If nobody believed in superstition it would be unable to hurt anyone
MIRACLES IMPLY WE HAVE DUTY TO BELIEVE
A miracle is what is not naturally possible. It is a supernatural occurrence. It is paranormal. Only God does miracles. He does them so that we might see and know which religion is his religion, the only true one.
We have duty to worship God according to the method he has revealed. A duty is something you have to do and if you don’t do it you must suffer for it – one way or another there is something you are compelled to do. From all this it follows that we have a duty to believe in miracles and that the reported resurrection of Jesus was a miracle. Those who do not believe in miracles are neglecting their duty. They must be silenced as should be a person who advocates stealing for everybody has a duty to forbid stealing.
If there is a duty to believe in religious doctrine or to try to then religion is clearly right in saying those who encourage people to question their faith or to doubt it must be censored and told to shut up. That alone shows that religion is dangerous.
But you may say, "If atheism is true then we have a duty to accept it." At least it would be a duty to ourselves to check it out and embrace it if it is the truth. It would be our own business and nobody would be silenced for denying atheism. But religion says believing what God has revealed say that Jesus has risen is a duty to God. That's different. It is God and everybody's business to make sure God is revered properly.
If God exists, we owe it to him to worship him and to acknowledge his miracles as he gave us all we have. An obligation is something we have to do. We have no right to refuse to do it. We must be punished if we don't. An obligation without penalties is not an obligation at all. We have no right to say the obligation is just an opinion and that we disagree with it. You have to suffer for failing your obligations even if you don't mean to break them or know what they are. Thus miracles imply a duty to hurt the critics of miracles. They imply each religion has to compete against the other for no two religions agree on exactly what miracles God or whatever has done.
Duty does not presuppose understanding what you have to do. You can be punished for doing something you didn't know was wrong. You can be punished for doing something you heard was wrong even though you don't understand why it is wrong. The doctrine of God then presupposes that it is a duty to honour God by believing what he wants and that you are breaking your duty if you don't believe. It would be a duty for believers to silence unbelievers and use the law to stop them publishing anything in defence of unbelief or anything critical of the predominant religion.
Religion that teaches that belief is a gift from God and is a supernatural miracle is indicating that if we do not believe then it is because we have refused to take God's gift. We have not obeyed our duty to accept.
The Catholic God commands us and puts us under obligation to believe in certain miracles and apparitions and divine revelations. Would you feel loved by a friend or family member who obligates you to believe things they say? You would only feel loved by a person who wants you to believe without any pressure.
The notion that we must believe in miracles because God says so is saying that testimony sometimes must be believed. But nobody believes every testimony. Everybody will be sceptical of some testimonies though they look watertight and that is fair enough. And the question is whether the testimony of God is really his. Therefore if you want to reject a testimony even if you think you see the Virgin Mary and she is giving you the testimony that is your right and it is no sin to do that. Miracles then are not calls to conversion and repentance. If we need them to tell us to be good then we are repudiating all moral responsibility. They cannot succeed in being a message for us for we have the right to ignore them. They are just bizarre. If the Church argument is true, then we should listen to any and especially what most testimonies say. Most miracle testimonies speak of miracles that do not defend any religious system of doctrine or defend religions that deny that dogma matters or religions and beliefs which are obviously wrong and harmful. We can live perfectly normal lives and believe that human testimony is always to be taken seriously except for miracles for miracles are too fantastic.
When you serve religion you really serve men. You follow the perception they want to have of religion and the perception they want you to copy. They think they are so great despite their professed humility that they want you to believe like them. So it honours God to believe in miracles? Rubbish and you know it. Ultimately you simply feel that your religion is true and you only accept miracles that match what you want to believe. It is that causing your acceptance of miracles not any real reverence for God. Religion is human construct that legitimises intolerance.
If God is love and miracles are done to improve our understanding of him then we have a duty to believe in them and understand. Some say that miracles are done by God not as evidences that he exists or as signs but to improve our understanding of him. Thus miracles would be meant for believers and not for unbelievers. But God can give a person a conviction that he loves and suffers with the sick person. He does not to make a show of healing that person magically to do that. Indeed doing that would be about power. Thus the argument that miracles improve our understanding of God does not work. They block that understanding and the only message they give is the stark message that God shows off and is as immature as a twelve year old. Worse belief in miracles imposes a duty to believe and understand that is not there. That is oppression.
Belief in miracles promotes intolerance. Inventing false duties is intolerance in itself.