• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why do some Atheists trust specifically chosen stories about Muhammed as historical fact?

firedragon

Veteran Member
This question has been raised in this forum many a time but it keeps coming back.

There are some atheists who trust stories about Muhammed so much their conviction is deafening. But it seems like those who do pick and choose which ones they want to put their faith in. Though these particular atheists seem to believe they are superior in methodology and research, I can't see any methodology in this approach but just some intentionally arbitrary cherry picking.

For example, some story about Muhammed having black magic done on him and he couldn't remember if he had sex or not. Just came up from an atheist. Lol. Of course usually it will be some other story which are more naturalistic. There are of course Many Christians and Hindus who seem to have faith in some of these stories too for some strange reason but I am addressing these atheists because they claim to be superior in methodology and research while not being driven by faith. I wish to see if they do have anything other than faith in these matters and actually apply some intellect they claim over the theists.

What is the historical method applied by these people for this kind of hadith believing?
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Atheists are not concerned with what Muslims believe, because for them it is superstition. But that is what your own literature, the Hadiths, say. Like Mohammad played with Ayesha and her dolls. Now, you are at liberty to say that the story is not true if it is inconvenient to you and the stories that you find convenient are true.
 
Last edited:

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Almost all stories of Muhammad are dogmatic and not historical in nature.

My take is that it is not valid to critique them as historical since we can't know one way or the other whether many of these stories actually occurred, however it is still perfectly valid to critique a dogmatic narrative as a dogmatic narrative.

Anyway the author of the OP does not seem to believe in any sort of Muhammad that could be described as historical.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Atheists are not concerned with what Muslims believe, because for them it is mostly superstition. But that is what your own literature, the Hadiths, say. Like Mohammad played with Ayesha and her dolls. Now, you are at liberty to say that the story is not true if it is inconvenient to you and the stories that you find convenient are true.

What is the historical method applied by these people for this kind of hadith believing?
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
What is the historical method applied by these people for this kind of hadith believing?
Even Quran itself will not be taken as truth by atheists, not just the hadiths. It is not their thing. We do not believe in existence of Soul, God and the institution of messengers.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Even Quran itself will not be taken as truth by atheists, not just the hadiths. It is not their thing. We do not believe in existence of Soul, God and the institution of messengers.

Lol. really? Atheists dont believe in the Quran? Wow. Thats brand new information.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
This question has been raised in this forum many a time but it keeps coming back.

There are some atheists who trust stories about Muhammed so much their conviction is deafening. But it seems like those who do pick and choose which ones they want to put their faith in. Though these particular atheists seem to believe they are superior in methodology and research, I can't see any methodology in this approach but just some intentionally arbitrary cherry picking.

For example, some story about Muhammed having black magic done on him and he couldn't remember if he had sex or not. Just came up from an atheist. Lol. Of course usually it will be some other story which are more naturalistic. There are of course Many Christians and Hindus who seem to have faith in some of these stories too for some strange reason but I am addressing these atheists because they claim to be superior in methodology and research while not being driven by faith. I wish to see if they do have anything other than faith in these matters and actually apply some intellect they claim over the theists.

What is the historical method applied by these people for this kind of hadith believing?
What exactly do you expect people to believe - those who view religious texts as just that - textual material from the past? And have no real way of knowing their validity. Expect us to choose one over another as being true?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
What exactly do you expect people to believe - those who view religious texts as just that - textual material from the past? And have no real way of knowing their validity. Expect us to choose one over another as being true?

Who do you mean by "us"?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
There was only one self-defined atheist who had responded by that point (Aupmanyav) and they said the opposite of what you claimed.

True. Exact opposite was said.

But not practiced consistently.

When someone quotes a story as historical fact, please read the OP and you might understand what I say.

If one does not believe in some story as historical fact, he must not quote it as historical fact. Some atheists do. But then again in this thread they will claim they dont believe it. If they dont believe it, why quote some story as historical fact?

Since you are answering for someone else, can you answer this question as well?
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Who do you mean by "us"?
I suppose 'us' might be construed as being non-believers just as 'us' might be construed as being Muslims, if you want to see it as such. But I was meaning 'us' as those who don't take such texts at face value - being the sceptical morons that we are of course. :D
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Then this is not relevant to you and your "us". ;)
Not being an atheist then? I don't understand the difference between an atheist looking at religious texts and a believer, other than one might be less sceptical as to the content of such.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Why do some Atheists trust specifically chosen stories about Muhammed as historical fact?
This question has been raised in this forum many a time but it keeps coming back.
They don't trust the stories as 'historical fact'
But these stories serve their purpose to prove that Islam is not the truth when debating
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
This question has been raised in this forum many a time but it keeps coming back.

There are some atheists who trust stories about Muhammed so much their conviction is deafening.
Out of curiosity, how prevalent do you think this is -- two percent, ten percent?

Some people think and do all manner of things, but why focus on idiosyncratic outliers?
 
Top