Criticism of religion

Originally posted by Bentley
I've read some interesting articles that debunk the notion that mass migrations are going to be any kind of cultural threat to EU despite of what many nationalists try to sell.

Simply put, migrations tend to happen inside limited region except on the richest of the populations from each country. Those rich populations are the less likely to be fanatical and indulge into irrational cultism once they arrive to their "developped country of choice". Hardly the cultural war some are trying to sell us.

So your position is that mass immigration doesn't come with cultural changes (I don't like the word threat, I don't see most immigrants as a threat) because the affluent migrants want to fit in?

Link some of the articles you've read (if in english) because typically mass migration aren't large groups of affluent migrants but generally the poorest and least educated.

Originally posted by Surtur
Overall in the world who is committing more terror attacks Christians or Islamists?

What is your suggestion for dealing with the white, right-wing menace?

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Not all Islam and Christianity are equal.

You are correct. For a generation or 2 now, Islam has been worse and far more detrimental to global peace/security/safety.

Tbh, Islam as a religion, might not be able to exist in the 21st Century. It's main tenants and epitaphs are almost incongruent with a free democratic society. Even moderate Muslims in countries such as Canada and Britain would be ostracized if they were Christians and think at BEST homosexuality should be illegal or adultery should be a jailable offence. This isn't some small minority. This is a large percentage.

My mother is Orthodox, but my father is a practicing Muslim. I came from a country that was predominantly Islamic among the ruling class (The populace was Christian, but the real money was pure Arab, originating from Yemen), with close family ties in the Middle East, particularly Oman, Egypt and UAE.

Western ideals and Islam are mutually exclusive. For them to coexist, you'd have to throw so much of the religion out the window, you might as well just stick to a book collecting memorable quotes. Or like Christianity, there needs to be a Vol. 2, and the religion needs to fade as countries become more secular. I.e. Christianity not being taken seriously in the West as the country becomes more educated.

But that will NEVER EVER happen. They will never allow it. Islam as a religion affords FAR too much control. They will kill entire swaths of the population or have to be forcefully overthrown like Tzar's in Russia for there to be a secular government installed in some of these places.

I don't know you, but based on your posts, I think it is very clear you have not travelled much in North/East Africa and in some of the other countries. It's an entirely different world man. It might as well be Mars or the holy land during the Inquisitions. The idea of gender equality, open sexual orientation, or homosexuality? Bruh. It will take like 200 years of INTENSE re-education.

Islam is particularly resistant to change among cultures, even when a people integrates into a country like Canada or Britain.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Muslims commit more terrorist attacks, but in the US white conservatives commit more then either.

What is your suggestion for dealing with the white, right-wing menace?

Is that more in overall numbers or more per percentage of population?

Originally posted by snowdragon
So your position is that mass immigration doesn't come with cultural changes (I don't like the word threat, I don't see most immigrants as a threat) because the affluent migrants want to fit in?

Link some of the articles you've read (if in english) because typically [B]mass migration aren't large groups of affluent migrants but generally the poorest and least educated. [/B]

This is like two slightly different topics.

Most people don't want to strand to far away from their place of birth, these are people who even after living in Europe for years and making a good living still dream in going back to their countries. Others will adapt and fit into the local culture. The general rule either way is that most people that get into Europe come from wealthy families that are well educated and capable of allowing some level of decent life over there. This is the most natural kind of migration.

Then you have mass migrations caused by war or natural causes, these mobilize huge populations over a small amount of time, but even then they are mostly moving to the closeby regions. The syrian war is a perfect example: millions moved to the neighboring countries, the amount of people who tried to jump to Europe was meager. If you compare the numbers of people that got into european countries in such a way to the actual population of the country, is ridiculous to pretend their effect in the established culture will be huge. Even in those cases the travellers are far from the less educated and poorest people of their region, because to pay for the long trip they need to have gathered some savings.

Originally posted by Bentley
This is like two slightly different topics.

Most people don't want to strand to far away from their place of birth, these are people who even after living in Europe for years and making a good living still dream in going back to their countries. Others will adapt and fit into the local culture. The general rule either way is that most people that get into Europe come from wealthy families that are well educated and capable of allowing some level of decent life over there. This is the most natural kind of migration.

Then you have mass migrations caused by war or natural causes, these mobilize huge populations over a small amount of time, but even then they are mostly moving to the closeby regions. The syrian war is a perfect example: millions moved to the neighboring countries, the amount of people who tried to jump to Europe was meager. If you compare the numbers of people that got into european countries in such a way to the actual population of the country, is ridiculous to pretend their effect in the established culture will be huge. Even in those cases the travellers are far from the less educated and poorest people of their region, because to pay for the long trip they need to have gathered some savings.

The numbers don't paint the full picture though as in the European countries they aren't spread equally across them. They are typically concentrated in towns with the lowest cost housing and so their impact in those places is disproportionate. In the UK it was supposed to be a maximum of 1 immigrant/asylum seeker per 200 citizens. In some towns it's now 1 in 80 and in some neighborhoods in those towns it's even more concentrated.

lol. pro religion crowd is funny.

If critically thinking non theist's developed a universal framework of morality

No one can rationally say why they hate Jesus either. Because there isn’t a reason to hate him.

What's not up for debate is the fact that: Jesus>>Muhammad

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
lol. pro religion crowd is funny.

Implying religions have developed a "universal framework for morality"

Scriptures against stealing/killing/adulturing is a moral framework.

One can argue how well these are followed, but they're there, and religious leaders try and enforce them.

All "non theists" do with their "critical thinking" is attack their enemies for failing to live up to a non existant moral standard on one hand, and justify their hubris's on the other.

Frankly, intelligence has NEVER been a bedfellow of morality. Quite the opposite. It's used as a weapon, to get what one wants, and rationalize how they do it.

Originally posted by cdtm
[B]Scriptures against stealing/killing/adulturing is a moral framework.

One can argue how well these are followed, but they're there, and religious leaders try and enforce them.

In fact, generally speaking, organizations that set up "moral standards" collectively, like republics, seem to do a much better job at avoiding "Killing and stealing" than organizations that do so based on the whim of a singular figure, like authoritarian regimes. Notice how I'm using intrinsic qualities to link religion to said regimes?

Why? Because when multiple people/things are required to verify something, you're less likely to hit extremes.

All "non theists" do with their "critical thinking" is attack their enemies for failing to live up to a non existant moral standard

That religion is neccesary for moral frameworks is dubious considering that we have seen a wide set of contemporary stories, that provide more cleaner, balanced frameworks than we've seen with religion. It'sdoubly dubious since we've seen morality in animals that predate humans.

Frankly, intelligence has NEVER been a bedfellow of morality.

Quite the opposite. It's used as a weapon, to get what one wants, and rationalize how they do it.

The reason critical thinking is bad for morality is that cofimation bias, the opposite of critical thinking which you have literally just described, can be used to coerce people?

Mofo. Do you read what you yourself say?

You've literally outlined the driving force behind religious belief as the cause of bad shit, having just claimed that religion is a "net positive" due to it's uniformity behind rationalization based on a single vague entity.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
The numbers don't paint the full picture though as in the European countries they aren't spread equally across them. They are typically concentrated in towns with the lowest cost housing and so their impact in those places is disproportionate. In the UK it was supposed to be a maximum of 1 immigrant/asylum seeker per 200 citizens. In some towns it's now 1 in 80 and in some neighborhoods in those towns it's even more concentrated.

It just adds to the long list of issues that are linked to living in the countryside in Europe. At least in France there is a huge problem of refusing to admit towns need much higher investment and infrastructure due to the cost of fuel and lack of job opportunities. Governments that have nothing to offer to those places don't have anything to offer to immigrants, they are just looking to save up as much as possible.

Originally posted by Bentley
It just adds to the long list of issues that are linked to living in the countryside in Europe. At least in France there is a huge problem of refusing to admit towns need much higher investment and infrastructure due to the cost of fuel and lack of job opportunities. Governments that have nothing to offer to those places don't have anything to offer to immigrants, they are just looking to save up as much as possible.

You kinda jumped the bus when it was described that they would have an impact on culture to how the govt has failed to provide for the immigrants (which means resources taken for other local services) and again that shows mass immigration does have an affect (more then you were willing to admit) on both culture and financial resources.

Originally posted by snowdragon
You kinda jumped the bus when it was described that they would have an impact on culture to how the govt has failed to provide for the immigrants (which means resources taken for other local services) and again that shows mass immigration does have an affect (more then you were willing to admit) on both culture and financial resources.

So countryside towns are what makes and breaks European culture and finances? My argument is that their effect is marginal and the effect of small towns in economy/cultural weight is marginal. It's almost as if you wanted to prove my point for me and then you accused me of jumping the bus awesr

Originally posted by Bentley
So countryside towns are what makes and breaks European culture and finances? My argument is that their effect is marginal and the effect of small towns in economy/cultural weight is marginal. It's almost as if you wanted to prove my point for me and then you accused me of jumping the bus awesr

That isn't the case at all, it's as though your marginalized small towns are breeding grounds for this terrible culture and you are smug enough to dismiss them because they are the fringe of your "culture" as you reside in the city smelling the byproducts across europe.

Originally posted by snowdragon
That isn't the case at all, it's as though your marginalized small towns are breeding grounds for this terrible culture and you are smug enough to dismiss them because they are the fringe of your "culture" as you reside in the city smelling the byproducts across europe.

Marginalized small towns are already breeding grounds for terrible culture, you don't need to get immigrants there for that to be a problem (nationalism and islamism are stronger in those places). France is ghetoized because the distribution of infrastructure and jobs is not enough, because governments want to save a dime. This is something I aknowledged already and it has little to do at all with mass immigration.

This is why I brought it up earlier 😕

Originally posted by Bentley
Marginalized small towns are already breeding grounds for terrible culture, you don't need to get immigrants there for that to be a problem (nationalism and islamism are stronger in those places). France is ghetoized because the distribution of infrastructure and jobs is not enough, because governments want to save a dime. This is something I aknowledged already and it has little to do at all with mass immigration.

This is why I brought it up earlier 😕

I see.

WOOOSH as this issue flies right over your head.

I'm not even sure I get what you're talking about. I brought up analysis about statistical and qualitative data on how mass immigrations are not the cultural war some people make it out to be. You are free to interpret those elements as you see fit.

You then started to talk about ghetos which factually exist already and are breeding grounds for current terrorists and fascists. Those are clearly an issue.

If you have any point that is in anyway related with the above please state it clearly. That way we can carry out with an actual discussion instead of your ad-hominem.

Originally posted by Bentley
I'm not even sure I get what you're talking about. I brought up analysis about statistical and qualitative data on how mass immigrations are not the cultural war some people make it out to be. You are free to interpret those elements as you see fit.

You then started to talk about ghetos which factually exist already and are breeding grounds for current terrorists and fascists. Those are clearly an issue.

If you have any point that is in anyway related with the above please state it clearly. That way we can carry out with an actual discussion instead of your ad-hominem.

You never presented said materials that I asked for (in english so I can understand if they weren't available, you never said otherwise.)

I didn't specifically talk about ghettos but that mass immigration has an effect on culture and that it was generally low-income low education immigrants that come in mass. You started in on affluent immigrants that blend into the culture.

So, in conclusion, you stated you read several studies that you didn't share to form an opinion, then you opined on affluent immigrants, shifted gears and stated mass immigration didn't affect culture and used your point of reference on affluent immigrants to position your outcome on mass immigrants.

Simply put, migrations tend to happen inside limited region except on the richest of the populations from each country. Those rich populations are the less likely to be fanatical and indulge into irrational cultism once they arrive to their "developped country of choice". Hardly the cultural war some are trying to sell us.

The point of the EU was to distribute said immigrants as jaden pointed out and you dismissed that as a poor subculture that is already present. More specifically the idea of the islamic religion was addressed by rage and how it doesn't mesh well with a more progressive culture, another point you washed over. In the end, the result is a change in culture with a poor, uneducated highly religious group that is now able to influence spread across the EU.

Let me look for the article, I don't remember if I read it in english. That's a fair request to make.

Edit: found it https://booksandideas.net/How-Oracles-Are-Forged.html

I dismissed the effect of mass migrations because ghettos with poor uneducated people are already here. If the problem was so drastic and terrible for culture then we should solve the issue instead of waiting for mass migrations to happen. Putting the blame of ghetto-building in mass migration makes little sense.

Islam is also already in France and it doesn't particularly interacts with progressist culture more than your average catholicism does.

I do not believe that the point you present is self-evident. Feel free to cite any decent article you have in hand to support it.

Isn't it a problem to introduce competition for pre-existing ghettoes?

And why don't they simply hire from those existing ghettos? That's one of the things I can't understand about this issue: We ALREADY HAVE people in this very country looking for economic opportunity. No one is hiring them.