I kind of agree with this about historians in so much as writings go, but to say we can't prove anything means it's pointless to even argue about it. That's why archaeology is so useful to verify if battles happened and cities existed.
-
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!
Scientists (or Historians) specialists in their fields might be quacks in Religion?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
I kind of agree with this about historians in so much as writings go, but to say we can't prove anything means it's pointless to even argue about it. That's why archaeology is so useful to verify if battles happened and cities existed.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Thanks for agreeing with one of the aspect of my post.
I agree with the support that archaeology provides to history/historians; it also shows how poor history/historian would be without that. Nevertheless, events are more than that, and that even both of them combined cannot cover to make a fact.
Regards
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
I am a humble ordinary person, I am neither proud nor I get impressed with those who are proud.
Regards
cambridge79
Active Member
But you are smart enough to refer to the first part of my reply and ignore the actual answer that disproves your point. Can you share any tought on the other part of my answer?
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
"Exodus" won't prove that history/historians or archaeology/archaeologists all of them combined are flawless and error free or 100% correct.
Regards
Shad
Veteran Member
Look up the Martyrs of Otranto. You know nothing about history.
Strawman. You seem to want history to be an absolute at all times and when it is not you claim victory over your own strawman. Congratulations on your failures in using logic
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Shad
Veteran Member
Useless irrelevant tripe which does nothing to counter my factual statement. All you have done is bury your head in the sand in order to ignore history which is against your view. The massacre happened due to people refusing forced conversion by a military power. If military powers do not count then the whole thread is irrelevant since you own examples include changes in areas due to military conquests. However since your own posts are about political and military changes in different areas my point stands. You view is untenable without your double-standard which makes your fallacious argument wrong and, again, you posts pointless. Congratulation in undermining your own point in support of your view. Hilarious..
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
I don't think it is entirely irrelevant. I therefore quote post #2675 herein below:
LuisDantas said:↑
I see where you are coming from, but we can't very well just accept that societies are both Muslim and not Muslim at any given time either.
At least not if significant decisions rely on deciding one way or the other... which Muslims seem to insist on.
Also, while I often use "Muslim" and "Islamic" interchangeably, I realize that this is not quite correct. Islamic is an ideal, Muslim a reality. Much can be and often is made of the difference between the two.
Paarsurrey wrote:
It is an important point that most of the posters have failed to realize even in the later posts in the thread, hence their wrong conclusions. Islam is an ideology, to prove that Islam commanded to use sword to spread cannot be proved wrong with what Muslims rulers/monarchs or tribal chiefs did or said.
Regards
Shad
Veteran Member
Double-standard tripe. You created a thread arguing against the topic using military and political examples supporting your view. Now you refuse to accept an event which is against your view. You point is irrelevant and dishonest or incompetent. Your selection bias is showing.
Someone please ! Get me an umbrella, he is continuing to urinate down my back,.......SHEEEEEEESH !!!
cambridge79
Active Member
i re-present my previous question that has been completely ignored:
"what if it's a religion that gives an historical account, like with the exodus, and historians can prove that account to be wrong purely providing historical evidences? "
They're not doing "religion" they're doing history there, it's not their fault if that happens to discredit religious held beliefs. Was Galileo doing religion when he demolished Geocentrism or was he doing science? are they doing something out of their field of competence?
"what if it's a religion that gives an historical account, like with the exodus, and historians can prove that account to be wrong purely providing historical evidences? "
They're not doing "religion" they're doing history there, it's not their fault if that happens to discredit religious held beliefs. Was Galileo doing religion when he demolished Geocentrism or was he doing science? are they doing something out of their field of competence?
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
"Exodus" is not the core teaching of the truthful religion.
Regards
So, ...if I behead people, in front of thousands of other people, merely because they did not agree with MY religion, and this is made a matter of public record, and it then becomes a HISTORICAL FACT, this in your assumption is an " OPINION " ?? ...I will bet you my next paycheck, that if I beheaded members of your family, that years later you would think of it as much much more than an "OPINION " of some HISTORIAN ! First and foremost MY LORD would not behead you for disagreeing with him, he had a word to describe people who think like you...".HYPOCRITE "
Skwim
Veteran Member
Thing is, only a very, very small handful of historians are eye-witnesses. Reputable historians take information from as many sources as they can or deem necessary, and then present their information as provisional conclusions ---the unstated provisional aspect is expected to understood by the reader, just as conclusions by scientists always come with the unstated, but implicit, qualification that they are not absolute facts No reputable historian would ever claim all their conclusions are absolutely, 100% factual, particularly those involving the particulars of an event. It's not how they work. So, in a very real sense the conjectures of historians are opinions. Some based on damn good evidence, and some on hardly any evidence at all. Moreover, pronouncements about history don't gain any more validity if made part of the public record than if they lay unseen and gathering dust on the the historian's closet shelf.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
kerndog said: ↑
So, ...if I behead people, in front of thousands of other people, merely because they did not agree with MY religion, and this is made a matter of public record, and it then becomes a HISTORICAL FACT, this in your assumption is an " OPINION " ?? ...I will bet you my next paycheck, that if I beheaded members of your family, that years later you would think of it as much much more than an "OPINION " of some HISTORIAN ! First and foremost MY LORD would not behead you for disagreeing with him, he had a word to describe people who think like you...".HYPOCRITE "
Our resident historians who have graduated from school/college/university yet their vision is still restricted within the precincts of their institution to note this post please to broaden their outlook to outer-world. Please
Regards
So, ...if I behead people, in front of thousands of other people, merely because they did not agree with MY religion, and this is made a matter of public record, and it then becomes a HISTORICAL FACT, this in your assumption is an " OPINION " ?? ...I will bet you my next paycheck, that if I beheaded members of your family, that years later you would think of it as much much more than an "OPINION " of some HISTORIAN ! First and foremost MY LORD would not behead you for disagreeing with him, he had a word to describe people who think like you...".HYPOCRITE "
An excellent and thought revealing post.
Our resident historians who have graduated from school/college/university yet their vision is still restricted within the precincts of their institution to note this post please to broaden their outlook to outer-world. Please
Regards
In other words, ANYTHING I think is contradicting my view of things from a historic view, I should take the view that if it can be proven historically, I can always throw the historical evidence out, if it makes me look bad, the bible itself supports historical views.....Romans 15:4.....1 Corinthians 10:11 A large part of scripture IS history; and so is the Koran ( yes, I have read it, not studied )
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Skwim said: ↑
Thing is, only a very, very small handful of historians are eye-witnesses. Reputable historians take information from as many sources as they can or deem necessary, and then present their information as provisional conclusions ---the unstated provisional aspect is expected to understood by the reader, just as conclusions by scientists always come with the unstated, but implicit, qualification that they are not absolute facts No reputable historian would ever claim all their conclusions are absolutely, 100% factual, particularly those involving the particulars of an event. It's not how they work. So, in a very real sense the conjectures of historians are opinions. Some based on damn good evidence, and some on hardly any evidence at all. Moreover, pronouncements about history don't gain any more validity if made part of the public record than if they lay unseen and gathering dust on the the historian's closet shelf.
paarsurrey said: ↑
An excellent and thought revealing post.
Our resident historians who have graduated from school/college/university yet their vision is still restricted within the precincts of their institution to note this post please to broaden their outlook to outer-world. Please
Quran is more than the history. Quran is 100% correct, while history/historians could be anything between 0 % to below 100% from case to case.
Regards
Thing is, only a very, very small handful of historians are eye-witnesses. Reputable historians take information from as many sources as they can or deem necessary, and then present their information as provisional conclusions ---the unstated provisional aspect is expected to understood by the reader, just as conclusions by scientists always come with the unstated, but implicit, qualification that they are not absolute facts No reputable historian would ever claim all their conclusions are absolutely, 100% factual, particularly those involving the particulars of an event. It's not how they work. So, in a very real sense the conjectures of historians are opinions. Some based on damn good evidence, and some on hardly any evidence at all. Moreover, pronouncements about history don't gain any more validity if made part of the public record than if they lay unseen and gathering dust on the the historian's closet shelf.
paarsurrey said: ↑
An excellent and thought revealing post.
Our resident historians who have graduated from school/college/university yet their vision is still restricted within the precincts of their institution to note this post please to broaden their outlook to outer-world. Please
I don't agree with you.
Quran is more than the history. Quran is 100% correct, while history/historians could be anything between 0 % to below 100% from case to case.
Regards
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
ROCK ON DUDE !!