Islam owns atheism with a single verse

[Bucky Ball]

Calling him an anti-Muslim proves nothing. 

Anti-Muslim implies they're biased against Islam, and therefore unreliable, got it ?

Refute his history WITH FACTS or STFU.

The history of Early Islam is impossible to build if you exclude Muslims' own sirah (bc they were the closest people to Muhammad), people like Spencer reject all Islamic sources and further dismiss the independent evidence of his existence(testimonies of other documented figures outside of Arabia, whatever long-standing effects his military career had, etc.), no wonder that he concludes that Muhammad never existed. Spencer deals with evidence unfairly, that's why we shouldn't listen to him.

It's true that there is a bias risk if one accepts Islamic sources, but Muslims dealt with their history very carefully by analyzing which reports are reliable and which aren't. To sum it up for you : Muslims were naturally closer to Muhammad than non-Muslims, therefore they heard more from Muhammad directly than anybody else, therefore their account of Muhammad is first-hand. Once we get rid of the fabrications, we get a reliable history of early islam.

Telling someone they are out of their mind just shows how ignorant, weak, and unprepared you are.

You're telling us that Muhammad never existed, you're just saying that for shock value, and because you only listen to one guy -a far right islamophobic journalist, nobody really claims this anymore, including atheists. Very few scholars of Islam dare saying that Muhammad never existed -and even these few only assert that he may have never existed, they learned to qualify their statements, unlike you. It's a minority view that has been criticized by the specialists of the field.

No sweetie, ... I provided you with an entire page of references. So far here, you have done nothing but try to scare us with your afterlife crap. 
Stop lying. 
Provide the proof you were asked for, or STFU and get lost.

If Spencer is wrong, and you know ANYTHING about which you speak, you should be able easily to refute his evidence. So far, you have refuted absolutely nothing.
Biased or not, he provides evidence. If he is wrong, tell us EXACTLY where he is wrong and what EXACT corrections you have to his claims.
Waving your impotent hands around is not sufficient and is not evidence. You have not one shred of evidence of an afterlife.

Spencer deals with evidence unfairly, that's why we shouldn't listen to him.

A bullshit generalization ... you can't even provide any specifics or even one example.
You wouldn't be a fake would you. If you are a believer, you also are biased.
You are just as biased as Spencer. You don't know the culture, or have any evidence you are familiar with.
You know nothing of the history and development. You want to exclude "bias", yet you yourself meet the definition of biased.
At least Spence knows some FACTS. You know nothing.
There are no contemporary biographies of Mohammed, (the writers of the sirah were not even "close" to him), by hundreds of years and your *claim* that they examined history is nothing but YOUR bias.