Quote:The history of Saudi Arabia shows that "someone" conquered the place around 600AD and that "someone" spread islam around that time.

There were always warring tribes.  So what?  The emergence of islam is a far more complicated process than the assholes finally wrote down in their silly book.  In much the same way as the emergence of jesusism was a long, slow, complicated process that had more to do with imperial power than any fucking "god."

(March 24, 2017 at 1:20 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:The history of Saudi Arabia shows that "someone" conquered the place around 600AD and that "someone" spread islam around that time.

There were always warring tribes.  So what?  The emergence of islam is a far more complicated process than the assholes finally wrote down in their silly book.  In much the same way as the emergence of jesusism was a long, slow, complicated process that had more to do with imperial power than any fucking "god."

Again, I don't see the point.
Muslims believe he was real (as do the vast majority of historians), so what's wrong with pointing out his horrific words and deeds that we get from their own holy texts? In his own words and the words of his trusted companions, Muhammad was a violently xenophobic, violently misogynistic murderer, rapist and pedophile and these ideas make up a great deal of his teachings. That is all the argument against islam that is needed.

Quote:Muslims believe he was real (as do the vast majority of historians), so what's wrong with pointing out his horrific words and deeds that we get from their own holy texts?

It's the difference between history and religion, I guess.  I don't give a shit about religion.  History is a passion.

The title of this thread should be changed to "My non-argument for Islam is very simple-minded."

(March 24, 2017 at 11:29 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Muslims believe he was real (as do the vast majority of historians), so what's wrong with pointing out his horrific words and deeds that we get from their own holy texts?

It's the difference between history and religion, I guess.  I don't give a shit about religion.  History is a passion.

In that case, it would be best to treat History like Science and respect the consensus of historians while setting aside any personal dislike of religion. So in this case, that consensus is that Muhammad was a real person who founded a religion just like Joseph Smith or L Ron Hubbard did.

This guy is on a tear. Posts all over the place!   Must've gotten a little meth in his ganja supply.

(March 26, 2017 at 9:37 pm)Crunchy Wrote:

(March 24, 2017 at 11:29 pm)Minimalist Wrote: It's the difference between history and religion, I guess.  I don't give a shit about religion.  History is a passion.

In that case, it would be best to treat History like Science and respect the consensus of historians while setting aside any personal dislike of religion. So in this case, that consensus is that Muhammad was a real person who founded a religion just like Joseph Smith or L Ron Hubbard did.

No.  I want to see the evidence.  You see, when I ask for evidence on "jesus" all I ever seem to get is bible bullshit.  Not surprisingly, when I ask about the evidence for mohammed all I ever seem to get is the fucking koran.  Again.  I want to see the evidence not listen to some alleged bullshit consensus. 

If scientists reach a consensus on no evidence they should quit.

(March 26, 2017 at 9:37 pm)Crunchy Wrote:

(March 24, 2017 at 11:29 pm)Minimalist Wrote: It's the difference between history and religion, I guess.  I don't give a shit about religion.  History is a passion.

In that case, it would be best to treat History like Science and respect the consensus of historians while setting aside any personal dislike of religion. So in this case, that consensus is that Muhammad was a real person who founded a religion just like Joseph Smith or L Ron Hubbard did.

You just made the mistake of assuming Min is an unqualified lay person...