• 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
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?

No. Asked a dozen times, yet no answer but some Tu Quoque.

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

Agreed.

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.

Muhammed had a baby wife.

Im wondering, if you are relating the actual claim made by these atheists,

Absolutely.

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.

Maybe.

Sorry about the short sentences.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
This is described in Quran, rather then reflecting over clear signs from Quran and Sunnah, people who hearts are dark seek ambiguities from Quran and ahadith. Rather then reflecting over insights, they focus, on what is not clear from guidance of God and seek ambiguities. They dispute and argue for what is not been clearly established.

My method, doesn't rely on Imel Rijaal, I don't believe that is an objective science. I go the heart of the philosophical clear insights and arguments in Quran and Sunnah and focus on that. This is what leads me to certainty.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
This is described in Quran, rather then reflecting over clear signs from Quran and Sunnah, people who hearts are dark seek ambiguities from Quran and ahadith. Rather then reflecting over insights, they focus, on what is not clear from guidance of God and seek ambiguities. They dispute and argue for what is not been clearly established.

My method, doesn't rely on Imel Rijaal, I don't believe that is an objective science. I go the heart of the philosophical clear insights and arguments in Quran and Sunnah and focus on that. This is what leads me to certainty.

Thats good.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It's a not a principle of reason to abandon what is certain for what it is not.
 
My guess is that nobody made any claim even remotely to what he is describing in the OP.
I bet a thousand bucks that if he would link the conversation he is talking about, it would become apparent for context that it is not at all what he claims it to be.

I'll take that bet ;)

The context is pretty much what he says it is. It's very common too and you'll find examples in countless Islam threads here.

It's not that people are knowingly agreeing with hadiths, they just just aren't aware that basically every detail of Muhammad's life is only attested to in hadith and sirah literature.

So when people say Muhammad beheaded all the Banu Qurayza or married a child they are not referring to "secular" history, but theological literature.

People often cite such things as historical fact rather than simply using it to argue against "what Muslims believe".
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I'll take that bet ;)

The context is pretty much what he says it is. It's very common too and you'll find examples in countless Islam threads here.

It's not that people are knowingly agreeing with hadiths, they just just aren't aware that basically every detail of Muhammad's life is only attested to in hadith and sirah literature.

So when people say Muhammad beheaded all the Banu Qurayza or married a child they are not referring to "secular" history, but theological literature.

People often cite such things as historical fact rather than simply using it to argue against "what Muslims believe".

Yeah. You nailed it.

There is no choice but to bring up this same topic over and over again to make an awareness, and to learn some reactions.
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
Any story an atheist quotes as historical has to have a methodology. Don’t you think an atheist should practice a historical method?
Sure, as much as anyone else. Are you willing and able to offer any reason to think they don't yet?
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
So this topic is about atheists that no one knows about, no one can identify, or may not even exist, but has beliefs that few, if any, atheists hold.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
So this topic is about atheists that no one knows about, no one can identify, or may not even exist, but has beliefs that few, if any, atheists hold.

This thread is about any atheist who ever quotes any story as historical fact as stipulated in the OP.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
So when people say Muhammad beheaded all the Banu Qurayza or married a child they are not referring to "secular" history, but theological literature.
Is theological literature all false? Then the Muslims also should not use it as history.
Even Quran was complied by Zayed ibn Thabit from various sources including that of his own, and third Caliph Uthman destroyed the differing versions.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Is theological literature all false? Then the Muslims also should not use it as history.

So you use it because Muslims use it? Others do it, so I can do it. But you are an atheist. Dont you have a methodology?

If this is your method, you must also apply the same to everything Muslims believe and quote. Would you?
 

Fallen Prophet

Well-Known 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?
You're right - there so many more horrible things Muhammad said and did that they should be focusing on. ;)
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Even Quran was complied by Zayed ibn Thabit from various sources including that of his own, and third Caliph Uthman destroyed the differing versions.

Alright. So now you have made an example of yourself by saying "Even Quran was complied by Zayed ibn Thabit from various sources including that of his own, and third Caliph Uthman destroyed the differing versions"

So you have made a historical claim.

As an atheist, what is the historical method you have applied to validate this historical claim of yours?
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
So you use it because Muslims use it? Others do it, so I can do it. But you are an atheist. Dont you have a methodology?
If I am posting about Muslims then Quran and hadiths will be important sources. How does my being a theist or an atheist matters in that? As in everything in history, then we debate what may be true and what may be false.
Alright. So now you have made an example of yourself by saying "Even Quran was complied by Zayed ibn Thabit from various sources including that of his own, and third Caliph Uthman destroyed the differing versions"

So you have made a historical claim. As an atheist, what is the historical method you have applied to validate this historical claim of yours?
Yeah, I have taken this from the Wikipedia page on Quran and they give references for what they write. Quran - Wikipedia

The best method is to check with an up-to-date unbiased source and Wikipedia is closest to it. Wikipedia has people from all religions as its members. If there are objections, they are critically examined. It is not my claim but it is the conclusion of experts on history.
 
Last edited:

firedragon

Veteran Member
If I am posting about Muslims then Quran and hadiths will be important sources. How does my being a theist or an atheist matters in that? As in everything in history, then we debate what may be true and what may be false.

Because an atheist must by default be "independent". Or are you saying you have blind faith where you believe some story with no question or methodology?

you just quoted something. What is the historical method you used to verify its historicity in order to quote it so confidently?

Could you explain?
 
Is theological literature all false? Then the Muslims also should not use it as history.
Even Quran was complied by Zayed ibn Thabit from various sources including that of his own, and third Caliph Uthman destroyed the differing versions.

Muslims have constructed a methodology to 'verify' many things in the Islamic tradition as being anything from (almost) certainly authentic to completely unreliable.

This methodology uses assumptions that make sense for a believer, but may not make sense for a non-believer.

Attitudes of 'secular' historians towards this methodology vary from considering it pretty reliable overall, to highly unreliable.

It is possible to accept some things as likely to contain some degree of truth, while rejecting others, but you should have a legitimate reason for doing this.

The point raised by the OP is that many non-Muslims simply cherry pick anything negative as "historical fact", while dismissing anything that doesn't suit their agenda as "apologetics" or something similar.

When this is pointed out to them, they often refuse to believe they are doing it as they are not really familiar enough with the topic to recognise their mistakes.
 
Top