How to get reliable informations about God

[A.Saturnus]

Religion is basically uninquirable acceptance.

That´s not an answer to my question. The reliability of something may influence whether you believe it, but whether you believe it doesn´t influence reliability.
Were Muhammed´s miracles any better than David Copperfield´s? But even if, that would still not make his source reliable. You should consider the possibility that should God tell you something directly, it might still be wrong.
That you feel God´s existence might be reason enough for you, but it is still not a reliable source, even for you. Feelings can be misleading.

[LeftEyeNine]

Your statements lead you to your words' self-conflict. So may be your thoughts are. So may your "null" feelings about God be wrong although it is only an outcome of your own mind.

That's a paradox based on confusing and stunning statements you are claiming right now.

David Copperfield was an entertainer Muhammed was a Prophet. Please choose your words when directing something towards me. I never accused blamed or humiliated any of you due to your beliefs.

The purpose of showing miracles was intented to knock down the stiff mentalities of the people of that time. As you know human brain and capability evolves continuously. And they simply rejected the discipline Muhammed offered in words. And he was times and times asked to prove that he was a Prophet. They wanted to be convinced to their eyes. That's why.. I bet he was not having fun with tearing the moon apart in two - he had to.

[Byzantine Prince]

I don't see any self-conflict in Saturnus's post.

Mohammed might have been a prophet but the way he proved that was with miracles, kind of like David Coperfield with magical tricks, but for different reasons of course. No one is humiliating anyone by simply comparing what they both did.

Saturnus makes a great point about feelings being misleading. Many Christians also say they have "Jesus in their hearts" or they "feel the presense". People just say those things, because they are so infatuated by their beliefs.

[LeftEyeNine]

I don't see any self-conflict in Saturnus's post.

Mohammed might have been a prophet but the way he proved that was with miracles, kind of like David Coperfield with magical tricks, but for different reasons of course. No one is humiliating anyone by simply comparing what they both did.

Saturnus makes a great point about feelings being misleading. Many Christians also say they have "Jesus in their hearts" or they "feel the presense". People just say those things, because they are so infatuated by their beliefs.

You should get the point. I see it is way too blurry from your point of view. Comparison of a guy's tricks derived with gadgets and plans with Muhammed's miracles humiliate me. You may be atheist but should be - as a human being - aware of what the sensitive points that should be discriminated from "the subject of discussion" and "I feel funny today" thing are.

You just explained the difference between believers and non-believers. Some can "feel" the presence of God or the Prophets, and some just do not. They can get how one can believe something that dictates, writes a fiction and what's more, is unvisible and unperceivable.

I can really understand the non-believer's way of thought. You may just not get it. But I do. Keeping the "right" or "wrong" things aside - I never tried to judge or make fun of your mentality as you do to believers, and I will not intend it ever - believing is all about the "being another person". We are all different..

P.S. I did not mention these to avoid discussion. I several times sat down and tried to think about how a non-believer may think, how he/she may give meanings to aspects of life. That's why I say "I can understand you".

[Quietus]

LeftEyeNine,

Let me help you out getting in a non-believer's shoe (objectively).

You were reading the newspapers today. In it is an article entitled: "God's son parts Red Sea". In it a person, Joe Doe, claims he parted the Red Sea and he is the son of a God. There was no pictures or videos of the event, apparently, just a drawing of the guy parting the Red Sea. Lastly, in the tradition of the Torah, the Bible and the Koran, he's writing a book he calls the New Message (latest teachings from his father).

After, reading this, at that point in time, would you believe this claim? A simple Yes or No answer would suffice.

ps. (keep in mind, you haven't witnessed anything with your own eyes).

[A.Saturnus]

LeftEyeNine, it was not my intend to offend you, please accept my apologies if I did. But I do not understand your answer. What is my "self-conflict"? I merely pointed out that a feeling you have cannot be a reliable source of information. I don´t want to belittle such a feeling, I fully understand that it is important to you and that it influences your live. Actually, I find it quite reasonable that you live by it. We all use feelings to let them guide our way in life. But nevertheless, it is not a reliable source of information about something independent from you and that feeling. That feeling may be important for you, but it provides no evidence about the world outside you.
Also, the comparison between Muhammed and Copperfield was not meant to ridicule the Prophet or your believes, though I realize that my wording was a bit hasty. The point is that there is a similarity between those two. Both - if we believe witnesses - have done things that seem to be impossible. In both cases, we can´t be sure how they did it. That their intentions were greatly different is out of the question.

Really, I am perfectly comfortable with what you believe and I don´t want to change it, although I disagree with you. For me, this is not a discussion atheist vs. believer, not even a discussion about God. It is a discussion about what is reliable information.

[Byzantine Prince]

You should get the point. I see it is way too blurry from your point of view. Comparison of a guy's tricks derived with gadgets and plans with Muhammed's miracles humiliate me. You may be atheist but should be - as a human being - aware of what the sensitive points that should be discriminated from "the subject of discussion" and "I feel funny today" thing are.

You just explained the difference between believers and non-believers. Some can "feel" the presence of God or the Prophets, and some just do not. They can get how one can believe something that dictates, writes a fiction and what's more, is unvisible and unperceivable.

I can really understand the non-believer's way of thought. You may just not get it. But I do. Keeping the "right" or "wrong" things aside - I never tried to judge or make fun of your mentality as you do to believers, and I will not intend it ever - believing is all about the "being another person". We are all different..

P.S. I did not mention these to avoid discussion. I several times sat down and tried to think about how a non-believer may think, how he/she may give meanings to aspects of life. That's why I say "I can understand you".

I'm afraid I do not follow your point. So you can relate to beign a non-believer and... what? That's where I'm lost. You "feel" the presense of god, but I don't see how that's any different from any other religious person who also "feels" the presense of whoever it is they believe in. If we take that as a fact then there are more then one gods out there that influence whoever the people believe in. You see my logic?

Also I don't think you can ridicule my beliefs, seeing as I have none. There's nothing there for anyone to humiliate.