siegfried
New Member
@siegfried
Posts: 27
Likes: 2
|
Post by siegfried on Feb 23, 2017 7:04:38 GMT
This isn't a fearmongering thread Lol, says they guy using a character from Wagner's Ring Cycle as an avatar. but Its good
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 9:45:34 GMT
Why is it that when some people think "Islam", they always think of the most backward examples they can think of as a representative? Is it reasonable to use the Christians of present day Cameroon as representative of Christians in general? "At any rate, religion is dying. Even if immigrants come from places where religion is still going strong (and this is almost always the case), Western education will take care of that in the long run." Not if the public espousal of atheism is made illegal (or at the very least, any criticism of Islam under the banner of 'Islamophobia'), as seems to be the game plan for Muslim communities in Europe. Did you know that atheists are deemed to be terrorists in Saudi Arabia? Saudi Arabia is hardly Western, is it? Did you know that atheism is perfectly legal in Turkey? The only viable scenario in which atheism becomes illegal in the West is if Islam increases to more than 80% of the population - and by that time it is going to be much more liberal than now, and by then you'd only find fringe elements of Islam calling for a ban of atheism. Just like with Christianity today: you do have Christians who would want atheism to be illegal, but they are in a minority. Didn't use to be that way, though. Still, the only thing which could possibly halt the dying of religion is to suppress science. And that is simply not going to happen. I could use other examples, but you would be very hard pressed to find any Islamic nation that is as progressive as any Christian one. Sure, there is some degree of overlap (like Uganda may be worse than Turkey, for example), but it is very small. And I don't think that the Muslim population would need to be 80% here in order to make public declarations of atheism illegal, given that the UN was considering a global blasphemy law at the behest of some Islamic states. We've had politicians over here promising to criminalise Islamophobia, which is almost certainly going to veer towards being a general blasphemy law for the protection of Islam. In the current political climate, Muslims are crying that they are being persecuted and that the merest criticism of their religion is an act of stigmatising and marginalising them.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Feb 23, 2017 10:31:33 GMT
I could use other examples, but you would be very hard pressed to find any Islamic nation that is as progressive as any Christian one. Sure, there is some degree of overlap (like Uganda may be worse than Turkey, for example), but it is very small. I said as much. I also made some additional observations along the same reasoning. That's quite the slippery slope. How is that comparable? A blasphemy law would concern public insults of religion, not private convictions - or even public statements of private convictions. Still has nothing to do with atheism. And Muslims are being marginalised in the West - by people like you, who keep dehumanising them. You may not think that's what you're doing, but place yourself in their shoes. If people are constantly made to feel under suspicion, as outsiders, as someone worthy of contempt, one should not be surprised if they are less inclined to be on their best behaviour.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 10:35:13 GMT
Why should you be afraid? Christians overtook religions of the natives. So what if Islam takes over? Big deal. Then some other religion will overtake Islam. Everything changes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 10:36:31 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 11:07:57 GMT
That's quite the slippery slope. How is that comparable? A blasphemy law would concern public insults of religion, not private convictions - or even public statements of private convictions Denial of the existence of God is criminalised in many Islamic nations, and there is no statement more blasphemous than denying the existence of God. Given the prevalence of laws which criminalise atheism in Muslim nations, there's no reason to suppose that there isn't a large segment of the Muslim population who would like to see the same laws implemented in Europe, Australia and North America, and our societies seem to be trending towards protecting people from being exposed to information that contradicts their most deeply cherished beliefs. I don't wish to dehumanise all Muslims, but it is a vicious circle. I believe that the troubles started before there was any high profile 'Muslim scare'. The riots upon the publication of The Satanic Verses, to give an example. It is a shame that liberal Muslims are made to feel persecuted because of the actions of conservative and radical Muslims, but nobody seems to have any ideas with regards to how conservative and radical forms of Islam can be expunged from society without also making liberal Muslims feel ostracised.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Feb 23, 2017 11:26:53 GMT
That's quite the slippery slope. How is that comparable? A blasphemy law would concern public insults of religion, not private convictions - or even public statements of private convictions Denial of the existence of God is criminalised in many Islamic nations, and there is no statement more blasphemous than denying the existence of God. Given the prevalence of laws which criminalise atheism in Muslim nations, there's no reason to suppose that there isn't a large segment of the Muslim population who would like to see the same laws implemented in Europe, Australia and North America, and our societies seem to be trending towards protecting people from being exposed to information that contradicts their most deeply cherished beliefs. Yup, that's the slippery slope fallacy, alright. Do you really think that the UN would consider even for an instance a blasphemy law which even remotely included a ban on atheism? After all, in Christianity it is blasphemy to deny the divinity of Jesus, which would then render Islam illegal, by that same law. But instead, the proposed UN resolution dealt solely with defamation of religion. There were no such riots in the West, nor in the vast majority of the Muslim world. There were some protests in the West, but that is their constitutional right. We stage protests in the West for all sort of goings on which we think should not be going on. Should they not have the same right? Protests are often very visible, but only a very tiny minority of the population takes part in them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 13:39:59 GMT
Yup, that's the slippery slope fallacy, alright. Do you really think that the UN would consider even for an instance a blasphemy law which even remotely included a ban on atheism? After all, in Christianity it is blasphemy to deny the divinity of Jesus, which would then render Islam illegal, by that same law. But instead, the proposed UN resolution dealt solely with defamation of religion. It's a rather fine line between professing that God doesn't exist and insinuating that those who do believe in God are devoting their life to a delusion. If we're going by the laws of Islamic nations, then we have to assume that the majority of Muslims would be in favour of making it illegal to publicly deny the existence of God. Such declarations are usually met with severe penalties in most Muslim-majority nations. And even if ordinary denial of the existence of God weren't illegal, would you want to live in a society where it is illegal to make jokes at the expense of religion? They were protesting because they were offended by a book and didn't want anyone else to have the right to read it because it upset them. If the same thing happened today and they were able to leverage their persecution complex to induce the government to take action, then it is not unthinkable that a similar book may be banned in my country. That kind of thinking should have no place in developed nations in the 21st century. Even if only a small minority takes part in them, all evidence seems to suggest that the population at large agrees with the idea that offensive ideas should be banned. Unfortunately, they are not able to induce regressive liberals to crusade to make society as a whole a 'safe space' which is free from offensive ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Feb 23, 2017 14:45:24 GMT
It's a rather fine line between professing that God doesn't exist and insinuating that those who do believe in God are devoting their life to a delusion. No more than believing in a different god insinuates the same thing. The laws of which Islamic nations? The very fact that there is no consensus proves quite irrefutably that Islam is perfectly capable of adapting. Also, unless you are saying Muslims are genetically different from us so that they are less prone to be tolerant, there is no reason to assume that they cannot adapt - same as the rest of the world is able to adapt. And they are adapting, as we speak. As I said, they are only a couple of steps behind Christianity. If you and I start walking from the same place towards the same destination, but I arrive first because I started earlier, that does not mean that you won't reach your destination. It only means you arrive a bit later than I do. And what makes you think Europe will ever be like those nations, even with a Muslim majority? I used to live in such a society. Norway was like that until the '80s. We grew out of it. We are observing that Islamic nations are growing out of it as well. Just a couple steps behind us, that's all. It is legal for Muslims in most Muslim nations to read that book. In those countries, the ban is on import of the book, not possession. Anyway, in the US, John Scopes was brought to trial for teaching evolution. Yes, some time ago now, and Satanic Verses is more recent, but like I said: a couple steps behind. But they're getting there. Now who's the thought police? All evidence? What evidence would this be? See, even in conservative Muslim countries, they do not think offensive ideas should be banned - except against religion. In other countries, you may replace religion with government, state leader or what have you. Not an ideal situation, to be sure, but such people can be found everywhere - even in your neighbourhood. And if Islam were to be banned, how vocal would your protest be?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 20:26:23 GMT
It's a rather fine line between professing that God doesn't exist and insinuating that those who do believe in God are devoting their life to a delusion. No more than believing in a different god insinuates the same thing. I think that would be treated differently. A Christian can ridicule a Muslim for the fact that his religion is more violent, but he cannot ridicule him for believing in a God. That would be hypocritical. That is why it is atheists that bother Muslims the most - we can unhypocritically portray their beliefs and practices as laughable. The laws of virtually any Islamic nations. Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, etc. If you were to try to think of an example of an Islamic nation in which blasphemy were legal, you would have very few from which to choose. You would have to cherrypick. And the Islamic world does not appear to be getting more secular, it seems to resist secularisation and is quite a long way behind the Christian world because of the way that religion is fused with politics in those nations. Our nations are trending towards making certain ideas illegal, and the idea of curbing immigration from the Islamic world is politically unthinkable. I'm not saying that it's going to be as bad here as it is in Pakistan, but free speech is increasingly being encroached upon and it is putting the brakes on the secularisation of our own nations. They don't seem to be growing out of it. Atheist bloggers are still given the death penalty or assassinated with no legal penalty for the assailant. You have to get the book into the country before reading it there. As far as I'm aware, there's never been the death penalty for that, or torture, or the risk of assassination without any deterrent for the assailant. Not me, as I only want the liberty to express ideas. I don't have any problem with Islamic preachers peddling hate of homosexuals or atheists. What I have problem with is Muslims lobbying the government for laws that give special protection to their religion. The evidence would be blasphemy laws in the Islamic world, the fact that even liberal Muslims in the media were saying that Charlie Hebdo should not have been allowed to print their cartoons, etc. And I wouldn't agree with banning the practice of Islam.
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Feb 23, 2017 21:13:16 GMT
This isn't a fearmongering thread, i'm genuinely interested if it will happen. The way i see it is that Muslims out breed other faiths in the west, they have multiple wives and a strong family structure. I can easily see in 100-200 years (if not sooner) Europe will be Islamic. But it's not just Mulsims out breeding but also people converting to Islam. I think the Christian churches (mainly Protestant ones) are in massive decline, people aren't happy and are looking to fill their spiritual void, Islam despite its shortcomings is a strong straight forward religion, there's no pussy footing around like Christianity and it'll survive. Thoughts? Christianity is being suppressed as hard as possible, but no, Islam will not take over. Both will survive, probably underground - Islam for fear of American bombs, Christianity for fear of imprisonment, job loss and loss of custody of children for alleged "homophobia" and "prejudice". How is Christianity being "suppressed"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 22:53:45 GMT
It's possible. And if it does it will be to the delight of liberal atheists across Europe and North America.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Feb 24, 2017 0:20:32 GMT
No more than believing in a different god insinuates the same thing. I think that would be treated differently. A Christian can ridicule a Muslim for the fact that his religion is more violent, but he cannot ridicule him for believing in a God. That would be hypocritical. That is why it is atheists that bother Muslims the most - we can unhypocritically portray their beliefs and practices as laughable. The laws of virtually any Islamic nations. Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, etc. If you were to try to think of an example of an Islamic nation in which blasphemy were legal, you would have very few from which to choose. You would have to cherrypick. And the Islamic world does not appear to be getting more secular, it seems to resist secularisation and is quite a long way behind the Christian world because of the way that religion is fused with politics in those nations. Our nations are trending towards making certain ideas illegal, and the idea of curbing immigration from the Islamic world is politically unthinkable. I'm not saying that it's going to be as bad here as it is in Pakistan, but free speech is increasingly being encroached upon and it is putting the brakes on the secularisation of our own nations. They don't seem to be growing out of it. Atheist bloggers are still given the death penalty or assassinated with no legal penalty for the assailant. You have to get the book into the country before reading it there. As far as I'm aware, there's never been the death penalty for that, or torture, or the risk of assassination without any deterrent for the assailant. Not me, as I only want the liberty to express ideas. I don't have any problem with Islamic preachers peddling hate of homosexuals or atheists. What I have problem with is Muslims lobbying the government for laws that give special protection to their religion. The evidence would be blasphemy laws in the Islamic world, the fact that even liberal Muslims in the media were saying that Charlie Hebdo should not have been allowed to print their cartoons, etc. And I wouldn't agree with banning the practice of Islam. Just a quick point. The general public doesn't appear to support the regressive agenda of censorship. The media supports regressive liberalism and that is probably why it appears so. Did you see the poll taken across 10 EU countries on immigration from Islamic nations? About 55% supported stopping it. Even among the best educated, urban types. The media and political class are out of touch.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 24, 2017 7:02:50 GMT
Christianity is being suppressed as hard as possible, but no, Islam will not take over. Both will survive, probably underground - Islam for fear of American bombs, Christianity for fear of imprisonment, job loss and loss of custody of children for alleged "homophobia" and "prejudice". How is Christianity being "suppressed"? Try looking around you: www.premier.org.uk/News/UK/Christian-street-preacher-set-for-trial
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Feb 24, 2017 8:09:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 25, 2017 10:02:20 GMT
Get someone to read the link to you.
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Feb 25, 2017 10:41:01 GMT
Get someone to read the link to you. So Muslims are to blame. I keep warning you, Ades, those people are bad.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 25, 2017 11:06:18 GMT
This isn't a fearmongering thread, i'm genuinely interested if it will happen. It did happen. In Spain. Last time I checked, there wasn't Sharia law implemented in Spain.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 12:14:33 GMT
How is Christianity being "suppressed"? Try looking around you: www.premier.org.uk/News/UK/Christian-street-preacher-set-for-trialTry quoting a more objective source: He quoted this leviticus verse from the old testament: That was considered a breach of the public order act as it should be,that is threatened behaviour and hate speech,which are illegal in the UK. How dare this man shout in a crowded shopping centre that gay people should be put to death. How does arresting this bigoted piece of shit constitute a "suppression" of Christianity? The answer is it doesn't because neither him or you speak for the majority of Christians in either of your respective countries. Bigots like you and him can no longer use Christianity to cloak their bigotry and hate speech in,and expect to avoid the consequences of their words. That's the reality of the world in 2017,ugly souled, bigoted cows like you have no place in civilized society, get used to it. And I thought you said Christians don't follow the old testament Ada? Seems you were wrong yet again. And how about this guy saying that Mohammed was a pedophile I bet you have a problem with that type of hate speech don't you Ada? You hypocritical old witch.
|
|