Quote:And, I said, I don't support the beliefs of the FLDS, nor the delusions of Joseph Smith.But, unlike Mohammed, you're willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, that he was a "true believer" and not just some ambitious pervert making up crazy lies and calling it a religion to cover his own crimes? Why is that, exactly? Are Joseph Smith's delusions more believable than Mohammed's?
Quote:No. I've decided not to be the one to prove Mohamed is a warlord. If you or Zenda want to believe that he was a Prophet, and anointed by God, then so be it. What point is there in debating a topic where Zenda refuses to even read the basic text.First off, you can't call null hypothesis on this one. You haven't proven your case that Mohammed was not genuine in his beliefs; that is a positive hypothesis. Nor does being genuine in one's beliefs require also being correct - Mohammed was, to my mind, delusional insofar as he thought he was talking to God. He shares this delusion will all people who claim as much, including the founders of most religions.
However, if we must be pedantic (I do so love it), from Wiktionary:
Prophet (plural prophets)
1)Someone who speaks by divine inspiration.
2)Someone who predicts the future; a soothsayer.
I do not believe in divine inspiration, and even if I did, I don't know how we would distinguish genuine inspiration from fake - there is no test for this. So, strictly, it would be indeterminate in all cases. If definition 1 merely means someone who claims to speak by divine inspiration, or is seen in this way, then it is clear Mohammed qualifies. Definition 2 requires the same parsing - I do not believe in genuine prophecy, nor can I tell it from non-genuine. But if all it requires is a prediction of the future, then Mohammed also qualifies by this definition as well, having made many predictions about the future, and about other unknowable things.
Your argument against would be?
-Jester