So do you believe Muhammad split the moon? Are you biased against it just because it is a miracle?
Koran having been dictated by Allah word by word is supposed to be the only miracle in Islam. The stories like the one you've mentioned contradict that basic idea and have most likely been added later. So no, in this case I indeed don't believe in it.
However, try to use the same justification with Christianity and you have nothing substantial the miracles would've been added to. There is no Christianity without miracles like the Virgin Birth or the miraculous healings Jesus performed or the Resurrection or the Ascension.
Without those all you are left with is the most insane guy in the world (believed himself to be God, that's pretty nuts) somehow gathering a big group of followers (still ready to die for his nonsense after he got crucified) by spouting the exact things they as Jews would find blasphemous to their faith.
3 arguments with 0 weight!
-If age is of any relevance, Scientology will be true one day. Why aren't you a Hindu then?
It's not the age, it's the survivability. You claim Christianity is nonsense and pretty obviously so. Yet somehow people have been collectively retarded for millennia and failed to see it, while inventing all of the science, technology and civilisation we have now.
-People change their lives due to all sorts of things, including feminism, Scientology and 'insert ideology/religion here'
-People have died for many things, that's irrelevant. It only shows that they believed in it; it doesn't show whether sth is true. We don't really know who came up with the claim that Jesus BODILY resurrected and whether they died for it.
Oh, we do know they died for it. Historical texts do describe this "bizarre sect" and what was done to eradicate it. Spoiler, it didn't work.
It's true that people believing something doesn't prove it to be true. I've argued the same thing about morality in this very thread. But in the particular instance you're quoting, I wasn't arguing it's true - I was arguing that it was incredibly convincing, enough to die for and therefore it can't be as "obviously nonsensical" as you claim it to be.
I would like to ask you a few things:
a) Do you believe in Darwinian evolution?
b) Do you believe the dead rose when Jesus died and walked around Jerusalem? Why does only the Gospel of Matthew mentioned it? Or do you interpret it as not literal? Then can't we do the same regarding Jesus resurrection?
c) Do you have any reason for believing in God? (Other than wishing it to be true)
a) It seems to be a likely description of the way some live organisms change in time and it has sufficient scientific backing to warrant a "probably true" label, sure.
b) I see no problem interpreting it literally. Lazarus was brought back to life by Jesus, the blind were given sight, the demons were chased from people, there are many miracles in the Bible and considering the format of the Gospels - that of a historical "reportage" rather than myths and stories - I do believe most of them did happen.
This particular one you've mentioned I can shrug my shoulders at, to be fair, for it doesn't matter. It would be like two eyewitnesses of a murder being consistent on everything, except one mentioned that the killer sneezed before leaving the crime scene and the other said nothing like that. The rest of the testimonies are what's important, no judge would withhold the sentence until the sneeze situation was made clear.
And no, we can't just interpret Jesus's Resurrection as a symbolic thing, because without it, everything else in the Gospels, arguably in the Old testament as well - makes no sense. You don't take away the murder from a crime novel and pretend the story is basically still the same.
c) You seem to have a schizophrenic argument here. On one hand, my God can't be real, because His existence comes with the possibility (I'd argue necessity) of hell and many harsh moral responsibilities and limitations and whatnot. One the other hand, it's just
wishful thinking on my part. Why would you assume I
want God to be real? Is wanting something the only reason for belief or could my intellectual honesty have something to do with it?
I'd like to answer that last question a bit more broadly, but I want to know where I'm standing with you, so here are my own three questions for you, if you don't mind:
a) Do you believe in souls, humans (and/or animals) having a core element to them that is not physical, nor a result of bodily functions?
b) Do you believe in free will?
c) Do you believe that if the world had developed differently, perhaps at the first millisecond of all time, that we could've come to live in a world where 2+2 would equal 7 or you could both stand and not stand at the same time or a result could precede the cause - a world in which the basic principles of logic would not apply?