• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ground zero mosque wins key vote

You need to be more careful with your words, for someone who is so quick to insult others for mistakes you are remarkably careless in your reasoning. You say that there is "no evidence" that Muhammad (this is the proper spelling, btw) existed, but there is.

Proper according to whom? I've seen it both ways.

There is plenty of evidence supporting the existence of Muhammad, not least of which is the Qur'an and the Hadith. You might not find this particularly persuasive but it is evidence nevertheless, and no amount of histrionics from you will change that fact.

O.K. there is no credible evidence. There is nothing that separates the character of Mohammad from the character of Achilles, or various other mythical characters. In other words if he wasn't claimed as the prophet for a billion people we wouldn't even be discussing this. There is no evidence which should take Mohammad out of the realm of mythical into the historical.

Furthermore you equivocate between "evidence" and "non-Muslim evidence" as if the only source that constitutes actual evidence can come from a non-Muslim source. This is incorrect. A non-Muslim source might be stronger evidence, but this does not detract from the fact that Muslim sources very much remain a category of evidence (please let me know if I'm going to fast for you here).

I will not accept Greek sources for the existence of Achilles nor will I accept Muslim sources for the existence of Mohammad, there is nothing that leads me to believe that Mohammad is anything more than a mythical rather than a historical character.

Indeed, despite your flailing denials of Bishop Sebeos, you cannot contradict that fact that contemporaneous, non-Muslim evidence for the historicity of Muhammad does exist. "Evidence" and "evidence that convinces you" are two different things. You would do well to keep them straight.

Sebeos = fail.

Sebeos was clearly recounting the tales he heard from the Muslims after they conquered Armenia during the Imperialist Expanisionism of the Rashidun Caliphate, he repeated these stories 3 decades after Mohammads supposed death, and his stories match the Muslim narrative to the letter. He was neither a contemporary or primary source.
 
Proper according to whom? I've seen it both ways.

My mistake, I edited that. Both are acceptable, but I believe the spelling with the "u" appears to be favored. The "o" spelling seems archaic to me.

O.K. there is no credible evidence. There is nothing that separates the character of Mohammad from the character of Achilles, or various other mythical characters. In other words if he wasn't claimed as the prophet for a billion people we wouldn't even be discussing this. There is no evidence which should take Mohammad out of the realm of mythical into the historical.

The bolded line is non sequitur. You are correct that the evidence for Muhammad's existence is similar to that of Achilles. But there is likewise evidence of a historical Achilles, you said so yourself. Whether your find the evidence compelling is not the issue, it is merely the fact that evidence exists. The Iliad is evidence for the existence of a historical Achilles. You must be more rigorous in your understanding.

I will not accept Greek sources for the existence of Achilles nor will I accept Muslim sources for the existence of Mohammad, there is nothing that leads me to believe that Mohammad is anything more than a mythical rather than a historical character.

Good for you, but once again, that isn't the issue.

And what's with all the "Sebeos = fail" nonsense? I realize you fancy yourself to be some sort of gamer-intellectual, but honestly it'd be a lot easier to take you seriously if you stop writing like a child.
 
Last edited:
The bolded line is non sequitur. You are correct that the evidence for Muhammad's existence is similar to that of Achilles. But there is likewise evidence of a historical Achilles, you said so yourself. Whether your find the evidence compelling is not the issue, it is merely the fact that evidence exists. The Iliad is evidence for the existence of a historical Achilles. You must be more rigorous in your understanding.

Evidence has to be compelling when we make the distincition between mythical and historical figures. That is why I say there is no evidence which would take Mohammad from the realm of mythical to historical, IE because the evidence is simply not credible enough for us to make that leap.

And what's with all the "Sebeos = fail" nonsense? I realize you fancy yourself to be some sort of gamer-intellectual, but honestly it'd be a lot easier to take you seriously if you stop writing like a child.

pWn the n00b
 
Back
Top Bottom