Let's talk about Muhammad's life
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-08-2017, 12:14 AM
RE: Let's talk about Muhammad's life
Indeed. Morality is subjective, and expecting him to be progressive by 1500 years is unrealistic. Perhaps not if you believed him to be some magical being in communication with the supposed handler of all things moral, and producing a one-time communication for your people. They sometimes want things both ways, where he's excused on the grounds of subjectivity of morality while claiming morality "is objective".




I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Robvalue's post
08-08-2017, 02:18 PM
RE: Let's talk about Muhammad's life
Morality is definitely objective, there's no question.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2017, 05:27 PM
RE: Let's talk about Muhammad's life
(08-08-2017 02:18 PM)Angra Mainyu Wrote:  Morality is definitely objective, there's no question.

Bullshit! Whose morality? Buddha's? Jesus? Mohammad? Followers of these religions claim their prophet had a true morality. Many of today's Moslems tell us Mohammad was the perfect man and his morality as found in the Quran and Hadiths is the one true morality. Despite the many obvious cases where it is no such thing.

When I shake my ignore file, I can hear them buzzing!

Cheerful Charlie
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cheerful Charlie's post
08-08-2017, 05:32 PM
RE: Let's talk about Muhammad's life
How about we talk about the lack of evidence for any fucking mohammed?

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
08-08-2017, 06:12 PM
RE: Let's talk about Muhammad's life
(08-08-2017 05:32 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  How about we talk about the lack of evidence for any fucking mohammed?

The life of Muhammad is very well documented. In fact, scholarship was practically invented to document his life and sayings.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2017, 06:33 PM
RE: Let's talk about Muhammad's life
(08-08-2017 02:18 PM)Angra Mainyu Wrote:  Morality is definitely objective, there's no question.

This thread is currently discussing that if you want to jump in.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jerry mcmasters's post
08-08-2017, 07:30 PM
RE: Let's talk about Muhammad's life
(08-08-2017 06:12 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
(08-08-2017 05:32 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  How about we talk about the lack of evidence for any fucking mohammed?

The life of Muhammad is very well documented. In fact, scholarship was practically invented to document his life and sayings.

If he died in 632, why is it, no one mentions him until 690 ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2017, 05:47 AM (This post was last modified: 09-08-2017 05:54 AM by Thoreauvian.)
RE: Let's talk about Muhammad's life
(08-08-2017 07:30 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(08-08-2017 06:12 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  The life of Muhammad is very well documented. In fact, scholarship was practically invented to document his life and sayings.

If he died in 632, why is it, no one mentions him until 690 ?

While it is certainly true that the Surah (biography) literature is available only in later versions, it dated originally from the century after Muhammad's death and was carefully compiled from much earlier reports which could be traced back, in one way or another, to people who knew Muhammad directly. The provenance of each account is carefully recorded within the account itself. While certain accounts show signs they have been tampered with to make Muhammad seem more like Jesus in certain ways, they do not typically show the same kinds of extreme improbabilities and contradictions as accounts of Jesus's life.

As for independent confirmation:

"Moreover, a number of rudimentary details about Muhammad are confirmed by non-Islamic sources dating from the first decades after Muhammad’s traditional date of death. For instance, a Syriac chronicle dating from about 640 mentions a battle between the Romans and “the Arabs of Muhammad,” and an Armenian history composed about 660 describes Muhammad as a merchant who preached to the Arabs and thereby triggered the Islamic conquests. Such evidence provides sufficient confirmation of the historical existence of an Arab prophet by the name of Muhammad."

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Muhammad

My own perspective is that Muhammad was fully historical, was sincere in his beliefs, had a huge historical impact, and was quite wrong about most of what he thought was true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thoreauvian's post
09-08-2017, 09:30 AM (This post was last modified: 09-08-2017 12:39 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Let's talk about Muhammad's life
(09-08-2017 05:47 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
(08-08-2017 07:30 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  If he died in 632, why is it, no one mentions him until 690 ?

While it is certainly true that the Surah (biography) literature is available only in later versions, it dated originally from the century after Muhammad's death and was carefully compiled from much earlier reports which could be traced back, in one way or another, to people who knew Muhammad directly. The provenance of each account is carefully recorded within the account itself. While certain accounts show signs they have been tampered with to make Muhammad seem more like Jesus in certain ways, they do not typically show the same kinds of extreme improbabilities and contradictions as accounts of Jesus's life.

As for independent confirmation:

"Moreover, a number of rudimentary details about Muhammad are confirmed by non-Islamic sources dating from the first decades after Muhammad’s traditional date of death. For instance, a Syriac chronicle dating from about 640 mentions a battle between the Romans and “the Arabs of Muhammad,” and an Armenian history composed about 660 describes Muhammad as a merchant who preached to the Arabs and thereby triggered the Islamic conquests. Such evidence provides sufficient confirmation of the historical existence of an Arab prophet by the name of Muhammad."

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Muhammad

My own perspective is that Muhammad was fully historical, was sincere in his beliefs, had a huge historical impact, and was quite wrong about most of what he thought was true.

I don't buy any of it. The peoples who were conquered by the Arabs said nothing at the time about being conquered by "Muslims", or a new religion, or people with a new book. The people who were conquered were not "forced to convert" as long as they accepted monotheism ... it was "granted" that their chief god was just another name for Allah. There is no mention of Muhammad or Islam or the Quran on the buildings they built or their accounts of the battles. The earliest coins the conquerors (Arabs) minted had a cross on them. The word Muhammad means "the praised one", and it is possible it referred to someone/something else, (and some say it's a sect of Christians), and is not even a name. We know for a FACT, that the Arabic conquests were not "triggered" by "preaching", but by a power vacuum, and the new religion was used to unify the new expanded Arabic empire. Something doesn't smell right here. We know that in the first official biography, which documents his life either by day or week or month (or something similar) the dates do not jive with a major calendar adjustment, (which the biographer forgot about), and so the biographer made up (wrote about) his activity during a non-existent month.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2017, 06:02 PM
RE: Let's talk about Muhammad's life
(09-08-2017 09:30 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I don't buy any of it. The peoples who were conquered by the Arabs said nothing at the time about being conquered by "Muslims", or a new religion, or people with a new book. The people who were conquered were not "forced to convert" as long as they accepted monotheism ... it was "granted" that their chief god was just another name for Allah. There is no mention of Muhammad or Islam or the Quran on the buildings they built or their accounts of the battles. The earliest coins the conquerors (Arabs) minted had a cross on them. The word Muhammad means "the praised one", and it is possible it referred to someone/something else, (and some say it's a sect of Christians), and is not even a name. We know for a FACT, that the Arabic conquests were not "triggered" by "preaching", but by a power vacuum, and the new religion was used to unify the new expanded Arabic empire. Something doesn't smell right here. We know that in the first official biography, which documents his life either by day or week or month (or something similar) the dates do not jive with a major calendar adjustment, (which the biographer forgot about), and so the biographer made up (wrote about) his activity during a non-existent month.

Ooo! Sounds like a conspiracy!

Hobo
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: