England will become a muslim country in the future years?

dirtychinchilla said:
No, but I'd hope that people with a decent scientific education would work it out.
Click to expand...

Logically they would assess the available evidence bot for and against and come to an agnostic position....this is what science would support currently.

So you are assuming that your friends would make the illogical leap from the existence of God being one that currently cannot be proven or disproven (first you would have to universally define God...something that has yet to be done) by Science as being the acceptable position that your friendship rests upon.....

This is not to say that holding a personal position of atheism is invalid, only that it should be recognised that it is a personal position and has no more validity than someone who has made the opposite personal position or anything inbetween.



dirtychinchilla said:
But the difference is that the laws of physics do exist, it's not about belief, it's about truth. I can't prove that at birth a baby has no concept of the idea of God, but considering that it's a concept that has been generated by homo sapiens in the last 40,000 years, evolutionarily it would not have become inherent knowledge and therefore, as a baby, you would not have that knowledge. It's very different from, say, the knowledge that your mother will feed you, because that was the case long before homo sapiens existed.
Click to expand...

Again you are making assumptions.....you admit you cannot prove that a newborn has no concept of God, yet you think it is therefore logical to assume that the negative is actually true...the logical position is to be agnostic about it and not make any assumptions based on the lack of evidence.

How do you know conclusively that the God Concept was generated by Homo Sapiens 40,000 years ago....again you are making an assumption and then extrapolating an position that you want to be true....just as easily could you make the opposite assumption and extrapolate that maybe the 40,000 year old Homo Sapiens had a personal relationship with an entity could be conceived as God and thus God exists......

As we cannot prove either to be true....the logical conclusion would be one of agnosticism.

dirtychinchilla said:
It's not based on lack of evidence, once again. I am not in the defensive position and therefore do not have to prove what I'm saying.
Click to expand...

Of course you are, you are explicitly stating that God doesn't exist.....you are as beholden to prove that declaration as the person who make the counter claim......

An agnostic however is making no explicit claim. which given the ambiguity of the evidence or lack thereof would be the logical position to take.

dirtychinchilla said:
Perhaps, but if one of my friends told me the earth was 6,000 years old, I'd laugh in their face. They would have failed to examine the evidence, not me.
Click to expand...

However, a literal interpretation of the Bible is not a widespread belief and doesn't impact on the evidence required to make the explicit statement that God doesn't or does exist....

This is the problem with someone using Science as a basis for proving God doesn't exist....the evidence would be required to prove such a statement regardless of whether the opposite can be proven by the opposition....You are trying to shoehorn a position into a discipline that currently cannot support that position one way or the other.....this is why Religion is based, not on scientific evidence, but Faith.
 
Last edited:
dirtychinchilla said:
As discussed earlier though, Islam is often a culture and not just a religion, particularly in the case of immigrants. I see what you mean though, they are very difficult to separate.
Click to expand...

However, the culture is predominant in the interpretation of Islam and so therefore the logical position is to address the cultural differences rather than focusing purely on the religious.
 
Ah, the joys of manipulating statistics. So, Pate, if there's a rise of 74% compared to the previous number could you tell me what the percentage increase is compared to the total population? I'd put money on it being a lot lower.

Everybody manipulates statistics. Politicians, the media, everybody. They do it in the hopes that it will make people more likely to side with them. What you have to learn is a statistic like "Gingers are up 54%" is completely meaningless without knowing how it was worked out, and quite often completely useless when you do.
 
40% of British Muslims want Sharia in the UK, and 28% of British Muslims want Britain to be an Islamic state.
Click to expand...

So 40% of 2.7%?

So roughly 1% of the population?

Oh noes... pretty sure we have more people wanting communism than that.
 
Castiel, I believe one of the mains areas in which we are differing is that I define atheist incorrectly. I do agree with you, that unless you can disprove the existence of god you must still be open to the possibility, and as such, this is proper science. The reason why I would call myself an atheist, though, is not that I know absolutely that god doesn't exist because I cannot possibly KNOW, but I can infer based on my knowledge of the universe, that the god referred to in Christianity, for example, didn't to any of the thing ascribed to him. I want to be acknowledged as someone who doesn't believe in God though, and because most people know the incorrect definition of agnostic, it's far easier to call yourself an atheist so that you don't have to explain...

Nor can I disagree that gods interacted with us in the distant past, but that is pure speculation to prove a point. As far as history is concerned, this interactin did not happen. Ancient gods were said to have done everything though (ie Greek or Egyptian gods) but we now know that these things would be science in actions and no longer have the need to ascribe these things to gods because we have the explanations.

I've also thought about the definition of god. It's generally defined as being the deity of a religion, but I am open the the possibility of the word, if the religious connotations were removed, standing for the universe and all the laws and principles that it entails. In which case, I certainly would acknowledge the existence of god, but that really is changing the meaning. I understand that god could be interpreted as being everything though, and in my opinion, that's a much better way of thinking.

I have the unfortunate displeasure to know a thoroughly indoctrinated Catholic who tells me that dinosaurs do not exist, and that the world is 6,000 years old, and frankly I find this highly offensive.

In general though, I agree with you and, although I won't start calling myself agnostic, I accept that what you say is true.
 
dirtychinchilla said:
Castiel, I believe one of the mains areas in which we are differing is that I define atheist incorrectly. I do agree with you, that unless you can disprove the existence of god you must still be open to the possibility, and as such, this is proper science. The reason why I would call myself an atheist, though, is not that I know absolutely that god doesn't exist because I cannot possibly KNOW, but I can infer based on my knowledge of the universe, that the god referred to in Christianity, for example, didn't to any of the thing ascribed to him. I want to be acknowledged as someone who doesn't believe in God though, and because most people know the incorrect definition of agnostic, it's far easier to call yourself an atheist so that you don't have to explain...

Nor can I disagree that gods interacted with us in the distant past, but that is pure speculation to prove a point. As far as history is concerned, this interactin did not happen. Ancient gods were said to have done everything though (ie Greek or Egyptian gods) but we now know that these things would be science in actions and no longer have the need to ascribe these things to gods because we have the explanations.

I've also thought about the definition of god. It's generally defined as being the deity of a religion, but I am open the the possibility of the word, if the religious connotations were removed, standing for the universe and all the laws and principles that it entails. In which case, I certainly would acknowledge the existence of god, but that really is changing the meaning. I understand that god could be interpreted as being everything though, and in my opinion, that's a much better way of thinking.

I have the unfortunate displeasure to know a thoroughly indoctrinated Catholic who tells me that dinosaurs do not exist, and that the world is 6,000 years old, and frankly I find this highly offensive.

In general though, I agree with you and, although I won't start calling myself agnostic, I accept that what you say is true.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, could you ask the Catholic chap where he takes his creedance in the world being 6,000 years old and no dinosaurs, because as a Catholic myself, I find this kind of strange.
 
Pate said:
I think it's definitely to be worried off
Click to expand...

No not really...unless your a Daily Mail/tabloid reader who buys into that nonsense that muslims/islam are taking over. Kinda hard and difficult to achieve that when theres about 5% of muslims making up the general population of the UK.

Plus it wont be happening in my lifetime so it doesnt really bother me, ill leave that to my kids, grandkids and great grandkids to worry about...ill be 6ft under in the next 30-40 odd yrs, if i live that long that is:p
 
Last edited:
Muslamic Ray Guns..................

As long as they or anyone don't get me to join there stupid religion then that's it. There's extremist's in all religions.
 
In answer to the OP: You think all the Catholic, buddhists, Pegans, Johovas and C of E religions will just suddenly decide to become muslim?

These threads make me lol.
 
Pate said:
Out of curiosity, could you ask the Catholic chap where he takes his creedance in the world being 6,000 years old and no dinosaurs, because as a Catholic myself, I find this kind of strange.
Click to expand...

Firstly, it's a woman, and secondly, from church. This is the lady who's daughter told me that the Tsunami in Japan was not only a natural disaster, but God's way of telling us to donate more money to Japan.....their church must be appalling.
 
mmj_uk said:
You don't need to be it's junior school mathematics.

My parents neighbours have had 2 generations of children in the time I've grown up, I'm 28 the girl I grew up playing with already has 5 children, she'll probably have a dozen or so grand children by the time my first child is a teen.
Click to expand...

it is fact of nature, muslims are conservatives.. they dont like to play around and have sex before marriage and all that.. and this isnt a bad thing.. but i suppose they need some education, but i dont think this is just muslims, indians too I guess would come in this? It is more of a cultural thing
kwerk said:
The Nazis were only 2.6% of Germany in 1928. Not saying Muslims = Nazis, bu that things can change pretty quick.

Ignoring the changing racial demographics... let's say 1 of your friends decides to convert, everyone would laugh at him. But then another friend starts wondering and you have 2 converted friends. A little less weird now. Then a couple more friends notice how much more happier/focused they are and give it a go too. Now it's no so ridiculous and you start wondering yourself.

Once a certain % threshold get's passed, ideas snowball exponentially.

This study suggests it's only 10%.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-07/rpi-mrs072511.php
Click to expand...

and what exactly is wrong with someone changing their minds/idea? that suggests saying there is NO God is the ONLY RIGHT way of thinking..
 
dirtychinchilla said:
Castiel, I believe one of the mains areas in which we are differing is that I define atheist incorrectly. I do agree with you, that unless you can disprove the existence of god you must still be open to the possibility, and as such, this is proper science. The reason why I would call myself an atheist, though, is not that I know absolutely that god doesn't exist because I cannot possibly KNOW, but I can infer based on my knowledge of the universe, that the god referred to in Christianity, for example, didn't to any of the thing ascribed to him. I want to be acknowledged as someone who doesn't believe in God though, and because most people know the incorrect definition of agnostic, it's far easier to call yourself an atheist so that you don't have to explain...

Nor can I disagree that gods interacted with us in the distant past, but that is pure speculation to prove a point. As far as history is concerned, this interactin did not happen. Ancient gods were said to have done everything though (ie Greek or Egyptian gods) but we now know that these things would be science in actions and no longer have the need to ascribe these things to gods because we have the explanations.

I've also thought about the definition of god. It's generally defined as being the deity of a religion, but I am open the the possibility of the word, if the religious connotations were removed, standing for the universe and all the laws and principles that it entails. In which case, I certainly would acknowledge the existence of god, but that really is changing the meaning. I understand that god could be interpreted as being everything though, and in my opinion, that's a much better way of thinking.
Click to expand...

But do you understand the point I was making about assuming what a logical position is? It is perfectly acceptable to come to the conclusions that you have regarding your worldview, but conversely it is also perfectly acceptable that someone can come to a different conclusion using the same or similar observations but simpy making slightly different assumption about it....

It doesn't make either of your illogical or inferior and you should not base your friendships on such arbitrary criteria.

dirtychinchilla said:
I have the unfortunate displeasure to know a thoroughly indoctrinated Catholic who tells me that dinosaurs do not exist, and that the world is 6,000 years old, and frankly I find this highly offensive.
Click to expand...

He would not be an indoctrinated Catholic....Catholic belief doesn't accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or that the Earth is 6000 years old...it specifically accepts and teaches that Evolution is a valid and accepted doctrine. The Catholic Church and their teaching simply would not support that kind of interpretation.

dirtychinchilla said:
In general though, I agree with you and, although I won't start calling myself agnostic, I accept that what you say is true.
Click to expand...

Each of us has our own beliefs and assumptions, be they religious or otherwise........in some cases it is easy to point out the falsity of the position when the position is as explicitly reliant on certain interpretations or stipulated evidence...such as Biblical Inherency...however we should not make sweeping assumptions based on those erroneous positions and their basis, we can only truly argue against a position from within the criteria that the position is taken....this is why it is relatively easy for me to argue against a Biblical Literalist....I do it from the same criteria and evidence that they use and so it is true of all other positions be they religious or not.

We should be very careful when assuming a position is not logical when the criteria that the logic is based on is different from that which supports the position.
 
I have no problem with any religions, Most people realise that the bible is nothing but a book of parables. It's not true facts. They are life lessons, guidance. A way of keeping faith in times when it's needed.

That is except for the creationists, Those people are a little bit gullible, and like to take the writings as cold hard facts.

I'm not religous, But at the same time. I don't judge others on their beliefs. they have their right to have them...Except creationists. They're wierd :p


Also people always make mistakes on these forums of putting people into categories. I cant be categorised personally. Castiel helped me sum up my "religion" a few months back.

I am Open Minded :D

People have every right to believe whatever they wish. Scientists can understand the science, but at the same time believe there is a divinity to the science. Who are you to tell them they are wrong?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom