Does the timid growth of arab atheists offer any danger to Islam homogeneity in Middle East, or is it just a stupid ilusion?
i find it really strange how the west turns atheist right when i became a christian.
i never thought i would be defending traditional european christianity on 4chan against atheists
i wish i converted when 4chan was majority christian and atheists were told to gtfo back to reddit
i have noticed that white people are becoming either atheist or neo-pagan like /pol/.
they are backstabbing 2000 years of christian history, they are stabbing their ancestors in the back who held Jesus dear in their hearts
They still are on most boards, just not the ones that have been invaded by liberals (not that the rest of 4chan is conservative, but we usually have the sense or the entitlement to be contrarians for the sake of fun or for the sake of asking the hard questions to the dominant cultural attitude).
>they are backstabbing 2000 years of christian history, they are stabbing their ancestors in the back who held Jesus dear in their hearts
The same way european christans did when they abandoned their regional religions to convert into a foreign one?
It would not be much different to burning women for 'being witches', killing people for having sex with someone from the same gender or prohibiting failed marriages to end, and all other marvelous things Christianity brought to Europe.
> I wish i converted when 4chan was majority christian and atheists were told to gtfo back to reddit
When was this? 4chan is more Christian friendly than ever before in the 10 years I've been here.
>pre-Christian Europe: child sacrifice and zoophilia
>Christian Europe: a dozen of burn witches in Northern Europe and women prevented from whoring around
>post-Christian Europe: mass genocide of peasants, promiscuity and degeneracy
Make your choice.
It will put a pinpoint on the actual issue of religious freedom in the middle east. They won't be able to keep everyone under a homogeneous blanket so long as free media like the internet keeps leaking different ideas.
I don't think it will
Most ex-muslims in the ME want to leave it because they fear being found out and well you know islam has death as reward for apostasy and most people have crazy uncle Achmet who would kill you if he found out.
So even if their numbers where to grow at a drastic rate they won't be a force until much later when the stigma is removed.
In Europe it took hundreds of years between the enlightenment and post Victorian before atheists found wide acceptance. And that is without uncle Achmet the apostate killer.
If anything we in the West should take in the converts and atheists that face the fate of an apostate and give them asylum. And kick uncle achmet and his ilk out right the fuck now.
I don't care if my country became a bit browner as long as it remains Western and the uncle achmets are fucking it up for everyone.
God knows we have more then enough uncle Achemt's being born in the west without more immigrating.
If not Deus Vult will find many taking up the cross even a heathen apostate and leaver of the Church like me.
>the feel when the pope is a pussy
>and the next one will be even more soft
>might as well get a female pope at this point
>conveniently forgetting the massive rural exodus that happened after the fall of Rome, resulting in centuries of feudal stagnation
And? That stuff was inevitable.
Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus realized that Rome's military model was unsustainable in the long term. They pushed for reforms in the Senate, but their ideas were unpopular (since they would adversely affect the rich landowners who controlled the Senate) and their attempts to push these reforms led to their murders (one was beaten to death by the senate). Not long after that, the Gracchi's fears soon came to pass. A man named Gaius Marius was assigned to raise an army, only to find that there just weren't enough qualified troops in all of Italy. For instance, Rome's laws required soldiers to own land, but all the land was owned by a handful of people, which was exactly the sort of thing the Gracchi foresaw. Marius reformed the army to eliminate some of these requirements, but even his reforms only slowed Rome's decline rather than stopping it.
>Does the timid growth of arab atheists offer any danger to Islam homogeneity in Middle East, or is it just a stupid ilusion?
What is this Islamic homogeneity you speak of?
Muslims are too busy persecuting one another: Salafis VS non-Salafi Sunnis VS Shiites VS non-Sunni, non-Shiite Muslims.
Allah may be one, but Islam is anything but.
Could someone explain to me the phenomenon of middle aged unmarried Iranian women converting to Christianity?
several of my Iranian friends have also noted this but can't really put a finger on the cause for it..
Also, Iranian Azeri here:
Don't know about Arabs, but back when i was in Iran most of my peers were pretty secular and casual when it comes to Islam. People are pretty non-religious, but not full fedora and anti-everything Islam like LA Persian will have you believe.
Also, the Farvhar- the Zoroastrian necklace is at least as commonly worn as the Sword of Ali
>barbarians keep raiding your churches and towns
>implying action against them isn't justified in this case
My point is that you cannot use witch hunting to criticize Christianity when it is/was outlawed by Christians
You mean influenced by western media?
Iranians train their women in the sciences partly so that they can realise the rational arguments for God as truth rather than the ignorant ramblings of pop stars.
I'm not, but the culture here in Europe has degraded to the point where young women are seen as weird if they aren't sexually active. It's hard to find a girl over the age of 18 in my country that hasn't been groped/fingered at least.
It's sad, dadash.
Chads usually end up being misogynist once they mature and Red Pilled Conserative Men aren't and they either look for a traditional wife or become MGTOW
Only Beta providers think that Western Women are wife material
God is not necesarry at all i say. Everything is perfectly consistent without a god.
And particularity to region of religions just makes them funny for me. Millions of people died without hearing I of islam. There are three possibilities
1- They go to hell which is unjust but consistent
2- They disappear like animals, inconsistent
3- They go to heaven, unjust for muslims and inconsistent
>God is not necesarry at all i say. Everything is perfectly consistent without a god.
How does it prevent the Universe from being an infinite recursity?
> Millions of people died without hearing I of islam.
And you just found out about the dilemma known as the "fate of the unlearned". Theologians have gone through this in the past millenia
>Millions of people died without hearing I of islam
The Quran doesn't condemn these people. They stay on Al-Araf (purgatory) for a time before being accepted into Heaven.
That's unless they were unjust people who harmed others.
>Yes, we should go back to sacrificing children to underworld gods, having orgies in temples, sex with animals and running around naked in the forests.
That sounds amazing, except for the children-sacrificing and only Carthaginians did that. Carthaginians got rekt, and they were, surprise surprise, semitic.
>forgetting how many wars were fought between Catholic nations, and how many were fought between Protestant nations.
>forgetting that leaders will use literally any excuse to justify war
Most of it is just language games. Most people that try to back themselves with metaphysics end up confusing the laws of cognition for something that is inherent to external reality rather than their own limitations.
As for the need of a first cause, you guys say the universe needs a beginning because everything does. So you add a creator to the model, an entity that, for some reason, is to be exempt from this rule. And so, instead of simply revising the rule, you use the rule to justify the existence of something that contradicts the rule. And it just adds an entity that wasn't needed.
You could have said the universe didn't have a beginning but instead you went the extra mile to say it has a beginning, and that the cause of the beginning, this entity, doesn't have a beginning.
So do you believe that this argument implies that God is living in another material universe similar to ours?
It doesn't. God can be uncaused because he is not part of "His" Creation, but rather encompasses it.
>. So you add a creator to the model, an entity that, for some reason, is to be exempt from this rule.
It isn't "for some convenient reason", it's by definition.
>You could have said the universe didn't have a beginning
Except we aren't in an unchanging, eternal universe. C'mon, even Sagan commented on that(along with every philosopher in Greece. Your side lost, btw. It wasn't atoms ;p)
>we aren't in an unchanging, eternal universe
Maybe it is eternal, maybe it isn't. There are valid theories for both hypothesis. Eternal inflation is one such theory that offers a model of an eternal universe that is consistent with current data.
Never said unchanging, btw. Not sure where you got that.
>It isn't "for some convenient reason", it's by definition.
There it is: the word games. You define God as something that is exempt from this rule.
Now you can say that your definition of God is right, that it is widely accepted by prominent thinkers.
I can do the same in the opposite direction: the universe is everything that exists so something that isn't part of the universe doesn't exist. If something doesn't fit in with the rules of the universe, then it can't exist.
I'm actually agnostic, far from a militant atheism, but when I see some Aquinasfag using word games to "prove" God, I gotta step up.
>The Quran doesn't condemn these people. They stay on Al-Araf (purgatory) for a time before being accepted into Heaven.
The most moral thing you could do in this case would be to completely remove any mention of the religion. That way, people would go to heaven or hell based on whether they were morally good or bad, rather than based on their particular cultural contexts/exact exposure to the religion.
>That's what Islam is about.
From a certain point of view, I guess. But a religion that holds people who make drawings of animate objects as the worst sinners, worse than murderers and rapists, doesn't really have a definition of "morally good or bad" that makes any sense to me.
There is no mention of this in the Quran. It's only if it contributes to idolatry.
(Virtuous) Art is encouraged in Islam, as it expresses our souls. Wahhabis pulled the abolition of art out of their behinds.
Quaranism isn't the mainstream opinion, as far as I know. "Islam" as a whole includes hadith, which are extremely clear on who the most severely punished people on the Day of Resurrection will be.
>medieval prince doesn't like x group of people
>hasn't properly read the Quran since he was forced to as a child, only "practices" Islam in public
>can't change anything in the Quran since everyone would notice
>knows a hadith collector
>tells him he'll pay him handsomely if he includes a new hadith in his collection demonising said people, even though it may somewhat contradict the Quran
>he can now "justifiably" confiscate their lands and property, and enslave them; making a handsome profit
It would certainly explain all the hadith like:
>read x verse 48 times and you will be cured of y ailment
We know plebs really tried Muhammad's patience, so he can't have said this tripe.