NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems to me that when compared to Christianity, in terms of belief structure, Islam has a very significent diffrence when comes to proof of belief. Unlike Christianity where you can examine the actions of Jesus, debate wheteher or not he existed and if he did the things the Gospels said he did, Islam is very diffrent. You cannot discuss in the same way whether or not Mohammad recieved the visions he claimed to, simply because there can be no proof or not of them outside the documents written themselves. So it looks as if discussion about Islam would apper to relate solely to the content of the faith, rather than its validity in the first place. Many threads here and discussions elsewhere are devoted to whether or not Jesus existed at all. Yet no simmilar discussions about Mohammad's existance, merely about the content of the faith he founded. So then the question has to be asked, is Islam a matter of faith more so than Chrsitianity? Or is there another reason for this lack of discussion?

I'm a little confused. You say "there's no proof that Mohammed recieved the visions outside of the documents themselves." and that "Christians can examine Jesus's actions and..."

There is no proof for Jesus's actions outside of the documents, so in what way is Islam "more falsifiable" than christianity. Both are items of faith based on written accounts of a dubious nature.

It seems to me that when compared to Christianity, in terms of belief structure, Islam has a very significent diffrence when comes to proof of belief. Unlike Christianity where you can examine the actions of Jesus, debate wheteher or not he existed and if he did the things the Gospels said he did, Islam is very diffrent. You cannot discuss in the same way whether or not Mohammad recieved the visions he claimed to, simply because there can be no proof or not of them outside the documents written themselves. So it looks as if discussion about Islam would apper to relate solely to the content of the faith, rather than its validity in the first place. Many threads here and discussions elsewhere are devoted to whether or not Jesus existed at all. Yet no simmilar discussions about Mohammad's existance, merely about the content of the faith he founded. So then the question has to be asked, is Islam a matter of faith more so than Chrsitianity? Or is there another reason for this lack of discussion?
That sounds pretty much exactly the same as Christianity.

Neither Islam nor Christianity are falsifiable. If it's the principle of falsifiability you're looking for, try Science, not Religion.

All religions are inherently un-falsifiable ... thats EXACTLY why things like ID can NEVER be SCIENCE

I'm a little confused. You say "there's no proof that Mohammed recieved the visions outside of the documents themselves." and that "Christians can examine Jesus's actions and..."

There is no proof for Jesus's actions outside of the documents, so in what way is Islam "more falsifiable" than christianity. Both are items of faith based on written accounts of a dubious nature.

Well because you can falsify whether someone healed someone else just by touching them. On the other hand, you cant falsify visions because only the person seeing them can tell you what happened.

All religions are inherently un-falsifiable ... thats EXACTLY why things like ID can NEVER be SCIENCE

Exactly. Good post.

Neither Islam nor Christianity are falsifiable. If it's the principle of falsifiability you're looking for, try Science, not Religion.

WW2 is falsifiable
WW1 is falsifiable
The Kelog Brind pact is falsifable
The treaty of Westphillia is falsifiable

Historical events are all falsifiable. You can prove whether something in history happened or not. For Christianity that means, can you prove whether or not Christ rose from the dead. But for Islam, its vastly diffrent. You can have eyewitnesses to ressurections, you cant have them to visions. The only person who can see the vision is the person having it.

Well because you can falsify whether someone healed someone else just by touching them. On the other hand, you cant falsify visions because only the person seeing them can tell you what happened.

Personally I'm quite happy to discard Paul's claims as he never met Jesus (even if he existed) and his divine mandate seems to have come from fallling off a horse.

All religions are inherently un-falsifiable ... thats EXACTLY why things like ID can NEVER be SCIENCE

History is falsifable. You can prove whether or not an event happened in history. Christianities defining event is subjective. Either Christ did or did not rise from the dead. People could actually see that. Islams is not. The only person who could see Mohammad's visions is Mohammad.

WW2 is falsifiable
WW1 is falsifiable
The Kelog Brind pact is falsifable
The treaty of Westphillia is falsifiable

Historical events are all falsifiable. You can prove whether something in history happened or not. For Christianity that means, can you prove whether or not Christ rose from the dead. But for Islam, its vastly diffrent. You can have eyewitnesses to ressurections, you cant have them to visions. The only person who can see the vision is the person having it.

Didn't Muhammad get in a few battles? Wouldn't those be falsifiable?

History is falsifable. You can prove whether or not an event happened in history. Christianities defining event is subjective. Either Christ did or did not rise from the dead. People could actually see that. Islams is not. The only person who could see Mohammad's visions is Mohammad.
No you can prove the man existed but you can not prove god had anything to do with it

By his very nature god is a non falsifiable property which makes any “theory” using him bunk

History is falsifable. You can prove whether or not an event happened in history. Christianities defining event is subjective. Either Christ did or did not rise from the dead. People could actually see that. Islams is not. The only person who could see Mohammad's visions is Mohammad.

But as there is no evidence relating to the Bible's claims surely it is as unfalsifiable as Islam.

All religions are ultimately unfalsifiable, making Islam no more or less based on faith than Christianty, so any attempt to falsify is ultimately impossible.

Many threads here and discussions elsewhere are devoted to whether or not Jesus existed at all. Yet no simmilar discussions about Mohammad's existance, merely about the content of the faith he founded.
I see several possible explanations:
a) maybe muslims see the futility in the attempt to verbally convince someone else of their faith. Look at all the threads we have here. It's like both sides are talking to a wall. Pointless, really.
b) maybe christians just need someone to tell them what's right and what not. They don't trust in their faith as much as their muslim brothers.
c) or maybe (and what a crazy thought this is...) there are just more christians on this forum...
...which would also explain why there are people wondering about the faith Mohammad founded...because Christians would probably have a least a limited knowledge of Jesus' story. ..err...religion.

The thing about religion is that you can't prove or disprove anything about it.

WW2 is falsifiable
WW1 is falsifiable
The Kelog Brind pact is falsifable
The treaty of Westphillia is falsifiable

Historical events are all falsifiable. You can prove whether something in history happened or not. For Christianity that means, can you prove whether or not Christ rose from the dead. But for Islam, its vastly diffrent. You can have eyewitnesses to ressurections, you cant have them to visions. The only person who can see the vision is the person having it.

No, Christianity is much more than simply Christ having risen from the dead. I would have to observe WHY and HOW Jesus managed to do that (God Himself intervening). And no Christian would accept explanations of zombie viruses or eyewitnesses' lies. So Christianity is not falsifiable in the sense that Christians accept the propositions of Christianity as true no matter what observations I could make. Same with Islam.

And you should know that Christianity and Islam are not "historical events." They are an entire set of religious philosophies.

No religion is falsifiable.

The thing about religion is that you can't prove or disprove anything about it.

If they offer a falsifiable claim you can. Like the Mormon claim that the Native Americans are descendants of the Hebrews. I don't have a link off-hand, but they're not even close to being closely related. Or, if a religion claimed "Our followers cannot be shot." Shooting them would falsify it. Most are not falsifiable however.

But as there is no evidence relating to the Bible's claims surely it is as unfalsifiable as Islam.

Well firslty, the Bible itself is evidence because unlike the Quran it was not written by its central figure. If the Bible was written by Jesus telling people who he was, then yes it would be the same as the Quran. Secondly the events of Jesus's life are external to himself. In other words, the things that Jesus did which are part of his claim to divinity were objectively witnessesed (specificly the reseucrction) where as Mohammad's are on the basis of his visions which are subjective, and only visualiable to himself.

If they offer a falsifiable claim you can. Like the Mormon claim that the Native Americans are descendants of the Hebrews.
Go ahead and disprove that.
if a religion claimed "Our followers cannot be shot." Shooting them would falsify it.
The leaders would just say that those who were shot were not true followers of their religion.

Religion has one, single card: God. It just happens to beat all the other ones.

Well firslty, the Bible itself is evidence because unlike the Quran it was not written by its central figure. If the Bible was written by Jesus telling people who he was, then yes it would be the same as the Quran. Secondly the events of Jesus's life are external to himself. In other words, the things that Jesus did which are part of his claim to divinity were objectively witnessesed (specificly the reseucrction) where as Mohammad's are on the basis of his visions which are subjective, and only visualiable to himself.

Not very good evidence.

-About a quarter of the New Testament was written by Saul/Paul who never even met Jesus.
-The four Gospels were all written long after the original apostles would have been dead.
-There aren't even any contemporary references to Jesus the man, in other words you can't even prove the existance of the central figure of your religion, Islam can prove Muhammed's existance with ease.

Go ahead and disprove that.

They have, it's called 'genetics'.

They have, it's called 'genetics'.

Not to mention tons of historical evidence and the utter lack of all but the most basic similarity between the cultures of North America and the Hebrews, and those similarities that do exist are common to virtually all cultures.

Go ahead and disprove that.


I think that this deals with the mormon issue. Its a conversation between a Christian and a Mormon apologist

Have we located any of the cities in the BOM ("Book of Mormon")? He answers "No".
Have we found any BOM names in New World inscriptions? He answers "No".
Have we found any Hebrew inscriptions in America? "No"
Well, have we found any Egyptian inscriptions in America? "No".
How about anything even resembling Egyptian? "Not really"
Did we find any ancient copies of the BOM? "Not so far".
Have anthropologists found any ancient Native American cultures who held Jewish or Christian beliefs? "No, but I am still optimistic".
Has ANY mention of previously unknown BOM persons, places, or nations been found ANYWHERE? "Not that I know of..."
Do we have any reason to believe that Native Americans are really of Semitic stock? "No."

Go ahead and disprove that.

It doesn't have to be proven false to be falsifiable.

The leaders would just say that those who were shot were not true followers of their religion.

Yeah, thus that claim is not falsifiable either: there is no observation anyone can make that would get them to accept the claim as untrue.

Religion has one, single card: God. It just happens to beat all the other ones.

Not sure what you're getting at here. GOD IZ TEH GREAT? Because statements made about God are unfalsifiable? Or what?

Not sure what you're getting at here. GOD IZ TEH GREAT? Because statements made about God are unfalsifiable? Or what?

I think s/he's refering more to the "Well God said so so it must be true so your wrong!" line of thought that you can't really beat. No matter what evidence you show them, they won't change, because they "Know" they're right.

Since Truth is subjective, everything is falsifiable; all you need to do is not hold it to be true. Easy peasy.

Not very good evidence.

-About a quarter of the New Testament was written by Saul/Paul who never even met Jesus.

He met him on the road to damascus. Which is visonary evidence true. But unlike Mohammad, Paul does not claim to have written down everything he did by dictating Christ


-The four Gospels were all written long after the original apostles would have been dead.

Extremely debatable. There are several refernces in the Gospels to buildings that only existed before 70AD because after 70AD, the Romans leveled the place. And the refences were in the present tense. As in the pool that Jesus went to and healed a paralytic.

Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda


-There aren't even any contemporary references to Jesus the man, in other words you can't even prove the existance of the central figure of your religion, Islam can prove Muhammed's existance with ease.

Well no they cant. They can claim that someone wrote the Quran who called himself Mohammad. If you want an explaintion of Jesus's existance however, read the research into it.

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

Since Truth is subjective, everything is falsifiable; all you need to do is not hold it to be true. Easy peasy.

BOO!!! Spoilsport!!! :mad:

They have, it's called 'genetics'.
God changed their DNA. Now that's what you call a trump card.
That's what i was saying about playing the God card. Religious people just need to say "God did it".

It seems to me that when compared to Christianity, in terms of belief structure, Islam has a very significent diffrence when comes to proof of belief. Unlike Christianity where you can examine the actions of Jesus, debate wheteher or not he existed and if he did the things the Gospels said he did, Islam is very diffrent. You cannot discuss in the same way whether or not Mohammad recieved the visions he claimed to, simply because there can be no proof or not of them outside the documents written themselves. So it looks as if discussion about Islam would apper to relate solely to the content of the faith, rather than its validity in the first place. Many threads here and discussions elsewhere are devoted to whether or not Jesus existed at all. Yet no simmilar discussions about Mohammad's existance, merely about the content of the faith he founded. So then the question has to be asked, is Islam a matter of faith more so than Chrsitianity? Or is there another reason for this lack of discussion?

Are you just taking the piss here? How can you "examine the actions of Jesus"? Get the CCTV footage?

There is no proof of the actions of Christ outside of christ and only one mention of his existence in the period (Josephus). Theres no doubt as to whether or not mohammed existed, though one can obviously question whether or not he was in any way divinely inspired

Well firslty, the Bible itself is evidence because unlike the Quran it was not written by its central figure..

Frodo didn't write lord of the rings. And you believe that Adam and Eve Noahs ark bolloxology? Fer fucks sake....


If the Bible was written by Jesus telling people who he was, then yes it would be the same as the Quran. Secondly the events of Jesus's life are external to himself. In other words, the things that Jesus did which are part of his claim to divinity were objectively witnessesed (specificly the reseucrction) ..

O this is good.

Why did the "objective" witnesses wait until AD70-AD100 to write their story down?

Matthew is heavily based on Mark, with some other parts lifted from Luke.

Mark was written in Syria by a Greco-Judaeo christian.

Luke is mostly based on Mark, and gets a good part of the Geography wrong and is largely ignorant of local customs. Its references to the Destruction of the city of Jerusalem mean its usually dated AD80 or later.

John was written by at least two persons, no earlier than AD90, and shows signs of a great deal of revison and re-editing.

Its a crock.

He met him on the road to damascus. Which is visonary evidence true. But unlike Mohammad, Paul does not claim to have written down everything he did by dictating Christ

True, but for his word to carry any weight we must assume that he was divinely inspired in some way otherwise there is no reason to listen to him. His vision was also personal so it is non-falsifiable.

Oh, and he never met Jesus the man, this is a key point in arguing that Jesus might not have existed.

Extremely debatable. There are several refernces in the Gospels to buildings that only existed before 70AD because after 70AD, the Romans leveled the place. And the refences were in the present tense. As in the pool that Jesus went to and healed a paralytic.

Just because they wrote in the present tense doesn't mean they were writing at the time, it's a literary device.

Well no they cant. They can claim that someone wrote the Quran who called himself Mohammad. If you want an explaintion of Jesus's existance however, read the research into it.

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

Shattering the Christ-Myth

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Reliability of the Secular References to Jesus

J. P. Holding


During a discussion of William Shakespeare, a student asked the old professor about the en vogue theory that Shakespeare did not write the plays ascribed to him.
The professor growled, "Young man, if Shakespeare did not write those plays,then they were written by someone who lived at the same time and had the same name!"


It is a sure sign of desperation: In disbelieving circles, one of the most popular ideas to come to the fore recently is the "Jesus-myth" - the idea that Jesus did not even exist, much less conduct a ministry as described in the New Testament. It is an idea that one would suppose would be relegated to the pages of the Weekly World News - and it might even be funny, were it not for the fact that there are so many who take it seriously and are extremely vocal in their seriousness.

At first glance, the "Jesus-myth" seems to be a stroke of genius: To eliminate Christianity and any possibility of it being true, just eliminate the founder! The idea was first significantly publicized by a 19th-century German scholar named Bruno Bauer. Following Bauer, there were a few other supporters: Couchoud, Gurev, Augstein [Chars.JesJud 97-8]. Today the active believer is most likely to have waved in their faces one of four supporters of this thesis: The turn-of-the-century writer Arthur Drews; the myth-thesis' most prominent and prolific supporter, G. A. Wells, who has published five books on the subject; Earl Doherty, or Acharya S. Each of these writers takes slightly different approaches, but they all agree that a person named Jesus did not exist (or, Wells seems to have taken a view now that Jesus may have existed, but may as well not have).

Does the "Jesus-myth" have any scholarly support? In this case, to simply say "no" would be an exaggeration! Support for the "Jesus-myth" comes not from historians, but usually from writers operating far out of their field. G. A. Wells, for example, is a professor of German; Drews was a professor of mathematics; Acharya only has a lower degree in classics; Doherty has some qualifications, but clearly lacks the discipline of a true scholar. The greatest support for the "Jesus-myth" comes not from people who know the subject, but from popularizers and those who accept their work uncritically. It is this latter group that we are most likely to encounter - and sadly, arguments and evidence seldom faze them. In spite of the fact that relevant scholarly consenus is unanimous that the "Jesus-myth" is incorrect, it continues to be promulgated on a popular level as though it were absolutely proven.

"Come off it, Holding. Just because a consensus of historians say that the Jesus-myth is wrong does not mean that it is wrong. The historians could be wrong. They could also be biased. Since this subject is dominated by theological agendas and philosophical presuppositions, a scholarly consensus does not constitute evidence for the existence of Jesus."

As silly as this may sound, it is actually the core of many arguments made in favor of the "Jesus-myth"! Behind every historian there is a conspiracy, a bias, or some gross error of judgment - and sometimes even the ancient historians are in on the conspiracy, too! At the end of this chapter we will offer some counsel for dealing with those who advance this type of argument, but for now, let's deal with this objection and take it seriously.

Of course, it is quite possible that all of the professional historians (even those with no religious interest!) are biased or wrong, while proponents of the "Jesus-myth" are the objective ones. And yes, a consensus does not equate with evidence. But a consensus on any historical question is usually based on evidence which is analyzed by those who are recognized as authoritative in their field, and therefore may be taken at their word. If this were not the case, why should there be any criteria for someone being a historian at all? Why should we not just pick a vagrant at random off the street and let him/her compose an official history of 20th-century America for the Smithsonian archives?

Therefore, while scholarly consensus is not itself evidence, it does function as a "weighting" or "warning" sign: if one agrees with peers who are detailed-students of the same subject matter, then less evidence is needed than would be needed if we disagreed with their consensus (as a very small minority). We would require not just a "good argument" but we would also have to refute all of the consensus arguments first. In other words, evidence may be mediated through expert witness and consensus. Therefore, the argument that consensus does not count as evidence, while correct in its own way, cannot be allowed to stand as a dismissal of consensus, nor as a leveling of the playing field. It is almost like the criteria, "extraordinarily bizarre positions require extraordinary evidence," that operates in scholarly circles. Such a minority position as the "Jesus-myth" is not courageous, but foolhardy - unless one has considerably stronger evidence than the majority; and even then, speculation about alternate views of historical references, such as is commonly found in "Jesus-myth" circles, is not going to keep the sawed-off limb up in the air!

If proponents of the "Jesus-myth" were either qualified historians or had equivalent knowledge, then their counter-consenus position might deserve to be taken more seriously. However, the overwhelming prevalance of tortured explanations, inventive theories, arguments from silence, and outright misrepresentations to get around the evidence that Jesus existed mitigates strongly against offering the Jesus-mythers any scholastic solace. The argument is more than that writers like G. A. Wells are scholars out of their field; it is also that their being out of their field shows like a gaping wound! Drews, for example [Drew.WH, 16-17], attempting to show that there were arguments that Jesus did not exist in early church history, cited these quotes from Justin's Dialogue with Trypho. Trypho, a Jewish person skeptical of Christianity, is speaking with Justin; the relevant passage says (words used by Drews, etc. highlighted):

Yes, that's how much sophistry I had to read before he even began to present evidence.

The first source he presents comes from the writings of Justin Martyr, who wasn't even born until 100-114 AD. Hardly a reliable source for a man who supposedly died in 30 AD.

By the time I get near to the bottom of the page it offers Josephus and Tacitus, both of which were written long after Jesus would have been alive. What's more Josephus's passage is agreed to be a forgery and Tacitus was merely reporting the beliefs of the Christians. not confirming their veracity.

Thallus is listed but doesn't even mention Jesus; Pliny wrote in 112 AD and only mentioned Christians, not Jesus; Lucian does the same and is writing even later; most Christians acknowledge that Suetonius wasn't refering to Jesus, but rather to a 'Chrestus', a common name at the time.

Please just give me the sources next time instead of making me waste my time reading empty rhetoric and bogus sources. There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus existing.

Are you just taking the piss here? How can you "examine the actions of Jesus"? Get the CCTV footage?

Actions, unlike visions, can be witnessed by others.


There is no proof of the actions of Christ outside of christ and only one mention of his existence in the period (Josephus). Theres no doubt as to whether or not mohammed existed, though one can obviously question whether or not he was in any way divinely inspired

People can verifiy whehter Jesus walked on water or rose from the dead by seeing it. People cant verify visions, because only the visonary sees them


Frodo didn't write lord of the rings. And you believe that Adam and Eve Noahs ark bolloxology? Fer fucks sake....

We know who wrote LOTR. And I am talking about the Gospels


O this is good.

Why did the "objective" witnesses wait until AD70-AD100 to write their story down?

They didnt. If you look into research many people have provided evidence that actually they wrote it before 70AD, due amoungst other things, to refercnes to buildings destroyed in 70AD in the present tense.


Matthew is heavily based on Mark, with some other parts lifted from Luke.

Or they all saw the same thing. In any case prove your point


Mark was written in Syria by a Greco-Judaeo christian.

Prove it


Luke is mostly based on Mark, and gets a good part of the Geography wrong and is largely ignorant of local customs. Its references to the Destruction of the city of Jerusalem mean its usually dated AD80 or later.

Prove it. Where is the descruction of the city of Jeruselum refenced anywhere other than Jesus's prophicies.


John was written by at least two persons, no earlier than AD90, and shows signs of a great deal of revison and re-editing.

Its a crock.

Prove it.

Please just give me the sources next time instead of making me waste my time reading empty rhetoric and bogus sources. There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus existing.

Read the stuff about why that is and then read about the sources that do exist.

And by who is it agreed that Jospehus is a forgery?

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/josephus.html

Actions, unlike visions, can be witnessed by others.
People can verifiy whehter Jesus walked on water or rose from the dead by seeing it. People cant verify visions, because only the visonary sees them


Or people can write down a folktale based on a saviour hero.

We know who wrote LOTR. And I am talking about the Gospels

Either are as valid. I don't think anybody took lord of the rings too seriously, so it gets brownie points to give it the edge.


They didnt. If you look into research many people have provided evidence that actually they wrote it before 70AD, due amoungst other things, to refercnes to buildings destroyed in 70AD in the present tense.

Not mainstream episcopalian/Catholic/modern theology. You'll only get that kind of shite off the fundamentalists.


Or they all saw the same thing. In any case prove your point


I'll let the Church do it for me. Here - each of the testaments has a short summary of the modern catholic view at the start.


Catholic bible (http://www.catholic.org/phpframedirect/out.php?url=http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/index.htm)

Read the stuff about why that is and then read about the sources that do exist.

And by who is it agreed that Jospehus is a forgery?

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/josephus.html

Friend, if you think I'm going to waste an hour of my life reading the empty rhetoric of a self-professed 'Christian Apologist' site you've got another think coming. Quote whatever's relevant and I'll read it.

I'll do you the courtesy of offering a non-biased source:

Over the last century, the consensus seems to have changed, and the subjective nature of many of the arguments used in the 19th century has been recognized. Judging from the 2003 survey of the historiography, it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus, but that the text that has reached us is corrupt to a perhaps quite substantial extent. There has been no consensus on which portions are corrupt, or to what degree. However, a significant number of scholars consider it genuine, on the grounds that all of the passages supposed to be corrupt are upheld by other writers; a significant number of scholars likewise consider the passage interpolated, on the ground that all the passages upheld are likewise demolished by other writers.
link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Modern_consensus)

Mark was written in Syria by a Greco-Judaeo christian.
I'd always assumed Mark was written in Rome, or thereabouts, in response to Nero's anti-Christian spate.
EDIT: In fact, your Church link suggests that too.

a quick look through google on the question "did mohammed exist" reveals similar problems with the life of mohammed as there are with the life of jesus. most written sources were made well after the death of the prophet. many tales of the prophets life are obviously invented. so it is hard to tell what is true and what is false in the tale of the life of mohammed.

does it matter? islam is submission to the will of god, not the will of mohammed. if mohammed turns out to have been from a dfferent family or to be someone other than who he is accepted to be today, should we NOT submit to the will of god?

the life of jesus is quite a different thing. we know that many details of the life of jesus are invented. does this matter? i think so. jesus isnt a prophet, he is GOD. if he ISNT the only begotten son of god, why are we worshipping him in church every sunday?

without christ there is no christianity, without mohammed there is still islam.

And without Adriatica there would unfortunately still be rabid bigotry. Sad, yet true.

It seems to me that when compared to Christianity, in terms of belief structure, Islam has a very significent diffrence when comes to proof of belief. Unlike Christianity where you can examine the actions of Jesus, debate wheteher or not he existed and if he did the things the Gospels said he did, Islam is very diffrent. You cannot discuss in the same way whether or not Mohammad recieved the visions he claimed to, simply because there can be no proof or not of them outside the documents written themselves. So it looks as if discussion about Islam would apper to relate solely to the content of the faith, rather than its validity in the first place. Many threads here and discussions elsewhere are devoted to whether or not Jesus existed at all. Yet no simmilar discussions about Mohammad's existance, merely about the content of the faith he founded. So then the question has to be asked, is Islam a matter of faith more so than Chrsitianity? Or is there another reason for this lack of discussion?

as i understand it historically there is more proof of mohammad's existence then compared to jesus whom many historians have yet to prove.

He met him on the road to damascus. Which is visonary evidence true. But unlike Mohammad, Paul does not claim to have written down everything he did by dictating Christ

Well because you can falsify whether someone healed someone else just by touching them. On the other hand, you cant falsify visions because only the person seeing them can tell you what happened.


Lovely. You're essentially saying that the people who "saw" Jesus rise from the dead are "objective witnesses". The guy who "saw" the angel Jibreel is just a fake. But the guy who "saw" Jesus on the road, he's evidence.

This is the most absurdly obtuse double-standard of evidence I've ever seen attempted.

Well firslty, the Bible itself is evidence because unlike the Quran it was not written by its central figure. If the Bible was written by Jesus telling people who he was, then yes it would be the same as the Quran. Secondly the events of Jesus's life are external to himself. In other words, the things that Jesus did which are part of his claim to divinity were objectively witnessesed (specificly the reseucrction) where as Mohammad's are on the basis of his visions which are subjective, and only visualiable to himself.

Why are these "objective witnesses" any more credible than all of the other "objective witnesses" that gave second-hand support for other religions?

Why is a made-up story about somebody else any more true than a made-up story about yourself?

I suppose, since the koran is said to be exactly what mohammad claimed Gabriel dictated to him, the text itself could be analysed by psychologists and psychiatrists to see if the vision was either drug induced, mental illness induced, or just made up. Schizophrenics construct their delusions in recognisable ways, and drug induced hallucinations have their own characteristics, as do lies which are often inconsistent.

History is falsifable...

Umm...if you want to get technical History is not falsifiable because we cannot go back and observe it again. The "experiment" cannot be repeated. The further you move into the past (and for the sake of argument lets go back say 2033 years) the less you can prove actually happened. Eyewitness accounts always need to be taken with a grain of salt especially when they deal with matters of belief.

Case in point;
Ammianus Marcellinus wrote a very good description of Emperor Julian's (often called "the Apostate) campaign in Persia in the 300's. I do not doubt that Marcellinus's description of the battles and troop movements is mostly accurate (given his position at any one time and taking into account the inherent confusion of battle) however when he tells me he saw Zeus/Mithras/Apollo/Sol Invictus descend from the Heavens and bless the emperor so they could win a battle I reject this because it is illogical.

Do I believe there was a man we could call Jesus of Nazareth running around the backwaters of the Roman Empire? Sure I do. Most myths are based in fact, but for the same reasons I reject Zeus's divine visitation or the elevation of Augustus I reject the illogical portions of the christian bible as inherently unsupportable, unfalsifiable, and therefore an article for faith rather than logic.

Lovely. You're essentially saying that the people who "saw" Jesus rise from the dead are "objective witnesses". The guy who "saw" the angel Jibreel is just a fake. But the guy who "saw" Jesus on the road, he's evidence.

This is the most absurdly obtuse double-standard of evidence I've ever seen attempted.

Why not read the parts you havent bolded. Mohammad claimed to get everything from his vision. Paul didnt.

Of the three religions we could be said to be dealing with here (Islamo-Judeo-Christianism?) you do realize that what it boils down to is a choice between three lunatics who spent way to much time wandering around in the desert talking to a burning bush/an invisible flying man/and another invisible flying man (Lucifer and Gabriel respectively)...don't you?

It seems to me that when compared to Christianity, in terms of belief structure, Islam has a very significent diffrence when comes to proof of belief. Unlike Christianity where you can examine the actions of Jesus, debate wheteher or not he existed and if he did the things the Gospels said he did, Islam is very diffrent. You cannot discuss in the same way whether or not Mohammad recieved the visions he claimed to, simply because there can be no proof or not of them outside the documents written themselves. So it looks as if discussion about Islam would apper to relate solely to the content of the faith, rather than its validity in the first place. Many threads here and discussions elsewhere are devoted to whether or not Jesus existed at all. Yet no simmilar discussions about Mohammad's existance, merely about the content of the faith he founded. So then the question has to be asked, is Islam a matter of faith more so than Chrsitianity? Or is there another reason for this lack of discussion?

They strike me as equally silly, but that's only because we all know Thor is truly the mightiest of the gods.

Friend, if you think I'm going to waste an hour of my life reading the empty rhetoric of a self-professed 'Christian Apologist' site you've got another think coming. Quote whatever's relevant and I'll read it.

I'll do you the courtesy of offering a non-biased source:


link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Modern_consensus)

Incidently Adriatica can I take it as read that you accept that Josephus can't be relied on? I only ask because I see you've come back to the thread but you didn't respond.

Well firslty, the Bible itself is evidence because unlike the Quran it was not written by its central figure. If the Bible was written by Jesus telling people who he was, then yes it would be the same as the Quran. Secondly the events of Jesus's life are external to himself. In other words, the things that Jesus did which are part of his claim to divinity were objectively witnessesed (specificly the reseucrction) where as Mohammad's are on the basis of his visions which are subjective, and only visualiable to himself.

Who wrote the Bible, then? We have no way to know, honestly. We just make assumptions, based on what it says in the source.... which is a pretty dubious way to do business, really.

Or they all saw the same thing. In any case prove your point

Prove it

Prove it. Where is the descruction of the city of Jeruselum refenced anywhere other than Jesus's prophicies.

Prove it.
Lots of proof required there. My NIV says most of that stuff in the prologues to the Synoptic Gospels; isn't that evidence enough?

Why not read the parts you havent bolded. Mohammad claimed to get everything from his vision. Paul didnt.

Paul never met the living Jesus.

Thus, everything Paul wrote is either from divine visions... or it's bullshit.

Paul never met the living Jesus.

Thus, everything Paul wrote is either from divine visions... or it's bullshit.
... Or stuff left over from his previous Theology.

... Or stuff left over from his previous Theology.

Oh aye... if we are willing to admit (as, obviously, I am) that the text could just be Paul's interpretation of material in the public domain...

However, if we are buying into that whole 'Bible is the complete, inspired word of god' thing... then Paul either had a vision... or he lied.

Adriatica II

Did you read those backgrounds to the Gospels I linked?

For some reason, I read the title thread as "Is Islam Fashionable?"

"Now there's a topic!" I thought.

But, oh well ... I walked in anyway ... may as well give my answer to the question at hand:

Q: Is Islam Falsifiable?
A: Depends on who you ask.

For some reason, I read the title thread as "Is Islam Fashionable?"

"Now there's a topic!" I thought.

But, oh well ... I walked in anyway ... may as well give my answer to the question at hand:

Q: Is Islam Falsifiable?
A: Depends on who you ask.

Personally, I find your question more reasonable.

And, more interesting, actually. :)

Personally, I find your question more reasonable.

And, more interesting, actually. :)

Me too! I'd have to say yes ... I mean ... look at this suit:

http://us.st11.yimg.com/store1.yimg.com/I/shukr_1882_812216

Sexy!

Me too! I'd have to say yes ... I mean ... look at this suit:

http://us.st11.yimg.com/store1.yimg.com/I/shukr_1882_812216

Sexy!

That is, indeed, a pretty sharp suit. It looks like an 'italian' collar on the blazer, which is pretty sweet.

A little more colour on the waistcoat... it looks like my suit... :)