(December 9, 2012 at 3:53 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Query: What is this evidence and how do we go about testing it?

Response: That depends on what's being tested and what hypothesis is being made.

---

(December 9, 2012 at 3:57 pm)cato123 Wrote: You refuted by saying people should accept the truth regardless of people's behaviour. I then challenged your claim of truth and you claimed I was changing the subject.

Response: Exactly. For the topic is not about any claim of truth. It is about the reasoning behind the negative depiction of Muhammad.

I saw a picture of Muhammed, I quess that supports your hypothesis that he is not fictional.

(December 9, 2012 at 3:58 pm)Al-Fatihah Wrote:

(December 9, 2012 at 3:53 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Query: What is this evidence and how do we go about testing it?

Response: That depends on what's being tested and what hypothesis is being made.

Observation: The evidence depends on what's being tested... that's nice and vague, not to mention perfectly circular. Thank you for rewording my question. Now...

Query: ... would you mind answering it, please? I'll even make it easier for you and recap the comments that spawned this line of inquiry:

(December 9, 2012 at 3:24 pm)Al-Fatihah Wrote:

(December 9, 2012 at 1:35 pm)cato123 Wrote: You're missing the point. Why should anyone take the teachings of Muhammad seriously if those that profess the faith do not?

Response: You should take anything that has truth to it as serious, despite what others do.

(December 9, 2012 at 3:53 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: Yeah, Al-Fatihah, better known as "Fatihah" is full of shit as ever.

Poes sure do get around.

Response: Likewise.

(December 9, 2012 at 3:58 pm)Al-Fatihah Wrote: Response: Exactly. For the topic is not about any claim of truth. It is about the reasoning behind the negative depiction of Muhammad.

Your claim of truth becomes part of the topic when you invoke it as a refutation.

You do know that Mohammad may have not even existed at all because:
Firstly: We have far to information about this guy, we practically know what he was doing every single day of the week almost (which is a good sign used by professional lie spotters to tell if somebody is lying)
Secondly: the only gaps we have about his life are a whole month long where there is literally nothing said about him, what did he vanish once a year for a whole month? Truth is it was a change of calendar were whole parts of his story were left out, because the first documents about Mohammed came after the calendar change were there new calendar cut out a month and since it was supposed to be written when the calendar had the extra month, this has led some scholars to doubt his very existence.



Just to provoke thought.

(December 9, 2012 at 2:45 pm)Kayenneh Wrote: Response: the better qustion is why a thread like this is always filled with the same hypocritical responses like yours, in which something is climed as fiction with no evidence for it.

Evidence? Pot calling kettle black, much?

(December 9, 2012 at 12:19 pm)Al-Fatihah Wrote: Through my comparative study

Well, show us your study, let us read it through.

Quote:Is Muhammad the greatest example of the best way to conduct ourselves?

If Muhammad is the one who inspired such a bigoted, hateful, narcissistic, delusional, dangerous, war-loving, chauvinistic, brutish, narrow-minded, ignorant, bomb-making, reactionary, humongous log-up-the-ass, humorless, sadistic and vile religion, then my answer would have to be no.

(December 9, 2012 at 3:24 pm)Al-Fatihah Wrote: Response: Yet the reporting of scientific information can only be reliable if the source is trustworthy. So the character of being truthful is essential. Even your claim that Isaac Newton made contributuins to physics is based on relying on the reports that say so, meaning those who reported it must be truthful for your claim to be credible.

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

Science does NOT rely upon the say-so of credible people. It relies upon the process of peer review which involves checking the work of those who post their findings. Scientific findings are recorded and then those who read these findings are free to conduct their own experiments to repeat the results. This is what "show your work" means. You don't just post your findings but also the manner in which you acquired the data so that anyone else can follow along and verify for themselves.

If anyone could go into the same cave that Muhammad meditated and prayed in and have the repeatable experience of speaking with the angel Gabriel and receiving divine revelation, that would be credible evidence for Islam. That some guy, even a nice, trustworthy and honorable guy, said he had that experience over a thousand years ago is not evidence that Islam is true. The data can't be confirmed and the experiment is not repeatable.

---

(December 9, 2012 at 3:31 pm)Al-Fatihah Wrote: Response: It does, since islam is based on the teachings and character of Muhammad.

And hence the reason that it fails to meet the burden of proof as established by the extraordinary nature of its claims.

If I tell you I had lunch with my wife today, this claim is sufficiently mundane for you to accept just on my say-so as someone you trust.

If I tell you I had lunch with my father today and by the way, he's been dead for over 10 years but he's back from the grave, having reconstituted his body from his cremated ashes, and feeling much better now, you would not believe me just on my say-so no matter how much you trusted me.

In the second case, you'd demand hard evidence. Any say-so by the most honorable person would not be sufficient.

(December 9, 2012 at 4:15 pm)Gooders1002 Wrote: You do know that Mohammad may have not even existed at all because:
Firstly: We have far to information about this guy, we practically know what he was doing every single day of the week almost (which is a good sign used by professional lie spotters to tell if somebody is lying)
Secondly: the only gaps we have about his life are a whole month long where there is literally nothing said about him, what did he vanish once a year for a whole month? Truth is it was a change of calendar were whole parts of his story were left out, because the first documents about Mohammed came after the calendar change were there new calendar cut out a month and since it was supposed to be written when the calendar had the extra month, this has led some scholars to doubt his very existence.



Just to provoke thought.

Response: There is nothing to think about. For there is no proof you can provide that the existence of Muhammad was made up, such as who made it up, when he was made up, etc. If Muhammad never existed, then we should have such evidence. You do not. Thus the claim is clearly false. Furthermore, if the non-existence of evidence that Muhammad existed is proof that Muhammad did not exist, then according to that very logic, the non-existing evidence of the person who made up Muhammad and the circumstances around it not existing is proof that Muhammad did exist.

---

(December 9, 2012 at 4:24 pm)Kayenneh Wrote:

(December 9, 2012 at 2:45 pm)Kayenneh Wrote: Response: the better qustion is why a thread like this is always filled with the same hypocritical responses like yours, in which something is climed as fiction with no evidence for it.

Evidence? Pot calling kettle black, much?

(December 9, 2012 at 12:19 pm)Al-Fatihah Wrote: Through my comparative study

Well, show us your study, let us read it through.

Quote:Is Muhammad the greatest example of the best way to conduct ourselves?

If Muhammad is the one who inspired such a bigoted, hateful, narcissistic, delusional, dangerous, war-loving, chauvinistic, brutish, narrow-minded, ignorant, bomb-making, reactionary, humongous log-up-the-ass, humorless, sadistic and vile religion, then my answer would have to be no.

Response: Muhammad didn't create such a religion. So I guess your answer is yes.

(December 9, 2012 at 4:55 pm)Al-Fatihah Wrote: If Muhammad never existed, then we should have sych evidence. You do not. Thus the claim is clearly false.

If the tooth fairy never existed, then we should have sych evidence. You do not. Thus the claim is clearly false.

Guess the tooth fairy is real after all.