(October 30, 2010 at 10:58 pm)annatar Wrote: Well Min, Muhammed is more likely to be real. Its becouse he is an important historical character in arab history too. he unified the arab tribes and ruled arabia for a long time. And unlike jesus there are some historic records about him... I am not sure what do you mean by "contemporary resources" but as far as I know he is real as any other historical character.. Who would create someone like muhammad anyway?? He is really a jerk.. You can find so many shameful tale about him if you dig out a little..(that is despite the efforts of his followers) I can even convince you only by using quranOf course you can't be sure 100 percent that he is real. But its not like jesus..
I'm certainly more inclined to believe in a historical Muhammad than a historical Jesus because of the believability factor. A conquering warlord who started a religion and founded an empire is far more believable than a wandering godman who sat around for 30 years doing nothing and then suddenly went about performing miracles that no one noticed. This is not to say I believe he existed but I've put a lot less research into what the "real story" might have been since, at face value, it seems plausible.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
