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

[firedragon]

Just what he said about the Jews and Christians, taking his adopted sons' wife, having sex slaves, making his followers suck on the teats of women who are not their wives, sucking on the tongues of little boys, his child bride, etc.

Not to mention all the people he had killed.

Great.

So please know that this thread has another example in you. And please be kind enough to show the historical sources you have taken for each of these historical facts you have stated above so confidently, and what historical methods you have used to validate those facts.

I think anyone who questions the OP would now know, the example "IS YOU".

Lets see your objective response to these queries. Let me repeat.

1. Show the historical sources you have taken for each of these historical facts you have stated above so confidently,
2. and what historical methods you have used to validate those facts.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So you trust Muslims so much enough to blind believe this particular story? That’s your method?

Yes, a Muslim in the role of a scholar of history is different from a Muslim in the role of a religious person. I will believe him. Of course, never blindly, because people like me don't believe anything blindly.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, a Muslim in the role of a scholar of history is different from a Muslim in the role of a religious person. I will believe him. Of course, never blindly, because people like me don't believe anything blindly.

Two points.

1. So you are claiming you trust a Muslim scholar. Everything he says.
2. If you dont have a methodology, its blind belief.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, I will believe a Muslim history scholar but not an apologist. And not anyone, whosoever, even if Hindu, blindly. That is why I became a Hindu atheist.
What methodology are you talking about so long? I do not discard commonsense. I check all theories, religious or scientific, and their criticism, from all sources that I can access - and then make my conclusions. It is as simple as that.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, I will believe a Muslim history scholar but not an apologist. And not anyone, whosoever, even if Hindu, blindly. That is why I became a Hindu atheist.

Well. You are an apologist yourself. And you never, ever answer a single question.

1. Lol. Muslim "History scholar"? what is that?
2. Can you give an example a "Muslim History Scholar"?
3. You believed one story so passionately and you loved to quote it in this very thread and you have been reiterating you "believe it". Do you apply the same conviction on everything else this so called "Muslim history scholar" says?

Try and answer each question.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well. You are an apologist yourself. And you never, ever answer a single question.

1. Lol. Muslim "History scholar"? what is that?
2. Can you give an example a "Muslim History Scholar"?
3. You believed one story so passionately and you loved to quote it in this very thread and you have been reiterating you "believe it". Do you apply the same conviction on everything else this so called "Muslim history scholar" says?

Try and answer each question.

1. Simple there. One who does not let religion come in between his historical research.
2. Perhaps Zahi Hawass of Egypt is one. I am sure there are such scholars in Pakistan too researching Indus Valley civilization.
3. I never said I believe in these Quranic and hadith stories. I have just a passing interest in them. Since you make it into a debate, that is why I am posting. I use the same criterion for judging stories. I do not believe in stories of my own scriptures, though they are interesting. If Zahi Hawass says something about Quranic and Hadith stories then I will apply my check on him.

 

[firedragon]

1. Simple there. One who does not let religion come in between his historical research.
2. Perhaps Zahi Hawass of Egypt is one.
3. I never said I believe in these Quranic and hadith stories. I have just a passing interest in them. Since you make it into a debate, that is why I am posting. I use the same criterion for judging stories. I do not believe in stories of my own scriptures, though they are interesting. If Zahi Hawass says something about Quranic and Hadith stories then I will apply my check on him.

1. Great. Thanks for that definition. Now you have made your definition absolutely irrelevant because your claim was a "theological literature based claim". So this shows, your earliest claims were all bogus, and now you wish to change it to "non theological, history".

2. Tell me. What does Zahi Hawass say about the particular story you quoted? Since you are trying your levels best to forget that story let me remind you.

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

Since you claimed this Zahi Hawass, quote directly from him, and what he has to say about this story and his methodology. Failing to do so would show that you just found some name on the internet, an archeologist who is not relevant to this discussion and mentioned his name with no sense of anything whatsoever.

3.

3. I never said I believe in these Quranic and hadith stories.

Then why do you quote stories as if they are historical facts? Dont make bogus statements.

If Zahi Hawass says something about Quranic and Hadith stories then I will apply my check on him.

So please do quote this Zahi Hawass gentleman and what he has to say about this particular story you quoted.

 

[ecco]

Why so "inflamed"?

You are the one posting these threads. I'm sure you know exactly what you do and why you do it. It's a sad reflection on you that after you start these threads you don't follow up with any meaningful dialog.

Your use of smiley faces at inappropriate times is another indication of your embarrassment to yourself.

 

[firedragon]

You are the one posting these threads. I'm sure you know exactly what you do and why you do it. It's a sad reflection on you that after you start these threads you don't follow up with any meaningful dialog.

Your use of smiley faces at inappropriate times is another indication of your embarrassment to yourself.

Nice. Thanks.

 

[ecco]

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.

If one wants insights, one can turn to hundreds of philosophical tomes.

People who turn to scripture, such as the Koran or the OT and NT are looking for divine truth. One can evaluate the truthfulness of scripture by evaluating its accuracy. It is not "people who (sic) hearts are dark", that find inaccuracies and ambiguities in scripture, it is people who evaluate the value of something by really understanding what is written.

If a book on philosophy contains many inaccuracies and ambiguities, one can either accept or reject some or all of the author's thoughts.

Scripture is completely different. There are scriptural writings from many different religions - all purporting to reflect the thoughts of The One Real True God. These writings cannot all be true and accurate. Therefore, when reading such things, one must look for inaccuracies and ambiguities to root out scripture that is clearly not written by a God, but rather, by mortals pretending to be writing God's True Words.

 

[ecco]

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

Are you asserting that there are no accurate historical comments regarding Mohammed or Islam?

If there are accurate historical comments regarding Mohammed and these are quoted and commented on by atheists, do these comments also fall under the umbrella of derision, disdain, and condemnation expressed in your OP?

 

[firedragon]

Are you asserting that there are no accurate historical comments regarding Mohammed or Islam?

No.

If there are accurate historical comments regarding Mohammed and these are quoted and commented on by atheists, do these comments also fall under the umbrella of derision, disdain, and condemnation expressed in your OP?

Read the OP.

 

[ecco]

Are you asserting that there are no accurate historical comments regarding Mohammed or Islam?

No.

Then tell us how you know they are accurate historical comments?

If there are accurate historical comments regarding Mohammed and these are quoted and commented on by atheists, do these comments also fall under the umbrella of derision, disdain, and condemnation expressed in your OP?

Read the OP.

Another non-answer.

 

[ecco]

@firedragon to @Fallen Prophet...

And please be kind enough to show the historical sources you have taken for each of these historical facts you have stated above so confidently, and what historical methods you have used to validate those facts.

1. Show the historical sources you have taken for each of these historical facts you have stated above so confidently,
2. and what historical methods you have used to validate those facts.

Your "tactics" are just like those of Creationist Apologists (CA) to Believers in Evolution (BiE).

• (CA) You have never seen one species turn into another one. You just believe in Evolution on blind faith.
• (BiE) No, I believe because I trust the works of thousands of biologists, geologists, nuclear physicists, and researchers in many other fields of expertise.
• (CA) Have you independently verified any of their work? If not, then you shouldn't trust what they wrote.

Your arguments are no different in substance.




I have never seen a dinosaur. I have never spoken to a paleontologist to verify his credentials nor his fieldwork. I believe dinosaurs existed. My belief is justified.

You have never seen a dinosaur. Have you ever spoken to a paleontologist to verify his credentials or his fieldwork? Do you believe dinosaurs existed? Is your belief justified?


If "yes", then the theme of this thread and your comments just show your hypocrisy.

 

[Augustus]

Your "tactics" are just like those of Creationist Apologists (CA) to Believers in Evolution (BiE).

• (CA) You have never seen one species turn into another one. You just believe in Evolution on blind faith.
• (BiE) No, I believe because I trust the works of thousands of biologists, geologists, nuclear physicists, and researchers in many other fields of expertise.
• (CA) Have you independently verified any of their work? If not, then you shouldn't trust what they wrote.

Your arguments are no different in substance.

They are very different as there is absolutely no consensus in the field of early Islamic historiography so you can't logically rely on the argument from expert consensus as you can with many scientific issues.

Do think it is legitimate to cherry pick what you believe on an issue based purely on whether or not it conforms to your preconceived ideological expectations?

If not, what is your problem with the OP which is simply arguing against ideological cherry picking rather than rational, sceptical, critical scholarship?

 

[Link]

If one wants insights, one can turn to hundreds of philosophical tomes.

People who turn to scripture, such as the Koran or the OT and NT are looking for divine truth. One can evaluate the truthfulness of scripture by evaluating its accuracy. It is not "people who (sic) hearts are dark", that find inaccuracies and ambiguities in scripture, it is people who evaluate the value of something by really understanding what is written.

If a book on philosophy contains many inaccuracies and ambiguities, one can either accept or reject some or all of the author's thoughts.

Scripture is completely different. There are scriptural writings from many different religions - all purporting to reflect the thoughts of The One Real True God. These writings cannot all be true and accurate. Therefore, when reading such things, one must look for inaccuracies and ambiguities to root out scripture that is clearly not written by a God, but rather, by mortals pretending to be writing God's True Words.

So you assume it's false, look for unclear things that confirm it's false, and conclude it's false even further. This is circular reasoning way to make sure you don't see truth and insights from it but only focus on what your own misguidance will make false.

 

[firedragon]

Then tell us how you know they are accurate historical comments?

Irrelevant

@firedragon to @Fallen Prophet...


Your "tactics" are just like those of Creationist Apologists (CA) to Believers in Evolution (BiE).

• (CA) You have never seen one species turn into another one. You just believe in Evolution on blind faith.
• (BiE) No, I believe because I trust the works of thousands of biologists, geologists, nuclear physicists, and researchers in many other fields of expertise.
• (CA) Have you independently verified any of their work? If not, then you shouldn't trust what they wrote.

Your arguments are no different in substance.




I have never seen a dinosaur. I have never spoken to a paleontologist to verify his credentials nor his fieldwork. I believe dinosaurs existed. My belief is justified.

You have never seen a dinosaur. Have you ever spoken to a paleontologist to verify his credentials or his fieldwork? Do you believe dinosaurs existed? Is your belief justified?


If "yes", then the theme of this thread and your comments just show your hypocrisy.

So you are equating Ahadith, all of them, to the theory of Evolution! You are so sure that all the ahadith are absolutely factual, just like you are sure that evolution is!

No muslim in history is that devoted.

 

[firedragon]

I am amazed at the devotion and dedication a handful of atheists are showing to the sanctity and historical validity of all of the stories written in Islamic history. There has never been a Muslim, layman or a scholar who has been that hellbent in blind believing anything.

Every-time this topic is brought up, I see newer arguments like this that some atheists (Not all) try to defend the other atheist so blindly like one of the most tribalistic religions you would find on earth. This urge is so bad, they will even lose their foundations.

Getting interesting.

 

[Aupmanyav]

2. Tell me. What does Zahi Hawass say about the particular story you quoted? Since you are trying your levels best to forget that story let me remind you.

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

Since you claimed this Zahi Hawass, quote directly from him, and what he has to say about this story and his methodology. Failing to do so would show that you just found some name on the internet, an archeologist who is not relevant to this discussion and mentioned his name with no sense of anything whatsoever.

3. Then why do you quote stories as if they are historical facts?

Now you are making this debate absolutely useless. If you persist on these lines than do not expect me to participateany further in the topic.
Why should I worry about Zahi Hawass' religious views. He is a historian and an archaeologist as my grandpa was. I named him because I have seen him in videos about Egypt. He has been around for quite some time. I expect he would have the qualities that we associate with scholars of history.
The history of compilation of Quran is very clearly given in Wikipedia and it is corroborated by many Muslim and other scholars of history. Why should I doubt it. Do you have any objections to what they have written?
The stories that we were discussing are from your own books. Accepting that or rejecting a story from hadiths is your prerogative. Your acceptance or rejection of a story does not change the fact that it is given in your own books. It also in no way affects my views which I have already stated very clearly - I AM A STRONG ATHEIST, I DO NOT BELIEVE IN EVEN A SINGLE WORD OF QURAN.

 

[firedragon]

Now you are making this debate absolutely useless. If you persist on these lines than do not expect me to participateany further in the topic.

Oh. Not a problem at all.

Why should I worry about Zahi Hawass' religious views.

because you believe in one hadith, you said you do because of "Islamic history scholars", and this is the name you gave.

The history of compilation of Quran is very clearly given in Wikipedia and it is corroborated by many Muslim and other scholars of history. Why should I doubt it. Do you have any objections to what they have written?

Invalid.

The stories that we were discussing are from your own books.

So you believe in "my books" like you said blindly? Wow. Well this so called "My book" says God created the universe. Do you believe that too?

Any methodology at all?