..in your opinion, and the opinion of those that you follow i.e. the academics in a certain field
The academics in all. fields related to understanding if it is fiction or real. Historical studies and archaeology give us the most accurate picture of the past as possible. In fact, you completely trust them with Hinduism, Greek religions, and every other mythology/religion.
Is it a coincidence here you cannot accept their findings or is it you formed a belief in a story and now use confirmation bias to dictate any beliefs that don't support it. Even though these are experts in a very difficult field. And the findings are very clear. Even the Quran presents as nothing but a product of it's time.
It almost seems as if you worship them ..
That is gaslighting. I'm doing the work rather than make assumptions and believe stories people in a group tell me. It's a cult tactic to say things like "oh do you worship the scholars.....?"
No, it's how we learn what is true. How many times do you think Einstein, Minkowski, Shrodinger, Heisenburg and Bohr and Planck come up when discussing the foundations of modern physics? A lot. When someone learns physics from that era do people say stupid things to them like "oh what do you worship Einstein...?",
OR do they realize they are serious in learning the foundations of early quantum physics?
Religious fundamentalists have this way of making subtle remarks against learning knowledge because they know it doesn't support their folk tales. Back in the day learning was illegal and people were skeptical, they said God taught you all you needed to know in the Bible, don't trust critical thinking. The early church forbid people even reading scripture themselves.
Hmmmm, wonder why?
Lots of things are made up .. we all believe different things, depending on where we live etc. etc.
No I don't care where you live, forgeries and forgeries, period. There are many ways we know what the forgeries are. The best scholarship on this and the OT is Ehrmans Forgery and Counterforgery. It's peer-reviewed and sourced and highly respected by his peers.
Forgery and Counterforgery is the first comprehensive study of early Christian pseudepigrapha ever produced in English. In it, Ehrman argues that ancient critics--pagan, Jewish, and Christian--understood false authorial claims to be a form of literary deceit, and thus forgeries. Ehrman considers the extent of the phenomenon, the "intention" and motivations of ancient Greek, Roman, and Jewish forgers, and reactions to their work once detected. He also assesses the criteria ancient critics applied to expose forgeries and the techniques forgers used to avoid detection. With the wider practices of the ancient world as backdrop, Ehrman then focuses on early Christian polemics, as various Christian authors forged documents in order to lend their ideas a veneer of authority in literary battles waged with pagans, Jews, and, most importantly, with one another in internecine disputes over doctrine and practice. In some instances a forger directed his work against views found in another forgery, creating thereby a "counter-forgery." Ehrman's evaluation of polemical forgeries starts with those of the New Testament (nearly half of whose books make a false authorial claim) up through the Pseudo-Ignatian epistles and the Apostolic Constitutions at the end of the fourth century.
..which is what I expect .. as we are tribal in nature, and have differing intentions.
I doubt it .. in some specialised fields, then more than likely.
You doubt what? All Biblical historians are generally in consensus. They find apologetics to be simply incorrect, made up history and lies.
They all say the same thing basically. It's not real. The supernatural stuff is made up.
I gave you Richard Millers take on the seminar he attended on the Quran while getting his PhD, it was a several week course. It's a myth.
Islam has it’s own mythology that looks to be a product of it’s time in Arabia, has a lot of the same poetic patterns, scholars have unpacked that. In the Christian West we are allowed to do critical-history on Christianity but Islam is hard to study because it’s still taboo. In the Islamic world that type of study is modulated quite a bit.
As you would expect it has congruence with what was prior. Zoroastrianism was a big influence and a
predecessor. We see the trajectory of Persian and Arabic religion coming into that time period and producing the Quran.
It is a fallacy to then deduce that it's all made up.
Which fallacy?
Also I never said it's all made up. There is some history in scripture. Muhammad was a real person. The supernatural stories are how people relayed information back then.
The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates it's not real, in many ways.
The vast majority of the global population all believe in the same ONE GOD!!
No they don't.
FIRST, that actually IS A FALLACY. Appeal to popularity.
The Christians are 1/3 of all believers. A huge amount of them believe in a trinity God and Jesus also being god.
Almost all of them believe Jesus and Yahweh are both god.
So that is different.
Just because Islam took the christian God and the theology that Aquinas added, which is GREEK PHILOSOPHY, not Christian, its Greek.
Christians just act as if it isn't taken from Plato, same with Islam.
Another 1/3 of all believers are Hindu. The supreme God is Brahman in most Hindu sects, sometimes it's Vishnu. Neither are the god you are talking about at all. Brahman is completely different.
Islam believes god is singular and cannot be a trinity, so that is at odds with billions of Christians.
The OT and NT are myths, added onto from Mesopotamia, Persia, Greek sources and ideas. No actual deity ever came down and explained to people this information. We see new ideas only after influence from another nation.
So there is no such thing as "one God".
Zero Christians or Hindu believe an angel came to Muhammad, 2/3 of all religious believers.
You do not believe the same and even if you did it does not make it true. If the entire world becomes Mormon does that make it true?
