Your sentence is unclearly written. Is there evidence that Manco Cápac was the son of the sun god (Inti) and moon goddess (Mama Quilla)? No. Is there contemporary evidence that Manco Cápac existed? Not that I'm aware off. If I were indigenous south American and interested in my own history, I'd take a look into that. I'd be willing to accept that Manco Cápac did or did not exist. May or may not have been mythical. But, that's the difference between you and I, isn't it? On a side note: I'm happy to see that the wording "The Prophet Mohammad" has been altered to read "the Islamic prophet Mohammad" on numerous WIKI pages. A small step in the forward direction.
you're deluded and downright stoopid beyond repair, i always wonder why the heck do i bother with you.. but two fudging seconds later you say they're worth nothing! HERE; and how the hell can coins be evidence for something if you don't freaking write it on them??? what, they should've grinded the prophet's bones and placed a grain in each of the coins? or did they have to make him print a finger on the coin? and even then it would be evidence of the FINGERPRINT of the prophet, and not the prophet himself. and it was you who brought coins as proof, and showed us your picture as proof that the Mongolians existed, and here you are now contradicting yourself. :bugeye: i've changed my mind, you're not worth my timePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!uke: existence of evidence is different from the existence of something, he says..so much for the scientific method..
oh, and mohammad wasn't meant in the coins, so they're not evidence for him.. mohammad was meant as jesus, so the coins become evidence for jesus, michael doesn't like jesus, so still jesus doesn't exist.. you're a disgrace to atheists, i have NO idea how they let you breath your insanity on these forums, first mohammad doesn't exist because there are no archeological coins for him, then the coins which have mohammad on them were meant for jesus, then jesus was also a fictional character because coins are not reliable, what next you idiot?
It's really simple so stop making it so difficult. There is NO contemporary evidence for the existence of Mohammad or Khalid. None scifes. Zero. Nada. Zilch. ONE more time in case you missed that: There is NO contemporary evidence for the existence of Mohammad or Khalid. So it doesn't really matter what you feel, or what you wish, or what you want. The reality is what it is: No Contemporary Evidence. That doesn't mean that Mohammad or Khalid didn't exist. Only that there is ZERO contemporary evidence that they ever existed. Given the word Mohammad appears on coins PRE-Islam as a title for Jesus, that's good contemporary evidence Mohammad the TITLE was later converted into Mohammad the Prophet. As for Khalid, it'd be very very very unlikely you could attack Persian, Roman, Byzantine and Egyptians and not a single person mention anything about you. It's possible, just highly unlikely. Also, note the conflated military triumphalism. - He fought in over one hundred battles in 4 years. - He was always outnumbered (was the underdog). - He never lost a battle. - He always lead the fight and not an inch of him was not scarred. - The One God supported him in all of the battles (hence he never lost). That's classical Hero mythology (even if a little cheesy a comic book way). AND yet, there's ZERO contemporary evidence this person ever existed. More than likely he's completely fictional. Given the Qur'an was written many many decades later, and is mostly based on regional superstitions, back-filling a "Glorious" past with a "Glorious" military general is only to be expected. This is what you get with religious-political myths. Any thinking person would draw these conclusions. ONE last time in case all those words in between confused you: There is NO contemporary evidence for the existence of Mohammad or Khalid.
Ad hominem attacks, attacking the person and not the claim, are illogical. So, let me repeat the claim so you can better understand it: There is NO contemporary evidence for the existence of Mohammad or Khalid. So, instead of wasting your time being insolent, why don't you attempt to address the argument? Do you have any contemporary evidence for Khalid or Mohammad? If NO, then concede the point :shrug: It really is THAT SIMPLE. You either present the evidence or you do not. As a requirement for good evidence on Sciforums.com is a peer-reviewed Journal. I'm certain if there were evidence for Mohammad, it'd be in such a Journal. Now all that is left is interpretation of said lack of evidence. (1) For Mohammad, given the Title appears on a coin, it seems reasonable Mohammad the WORD was later converted into Mohammad the fictional Prophet. I mean come on, look at all the magical things Mohammad does (talks to ants, fly's on fairy creatures, talks to invisible angels, etc...). If this were a modern day story, it's be classified as a poorly written fiction. Harry Potter, now there's a good book you may like to read? (2) For Khalid, as I mentioned, above, he fights over a hundred battles in 4 years, leads the charge personally, never looses a single battle, etc.. etc.. etc.. yet, not a single mention of him from Persians, Syrians, Byzantine, Egyptians, Romans. More than likely he's not real. He could be real, perhaps a Persian general combined with a few other Persians/Syrians into a single person and obviously the battles are over sold. Kind of comic book like. It should be noted: Want to know who the REAL Khalid was? He was more than likely a Gram-negative rod-shaped bacterium - the facultative anaerobe Yersinia pestis. It's not usual to see a change in superstition during times of mass dying. Suddenly a "Magic" coin becomes the fulcrum of a new superstition/religion: Person A: Why's one coin more lucky than the other? That man there's God him a magic coin that's why him no sick. Person B: Ohhhh, he's got the magic God-word on him's coin. Hey, bring that on over. Let me see here, it say Mud... err no, Mud Ham Rod ... Errr Mohammad. That's it! The Magic Word! Person A: Why it sure does Ali, don't it?!? Ali: Yup, it sure does. Person A: What's a Mohammad? Ali: Oh, It's a.... Errrrr.... He was a Prophet!!! Wa La, Islam Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And with all those cities depopulated from 300 years of the Plague, nomads would pretty much walk in a own the place. Set up there own religious-political mythology and done is done.
your arguments are too feeble for anyone to bother with, in case you haven't noticed, nobody takes your fantasies seriously. i have destroyed the garbage you call arguments, which we can all see you've decided not to reply to, since there isn't anything you can say, except repeat your insanities and paraphrase them. i don't know if there's a name for a sickness in which a person is obsessed with something and keeps trying over and over again to prove to himself it is real, and convinces himself everybody else is stupid for not seeing it, but you have that sickness, you're obsessed with religions and you can't help yourself trying to remove them from your world. i mean look at this; :shrug: your inanity still remains in shards on the floor, you've yet to notice it and attempt to put it back together. you've got perseverance and a level head, i'll give you that.. but till a year or two from now when you develop some reasonable methodology for viewing the world.. ..welcome to my ignore list Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This sentence is an ad hominin attack and provides no contemporary evidence of Mohammad or Khalid. You have yet to provide a single link to a peer reviewed journal. Another ad hominin attack again, again, no contemporary evidence of Mohammad or Khalid. And again, nothing. More blathering, no link to a peer reviewed journal. And sitll more blathering. considering all of your posts are a waste of time, I say thank the Gods. Let me make this simple: Provide a link to a peer review journal or stop wasting my time. You're Muslim, you wish Mohammad and Khalid were real. Instead of accepting reality you whine and whine and whine and attack and waste time. You do this because it somehow make you think you're "winning" an argument. Whining is not winning even if both words begin with a 'w' and end in 'ing'. Until your provide a link to a peer reviewed journal, you're basically just a whinny little theobot - I suggest you go over to the deny evolution thread or whine about America thread or blame the Jews thread....
Lets clear up a couple things here. 'The' argument being made is this: There is no contemporary evidence for the existence of either Mohammed or Khalid. - This isn't "my" argument. "I" have nothing to do with it. It's 'an' argument. Or a position and is independent of any person. Either there is or isn't contemporary evidence. - 'The' argument stands as there's been no contemporary evidence in a peer reviewed published article presented in this thread. Propaganda websites do not count as good evidence in a science forum. - And yes, it's that simple. Either evidence is provided or it isn't. So, until evidence is provided the statement stands. If we're to answer the OP, the first thing we should determine is: Did the people in the mythology even exist? Is Islam actually Judaism? I'd suggest it's more than likely a type of Christianity. One were Jesus wasn't God incarnate. A form of Christianity that didn't believe in Trinity. Evidence for this has been presented in other threads.
Michael's got this one, hands down. Scifes, you're doing nothing but engaging in ad hominem. I admit my surprise here: surely there is some evidence of Muhammad? Or is it rather like King Arthur, so easily invoked but without introspection? (Or at least not too much until recently.)
hands down like how you won the "science is useless" debate? -.- you may have your dishonest moments, but at least you don't have short term memory lost.. say -before i list my evidence- is there any proof for jesus existing? if there is, i'm sure it applies to muhammad as well. if there isn't, yet you believe in him, and it's ok to do that for you, then surly it is so for me too. if it's not ok to believe in someone who doesn't exist and yet you believe in him, then you don't have the right to stand there and challenge me.
You had a leg to stand on from the start? Please, don't make me laugh. I can happily say that I have neither. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Oh, so you want me to give you some meaningful arguments. Sorry, not going to do that. Best of luck. That's fine: but Michael also has the right to ask what evidence there is. I expect he does the same for Christianity, and he has the right to do that too; but pointing that out doesn't help your argument, if he believes in neither. Remember, you're arguing with him, not me: and so far, you're losing. It's funny that you think of it as a challenge. But, think of it that way if you like.
Mohammad (the actual name) appears in the Qur'an four times. Whereas Jesus OTOH is mentioned by name 25 times. Mosses is mentioned 502 times. Recall that not all Christians considered Jesus to be an incarnation of God. Christians of that era had all sorts of ideas about Jesus (on the extreme end, some thought Jesus was Satan). Which makes one wonder, what then can be considered a Christian? (there's no contemporary evidence of Jesus either by the way) Qur'anic writings were being produced much earlier (well before) invention of the protagonist Mohammad. proto-Muslims were visiting holy places as part of their religion BEFORE Mohammad. That's interesting but not that surprising. Obviously Islam did not arise in a vacuum. ANYONE who is even a tiny bit academic must take into account the types of Christianity prevalent in the region and how these beliefs evolved into Islam (that includes the invention of the protagonist Mohammad). A conservative branch of Nestorian Christian community may be a good starting point. Here's another thing interesting about early Islamic so-called-history. The entire Persian Empire as well as half of Byzantium was "conquered" by Muslims (led by comic bookish hero Khalid) and yet, not a single Sassanid Persian or Byzantine Roman seemed to have noticed as no one makes a single mention of ANY of this happening. Isn't that interesting? Here's something else that I find interesting: Oh, but wasn't it the "Muslims" who built a library for, and preserved, Greek literature and Philosophy? (yeah, and they invented zero too Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! and are directly responsible for the European Renascence and the modern day world we live in) Haa! It's just so funny to me. ALL of the Sassan Persian empire is conquered and a full half the Roman Byzantine Empire is conquered by "Muslims" (according to "Islamic" History) and yet no one seemed to notice!?! No one mentions a thing. I mean, come on. How dense does one have to be to at least think: Hmmmm maybe something's not how I thought it was? Only religious belief can cloud one's mind to the point of not seeing what's right in front of your face. Persians peacefully incorporating Nestorian Christian doctrine replete with traditional Zoroastrian symbolism (the star and crescent [now Islamic]) seems like a more realistic avenue of thought to peruse. No wonder none of these "Glorious" battles were ever mentioned by any contemporary, anywhere..... they never occurred. Ask a scholar why Jesus is mentioned in the Qur'an and they'll try to discover the true historical answer. Ask a believing Muslim and you will always get the same tired old typical theobot response: God Did It. In answer to the OP, I suggest looking into different "heretical" Christian sects, particularly the Nestorians. Nestorian missionaries were firmly established in China even by the early 600s to 700s by Persian missionaries. Think about that. Because Persian was supposedly conquered by "Muslims" while at the same time sending Nestorian Missionaries to China. It'll be interesting to see where the study of Islam is in, say, another 10 years.
Not exactly. The Indians take credit for it also. The first instance of a positional number system with a symbol for zero is in a Jain text from end of the 5th century CE. The Arabs elaborated on this system and today scholars tend to refer to it as "the Hindu-Arabic number system." Uh dude, you're really getting carried away now. I'd enjoy contemplating your reasons for saying this, but first you're going to have to provide some evidence to support your remarkable assertion. If anyone can be credited with the Renaissance it might as well be the Ethiopians. They cultivated coffee. When the European explorers discovered it they began importing it into Europe. Because the Roman infrastructure had completely collapsed under a millennium of Christian oversight, the water was polluted and everyone drank beer. The introduction of coffee raised the continent's IQ by about 25 points. Presto: the Renaissance!
RE: Zero I was being facetious Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Regarding evidence, what would you consider good contemporary evidence? I'd suggest numismatic coins, carvings, histories written be people uninvolved with the actual events (the Greeks commenting on Indians for example). I'd suggest a theologian writing about his own religious history a century (or more) later would be biased non-contemporary evidence.
Well, that's just a piece of it. There's no single people who can be credited with the Renaissance, but, in my opinion, (and others) there is one institution which can claim credit for the Renaissance, and that is the merchant class. It was the European merchants, traders, the Florinteins , the Flemish, the Venitians, the English and the Scottish, who explored Africa, the Levant, Arabia, Russia, the Baltic. What they explored, and what they brought back laid the whole basis for the widenning of the world view that was the Renaissance. (disclaimer: I am, at present, very much involved with the novels of Lady Dorthy Dunnett, who had been called in her time 'the worlds greatest living writer of historic fiction'. And both sets of novels, both the House of Niccolo, and her first set, the Lymond Chronicles are intimately involved with Europe in the period of 1460 thru 1550. Anyone who is interested in the Renaissance and history, I urge you to read them.)
If anyone can be credited with the Renaissance it might as well be the Ethiopians. They cultivated coffee. When the European explorers discovered it they began importing it into Europe. Because the Roman infrastructure had completely collapsed under a millennium of Christian oversight, the water was polluted and everyone drank beer. The introduction of coffee raised the continent's IQ by about 25 points. Presto: the Renaissance![/QUOTE] "The first reliable record of the use of coffee outside Ethiopia comes from Aden, in 1451.[107]:16 The appreciation of coffee as a beverage in Europe dates from the 17th century. The first coffee house in Venice opened some time in the late 1640s.[107]:127 In Britain, the first coffee house was opened in Oxford in 1650.[107]:41 They soon became popular throughout Western Europe, and played a significant role in social relations in the 17th and 18th centuries.[108] " How can you make such flagrant statement about water polluted in Europa . I lived there in the 1940 we used to get our drinking water from the river many peoples had there shallow wells, Why are such a Christian hater ? As far coffee . It come into Europa it come in the 17 century , by the America was discovered without indulging coffee, the enlightening era started we had printing and paper , while your Muslim continued drinking coffee and falling behind
well the way i blasted you in that debate, i might've as well be hovering above the ground. it's part of dishonesty to deny it, i'm starting to regret my generous ".. your moments.." phrase. i gave you three. you can't question me here. it's dishonest of you to do so. you believe in jesus, who supposedly lived 400 years before muhammad. unless you're saying you know there is evidence for them but you don't want to give away the answer which i don't know and so didn't provide michael... you have to be sane to put forth any argument, among other things, michael is not qualified in the least, he blathers nonesense and doesn't follow up with it, i've showed that in this page more than once.. then what exactly do you want here? i'll be generous again and say that you don't read.. although i doubt it's more a case of crippled intellect and a tinge of dishonesty.
You neglected even to show. Not what one would call a "blasting", let alone the fact that your premise was intellectually flawed. Care to try again? Or would you just pretend to forget about it again? I yawn at your absurd accusations. Get a mob. You gave, as normal, no worthwhile points at all. So I can indeed question you here, and I did. What are you going to do about it? Evidence for them? So their existence is joined now? Why, as a believer in Jesus - and a marginal one at times - would I possibly be expected to believe in the existence of the quite possibly imaginary Mohammed? You can't counter Michael's points and you expect me to do the work for you? Good luck. 'Qualified' in what sense? What qualifications do you think he lacks? Does he not have your board-certified degree in Comparative Religion? Heh. Yes, you would indeed be wise to doubt such a list of nonsensical attributes. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You didn't read my post very carefully. I was talking about the Dark Ages, when Europe was under the thumb of the Catholic Church. Intellectual, artistic, and engineering progress almost ground to a halt. After the Renaissance and the Reformation, and especially after the Enlightenment, they did a fabulous job of modernizing. That included cleaning up the pollution. By the time your family lived there Europe may have been cleaner than Japan, which had been the world's reference standard for hygiene for centuries. I'm not a Christian hater. There are millions of perfectly nice, intelligent, reasonable, peaceful Christians on this planet. It's the Abrahamic religions that I hate, not the people who practice them. They have inspired more war, genocide and destruction than they can ever atone for. With the encouragement and blessing of Pope Urban, Christian armies obliterated both of the civilizations in the Western Hemisphere. Admittedly they often made war on each other, but because these people were regarded as "heathens," they burned down their libraries and melted down their art. That is a "sin" that Christianity and its people will never be able to atone for, if their religion endures for another ten thousand years. And look at the way they treated the Jews. Antisemitism was one of the defining traits of European Christendom for a thousand years, culminating in the Holocaust, during which they tried to kill them all and actually succeeded in killing half of them! And the Jews are no better, look at how they treat the Palestinians, in the name of their religion. The only reason they haven't done more harm to civilization is that they are not evangelical, so their population grows very slowly. As for Islam, one needn't dig very far into the history books to come up with a long list of atrocities committed in the name of Allah, with the blessing and encouragement of the religious leaders. Today, the Christians, Jews and Muslims seem determined to start a nuclear holy war. I suppose I wouldn't mind too much if they killed each other off. I would miss many of them, but the world might at last make some progress toward peace, and we could burn down that stupid fucking "Creation Science Museum" in Kentucky. The problem is that they'll kill off the rest of us in the process. Abrahamism reinforces humanity's tribal instincts and pits them one against the other. My Muslim? What are you talking about. I have no more respect for Islam than I do for Judaism and Christianity. They all suck. Fortunately, Christianity is fading away in Europe and the Antipodes. Hopefully it will do the same in the Americas now that they are becoming more prosperous and better educated. It's not clear where Judaism is headed; in America, where almost half of the world's Jews live, their younger generation is not very religious. That leaves Islam, which unfortunately seems to be stronger than ever.
