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

[firedragon]

I think you're seeing what you want to see.

Great, thanks.

 

[Nimos]

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.

Don't you think that it is those stories for which there is a reasonable chance that they could be true? Meaning that it is reasonable to assume that Muhammad traveled to Medina and did certain things there, because none of that is particular unreasonable to assume that he could have done. Whereas claiming that he traveled to heaven on a winged creature is slightly different, because we have no evidence that such creature should exists or that heaven does etc. Which makes such story slightly harder to believe as being true.

So I probably wouldn't say that atheists put faith in certain stories and not others, but rather that some are more likely to be plausible than others.

Exactly the same as some atheists probably doesn't have a huge issue with Jesus existing despite there not really being any evidence for him. But its not unreasonable to assume that lots of people would behave as he did at the time. But there is a huge leap between saying that its likely that a person such as Jesus lived, compared to then conclude that he was the son of God. These two things are completely different claims and have different burdens of proofs.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Great, thanks.

You are entirely welcome. More than you realize, I am sure.

 

[HonestJoe]

I have given an example in the OP HJ.

You gave examples of things you are claiming atheists say. You have not demonstrated any atheists actually saying anything like that.

Again, you're claiming that there are some atheists saying these things, and often enough for you to bother to create a thread about it, so why can't you directly and unconditionally point to specific examples of atheists saying them?

 

[firedragon]

Don't you think that it is those stories for which there is a reasonable chance that they could be true? Meaning that it is reasonable to assume that Muhammad traveled to Medina and did certain things there, because none of that is particular unreasonable to assume that he could have done. Whereas claiming that he traveled to heaven on a winged creature is slightly different, because we have no evidence that such creature should exists or that heaven does etc. Which makes such story slightly harder to believe as being true.

So I probably wouldn't say that atheists put faith in certain stories and not others, but rather that some are more likely to be plausible than others.

Exactly the same as some atheists probably doesn't have a huge issue with Jesus existing despite there not really being any evidence for him. But its not unreasonable to assume that lots of people would behave as he did at the time. But there is a huge leap between saying that its likely that a person such as Jesus lived, compared to then conclude that he was the son of God. These two things are completely different claims and have different burdens of proofs.

I will not take up the Jesus matter you spoke of.

Yet, what you said is very reasonable. What one must understand is, there is a thing called a methodology for anything. You said that there is a reasonable chance that they could be true. Thats true. But whats the methodology adopted by those atheists who quote some story as historical fact?

 

[firedragon]

You gave examples of things you are claiming atheists say. You have not demonstrated any atheists actually saying anything like that.

I can't do that mate. Then I have to quote some people in this forum, and that's not a decent thing to do. If you dont wish to engage with this topic, and if you want to call me a hypocrite like many atheists have already attempted to do, its perfectly alright.

But I cannot go to other threads and quote you names. This is only an Internet forum. No one knows who the other person is. Thus, what ever you wish to do, its fine with me.

Cheers.

 

[stvdv]

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

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

So you are calling "hypocrite"!

No, I would call it "hypothetical"

 

[HonestJoe]

I can't do that mate. Then I have to quote some people in this forum, and that's not a decent thing to do. If you dont wish to engage with this topic, and if you want to call me a hypocrite like many atheists have already attempted to do, its perfectly alright.

I'm not calling you a hypocrite. I'd like to think you're honestly mistaken in what you think you're seeing, but you're not making it an easy position to hold.

As I explained earlier, it is perfectly valid in a debate for someone to take an assumption as read even if they don't believe it so that other aspects or details of it can be freely discussed an debated. That is what I suspect you're seeing but if you're not willing to quote examples, I can't confirm that. It'd be down to you to look at them again with an open mind and reconsider your conclusions.

So, my answer to your OP question remains; "Do they?" As you've presented it, I don't think anyone can honestly answer with anything else.

 

[ecco]

There are some atheists who trust stories about Muhammed so much their conviction is deafening.

Do you mean stories like this:

The conquest of Mecca (Arabic: فتح مكة‎ fatḥ makkah) was the conquering of the town of Mecca by Muslims led by the Islamic prophet Muhammad in December 629 or January 630 AD (Julian), 10–20 Ramadan, 8 AH. The conquest marked the end of the wars between the followers of Muhammad and the Quraysh tribe.​

Or stories like this:

The Quran was orally revealed by God to the final prophet, Muhammad, through the archangel Gabriel (Jibril), incrementally over a period of some 23 years, beginning in the month of Ramadan, when Muhammad was 40; and concluding in 632, the year of his death.​

Please be specific.

 

[firedragon]

I'm not calling you a hypocrite. I'd like to think you're honestly mistaken in what you think you're seeing, but you're not making it an easy position to hold.

As I explained earlier, it is perfectly valid in a debate for someone to take an assumption as read even if they don't believe it so that other aspects or details of it can be freely discussed an debated. That is what I suspect you're seeing but if you're not willing to quote examples, I can't confirm that. It'd be down to you to look at them again with an open mind and reconsider your conclusions.

So, my answer to your OP question remains; "Do they?" As you've presented it, I don't think anyone can honestly answer with anything else.

Any story an atheist quotes as historical has to have a methodology. Don’t you think an atheist should practice a historical method?

if not, it’s just blind faith.

 

[firedragon]

Do you mean stories like this:

The conquest of Mecca (Arabic: فتح مكة‎ fatḥ makkah) was the conquering of the town of Mecca by Muslims led by the Islamic prophet Muhammad in December 629 or January 630 AD (Julian), 10–20 Ramadan, 8 AH. The conquest marked the end of the wars between the followers of Muhammad and the Quraysh tribe.​

Or stories like this:

The Quran was orally revealed by God to the final prophet, Muhammad, through the archangel Gabriel (Jibril), incrementally over a period of some 23 years, beginning in the month of Ramadan, when Muhammad was 40; and concluding in 632, the year of his death.​

Please be specific.

Specific story as an example is given in the OP.

 

[ecco]

Specific story as an example is given in the OP.

This example?

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.

A story about some nonsense ostensibly related to you by an anonymous person? I would not question the content of the story as much as I would question if this is a strawman made up by you.

 

[firedragon]

This example?



A story about some nonsense ostensibly related to you by an anonymous person? I would not question the content of the story as much as I would question if this is a strawman made up by you.

Thanks.

 

[ecco]

Thanks.

Thanks for what?

This isn't the first thread you have started with highly inflammable rhetoric and then refused to even try to justify your OP.

 

[firedragon]

Thanks for what?

This isn't the first thread you have started with highly inflammable rhetoric and then refused to even try to justify your OP.

Why so "inflamed"?

 

[Nimos]

I will not take up the Jesus matter you spoke of.

Yet, what you said is very reasonable. What one must understand is, there is a thing called a methodology for anything. You said that there is a reasonable chance that they could be true. Thats true. But whats the methodology adopted by those atheists who quote some story as historical fact?

There is nothing really to take up in regards to Jesus, it was just an example. To demonstrate that one claim doesn't necessarily justify another.

In regards to the atheists claims, do you know which stories they refer to as historical facts and why they claim them to be so? Otherwise I don't really know what you refer to or how to look into it.

 

[firedragon]

In regards to the atheists

some, particular atheists.

do you know which stories they refer to as historical facts and why they claim them to be so?

Example given in the OP.

Otherwise I don't really know what you refer to or how to look into it.

I understand.

 

[McBell]

Example given in the OP.

Is that the best "example" you got?
If so, your thread is an epic fail.
Especially given the fact that you flat out refuse to support your claim with anything other than an unsourced reference to a claim made.

 

[firedragon]

Is that the best "example" you got?

No. But its an example.

If so, your thread is an epic fail.

Nice.

Especially given the fact that you flat out refuse to support your claim with anything other than an unsourced reference to a claim made.

Gr8. Thanks.

 

[Nimos]

Example given in the OP.

So some atheist said "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." did he/she give any explanation to why they believe that to be true? Because it sound weird that an atheist would talk about magic as if it was real, not saying that atheist in theory can't believe in magic, but it makes little sense to deny the existences of a God, to jump straight to magic, which is also supernatural and for the person to not be able to see the conflict?

Then you mentioned this "Lol. Of course usually it will be some other story which are more naturalistic." which is what I referred to, when asking for an example, because of the "more naturalistic story", which you doesn't specify what refer to.

Im wondering, if you are relating the actual claim made by these atheists, given you are so unspecific in exactly what these/this atheist is claiming? I mean obviously if you are right and the atheist is jumping to the black magic as being an historical fact, the person clearly doesn't know what they are talking about and can simply be ignored as being an ignorant statement.