Is there a God?

[Attempted Socialism]

Except he would do all of those things, specifically because you believe he wouldn't. Satan is the great deceiver, and the most insidious part, is that he dresses his lies with falsehood.


Point was however, that beauty doesn't make it true. Far more likely Muhammad didn't hear anybody, he made it all up as he went along.

So... just to be clear. You think Satan not only somehow knew the future, but he dressed up like Gabriel to mess with a random Arab orphan who was illiterate, taught him 114 chapters of extraordinary and beautiful rhymes in which he shared prophecies of the future, AND on top of all that, the book is about being a good person, which the Devil is 100% against?

Can you hear yourself or...?

The Torah, Bible and Quran being written by Satan would explain why a plain reading induces people to do evil, and why modern civilisation largely rejects all three in favour of good behaviour. But in reality, we know that neither Satan nor God had anything to do with the visions of a crazy merchant hallucinating in the desert. Mostly because the Abrahamic God doesn't exist, secondarily because it's all plagiarised versions from earlier polytheistic works.

[Insaanistan]

But on the story teller point, again, illiterate Arabian orphan 1400 years ago

Orphan only in the sense that his father had died before he reached adulthood, thereby depriving him of a sizeable inheritance. The first years of his life were affluent enough that he had the wherewithal to enter the trading community of the time.

who wasn’t familiar with poetry.

In a land full of oral tradition? Doubtful. And special pleading. And unsubstantiated.

Creating a whole religious text AND predicting the future in it would be impossible for him.

Oral traditions suggest otherwise, as far as creating religious texts go.

As for the prediction of the future: there are so many astrologers who could (but won't, as their livelihood depends on it) tell you how to be just vague enough that your "predictions" almost always come true. I believe it relies on reading body language and having a sixth sense for the mood in the room - you know, like traders often have?

And if he were vain enough to create a whole religion where he was the best of mankind and the last prophet and most beloved person, he would make everyone give him tribute and make him live rich and whatnot.

Vanity is not the only possible explanation for doing so. Maybe he just wanted to improve the inheritance laws that had deprived him of a fortune under the old system? And maybe he truly believed to be special - epileptics often do; just look at Caesar - in a time when epilepsy was considered a divine gift?

He’d be much less humble. He wouldn’t have upon receiving his first revelation ran home to his wife and hide under the covers because he thought a demon was messing with him and that he was too unimportant for God to choose.

Gifted poets are often humble people - at least until their second volume is published. They go through some troubling life experiences, and internalise the feeling of worthlessness that come with them. By the way: we have only Mohammed's word that he reacted to that spark of creativity with trepidation. It's a bit hard to take him on his word when the origin of his word is the very topic of this here debate.

I will grant you that Mohammed really believed what he versified. I won't grant you that what he versified was the truth.
I once believed that being gay meant I was damned. However honestly I have believed that, it was not, is not, and never will be true.

Father died before he was born.
Mother died when he was 7 or 8.
Life was not affluent, though unlike when he became a prophet it didn’t suck.

I am aware of how astrologers and fortunetellers give you very vague predictions (my parents are African). However, nearly all of the predictions in the Qur’ân and even the Hadith that I’m talking about are incredibly specific. Like the prediction of ISIS in the Hadiths.

Before his prophethood, everyone just thought of him as a kind, good-looking and fair orphan trader (by now he was pretty poor, too). No one thought of him as coming from God, though when he became a prophet, many people saw why God would choose him.

Actually, Zaid saw him running, as did a few other people. Khadijah saw him enter the house and heard him confide in her (Zaid also heard some of this). Additionally, there were many times when Muhammad (pbuh), even after becoming a prophet, thought maybe, just maybe, he was crazy. Hence why several verses in multiple chapters reassure him he is not.

Not a poet, couldn’t read or write. I never said he never heard poetry (he obviously did), but he definitely never was taught it.

Also, I don’t believe you’re going to go to hell for being gay.

[Greater Wonda]

Let's break it down:
The incredulity argument:
1. "An illiterate orphan with no poetry abilities 1400 years ago predicted many things in the future"
2. "Therefore God"

The argument from beauty:
1. "book that rhymes and when recited well is like no other"
2. "Therefore God".

More like:

1. Illiterate orphan with no poetry abilities 1400 years ago couldn’t have written an entire rhyming book and predict so many things in the future.
2. Therefore God.

1.“book that rhymes and when recited well is like no other”
2. Falls into place exactly with what God says in said book.

1. Well-connected trader from rich but temporarily impoversihed background, with an axe to grind against the inheritance laws of his community, finds himself in a land full of oral tradition - which allows him to partake in its culture without beinbg bothered by his (probably) dyslexia, and creates poems that almost literally quote parts of what is being recited while inserting passages that curiously attack the inheritance laws. Has epilepsy, and therefore starts to think of himself as divinely inspired.
2. Therefore honest belief in his own reinterpretation of the available oral sources.

1.Quality of the verses surpass the other available sources. social reform movement is popular with all but the upper class.
2. Therefore socio-religious reform movement takes off - with some honestly believing and others going along for other reasons.

[Insaanistan]

Just kind of a question to get at a historiographic point: Who said Muhammad could neither read nor write?

The Qur’ân and several people who knew him.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Not a poet, couldn’t read or write. I never said he never heard poetry (he obviously did), but he definitely never was taught it.

You know reading and writing is not actually required to transmit oral traditions right?

[Alvecia]

Let's break it down:
The incredulity argument:
1. "An illiterate orphan with no poetry abilities 1400 years ago predicted many things in the future"
2. "Therefore God"

The argument from beauty:
1. "book that rhymes and when recited well is like no other"
2. "Therefore God".

More like:

1. Illiterate orphan with no poetry abilities 1400 years ago couldn’t have written an entire rhyming book and predict so many things in the future.
2. Therefore God.

1.“book that rhymes and when recited well is like no other”
2. Falls into place exactly with what God says in said book.

Being prophetic is actually really easy if you know what you're doing.

It's why "psychics" and astrology make so much money, and convince so many people.

[Insaanistan]

So... just to be clear. You think Satan not only somehow knew the future, but he dressed up like Gabriel to mess with a random Arab orphan who was illiterate, taught him 114 chapters of extraordinary and beautiful rhymes in which he shared prophecies of the future, AND on top of all that, the book is about being a good person, which the Devil is 100% against?

Can you hear yourself or...?

The Torah, Bible and Quran being written by Satan would explain why a plain reading induces people to do evil, and why modern civilisation largely rejects all three in favour of good behaviour. But in reality, we know that neither Satan nor God had anything to do with the visions of a crazy merchant hallucinating in the desert. Mostly because the Abrahamic God doesn't exist, secondarily because it's all plagiarised versions from earlier polytheistic works.

Also, are you trying to say that those books encourage you to be bad because people claim to be following them while doing bad stuff. Because if so, you obviously have never heard of the atheist near where I live who shit three Muslims on their graduation day simply for being Muslim, OR of the numerous global atheist terrorist groups.

What people reportedly saw whenever he was getting a revelation suggests he was not mad or hallucinating.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

More like:

1. Illiterate orphan with no poetry abilities 1400 years ago couldn’t have written an entire rhyming book and predict so many things in the future.
2. Therefore God.

1.“book that rhymes and when recited well is like no other”
2. Falls into place exactly with what God says in said book.

1. Well-connected trader from rich but temporarily impoversihed background, with an axe to grind against the inheritance laws of his community, finds himself in a land full of oral tradition - which allows him to partake in its culture without beinbg bothered by his (probably) dyslexia, and creates poems that almost literally quote parts of what is being recited while inserting passages that curiously attack the inheritance laws. Has epilepsy, and therefore starts to think of himself as divinely inspired.
2. Therefore honest belief in his own reinterpretation of the available oral sources.

1.Quality of the verses surpass the other available sources. social reform movement is popular with all but the upper class.
2. Therefore socio-religious reform movement takes off - with some honestly believing and others going along for other reasons.

Being prophetic is actually really easy if you know what you're doing.

It's why "psychics" and astrology make so much money, and convince so many people.

You two are aware that I was attacking the whole "I don't see/understand/can't imagine how this came to be therefore it must be Divinely inspired/caused" thing right?

[Insaanistan]

Not a poet, couldn’t read or write. I never said he never heard poetry (he obviously did), but he definitely never was taught it.

You know reading and writing is not actually required to transmit oral traditions right?

Ah yes, of course. Obviously the dude who only knew how to speak Arabic definitely heard and memorized several bible stories that weren’t in a language he could understand when he was in Syria for a very short time.

You realize for most of history most Christians, especially outside East Africa, had literally no clue whatsoever what the Bible actually said, right?

[Insaanistan]

More like:

1. Illiterate orphan with no poetry abilities 1400 years ago couldn’t have written an entire rhyming book and predict so many things in the future.
2. Therefore God.

1.“book that rhymes and when recited well is like no other”
2. Falls into place exactly with what God says in said book.

Being prophetic is actually really easy if you know what you're doing.

It's why "psychics" and astrology make so much money, and convince so many people.

So-called psychics give vague predictions to get rich, they don’t give spot on assessments of the future and choose to live like paupers.

[Greater Wonda]

Orphan only in the sense that his father had died before he reached adulthood, thereby depriving him of a sizeable inheritance. The first years of his life were affluent enough that he had the wherewithal to enter the trading community of the time.



In a land full of oral tradition? Doubtful. And special pleading. And unsubstantiated.



Oral traditions suggest otherwise, as far as creating religious texts go.

As for the prediction of the future: there are so many astrologers who could (but won't, as their livelihood depends on it) tell you how to be just vague enough that your "predictions" almost always come true. I believe it relies on reading body language and having a sixth sense for the mood in the room - you know, like traders often have?



Vanity is not the only possible explanation for doing so. Maybe he just wanted to improve the inheritance laws that had deprived him of a fortune under the old system? And maybe he truly believed to be special - epileptics often do; just look at Caesar - in a time when epilepsy was considered a divine gift?



Gifted poets are often humble people - at least until their second volume is published. They go through some troubling life experiences, and internalise the feeling of worthlessness that come with them. By the way: we have only Mohammed's word that he reacted to that spark of creativity with trepidation. It's a bit hard to take him on his word when the origin of his word is the very topic of this here debate.

I will grant you that Mohammed really believed what he versified. I won't grant you that what he versified was the truth.
I once believed that being gay meant I was damned. However honestly I have believed that, it was not, is not, and never will be true.

Father died before he was born.
Mother died when he was 7 or 8.
Life was not affluent, though unlike when he became a prophet it didn’t suck.

I am aware of how astrologers and fortunetellers give you very vague predictions (my parents are African). However, nearly all of the predictions in the Qur’ân and even the Hadith that I’m talking about are incredibly specific. Like the prediction of ISIS in the Hadiths.

Before his prophethood, everyone just thought of him as a kind, good-looking and fair orphan trader (by now he was pretty poor, too). No one thought of him as coming from God, though when he became a prophet, many people saw why God would choose him.

Actually, Zaid saw him running, as did a few other people. Khadijah saw him enter the house and heard him confide in her (Zaid also heard some of this). Additionally, there were many times when Muhammad (pbuh), even after becoming a prophet, thought maybe, just maybe, he was crazy. Hence why several verses in multiple chapters reassure him he is not.

Not a poet, couldn’t read or write. I never said he never heard poetry (he obviously did), but he definitely never was taught it.

Also, I don’t believe you’re going to go to hell for being gay.

Very kind of you.

Look, we can quible about the exact details, but overall the picture of Mohammed's youth is one where his mother is cultured, as a dyslexic he relies on memory to learn things, and he knows oral recitals. I'd say his poetic abilities were far above average (so were Goethe's, by the way) but none of that presupposes Divine inspiration. Inspiration, certainly, but not divine one.

And when someone keeps repeating "God said I am not crazy, you must believe that this comes straight from God", it suggests to me that some in his audience were most reluctant to believe him, so he feigned self-doubt and then came up with a verse to repeat the claim over and over.

[Estanglia]

The Torah, Bible and Quran being written by Satan would explain why a plain reading induces people to do evil, and why modern civilisation largely rejects all three in favour of good behaviour. But in reality, we know that neither Satan nor God had anything to do with the visions of a crazy merchant hallucinating in the desert. Mostly because the Abrahamic God doesn't exist, secondarily because it's all plagiarised versions from earlier polytheistic works.

Also, are you trying to say that those books encourage you to be bad because people claim to be following them while doing bad stuff. Because if so, you obviously have never heard of the atheist near where I live who shit three Muslims on their graduation day simply for being Muslim, OR of the numerous global atheist terrorist groups.

What people reportedly saw whenever he was getting a revelation suggests he was not mad or hallucinating.

That just sounds like whataboutism.

[Alvecia]

Being prophetic is actually really easy if you know what you're doing.

It's why "psychics" and astrology make so much money, and convince so many people.

So-called psychics give vague predictions to get rich, they don’t give spot on assessments of the future and choose to live like paupers.

Some of them can be pretty specific. It depends on what method of predictions you're going for.

One method is to be super vague such that people will be able to apply it to many future events and say you were talking about that event.
Another is to be super specific, but to make a metric shit ton of predictions, such that statistically, one of them will probably be correct.

In both instances, people will remember the hits, and ignore the misses.

Personal wealth is really immaterial, I was just using it as an indicator of how successful modern day prophets and predictions are to show how easy it is to convince someone that you can tell the future.

[Attempted Socialism]

The Torah, Bible and Quran being written by Satan would explain why a plain reading induces people to do evil, and why modern civilisation largely rejects all three in favour of good behaviour. But in reality, we know that neither Satan nor God had anything to do with the visions of a crazy merchant hallucinating in the desert. Mostly because the Abrahamic God doesn't exist, secondarily because it's all plagiarised versions from earlier polytheistic works.

Also, are you trying to say that those books encourage you to be bad because people claim to be following them while doing bad stuff. Because if so, you obviously have never heard of the atheist near where I live who shit three Muslims on their graduation day simply for being Muslim, OR of the numerous global atheist terrorist groups.

No, I am saying that following those books will induce you to commit evil, criminal acts. Constant revisions have been made to all three to let them keep up with the law, let alone let it be within the last five centuries of moral thought. I also believe you're lying about the atheist, but it doesn't really matter because the comparison is so laughable, you're kind of proving my point. ONE atheist apparently acted like a jerk, compared to books that, if followed to the letter, would make you a criminal and a maniac.

What people reportedly saw whenever he was getting a revelation suggests he was not mad or hallucinating.

No, it really does. Since we can infer he couldn't really see a fictional deity we know he was editing the canon of, there's hardly any ground for debate. The alternative to insane is dishonest, here.

[Insaanistan]

More like:

1. Illiterate orphan with no poetry abilities 1400 years ago couldn’t have written an entire rhyming book and predict so many things in the future.
2. Therefore God.

1.“book that rhymes and when recited well is like no other”
2. Falls into place exactly with what God says in said book.

1. Well-connected trader from rich but temporarily impoversihed background, with an axe to grind against the inheritance laws of his community, finds himself in a land full of oral tradition - which allows him to partake in its culture without beinbg bothered by his (probably) dyslexia, and creates poems that almost literally quote parts of what is being recited while inserting passages that curiously attack the inheritance laws. Has epilepsy, and therefore starts to think of himself as divinely inspired.
2. Therefore honest belief in his own reinterpretation of the available oral sources.

1.Quality of the verses surpass the other available sources. social reform movement is popular with all but the upper class.
2. Therefore socio-religious reform movement takes off - with some honestly believing and others going along for other reasons.

Travelled trader had a rich dad but spent most of his life poor and I agree was a against the unfairness and sexism of Arabia, hence why he was on the mountain in the first place when Gabriel gave him his first revelation, which freaked him out so much he ran away. Land of oral tradition is not full of Bible stories because even the Christians weren’t really sure what it said at the time. Likely didn’t have epilepsy, since he wasn’t known for having seizures etc. Even if he had, people with epilepsy don’t randomly gain the ability to rhyme entire chapters and predict the future. However, the dyslexic theory is something to think about: could have been God’s way of making sure that Muhammad (pbuh) never was given the ability to read and therefore always fit the Qur’ânic prophesy. Religion popular among the poor and slaves, which leads to the whole story etc., etc.

[Greater Wonda]

You know reading and writing is not actually required to transmit oral traditions right?

Ah yes, of course. Obviously the dude who only knew how to speak Arabic definitely heard and memorized several bible stories that weren’t in a language he could understand when he was in Syria for a very short time.

You realize for most of history most Christians, especially outside East Africa, had literally no clue whatsoever what the Bible actually said, right?

The dude who only spoke Arabic?
Arabic with loads of Syriac loanwords, which he had heard and memorised on his trading missions.
Oral traditions may well include translations, you know, like into Arabic (with Syriac loanwords), the language that the dude spoke?

You realise that for the first centuries, Christian texts were translated into many more languages than just Greek and Latin, right? Monopolising Bible interpretation through constricting written texts to Latin and Greek was only done from the 10th century onwards. Until the second millennium, Biblical texts were translated into Celtic languages, Old Slavonic (for which purpose the Cyrillic script was developed), Nubian, Germanic languages (the famed Ulfilas Bible), Morish, Armenian, Kartvelian, Persian, and many more.

Why would Arabic be the exception?

[Insaanistan]

Ah yes, of course. Obviously the dude who only knew how to speak Arabic definitely heard and memorized several bible stories that weren’t in a language he could understand when he was in Syria for a very short time.

You realize for most of history most Christians, especially outside East Africa, had literally no clue whatsoever what the Bible actually said, right?

The dude who only spoke Arabic?
Arabic with loads of Syriac loanwords, which he had heard and memorised on his trading missions.
Oral traditions may well include translations, you know, like into Arabic (with Syriac loanwords), the language that the dude spoke?

You realise that for the first centuries, Christian texts were translated into many more languages than just Greek and Latin, right? Monopolising Bible interpretation through constricting written texts to Latin and Greek was only done from the 10th century onwards. Until the second millennium, Biblical texts were translated into Celtic languages, Old Slavonic (for which purpose the Cyrillic script was developed), Nubian, Germanic languages (the famed Ulfilas Bible), Morish, Armenian, Kartvelian, Persian, and many more.

Why would Arabic be the exception?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_t ... nto_Arabic

[Greater Wonda]

Land of oral tradition is not full of Bible stories because even the Christians weren’t really sure what it said at the time.

Let's get one misunderstanding out of the way:

Biblical sources and Torahtic sources partially overlap.
In a land where the big city nearby (Madinah) has four Jewish tribes (out of seven), you can NOT claim that the land isn't full of their religious sources.

[Greater Wonda]

The dude who only spoke Arabic?
Arabic with loads of Syriac loanwords, which he had heard and memorised on his trading missions.
Oral traditions may well include translations, you know, like into Arabic (with Syriac loanwords), the language that the dude spoke?

You realise that for the first centuries, Christian texts were translated into many more languages than just Greek and Latin, right? Monopolising Bible interpretation through constricting written texts to Latin and Greek was only done from the 10th century onwards. Until the second millennium, Biblical texts were translated into Celtic languages, Old Slavonic (for which purpose the Cyrillic script was developed), Nubian, Germanic languages (the famed Ulfilas Bible), Morish, Armenian, Kartvelian, Persian, and many more.

Why would Arabic be the exception?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_t ... nto_Arabic

From the first line of the article:

Translations of the Bible into Arabic are known from the early Christian churches in Syria, Egypt, Malta and Spain. Some of these translations are from Syriac (the Peshitta), Coptic or Latin.

Let's break that down:

Early Christian Churches (that is up to the sixth century, after which churches become medieval) in Syria, Egypt, Malta, and Spain have Arabic translations of Biblical books.

Some of these books have themselves been translated from a Syriac, Latin, or Coptic translation of the originals.

I repeat: Mohammed used Syriac loanwords in the Quran.

I repeat: Mohammed did trading missions to the north.

I'd say that the first line of that article alone, proves a few points I've been making.

[The Archregimancy]

Good storytellers don't need to copy verbatim entire chapters of Isaiah to use as filler in their books.

Again, there were no Arabic copies of the Bible and Torah at the time.

Of course there most likely were. What do you think the Ghassanids, Lakhmids, and other Arab Christians (or the Himyarite Yemeni Jewish kingdom) used? Greek?

There's extensive academic scholarship on this. See here: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/med/shahid.asp

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_t ... nto_Arabic

That only notes that the earliest surviving fragments of the Bible in Arabic post-date the Muslim conquests; it isn't proof that the Bible hadn't been translated into Arabic before the 9th century. With all due respect to Wiki, I refer you to the Fordham University link above.

[Insaanistan]

Again, there were no Arabic copies of the Bible and Torah at the time.

Of course there most likely were. What do you think the Ghassanids, Lakhmids, and other Arab Christians (or the Himyarite Yemeni Jewish kingdom) used? Greek?

There's extensive academic scholarship on this. See here: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/med/shahid.asp

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_t ... nto_Arabic

That only notes that the earliest surviving fragments of the Bible in Arabic post-date the Muslim conquests; it isn't proof that the Bible hadn't been translated into Arabic before the 9th century. With all due respect to Wiki, I refer you to the Fordham University link above.

Can you point me to which part of that says when the first Arabic Bible appeared, please? I’m not being snarky, by the way, I just can’t see it.

[Greater Wonda]

Of course there most likely were. What do you think the Ghassanids, Lakhmids, and other Arab Christians (or the Himyarite Yemeni Jewish kingdom) used? Greek?

There's extensive academic scholarship on this. See here: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/med/shahid.asp





That only notes that the earliest surviving fragments of the Bible in Arabic post-date the Muslim conquests; it isn't proof that the Bible hadn't been translated into Arabic before the 9th century. With all due respect to Wiki, I refer you to the Fordham University link above.

Can you point me to which part of that says when the first Arabic Bible appeared, please? I’m not being snarky, by the way, I just can’t see it.

"Preserved written source" does not equal "earliest translation", Insaanistan.
You are chasing an ephemeral argument.

[Tarsonis]

I don't think that's what Tarsonis is saying at all.

I think he's saying is more along the lines that that if it was inspired by Satan, the negative content wouldn't be at all clear, and that it would suit the powers of evil to give the appearance that the content was positive; but that said, Tarsonis thinks it was far more likely that the random Arab orphan was, to some degree, just a really good story teller with a vivid imagination (a bit like Joseph Smith).


And let's be a little bit more straightforward about those 114 chapters; it's not as if Al-'Asr or Al-Kawthar require quite the same level of skill to dictate (or memorise; or write) as Al-Baqarah, is it?

True on your last point: I always choose Āsr and Kawthar when I’m in a hurry . Although, it’s not as if they say “Trees. Trees are brown. God made trees”, they still have more depth than just three random sentences.

But on the story teller point, again, illiterate Arabian orphan 1400 years ago who wasn’t familiar with poetry. Creating a whole religious text AND predicting the future in it would be impossible for him. And if he were vain enough to create a whole religion where he was the best of mankind and the last prophet and most beloved person, he would make everyone give him tribute and make him live rich and whatnot. He’d be much less humble. He wouldn’t have upon receiving his first revelation ran home to his wife and hide under the covers because he thought a demon was messing with him and that he was too unimportant for God to choose.

Hagiographic stories are hagiographic.

[The Archregimancy]

Can you point me to which part of that says when the first Arabic Bible appeared, please? I’m not being snarky, by the way, I just can’t see it.

It doesn't.

It instead outlines the reasons for believing that 'Christianity influenced the literary life of the Arabs in the fifth century as it had done in the fourth'.

The conclusions on this are mainly inferential, but less so for poetry than for prose. If there was an Arabic liturgy and a biblical lectionary in the fifth century, the chances are that this would have influenced the development of Arabic literary life, as it invariably influenced that of the other peoples of the Christian Orient. It is possible to detect such influences in the scanty fragments of Arabic poetry and trace the refining influence of the new faith on sentiments. Loanwords from Christianity in Arabic are easier to document, and they are eloquent testimony to the permanence of that influence in much the same way that other loanwords testify to the influence of the Roman imperim.

[Insaanistan]

Land of oral tradition is not full of Bible stories because even the Christians weren’t really sure what it said at the time.

Let's get one misunderstanding out of the way:

Biblical sources and Torahtic sources partially overlap.
In a land where the big city nearby (Madinah) has four Jewish tribes (out of seven), you can NOT claim that the land isn't full of their religious sources.

Tribes who weren’t singing to all the traders about the stories of their prophets. Also, again:MUHAMMAD (PBUH) COULDN’T READ! He’s not asking the Jews to tell him their stories, let alone reading them if they were written down.