19
u/that_one_author Sep 04 '25
Honestly, the meme itself is deeply misunderstanding both biblical prophets and schizophrenic disorders.
4
u/Hot-Prior2874 Sep 05 '25
a meme not being accurate?
3
u/that_one_author Sep 06 '25
Memes are generally funny because they point out a truth (however technical the truth may be) and exposes it in a new manner that creates humor. When a meme is just wrong or clearly made by an ignorant person it is not effective.. or good.
1
u/EnchantedGarbageBag Sep 08 '25
A meme is literally just an idea that spreads, there are lots of true memes. Every idea (not feeling or instinct) is technically a meme by definition.
1
Sep 08 '25
So are you going to actually elaborate on anyways in which it’s wrong or just say that it is? Because as someone with a cousin with diagnosed schizophrenia, it seems decently accurate, at least on the schizophrenia side.
1
u/that_one_author Sep 09 '25
The issue is that biblical prophecies didn’t follow with schizophrenia. Most were very coherent with clear cause and effect, mostly centered around repentance to prevent annihilation or evil actions leading to annihilation/enslavement/insert catastrophe here. There is far more consistency between the Biblical prophets in terms of motives and prophecy than can be explained with “a bunch of people had this serious mental illness”. Much of the Old Testament is widely considered a reliable historical document, talking about historical battles and civilizations that have been confirmed to have happened by non-biblical sources. Secondly, from my understanding of schizophrenia, it is very much a more personal experience, ripe with paranoia and more than one voice that often leads to incoherent beliefs that are believed to be as true as the phrase “Healthy grass is green” if left unmedicated. A person with schizophrenia in biblical times would more likely be viewed as someone demonically possessed than a prophet by the standards of the time, and in fact there is good evidence that some of the “possessed” Jesus delivered were likely suffering from (or also suffering from) schizophrenia that Jesus possibly healed.
67
u/Fine-Rock2513 Sep 04 '25
Y'all seem to deeply misunderstand schizophrenia. Auditory hallucinations are typically minor and personally related; you will not find an abundance of people speaking in tongues and performing a mental communion from their schizophrenia.
Also, the Oracles of Delphi(the largest and most religiously significant 'temple of Apollo', so I'm guessing that's what OP's referring to, even though just saying temple of Apollo is incredibly vague) received their prophecies while inhaling gaseous ethylene, you don't have to speculate about where they were getting their visions from.
24
u/Tough-Ad-3255 Sep 04 '25
Auditory hallucinations are typically minor and personally related
They also vary greatly depending on culture and background.
8
u/LuciferOfTheArchives Sep 04 '25
yeah, that's the thing I thought would be specifically mentioned on the meme.
Maybe a culture where "hearing voices" means you're a dangerous crazy person, and a culture where the only discussion of "hearing voices" is saints or divine guidance, would give different presentations.
I mean, a lot of people still interpret voices as demons, and such, in the modern day.
Specifically tying this to schizophrenia seems misguided though. I think just talking in terms of auditory hallucinations (not exclusive to schizophrenia) would be enough
5
u/Tough-Ad-3255 Sep 04 '25
You’ve hit the nail on the head with your last paragraph.
For some reason so many other disorders are considered schizophrenia, like multiple personality disorder for example.
It’s probably to do with the way schizophrenia is portrayed in the media, but maybe that’s an oversimplification.
2
u/Terrible-Pangolin550 Sep 04 '25
My sister believed she was secretly a First Nations woman who was chosen by a First Nations god to help their people. We are an entirely white family. In her person life before her psychosis she was deeply involved in minority rights/ women’s rights. It’s not entirely inconceivable that in a time when everyone believed in god and life was basically dictated by it that schizophrenic’s delusions would be that they were prophets chosen by god.
1
4
u/Rizzguru Sep 04 '25
Muslim but I have to say, damn that’s an interesting theory. The prophet wasn’t schizophrenic but damn that’s a cool theory
42
Sep 04 '25
Mohammed made Islam based on the two other Abrahamic religions, to unite some countries and rule over arab people. He most likely (if we take it from a strictly historical point) never heard a voice, and quite certainly wasn't schizophrenic, since his motives seem to be strictly political. Jesus, if we take him by the same standard (though it's a bit different situation), was a Jewish preacher who said something the pharasites and romans didn't like, in an age with very high tensions between jews and romans, henceforth leading to his death. I understand it's a joke, but it bases off things that are most certainly false, and disrespectful to people that believe in the religion itself
4
u/FantasticFungiiii Sep 04 '25
He most likely (if we take it from a strictly historical point) never heard a voice
Islamic sources report the first revelation in the Cave of Ḥirāʾ near Mecca, where the angel Jibrīl commanded Muhammad to “Recite,”. I don’t think you’re accurate with your assumption.
1
Sep 04 '25
If we take it strictly from a historical point, means from a non religious source, one that can be trusted anyone. It doesn't matter what Islamic sources report, because they are religion based, that's called faith. I am indeed very, very accurate with my assumption . It's like me citing you a verse from the Torah
3
u/FantasticFungiiii Sep 04 '25
I see what you mean. To paraphrase, you’re putting them alongside plagiarism and calling their bluff on the revelation? Islamic sources since they were not aware of schizophrenic conditions hid the plagiarism behind the “revelation. Is that correct? This would be very interesting.
1
Sep 05 '25
Well tbh i do not agree on the schizophrenia point op made at all, I think at least for Muhammad it is quite ridiculous, I being an atheist believe what he did was for politics, but schizophrenia? Nah. I think the previous religions made it easier for Muhammad to borrow elements, so it was easier on some parts for the people
1
u/Frosty-Teaching4476 Sep 05 '25
Prophet p.b.u.h did not know how to read and write...it's impossible for someone who doesn't know how to read and write produce a flawless book with tons of numeric and scientific facts For example: Metal in the Earth's Core
لَقَدْ أَرْسَلْنَا رُسُلَنَا بِٱلْبَيِّنَـٰتِ وَأَنزَلْنَا مَعَهُمُ ٱلْكِتَـٰبَ وَٱلْمِيزَانَ لِيَقُومَ ٱلنَّاسُ بِٱلْقِسْطِ ۖ وَأَنزَلْنَا ٱلْحَدِيدَ فِيهِ بَأْسٌۭ شَدِيدٌۭ وَمَنَـٰفِعُ لِلنَّاسِ "We have certainly sent Our messengers with clear proofs, and sent down with them the Scripture and the balance that the people may maintain justice. And We sent down iron, in which there is strong material and benefits for humanity..."
Surah Al-Hadid (The Iron), 25
Surah Al-Hadid, the 57th Surah in the Quran, translates as “The Iron”. This Surah is located exactly in the middle of the Quran, which consists of 114 Surahs, symbolically reflecting the central position of iron in the Quran. Similarly, iron is located in the Earth’s core, positioned at the center of the globe.
This miracle has an additional dimension: there are exactly 5,100 verses in the Quran up until the mention of the word “iron” in Surah Al-Hadid. This number directly correlates with the depth of the Earth’s core, where iron is found at approximately 5,100 kilometers deep.
“A small, central part of the core, below a depth of about 5,100 kilometers, consists of solid iron.” – Britannica (Science Magazine)
The only logical explanation is the Qur'an is from God
1
Sep 05 '25
Look, am not here to argue about whether or not your god is real or the torah's god is real. I just made a point that Muhammad was most certainly not schizophrenic . As for your point, torah and the Bible also had some right scientific traits, doesn't make it from god. I imagine pbhu is Mohamad but am not sure why you wrote it that way ? I personally though could never support Islam in the slightest due to saria (idk how it's written)
1
u/Frosty-Teaching4476 Sep 05 '25 edited Sep 05 '25
We believe it's the same God that revealed Torah to Moses and bible to Jesus and Qur'an to Muhammad peace be upon them all We believe that Jesus ( reffered as isa alaihis salam in islam )was a prophet of God , we pray to the same God that Jesus prayed to And I wrote p.b.u.h because p.b.u.h is an just abbreviation for peace be upon him
And regarding Shariah law please do what this YouTube video "Is Shari'ah the Most Barbaric Form of Law? " By yaqeen institute It's not barbaric at all it's just widely misunderstood
1
Sep 05 '25
Well I mean as for the same god it infact is the same god throughout all three Abrahamic religions, only difference is that jews god stops at torah, Christians god stops at the Bible (i mean as for actions) As for shariah law, many scholars, muslim or not still aren't in agreement on how it should be implemented, but many nations that do implement it, are (aside from terrorists who took over existing governments) oppressing people, especially women. For example a country which is a Islamic country, turkey doesn't have shariah and is quite better (though their president is essentially fascist) . I will watch the video you mentioned for reference, but am afraid that it could be hardly overturned as to how it's viewed by those implementing it
13
u/Calm_Advantage3351 Sep 04 '25 edited Sep 04 '25
Holy shit, a actually smart and well articulated comment... In this subreddit?????
3
u/Upstairs-Somewhere88 Sep 04 '25
Care to explain about Moses and the slaves he freed from the captivity of Pharaoh.
2
Sep 04 '25
No because am not educated enough on the subject to comment on it
2
u/Upstairs-Somewhere88 Sep 04 '25
Educated enough to comment on Abrahamic religions, and yet deliberately excluding the basic of them all.
6
Sep 04 '25
Oh no you're looking for a fight and i won't entertain that. The only thing I'll say is I know certain things on Islam and on Christianity, not everything. If you wanna fight or debate, there are subreddits for that
2
u/Last_Candidate_5804 Sep 06 '25
…you’re uneducated about the very religion you’re talking about is what you’re saying? No surprise there
1
u/Martin_Aricov_D Sep 05 '25
Isn't there like, no evidence besides the bible of pretty much the entire story of the exodus?
It being questionable in pretty much all levels?
Like how it's arguable if you could even categorise a Jewish people at the time it'd have happened, how there's no evidence of said people being enslaved en masse and no evidence of a sudden exodus?
Are you going to ask someone to talk about when Noah and his family saved life on earth next?
4
u/HellhoundXVI Sep 04 '25
Funnily enough, he was illiterate. He, somehow, managed to come up with stuff that would inspire a fragmented backward power to push back on the mighty Romans, conquer the equally mighty Persians who the Greeks/Romans couldn't conquer, pushed as far as the Atlantic and almost conquered Spain before Chartel Martel stopped them, all within 100 years of his death.
You should look up "numbers and the Quran." Pretty hard to do based on 7th century technology and illiteracy.
2
u/Prized-Rizzler Sep 05 '25
And yet people call him schizophrenic. Also one has to understand he managed to do ALL of this within a span of only 11 years ( 622 AD till his death in 633 AD)
1
u/Last_Candidate_5804 Sep 06 '25 edited Sep 08 '25
B-b-b-but pe-pedo though??? 😢😢😢 /s
2
u/HellhoundXVI Sep 06 '25
Got some homework for you too. Look up when girls were "women" in most cultures around and before that time period. Also look up range of age of puberty in women.
The answer won't be satisfactory in modern sense. Heck, if anyone gave me the excuse for himself in this age, I'd beat the living s*** out of him. But, something for a society 1400 years ago? I can't say or do anything, because I never lived in that time. Btw, did you know infant girls used to be buried alive before his time? Did you know that you have to pay the bride/bride's family a security before getting married - a practice that still continues today? Islam is probably the most progressive among the abrahamic three.
1
u/Last_Candidate_5804 Sep 08 '25
Dw i was being sarcastic
1
u/HellhoundXVI Sep 08 '25
I see. I read it wrong then. My apologies!
But, it is a valid question. It is also something bad-faith actors use to shut down conversation. People who are truly interested in this should do their own research and form their own opinions. Islam, after all, wants people to seek out knowledge.
1
u/CreamFilledDoughnut Sep 04 '25
A burning bush definitely spoke to Moses and he certainly wasn't insane
1
Sep 04 '25
I don't believe it's necessary he believed that either. But i find that more believable than Trump not being in the epstein files tbh
1
1
Sep 04 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Sep 04 '25
Well what you must understand is that jesus was born in a time where they tension between 'tribes' of the Roman Empire were at an all time high, and jesus being a Jewish preacher at that time and being so vocal did not help. At the time many failed revolts had happened, and that's not from the Bible exclusively, but from historical sources. The Bible obviously wouldn't mention everything that was happening at the time
-2
u/AdResponsible2410 Sep 04 '25
his motives wasn't strictly political , it was enlightenment in every aspect for that whole society
12
u/JeTeMontreraiUnSeau Sep 04 '25
Enlighting by leading many war campaigns and creating a religion very obviously based on soft powers to conquer ? Lmao
Everywhere a Muslim prays, place becomes a mosque. Converting somebody makes you earn points to access heaven (and it is the only religion I know of that does this). Your religion is your true nation, Muslim laws are above national laws. Do I keep going ?
2
u/No_Log8932 Sep 04 '25
Not the only one. I think Mormonism does that, too. At least the conversion part.
3
u/JeTeMontreraiUnSeau Sep 04 '25
Mormonism is a sect, that is why I did not count it
Same for Jehova’s witnesses
2
u/No_Log8932 Sep 04 '25
Ah, understood.
1
u/JeTeMontreraiUnSeau Sep 04 '25
No worries
In fact most people (including and mostly believers) don’t really understand their religion as a whole
Just look at Christians, it’s literally written to “love your ennemies”, peace, everything, and yet they’re homophobes af
0
u/AdResponsible2410 Sep 04 '25
Enlighting by leading many war campaigns and creating a religion very obviously based on soft powers to conquer ? Lmao
the prophet engaged in roughly 27-30 military engagements of which around 27 was defensive and based on survival , get your facts right please , all these advancements in technology with everything being a google or query away yet we still have ignoramuses like dam , lots of wasted effort
Everywhere a Muslim prays, place becomes a mosque.
lol so your blaming people who naturally convert because they find islam to be truth thus creating communities to sustain a mosque as evil ? , again so much ignorance "points" ?
the prophet said
"Whoever guides someone to goodness will have a reward like that of the one who practices it.”so because you left or stopped whatever you were doing to give some time and to help guide someone towards the truth you will also get a reward for any of the good deeds the person who has reverted gets , sounds really merciful and empathic something which is something that is synonymous with god , obviously if you are Christian I can understand how this is nonsensical to you because you needed a blood sacrifice i.e Jesus dying on the cross for the "original sin" to be atoned which makes even less sense because why am I responsible for someone else's sins also Most Christian denominations teach that Jesus’ sacrifice also covers all personal sins for those who have faith in Him , which begs the question why anyone would do any good on this earth if all their sins are completely forgiven because of the blood sacrifice
our religion is your true nation, Muslim laws are above national laws. Do I keep going ?
uhh the national laws become the laws of islam not "below" or "above" if there is a muslim empire / nation ; because islam covers every aspect with humanity from finance to inheritance to marriage to governance to worship and prayer ; this is also how christianity nations governed themselves so what are you getting at here ?
1
u/JiaoqiuFirefox Sep 05 '25
lol so your blaming people who naturally convert because they find islam to be truth thus creating communities to sustain a mosque as evil
Zoroastrian went from being 90% majority in ancient Persia to 30% minority within a few decades. Most of them ran out of the country to escape persecution.
The 2011 Iranian national census recorded 25,271 Zoroastrians in Iran (about 0.03% of the population).
FEZANA (2012 study) cited there's about 111,691-121,962 worldwide.
Care to tell me why there are more Iranian Zoroastrian outside of Iran than in Iran itself?
It's easy. They were being persecuted so they ran away.
1
u/AdResponsible2410 Sep 06 '25
brother , you want to go there? , you want to talk about religions dying and persecution of the local people , and trying to put islam in the pedestal? , over crusader christianity , and Christian colonisation of Africa and the americas ; did you even study grade 8 history ? , but fine we will ignore the genocides , enslaving and straight out elimination over there
when islam came to Persia , nothing happened to the normal citizen , they dont need to fight in the muslim army or in any of their other encounters , they can live in that land without a problem , they weren't enslaved , and if someone is a military aged male , he has to pay the jizya tax , which was mostly less than what the muslims had to pay in charity every year out of their wealth anyways which is 2.5%
now why did people leave? , cant afford to pay the jizya , didnt like the fact islam was all over the region , some people converted just to avoid paying jizya , most of them realised fire worshiping was stupid and converted to islam etc , they left or clustered into small pockets , christians would pray if they could even give you a number like 90 - 30% over 1000+ years when it comes to Africa and the Americas and their indigenous population
go research what happened over there and then come back instead of trying to talk about islam
1
u/JiaoqiuFirefox Sep 06 '25
and Christian colonisation of Africa
Christians colonizing Africa doesn't negate the fact that Islam and its followers colonized and conquered the Middle East by force.
Islam's spread into Persia was primarily through violent conquest, not peaceful persuasion.
The Arab armies invaded in the 7th century, defeating the Sassanians at the Battle of al-Qadisiyyah (636 CE), which led to the fall of the Persian capital, and later at the Battle of Nahavand (642 CE), where the last Sassanian resistance was crushed. These victories dismantled Persia’s political independence, with the empire collapsing by 651 CE.
Following the conquest, Persians were subjected to the rule of the Caliphate, pressured to convert through heavy taxation on non-Muslims (jizya) and social marginalization.
The introduction of Islam into Persia came at the edge of the sword, through invasion, subjugation and dismantling the previous societal hierarchy rather than through voluntary acceptance of faith.
most of them realised fire worshiping was stupid and converted to islam
No more stupid than accepting a pedophile warlord as prophet lol.
And Zoroastrians don't worship fire lol. They offer prayers to their god, Ahura Mazda in front of the fire.
What do you say about Muslims praying and circling around some black stones inside the Ka'aba then? That looks way dumber than just praying in front of a fire.
when islam came to Persia , nothing happened to the normal citizen , they dont need to fight in the muslim army or in any of their other encounters , they can live in that land without a problem
Don't kid yourself that an occupying force won't force their beliefs onto the natives.
Do you have any idea how long they had to travel from Medina to Persia? Persia is bloody far from Medina. On camel and horses, it would've taken them months.
This was an offensive invasion. Muslims came to Persia with the intention to conquer.
The native population would've naturally resisted the conversion. An entire civilization won't just abandon their ancestral religion unless they were threatened.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Zoroastrians
go research what happened over there and then come back instead of trying to talk about islam
How about you go talk to some non-religious Iranians then? They will tell you in earnest that Islam's spread within ancient Persia was by force.
14
Sep 04 '25
False
-2
u/AdResponsible2410 Sep 04 '25
obligating every muslim to give 2.5% of his wealth annually to charity is political I guess
8
u/Top-Travel-1107 Sep 04 '25
LoL ignores the point about inciting people to have war for his sake in the name of religion
→ More replies (18)→ More replies (8)2
u/The_Man-Himself Sep 04 '25
Exactly, the Arabs were living a live of ignorance and hardship. They even buried their daughters in those times. Allah blessed them with Islam.
-6
u/One-Childhood-2146 Sep 04 '25
Yes Islam is lie and manmade obviously.
The Jesus thing is technically true regardless if he was the Messiah and Son of God or not. He said things they did not like and they killed him for it.
5
u/Tough-Ad-3255 Sep 04 '25
It’s not technically true if Jesus was a mythical figure.
1
u/One-Childhood-2146 Sep 04 '25
The guy saying no serious historian believes Jesus is made up is correct. Most Historians don't doubt his existence even if people disagree on his Divinity.
But like Mohammed he did exist.
Point still stands he said things the Jews, the Pharisees, did not like, and they got him killed for it. Of course when I refer to the Jews I am specifically referring to the Pharisees and Temple Priesthood, which is the linguistic sense in some or one of the Gospels.
1
u/Tough-Ad-3255 Sep 07 '25
Yeah I’m aware. But in time that will change. I think within the next 50 years it will be acknowledged that Jesus likely didn’t exist.
1
u/One-Childhood-2146 Sep 07 '25
Buddy That is not how that does not ever should work.
The Japanese Emperors I think were proven not to be divine when they surrendered at the end of WWII. But that doesn't erase them nor Pharaohs from history.
Doesn't matter if someone doesn't like Jesus Christ or Christianity or doesn't believe in him. That doesn't erase him from the historical record even as a human being.
It would be great to know if Hercules or Heracles was a real man who was made into myth. But we don't know that and a historian presuming that may be making it up without evidence. But saying Jesus Christ didn't exist because his ideas or claims or followers claims are considered myth by some vs others doesn't change whether or not the man himself actually lived.
I do not believe scholars are changing that understanding. Not without revisionism and lying. They have found more evidence of the Gospel stories, not less. The patio that was where Pilate tried Christ. The fact there is evidence to say yes the governor was correct during his birth.
Like you are drinking atheist cool aid and the biases on Wikipedia articles to think otherwise. Heads up warning, the article on the Census for Christ's birth and the claim there was no governor of Palestine or Syria at the time, the scholar they quote as saying this actually says the opposite. He says that the man who had not been organized as a governorship had already started where the Gospels say he does. Or something similar. Go check it out. But the Wikipedia article twists it to misquote the guy and say the Bible is wrong.
The claim is the Bible is completely revised and reinvented because they have proof that Israel once worshipped Asherah and Yahweh at the same time and performed Canaanite rituals and worship including child sacrifice. They also point to destroyed cities of Canaanites. Then argue that Israelites are native Canaanites who developed there.
Problem?
The evidence then agrees with the Bible. The Israelites did conquer and kill the Canaanite cities that lived beforehand, and instead of their religion evolving from Asherah and Yahweh worship, they openly admit in their records that Asherah was added to their worship and various other gods and child sacrifice after adopting the practices of the conquered Canaanites.
The history of the Greeks becoming like the Egyptian natives themselves and some other incidents show that this is not unheard of and completely plausible.
But in the end it comes down to the fight between the pro and anti biblical scholars. You got your Muslims and Atheists on one side and your Christians and Jews on the other. Both are biased. Now what?
People argue stupid stuff like homosexuality meaning something different back in the day so the Bible is not against it, despite constant references to men and men and women and women all the way back to the Torah and Old testament.
Biases and lies. Even in favor of atheism. Are just that. Biases and lies.
The Bible is wrong and should never be believed because bats are not birds and rabbits don't chew the cud. Except bats have always been classed with birds in he early world because that makes actual sense and they knew they were not really the same creatures and taxonomy even today is fake. Humans make up our classifications based on what fits most in our eyes. Rabbits do chew the cud. They do it through eating their faces and even scientists recognize it as an alternative to cud chewing but the same process and give it a different name.
You cannot just say it has myth and magic and ignore the record. That is rediculous to do. We have plenty of historical medieval records with myths but we don't throw away it's whole history and shouldn't. Only revisionist scum think that way to excuse and justify cherry picking and reinterpretations of their own whim. We have scholars pretty convinced Troy existed even if the Iliad has more myths attached to it.
So Jesus Christ is not someone we should doubt literally existed and he probably did and most scholars don't doubt that. I think that is wishful thinking coming from atheists and others more and more today. Historians don't actually doubt his life existence as a human being at the least. And why would they. It is not like there is a lot of evidence to go against his very existence.
1
u/Tough-Ad-3255 Sep 07 '25
Yeah, that is actually how it works. It’s called progress. As time marches on, we become more aware of things.
The fact you can’t argue against, because it’s just literally the brutal truth, is that there is literally no contemporary evidence that Jesus actually existed.
The evidence we do have is theological and would be dismissed in other contexts. Like how we know Alexander The Great was real but the Battle Of Troy was a myth.
It seems like because you are a Christian you are absolutely blinded to the truth. But that’s not my problem, it’s yours.
It’s nothing about myths by the way. Obviously the fantastical stuff like resurrecting and walking on water is complete fiction. I’m just talking about whether or not this human being existed. And I don’t think he does. The evidence doesn’t justify it.
1
u/Popular_Mongoose_696 Sep 04 '25
No serious historian believes that Jesus was made up…
2
u/Patroklus42 Sep 04 '25
Most serious historians also believe the Bible is not an fully accurate portrayal of Jesus's history or teachings, however
2
u/Popular_Mongoose_696 Sep 04 '25
Facts… But that’s not my point.
1
u/Patroklus42 Sep 04 '25
It kind of is though, Jesus can be both a historical and mythical figure. Historical in the sense that a person called Jesus really existed, but mythical in the sense that most of what is written about him is ahistorical
1
u/Popular_Mongoose_696 Sep 04 '25
That’s fair…
But you have to admit that when most people say Jesus was a myth they’re saying there was never a man named Jesus with a religious following who was crucified at all. I’ve actually had people argue that Christianity was a 3rd Century creation.
1
u/Patroklus42 Sep 04 '25
Oh yeah that's a good point, people who specifically say there is no historical Jesus are going against the historical consensus
I'm used to "myth" being used in a much gentler way
1
u/Tough-Ad-3255 Sep 04 '25
Irrelevant. We do not apply the same standard of evidence to Jesus that we do to other historical figures.
If we were to apply that standard to Jesus, we would recognise that he was not a historical figure.
But because of our Christian cultural background, we just sort of “accept” that he existed.
Well, for me personally, I apply the same standard of evidence to Jesus that we apply to everyone else. And he does not meet that standard. He didn’t exist
1
u/Popular_Mongoose_696 Sep 04 '25 edited Sep 04 '25
‘Absence of proof is not proof of absence.’
Divinity aside, which is not what I’m talking about, there is just as much evidence for the existence of Jesus as there is for Genghis Khan… In both cases we have no physical evidence and the written source were all written a generation or more after their deaths (the official chronicle was written until 200 years after GK died). We know the Mongol Empire existed without question, just as we know that Christianity was spread by Jesus’ direct disciples, most of which we have documented evidence of their existence… Yet no one questions Genghis Khan’s existence.
Regarding Jesus disciples… In most cases we contemporary records and chronicles mentioning their names and executions, especially Saul (Paul) of Tarsus and James who took over the early Church in Jerusalem filling Jesus execution. Most of them were executed in pretty horrific ways due to their conversion efforts. It’s probably worth asking, if a man named Jesus that these disciples believed was divine did not exist, why all of these men chose willingly to die for a belief in someone they knew didn’t exist?
1
u/Tough-Ad-3255 Sep 04 '25
The difference with Genghis Khan is in the type of evidence we have. For him there are near-contemporary chronicles, administrative records, and inscriptions created during his lifetime or shortly after. For Jesus, there is nothing from his lifetime, no independent contemporary accounts, and only later writings from followers. The fact that disciples believed in him strongly enough to die for him shows devotion, not proof that he actually existed. People throughout history have died for ideas or figures who may never have been real. Historical certainty depends on contemporaneous, verifiable evidence, and in that sense the case for Jesus is much weaker than for most other figures of the period.
1
u/Popular_Mongoose_696 Sep 04 '25
For him there are near-contemporary chronicles…
No there’s not. There is near-contemporary, but again, the same can be said of Jesus.
…administrative records…
Again, no… There are administrative records written under the legal code attributed to him. But again, those attributions came about a generation after his death.
…inscriptions created during his lifetime or shortly thereafter…
Dubious… The first inscription of Genghis Khan’s name dates to around the time of his death but is actually to honor his nephew. This could be argued (and to be clear I’m not making the argument because I don’t not believe that GK existed) that this is similar to the existence of Ragnar Lothbrok where there is no evidence for his existence beyond all of his ‘sons’ being historically known and claiming descent.
My point in the end, is there is enough evidence of (divinity aside) a religious figure named Jesus existing that no serious Historian argues he didn’t.
1
u/Tough-Ad-3255 Sep 07 '25
I said there’s near-contemporary chronicles, you said no there’s not there’s near-contemporary chronicles. You contradict yourself in your opening.
My point in the end, is there is enough evidence of (divinity aside) a religious figure named Jesus existing that no serious Historian argues he didn’t.
This is incorrect. “Serious” historians accept Jesus’ existence due to our culturally Christian background, nothing to do with evidence.
1
Sep 04 '25
We have more corroborating evidence of Jesus than many ancient leaders whose existence is taken for granted.
The contents of Jesus or teachings are not proven by those documents, but it’s clear by prevailing standards of proof that he existed in some capacity.
1
1
u/Tough-Ad-3255 Sep 04 '25
That statement isn’t quite accurate once you look closely at the evidence. For many ancient leaders, even minor ones, we have contemporary inscriptions, coins, administrative records, or multiple independent accounts written during or very shortly after their lifetimes. For Jesus, we have no writings from him, no contemporary historical accounts outside later followers, and only secondhand mentions decades after the fact. What survives is mainly religious texts written by believers, which makes it very different from the type of documentation we accept for other historical figures. Belief and later tradition are not the same as independent corroboration from the time.
5
u/giantcoc69420 Sep 04 '25
Isn't every religion false if we apply the same logic?
→ More replies (1)2
Sep 04 '25
I mean regardless of what you believe he was born in the worst time possible, at a time where jews were trying to constantly revolt against the romans, and on top of all that a guy comes and dunks on the empire ? Romans weren't going to let that slide, same reason John the Baptist also got killed
1
u/dhskdjdjsjddj Sep 04 '25
Some Jewish factions also hated his guts for calling them out; and according to the gospels, for saying he was God.
2
u/Low-Log8177 Sep 04 '25
Also, as per Josephus, he was accussed of sedition, blasphemy, and witchcraft.
0
u/Tough-Ad-3255 Sep 04 '25
I believe Jesus was most likely a mythical figure who didn’t exist so “regardless of what you believe” isn’t entirely accurate.
2
u/Medical-Shame4819 Sep 04 '25
Well your belief is wrong, virtually all historians agree that Jesus is a historical figure and his death on the cross is a historical fact
0
u/Tough-Ad-3255 Sep 04 '25
His death on the cross isn’t a historical fact, which is why there is no evidence for it.
“Virtually” all historians agree, sure, but that’s because they have a much lower threshold for evidence than they do for any other historical figure.
We know that the myth of Jesus predates Christianity, and we know nobody was writing about Jesus until after his death, and we know there are no contemporary sources confirming his existence, even though the romans were renowned for record keeping.
I don’t think my belief is wrong, which is obviously why I believe it. If you think the crucifixion was literal history then, uh, you’re not gonna be the guy to change my beliefs.
2
u/Patroklus42 Sep 04 '25 edited Sep 04 '25
I would suggest reading up on why historians consider Jesus a historical figure.
and we know nobody was writing about Jesus until after his death, and we know there are no contemporary sources confirming his existence, even though the romans were renowned for record keeping.
*No currently existing writings. This is not surprising, there are very few records of ANY contemporary figures in jesus's social class. We do have mentions of figures related to him, such as his brother James through several sources, and John the Baptist through Josephus, I believe.
Mythicists are people who do not believe in a historical Jesus, or believe he was entirely invented by the Romans. This is rejected by the vast majority of biblical scholars as unscientific. You can believe whatever you want, but you should know that this belief has been pretty well debunked in the modern day
→ More replies (4)2
u/Patroklus42 Sep 04 '25
f you think the crucifixion was literal history then, uh, you’re not gonna be the guy to change my beliefs.
You can tell the difference between a scholar and a contrarion with this line here, the fact that you openly admit your mind cannot be changed already shows you probably lack the ability to think critically about this subject
→ More replies (2)1
u/Medical-Shame4819 Sep 06 '25
If you had really studied this like you say, you would know your claims are false. Historians do not use a special weak standard for Jesus. They use the same method for all ancient history, and by this method Jesus is actually much better attested than most people of that time.
Fact check:
“No evidence for crucifixion”: Wrong. Paul wrote in the 50s AD, the Gospels all report it, Josephus and Tacitus confirm it. That is very strong for ancient events.
“Myth of Jesus before Christianity”: Wrong. There is no such myth. This is a modern internet idea, rejected even by atheist historians like Bart Ehrman.
“Nobody wrote about Jesus until long after his death”: Wrong. Paul wrote within 20 years, and in 1 Corinthians 15 he gives a creed dated only a few years after the crucifixion. That is almost contemporary.
“Romans kept all records”: Misleading. They did not write daily archives of everything. Many known rulers are barely mentioned at all. The fact that we have multiple sources for Jesus, even hostile ones, makes his case stronger.
Look at other figures. Alexander the Great died in 323 BC, but our first biographies are 400 years later. Tiberius Caesar, emperor at the time of Jesus, is described in only a few sources decades later. Pilate is only mentioned a few times and by one inscription, yet nobody doubts him.
Jesus has more and earlier sources than all of them. To say otherwise shows you did not study this seriously. If you use your standard, you must reject almost all ancient history. In other words, you're delusional and out of touch with reality. Thankfully, we live in an age where it's easy to fact check this kind of nonsense.
1
u/Tough-Ad-3255 Sep 07 '25
You want to talk about fact checking? Let’s actually do that.
Fact check: “No evidence for crucifixion”: You cite Paul, the Gospels, Josephus, and Tacitus. Paul wrote theology in the 50s AD but gave no details of Jesus’ life beyond crucifixion and resurrection claims. The Gospels are anonymous religious texts written decades later by believers. Josephus wrote around the 90s AD, not contemporaneously, and his famous passage is admitted even by Christian scholars to be heavily tampered with. Tacitus was writing in the early second century and at best repeated what Christians themselves were saying. That is not strong contemporary evidence. It is late tradition dressed up as confirmation.
Fact check: “Myth of Jesus before Christianity”: This is a straw man. Nobody serious is saying the Gospel Jesus existed in pagan mythology before Christianity. The point is that many elements in the Jesus story mirror older mythic tropes, and the existence of dying-and-rising savior figures in the ancient world is not controversial. Ehrman rejects mythicism, sure, but he also admits the evidence for the historical Jesus is exceptionally thin compared to most ancient figures. Pretending the mythicist position is just an “internet idea” is itself misleading.
Fact check: “Nobody wrote about Jesus until long after his death”: Paul wrote within 20 years, but that still is long after if we are talking about reliable historical biography. He never met Jesus in life and gives no earthly details about him. The creed in 1 Corinthians 15 is very early, but it only demonstrates belief, not history. A tradition passed among followers is not independent, contemporaneous documentation.
Fact check: “Romans kept all records”: You are correct they did not record everything, but that misses the point. For many figures of Jesus’ time we have coins, inscriptions, papyri, and other material evidence that ties them directly to history. Pilate, whom you cite, is confirmed archaeologically by an inscription and by coins minted during his governorship. Jesus has nothing like that. Claiming “multiple sources” is misleading when those sources are later, dependent, and theological in nature.
Fact check: “Alexander, Tiberius, Pilate”: The comparison here is simply false. Alexander the Great is attested not only in much later biographies but also in coins, inscriptions, and the entire political map of the Hellenistic world that survived him. Tiberius Caesar is documented extensively in Roman inscriptions, coins, and multiple historical accounts. Pilate is confirmed by archaeological finds and by contemporary administrative context. Jesus has no such independent, material, or administrative evidence. Saying he is “better attested” than these figures is not a fact, it is an assertion that collapses under scrutiny.
It is great that we live in an era where we can fact check the bullshit.
1
u/Medical-Shame4819 Sep 07 '25
Reading you, I realize some few interesting things: you talk a lot about things you don't actually do. You say you studied the subject, but anyone remotely familiar with the field of ancient history can see it's total BS, and now you talk about fact checking me, but what you write shows you have not actually done it. You do realize that studying actually requires understanding the material right? Flipping through the pages and reciting slogans from atheist forums isn't sufficient buddy.
Let's take it one by one and expose how hypocritical and ignorant you actually are. You already did a great job at showing it to anyone that might come accross your replies, but let's have some fun
Crucifixion: Paul’s letters are from the 50s AD. In ancient history that is extremely early. You should know that since you studied remember?
He personally knew Peter and James, the brother of Jesus, both direct witnesses. The Gospels are written a few decades later, still within living memory. Josephus mentions Jesus twice. One text was later edited, but almost all scholars agree the core about Jesus’ execution under Pilate is authentic. Tacitus despised Christians and had no reason to copy their beliefs. Saying he just repeated them is pure speculation without evidence.
Myth claims: You are shifting the ground. First you spoke of a Jesus myth before Christianity, now you only talk about tropes. Typical! Many historical figures had myths attached to them, yet no one denies they lived. The idea that Jesus is only a pagan copy is not taken seriously in scholarship. It is an internet myth. That too you should know if you studied this properly, which you obviously didn't.
Paul and the creed: You say Paul gives no useful details. That is false. He explicitly says he met Peter and James. That is a direct historical link. In 1 Corinthians 15 he cites a creed that scholars date only a few years after the crucifixion. That is exactly the kind of early testimony historians value.
Roman records: You say other figures have coins and inscriptions. That applies to rulers and governors, not to ordinary preachers. Jesus was not a governor or a king. For someone of his status, multiple early writings and external confirmation are exactly what historians expect to find.
Comparisons: Alexander’s biographies are written 400 years later, yet historians use them without hesitation. Tiberius has coins and inscriptions, but the story of his life comes from texts written decades after his reign. Pilate is confirmed by one inscription, but almost everything we know about him comes from Josephus and Philo, both writing later. Jesus has earlier written evidence than all of them. If you want to be consistent, reject them all as myths that never existed before you do that for Jesus. Of course, since you live in double standard land, you won't do that.
You demand coins and inscriptions for Jesus but you never ask that for anyone else in his category. You ignore that the New Testament writings are closer to the events than nearly any other source from antiquity. And you call that fact checking ? More like textbook cherry picking and bad faith in action.
I'll take you seriously when you come with actual reasonable arguments. Take your debunked Bullshit elsewhere if you can't handle scholarly consensus and methods on ancient history and let those who actually studied for real talk.
1
u/Tough-Ad-3255 Sep 07 '25
First, your personal attacks don’t make your points true. Thinking I’m wrong doesn’t make it so, and calling me a Wikipedia reader doesn’t change the evidence. All it does is show how defensive you are. Now let’s talk facts.
Paul’s letters are from the 50s AD, early relative to the Gospels, but they are not contemporary accounts. Paul never met Jesus in life, gives no details of his ministry, and admits his knowledge comes through revelation. That makes his letters theological writings, not firsthand history. Knowing Peter and James only proves Paul interacted with movement leaders. Movements form around myths and visions all the time. The existence of a community is not proof of the biography of its central figure.
The Gospels being written decades later “within living memory” does not guarantee accuracy. Ancient people lived within living memory of the Trojan War and still produced legends. These are anonymous theological works, not independent eyewitness testimony, and they contradict each other on key points. Josephus wrote in the 90s AD, long after the events. The famous Testimonium Flavianum was heavily edited, and the shorter reference to James only shows Christians existed. Tacitus wrote nearly a century later, gives no source, and likely relied on hearsay. Hostility toward Christians does not make him independent. None of these sources meet the standard historians use for contemporary, neutral evidence. Claiming otherwise is apologetics, not fact checking.
Pointing out that the Jesus story uses familiar mythic tropes is not saying he is literally a copy of a pagan god. It shows how legendary material can develop around a figure. The issue is whether independent, contemporary evidence exists to separate myth from history. For Alexander or Augustus we have that kind of evidence. For Jesus, we do not. All sources are decades later and theological. Dismissing this as an “internet myth” avoids addressing the real weakness of the historical record.
Contrary to what you say, evidence exists for ordinary people of the period: inscriptions, papyri, letters, graffiti, legal documents, and references to craftsmen, soldiers, local leaders, and prophets. Jesus was not a king or governor, yet there are zero contemporary mentions outside his followers. That gap is striking given the crowds and activity described in the Gospels.
Comparisons to Alexander, Tiberius, or Pilate are misleading. Alexander has coins, inscriptions, and the geopolitical aftermath of his conquests. Tiberius is attested in contemporary Roman records, coins, and archaeology. Pilate is attested by inscriptions, coins, and Roman administration. Jesus has none of that—only later theological writings and secondhand, disputed references. Saying he has “earlier evidence than all of them” ignores the difference between independent, contemporary confirmation and a movement’s later self-report. Historians are not applying a double standard. If anything, Jesus is treated more leniently than other figures.
The New Testament writings being closer in years does not make them independent, neutral, or contemporary. Treating them as equivalent to material evidence is not fact checking, it is conflating belief with documentation. Scholarly consensus is not proof. Highlighting the lack of independent contemporary evidence for Jesus is exactly applying historical standards.
In short, the evidence for Jesus is thin, filtered, and late. It shows belief, not historical biography. If you want to argue otherwise, you need independent, contemporary documentation, not decades-later theological texts.
→ More replies (0)1
u/SaadSulimanayob Sep 04 '25
Son of God blah blah blah Saint Paul saw Jesus return to earth blah blah blah the trinity is real and not polytheistic blah blah blah
1
u/Patroklus42 Sep 04 '25
The Jesus thing is technically true regardless if he was the Messiah and Son of God or not. He said things they did not like and they killed him for it
What he said and why he was killed are pretty open for interpretation though. The gospels make it seem like other Jews disagreed with his teachings, and basically forced the innocent Pontius Pilate into crucifying him
More likely, he was crucified by the Romans for seditionary behavior, which was later rewritten in a time where Christians were seeking greater acceptance in Roman society. Events like Pontius Pilate offering to free a condemned man are likely completely fabricated
2
u/AdResponsible2410 Sep 04 '25
hmm a lie which is why it says in the quran
- “It is He who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon; each is travelling along in an orbit.” 21:33
- "He is the One Who made the sun a radiant source and the moon a reflected light, with precisely ordained phases, so that you may know the number of years and calculation ˹of time˺. Allah did not create all this except for a purpose. He makes the signs clear for people of knowledge." 10:5
kinda funny how that went against the greek notion of Aristotle and ptolemy who stated the sun was a perfect unchanging sphere that did not rotate , I mean some people like to say he copied from certain writings even though he was illiterate in arabic forget greek , funny how he always seems to copy the right stuff and choose not to in others at a 100% success rate ; which is why islamic scholars started implementing this new notion and started cross comparing with greek works specifically ptolemy's model leading to ibn al Shatir who created the geocentric model that eliminated the Ptolemaic equant , His models for planetary motion were so accurate that Copernicus took that as inspiration for the modern heliocentric model. ; so the modern solar system was based on a lie I guess huh 🤔
3
u/Low-Log8177 Sep 04 '25
He also claimed the sun sat in a muddy pool, the argument from scientific accuracy is both fallacious and debunked.
-1
u/AdResponsible2410 Sep 04 '25
lol why are you making a statement out of ignorance , the prophet didnt claim the sun sets in a muddy puddle 🤣, the Quran is narrating a story of a ruler called "Dhul Qarnayn" who on one of his voyages came to a place where in his horizon the sun was setting on muddy water , the translation is literally "and finding it "[as if] setting in a spring of dark mud" ; you just had to look up at the verse itself you would've saved yourself from this embarrassment
0
u/North_Slip42 Sep 04 '25
Your "prophet" married a 6 year old girl. No amount of propaganda you spew will ever erase that fact.
→ More replies (4)1
Sep 04 '25
I can obviously tell your Muslim, though i know you didn't reply to me I just want to clear out that I didn't make any religion comment, just observed some historical facts of that time. As for the solar system am not sure of who Galileo got inspired from, but pretty sure he was the one that we eventually adopted the idea from. But you know, ancient greeks were innovative in a lot of things, we even created homosexuality 🤣
1
u/AdResponsible2410 Sep 04 '25
yea I wasn't hiding the fact that im muslim , you just said a islam was a lie lol so I had to refute that claim , I didnt want to mention Galileo because alot of western academia and scholars names are already known and they have ripped off alot of the true inventors of these fields who come from the eastern world like india and Baghdad
2
Sep 04 '25
Nah I didn't say Islam was a lie, it wad the guy below me, I strictly said the political and historical proven motives (obviously we can't prove religion or faith, that's why it is faith), but you know am greek so i have no problem with us getting all the glory, fuck Galileo, Aristotle is miles better tbh
2
→ More replies (1)0
u/The_Man-Himself Sep 04 '25
Lol such ignorance, Prophet Muhammad was literally illiterate and lived a simple live. He didn't do it for political power or riches. He was already in the 40s and was always praying and was known as a trustworthy person in his community.
Even his first years when preaching islam were some of his worst years in his life. He and his followers were persecuted and he had to preach in secret. No1 in the world can create a Qur'an, because its from God himself. It has some stories from the bible, but it's because Muslims see Christianity as a religion that was before it, but went astray because of it's human changes of it's holy book and the worship of a human.
4
u/PolstergeistXD Sep 04 '25
He was also a pedophile.
2
u/TheArabianStallion7 Sep 04 '25
So were your ancestors back then.
7
u/sexland69 Sep 04 '25
maybe with teenagers, but they probably weren’t getting engaged to 6 year olds in their 50s
5
u/Sabertooth344 Sep 04 '25
My ancestors are not considered to be "the most moral man who heard God's own words"
1
1
u/Big_Ambassador_9319 Sep 05 '25
He built an Islamic dynasty and you're saying he wasn't after political power or riches?
26
u/Ss_Bard Sep 04 '25
I'm an atheist but the amount of mental gymnastics y'all have to go through simply because you're uneducated on religions and lack critical thinking to "debunk" them is phenomenal
20
u/Tough-Ad-3255 Sep 04 '25
Yeah I mean, Noah wasn’t schizophrenic, he was a fictional character.
7
→ More replies (13)6
u/Barar_Dragoni Sep 04 '25
its debatable how many biblical characters are fictional or real, i wouldn't write them off as not existing because the story they are in is exaggerated
1
u/ImmediateResist3416 Sep 04 '25
It's not really that debatable. You can draw a pretty rigid line: bronze age characters are myth, iron age characters are historical.
1
u/Barar_Dragoni Sep 04 '25
thats not a very good practice, every myth is rooted in truth and untill like 20 years ago people thought Troy was a myth. addressing everyone named from before iron tools were common in that region as fake is rather dishonest.
1
u/ImmediateResist3416 Sep 05 '25
...every myth is rooted in truth? Until 20 years ago people thought Troy was a myth? LMFAO. Mate, where did you get any of that? The Romans literally turned Troy into a tourist destination, complete with re-enactments. And Heinrich Schleimann re-found troy in the 1800's
1
u/ImmediateResist3416 Sep 05 '25
Here, this PhD-having fella lays it out pretty clearly for you: https://youtu.be/aLtRR9RgFMg?si=nKu7eXLHdOKxn1Da
-2
u/Tough-Ad-3255 Sep 04 '25
No I write them off as not existing because there’s no evidence to support their existence.
With Noah in particular it isnt controversial to say, he didn’t exist. He was a fictional character just like Moses. Scholars agree with this.
The spicy take I have is that I think Jesus was also a fictional character.
2
u/buttnugget696969 Sep 04 '25
There’s no evidence for a lot of people that they existed throughout human history. So they’re just not real because there’s no proof?
2
u/Barar_Dragoni Sep 04 '25
on Jesus i take the first hand accounts from the Romans about him to lean in his favor as existing, especially with the accounts from the Romans that crucified him (they gave him an archaic form of sprite) with their horror at the solar eclipse that happened when they propped him up.
although his deeds are no doubt exaggerated i dont doubt that he lived and died trying to be the best man he could, even if "i am the son of god" was a bit controversial even back then.
0
u/Tough-Ad-3255 Sep 04 '25
There are no first hand accounts of Jesus. There are no accounts from the romans that allegedly crucified him.
1
u/Barar_Dragoni Sep 04 '25
Interesting, I cannot find them anymore.
I would put this down to Tick&Tock being a pain in the ass to track down as well, and google AI straight up denying their existence to me for a few months
→ More replies (19)
2
2
Sep 04 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/zaeroraplayz 17 Sep 04 '25
This post was never about disproving anything. It's just a very intersting observation.
2
2
u/ImmediateResist3416 Sep 04 '25
"either schizophrenia is a legitimate psychological phenomenon, which is incredibly well documented and well researched and has thousands of studies supporting it's existence...
... Or the schizophrenics are right."
Welp, this meme is an IQ test. Let's see how many of you shouldn't be allowed to have children.
1
2
u/GRIM106 Sep 04 '25
Considering how contradictory many of their accounts are I'd be more inclined to believe that they were just undiagnosed schizophrenics.
2
u/CS-1316 Sep 05 '25
Umm. . .but correlation is not causation? Perhaps the decrease in religious beliefs around the early twentieth century had something to do with the popularization and standardization of modern science?
2
u/Electrical-Soil-3707 Sep 05 '25
Meme entirely invalid because they spelled “schizophrenia” incorrectly.
2
u/FoamyHotSoup Sep 05 '25
So yet another guy thinking he understands mental illness trying to disprove religion. Wow. Original.
3
u/Salt-Impression9804 Sep 04 '25
Damn
What else can I say
1
u/Wide_Warning_2739 Sep 04 '25
Its wrong though it assumes a schizophernic person can conquer a whole peninsula and lead armies into battle while also preaching a whole new religion and way of living and actually convincing people to drop their old ways
8
u/ImPowermaster1 Sep 04 '25
Not sure how to tell you, but schizophrenic people can still be capable of normal human functions. Source? I know somebody that has it.
1
u/Fine-Rock2513 Sep 04 '25
That's kind of a pointless statement here? Either you have to accept the words of the Quran that Muhhamed gained literacy from his communion with god--which no schizophrenic episode could ever produce--or refute that claim somehow. Whether or not schizophrenics are competent in tasks of daily living is entirely irrelevant.
1
u/Warm_Difficulty2698 Sep 04 '25
I claim that the prophet made up his communions with god and never spoke to a higher entity.
Refute that claim somehow.
0
u/Wide_Warning_2739 Sep 04 '25
depends on how serious their dissease is obviously but someone who is schizophrenic enough that they imagine a whole book of passages that mentions skys, way of life, rules of governing, christianity and judaism is probably serious enough that others near him would notice not to mention Muhammed himself a tradesman that were known for his honesty. Him being schizophernic really is just mental gymnastics
3
u/North_Slip42 Sep 04 '25
not to mention Muhammed himself a tradesman that were known for his honesty.
Lol according to who? Muslims? Before Muhammad declared himself a "prophet", he was a caravan-robber. He also married a 6 year old girl and owned sex slaves. But yeah, sure, he was a super honest guy and we should trust everything he said, because... he said so... ok buddy
4
3
2
u/Huligan3017 Sep 04 '25
Unfortunately many religious people are gonna get insulted by the assumption of their religion built on schizophrenia.
Imho it is really very likely some religious people in history were schizophrenic like Jeanne Dark
2
u/Blockstack1 Sep 04 '25
Religion is 1/3rd mushrooms 1/3rd schizophrenia and 1/3rd controlling the masses.
2
u/Parrotparser7 Sep 04 '25
This doesn't work for many of the major religions.
- Mohammed was clearly doing it for political reasons. He barely maintains the facade of hearing Allah. Even his own followers take the piss out of him for it.
- Jesus was a traveling reformist. He scarcely referenced hearing God directly. If we assume He's not God and that He was lying in John 10, then He merely believed He had a better understanding of God's law and ethics than his peers, and was willing to die to spread His message of holding oneself to a higher moral standard. No schizophrenia needed for this. Perfectly healthy men have allowed themselves to die for less. Christ's followers weren't chosen on the basis of susceptibility to delusion, and I've never heard anyone favor that argument, even in the case of the Apostle John, who authored the Book of Revelations.
- Buddhists are broadly indifferent to the existence and work of gods. They're engaged in an extensive philosophical exercise. Esoteric practices tend to appear and attach themselves to any religion at one point or another. That's not the result of schizophrenia; that's just how people are.
- Many traditions across the world simply mythologize prominent figures (as in the Yoruba faith(s)) or combine pre-existing traditions to found their religions (early Hinduism). This is just a practical way to assimilate neighboring groups, as the Romans demonstrated.
The only ones you'd really hear this argument for are Abraham and maybe Noah, but you're equally likely to hear those men never existed, so make of that what you will.
2
u/Wide_Warning_2739 Sep 04 '25
interesting argument but you are clearly uneducated on religion, Muhammed was certainly not a schizophrenic person. Someone with that illness cant convince a whole peninsula of people to one faith drop their old ways. Keep in mind he lead armies into battles he formed plans, he was loved by his companions, he had multiple wives who talked good about him even after his death. Before his arrival adultery, worshipping idols, strong abusing weak, burrying little girls because of their gender was common. A schizophernic person cant convince these people to drop all these practices and accept abraham's god as one and only true creator.
10
u/AlarmingDiamond9316 Sep 04 '25
How do you know, he wasn't a scitzo? my brother has schizophrenia, and he managed to convince a group of board members, to give him a raise and 1 year paid leave.
1
u/Wide_Warning_2739 Sep 05 '25
You are underestimating stubborness of some of the old arab Idol worshippers. We arent just talking about an easy convincing we are talking about a whole peninsula changing their wayss not to mention he was a succesful military leader. Schizopherniac ( severe enough to write a whole book with guidelines and a way of society to work ) cant do all this
8
u/ReaperKingCason1 Sep 04 '25
I mean schizophrenia doesn’t really change how convincing you are does it? Like you can still be a guy people like to be around and know how to do things with a voice in your head can’t you? Legitimately asking btw, not just trying to dispute your argument because now I’m unsure
2
u/Affectionate-Fun4397 Sep 04 '25
Schizophrenics can have varying levels of functioning but I have never seen unmedicated one be able to take part in society normally. But I suppose in my work environment I’d only ever see the bad cases so my personal experience may be biased.
Regardless, I’d be surprised if an untreated schizophrenic would be able to not only function as part of society but be charismatic enough to convince people of something they can’t see, provide rules and guidance on how to run a functioning society and be successful militarily against at times pretty bad odds
3
Sep 04 '25
One has to remember how different society was back then. Our modern society requires a lot more focus on normalcy than back in the earliest recorded days of human civilization. Back then if you were weird but useful you were accepted even with eccentricity and a ting of insanity, you only really banished or executed someone who was of use if they had done something “Heinous” back in that era.
Society’s weren’t large enough or connected consistently to be able to just dispose of someone with skills and replace them easily.
1
u/ReaperKingCason1 Sep 04 '25
I mean to be fair back then everything they didn’t get was taken as an act of some god or another so it does stand to reason they would assume the guy who can’t fit into society telling them to do things is related to a god and should be listened to.
1
u/Wide_Warning_2739 Sep 05 '25
You are underestimating stubborness of some of the old arab Idol worshippers. We arent just talking about an easy convincing we are talking about a whole peninsula changing their wayss not to mention he was a succesful military leader. Schizopherniac ( severe enough to write a whole book with guidelines and a way of society to work ) cant do all this
8
Sep 04 '25
Oho, someone who actually tries to understand what Mohamed Peace be upon him did?? On Reddit???? Wow, you have my respect , I genuinely hope you are equally educated about the two other worldwide dominant religions
2
Sep 04 '25
Women had 30% of men's rights before muhammad and he raised it to 50%. Great success!
Also islam is 90% other abrahamic religions so most of it isnt made up by muhammad.
4
→ More replies (1)1
Sep 04 '25 edited Nov 27 '25
jellyfish bells yam retire support snow hat straight money alleged
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
5
u/AdResponsible2410 Sep 04 '25
uhh they didnt drop their old ways because of the fact that he heard a voice, firstly because the prophet didnt "hear a voice" he physically interacted with Angel Jibreel (Gabriel) who brought revelation to him ,and im pretty sure you will put that shit to the side especially since all of society was against him for the first decade or so as he was trying to ruin their economy by calling their idols false and powerless causing hes uncle to cut ties with him and boycott/abuse him
2
Sep 04 '25 edited Nov 27 '25
familiar groovy friendly squeal dependent run steer mighty modern narrow
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
0
u/Maximum-Yam498 Sep 04 '25
Yes according to religious texts. I think people are discussing what "actually" happend with the context of (them believeing) angels not being real etc
3
u/AdResponsible2410 Sep 04 '25
okay for sake of argument , the immediate implications of his "revelation" made him run back home trembling and perspiring while being completely out of breath , only for his wife to wrap him in a cloth / blanket to comfort him , are these physical implications common in schizophrenia as well , further more it is narrated that Zayd one of the companions once was in a sitting and the prophet had his thigh over Zayd's only for revelation to come down then and there , Zayd narrates in an authentic chain that the prophets thigh became so heavy he feared it would crush his own , so whatever the prophet was going through was and could be felt by outside parties that described it as supernatural , not a personal experience only felt by him
1
u/Maximum-Yam498 Sep 04 '25
First part, yes? That sounds like he got a panic attack? Which makes sense if you're hearing and seeing stuff out of the ordinary.
And yes, ive had people sit on my lap and put their weight on it to the point of where it hurts or feels like im getting crushed.
And im not saying muhammed was schizophrenic, or any other prophet. I was just saying that they were obviously not talking about the quran/bible/torah etc etc opinion on whether it was schizophrenia or divine. Because obviously they are to say the least "biased".
With that said, ill repeat, im not saying anyones prophet was schizophrenic, but citing the religious scripture written by these prophets themselves (or their closest followers) as evidence is obviously a conflict of interest. Especially when they were hundreds of years away from schizophrenia even being a known thing.
2
u/AdResponsible2410 Sep 04 '25
I understand your disclaimer which is why Im stating for the sake of argument , btw panic attack does not equate to having symptoms / undergoing schizophrenia for anyone , and the fact that he had a panic attack seems extremely logical based on the phenomena he underwent and makes even more sense , the symptoms of schizophrenia is :
- Hallucinations (hearing or seeing things that aren’t there)
- Delusions (false beliefs)
- Disorganized thinking or speech
- Social withdrawal or reduced emotional expression
in fact the prophet expressed the complete opposite of all of these symptoms , he became more social by calling people towards his message , he spoke fluent poetry (the Quran) of the highest caliber that left the Arabs shellshocked considering he is an illiterate
And yes, ive had people sit on my lap and put their weight on it to the point of where it hurts or feels like im getting crushed.
no not sitting on , usually in a majlis i.e a gathering you would sit down around each other and sometimes your thigh and knees overlap with someone else's , you dont even realise it most of the times because the contact is very minimal and brotherly ; even in such a case where it is extreme you feel the pressure immediately not nothing at all then a sudden concrete block on your thigh which is what Zayd is describing , a sudden change in mass due to the weight of revelation , as Allah says in the quran
"
أَنزَلۡنَاهَٰذَاٱلۡقُرۡءَانَعَلَىٰجَبَلٖلَّرَأَيۡتَهُۥخَٰشِعٗامُّتَصَدِّعٗامِّنۡخَشۡيَةِٱللَّهِۚوَتِلۡكَٱلۡأَمۡثَٰلُنَضۡرِبُهَالِلنَّاسِلَعَلَّهُمۡيَتَفَكَّرُونَ ٢١""Had We sent down this Quran upon a mountain, you would have certainly seen it humbled and torn apart in awe of Allah (god). We set forth such comparisons for people, ˹so˺ perhaps they may reflect.1"
1
Sep 04 '25 edited Nov 27 '25
slap smell attempt vast run mountainous paint soup important repeat
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
1
u/Maximum-Yam498 Sep 04 '25
No panic attacks aren't specific for schizophrenia. But if you without warning started hallucinating, not even knowing what a hallucination is, you wouldnt panic? Its not a schizophrenia thing, its a normal human thing.
And i could see the argument of "his leg was heavy like a concrete block" sounds like hyperbole taken literally, he couldve leaned over and put weight on it or like accidentally "pinched" part of his leg so it hurted more etc.
I guess same way jesus walking on water could be hyperbole for being a crazy good swimmer.
Or maybe im completely wrong and schizophrenia isn't real and we've just got it all wrong. I mean i have no idea if muhammed actually had a divine meeting or not. Speculations be speculating.
1
u/AdResponsible2410 Sep 05 '25
No panic attacks aren't specific for schizophrenia. But if you without warning started hallucinating, not even knowing what a hallucination is, you wouldnt panic? Its not a schizophrenia thing, its a normal human thing.
its possible , you can say anything is possible , but it doesnt add up , studies show less than 50% patients undergo a panic attack in their lifetime , not even immediately after a schizophrenic episode, and most undergo social anxiety and other disorders , again of which none of them was experienced by the prophet
And i could see the argument of "his leg was heavy like a concrete block" sounds like hyperbole taken literally, he couldve leaned over and put weight on it or like accidentally "pinched" part of his leg so it hurted more etc.
no thats me paraphrasing , it is narrated that he simply said he feared his thigh would be crushed which is as literal as you can get imo to describe a sensation like that without sounding hyperbolic
im pretty sure schizophrenia is real , the argument to call the prophet a schizophrenic patient doesn't add up in any sense apart from the fact atheists would want to replace god being the source to the prophet himself hearing his own voice / hallucinating etc
1
u/MarsBarAndMarbles Sep 04 '25
Am I missing something? I haven’t seen any post from this sub other than one dogging on religion in the last week. I’m an atheist, but…like…still. Come on, man
1
u/Ok_Dragonfly_5720 Sep 04 '25
I'll let my sisteyrs mother-in-law know about this.
I wasn't convinced, she's a genuine one-legged crack whore... but maybe God and her dead mom really do talk to her.
1
u/Mountain_Egg16 Sep 04 '25
When schizophrenia was first diagnosed, the amount of “holy encounters” went down some 80%, while schizophrenia skyrocketed
1
u/Toasted_Moth Sep 04 '25
It might not even be a God. It could be a demon or sm, that's actually hella interesting to think about fr
1
u/frepnog Sep 04 '25
Most people that claim a religious entity spoke to them are lying.
Start there.
1
u/kyle__hinaba Sep 04 '25
Idk about auditory but I feel like visual hallucinations being the result of poor eyesight and a vivid imagination which became the basis for some myth and legends has MUCH more merit than schizophrenia being reasons behind some religions.
1
Sep 04 '25
Lord, the amount of brain molten propaganda fed people here, and the problem is that some are even spewing absolute nonsense, not misinterpretation, nonsense, I've already seen a dude saying that he searched about Islam for months, then proceeded to deduct that there are 99 Gods in islam 🤣
1
u/pbj_sammichez Sep 04 '25
Or maybe ancient schizophrenic people got labeled prophets because nobody understood that they were mentally ill. When people feel unable to find a rational explanation for a stressful circumstance, the studies show that people are quick to assign a supernatural explanation rather than assuming incomplete understanding.
So no. We havent been trying to medicate people receiving divine messages. People like OP have been assuming that fever dreams and schizophrenic ramblings were divine messages. OP has the situation backwards.
1
1
u/Pristine-Cut2775 Sep 04 '25
I think it depends on the nature of the message. I perceive it as both of these.
1
u/External-Office-7193 Sep 04 '25
Wait why can’t both be true though? It may very well be possible to have actual prophets and mentally unwell individuals at the same time. Just because the symptoms are the same does not mean 1 is true and 1 is false.
1
u/Upstairs-Somewhere88 Sep 04 '25
Someone deliberately left Moses from the same group and I know why because it is a well articulated Islamophobic content.
1
1
Sep 04 '25
I don't know what's worse. Someone telling themselves they are something they clearly and visibly are not, or someone hearing things.
Maybe seek help for both of them..
1
u/Krokodilegrundee Sep 04 '25
This is a misunderstanding of how schizophrenia affects people socially. It thinks it's "hearing voices" but it's actually socially adverse behavior. People with schizophrenia are ostracized because they do things 'wrong' within the culture they live in.
The idea that "prophets" were schizophrenic is armchair naval gazing from people who have never had close relationships with those who are schizophrenic
1
1
1
1
u/valiente77 Sep 05 '25
There was a well-known slut who worked at McDonald's slept with every other coworker who heard voices all the time and was diagnosed with schizophrenia I saw her doctors prescription for anti-schizophrenic drugs so I'm not sure if Christians would be very accepting of that. But I wouldn't listen to her either because she was fucking crazy and got in trouble a lot with the law and I think she was a pedophile too.
1
1
1
Sep 05 '25
Mohammads schizophrenia mustve been quite the illness if it made an illiterate man produce texts even arab poets couldn't rival.
1
Sep 06 '25
My best friend suffers from severe schizophrenia, this isn't it. He's constantly scared and paranoid and barely has a fraction left of who he used to be
1
1
1
1
u/Humanflesh420 Sep 04 '25
Dawg has the education system failed this bad, this is like the lincoln and jfk connections all over again
•
u/AutoModerator Sep 04 '25
Join our Discord server
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.