Good grief....is this still going on?

Time to apply the What Is More Likely Test.

Quote:What Is More Likely?

A) That ‘god’ tapped moses on the shoulder and told him to get his ass back to Egypt to free his chosen people from slavery; “I could do it myself, of course, said ‘god’ in fact, I could kill every motherfucking Egyptian with a thought and let my chosen people live at the only reliable water source in the region but, fuck it. I want you to lead them through the desert to an arid shithole.”

Or,

B) That some time towards the end of the first millennium the people who found themselves living in the aforementioned arid shithole invented a story to explain why they were there.

But, why stop there?

What is More Likely?

A) That ‘god’ having utterly fucked up the first time decided he had to knock up a virgin Palestinian girl so he could have a son who would then mouth a lot of silly platitudes and then get himself killed so that god could forgive mankind for a sin they never committed and after getting killed came back to life and flew up to fucking heaven.”

Or,

B) That a bunch of people took an existing myth and created a supposedly real hero to personify their desires for their godboy?



But – it continues…. What is More Likely?

A) Having fucked up twice already (some ‘god’ this guy is) decides they he has to pick another schlepper who likes to sleep in caves and fuck 9 year olds and have one of his ‘angels’ tell this illiterate carpet merchant the real scoop which he then wakes up and tells to other people. Eventually some other schmucks write it down and claim that it is completely identical to the verbal version delivered in the cave.

Or,

B) A bunch of fucking nomads with a serious inferiority complex make up a whole pile a shit to justify their rule over an empire which fell into their lap when the Byzantines and Persians ripped each other to shreds.

Yet…even more What is More Likely?

A) ‘God’ who by now looks like a first-class fuck up, forgets what he told the last guy about there being no more changes and sends some golden tablets to a 19th century American con man who invents a whole pile of shit about Planet Kolob and cons Mitt The Shitt Romney to run for president.

Or,

B) Joseph Smith was a fucking criminal who conned a shitload of stupid people and was righteously shot by an angry mob.


I submit that in every case, the answer is B

Islam - A guy claimed god spoke to him. That's all about it. [Let's hope no one bombs my house after saying this]

(January 25, 2015 at 8:52 pm)Blackout Wrote: Islam - A guy claimed god spoke to him. That's all about it. [Let's hope no one bombs my house after saying this]

Actually, a guy claimed that god talked to some other guy, through an angel....
Talk about going off on a tangent! (reference to common misspelling of angle)

Rhythm, I'm not using the Quran and hadiths to prove that the Quran and hadiths are true. We wouldn't have been having this discussion for so long if that was the topic of our debate.

My argument is simply that Muhammad claimed and preached to people that he was a Prophet of God, irrespective of whether the claim itself is true or not. Poca, however, thinks that the prophethood of Muhammad is more likely to have been a later addition (after his death) and thus Muhammad never claimed himself to be a Prophet. He thinks that Muhammad was initially just a military leader, and only later had prophethood attached to him for some reason, after his death. So we've been talking about which is more likely and why since there's no hard evidence for either position.

(January 25, 2015 at 1:32 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Of course, it is also possible that Mo himself claimed to be a prophet of god. It is possible that all claims of prophethood and all stories of his interaction with god or the archangel are true.
But this then forces the question: WHY is there no mention of such prophethood for such a long time?

1. The most sensible answer to that is that writings about his prophethood are more likely to become available only after people in other parts of the world have heard about it. You can't expect there to be Roman or Christian or Jewish or Persian writings about Muhammad's prophethood without there being Muslims to spread the news over there. That obviously takes some time to happen. That's why the Quran and hadiths are the primary sources we have for knowing who Muhammad was.

2. Given that Muhammad was known to be such a legendary leader, by both Muslims and non-Muslims, it follows that if someone did attach prophethood to him after his demise, then most likely such a later addition would have been noticeable and even likely to be exposed since he was a well-known figure at that time. If someone added prophethood to Muhammad, then most likely the Christians and Jews who knew Muhammad as a leader would have been the first ones to point it out, and yet they made no such arguments. How would you explain that?

3. You probably know that the Arab people prior to Islam were fiercely polytheistic when it came to religion. The nomadic tribes in pre-Islamic Arabia were mostly pagans who used to believe that animals, plants, trees, rocks, and other inanimate objects possessed spiritual qualities, and they even worshipped those things. There were hundreds of gods they used to venerate and worship at that time. But around the 7th century, all of that changed drastically and very quickly when a new set of laws and new acts of worship were introduced, which marked the emergence of a religion called "Islam." So, the question is, if it wasn't Muhammad who brought about such a great religious transformation in Arabia, then how do you think that another person (the mysterious "someone") that was behind all of these changes going on would remain completely unmentioned in history for all these years? Isn't it more likely that there would be at least some mentions of that person?

4. You also have the question: Why is it that the role of a Prophet in Arabia always been attached to the same military leader named Muhammad, and not anyone else? Just a coincidence?

(January 25, 2015 at 1:32 pm)pocaracas Wrote: And the desert climate is perfect for preserving ancient things... so, if many things were written at the time, at least a scrap should still exist...

Well, yeah, we do have Uthman's copy of the Quran, who himself was a companion of the Prophet Muhammad.

Quote:Late 1st century / early 2nd century of hijra:
Hussein dates this manuscript to the 7th century CE. Moritz dates this manuscript to the 1st / 2nd century hijra. Déroche gives three dates for this manuscript, the beginning of the 2nd century hijra / 8th century CE, the middle of the 2nd century hijra / 8th century CE and the latter half of the 2nd century hijra / 8th century CE, although it is not clear which of these dates he prefers. Von Bothmer dates this manuscript to the 2nd century hijra / 8th century CE. On the basis of a privately held fragment of the Qur'an carbon dated to the 7th century CE (609-694 CE with a 95.2% confidence level) showing similar script, textual aids and illumination, Dutton dated Arabic Palaeography Plates 1-12 (i.e., Ms. 139) to a roughly similar timeframe, i.e., the Umayyad period.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/T...ak139.html


So, apparently, we don't have a scrap, but rather we have a whole bundle of scrap, currently stored in a museum in it's original form.

Lends further credence to my argument, doesn't it?

(January 26, 2015 at 5:42 am)Rayaan Wrote: Rhythm, I'm not using the Quran and hadiths to prove that the Quran and hadiths are true. We wouldn't have been having this discussion for so long if that was the topic of our debate.

My argument is simply that Muhammad claimed and preached to people that he was a Prophet of God, irrespective of whether the claim itself is true or not. Poca, however, thinks that the prophethood of Muhammad is more likely to have been a later addition (after his death) and thus Muhammad never claimed himself to be a Prophet. He thinks that Muhammad was initially just a military leader, and only later had prophethood attached to him for some reason, after his death. So we've been talking about which is more likely and why since there's no hard evidence for either position.

yep, I agree... that does sound a lot like what we've been doing.
It's being educational, at least, Rayaan. Even if, in the end, we have to agree to disagree, I'm really enjoying this.

(January 26, 2015 at 5:42 am)Rayaan Wrote:

(January 25, 2015 at 1:32 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Of course, it is also possible that Mo himself claimed to be a prophet of god. It is possible that all claims of prophethood and all stories of his interaction with god or the archangel are true.
But this then forces the question: WHY is there no mention of such prophethood for such a long time?

1. The most sensible answer to that is that writings about his prophethood are more likely to become available only after people in other parts of the world have heard about it. You can't expect there to be Roman or Christian or Jewish or Persian writings about Muhammad's prophethood without there being Muslims to spread the news over there. That obviously takes some time to happen. That's why the Quran and hadiths are the primary sources we have for knowing who Muhammad was.

Sounds reasonable, yes... up to the point where Sebeos, an Armenian bishop, writes, around the 660's, about Mahmet, the preacher. Remember that guy?
I still wonder why you presented him as an example of someone mentioning prophethood for Mahmet.
I can understand the name morphing due to different accents and writing on consonants, but the absence of prophethood in the text you quoted... it's strange.... and raises suspicions about the later claims made in the qur'an and hadiths.

(January 26, 2015 at 5:42 am)Rayaan Wrote: 2. Given that Muhammad was known to be such a legendary leader, by both Muslims and non-Muslims, it follows that if someone did attach prophethood to him after his demise, then most likely such a later addition would have been noticeable and even likely to be exposed since he was a well-known figure at that time. If someone added prophethood to Muhammad, then most likely the Christians and Jews who knew Muhammad as a leader would have been the first ones to point it out, and yet they made no such arguments. How would you explain that?

Human nature. It's amazing how this detail tends to be ignored by religions!
It also helps when the rulers can decree the death on anyone who raises a voice against the established law.... and that law could have been established just the day before.

You ever read Animal Farm?

Quote:According to Orwell, the book reflects events leading up to the Russian Revolution of 1917 and then on into the Stalin era in the Soviet Union.[1] Orwell, a democratic socialist,[2] was a critic of Joseph Stalin and hostile to Moscow-directed Stalinism, an attitude that was critically shaped by his experiences during the Spanish Civil War.[3] The Soviet Union, he believed, had become a brutal dictatorship, built upon a cult of personality and enforced by a reign of terror.

Sounds familiar?

(January 26, 2015 at 5:42 am)Rayaan Wrote: 4. You probably know that the Arab people prior to Islam were fiercely polytheistic when it came to religion. The nomadic tribes in pre-Islamic Arabia were mostly pagans who used to believe that animals, plants, trees, rocks, and other inanimate objects possessed spiritual qualities, and they even worshipped those things. There were hundreds of gods they used to venerate and worship at that time. But around the 7th century, all of that changed drastically and very quickly when a new set of laws and new acts of worship were introduced, which marked the emergence of a religion called "Islam." So, the question is, if it wasn't Muhammad who brought about such a great religious transformation in Arabia, then how do you think that another person (the mysterious "someone") that was behind all of these changes going on would remain completely unmentioned in history for all these years? Isn't it more likely that there would be at least some mentions of that person?

You know that rumors spread like wildfire and no one knows who starts them, right?
Again, human nature working in the background.
Once the rumor is minimally well spread, and even the ruler believes it, the ruler just needs to consolidate it... wasn't that the word that was used when mentioning Abd al-Malik?
Also, as I remember it, arabia was a crossroads of world trade, from asia to europe to africa. They would be filled with references from everywhere. Some animists, some hindus, some jews, some christian, some egyptian, some zoroastrian (whatever that is... I still have to look into that)

What we know and can attest to (Sebeos) is that the rumor of Mahmet's leadership seems to have reached the outskirts of the arab reach before the rumor of his prophethood, hinting at different origins for both these rumors.

(January 26, 2015 at 5:42 am)Rayaan Wrote: 3. You also have the question: Why is it that the role of a Prophet in Arabia always been attached to the same military leader named Muhammad, and not anyone else? Just a coincidence?

Always is such a harsh and demanding word, don't you think?
First legend, then prophethood. If the legendary hero/leader/preacher was called Muhammad, then why would they change his name once prophethood was attached?
Or rather, it seems you're asking why would they attach prophethood to Mo, instead of some other leader of old, right?
I guess the rumor started with Mo and stuck with Mo...

(January 26, 2015 at 5:42 am)Rayaan Wrote:

(January 25, 2015 at 1:32 pm)pocaracas Wrote: And the desert climate is perfect for preserving ancient things... so, if many things were written at the time, at least a scrap should still exist...

Well, yeah, we do have Uthman's copy of the Quran, who himself was a companion of the Prophet Muhammad.

Quote:Late 1st century / early 2nd century of hijra:
Hussein dates this manuscript to the 7th century CE. Moritz dates this manuscript to the 1st / 2nd century hijra. Déroche gives three dates for this manuscript, the beginning of the 2nd century hijra / 8th century CE, the middle of the 2nd century hijra / 8th century CE and the latter half of the 2nd century hijra / 8th century CE, although it is not clear which of these dates he prefers. Von Bothmer dates this manuscript to the 2nd century hijra / 8th century CE. On the basis of a privately held fragment of the Qur'an carbon dated to the 7th century CE (609-694 CE with a 95.2% confidence level) showing similar script, textual aids and illumination, Dutton dated Arabic Palaeography Plates 1-12 (i.e., Ms. 139) to a roughly similar timeframe, i.e., the Umayyad period.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/T...ak139.html


So, apparently, we don't have a scrap, but rather we have a whole bundle of scrap, currently stored in a museum in it's original form.

Lends further credence to my argument, doesn't it?

And you only bring this up now?!?! How many more aces do you have up your sleeve?

But wait... it's a fragment of the qur'an... but the same site said that Abd al-Malik's coin was the oldest reference of Muhammad as a prophet...
What does that fragment say?

And still... it's posthumous.
Some things that later became part of the complete qur'an were already floating around a few years earlier than Abd al-Malik? wouldn't surprise me... lots of material that became the bible were already floating around before they got compiled into one volume.

(January 26, 2015 at 5:42 am)Rayaan Wrote: My argument is simply that Muhammad claimed and preached to people that he was a Prophet of God, irrespective of whether the claim itself is true or not. Poca, however, thinks that the prophethood of Muhammad is more likely to have been a later addition (after his death) and thus Muhammad never claimed himself to be a Prophet. He thinks that Muhammad was initially just a military leader, and only later had prophethood attached to him for some reason, after his death. So we've been talking about which is more likely and why since there's no hard evidence for either position.

That was very generous of Poca, to have given you such liberties. I'm not convinced that Mo was an actual person to begin with. Seems to me, he's a character in a book of fiction. Even so, with Poca, and all of that leeway, you haven't managed to get beyond the point of "people told stories about a guy named Mo", one of those stories is that he claimed to be a prophet - and I'm afraid that's not enough for me (and I know it isn't enough for you, anywhere else). Need I remind you that these stories contain moon splitting djinn magic? Not what I'd call reliable.

"If the stories in the quran are true, then the stories in the quran would be true!". Uthman is no companion of Mo unless there was a Mo to begin with.

(January 25, 2015 at 8:52 pm)Blackout Wrote: Islam - A guy claimed god spoke to him. That's all about it. [Let's hope no one bombs my house after saying this]

The word "prophet" is not a new idea to Islam or Christianity.

In polytheism they would have called them "oracles" or "soothsayers" or "seers".

It still amounts to either a deliberate con artist scamming people into following them, or a deluded human who really thinks they are talking to a divine higher power.

It still amounts to superstition.

It amazes me that proof of these books being not completely wrong about everything is considered proof that they are in fact right about everything. That is a very low bar for a divinely inspired book, or even a regular book. 1/10 is not a passing grade for a deity. Especially one who could come clear all this confusion up if it bothered him in the slightest.

What kind of powerful, benevolent god needs a huge network of people constantly making excuses for him? And for his book? Getting a bit off topic, but I wanted to say stuff.

(January 27, 2015 at 5:27 am)robvalue Wrote: It amazes me that proof of these books being not completely wrong about everything is considered proof that they are in fact right about everything. That is a very low bar for a divinely inspired book, or even a regular book. 1/10 is not a passing grade for a deity. Especially one who could come clear all this confusion up if it bothered him in the slightest.

What kind of powerful, benevolent god needs a huge network of people constantly making excuses for him? And for his book? Getting a bit off topic, but I wanted to say stuff.

No kidding. "Poofs" everything into existence without any help, but needs a public relations department and a very crappy add magazine and needs flawed humans to sell for him.

God is like the boss of a robo call center, runs his marketing sweat shop center, cracks the whip to make workers call everyone they can, gets them to get angry at people like me who simply hang up cause I don't buy crap, then takes it out on the employee because they didn't make the sale. I finely figured out who this god is, he is the CEO of Dish Network.

(January 26, 2015 at 5:16 am)pocaracas Wrote: Actually, a guy claimed that god talked to some other guy, through an angel....

I'll post a reply to your other post shortly.

But I was wondering, if a guy claimed something so extraordinary about another guy, for the first time, then he must be prepared to give an answer when the people around him ask him to explain how he knows that.

There are two possible replies he could give to that, which is that:
1. He heard it from someone else - which would mean that a guy claimed that a guy claimed that God talked to some other guy ... or ...
2. He heard it through a divine inspiration - which would mean that the guy himself claimed to be a Prophet.

Which is more likely to be his answer, and why?