What do you think of Muhammad?

He was the founder of Islam and is regarded as a prophet by muslims. What I find interesting is how varied people's opinions are about Muhammad. I have heard of some christian ministers say that he was an honorable man; on the other hand, I have heard some say that Muhammad appeared to be possessed by demons and was tricked into starting a false religion by the devil himself. My knowledge of Muhammad [and the islamic faith in general] is very limited, so I would like to know where you guys stand. What do you think of Muhammad?

Much like the Qur'an, I feel that Muhammad needs to be evaluated in context of the world in which he lived.  He was obviously not exactly as peaceful an individual as Jesus was - I don't think one could exactly see Jesus leading an army in conquest - but considering the world in which he lived that was kind of a necessity, really.  On balance I feel that he was a pretty good guy, and was certainly preferable to the other people in that region of the world at that time period.  The typical disparaging remarks directed at Muhammad - that he was a pedophile, that he was a blood-thirsty murderer, and so forth - I find to be without any historical merit.

Are you assuming that the historical accuracy of Mohammad really existing is beyond argument?

Or is this thread going to allow another stealthy elephant in the philosophy room? 

He was a decent enough politician who united the Arabian people, and that's probably his greatest achievement. Besides that though, he did and professed some questionable things. 

Are you assuming that the historical accuracy of Mohammad really existing is beyond argument?

Or is this thread going to allow another stealthy elephant in the philosophy room?

RationalAtheist

I don't know if that's directed towards me or Gabuex; but I will address it anyway.

Some of the stuff that has been attributed to Muhammad is questionable. There were some accusations from old jewish writers that Muhammad often sweated and had convulsions when he had some of these supposed revelations from God [through Gabriel]. Other times, Muhammad was said to hear Gabriel's voice "like a bell".

The implications from the jewish writers are as follows:

1. That Muhammad was suffering from a number of illnesses that caused him to believe that he had heard voices from God

2. That Muhammad faked the convulsions to make himself appear to be under some kind of holy trance

So no-- not everything about Muhammad is set in stone.

Are you assuming that the historical accuracy of Mohammad really existing is beyond argument?

Or is this thread going to allow another stealthy elephant in the philosophy room? 

RationalAtheist

Your doubt of the existence of Jesus I can see the basis for considering that he was a mostly uninteresting individual on the whole when he was alive, but Muhammad waged wars, conquered lands, and united the Arabian people; if you're going to claim that he didn't exist then I really don't even know what to say.

My opinion on Muhammad, for the time being, is neutral; I don't think he was a bad person, nor do I think everything he did was perfect. I honestly don't like some of the things attributed to him, such as his saying that coitus interruptus is another way of aborting children. But then again, I could be just misinterpreting such statements and the like. 

Generally, I'm skeptical of my faith, but I try to study certain aspects in Islam such as the Qur'an and Sunnah every now and then.

BTW, I want to see Gambler's post in this thread. :P 

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Are you assuming that the historical accuracy of Mohammad really existing is beyond argument?

Or is this thread going to allow another stealthy elephant in the philosophy room?

dracula_16

I don't know if that's directed towards me or Gabuex; but I will address it anyway.

Some of the stuff that has been attributed to Muhammad is questionable. There were some accusations from old jewish writers that Muhammad often sweated and had convulsions when he had some of these supposed revelations from God [through Gabriel]. Other times, Muhammad was said to hear Gabriel's voice "like a bell".

The implications from the jewish writers are as follows:

1. That Muhammad was suffering from a number of illnesses that caused him to believe that he had heard voices from God

2. That Muhammad faked the convulsions to make himself appear to be under some kind of holy trance

So no-- not everything about Muhammad is set in stone.

That sounds biased if you ask me; according to the ahadith, Muhammad had these convulsions at the most random times. There is nothing that suggests he ever tried to fake his convulsions. As for any possible illnesses, he only became ill towards the end of his life. Before that, he was seen as healthy by basically everyone.

I don't know if that's directed towards me or Gabuex; but I will address it anyway.

Some of the stuff that has been attributed to Muhammad is questionable. There were some accusations from old jewish writers that Muhammad often sweated and had convulsions when he had some of these supposed revelations from God [through Gabriel]. Other times, Muhammad was said to hear Gabriel's voice "like a bell".

The implications from the jewish writers are as follows:

1. That Muhammad was suffering from a number of illnesses that caused him to believe that he had heard voices from God

2. That Muhammad faked the convulsions to make himself appear to be under some kind of holy trance

So no-- not everything about Muhammad is set in stone.

dracula_16

Those implications would indicate that Mohammad did live, but had illnesses that masquaraded as insight. How long after he supposedly died did these statements get made? I wonder if such a person ever did exist and think it far more likely that he was a summation of a number of people and ideas of the times.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Are you assuming that the historical accuracy of Mohammad really existing is beyond argument?

Or is this thread going to allow another stealthy elephant in the philosophy room? 

GabuEx

Your doubt of the existence of Jesus I can see the basis for considering that he was a mostly uninteresting individual on the whole when he was alive, but Muhammad waged wars, conquered lands, and united the Arabian people; if you're going to claim that he didn't exist then I really don't even know what to say.

Your doubt over my doubt revolves around the assumption that you are correct and I'm not. Are you seriously saying that Jesus was uninteresting during his life? What about all the crowds he drew? My doubt over Jesus' and Mohammad's lives is not based on their interest but their alleged actions and the consequences.

If Mohammad did get about as much as you say, where is the contemporary evidence of his life? What about the problems with Mecca, the nature of Arabic and its close connections to Aramaic, the logic around "war stories" inciting the "righteous" and all the other good stuff that makes reasonable cause for doubt.

My doubt is based on real, tangible, factual evidence that supports the notion that Mohammad did not actually exist as revealed. The base for these arguments against Mohammad is real and compelling and not based on denial.

Why don't you know what to say? Where is the un-bustable proof for Mohammad that's got stuck in your throat?

That sounds biased if you ask me; according to the ahadith, Muhammad had these convulsions at the most random times. There is nothing that suggests he ever tried to fake his convulsions. As for any possible illnesses, he only became ill towards the end of his life. Before that, he was seen as healthy by basically everyone.ghoklebutter

If he had them out of nowhere, wouldn't that suggest that he had some kind of illness?

Of course there's nothing that conclusively proves that he faked the seizures because there wasn't advanced medical equipment available in his day.

There were some accusations from old jewish writers that Muhammad often sweated and had convulsions when he had some of these supposed revelations from God [through Gabriel]. Other times, Muhammad was said to hear Gabriel's voice "like a bell".

The implications from the jewish writers are as follows:

1. That Muhammad was suffering from a number of illnesses that caused him to believe that he had heard voices from God

2. That Muhammad faked the convulsions to make himself appear to be under some kind of holy trance

dracula_16

If he had them out of nowhere, wouldn't that suggest that he had some kind of illness?

Of course there's nothing that conclusively proves that he faked the seizures because there wasn't advanced medical equipment available in his day.dracula_16

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

If Mohammad did get about as much as you say, where is the contemporary evidence of his life? What about the problems with Mecca, the nature of Arabic and its close connections to Aramaic, the logic around "war stories" inciting the "righteous" and all the other good stuff that makes reasonable cause for doubt.

Android339

Elaborate, amabo te.

I thought I did in the subsequent paragraph. Is there anything in particular you'd like elaborated?

Caesar adsum jam forte. Marcus adorat. 

You didn't really explain the problems with Mecca, the nature of Arabic and its close connections to Aramaic, the logic around war stories, and 'all the other good stuff'. Not that I dispute this stuff's merit. I just don't know what you're talking about.

Semper ubi sub ubi!

Android339

There are no contempory references to Mecca as a centre of religion and trade before the Quran. 

The problems in translating the Quran from Arabic rather than Arameic could have misrepresented the translation and been a reason for previously thought to be obscure passages.

I thought you'd know about the logic behind war stories. I'd liken this logic to that used in your own religion, where I believe youths go on "experience" camps to "understand" the historical political persecution their religion endured hundreds of years ago, thus bonding, training and hardening those youth to the looming real-life attacks on their faith by an "adverse and ignorant" society.

The other good stuff is what I infer about Mohammad being iliterate, but members of his family being able to trasncribe an as-yet un-written language perfectly.

There's also the stuff about the reference to the first history on Mohammad being dated to 150 years after he alledgedly died.

Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!

I think it is nearly impossible to actually know what his true intentions were but lets give it a try.

The cave incident certainly has all the makings of a powerful psychic illusion. For 2 years before the incident he had gone quite aloof from the rest of the world and was supposedly in "deep contemplation". The other side of this could be that he was actually "planing it out" in the solitary cave sessions.

He was obviously an intelligent man it cannot be disputed, a person with some mental illness cant just go and win wars, it just doesn't happen. So considering his intelligence I find it impossible to believe that he would be so utterly convinced by the illusions that he would put his life on the line and just wont budge from it.

The interesting part is when you go into detail. People would come to Muhammad for a problem and suddenly out of nowhere a revelation will come to give a solution to that problem. If that is not "played" then I don't know what is.

To me it seems like enough evidence to suggest that he wasn't merrily tricked but knew what he was doing. Now the next question why did he do it?

It could be that he was merely trying to improve the condition and moral values of the society around him and thought this was the best way of doing it? There is no question that he progressed morality in my opinion.

But then what about the 14 marriages? Well maybe he was a human after-all and got carried away by all the riches around him? He had relations with a female slave and I believe that is the only reason why he allowed it in Islam so he wouldn't have to defend the double standard, hmm doesn't sound good now does it?

According to the Koran the universe was created for Muhammad.....it is binding on ALL Muslims to praise the prophet whenever they hear his name.....Muslims apparently get "good deeds" by simply verbally praising Muhammad.....hmm this is now started to not sound so good.....now I don't understand what's the point of this except for having some serious self obsession issues?

In my opinion he was a "good" human being for it's time but the mess that he has left now is too big and has the potential to destroy humanity.....he might be the influence of a lot of good deeds in the world today but the bad now far outweigh the good ones.

He has the distinction of being the most protected from insult person in the world by a country mile which I absolutely despise. 

The interesting part is when you go into detail. People would come to Muhammad for a problem and suddenly out of nowhere a revelation will come to give a solution to that problem. If that is not "played" then I don't know what is.

To me it seems like enough evidence to suggest that he wasn't merrily tricked but knew what he was doing. Now the next question why did he do it?

Gambler_3

This wasn't always the case. There were times when people presented problems and cases to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and he wouldn't receive revelations until many weeks later, such as the case when his wife was accused of Adultery and when he was asked by the Jews to retell a certain story. There are some verses in the Qu'ran where God admonishes the Prophet for certain actions that he did. If this was a man made Religion, why would he leave those verses for everyone to read many generations later?

According to the Koran the universe was created for Muhammad.....it is binding on ALL Muslims to praise the prophet whenever they hear his name.....Muslims apparently get "good deeds" by simply verbally praising Muhammad.....hmm this is now started to not sound so good.....now I don't understand what's the point of this except for having some serious self obsession issues?

Gambler_3

This goes for all Prophets of God (Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Noah, Abraham etc), not just him. You must add "Peace be upon him" whenever mentioning a Prophet of God.

You must add "Peace be upon him" whenever mentioning a Prophet of God.
SpinoRaptor24

Non-Muslims don't have to do that. 

This wasn't always the case. There were times when people presented problems and cases to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and he wouldn't receive revelations until many weeks later, such as the case when his wife was accused of Adultery and when he was asked by the Jews to retell a certain story. There are some verses in the Qu'ran where God admonishes the Prophet for certain actions that he did. If this was a man made Religion, why would he leave those verses for everyone to read many generations later?

SpinoRaptor24

If allah really was omniscient then he wouldnt need to give solutions AFTER the problem has arrived.

This goes for all Prophets of God (Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Noah, Abraham etc), not just him. You must add "Peace be upon him" whenever mentioning a Prophet of God.

SpinoRaptor24

His wife was accused of adultery, in such a case he would obviously need time to think what he actually wants and to investigate the matter. The fact that this particular instance he delayed the revelation actually furthur proves my point that he was playing it. Any "normal" human being without any super natural guidance would need time for that.

If allah really was omniscient then he wouldnt need to give solutions AFTER the problem has arrived.

Gambler_3

It took nearly a month for Allah's revelation to prove his wife's innocence, during that time the Prophet (peace be upon him) was hit by persecution, gossip and backbiting. I don't see why he wouldn't just make up a verse on the spot to prove her innocence and solve the problem.

Also, simply not giving advice immediately does not discredit God's power. This was merely a test for the Prophet (peace be upon him) to fulfil his plan.

Provide your evidence.

hadeeth narrated by al-Haakim according to which Ibn 'Abbaas said:

"Allaah revealed to 'Eesa (Jesus, peace be upon him): 'O 'Eesa, believe in Muhammad, and tell whoever you meet of your ummah to believe in him. For were it not for Muhammad, I would not have created Adam, and were it not for Muhammad, I would not have created Paradise and Hell. I created the Throne over the water and it would not settle until I wrote on it, Laa ilaaha ill-Allaah Muhammad Rasool Allaah (There is no god but Allaah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah)."

Gambler_3

What's the source on that Hadith? It doesn't start with "I heard God's Messenger say" and I haven't read anything by the likes of it (not saying that it's not true, I just want it to be verified)

The Prophet (peace be upon him) made it clear not to give preference to him over other Prophets. As stated:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
"A Jew whose face had been slapped (by someone), came to the Prophet and said, "O Muhammad! A man from your Ansari companions slapped me. " The Prophet said, "Call him". They called him and the Prophet asked him, "Why did you slap his face?" He said, "O God's Apostle! While I was passing by the Jews, I heard him saying, 'By Him Who chose Moses above all the human beings.' I said (protestingly), 'Even above Muhammad?' So I became furious and slapped him." The Prophet said, "Do not give me preference to other prophets,for the people will become unconscious on the Day of Resurrection and I will be the first to gain consciousness, and behold, I will Find Moses holding one of the pillars of the Throne (of God). Then I will not know whether he has become conscious before me or he has been exempted because of his unconsciousness at the mountain (during his worldly life) which he received." (Bukhari, Book 9, Volume 83, Hadith 52)

Narrated Abu Huraira:
"Don't give superiority to any prophet amongst Allah's Prophets." (Bukhari, Book 55, Volume, Hadith 626)

Maybe muhammad himself wasnt sure if ayesha is loyal to him or not? Is that so hard for you to grasp?

And as for your hadith, well muhammad is known to contradict on so many occasions it's hilarious.

Sahih Muslim HadithHadith 1062        Narrated byAbuHurayrah                                The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: I have been given superiority over the other prophets in six respects: I have been given words which are concise but comprehensive in meaning; I have been helped by terror (in the hearts of enemies): spoils have been made lawful to me; the earth has been made for me clean and a place of worship; I have been sent to all mankind; and the line of prophets is closed with me.

Allah has bestowed upon me six favors which the former Prophets did not enjoy:                                     1        I have been endowed with the gift of pithy and perfect speech.                                             2        I was granted victory owing to my awe [terror]                                                     3        The spoils of war were made lawful unto me.                                                    4        The whole earth has been made the place of worship for me and it has become the means of purification for me also. In other words, in my religion, offering of prayers is not confined to certain specified places of worship. Prayers can be offered at any place over the earth. And in case water is not available, it is lawful for my people to perform ablutions with earth (Tayammum) and to cleanse themselves with the soil, if water for bathing is scarce.
5        I have been sent by Allah to carry His Divine message to the whole world.                              

6        And the line of prophets has come to its final end in me.                                                        (Muslim, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah) 

Gambler those hadith look pretty consistent to me. Perhaps I've missed something because I haven't been following the conversation but where is the contradiction?domatron23

[QUOTE="domatron23"]Gambler those hadith look pretty consistent to me. Perhaps I've missed something because I haven't been following the conversation but where is the contradiction?Gambler_3

Preference was not to be made. All Prophets of God had unique traits and miracles with them. Those favors that you listed were Muhammad's (pbuh) unique favors bestowed upon him.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="Android339"]

You didn't really explain the problems with Mecca, the nature of Arabic and its close connections to Aramaic, the logic around war stories, and 'all the other good stuff'. Not that I dispute this stuff's merit. I just don't know what you're talking about.

Semper ubi sub ubi!

Android339

There are no contempory references to Mecca as a centre of religion and trade before the Quran. 

The problems in translating the Quran from Arabic rather than Arameic could have misrepresented the translation and been a reason for previously thought to be obscure passages.

I thought you'd know about the logic behind war stories. I'd liken this logic to that used in your own religion, where I believe youths go on "experience" camps to "understand" the historical political persecution their religion endured hundreds of years ago, thus bonding, training and hardening those youth to the looming real-life attacks on their faith by an "adverse and ignorant" society.

The other good stuff is what I infer about Mohammad being iliterate, but members of his family being able to trasncribe an as-yet un-written language perfectly.

There's also the stuff about the reference to the first history on Mohammad being dated to 150 years after he alledgedly died.

Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!

1) From my understanding there is not a lot of information at all about pre-Islamic Arabia.

2) That is an interesting article that I will take time to read eventually, but not now, as it is late.

3) Did you just compare Trek with Jesus Camp? I really don't think you understand the purpose of it. We weren't taught spiritual warfare doctrine at Trek. We weren't taught of current warfare with any particular opposition. We merely experienced the lives of the pioneers who started our Church, and had to leave their homes and go West. There does not need to be any ulterior motive. The clear motive, which was quite obvious to everyone involved, was a better appreciation of the Church's early history. Your negative spin on that is unfounded. But anyway, I didn't know what you meant about the logic behind war stories because you didn't really specify to me how you thought they were being used in the first place.

4) Very good point.

5) Another legitimate issue.

6) "May faulty logic undermine your entire philosophy!" ? Is that what you meant to write?

1) That is my understanding too - hardly a basis for firm evidence.

2) Go for it!

3) No - I made no real comparisons with Jesus camp. You are taught warfare, division and about your own oppression and "how to wear it". The logic of war stories is about how the tales are used to make people feel righteous, deserving and fiercely defensive about their beliefs based on the struggle they've been through to preserve them. My spin on your own church activities is well founded muchly by evidence that you yourself wrote!

4) Thanks

5) I know, right?

6) Yup I did. We need to remember the various sorts of logic available to us and that not all of them provide us with definitive conclusions about our lives. Are we stopping the Latin post-scripts now?

1) True, but it also explains why there wouldn't be any contemporary references of Mecca before the Qur'an.

3) You seem to think that Trek is some brainwashing experience. This is silly. First of all, people who are allowed to go on Trek have somewhat passed the "brainwashing" age, due to the requirement of having to be 14 years old. Most people there were 16, and I was 17, one year above the average. And they went voluntarily. It was a bonding experience, and a fun experience, for the youth of Cincinnati Stake. It isn't even organized at any higher level than that. It was something the youth chose to do and participate in. We were not taught an Us vs. Them mentality. And I would know, considering I was there. We were taught of "warfare, division, and our own oppression", but only in historical context. The focus was on the endurance of the saints, and what they did positively. Again, it was a voluntary youth bonding experience, not a brainwashing camp. We weren't taught anything that wasn't already obvious to everyone involved. We just put that knowledge in reenactment.

6) I think I ended up stopping it when I was confused.

Android339

I have some questions on 3: 

What do you mean by "allowed" to go on trek?

Do separate generations of young Mormons independently choose to have this camping trip without any advertisement from their elders? 

Is there a minimum age for overcoming brainwashing?

Couldn't one view brainwashing and cultural bonding, via historical re-enactment, with a "focus on the endurance of the saints" as similar things? I do.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

I have some questions on 3:

Android339

Shoot.

What do you mean by "allowed" to go on trek?

RationalAtheist

I mean that the youth wanted to go on Trek. They weren't forced by their parents. Considering I was there for the entire amount of time, I can safely and of a surety say to you without deception that the vast majority of people who went had a good time, including one adolescent who, even though he had giardia, still didn't want to miss the experience.

Do separate generations of young Mormons independently choose to have this camping trip without any advertisement from their elders? 

RationalAtheist

They usually hear about, from those who have went, how awesome the experience was. I chose to go because of the overwhelming positive response from those who had gone before, and I was not disappointed. If not enough youth sign up for the event, they don't have the event.

Is there a minimum age for overcoming brainwashing?

RationalAtheist

If anybody was brainwashed by Trek, they already had problems to begin with. Seriously. I don't like telling people that they have no idea what they are talking about, but considering you haven't been on Trek, you literally have no idea what you are talking about.

Couldn't one view brainwashing and cultural bonding, via historical re-enactment, with a "focus on the endurance of the saints" as similar things? I do.

RationalAtheist

You've set quite a low standard for brainwashing. You know what we did? We had fun. By your standards, being forced to go to Church every Sunday since being a young child is more "brainwashing" than Trek. Your focus on Trek as brainwashing, in fact, is such a diversion of what I would expect you to harp on, but to a fault, because Trek was hardly a brainwashing experience that they weren't accustomed to already by going to Church. Going by your definitions, in any case.

Indeed, every year our Stake has a Youth Conference, but this Youth Conference it was decided that because of the interest, we would be holding Trek again this year instead of a regular Youth Conference, like they did 3 years ago. Nobody is allowed to go twice, though, because of how many people who end up wanting to go. This is an interesting case of brainwashing, indeed. It works before the event actually takes place! But of course that idea is silly. Your brainwashing focus is ill aimed.

Sorry, I didn't originally mention brain-washing - you did. I would suggest that these sort of "camps" are places where people do get influenced in how to behave. They have a central religious experience focus, as you suggested. They are designed for you to experience hardship and relate that to the people founding your own faith. This sort of practice is designed to give you a cultural empathy and feel that you can better relate to the supposedly oppressed and outcast pioneers of your religion.

People who have been brainwashed do not know it. They may feel that they are having fun or doing good things because that is what they have been told. I hold a personal belief that continuous re-enforcement and specific targetted experiences are proven methods of making people believe irrational things. That's why they feature in most religions.

Trek was not meant to brainwash children. I'm sorry, but your desire to seek malignant ulterior motives is manifest in attacking an event which I know clearly that there was no brainwashing involved. It is not as if a group of "elders" came together and decided they would try to brainwash little children through Trek. There was no little children involved, in any case, and the idea was proposed by the youth, in the first place. You sound like the bad kind of conspiracy theorist. I really don't care anymore, though. It's not my prerogative to explain this to you. Your thinking that Trek is a brainwashing experience is a consequence of your other, wider views on Mormonism. This is, to put it bluntly, a silly argument.

Android339

Can I repeat that I didn't call it brainwashing - you did. If it bothers you that I have views on all religions about them brainwashing their adherents then you are welcome to provide arguments against my assertions as to the motives and methods of those actions. I'm only forming my impression of the event by your comments, so when you say things like the youth choose to do it and organised it themselves, then talk about being allowed to do it and the structure and purpose of the event, I get an idea that there must be some adult involvement. We even agree about the goals of the trip, only disagreeing on what those goals represent.

Once again, I see a tendency in you to make incorrect statements about what I think, rather than defend or explain what you think.

Can I ask if you think Scientologists have been brainwashed? Or perhaps is going to an Islamic Madras a brainwashing tool?

You implied that it was brainwashing. I'm not an idiot. Even if perhaps I was the first one to use the term in this discussion, you never said that it wasn't brainwashing. I do not consider it brainwashing, and this discussion is pointless. The important thing is that I was there, and you weren't, and you really have no idea what you're talking about. To argue this is an exercise in futility.

Indeed, your attempted comparison of Trek with the methods of Scientology and an Islamic Madrasah is proof to me that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Trek was really about. Perhaps this results from a fundamental misunderstanding of the very nature of brainwashing?

The definition of brainwashing is a process where one "systematically uses unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s), often to the detriment of the person being manipulated."

How does Trek compare?

1) There is no persuasion of others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator, considering that those who went to Trek in the first place were already Mormons and had arrived voluntarily.

2) There is no systematic and unethical manipulation in camping outdoors and hiking. Indeed, the only actual difference between Trek and a regular youth camping trip is that this time we had to use tools that only the pioneers used, and hiked a lot more than settling down. It lasted for about a half a day, a day, and then another half a day. I invite you to tell me exactly what is so unethical about an elaborate youth camping trip.

3) There is no detriment of the person being manipulated, and neither is there any malignant ulterior motive. The only motive, indeed, is to gain a better appreciation for the Church's early history, and if you would claim that the detriment would be the permanent conversion of Mormon youth, then might I add that that is a silly argument, considering if they weren't already convinced before, they definitely wouldn't be convinced by walking through wet mud.

NOTE: Most of the other definitions I had come across had also added "against their will". Again, the Trek experience does not match this criteria.

Android339

If this argument is futile, why are you still arguing?

I think what I consider brainwashing and what you consider brainwashing are different things. I regard brainwashing as a form of behaviour control, or targeted response psychology. 

I think you are making the comparison between Madrasses and Scientologists, rather than answer my question. Do you think those people have been brainwashed? I agree with the definition you provided.

1) Trek regularly and systematically re-enforces the ideas of Mormonism and invites attendees to experience the original hardships of the early prophets.

2) Hitler youth camping trips were unethical, so youth camping and hiking trips can be. The purpose of the trip was not hiking or camping, but re-enacting hardships. If your church fathers had spent their early years surfing in a beach-side paradise, then Trek wouldn't be about hiking.

3) I regard the malignant ulterior motive as creating a firm believer who will reject rational evidence against their faith because they think they've actually experienced something similar to the people starting their church. I think it provides the adherent with false artificial perspective about the nature and origins of their faith. It conditions people to support the Mormon church; both financially and in fishing for converts (often quite aggressively). 

If you don't like the term brainwashed, why use it? I prefer to use other words myself, since I feel they describe what happens more accurately and with fewer histrionics. How would you feel about being "moulded", "conditioned", "developed", or "refined"? They are all nicer words for similar states.

Oh oh - quote chaining ahoy. What happened to paragraphs of text? Would you mind limiting your quote chaining please? 

Going on a camping trip is behaviour control? Did you have an unfortunate incident in the forest when you were younger, or something?

Android339

I don't know. Did you? Why start with the insults? 

 

To the extent that their beliefs are changing against their will, then yes, they have been brainwashed. An eager young child wishing to learn more about Islam is not being brainwashed by going to an Islamic school. However, when one who is not so eager wants to reject Islam, and they start to use more forceful methods, that's brainwashing.

Android339

It's not against their will though. scientologists, other cultists and other religious folk will all tell you that they are quite happy living their chosen doctrine.  

Regularly? Try a total of about 2 days, and it doesn't systematically reinforce anything that isn't continually reinforced by going to Church every Sunday and other youth activities that are offered weekly.

Android339

It's a regular and standardised part of Mormon life. Isn't it part of the tradition?

 

Early pioneers.

Android339

Saints. 

 

Yes, because Mormon youth going on a hiking trip for 2 days is akin to the semi-military discipline, periodic camping trips (as opposed to Trek for 2 days once in one's life), and Nazi propaganda by Hitler Right. [/sarcasm] Your comparison is lacking. Indeed, by your logic, the fundamentalist Christians are right in saying that the homosexual minority are trying to brainwash the children of America with gay pride parades.

Android339

In a sense, yes - increased numbers of gay pride marches have de-sensitised many people from their aversions of homosexuality and increased the widespread acceptance for it. 

Wow. Do you think everyone has a below average IQ, or what?

Android339

Is this another insult? What gives you the right to ask me that question? If you think my statements are fallacious, state why. An angry dismissal implies you have no argument. 

Trek doesn't condition youth anymore than going to Church every Sunday does, or going to other youth activities offered by the respective Stake or Branch. Again, your brainwashing focus is ill-aimed.

Android339

I agree that going to church on Sunday does indoctrinate people into a faith. So does that make my aim true? 

I continue to use it because it's apparent by your own use of the word that this is how you see Trek, regardless of whether you prefer to use "nicer" terms, as shown below.

Android339

Once again, you reflect your own negative perceptions onto me. I think of brainwashing in a different way to you. That much is clear. I'll readily concede that I have been brainwashed. We all have. It is part of our culture and within our identities. Do you agree that those nicer terms would be nicer to use instead? Why persist with your own rant against trek being brainwashing, when no-one apart from you bought brainwashing up?

That's just social influence, then. Not brainwashing. Brainwashing is the most invasive and forced form of social influence, but social influence occurs all the time no matter what the parents do, naturally. You cannot equate natural social influence, especially social influence voluntarily accepted, as being malignant and on par with brainwashing.

Android339

Social influence is brainwashing. Social influence is the most invasive, repetetive, testable, consequence filled form of brainwashing there is. Do you think religious influences are natural? I don't, because there are so many different sorts. I also recognise that people readily desire to be brainwashed too. Brainwashing is not necessarily something that is done under protest.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Oh oh - quote chaining ahoy. What happened to paragraphs of text? Would you mind limiting your quote chaining please? 

It gets my point across.

[QUOTE="Android339"]

Going on a camping trip is behaviour control? Did you have an unfortunate incident in the forest when you were younger, or something?

Android339

I don't know. Did you? Why start with the insults? 

I'm just trying to understand how you could say that a camping trip is behaviour control. That's all.

 

To the extent that their beliefs are changing against their will, then yes, they have been brainwashed. An eager young child wishing to learn more about Islam is not being brainwashed by going to an Islamic school. However, when one who is not so eager wants to reject Islam, and they start to use more forceful methods, that's brainwashing.

Android339

It's not against their will though. scientologists, other cultists and other religious folk will all tell you that they are quite happy living their chosen doctrine.  

Which may or may not be true depending on the extent that those religious beliefs were previously forced upon their minds through invasive and forceful means.

Regularly? Try a total of about 2 days, and it doesn't systematically reinforce anything that isn't continually reinforced by going to Church every Sunday and other youth activities that are offered weekly.

Android339

It's a regular and standardised part of Mormon life. Isn't it part of the tradition?

No, it's not part of the tradition. Not every Stake has Trek. It is far from being "standardized". In fact, when I went on Trek, it was only the second time they had done it. It's catching on to other stakes, but it's not standardized.

 

Early pioneers.

Android339

Saints. 

Agreed.

 

Yes, because Mormon youth going on a hiking trip for 2 days is akin to the semi-military discipline, periodic camping trips (as opposed to Trek for 2 days once in one's life), and Nazi propaganda by Hitler Right. [/sarcasm] Your comparison is lacking. Indeed, by your logic, the fundamentalist Christians are right in saying that the homosexual minority are trying to brainwash the children of America with gay pride parades.

Android339

In a sense, yes - increased numbers of gay pride marches have de-sensitised many people from their aversions of homosexuality and increased the widespread acceptance for it. 

So you agree with fundamentalist Christians in that homosexuals are brainwashing the youth of America? And, of course, to you, brainwashing is always malignant (which it is, when it's actual brainwashing, but you don't know the difference between that and natural social influence), and so homosexuals are using a malignant and unethical means to brainwash children. According to you, it seems. If I am wrong, please tell me what you actually think.

Wow. Do you think everyone has a below average IQ, or what?

Android339

Is this another insult? What gives you the right to ask me that question? If you think my statements are fallacious, state why. An angry dismissal implies you have no argument. 

Calling out an "angry dismissal" implies you can't answer my question. Do you think everyone has a below average IQ? Do you believe that people are so dumb that a 2 day camping trip will fix in their minds of Mormonism forever? Such is a silly argument. I know one girl from Trek, in my Branch, even, who came out as not believing in the Church some two months after the experience. Mormons really suck at brainwashing.

Trek doesn't condition youth anymore than going to Church every Sunday does, or going to other youth activities offered by the respective Stake or Branch. Again, your brainwashing focus is ill-aimed.

Android339

I agree that going to church on Sunday does indoctrinate people into a faith. So does that make my aim true? 

Not on Trek.

I continue to use it because it's apparent by your own use of the word that this is how you see Trek, regardless of whether you prefer to use "nicer" terms, as shown below.

Android339

Once again, you reflect your own negative perceptions onto me. I think of brainwashing in a different way to you. That much is clear. I'll readily concede that I have been brainwashed. We all have. It is part of our culture and within our identities. Do you agree that those nicer terms would be nicer to use instead? Why persist with your own rant against trek being brainwashing, when no-one apart from you bought brainwashing up?

Even if I did bring up the term, you persist in using it. I'm not going to simply drop it because you say that I brought it up. It is past being brought up now. Now it is being discussed. In any case, your view of brainwashing is in fundamental error. Your view of brainwashing, in fact, is nothing more harmful than natural social influence.

That's just social influence, then. Not brainwashing. Brainwashing is the most invasive and forced form of social influence, but social influence occurs all the time no matter what the parents do, naturally. You cannot equate natural social influence, especially social influence voluntarily accepted, as being malignant and on par with brainwashing.

Android339

Social influence is brainwashing. Social influence is the most invasive, repetetive, testable, consequence filled form of brainwashing there is. Do you think religious influences are natural? I don't, because there are so many different sorts. I also recognise that people readily desire to be brainwashed too. Brainwashing is not necessarily something that is done under protest.

Social influence is not brainwashing! Brainwashing is a malignantsubsidiary of social influence. You have it completely backwards.

According to Merriam-Webster, "a forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up basic political, social, or religious beliefs and attitudes and to accept contrasting regimented ideas".

According to Discovery Health, "the attempt to change the thoughts and beliefs of another person against their will".

Discovery Health explains the difference between social influence and brainwashing here.

I believe that quote chaining looses the meaning of a conversation by reducing it to isolated points with dostorted context and relevance.

So are you saying the term you bought into the discussion does not apply here? I don't mind not using it, since I never intended to. It was you who bought the word here, then used it to defend your religious field trips from what I never said they were.

I do believe that brainwashing is not always done against a person's will and cite cultists and scientologists as "brainwashed people who share this view, as well as all those furiously engaged in asserting their faith. Your discovery definition is not borne out by this fact. I don't believe that religious indoctrination (or brainwashing) is a natural social influence. 

Why bring the red herring of what you believe I might think people's IQ is? I disregard that method as a reliable test of intelligence anyway, preferring to think in terms of multiple intelligences instead. your insinuation that I think people are dumb for being brainwashed misrepresents my own view entirely. I can accept that we will disagree on the meaning of what being brainwashed is.  Can you?

If you are uncomfortable in talking with me in such a fashion, then don't. That simple.

Android339

I'm not uncomfortable talking to you in such a fashion, but think our communication would be more productive if you didn't split up each post as you do. 

 

I realize that I brought the word here. It is past being brought up. This is clear. However, it is part of the discussion now, and as it stands, you believe that Trek is brainwashing, which I maintain results from a fundamental misunderstanding of what brainwashing really is. Trying to shy away from it implies a lack of argument.Android339

No it isn't - its right off topic and has nothing to do with Mohammad. It has everything to do with you protecting and defending your own religion. As it stands, I've stated that I've been brainwashed and that brainwashing is part of our cultural heritage. But I prefer to call it other more accurate labels.  

So you don't believe it's natural for children to want to be like their parents? And it's not natural for a group of youth who already share the same beliefs to partake in a church activity, especially when they are already friends with most of the people who belong in the church? Again, you don't really seem to understand what the term "brainwashing" implies in social science. If, and I am pretty sure you believe this, man created religion, then isn't religion... natural?

Android339

Of course it is. Do you think its natural for people to assume various different faiths? I'm pretty sure that religion is not part of the natural sciences. 

I bring it up because if you really think that a group of 16 year olds are going to be convinced of Mormonism for the rest of their lives as a result of a 2 day camping trip, then you really underestimate the intellectual integrity of the average human being. We disagree on what brainwashing is, apparently, but you should know that your definition is not standard in the social sciences. In fact, you are reversing the standard, and applying a generally malignant term to what is a natural occurrence.

Android339

I don't think that and never stated that I did. I would imagine that brainwashing takes far longer to taker hold. I do not under-estimate the intellectual integrity of the average human. I don't think brainwashing has much to do with intellectualism and does have more to do with emotional responses.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

I'm not uncomfortable talking to you in such a fashion, but think our communication would be more productive if you didn't split up each post as you do. 

Android339

It makes it easier for me to respond.

Thanks. 

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

No it isn't - its right off topic and has nothing to do with Mohammad. It has everything to do with you protecting and defending your own religion. As it stands, I've stated that I've been brainwashed and that brainwashing is part of our cultural heritage. But I prefer to call it other more accurate labels.  

Android339

What? You're now complaining that it's off topic? Why didn't you complain so many posts ago? I'm not just protecting and defending my own religion here. I'm defending Trek, which is unnecessarily and inaccurately being labeled as "brainwashing" by you. I'm only doing my duty in illuminating the issue. It was you who first made the comparison between Islamic war stories and Trek.

I mentioned it being off-topic as a response to your declaration that "it was part of the discussion now" - the only remaining part, as far as I can see. Are you complaining that I didn't complain earlier? You are doing an admirable job of defending Trek, but your strong protectionism is having the opposite effect on me, by making it seem more sinister.

You are confused about what was said. You bought up brainwashing. I spoke about war stories - not Islamic war stories. I asked you a question about Madrasses and Scientologists that you didn't answer.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Of course it is. Do you think its natural for people to assume various different faiths? I'm pretty sure that religion is not part of the natural sciences. 

Android339

Yes, it is natural. And no, it isn't, but it is something that is studied by the social sciences. Brainwashing is definitely treated in scientific areas like psychology, where they (I repeat) differ from your opinion.

I regard Scientology as a brainwashing cult and they deplore psychology. Many Christians also reject psychology. Religious faith is not inherent in us. The huge variety of religions should be enough evidence for you to believe that.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

I don't think that and never stated that I did. I would imagine that brainwashing takes far longer to taker hold. I do not under-estimate the intellectual integrity of the average human. I don't think brainwashing has much to do with intellectualism and does have more to do with emotional responses.

Android339

It takes far longer to take hold, but yet you maintain that it took place in a total of 2 days? You're being inconsistent. But now that we've decided that your definition of brainwashing is unscientific, there is little more to discuss.

I have never maintained that. It is something you dreamed up, then transferred onto me. My view of brainwashing is a sociological one. I agree that there is little more to discuss.

EDIT: Besides that, treks seem to be planned out a long time before. Advice from Trek planning organisations contains a long list of experiences Trekkers should have before they go on the trek, so they get the context of the trek just right... Did you do many of those things before your trek?

My protectionism is a result of shock that anyone could see Trek as "brainwashing". It was such a harmless event.

Android339

You'd think it'd be harmless if the whole world was Mormon though, wouldn't you? 

I didn't say I didn't bring up the term "brainwashing", but by your comparison of Trek with war stories (in an Islamic context), it was, well, implied. And I already told you my answer. To the extent that it is against their will, it is brainwashing.

Android339

I never mentioned war stories in an islamic context. Why do you keep reflecting your own views on me? I meant it in a Mormon context, focusing on the early battles and persecution the Mormons faced and re-enact widely. 

I was referring to brainwashing as a study of psychology, not brainwashing using psychology as a tool. And while I would say that specific religious faith is not inherent in us, general religious faith is, and it is also natural to want to be like one's parents.

Android339

What is "general religious faith"? I agree that the desire to be like ones parents or other respected elder can overpower a desire to seek a rational, or even alternative view.

Your view of brainwashing is just "social influence" when transferred to the actual science of this sort of thing.

Android339

Brainwashing is about social influence - yes. The next bit lost me!

No, we didn't. Our Stake wasn't affiliated with those websites... I'm not surprised that there are websites for it, though, but as far as Cincinnati Stake, they did it the first time 3 years ago, and have only done it once since then.

Android339

Well, perhaps you didn't get the full experience then! But you can see how well thought out these things are, with videos, spoon making activities, church history lectures and pre-trek campfire gatherings to set the scene. It is all very organised and targeted, isn't it?

If you are going to insist on quote chaining, then do it properly. You misrepresent my words as yours here because you can't be bothered to quote chain properly. Can't you do it properly?

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="Android339"]

My protectionism is a result of shock that anyone could see Trek as "brainwashing". It was such a harmless event.

Android339

You'd think it'd be harmless if the whole world was Mormon though, wouldn't you? 

Yes, but at the same time, I wouldn't consider a group of Islamic youth re-enacting particular events of Mohammad's life to be brainwashing, simply on the basis that it is not against their will, and assuming that they would, for the most part, be organizing the event.

I didn't say I didn't bring up the term "brainwashing", but by your comparison of Trek with war stories (in an Islamic context), it was, well, implied. And I already told you my answer. To the extent that it is against their will, it is brainwashing.

Android339

I never mentioned war stories in an islamic context. Why do you keep reflecting your own views on me? I meant it in a Mormon context, focusing on the early battles and persecution the Mormons faced and re-enact widely. 

One of the things you brought up in the beginning of this thread were the "logic of war stories", but Mormonism hadn't even been brought up yet.

I was referring to brainwashing as a study of psychology, not brainwashing using psychology as a tool. And while I would say that specific religious faith is not inherent in us, general religious faith is, and it is also natural to want to be like one's parents.

Android339

What is "general religious faith"? I agree that the desire to be like ones parents or other respected elder can overpower a desire to seek a rational, or even alternative view.

You are looking at this from a sociological perspective, right? Consider August Comte and his Law of Three Periods. The very first step of development in any science is the theological, but psychologists have also been able to apply this sort of law to regular human beings. According to Comte, the father of sociology, the first step is always theological. People from the very beginning have been attributing religious value to natural phenomena. In this way religion is somewhat an innate part of the human being, at least on the level of gradual development of a civilization. Any introduction of any specific religious belief by the parents isn't brainwashing a child from a rational sort of view to a nonsensical one, but it is appealing to the child's natural receptiveness (akin to primitive man), which already exists. So yes, perhaps it is moulding (not brainwashing), but such isn't forceful or invasive. It's accomodating a natural development.

Your view of brainwashing is just "social influence" when transferred to the actual science of this sort of thing. 

Android339

Brainwashing is about social influence - yes. The next bit lost me!

Brainwashing, according to the science that studies this sort of thing, is a malignant, invasive, and forceful subsidiary of social influence, which is as natural an occurrence as peer pressure.

No, we didn't. Our Stake wasn't affiliated with those websites... I'm not surprised that there are websites for it, though, but as far as Cincinnati Stake, they did it the first time 3 years ago, and have only done it once since then.

Android339

Well, perhaps you didn't get the full experience then! But you can see how well thought out these things are, with videos, spoon making activities, church history lectures and pre-trek campfire gatherings to set the scene. It is all very organised and targeted, isn't it?

Perhaps I didn't. Of course these things are well thought out. Any event like that requires a quite a bit of forethought. Perhaps Trek in some other areas were meant to, wrongly, convert those to Mormonism (I still maintain that this is a silly concept, as they already believed what they would be teaching them, and an integral part of brainwashing, according to the science that studies the subject, is the changing of one's beliefs, especially against their will), but such was not the case in Cincinnati Stake, the Trek I attended. It is organized, yes, but I really don't see how it's targeted to convert and brainwash.

I think it'd be very dangerous if the whole world was Mormon, just as it would be if the whole world was Islamic, Jewish or Christian. I mentioned war stories with a specific reference to Mormonism and your Trek. I made no mention of Islam at all. Do you think Muslims are the only religion with war stories and isn't that a bit bigoted of you if you do? If not, there is no way you can establish me relating Muslims to war, because I didn't intented it. This is just one more thing in your head that you transfer onto me. Comte lived a long time ago, dying in 1850. I believe his theories have no basis. He named himself "the Pope" and saw himself as a prophet of a new religion. Are you talking about civilisations or individuals here. How much did Comte know about globall religious belief back in the early 1800's? I agree with your subsequent definition a brainwashing, but still think it can and does occur with religion. I can understand that you don't see it as brainwashing. But don't you think it was at least designed to give you a greater "understanding" of those pioneers that started your faith>? Wouldn't that in turn make you proud of their efforts? Please stop colouring in this union and start learning to quote properly. We're pretty enough in black and white!