• 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
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"!
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Out of curiosity, how prevalent do you think this is -- two percent, ten percent?

No clue. This type of statistics and generalisations I never speculate. So, I have no idea.

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

I will open a new thread to understand which part of the pendulum is important to discuss. That itself requires a whole lot of study I believe.
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
When someone quotes a story as historical fact, please read the OP and you might understand what I say.
That's the problem though, I don't understand exactly what you're saying when you talking about people "quoting a story as historical fact" and refer to things like "conviction is deafening". That's why I'm asking (and still asking) for specific examples. If it's a common and significant enough issue for you to raise, surely you'd have examples to hand.

If one does not believe in some story as historical fact, he must not quote it as historical fact.
I think that could very much depend on context and intent. It's perfectly valid in a debate to accept something as an underlying assumption even if you don't agree with it to discuss and debate related aspects. It could also be the case that some people accept mundane aspects of as story as probably true (in as much as we do any other insignificant historic event) but question other aspects or conclusions drawn from those events. I don't see how being atheist or not automatically makes any difference to that. Atheism is about the lack of belief in gods, not the lack of belief in prophets. :cool:

Again, without specific examples it's impossible to explain what (you think) you're hearing.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
...
I think that could very much depend on context and intent. It's perfectly valid in a debate to accept something as an underlying assumption even if you don't agree with it to discuss and debate related aspects. It could also be the case that some people accept mundane aspects of as story as probably true (in as much as we do any other insignificant historic event) but question other aspects or conclusions drawn from those events. I don't see how being atheist or not automatically makes any difference to that. Atheism is about the lack of belief in gods, not the lack of belief in prophets. :cool:
...
I have been trying to figure out how to introduce a concept that falls under the "reality orientation" umbrella in such a manner as to not instantly 'insult' those who would rather be insulted than discuss the topic.

Seems to me you have just done that.

Thank you.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
That's the problem though, I don't understand exactly what you're saying when you talking about people "quoting a story as historical fact" and refer to things like "conviction is deafening". That's why I'm asking (and still asking) for specific examples. If it's a common and significant enough issue for you to raise, surely you'd have examples to hand.

I have given an example in the OP HJ.

I think that could very much depend on context and intent. It's perfectly valid in a debate to accept something as an underlying assumption even if you don't agree with it to discuss and debate related aspects. It could also be the case that some people accept mundane aspects of as story as probably true (in as much as we do any other insignificant historic event) but question other aspects or conclusions drawn from those events. I don't see how being atheist or not automatically makes any difference to that. Atheism is about the lack of belief in gods, not the lack of belief in prophets. :cool:

Again, without specific examples it's impossible to explain what (you think) you're hearing.

Its already given in the OP.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
I have given an example in the OP HJ.

Its already given in the OP.
I have to disagree.

...
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.
...


"For example, some story about Muhammed having black magic done on him and he couldn't remember if he had sex or not."
Is not an example.
It is a reference to an example.

HonestJoe is asking to see the example itself, not simply an unsourced reference to one.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
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?
An atheist like me considers the whole thing contrived by Mohammad for his own benefit. We sometimes read Hadith for discussion and information, it is all over the net. The affliction of Mohammad by black magic and his playing with Ayesha and her dolls are clearly mentioned. Muslims accept some Hadiths and term others as false even if the writer may be the same. Does not concern me, it is their thing, however they treat it.
No see. You were telling me that "atheists dont believe in the Quran". I couldn't believe it. ;)
Why would an atheist believe in God and Mohammad as God's messenger? Then he would no more be an atheist. And a Muslim cannot be an atheist.

It is different with me because I can happily be an atheist while being a staunch orthodox Hindu at the same time. Atheistic thought has always been a part of Hinduism. Hindu atheism - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:

TagliatelliMonster

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?

I suggest you link to specific examples so that we can see what exactly was said in what context.

I suspect though, that you won't be doing this under some pathetic excuse of "privacy" or some such, because if you would actually links these conversation, my guess is that it would become apparent rather quickly that you are completely strawmanning their position.

Amirite?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I have to disagree.




"For example, some story about Muhammed having black magic done on him and he couldn't remember if he had sex or not."
Is not an example.
It is a reference to an example.

HonestJoe is asking to see the example itself, not simply an unsourced reference to one.

Thanks.
 

TagliatelliMonster

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

For anyone to be able to answer this question, you are going to have to say who these atheists are and link to the conversation where they made the statements that you are claiming they made.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
An atheist like me considers the whole thing contrived by Mohammad for his own benefit.

He was not alive when the story you quoted as fact was written, so that's a bogus argument to say "Muhammed contrived it".

So, whats your reason for having faith in that story. Such conviction. Do tell.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
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?

He's answering for nobody. In fact he hasn't answered at all.

Instead, he asked you for specific examples of what you are claiming.
No examples seem to be forthcoming. Who would have thought.... :rolleyes:

So I guess this is quickly becoming a case of "what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

So until you do actually come up with some examples that demonstrate that "atheists" are indeed saying what you claim they are saying, the only response you'll get is: "no, they aren't".
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
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?

Isn't it obvious?

Because it allows him to generalize and "bash atheists".

Even though so far, he hasn't given a single example of what he is describing in the OP.
So we don't even know if it actually even consists of outliers.

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.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
He was not alive when the story you quoted as fact was written, so that's a bogus argument to say "Muhammed contrived it".
I said this is written in the hadiths. When did I say that I believe it? Believing or not believing is for you.
Secondly I said Quran was contrived by Mohammad, just as Bahaollah in a later time wrote his Kitab-i-Aqdas. Hadith mention that Ayesha told Mohammad that Ayats supporting his position come fast, whether it was whether to have sex with his wives (he had taken a vow to abstain from it for a month), or his marriage with Zaynab.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Well, there is one person chatting in this very thread right now. ;)
I think you're seeing what you want to see. If you're talking about the "playing with dolls" comment (the only thing I can find above your post here that is anything like what you're describing) the person who brought that up made no remark as to whether they believed that passage/story/whatever or not. They didn't. So there was no "deafening conviction" - I mean... what a ridiculous joke. I know you theists are prone to believe things that aren't necessarily in the evidence, but come on. You want to be taken seriously? Stop setting yourself up for failure with things like this. And definitely stop putting little winky emojis after such drivel as if you've just caught somebody in the act. Damn.
 
Top