this is silly, because it would also include rocks and lizards as atheists. Better to say that an atheist (at least of the type who posts on web sites) is someone who has heard religious claims and rejected them according to reasons. 

2) If I'm reading you right, you're offering a pretty demanding standard for what constitutes proof -- a standard that most people will never receive. If it takes a demonstrable miracle to persuade someone justly, then believers can have sympathy with non-believers because solid miracles are pretty rare these days. 

But this makes sense to me, because in scripture there are a lot of figures, presented as admirable people, who demand miraculous demonstration before believing. Moses, Job, the major Prophets, Jesus' disciples, etc. etc. All demanded a lot more in the way of proof than atheists hear today. 

I am not saying that I believe miracles are accurately recorded in scripture, or that they are possible today. But I think the criteria you've given here, if your fellow believers will pay attention, is sympathetic to non-believers like me, and I appreciate that.

[WinterHold]

We know who you mean.
You are playing on the emotional card now, by claiming a mental illness, or being possessed by a demon, or whatever excuse you throw when you're cornered.
And in the middle, while nobody is looking, you twist a text here or there.

You posted this after you were exposed twisting texts and use the crowd's ignorance in the Arabic language:

https://atheistforums.org/thread-57052-p...pid1839447

So stop this tantrum and accept that it is exposed.
Believe in whatever you want. But don't lie. Lying is just disgusting.

[Mystic]

often, people are heedless and don't know better.

All I'm saying is I withdraw judgment.

I think you're making two good points. I hope that lots of believers agree with you, as it would make for more tolerant relations.

1) You seem to be saying that simple lack of belief isn't the definition of this usage of "Disbeliever." For the term you're using, a Disbeliever is someone who has been offered good proof and chooses to reject it.

This reminds me of the endless Internet debates among atheists about who is really an atheist. Some people want to claim that babies are atheists because they lack belief. Others say this is silly, because it would also include rocks and lizards as atheists. Better to say that an atheist (at least of the type who posts on web sites) is someone who has heard religious claims and rejected them according to reasons. 

2) If I'm reading you right, you're offering a pretty demanding standard for what constitutes proof -- a standard that most people will never receive. If it takes a demonstrable miracle to persuade someone justly, then believers can have sympathy with non-believers because solid miracles are pretty rare these days. 

But this makes sense to me, because in scripture there are a lot of figures, presented as admirable people, who demand miraculous demonstration before believing. Moses, Job, the major Prophets, Jesus' disciples, etc. etc. All demanded a lot more in the way of proof than atheists hear today. 

I am not saying that I believe miracles are accurately recorded in scripture, or that they are possible today. But I think the criteria you've given here, if your fellow believers will pay attention, is sympathetic to non-believers like me, and I appreciate that.

You kindle some hope in me.  It really felt up to that point with the members here it was you're damned if you and you're damned if you don't... sort of thing.

[Gwaithmir]

Proud disbeliever since 1982.

[GrandizerII]

You kindle some hope in me.  It really felt up to that point with the members here it was you're damned if you and you're damned if you don't... sort of thing.

I don't know of any atheist here who was bothered because they were called disbelievers.

---

This reminds me of the endless Internet debates among atheists about who is really an atheist. Some people want to claim that babies are atheists because they lack belief. Others say this is silly, because it would also include rocks and lizards as atheists. Better to say that an atheist (at least of the type who posts on web sites) is someone who has heard religious claims and rejected them according to reasons.

Which is why I would redefine an implicit atheist as the type of atheist with a current potential to [possibly] consciously reject the existence of god but has not had that potential actualized. This will thereby not include rocks, lizards, or human babies. Otherwise, yes, this would sound really silly.

[brewer]

Can I be un?

Any muslim worth their spit should consider me an infidel.

[LadyForCamus]

You can call yourselves, that, but I won't, because as a Muslim, disbeliever has a context and special meaning, and I won't apply it to you.

Fuck off.  I’m reporting you for spamming.