Bible and Quran history is valid history and more valid than modern historians revisionism

If you dont have a phd in history, your opinion about it worthless. You can have a phd still be wrong, but ..at least I would consider your opinion and think on it.
Otherwise I wouldnt even consider it, is basically worthless to me. Youre just sand under my toes.

>>17860095
>Take a historical period and insert modern day politics
>Academia showers you with PhDs and praise
History is a joke used to browbeat people into accepting your morality which usually involves you giving them money.

>>17860100
list an example.

>>17860095
None of the ancient and old historians had a PhD in history, your opinion is invalid
>>17860104
History is being abused for politics that is a reality that you need to check

>>17860104
Colonialism is the only force that could've raised the standard of living in africa beyond subsistence farming. They're not even subsistence farming, but subsistence looting to this day. Now it is only used as an example why the west must sacrifice everything to le hecking bottomless well that is foreign aid.

>>17860112
Im not refering to their opinion, Im refering to your "hot take".
If dont study something deeply your opinion about it is shit. Is shit to yourself, and everbody elses.

>>17860114
now this is a hot take, even if it is right

>>17860081 (OP)
>This is what Christians actually think
State atheism should be implemented in the next 20 years if America is to have a future.

>>17860114
subsistence farming should be the living standard globally

>>17860081 (OP)
Quranic history is very questionable. Much more so than Bible history.

>>17860313
Didn't realize it was opposite day, today.

We literally know almost every historical story in the bible is objectively false. Meanwhile, the Quran is reliable enough that even people that hate Islam use it as evidence.

>>17860095
fallacious argument, and self-refuting too. Not only do you appeal to credential, but immediately afterward you affirm that your appeal isn't solid because phds can still be wrong, just like amateurs.
You also don't give any reason why phd holders are better than amateurs
>inb4 they put in effort
autodidacts often put in the same if not more work in their research since unlike academics they do not appeal to a bare minimum limit of credible sources but purely arbitrary standards, which can be harsher than certain review boards.

>>17860095
>Trust the experts^TM
Riddle me this? How can you tell the age of a piece of rock without analyzing the radioactive decay of the object?
Everytime they use "carbon dating" to cite the age of an artifact despite no studies show how they actually do this or even supply photos of said artifacts micro make up.
It's almost like trying to find out the age of an artifact without preserved historical archives is impossible and anyone saying they know is bullshitting.
You want historical fan fiction? Just go to your average History Musuem that focuses on things before the age of writing. Everything they publish there is pure LARP and things they source out of their ass

>>17860081 (OP)

>>17860349
Cut it in half and count the rings

>>17860465
Can you interpret what the rings truly mean?

>>17860300
You'll be the first one to commit seppoku to shrink the populace to a size able to subsistance farm I presume?