|
The Argument for Islam is very Simple:
|
 Quote:The history of Saudi Arabia shows that "someone" conquered the place around 600AD and that "someone" spread islam around that time. There were always warring tribes. So what? The emergence of islam is a far more complicated process than the assholes finally wrote down in their silly book. In much the same way as the emergence of jesusism was a long, slow, complicated process that had more to do with imperial power than any fucking "god."  (March 24, 2017 at 1:20 pm)Minimalist Wrote:Quote:The history of Saudi Arabia shows that "someone" conquered the place around 600AD and that "someone" spread islam around that time. Again, I don't see the point. Muslims believe he was real (as do the vast majority of historians), so what's wrong with pointing out his horrific words and deeds that we get from their own holy texts? In his own words and the words of his trusted companions, Muhammad was a violently xenophobic, violently misogynistic murderer, rapist and pedophile and these ideas make up a great deal of his teachings. That is all the argument against islam that is needed.
If god was real he wouldn't need middle men to explain his wants or do his bidding.
Quote:Muslims believe he was real (as do the vast majority of historians), so what's wrong with pointing out his horrific words and deeds that we get from their own holy texts? It's the difference between history and religion, I guess. I don't give a shit about religion. History is a passion. 
The title of this thread should be changed to "My non-argument for Islam is very simple-minded."
(March 24, 2017 at 11:29 pm)Minimalist Wrote:Quote:Muslims believe he was real (as do the vast majority of historians), so what's wrong with pointing out his horrific words and deeds that we get from their own holy texts? In that case, it would be best to treat History like Science and respect the consensus of historians while setting aside any personal dislike of religion. So in this case, that consensus is that Muhammad was a real person who founded a religion just like Joseph Smith or L Ron Hubbard did.
If god was real he wouldn't need middle men to explain his wants or do his bidding.
This guy is on a tear. Posts all over the place!
 Must've gotten a little meth in his ganja supply.
If you get to thinking you’re a person of some influence, try ordering somebody else’s dog around.
(March 26, 2017 at 9:37 pm)Crunchy Wrote:(March 24, 2017 at 11:29 pm)Minimalist Wrote: It's the difference between history and religion, I guess. I don't give a shit about religion. History is a passion. No. I want to see the evidence. You see, when I ask for evidence on "jesus" all I ever seem to get is bible bullshit. Not surprisingly, when I ask about the evidence for mohammed all I ever seem to get is the fucking koran. Again. I want to see the evidence not listen to some alleged bullshit consensus. If scientists reach a consensus on no evidence they should quit.  (March 26, 2017 at 9:37 pm)Crunchy Wrote:(March 24, 2017 at 11:29 pm)Minimalist Wrote: It's the difference between history and religion, I guess. I don't give a shit about religion. History is a passion. You just made the mistake of assuming Min is an unqualified lay person... 
Quote:I don't understand why you'd come to a discussion forum, and then proceed to reap from visibility any voice that disagrees with you. If you're going to do that, why not just sit in front of a mirror and pat yourself on the back continuously?-Esquilax Evolution - Adapt or be eaten. (March 26, 2017 at 11:20 pm)Minimalist Wrote:(March 26, 2017 at 9:37 pm)Crunchy Wrote: In that case, it would be best to treat History like Science and respect the consensus of historians while setting aside any personal dislike of religion. So in this case, that consensus is that Muhammad was a real person who founded a religion just like Joseph Smith or L Ron Hubbard did. One of many many examples: https://www.rnw.org/archive/evidence-say...ad-existed Global warming deniers do exactly what you are doing. They ignore the consensus of professional researchers and have formed an industry of denial. I've already told you that there is non islamic contemporaneous evidence for the existence of Muhammad. If you care about the truth you will set your own desires aside and look into this like a robot would. If, however, you really hate religion and want to stick it to believers then by all means continue to deny the existence of their founder. Just be aware that you are strengthening their position when you oppose historical consensus. They can easily point out the evidence and rightfully accuse you of bias since you ignore the evidence that doesn't fit your desires. (which is what they do also) https://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-euro...d_3866.jsp
If god was real he wouldn't need middle men to explain his wants or do his bidding.
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
