Mohammad's Character

SAM, you did do some sciences as I recall?? Unless you see something quantifiable that I don't.....


What I have proposed is referred to as historical revisionism - what has happened and is happening right now as we speak, in the modern world, is a paradigm shift to a new status quo. People are now interested in explaining natural phenomena (including human history) with naturalistic explanations. You see, this has been a happening for quite some time now. Take rain for example. Or a tsunami. We, in the modern world, no longer invoke an angry Goddess or pissed off Neptune.

This line or reasoning is of course applied to "Prophets" as well as other historical peoples. No longer do we think Julius was a favorite of the Gods but actually made his own luck. It's much more interesting to think about historical people with this frame of mind instead of just saying "the Goddess did it". Donchya think?
 
Really SAM, is that so? And how do the Gods and Xenu's fit into your "logic"? Seriously I'd like to know. Or are they illogical?

Here you go SAM, here's a bone: Biblical criticism.

Biblical criticism is "the study and investigation of biblical writings that seeks to make discerning and discriminating judgments about these writings."[1] It asks when and where a particular text originated; how, why, by whom, for whom, and in what circumstances it was produced; what influences were at work in its production; what sources were used in its composition and the message it was intended to convey. It also addresses the physical text, including the meaning of the words and the way in which they are used, its preservation, history and integrity. Biblical criticism draws upon a wide range of scholarly disciplines including archaeology, anthropology, folklore, linguistics, oral tradition studies, and historical and religious studies.



We're learning a LOT of information about your superstition too. It'll be good I promise you.
 
I was referring to the logic of your proposition. Is it possible for you to actually attempt to comprehend the point being made?
 
Its not, which is what 786 was trying to explain to you. And why. Its Logic 101, not even a complex or subtle point.

Try and work out how you would address it as a hypothesis, and why its irrational.
 
Maybe you should learn what is and is not applicable to quantification and thus to scientific method. The OP is concerned with the field of study referred to as historical revisionism.

If 786 has a hypothesis they would like to post the is scientific 786 can feel free to post it. My OP is concerned with historical revisionism.
 
Michael said:
Maybe you should learn what is and is not applicable to quantification and thus to scientific method. The OP is concerned with the field of study referred to as historical revisionism.

If 786 has a hypothesis they would like to post the is scientific 786 can feel free to post it. My OP is concerned with historical revisionism.
Click to expand...

I was referring to logic and using the scientific framewrk to help you to figure out why you are being illogical. However, you apparently prefer to continue the path of "lets make no sense"

Bye, Alice.:)
 
Yes, this from the girl who believes in Gods. One last time SAM, science deals with the quantifiable. This post is concerned with the field of historical revisionism.


While it may be a HUGE mental leap for YOU and 786 that Gods and Goddesses and Xenu's did not exist, thankfully for most people it it's a small step.

Serve your red herring elsewhere.
 
swarm said:
Doesn't Islame have prohibitions against lying?
Click to expand...

Yes there are propositions in Islam that prohibit lying, and I did not lie. If you are smart enough to prove either way be my guest, I would be very interested- please start a separate thread though so that it doesn't get mixed with this pointless thread.

Peace be unto you ;)
 
Michael said:
The proposition is perfectly logical.
Click to expand...

No, the proposition is perfectly illogical. History is build upon historical evidence, and historical evidence shows that Muhammad and all of his followers believed in One God and because of that they became united. History doesn't deal with existence of God or not, but simply what the civilizations believed in.

What you are talking about is not historical revisionism, but historical distortionism (if there is such a word)?

Secondly if your argument is "logical" then here is another logical argument- "What if" the universe prior to this point in time did not exist- that means everything in science is bullshit even the fossil record- do you call this historical revisionism? :eek:

Nevermind my friend maybe even an english class won't help you, the teacher will probably resign after reading your papers :D

Peace be unto you ;)
 
Here's another logical argument:

"If there is no God" (- this is what you assumed) :D

The Aztecs built their great temple in the center of the city. Why? What were their motives?
Your logical answer- Maybe they thought that building the temple at the center would make them look like rock stars and everyone else will consider them pimps!

Bravo, Lets revise history now :bravo:

Peace be unto you ;)
 
786 said:
Here's another logical argument:

"If there is no God" (- this is what you assumed)

The Aztecs built their great temple in the center of the city. Why? What were their motives?
Your logical answer- Maybe they thought that building the temple at the center would make them look like rock stars and everyone else will consider them pimps!

Bravo, Lets revise history now :bravo:

Peace be unto you ;)
Click to expand...

they built it for themselves.:)
 
John99 said:
i asked because i figured somehting got mixed up there/
Click to expand...

No it wasn't mixed up. If you follow your response to be what Aztecs wanted- then that deems them not funny even though it is your response- Anyways I don't feel there is a need to make an issue about this, as long as Michael gets the point.

Peace be unto you ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top