Muslim population growth

[Pittsey]

This thread is now too complex for me to reply... I don't have time to write more than a few lines.

But I am reading them....

 

[Pittsey]

I´ve been told that i lack some comprehensive reading skills. But did someone in this thread just tried to implicate that there werent no jew extremists...hahaha. Can a well educated atheist islam-hater forummember confirm this for me please

jla - Google Search



Murdoch and his pals forget to cover this aspect.

 

[Rukas]

I said the point of the video was the Christian religion taking a backseat. For any other discussion the video is too biased and lacks much real information. I'm 100% sure the numbers are wrong as well. If 2 muslim parents have a child the child will automatically be counted as muslim, although the child might end up adhearing to another belief system. If the parents are only cultural muslims (kind of the like the Christians that say "oh ya I'm Catholic" "I'm Protestant" but spend most of their time doing everything God forbids and then go to church once to sooth their conscience) they're still counted as muslims. Those people will have 0 impact on laws and not necessarily a negative influence on culture.

Good point.

 

[Jokerman]

There is a superiority complex that comes with it that I don't expect Chronic or most atheists to admit. Hey, when I meet a very religious person, my superiority complex starts blinking.

What you're doing there is begging the question. You're implying that you're right about this and atheists know it but just won't admit it. Nein. They won't admit it because they disagree, so nothing to "admit." Superior is the wrong word. It's a word those who disagree with atheists use because it automatically sounds wrong. The feeling is simply that one is more thoughtful, informed, perhaps intelligent, and unconditioned than believers. If one is correct about that is it a psychological complex to know it or just one more sign of its truth?

Atheism may not be an ideology but there is a common set of beliefs (a belief not being faith-related, but simply a conviction and confidence in an assertion about the world) associated with atheism. That set might consist of rejecting religion, believing in evolution, etc. In other words, if you were to question all atheists in the world about certain views, there would probably be about 2-3 same ones that would echo.

If many atheists share a lot of the same convictions it's because rationality and informed intelligence will usually get to the same truths about things. Just like mathematicians will usually agree about the answer to an equation. Not because of group think. Of course, it's not as exact as mathematics, but you get my point. Truth is truth. And those best equipped to discern it will discern alike, up to the limits of what is presently known.

Also, a lot of atheists share the same convictions because religious believers have set the agenda for us by arguing against certain things or for certain things that go against rational understanding. And since atheists like to be informed, they follow the atheist/religious debate and know what the hot topics are and have an opinion, which is usually the same because obvious truth is obvious to similarly informed rational minds. Same thing with vegetarianism.

Atheists like to point out that atheism is absence of belief. But there's the faith-based belief and belief, as I stated, that you have a conviction about something. You have a conviction that God, in the Abrahamic sense, does not exist. In other words, you have a belief.

So what's the point of using the same word when it means something different from how atheists use it? Like you're saying, ah-ha gotcha! "You eat veggie burgers, therefore, you do eat burgers!" "You Believe that two and two equal four. In other words, you have a belief." What's important is how did one come to that belief, conviction, or understanding, not the word used. Did you come to it by evidence or some other way? Atheists usually don't accept that other way.

An atheist does not believe in God, which is not a belief. It's a disbelief, an anti-conviction. And it's not the same as the conviction that there is no God. That's anti-theism, not atheism. Lack of belief cannot be a belief. Just like silence is not a sound. Just like not collecting coins is not a hobby. (And I don't have quite a collection. You'd have to not see it to believe it, something that comes easily to the religious.)

 

[_carmi]

Maybe you meant what you said in a way other than I read it, but how I interpreted your words is: you are growing an unreasonable dislike for a group of people based upon the fact one of their numbers once made your work day harder and also that, you feel somehow more deserving then they are for extra time off? Perhaps you should find a job that makes you happy, or ask your boss for a little time off.

lol seriously i just reread my post. wow i did push. sorry for being quite too much passionate going at it. the things i do when i'm stressed and procrastinating.

Do they get those rights because of Canada respecting their religious rights or because they're immigrants?

they get those rights because of Canada respecting their religious rights. i was going to expand more on this but i'll get to this later.

 

[Flipmo]

Silly Carmi. tsk, tsk.

 

[S O F I]

What you're doing there is begging the question. You're implying that you're right about this and atheists know it but just won't admit it. Nein. They won't admit it because they disagree, so nothing to "admit." Superior is the wrong word. It's a word those who disagree with atheists use because it automatically sounds wrong. The feeling is simply that one is more thoughtful, informed, perhaps intelligent, and unconditioned than believers. If one is correct about that is it a psychological complex to know it or just one more sign of its truth?

The difference between a superiority complex, and that being the feeling of "I am better than you", and what you described is 5 shots of vodka.

If many atheists share a lot of the same convictions it's because rationality and informed intelligence will usually get to the same truths about things. Just like mathematicians will usually agree about the answer to an equation. Not because of group think. Of course, it's not as exact as mathematics, but you get my point. Truth is truth. And those best equipped to discern it will discern alike, up to the limits of what is presently known.

I didn't associate atheism with groupthink. I associated groupthink with religious folk. I said atheists have a distaste for groupthink that arises in religious circles because atheists tend to be thoughtful, informed, and unconditioned while religious folk tend to read what their Holy books says as universal truth.

Also, a lot of atheists share the same convictions because religious believers have set the agenda for us by arguing against certain things or for certain things that go against rational understanding. And since atheists like to be informed, they follow the atheist/religious debate and know what the hot topics are and have an opinion, which is usually the same because obvious truth is obvious to similarly informed rational minds. Same thing with vegetarianism.

So what's the point of using the same word when it means something different from how atheists use it? Like you're saying, ah-ha gotcha! "You eat veggie burgers, therefore, you do eat burgers!" "You Believe that two and two equal four. In other words, you have a belief." What's important is how did one come to that belief, conviction, or understanding, not the word used. Did you come to it by evidence or some other way? Atheists usually don't accept that other way.

...because one word can have two meanings? ...

An atheist does not believe in God, which is not a belief. It's a disbelief, an anti-conviction. And it's not the same as the conviction that there is no God. That's anti-theism, not atheism. Lack of belief cannot be a belief. Just like silence is not a sound. Just like not collecting coins is not a hobby. (And I don't have quite a collection. You'd have to not see it to believe it, something that comes easily to the religious.)

I understand how you're framing this. However, at one point in time, you decided to form an opinion on the place of religion in society and whether there's a higher power like the Holy books depict or not. That opinion is one that you've argued for because you have confidence in your assertion. You have a position and a conviction. Let me point out that I think this whole discussion is a rather silly exercise in semantics. But I think it's silly because you're so uptight about what belief means. You're making a big deal out of it because, and it goes back to what I said, you have the urge to detach yourself from all matters regarding religion.

 

[The.Menace]

I don't understand these videos. The world changes. Big deal.

People tend to look at timeframes that they can survive and judge, but seriously, take a step back. They talk about sustaining a society or what ever for 25 years. So what, 25 years? Let's talk about 100 or 500 years. The surface of Europe will change within the next 100 years? Agreed. So what's so bad about changes within 25 years? Isn't it logical that things gonna change. Every country did. If it wasn't like that we would have the middle age and not 2010. While it seems logical to see a time frame like 25 years as precious but it's just not a valid timeframe in terms of development.
Large parts of todays Europe have been muslim for a long time 1000+ year ago. Then they were thrown out again. If you look at Migration Periods in Europe over the course of 1000 years - you have huns in Europe, ostgoths in Rom. While mirgation often was based on war, there were long periods were different people of different religion lived side by side. Economy and trade always happend during the absence of war. Looking at migration and religion form that standpoint it seems foolish to even believe you could perserve your socity and little world. Maybe you're lucky and nothing happens in between the short time of your birth and your death, but on a larger scale, the world is going to change. You better learn to deal with it. Of course it's valid for a state to try to keep bad influence out while absorbing fresh ideas from other cultures, it's still false believe that we could keep everything the way it is. That never worked. And by the way, we don't want it be that way anyway.