Was Prophet Mohammed a caravan thieve?

[The Grand Nudger]

And your reasons for believing these countries exist are..........?

Not the reasons™ you offered.  

I don't believe in any pure source, I already conceded methodologies of narrating hadiths only yield confidence, not certainty. This also includes the greater issues like the existence of god, I believe the affirmative answer is more likely/more reasonable than its counterpart. Any individual is only asked to follow reasonable conclusions, one can't be certain about anything.. anyway

Now it's time for you to reveal the pure source by which you know other countries do exist, without traveling to them.

That's refreshing.  I also don't believe in magic books.  Pure sources, like the quran.  See..we have alot in common.

I suggest you retract these accusations. I said repeatedly I'm defending the reliability of hadiths, not the truth of their contents. Also, I am not here as a substitute of the hundreds of the references you find about these subjects, it's more and more clear to me, though, that you didn't do as much research as you were supposed to... back in the day when you decided that all religions are pure fabrications..

You can, ofc, suggest whatever you like.  What are the odds that I do what you suggest, if you had to do envelope math on that?

Let's repeat that again: there is no possible comparison between the christian and the islamic case. When you say "convince you of christ"... convince me of what... exactly? that christ existed..? that the gospels are reliable whereas even christians don't think so....? that I should stop considering the synoptic problem.. a problem, when they themselves don't? If they insist that their books are a colossal mess, why should I insist otherwise..?

The standards I cited before are to establish that the texts we have about Muhammad can be trustworthy. Again, this doesn't say anything about Muhammad's claims, it's an entirely separate issue. Also, you didn't address one point mentioned above, the simplest fact about Muhammad is that he's more recent than Jesus, shouldn't that weigh in favor of the reliability -not truth, once again- of hadiths, you think?

There is a comparison between the christian and islamic case in every metric you offered.  We won't be debating this.  You can lose your shit or not.  I don't care.

You have one problem, there is no other "magic book" than the Qur'an. Are you really just going to ignore the universal fact that Jesus' sayings are gone forever... according to Jesus's followers...? Bible would've been a competing magic book if there is at least the claim that it's the words of Jesus. The same forces in play... are you kidding? Muslims scholars investigating how reliable is some chain that ENDS with Muhammad.. Christian scholars playing combinatorics with the four gospels, Q source long gone..? And you think there is some other magic book to take into consideration..?
There aren't even that many claims in Abrahmic religions. Christians admit their fuckups, Jews don't like outsiders to begin with, what else should we be looking for...??

The NT's definition, for example, according to miss Wiki, discusses the teachings and person of Jesus, discusses, read that again, discusses, not reports.

And once again, the issues with christianity are entirely different, meeting in councils to revise core beliefs.... what the actual fuck? This never happened in Islam. Minor Islamic sects disagree about fine theological details of god, not whether he is one or three people, or whether some prophet is himself god, or whether we should make Muhammad an eternal necessary being...

I don't have any problems with regards to magic books.  That's your baby.