Anonymous #2 13w

They offered him power and money and he declined it. Any motivation he would have to lie would be discarded. Next we can conclude Muhammad (peace be upon him) was telling the truth. Now how do we know we have the same Quran? Because it is an oral tradition, it is still memorized by people in its original language it has been revealed in. Finally why should we trust the Quran? The Quran was revealed by Allah, and he is the All Knowing, All Wise so we should follow what He has revealed.

-3

Anonymous #2 13w

You realize that none of this is proof because it all hinges on the assumption that your prophet was truthful, and no matter how much you speak to his reputation, something does not become proof simply because someone with a reputation for honesty says it. Even if his actions might suggest he had no reason to lie, that doesn’t prove that he did not lie. Especially since, he very well may have truly believed what he was saying, even if it’s not true. Regardless, that’s far from proof of anything.

14

Anonymous #2 13w

I mean, I could use virtually the same arguments as you to “prove” Christians, Jews, and any other group whose religious texts have been passed down centuries. And they can’t all be true at the same time when they contradict each other constantly. You were born to the parents you have and they passed their religion onto you. If you had been born to other people, you’d probably believe entirely different things. Your religion is no more true than any other one.

12

Anonymous #2 12w

That’s not proof.

14

Anonymous #5 12w

If hundreds witnessed an event and independent accounts all pointed to the same core conclusion, that wouldn’t be something I’d dismiss as “just mythology.”

-1

Anonymous #5 12w

The bible is not proof, it is the claim. Folks saying “christians are claiming this” does not mean it’s proof. Show us actual evidence. Not claims.

11

Anonymous #2 12w

Again. Your book is the claim, not the proof. Where is the *evidence*? Oh, right…

12

Anonymous #5 12w

Dude there are hundreds of personal accounts from sailors who speak of sea serpents and sirens and krakens. Does that mean those things exist, or maybe people just want to believe what they want and that doesn’t mean it’s true.

13

Anonymous #5 12w

Jesus was a real guy. But that doesn’t mean he was magic or anything. Proof of a man existing who was written into myths is not proof of the myths being true. Plenty of myths from all kinds of cultures are centered around people who were real at some point, but that doesn’t make the myths true. A famous example is King Arthur. Real king but the sword in the stone and the lady of the lake were just myths made about him after he died.

8

Anonymous #7 12w

Two millennia and no proof later…

6

Anonymous #8 12w

I’m glad believing in this nonsense is on the decline.

5

Anonymous OP 12w

Eyewitness accounts are good evidence plus relics as well

1

Anonymous #7 12w

Show us these relics you're speaking of

12

Anonymous #1 12w

They have pieces of the crown of thorns and of Jesus’s cross in churches around the world

-1

Anonymous OP 12w

Not to burst your bubble here, but I’m a religious studies minor and it’s not on the decline worldwide. Just in certain regions. In others its influence is growing. Also, there’s difference between religious unaffiliated and outright atheists. The former is growing much faster in Europe and NA than the latter.

15

Anonymous #7 12w

Ah, more forgeries, just like the shroud.

2

Anonymous #9 12w

It is, though. Even in stricter countries like those dominated by islam, even if it isn’t safe to come forward about it.

-3

Anonymous #7 12w

Both of those are fakes but nice try.

14

Anonymous OP 12w

Me when I ignore scientific studies

-2

Anonymous OP 12w

There’s way more nuance than you’re letting yourself believe. What I said takes into account broader freedom of religion regulations and laws worldwide.

7

Anonymous #6 12w

Yes! Greek mythology is great

1

Anonymous #7 12w

There’s no way to prove that those are the actual things. I can find wood from the area and around that time and claim it’s part of the cross.

8

Anonymous #7 12w

The ones that prove they’re fabrications? The ones that religious leaders constantly object to because they know they’ll lose followers of their con because science doesn’t support religious nonsense?

1

Anonymous OP 12w

Can you cite your sources

0

Anonymous #7 12w

Go ahead and look at the shroud of turin. Notice how none of these relics have a direct history back to 2000 years ago? They pop up out of nowhere. Show us carbon dating of the thorns. Then prove they’re divine. Isn’t it funny how the supposed crown showed up at just the right time to pay off a debt? 🤔

6

Anonymous OP 12w

You didn’t cite specific sources

0

Anonymous #7 12w

You’re the ones making claims they’re real, so… back it up. Prove it’s the one from the buybull. Prove it’s divine.

1

Anonymous OP 12w

It’s heavily debated but Dr Giulio Fanti with some European universities was able to date the shroud to between 1800 and 2300 years ago

-1

Anonymous #9 12w

I didn’t know that actually, I suppose it can still be used colloquially in the way it was in this post but it’s good to know the actual definition

1

Anonymous #9 12w

Mythology is the collection of stories, religion is the practice of ritual connected to those mythologies. They’re all man-made.

-4

Anonymous #7 12w

Dude I’m saying this as a Christian: the shroud of Turin is generally agreed to be a renaissance forgery you are not helping our case 😭😭😭

3

Anonymous #11 12w

It’s generally debated idk

-1

Anonymous OP 12w

You are such a moron lmao

0

Anonymous #13 12w

Not even in your psychosis-induced dreams.

-1

Anonymous #7 12w

It’s been debunked numerous times in numerous ways.

1

Anonymous OP 12w

Different studies say different things

1

Anonymous #7 12w

Just look at the damn image. It doesn’t fit human proportions and it wouldn’t have been shaped the way it is if it were placed on an actual person— there would be deformations instead of as clean a figure. No ears, hair is too long and doesn’t lay how it would in that position, the “blood” makes no sense, lacks buttocks or genital impressions, and is too tall. Nowhere does the buybull state he’s a giant with long arms. But it matches 14th century artistic depictions, same time it showed up.

1

Anonymous #9 12w

This is not necessarily true. That is certainly a definition of mythology but not the definition, nor even the most common definition in modern academia. For example the Genesis creation narrative is considered Abrahamic mythology even though it is part of the holy texts of religions still practiced today

1

Anonymous #6 12w

They didn’t “know” it at the time. They believed it.

1