(April 14, 2017 at 1:12 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(April 14, 2017 at 1:06 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: bold mine

Would you prefer Delusion? Hokum? Malarkey? I'm trying to be nice/tolerant. That's the most civil word I can think of to describe your belief in one word. 

I know you won't be able to do this but, imagine your self explaining your belief to a society that had never conceived of a god or had the concept of a completely different god. What do you think they would say?

I can't believe that you are not able to construct a sentence that does not have an intentional derogatory term in it. Civil discourse has as one of its principal concepts that you cast your opponent's position is the most charitable light possible--even if you do not agree with it.

I can't believe you expect thinking people to swallow your crap.

---

(April 14, 2017 at 1:24 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(April 14, 2017 at 11:32 am)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote: Does it make more sense to have faith in the supernatural rather than trying to rationally understand something that is beyond reason? With all due respect, if one tries to understand the  supernatural via reason, then is "supernatural"  just a way of describing  a lack of understanding about how reality works?

How reality works may not be (and probably isn't ) based on the current materialist paradigm. The dividing line between supernatural and natural is not fixed. It changes based on one's understanding of what is considered an allowable explanation.

Just what is that probability?  Since we have no evidence of anything supernatural, that dividing line must be a brick wall.

(April 14, 2017 at 1:42 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(April 14, 2017 at 1:07 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Do you have a feasible alternative explanation (as in, alternative to Allah is really real™)for the existence of their places of worship, the existence of historical belief, and the existence of their religious texts?

I would say they have a problem with evidence. Supernatural revelations that only one person hears has got to be the lowest level of evidence possible (especially as the only evidence). There are no miracles to speak of and no witnesses to compelling events that back up claims of truth. Additionally, it is my understanding that Mohammad tone changed and inconsistencies over the course of writing--which is interesting since it was supposed to have been revealed from Gabriel--who probably would have been more consistent. It is also my understanding that the teachings on Jesus and other matters were clearly influenced by existing works that were circulating in the Arab world.

My understanding, is that he originally thought it was a demon in the cave.  His wife and cousin persuaded him, that he was a prophet.

(April 14, 2017 at 1:42 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(April 14, 2017 at 1:07 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Do you have a feasible alternative explanation (as in, alternative to Allah is really real™)for the existence of their places of worship, the existence of historical belief, and the existence of their religious texts?

I would say they have a problem with evidence. Supernatural revelations that only one person hears has got to be the lowest level of evidence possible (especially as the only evidence). There are no miracles to speak of and no witnesses to compelling events that back up claims of truth. Additionally, it is my understanding that Mohammad tone changed and inconsistencies over the course of writing--which is interesting since it was supposed to have been revealed from Gabriel--who probably would have been more consistent. It is also my understanding that the teachings on Jesus and other matters were clearly influenced by existing works that were circulating in the Arab world.

Well, the Koran has no inconsistencies if you believe it first and read it the RIGHT way.  And does your "understanding" come from as close a study as the bible?

(April 14, 2017 at 1:51 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(April 14, 2017 at 1:42 pm)SteveII Wrote: I would say they have a problem with evidence.  Supernatural revelations that only one person hears has got to be the lowest level of evidence possible (especially as the only evidence). There are no miracles to speak of and no witnesses to compelling events that back up claims of truth.

There are mosques, people who believe, and "witness testimony" of events that..while still tenuous in my opinion, are orders of magnitude better in quality than those possess by the NT. 

What did those people believe? Not events, they took one person's word for something. What witness testimony of what event? You couldn't possibly believe the evidence for Islam is better than the NT. 

Quote:

Quote:Additionally, it is my understanding that Mohammad tone changed and inconsistencies over the course of writing--which is interesting since it was supposed to have been revealed from Gabriel--who probably would have been more consistent. It is also my understanding that the teachings on Jesus and other matters were clearly influenced by existing works that were circulating in the Arab world.

As many narratives in the NT have more than one author or source, or tell slightly different tales of the same event.  Strange, since it's all supposed to have been guided by god, somehow, who probably would have been more consistent?  OTOH, it;s easy for me to understand that human booking has limits.....so?

It's also -our- understanding that the teaching -of- jesus and other matters in the NT were clearly influenced by existing works that were circulating in the mediterranean world.

More than one narrative that tells a slightly different version is exactly what you want. Identical stories would be suspect. 

To compare apples to apples, what things did Jesus say that were "borrowed" from another source that didn't quite get the historical consensus right on closer inspection?

(April 14, 2017 at 2:00 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: My understanding, is that he originally thought it was a demon in the cave.  His wife and cousin persuaded him, that he was a prophet.

Genuinely skillful storytelling right there.  Humanizes the character and involves the audience.  What would your first reaction to a ghostly encounter in a cave be..probably not falling to your knees shouting "oh god, my god"..right, lol?  Mo does what most of us would do.  He is afraid and uncertain.  He's not entirely credulous.  He's also a modest man, bless his heart, and so his lowly human chattel have to declare his value and worth to him.

This all helps to establish that the story is authentic, and that the protagonist is credible, and the message worthy. By the transitive property of shitlogic that means Mos thought droppings in magic book are authentic, credible, and worthy.

The Shiites have a different version of the events of receiving his Prophethood, and he did the opposite of doubt himself but showed total certitude!

So he either did the one thing, or the totally opposite thing, whichever you'd prefer to believe.  Choose your own adventure!

(April 14, 2017 at 2:04 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(April 14, 2017 at 1:51 pm)Khemikal Wrote: There are mosques, people who believe, and "witness testimony" of events that..while still tenuous in my opinion, are orders of magnitude better in quality than those possess by the NT. 

What did those people believe? Not events, they took one person's word for something. What witness testimony of what event? You couldn't possibly believe the evidence for Islam is better than the NT. 

Neither religion's "evidence" measure up to anything but wishful thinking.

---

(April 14, 2017 at 2:04 pm)SteveII Wrote: More than one narrative that tells a slightly different version is exactly what you want. Identical stories would be suspect. 

To compare apples to apples, what things did Jesus say that were "borrowed" from another source that didn't quite get the historical consensus right on closer inspection?

If they all lined up exactly, you'd be saying that proves it's the word of god.  If they don't, that proves it also.  Pathetic.

(April 14, 2017 at 2:14 pm)Khemikal Wrote: So he either did the one thing, or the totally opposite thing, whichever you'd prefer to believe.  Choose your own adventure!

You bring an interesting point. Most people do this choose your own adventure when it comes to hadiths and interpretation of Quran.

I maybe one who does this or may not be, but to prove I don't if I don't, would require me to prove that I have not done so for every interpretation and hadith I believe in.

That is very hard to do if it were the case. 

That is one reason why none of us should rely on anyone but a leader from God to guide us.

Even if someone writes perhaps thousands of enlightening things Muslims will find enlightening, to rely on that person would be foolish, because if all we do is listen to people not chosen to guide us praise or argue against him, we may not find true arguments against some of his views and we may mix truth with falsehood.

The Quran says believers enjoin on each other the truth,  so it doesn't befit them to take their chances and play probability with his religion.

I can't prove I do that myself - rather - the believer that is proven to be that and surely are his chosen ones who have proof.

Other believers are hidden and cannot prove their inward status...

As majority of people do choose their own interpretations and what hadiths to stick by their desires - you aren't blameworthy to believe I do the same.

(April 14, 2017 at 2:04 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(April 14, 2017 at 1:51 pm)Khemikal Wrote: There are mosques, people who believe, and "witness testimony" of events that..while still tenuous in my opinion, are orders of magnitude better in quality than those possess by the NT. 

What did those people believe? Not events, they took one person's word for something. What witness testimony of what event? You couldn't possibly believe the evidence for Islam is better than the NT. 

I don't think that either have the weight of evidence on their side, but as far as quality of work and pedigree the muslims had that one pegged out from the start.  They had the benefit of having witnessed the christian shitshow....and learning from christian orthodoxy's mistakes.  It;'s a mistake to ask me what those people believed, as you continuously attempt to alter your failed criteria.  They believed in the proto islamic kernel.  The same as early christians.  There was disagreement, as there was with early christians (though decidedly less so in the case of muslims, as mentioned, islamic orthodoxy was more proactive with regard to schism and heterodoxy), and so they exist to fulfill the second point of the criteria you offered for justification. As the houses of worship that they huddle together under exist to satisfy the first, and the magic book they prostrate themselves over being the sacred texts that exist..satisfying the third and final. Taking a persons word for something is hardly an issue that a christian can quibble with a muslim over.  Asking what evidence for what event, again..either as suspect or as strong as you'd like it to be, but it would be applied to both narratives.  I know which one you believe in, I know which one you believe has "better evidence", but I don't care about that, and I;m not a muslim...so there;s no need to waste time convincing me that their bullshit is bullshit...I already know that, lol.

I'm just trying to get you to follow through in the rationalization.  It's easy.  You don't have to agree with islam.  You don't have to believe in it, or believe that there is evidence for it.  You simply need to acknowledge that if a muslim perceives themselves to be in the position you perceive yourself to be, than the three examples you put forward grant them an equally rational justification for their belief.  

Quote:More than one narrative that tells a slightly different version is exactly what you want. Identical stories would be suspect. 

So..damned if they do, damned if they don't....... unless it's christianity, in which case, goddidit if they did, and if they didn't, lol?  If inconsistency is preferable, however, why did you also list internal consistency as a valued metric?  To hell with a consistent reading of the NT or the quran..I'd just like to get a consistent reading from you.......

Quote:To compare apples to apples, what things did Jesus say that were "borrowed" from another source that didn't quite get the historical consensus right on closer inspection?

What things did jesus say?