Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

So the atheist "movement"...

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 12 of 16
 [ 304 posts ] 
So the atheist "movement"...
Author Message
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Tree wrote:
You realize that you look a tit when you play with a name like a high school bully?


This is just projection on your part. You get the respect you deserve.


Typical nonsensical non-sequitur from the Tree chap.

Projection? Because I was playing with your name like a tit? Nice try tossing out irrelevant phrases again though - more hand waving is always fun.

I do get the respect I deserve, as do you - in your case, your behavior here engenders very little at all.

Of course, your disrespect towards me is perfectly acceptable to me, because it serves to highlight what I've noted - your inability to engage in reasoned discourse. Somehow, somewhere, somewhy... you think that you're scoring points while acting like a child! :)

Making half-assed jokes mocking my name... a name which clearly isn't even actually my name.... achieves what, exactly? Obviously, it doesn't phase me in the slightest - I actively enjoy seeing you delegitimize the consequent post by acting like a tit at the start of it. All it does is open a large window onto the mind of the person behaving like that.

But as I keep saying to you: please do go on! Feel free to start your next reply pretending that you're still someone to be taken seriously while engaging in adolescent bullying.


Tree wrote:
Nice mantra, how about garnering a fucking clue?

Firstly, your claim is that Muslims will become the dominant population in a European country in the near future.

So wheres your source for that claim, because that Pew Research doesn't support your contention because, as was pretty fucking clear to anyone, it had 3 different models, and the most extreme version - the one which entails continuing conflicts in the Middle East causing millions of people to flee their homes and go to Europe for succor - arrived at 14% population of Europe being Muslims by the year 2050.


By near future I didn't mean by 2050, so there's no contradiction there. Since humans have been around for very long time relatively speaking, even a few centuries could accurately be described as near future.


Oh THAT very near future - the distant one?

Still fucking bollocks, isn't it, Tree? :lol:


Tree wrote:No contradiction between:

a. Muslims will be 14-11% in 2050. (Again this is the average, Sweden is projected as 20-30% while others will remain in the low single digits.)
b. Muslims will be over 50% in at least some European countries where they were previously a small minority at some point after 2050.


Yeah, citation for that latter one?

No?

Well, there goes your fantastically deluded fear-mongering, doesn't it?


Tree wrote:
So even the most extreme model, the one least likely to be anything reflective of the actual affairs, still contradicts your asinine assertion.


First, I NEVER said the worst case scenario of 14% will happen, but it's also not something I can just dismiss when the stakes are high.


Well, firstly, I never said you said that the worst case scenario will happen, nice evasion though! :)

Instead, what I pointed out was that your 'worst case scenario', which entails 30 more years of devastating warfare and economic catastrophe continuing at a pace that already peaked nearly 2 years ago, still wouldn't provide a jot of support for your claim.

Remember? Your claim, you're supposedly supporting it. The research you offering nominally to support your claim clearly does nothing of the sort.

Further, I think it's highly doubtful you even understand the survey data or the methodology underlying it. Your comments seem blithely unaware of a vast swathe of population factors, and you seem not the slightest bit interested in honestly representing factual reality because you're trying to sell us a stupid idea based on xenophobic fear-mongering.

No one's buying.



Tree wrote:The 11% or slightly over is probably more likely, but that's more than double from what it is now and roughly triple from what it was before 2010.


No, it's not.


Tree wrote:Not that hard to extrapolate based on this graph that IF there is no paradigm shift, meaning...

- no limiting of immigration
- no change to the paradigm of welcoming Islam in Europe, the elites pretending it's peaceful, tolerant and suppressing criticism with accusations of racism or hate speech laws, all the post 9/11 appeasement and pandering we're used to
- no increase in the fertility of non-Muslims
- no unexpected event like a mass apostasy of Muslims


Come on lad, spell out your claim so it can be exposed for wet-wankery.

You want to pretend that the conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa which caused so many people to flee their homes looking for aid and safety will continue at this pace (actually, at a pace past which we've already peaked) for the next 30 years!

And even then, even if that were to happen, and even if every single individual person who had ethnic ancestry in a Muslim-dominant nation were to be counted as 'Muslim' for the sake of comparison, we'd still not get ANYWHERE near to a Muslim dominant European nation.

Please do feel free to keep waving your hands to avoid acknowledging that your claim is shown to be unsupported, and that the data which you nominally cited in support of your claim does not, in fact, provide so much as a jot of support even given every leniency imaginable.


Tree wrote:...the Muslim population will continue to grow and eventually become a majority at some point after 2050 in some countries.


Go learn how biological populations work.


Tree wrote:
Regardless, even in this wildest possible outcome, we still never arrive at Muslims becoming the dominant population in Europe,


Listen to yourself you... you're talking crap again.

Doesn't happen in 2050 or before = never happens?


Firstly, stop whining about having your claim destroyed. It was you who pretended that Muslims would become the dominant group of a European nation IN THE NEAR FUTURE - if you can't support that, do feel free to scrape back some decency by admitting your error instead of trying to distort reality with strawmanning to make it my mistake.

I told you the fucking reason already - you know, MY REASON - not the one you make up for me, and let's be clear - given our relative competencies, I'd far rather be responsible for making my own points rather than letting you tell me what my position is.

The reason is that, even in your wildest wet fantasy, you don't turn 40 million people into 700+ million people in any short time frame, not to mention the vast number of factors you're wholly neglecting to peddle your fear narrative.




Tree wrote:
not least because it would take half the fucking world's population of Muslims to up home and move to Europe you total fucking numpty.


A population expert who doesn't realize population numbers don't stay constant.


Numpty - clearly, my post indicates that I think that population numbers stay constant. You really must be used to talking to morons if you think this distraction will work on any of the readers here.


Tree wrote:Furthermore, you don't know what you're talking about since I'm talking about some European countries.



Typical Treeism - I don't know what I am talking about because you're busy generating ad hoc bullshit.


Tree wrote:For a small country like Sweden with a roughly 9.4 million non-Muslim population it would only take over 9.4 million Muslims.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

So clueless, so funny.

Go on Tree, spell it out. How, pray tell, does this happen in your febrile mind.

Also... Sweden.... you've become a parody, Tree! :lol:


Tree wrote:
Go on, talk about how 'they' breed a lot.


They breed a lot.

Happy now?


:lol:

The ancient mantra of the xenophobe.

Regardless, let's educate Tree so that he stops vacuously banging the hate-drum and starts appreciating reality.

In that reality, you know - the one we all share - there's been an indisputable global shift in fertility rates, meaning the rate at which populations are increasing. Over the last several decades, nearly all nations around the world have seen their fertility rates decline (yes, that includes Muslim nations too), In part, this is an artifact of prior decades when fertility rates were exorbitantly high (in large part due to the Green Revolution), but the decline also repeatedly linked through numerous independent studies to several factors: lower infant mortality rates, access to education - particularly including women, sociopolitical scenarios where women have a say over child raising, and availability and acceptance of the use of condoms and other contraceptives.

The rate at which fertility is declining is also directly linked to the wealth of that nation, with the wealthiest nations comprised of citizens who could raise 1 or 2 children and expect them to reach adulthood, whose daughters had greater opportunities for career prospects and delayed pregnancy, and where fewer ideological restrictions against contraceptives were present.

It might seem obvious to say that the fastest decline was seen in what we have been bandying about as 'the West', which in decades past was more fashionably called 'the developed world', but the same force is being seen even in nation states in Africa which have only the most rudimentary elements of the factors causing this shift.

However, and here's the kicker - it's not just the ethnic-national citizens of a nation which experience this trend, but also its immigrants. You see, it's not tied explicitly to ideology, but rather to wealth, to prospects, and to freedoms. How best to illustrate this? Well, how about the fact that the fastest decline in fertility rates has not actually been seen in the West, but rather in the Muslim world?

https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/ ... 337292.pdf
https://www.hoover.org/research/fertili ... slim-world

Since the overwhelming majority of today’s Muslims live in Muslim-majority countries, and since those same countries are typically overwhelmingly Muslim (by the Pew study’s estimate, 43 of those 49 countries and places are over two-thirds Muslim, 40 of them over 90 percent Muslim), we can use national-level data on fertility for Muslim-majority countries as a fairly serviceable proxy for examining changes in fertility patterns for the Muslim world community. For our purposes, the advantage here is that a number of authoritative institutions — most importantly, the United Nations Population Division (unpd) and the United States Census Bureau (uscb) — regularly estimate and project population trends for all the countries in the world.

The unpd provides estimates and projections for period “total fertility rates” (births per woman per lifetime) for over 190 countries and territories across the planet for both the late 1970s and the 2005 to 2010 period. Using these data, we can appraise the magnitude of fertility declines in 48 of the world’s 49 identified Muslim-majority countries and territories.2

One way of considering the changes in fertility in these countries is to plot a 45-degree line across a chart and to compare fertility levels from three decades ago on one axis against recent fertility levels on the other axis. A country whose fertility level remains unchanged over time will remain exactly on this plotted line. If the fertility levels of the earlier time are plotted on the x-axis and the more current fertility levels on the y-axis, any country whose fertility level rises over time will be above the plotted line, whereas a country experiencing fertility decline will be located below the plotted line; the distance of these data points from the plotted line indicates the magnitude of a country’s absolute drop in fertility over these decades.

The results from this exposition of data are displayed in Figure 1. As may be seen, according to unpd estimates and projections, all 48 Muslim-majority countries and territories witnessed fertility decline over the three decades under consideration.


So, wholly independently of any European nation governmental/political/societal factors, the fertility rate of Muslims world-wide is plummeting. And of course, this trend only continues, or is even exacerbated in Muslim immigrant families to Western nations. While the 1st and 2nd generations may be somewhat inured against local culture, localization always ensues, and 3rd generation immigrants are barely discernible in terms of fertility rates comparative to the only nation they've ever lived in.

Which brings us back round to the funny ignorance on display. Tree still doesn't know what the Pew Research paper means when it says 'Muslim', which says rather a lot about why Tree holds such poorly reasoned positions in the first instance.

Thus, a coptic Christian from Egypt would be considered a 'Muslim' for the sake of the paper's numbers, as would a Mandaean Iraqi - which is perfectly fine if we're all clear about how we're talking about immigration from Muslim-majority nations, but becomes a problem when numpties mistakenly believe that this means they're all actually Muslim. On top of that, the 2nd and 3rd generations of Muslim immigrant families are increasingly abandoning their Islamic beliefs in favour of the secular beliefs of their peers. The General Social Survey in the US shows that 32% of Muslim immigrants have stopped believing or practicing. The simple fact is that, quite the contrary to the fear-mongering Tree's espousing here, Muslim immigrants abandon Islam in vastly greater proportions than they radicalize towards violent fundamentalism.

But reality's no use to those who want to bang drums.




Tree wrote:
How far into this not very far future are you talking about?


A couple of centuries probably.


:lol:

It is exactly like talking to a Creationist who thinks they can just emote at scientific topics without the faintest comprehension as to why their ideas are barking mad.

How about you stop flapping and start thinking what that would entail. How do you turn 44 million people into 700+ million people in a couple of hundred years. Do the math, show your working, lulztime.


Tree wrote:Relatively short amount of time considering we've been around for 200k years.


If by 'we' you mean anatomically modern human beings, then it's actually more like 315,000 years... although with dispersed archaic admixture until around 30kya.

Regardless, for clarity, the entire length of span of a species lifetime has no bearing whatsoever on the rate of fertility for a given population at a given period of time, so the sentence is a non-sequitur style red herring used to prop up your silly assumption that Muslims can become the dominant population of a European nation in the goal-post-stretched time period of a couple of centuries.

Do the math. Go on! :)


Tree wrote:
you're appealing to a hypothetical model based explicitly on a continued crisis occurring for multiple generations. What is the actual likelihood of this?


It probably won't continue at the same rate, but Europe has set the precedent that it will not turn back refugees even if the numbers are high.


The precedent was set by the Geneva Conventions and by the United Nations Agreements on Human Rights, as I've already told you.

These are some of the pinnacles of our species' achievements in terms of our treatment of other human beings, and even if oafs like you want to toss them out just because you're scared the Mooslims are coming... Europe has largely shown that its values are superior, that it truly stands for what it says. Luckily, your and yours are still a baying minority with delusional fantasies of some kind of Atlas Shrugged post-apocalyptic cowboy world, we know that these values are worth protecting, and it is what makes our nations superior than those which don't offer the same treatment of human beings in need.


Tree wrote:This can only encourage future migration, including people who aren't in any real crisis but economic migrants.


Which is irrelevant because they'll be rejected or accepted according to their own situation not because of invoked slippery slopes.


Tree wrote:
Well, not very high at all, not least because the numbers are already dropping. In reality, once crises are over, vast numbers will return home.


You have nothing to back the notion they will return home.


:lol:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-euro ... SKCN0VL0UE

:lol:

http://conservative-headlines.com/2014/ ... s-working/

:lol:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/worl ... ation.html

:lol:

https://tribune.com.pk/story/1057698/mu ... tolerable/

I love how Tree emotes reality at me while telling me that, as my sentence contradicts his emoted reality, then I must not have any ability to support what I said. Good old Gospel according to Tree again! :)

Cue handwaving, distractions, red herrings and general bluster.



Tree wrote:Return to what? Working hard in a broken land when it's easier to just squeeze welfare from gullible Europeans while giving nothing or next to nothing in return?


Utterly clueless and you really show it. Do you believe stories where welfare in European nations makes you rich? :lol: Do you imagine these Muslim immigrants drinking sparkling apple juice in heated outdoor jacuzzis?

You realize that welfare is mostly about simply allowing you to live - to eat, to have a roof over your head, to heat your house and pay bills? It's not a luxury, Tree - it's hand-to-mouth.

Regardless, you are of course attempting to paint all Muslims (as if it were a coherent group) as lazy grifters out to cheat people with no desire for achievement, no aspirations other than to suckle off of charity.

This naturally says a lot more about you as a person and how you think than it says about the millions of people who have fled violence and destruction in their homelands. To me, the very fact that they would make such a journey destroys your flaccid contention all by itself.



Tree wrote:
Wet dreams are being made here today. A coup... in Sweden, you say?


A coup in 1917 Russia you say?

Definitely couldn't happen. Oh wait.


A red herring in the thread you say?

Definitely couldn't happen. Oh wait!


[Tree Mode On]
Did you mean the price of fish, perhaps? Hold on... LOOK OVER THERE!

*scampering sound then door slamming*
[Tree Mode Off]


Tree wrote:History is full of coups, the risk rises when there is social conflict as well such as Islamic values clashing with European values.


History is full of coups, therefore a laughably puerile attempt by 4chan child trolls to incite hatred and fear is possible because Tree is just that gullible that we are now obliged to go on the Anything Is Possible merry-go-round instead of talking about what's real.

Can't help but note that you are, once again, in true Alt-Right fashion engendering the very conflict you are wringing your hands about. From my perspective, that kind of lame agitator is you to a tee.


Tree wrote:There could also be social conflict determined by an external crisis, an earthquake, a plague, a solar flare powerful enough to fry the grid - and that's going to bring out the worst in people living in that area. Without common values, there's nothing to bind that country together through both good and most importantly BAD times.


You mean aside from being neighbours? Aside from their kids going to the same schools? You mean aside from having borrowed each other's lawnmowers? You know... all those REAL WORLD interpersonal interactions that are much more relevant when it comes to crises than nebulous concepts of identity being touted by someone whose entire agenda is about identity politics? :D



Tree wrote:Your civilization's paradigm is unsustainable.


You're a fruitcake, me old mucker.


Tree wrote:
Ahh yes, Victorian mode on... it's the calibre of these people that is the real issue here, that brown lot can't get their acts in gear!

But wait, weren't they just poised to overthrow us?

Can't you get your fiction to at least be internally consistent? Are they useless schmucks who couldn't hope to organize a piss up in a brewery, or are they fiendish devils lurking behind smiles and waiting to stab us while we sleep?


I never said they were "useless schmucks" just that their values aren't compatible with a democracy.


You keep getting caught with your hand down your pants tugging furiously, then try to pretend you weren't doing what it's clear you were doing.

You just painted a picture of Muslims in Europe with no aspirations other than to live hand to mouth on state hand-outs, but in the next sentence you'll be invoking dire warnings about how they're collectively bent on bringing down Western civilization.

It's not my fault if your fantasy is internally inconsistent - but it's your responsibility to process your cognitive dissonance.


Tree wrote: They don't believe in liberty or government by consent, they believe in Sharia.


I find you a laughable little man because we've all seen how you think you can speak for me dozens of times even when I am here telling you otherwise, and now you think you possess the credibility to speak for millions of Muslims? :lol:

I'd say Get Over Yourself Already, but you're just a comedy figure now and it's more fun that you take your own febrile pronouncements seriously.



Tree wrote:
Oh here we go. We haven't had any American myths for at least 10 posts, so I suppose we're due some.


Yeah no offense, but the last 200+ years have shown which civilization between America and Europe is more robust, more stable in the long term.

Don't bite the hand that feeds.


Has it?

Really?

Go on then - out with your myth: it will inevitably be another one you've uncritically bought into and given not a moment's thought before regurgitating it sticky and warm.

Let's guess - it's going to be World War 2, isn't it? :lol:


Tree wrote:
They also saw first-hand the consequences of religious discrimination and did their utmost to ensure the USA never emulated the Religious Wars in Europe, but let's ignore context and go for cherries.


Anyone who reads the first amendment will notice that it protects the "FREE" exercise of religion. NOT "ALL" exercise of religion. So you're actually incorrect on that.


Actually incorrect on a strawman you made for me? :lol:

I specifically talked about RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION, Tree - you can see it right there. I was not talking about exercising or interfering with the exercise of religion - who did you think you'd fool with this lazy evasion?



Tree wrote:The government can interfere when people abuse their religious liberties to harm other people's rights. Just as they can interfere when people abuse their gun rights, their parental rights and whatever else. Freedom comes with being responsible for the consquences of your choices.

The Supreme Court for example even explicitly singled out human sacrifice as a type of religious practice that wouldn't be tolerable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause

As a matter of mere belief, yes, you can restrict yourself to merely believing that human sacrifice is good, the government can't prosecute you for that, they can only go after you if you attempt or succeed to carry out a human sacrifice, but there are other consequences besides mere criminal penalties: You can become a social pariah for one, nobody is obligated morally or legally to be around degenerates who think it's cool to sacrifice people to gods. Furthermore, the Constitution of the US doesn't apply to foreigners outside of US soil which means they can be denied entrance into the US for pretty much any reason merely because the immigration officer handling their visa approval thinks their presence would be detrimental to national interest. That would include support for human sacrifice. The President also has the power to exclude anyone he wants on those grounds.



Leaving the quote as is to provide another unabridged material example of your unceasing red-herrings.




Tree wrote:
Wonderful. Sadly, when it comes to population biology you do need to be an expert to have your proclamations taken seriously. This folksy foray into ship metaphors notwithstanding.


In truth, this is complete bullshit. First, because a claim stands on its merits. This almost borders on the level of stupid of saying you can't date women successfully unless an "expert" teaches you how to...


It only borders on whatever fantastically delusional notion, which has precisely zero analogical value, you've conceived of because you lack any capacity for reasoned discourse.

In reality, an expert claim that stands on its own merits is relevant only when it stands up to the scrutiny of other experts because non-experts lack the requisite skill sets to judge the merits of the claim.

The worst case scenario is when numpties who know very little mistakenly assume that their poorly reasoned opinion dictates reality and makes whatever words they string together magically become worthy of attention.

I might just have possibly made mention of this to you before several dozen times... you know, Dunning-Kruger. You know.... emoting reality. You know... the Gospel according to Tree.

The advent of Wikipedia has a lot to answer for when it comes to people like you.

So yeah, getting a second opinion of whether you've got cancer doesn't actually entail you going and asking your mate Cleitus down the pub what he thinks... it means going and asking another expert for their (drum roll) expert opinion.

So how about you show your working - you want to talk around your claims, but funny how coy you are when it comes to actually spelling them out - that's when the ship metaphors start: it's almost as if you lack the competence to discuss the actual topic, and that's why you need to talk about something wholly unrelated and pretend it's analogous.



Tree wrote:Second, because there's no way you can possibly have enough expertise on this issue in the first place given how many fields interact here. Your implication that this is entirely population biology is wrong. You're not dealing with something akin to migratory bird patterns here, buddy. You're dealing with people, they are far more complex, these are very large groups of people organized into societies and how they interact (basically what sociology is defined as which is nowhere near as rigorous as the natural or hard sciences, particularly when it tends to have a leftist bias). You're also dealing with politics, you're dealing with ideologies, you're dealing with theology, you're dealing with social movements and a host of other not so easily predictable factors.


:lol:

Dude, I'm a biological anthropologist, which is beautifully ironic on your part.

Of course people can have expertise on this subject you total fucking numpty, not least because if they couldn't then it would mean your predictions are pulled out of your arse. In reality, the fact is that you cannot support your febrile claims, so you need to lash out at anything which presents a problem to them.

As for all your bluster - you are clearly missing the point by miles, and it's what makes you such a figure of fun. We're not talking about theology you cretin, or any of the other guff; we're talking about population biology, as in, how mechanically do you achieve a reproduction rate of a population which results in, say, 40 million people turning into 700+ million people within the same geographical location, the same population, as the 700+ million people across even a 'couple of hundred years' moved goalpost?

If you can't get your head round why this is bonkers, it's because it's fucking bonkers. ;)

It's not my job to save you from your stupid claims - you are free to admit your errors, acknowledge the limitations of your understanding, and start discussing honestly rather than preaching bullshit at people.

In reality, you've done exactly as I've said many times: you've written a sentence and thereby somehow convinced yourself that it has merit merely because it contains a syntactic sense. Whereas, the fact is that your fantasy claim is impossible, actually impossible, there is no reproduction model that would be consistent with Muslims becoming the dominant population in any European country in any imaginable time-frame, aside from, as I said, by conquest and annihilation of the other populations. But outbreeding them? You're off your fucking rocker, me old mate.


Tree wrote:Given the amount of bias in these areas, plus the unknown factors, "expert" opinion is far less reliable, particularly when the experts can't even agree with one another, ...


/point and laugh

Back to Creationist Discoursive Strategies again! :D

So science says my illiterate, incoherent belief is wrong? Well, science isn't perfect, science doesn't know everything, science changes its mind all the time.


Tree wrote:... for example you can have political science graduates and professors with completely opposite views.


Well now, this is going to be difficult for you to grasp, I can tell... but just because it has 'science' in the name, doesn't actually mean it's a science.



Tree wrote:So which political positions are the "correct" ones?


Values red herring. Values are not reproduction rates of biological populations - LOOK OVER THERE!


Tree wrote:What is the "correct" tax rate or the "correct" number of immigrants?


Policy red herring. Governmental policies are not reproduction rates of biological populations - LOOK OVER THERE!!!!


Tree wrote: Can you answer that in the same way you could make a physics calculation or a computer software solution and everyone would agree with? No. Can you answer that in the same way you could map out the insides of a rabbit and everyone would agree with? No.


Can you map out the fertility rate of a population the same way... well yes, funnily, you can! :lol:

Turns out there are, strange as it may seem to some people, limitations on how many children any given population can have.


Tree wrote:I'm not saying it's subjective, I'm saying you have to do your own homework, draw your own conclusions and then vote accordingly, don't rely on "experts" and so-called "experts" alone. If you can't do it, nobody is going to do it for you. The idea that the future of our civilizations should rest exclusively in the hands of a bunch of so-called "experts" sitting in their ivory towers is laughable. Like we're too stupid or something to know what's best for us.


This is all a red herring, Tree... and again, given how I always identify your red herrings, it's bemusing that you still try! :D

We're not talking about policy decisions being informed by science or poor science, we're talking about your fantastical claim that Muslims could become the dominant population of a European nation at some point, through a combination of immigration and reproduction. Given the fact that the former is irrelevant because we're not going to have most of the world's Muslim population up and emigrate to Europe as I've already explained to you.... you're left only with the latter.

Sorry to inform you, but it doesn't matter if you can emote at this and thereby imagine a way where you turn at most 40 million people into more than 700 million people in a 'couple of centuries', you're wrong because that's not how reproduction works.

Of course, there are lots of stupid components to your claims, such as the notion that it's 'Muslims' who are the population whereas it is, in fact, a multitude of immigrants from various nations who have little to nothing in common with each other, and who will assimilate to varying degrees over the generations, or your ignorance of the decline of fertility rates, or your silly internally contradictory narratives... but the thing where you walk way out into wacky land is when you don't grasp what your claim entails with respect to population and fertility rates.

Finally, I'd disagree whole-heartedly with your red herring. We need more expert advice and counsel to navigate the difficulties our species faces because there is nothing more damaging or stupid than allowing ourselves to be led by people who emote reality based on their inane biases and prejudices.



Tree wrote:You haven't actually proven yourself to be an expert either, you merely asserted it, so by your own admission, I should ignore anything else you have to say on the issue until you prove yourself.


That stands without saying - no arguments from authority have been made, rather, you have been called out because of expertise. Another element of expertise - discoursive competence - is also noting that you are working overtime throwing out hundreds of words to avoid having to support the claim you made.


Tree wrote:Not only is it important to know what you studied but what you actually specialized in and also what kind of work you do in your daily life. For example, you could be a computer science graduate and working as a programmer using Java in some small tech company. You think that makes you an authority on everything IT related? Can you handle C++? Can you handle hardware as good as software? Can you handle other programming languages? How about something more specific, do you understand how the cryptocurrency algorithms work, shit like Bitcoins, have you done any research into it? Could you create a cryptocurrency given the resources? Do you understand what an ERP is and could you implement it for a company? The list goes on.


Lists: crimson cods, burgundy bass, titian tuna, scarlet sturgeon... the list does indeed go on!


Tree wrote:So what experience do you actually have working with Muslim demographic predictions...


None whatsoever. Why is that relevant? I'm talking about population biology, Tree - you know, how people fuck and make babies. You know, the mechanical reason why 40 million people don't turn into 700+ million people in a short period of time.


Tree wrote: and what do you predict will happen AFTER 2050 going forward for a few centuries? If you don't have an answer, you're no better than us non-expert peasants. Get off your high horse and get back in line. Make a proper case, don't just flaunt your degree.


What do I predict with respect to what, exactly? And how does not being able to predict some inane evasive rambling from an ideologically hostile twat on the internet mean I am not an expert in my field? :lol:

Also, busted. I pointed out that your lying bullshit won't float with me because of my expertise, Tree. So as much as you are obviously desperate to shift the burden of proof here, you are still left there dangling lacking any credible fucking reason whatsoever for your inane claim.

Do you intend to try and support that claim, or is this the best you're going to muster?



Tree wrote:
Ahh we're back to ship scenarios again! Lucky us


Explain why it's not a good analogy.


Analogies are only useful when there is a functional or mechanical similarity between the two notions, where appealing to the working of one provides greater explanation about the workings of the other. Therefore, when you apply an analogy in which the function within the analogy is not remotely analogous to the workings of the thing you're supposedly explaining, then it is not only useless, but also suggests you don't possess any actual understanding of that which you are trying to explain.



Tree wrote:
Because your claim is nonsensical and you can't support it.


Just because you don't agree with it doesn't automatically mean it's nonsensical.


It's nonsensical which is why you can't support it.



Tree wrote:
Even if you take your naive method of appraising the data, how long would it take for your fantasy to come true? Have you calculated? Please show your working for the lulz!


Your ship's hull is filling with water.

No need to calculate the exact hour it will sink to reach the conclusion that it will sink.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Population biology done through the metaphor of water filling a boat.

Yeah, not actually how reproduction works, Tree.


Tree wrote:Technically you could stop it, but that requires action on your part, either plugging the hole or hypothetically getting your crew to get buckets and throw out the water faster than it gets in. Doing nothing = you sink.


Of all the mixed metaphors, this is the best I've seen. :lol:

So your support for your claim that Muslims will become dominant in some European nations in the near future is that water is filling a boat and inactivity in plugging the hole will make it sink!

Okaaaaaay.... and about your medicine.



Tree wrote:
The Creationist Argument repeated for the 7th or 8th time.


Yes, I get it, everything you hate is a "creationist". It's getting old. Don't care.


Not at all, rather, it's telling when someone uses the same argumentative strategies as a Creationist. Plus, I don't give a rat's chuff about your degree of appreciation for what I write, not least because I long since realized you were about as amenable to honest, reasoned discussion as a barbed wire fence is amenable to naked polevaulting.



Tree wrote:
Incidentally, I'm in the biological sciences, just so you don't trot off into another wild fantasy scenario you contrive ad hoc to sling poo.


And that gives you any expert-level insight into social trends, politics or theology how exactly?


None of those are required to show that your contention is fatuous, inane, and ignorant.


Tree wrote:Never mind how ridiculous that is.


It is indeed ridiculous.


Tree wrote:Now, I've interacted with economists (finance experts, brokers), they occasionally mail me advice on stock market investments. Not one of them has enough information to guarantee that any of my investments will pay off, in fact all the reports they keep mailing me come with a disclaimer along the lines of this is just our opinion, we're not liable for your loss, do your own homework when you invest in a company or a bond, take your own risks blah blah blah. Every single broker does this.

So if finance experts can't even fully predict how the market will go, what makes you (and you're WAY out of your league here, this actually has VERY little to do with biology) so certain there's no possible way Muslims can become a majority anywhere in Europe?


Aside from your routine red herring where predictions of stock markets are meant to be analogous to population biology, the problem is that you think that your claim has little to do with biology, whereas it has everything to do with biology.

We've already established that, even in the wildest scenario possible where chaos ensues ad nauseum, the Muslim population of Europe will only arrive at 14% in 30 more years. This leaves you with a rather large hole to fill in your claim - on the order of hundreds of millions of people.

The problem for you is that mere breeding doesn't fill that hole. The only way you can get to those numbers is, as I have already informed you, through conquest and annihilation of the resident populations. You know, like your North Korea patter about how we need to get them before they get us, that's pretty much all you have left in terms of plugging the hole in your particular sinking ship! ;)

There is no logical, reasonable, or rational path that results in Muslims becoming the dominant population of any European nation in the near future. You have asserted that it is so, and you have had your claim challenged, but funnily, all you seem to want to do is reverse the onus probandi and get me to make predictions about irrelevant things to show you wrong. No. You show how this works first because a) your own citation doesn't support your contention b) its methodology contradicts vast swathes of your claims c) you're left with a giant gap in the numbers you need and d) reproduction doesn't work how you imagine it works....

So do feel free to provide some reason to lend your contention any serious consideration, otherwise it's clearly dead in the water, sinking like a schooner bereft of mast and rowers, keel asplinter, and uncaptained adrift... and other folksy ship metaphors.


Tree wrote:You're treating a complex social and political issue like it's just a physics calculation where you can settle the answer in 2 minutes and doing appeal to authority because you don't have a good argument. Nobody but your friends and echo chamber will be convinced.


No, I am treating your inane assertion as complete fucking delusional asshattery on your part - all part and parcel of the litany of xenophobic hate and fear-mongering you've engaged in since you've arrived here, and the only way to show that I am wrong to do so would be for you to support your claims.

Given your inability to do so, and given your quite transparent attempts to shift the burden of proof, and your pages of distraction.... I'd say it's pretty much clear beyond doubt that your claim is busted, and you've been shown to hold absolute confidence in an idea you have no capacity to show as true, indicating that the reason for you holding it is just as shit as the reasons you've given here.

As for your motivations for doing so, that will be left to the discerning audience.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:53 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Jason Boreu wrote:Hi everyone, first of all i want to clarify i'm new to this forum, actually to be more precisely, i'm new to posting on this forum but i've been following this discussion and pretty much all the discussions on this forum under the topics of Religion & Irreligion and also on Science & Mathematics since mid March 2017 which was when i first found this forum through MarsCydonia (so thank you). Personally i highly doubt he remember me but we were discussing with a christian apologist on youtube 2 years ago or so who was trying to prove the existence of god using the Kalam and he had the bad habit of making the rule of "all comments which contains irrelevant arguments will be deleted" so he kept deleting both my comments and Mars's and we both had to keep copy+pasting our full comments and posting the comment again and again since he kept deleting until we started posting outside his OP comment so he would be unable to control our responses anymore but then the apologist soon stopped responding.
If my memory recalls correctly i was using a different name at the time and think it was "Fulano do Espaço" with a picture of a cat in a astronault costume.

But without further ado i do want to jump in this conversation and give my two cents on it:

It seems our good friend Tree here is relying on a vague definition of the word "near future" as he keeps raising the amount of time necessary to qualify as such. I think someone should have asked him what his definition of "near future" was before Sparhafoc pointed out Tree's source contradicted his claim and as such gain the ability to nail Tree's feet on his own definition but without this Tree instead will be able to redefine "near future" as having as much time as he needs. ;)


Hi Jason and welcome...

While true, it would usually be good form and worthwhile getting people to define what they mean prior to engaging it, I've had the great fortune to have several such discussions with Tree in the past few weeks so I was well aware in advance that it was just another instance of his crystal ball where he confidently asserts the future, even the future of an alternative past, without regard for anything other than navel fluff.

Had it been someone else, I would have done exactly as you said, but knowing how Tree would respond, I saved myself the time and went straight for mocking the naivety of it all.

Still, he's nailed his own feet regardless, envisioning a couple of hundred years as being sufficient time for Muslims to out-breed us good white folk.


Jason Boreu wrote:Sparhafoc could for example cite a source that showed that muslim populations would be below 14% for over 500 hundred years and Tree would still be able to claim that thousands of years would still qualify as "near future" since on geological scales, a thousand years passes just as a blink of a eye.


Ha!

What's funny about this is that Tree's going to read this literally and ask to see the citation or tell you in confident assurance that no such source exists! :D


Jason Boreu wrote:Also i want to apologize for all the possible gramatical errors, english is not my mother language and i had to learn it on my own and as i keep interacting here more so in the future hopefully i improve my skills.


You done good! ;)
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:00 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Tree wrote:
Jason Boreu wrote:It seems our good friend Tree here is relying on a vague definition of the word "near future" as he keeps raising the amount of time necessary to qualify as such. I think someone should have asked him what his definition of "near future" was before Sparhafoc pointed out Tree's source contradicted his claim and as such gain the ability to nail Tree's feet on his own definition but without this Tree instead will be able to redefine "near future" as having as much time as he needs. ;)

Sparhafoc could for example cite a source that showed that muslim populations would be below 14% for over 500 hundred years and Tree would still be able to claim that thousands of years would still qualify as "near future" since on geological scales, a thousand years passes just as a blink of a eye.


Good luck finding that source.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Lucky I wasn't drinking coffee, or it would be all over my monitor now! :lol:


Tree wrote:You did raise an important point. How long are you willing to defend your civilization or civilizations you consider allies?


As long as it takes.

That's why I've got so much patience to address your vacuous bile.


Tree wrote:My life may end in 40 years to so, my concerns however don't have a time limit. I want Europe to still be Europe - or better - indefinitely and Islam is a retrograde ideology that drags every society down.


Errr.....?

Completely opaque because you're ranting your delusion at people who are not deluded.

How, pray do tell, does Europe become 'not Europe'?

Also, do try and learn how to phrase your opinions as opinions rather than decreeing a sermon from the mount, or perhaps more accurately, from a pulpit!


Tree wrote: For the same reason you probably don't want fascism to ever be mainstream, I don't want Islam to ever be mainstream. For that matter, I don't want communism or feudalism to ever be mainstream. I'm not sure if you'd say the same but all the ideologies mentioned here have two things in common: anti-liberty and anti-human flourishing. So the idea that it is somehow "bigoted" to oppose them is nonsense.


It's not bigoted to OPPOSE something, but it may be bigoted in the WAY you oppose it, or the REASON for opposing it.

I am not a fan of Islam either, or any religion or political doctrine - I believe we humans will flourish much quicker as soon as we put away all the silly little distinctions between us we spot but which would be invisible to a zebra. One of the ways we can do that is by stopping our latent tribalism, not by brashly bolstering out tribalism in order to defeat it.

Victory is not achieved by becoming that which we oppose.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:05 pm
Jason BoreuUser avatarPosts: 15Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 12:45 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Tree wrote:I can't offer you certainty if that's what you want, nor is certainty required to make rational decisions.


Well, i asked for solid evidence which meant a good amount of evidence enough to be very confident in your claim and if you can't offer it then maybe you should stop showing such confidence in your claims.

Also to be fair i didn't exactly define what "solid evidence" meant so i apologize.

Tree wrote:I don't know for certain whether or not having unprotected anal sex with 100 random hookers will get you infected with HIV or not, but it's irrational to do so if health concerns you at all.


And..... this is relevant to what i was saying because....?

Tree wrote:If that is not what you mean, then you'll have to explain what qualifies as solid evidence to you. What more do you want? We have a demographic projection going all the way up to 2050. We also have a history to look to which has been a solid upward trend every single year. It shouldn't be hard to extrapolate based on that chart what the numbers might look like going forward. If nothing changes, and I have no reason to believe any of it will change, they can only go up.


Well, your source showed that on the worst case scenario the percentage of muslims will be about 14%, that's hardly what one would call a muslim domination.

So yes Tree you do need to cite solid evidence, a.k.a. a good amount of evidence that's good enough for us to be pretty confident in your assertion, that after 2050 muslim population will explode because your source doesn't seem to suport your claim.

Tree wrote:Would you like to explain why you believe the trend might change or why we shouldn't do anything about it? Even if none of what I say happens, did you account for the risk of it happening and the consequences that come with that?


Which trend are you talking about? The very slowly takeover of Europe by the muslim horde? Well i don't believe that's gonna happen and your source also doesn't show that this is gonna happen anytime soon so why would i need to explain a problem that i don't even believe to exist?

Tree wrote:Let's be clear, it would be rational to oppose policies that lead to even a 10% Muslim population being a thing.

The cons far outweigh the pros.


What are they?

Tree wrote:Please explain to me, "rationally", what is the benefit of having millions of Muslim migrants? What could they possibly contribute with that no other migrants or the natives can?


I don't know.


And Tree i really don't want ot be rude to you but i'm getting really tired of some of your arguments which you seem to be repeating over and over again since page 1 of this thread. You keep reapeating that muslims are gonna outbreed europeans, that muslim migration will destroy or endanger our liberty and society, etc.

I have to say this is getting really boring for me so either bring something new to the table or i really not gonna respond anymore because i think it's very clear you didn't convince anyone here the first time you've brought these points and they were thoroughly addressed by all the big guys of this forum, so you just reapeating them over and over again ad nauseam will not do the trick for me.
"God is <empty assertion> for morality but i don't have to <burden of proof> that he exist first"

"If free will doesn't exist then <insert falacious appeal to consequence>"

-Christian logic
Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:50 pm
Jason BoreuUser avatarPosts: 15Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 12:45 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Thank you Sparhafoc i really apreciate your attention to clear that out.

Sparhafoc wrote:
Jason Boreu wrote:Sparhafoc could for example cite a source that showed that muslim populations would be below 14% for over 500 hundred years and Tree would still be able to claim that thousands of years would still qualify as "near future" since on geological scales, a thousand years passes just as a blink of a eye.


Ha!

What's funny about this is that Tree's going to read this literally and ask to see the citation or tell you in confident assurance that no such source exists! :D


Sparhafoc wrote:
Tree wrote:Good luck finding that source.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Lucky I wasn't drinking coffee, or it would be all over my monitor now! :lol:


:lol: I think it's safe to say you really know how to predict Tree's bahavior. Clap! Clap! Clap!
"God is <empty assertion> for morality but i don't have to <burden of proof> that he exist first"

"If free will doesn't exist then <insert falacious appeal to consequence>"

-Christian logic
Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:08 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Jason Boreu wrote:
Tree wrote:I can't offer you certainty if that's what you want, nor is certainty required to make rational decisions.


Well, i asked for solid evidence which meant a good amount of evidence enough to be very confident in your claim and if you can't offer it then maybe you should stop showing such confidence in your claims.


This... very much!

Perhaps the most vital lesson each individual of our species needs to learn is the danger of certainty; how routinely it leads to terrible consequences, and how badly it ends up being judged by history.



Whatever the dangers of the certitude of Islamic theocracy, it memetically stands as a counterpoint, a contrast, a contradiction to our liberal, tolerant, and egalitarian societies, consequently seeing contingents of our own societies act in as equally blinkered and literal-minded a manner as those we are supposedly antithetical to is very sobering - just how thin the veneer of society and civilization really is in us. Well, at least some of us! ;)
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:47 pm
TreePosts: 230Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Jason Boreu wrote:Well, i asked for solid evidence which meant a good amount of evidence enough to be very confident in your claim and if you can't offer it then maybe you should stop showing such confidence in your claims.


I don't need to be "very confident" about an outcome to make rational decisions against doing X, Y or Z.

That said, I am very confident that unless a major change happens, we're heading towards a Muslim majority in some European countries. With mass immigration and higher fertility, it's as inevitable as a cracked hull with water pouring out of it leading to a shipwreck.

And..... this is relevant to what i was saying because....?


It's relevant because it shows how you can make rational decisions without certainties.

Want another? Russian Roulette.

Can I say I'm "very confident" you will die if you play it once? No. You have a 5/6 chance survival.

Would it be rational to abstain from playing Russian Roulette? Yes. Very much so. It would be ludicrous to claim I'm irrationally opposing Russian Roulette just because I can't show for certain you'll die from playing it.

Only the European elites aren't playing Russian Roulette, they're pretty much playing with fire around a gas station. (And we've already had several minor fires to put out while these same people claim with no shame that fire is perfectly safe around gas stations.) Maybe the gas station will blow up, maybe it won't. Either way, it's a dumb move.

Well, your source showed that on the worst case scenario the percentage of muslims will be about 14%, that's hardly what one would call a muslim domination.


Again, my source only made predictions up to 2050.

My source NEVER said anything about what's going to happen after 2050, but you can think for yourself and extrapolate that based on the upward trend shown in that chart.

So yes Tree you do need to cite solid evidence, a.k.a. a good amount of evidence that's good enough for us to be pretty confident in your assertion, that after 2050 muslim population will explode because your source doesn't seem to suport your claim.


Okay, that's like asking for proof the ship will sink when it's filling with water and the hull is 14% full of water.

It's not hard to figure it out. Think for yourself. What do you think is going to happen if nothing is done to plug the hole where all the water is coming from? You don't need to be some physicist and make complicated calculations to figure this one out.

Which trend are you talking about? The very slowly takeover of Europe by the muslim horde? Well i don't believe that's gonna happen and your source also doesn't show that this is gonna happen anytime soon so why would i need to explain a problem that i don't even believe to exist?


I keep having to repeat this point only because you don't get it, Pew Research Center only calculated this up to 2050. They never said it will stop in 2050, they never said it's going to be 11% or 14% for all time.

The trend is a solid upward trend until at least 2050. Any reason you think that will change in 2051 or 2052? Any reason you can't do some extrapolation of that chart?

Christ, next you'll be telling me you can't progress beyond first base unless you read a peer reviewed study on how to attract girls. I'm not interested in this pseudo-skeptic denial of the obvious masked as rationality.

Tree wrote:Please explain to me, "rationally", what is the benefit of having millions of Muslim migrants? What could they possibly contribute with that no other migrants or the natives can?


I don't know.


You should. You're the one defending these policies of taking in millions of Muslim migrants and refugees and yet you can't even explain why these policies are good for Europe.

Think for yourself more.
Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:26 pm
TreePosts: 230Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Alright, skipping some of the bullshit here, sorry can't bothered with long ass rants anymore:

So, wholly independently of any European nation governmental/political/societal factors, the fertility rate of Muslims world-wide is plummeting.


It's laughable that you would even try to use this argument as if it meant anything.

This doesn't contradict the notion that Muslim fertility rates are still above that of non-Muslim Europeans. Mostly importantly they are still at levels sustaining population growth, while many European fertility rates are not even enough to replace the population dying from old age.

And of course, this trend only continues, or is even exacerbated in Muslim immigrant families to Western nations. While the 1st and 2nd generations may be somewhat inured against local culture, localization always ensues, and 3rd generation immigrants are barely discernible in terms of fertility rates comparative to the only nation they've ever lived in.


Even if we take this at face value, you're forgetting about one thing: immigration continues.

Do you have any reason to believe European elites will eventually say "okay we have enough people, no more mass immigration"?

Which brings us back round to the funny ignorance on display. Tree still doesn't know what the Pew Research paper means when it says 'Muslim', which says rather a lot about why Tree holds such poorly reasoned positions in the first instance.

Thus, a coptic Christian from Egypt would be considered a 'Muslim' for the sake of the paper's numbers,


A drop in the bucket. These are merely small details with no major impact on the outcome. Do you think it makes any level of difference whether your latest batch of food products is 100% full of salmonella or just 95 or 90% full of salmonella. It's still unmarketable.

If you have mass immigration from an overwhelmingly Muslim majority country, you will still get a disproportionate number of Muslim migrants.

But fine, point taken because I'm all in favor of providing a safe haven for those fleeing oppression from the Muslims for being non-Muslim. Would you be okay with taking in all the Coptic Christian refugees who can prove they're Coptic Christian, but nobody else from Egypt?

Just a note here, and yes I realize they're not European, but this is actually a policy supported by both Trump and Ted Cruz, the two main Republican candidates last year. Your kind, the social justice warriors, dismissed it. So stop pretending you care about non-Muslims being unfairly lumped with Muslims. The conservatives were more than willing to make a distinction and give non-Muslims oppressed by Muslims a way out.

as would a Mandaean Iraqi - which is perfectly fine if we're all clear about how we're talking about immigration from Muslim-majority nations, but becomes a problem when numpties mistakenly believe that this means they're all actually Muslim. On top of that, the 2nd and 3rd generations of Muslim immigrant families are increasingly abandoning their Islamic beliefs in favour of the secular beliefs of their peers. The General Social Survey in the US shows that 32% of Muslim immigrants have stopped believing or practicing. The simple fact is that, quite the contrary to the fear-mongering Tree's espousing here, Muslim immigrants abandon Islam in vastly greater proportions than they radicalize towards violent fundamentalism.


Here's a better idea. Let them fix their own damn societies, eradicate terror cells with global aspirations, and get values more similar to ours, then we'll trust them more.

I don't work on promises.

But I hope for your sake, this insane experiment doesn't blow up in your face, not literally, not figuratively. If Europe is screwed, so is America soon after, being an important ally and all.

You mean aside from being neighbours? Aside from their kids going to the same schools? You mean aside from having borrowed each other's lawnmowers? You know... all those REAL WORLD interpersonal interactions that are much more relevant when it comes to crises than nebulous concepts of identity being touted by someone whose entire agenda is about identity politics?


Yet somehow that didn't stop Yugoslavia from breaking apart or the numerous other countries with separatist movements. Yugoslavia was not held together by "being neighbors" or the "kids going to the same schools", it was held in check by dictatorship. When that failed, every major group in Yugoslavia wanted their own little country and started a major civil war over it. Neighbors and kids did nothing to stop it and in fact the various interest groups had no moral issue with blowing some up along the way.

You are vastly underestimating how much conflict can be generated from a lack of common values. This is a general rule by the way, it's not limited to non-Muslims vs. Muslim, that's just the more obvious powder keg. Not obvious enough to you apparently.

You just painted a picture of Muslims in Europe with no aspirations other than to live hand to mouth on state hand-outs, but in the next sentence you'll be invoking dire warnings about how they're collectively bent on bringing down Western civilization.


Not at all that different from the Islamic history of subjugating nations and forcing them to pay jizya (tribute) to sustain an Islamic empire.

A good work ethic - not exactly required for a successful protection racket.

Voting for more welfare doesn't take a work ethic either.

Let's guess - it's going to be World War 2, isn't it?


Well that was a European problem wasn't it?

But feel free to go back further and tell me who did better starting from 1776.

As for all your bluster - you are clearly missing the point by miles, and it's what makes you such a figure of fun. We're not talking about theology you cretin, or any of the other guff; we're talking about population biology, as in, how mechanically do you achieve a reproduction rate of a population which results in, say, 40 million people turning into 700+ million people within the same geographical location, the same population, as the 700+ million people across even a 'couple of hundred years' moved goalpost?


You're just awful, dude, I can't even believe you think you're making a good argument here. It's not limited to reproduction and you know this. You know that the other contributing factor is mass immigration which is far more about politics than population biology.

And you know we're talking about some European countries, so the number doesn't even need to be 700+ million.

Although it is much easier to go from 40 million to 700 million than to go from almost nobody (very very few Muslim in Europe last century) to 40 million. So your claim that it can't happen has no basis no matter how you look at it.

Can you map out the fertility rate of a population the same way... well yes, funnily, you can!


We can discuss that alone if you like.

Even the sources show that, while fertility has declined in most Muslim majority countries, it's still generally well above 2 live births per woman per life time. That's more than enough to sustain population growth.

Most European fertility rates are not even high enough to maintain populations at current levels.

Given that Islamic theology and culture is very family oriented, more than the Christian and post-Christian Europeans anyway, I don't expect Muslim fertility rates (particularly in highly religious Muslim countries) to ever be equal to European ones.

Mathematically speaking, is it possible, given enough generations for an indefinitely growing population A to surpass an indefinitely shrinking population B, even if population B is currently higher than population A. But that's not my argument. You keep forgetting about the other elephant in the room: mass immigration. That's not showing any signs of stopping.

And the Muslim population would still rise from 5% to 7.5% even with 0 immigration (roughly 50% increase). So there's something to work on internally, but it would be easier to do so without any more immigration.

You know, the mechanical reason why 40 million people don't turn into 700+ million people in a short period of time.


Mass immigration, dude. Mass immigration.

Nice strawman yet again to pretend that I'm talking purely about fertility rates.

litany of xenophobic hate and fear-mongering.


Okay, I don't care.

Stop following a book that says I have to be killed or forced to pay protection tax and then I'll stop being a xenophobe to you. Very simple. Very fair.
Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:38 am
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Tree wrote:Alright, skipping some of the bullshit here, sorry can't bothered with long ass rants anymore:


Only problem is that if we skipped the bullshit you offered, no one would ever reply to anything you write.


Tree wrote:
So, wholly independently of any European nation governmental/political/societal factors, the fertility rate of Muslims world-wide is plummeting.


It's laughable that you would even try to use this argument as if it meant anything.


Um?

What does your reply even mean?

Of course it 'means' something - it means that an incredible shift in fertility rates is happening undirected across the planet.

Regardless of whether you think that's important, it is actually vital to understand when looking at population trends.


Tree wrote:This doesn't contradict the notion that Muslim fertility rates are still above that of non-Muslim Europeans.


As I just finished educating you - Muslim fertility rates are dropping faster than European ones, and that's with Muslims in Muslim-dominant nations, so the descendants of Muslims immigrating to nations which are liberal and egalitarian, in which they receive equitable education, and in which contraceptives are the norm will experience an even faster decline.

What is important about it is that it's another brick missing in your fantasy scenario.


Tree wrote: Mostly importantly they are still at levels sustaining population growth, while many European fertility rates are not even enough to replace the population dying from old age.


Firstly, this is false - many Muslim nations are also sub-replacement fertility, secondly you're not fucking grasping the point at all, are you? :D

Remember, we're talking about people immigrating into these countries, people who then have children who grow up wholly in those countries, who are steeped in the cultural and societal norms of their resident nations. Then they too have children... and these 3rd generation descendants are nearly undetectable in terms of their difference from their resident nation's fertility rates.

The problem is that you don't understand the factors going on here, and as usual, you put your ignorant, under-educated fiction above and beyond reality.


Tree wrote:
And of course, this trend only continues, or is even exacerbated in Muslim immigrant families to Western nations. While the 1st and 2nd generations may be somewhat inured against local culture, localization always ensues, and 3rd generation immigrants are barely discernible in terms of fertility rates comparative to the only nation they've ever lived in.


Even if we take this at face value, you're forgetting about one thing: immigration continues.


So?


Tree wrote:Do you have any reason to believe European elites will eventually say "okay we have enough people, no more mass immigration"?


First, as I've instructed you half a dozen times, learn what mass migration means.

Secondly, yes of course you fucking dolt. Nations are not going to take on more immigrants than they can manage, aside from for compassionate reasons with refugees. I love how your fantasy scenario entails hundreds of millions of Muslims being welcomed in by 'European Elites' which is crackpot code for 'democratically elected members of parliament'.


Tree wrote:
Which brings us back round to the funny ignorance on display. Tree still doesn't know what the Pew Research paper means when it says 'Muslim', which says rather a lot about why Tree holds such poorly reasoned positions in the first instance.

Thus, a coptic Christian from Egypt would be considered a 'Muslim' for the sake of the paper's numbers,


A drop in the bucket. These are merely small details with no major impact on the outcome.


Not only are they very significant, the research actually spells this out in its methodology, which shows what I said: you didn't even fucking bother reading what you cited, you laughable little runt! :D


Tree wrote: Do you think it makes any level of difference whether your latest batch of food products is 100% full of salmonella or just 95 or 90% full of salmonella. It's still unmarketable.


Muslims =/= salmonella

Typical xenophobe, analogizing human beings with diseases.


Tree wrote:If you have mass immigration from an overwhelmingly Muslim majority country, you will still get a disproportionate number of Muslim migrants.


Um no: you get a proportionate number in the best case scenario, but in reality, you get a disproportionate number of minorities from those nations who are discriminated against, or who have less opportunities there than they'd have in Europe.

In reality, the actual figure of Muslims in Europe is approximately 30-40% less than the baseline numbers used in the report, and amusingly, the report actually spells that out. Tree thinks that a baseline of 30-40% less is not going to have any impact on an explosive population growth scenario because Tree doesn't really have a clue what he's wittering about as reality is only useful insomuch as it can be fettered to his xenophobic narrative..


Tree wrote:But fine, point taken because I'm all in favor of providing a safe haven for those fleeing oppression from the Muslims for being non-Muslim. Would you be okay with taking in all the Coptic Christian refugees who can prove they're Coptic Christian, but nobody else from Egypt?


No, because unlike you, I am not obsessed with identity politics. Anyway, you're a selfish, self-absorbed asshat from the USA - we Europeans clearly have superior values to you, and a higher sense of civic duty, so you let us decide what we do when it comes to the compassionate treatment of refugees, thanks all the same.


Tree wrote:Just a note here, and yes I realize they're not European, but this is actually a policy supported by both Trump and Ted Cruz, the two main Republican candidates last year. Your kind, the social justice warriors, dismissed it. So stop pretending you care about non-Muslims being unfairly lumped with Muslims. The conservatives were more than willing to make a distinction and give non-Muslims oppressed by Muslims a way out.


Idiot. I'm not a SJW in the slightest, you drooling evasive moron.

And I don't give a flying fuck what 2 assholes in your nation did or didn't do - it's terminally fucking irrelevant when they're not Europeans and have no fucking say whatsoever as to what we do


Tree wrote:
as would a Mandaean Iraqi - which is perfectly fine if we're all clear about how we're talking about immigration from Muslim-majority nations, but becomes a problem when numpties mistakenly believe that this means they're all actually Muslim. On top of that, the 2nd and 3rd generations of Muslim immigrant families are increasingly abandoning their Islamic beliefs in favour of the secular beliefs of their peers. The General Social Survey in the US shows that 32% of Muslim immigrants have stopped believing or practicing. The simple fact is that, quite the contrary to the fear-mongering Tree's espousing here, Muslim immigrants abandon Islam in vastly greater proportions than they radicalize towards violent fundamentalism.


Here's a better idea. Let them fix their own damn societies, eradicate terror cells with global aspirations, and get values more similar to ours, then we'll trust them more.


Tell you what: you sort your shit out, grow some humanity, get educated, then we'll trust you more.


Tree wrote:I don't work on promises.


You don't work on anything because you're just some xenophobic runt on the internet whose opinion has no impact on anything at all.


Tree wrote:But I hope for your sake, this insane experiment doesn't blow up in your face, not literally, not figuratively. If Europe is screwed, so is America soon after, being an important ally and all.


It's not a fucking experiment you tosspot. Fucking deranged bullshit manufactured by mouthbreathing conspiracy crackpots... it's a humanitarian crisis, and let's be fucking frank, Europe, and the USA in particular, had a hand in creating this fucking mess. The USA blundered into the Middle East as the UK did a century ago, not realizing that superior weaponry doesn't equate to an ability to maintain order. After fucking up the balance of power there, ultimately leading to the success of IS, we then wander over to North Africa and help other crackpots overthrow their idiotic dictator and then that place also goes to shit.

If you want to pretend it's their failings and that the USA and Europe have no responsibility, then in the future you might want to stop advocating for pre-emptive wars.


Tree wrote:
You mean aside from being neighbours? Aside from their kids going to the same schools? You mean aside from having borrowed each other's lawnmowers? You know... all those REAL WORLD interpersonal interactions that are much more relevant when it comes to crises than nebulous concepts of identity being touted by someone whose entire agenda is about identity politics?


Yet somehow that didn't stop Yugoslavia from breaking apart or the numerous other countries with separatist movements. Yugoslavia was not held together by "being neighbors" or the "kids going to the same schools", it was held in check by dictatorship. When that failed, every major group in Yugoslavia wanted their own little country and started a major civil war over it. Neighbors and kids did nothing to stop it and in fact the various interest groups had no moral issue with blowing some up along the way.


And? Look at Yugoslavian history from its inception after WW1 to the influence of both sides' powers in WW2 to understand this. Is Sweden in any way, shape or form similar? No, not in the slightest.


Tree wrote:You are vastly underestimating how much conflict can be generated from a lack of common values.


No, I am dismissing your contention asserted in the absence of evidence.


Tree wrote: This is a general rule by the way, it's not limited to non-Muslims vs. Muslim, that's just the more obvious powder keg. Not obvious enough to you apparently.


Not obvious to reality, and not obvious to history either. Nationhood IS the common set of values; the pseudo-religion which binds secular citizens together. That's why Thai Muslims in the south still get on their knees and wai images of the Buddhist King of Thailand.




Tree wrote:
You just painted a picture of Muslims in Europe with no aspirations other than to live hand to mouth on state hand-outs, but in the next sentence you'll be invoking dire warnings about how they're collectively bent on bringing down Western civilization.


Not at all that different from the Islamic history of subjugating nations and forcing them to pay jizya (tribute) to sustain an Islamic empire.


Still superior to the contemporary Christians' idea of killing them all and letting God sort it out.



Tree wrote:A good work ethic - not exactly required for a successful protection racket.


A protection racket that exists solely in your febrile mind.



Tree wrote:Voting for more welfare doesn't take a work ethic either.


Another topic you know nothing about but which you think you can hold court on; utterly blind to yourself, aren't you?



Tree wrote:
Let's guess - it's going to be World War 2, isn't it?


Well that was a European problem wasn't it?


WORLD war two was a European problem? :lol:

Now, let's see... my geography might be a bit rusty but as far as I am aware, PEARL HARBOR isn't in Europe. :D


Tree wrote:But feel free to go back further and tell me who did better starting from 1776.


No, no, no - this is your self-gratifying fantasy your'e stroking out in public, don't expect me to play the leg you're humping.


Tree wrote:
As for all your bluster - you are clearly missing the point by miles, and it's what makes you such a figure of fun. We're not talking about theology you cretin, or any of the other guff; we're talking about population biology, as in, how mechanically do you achieve a reproduction rate of a population which results in, say, 40 million people turning into 700+ million people within the same geographical location, the same population, as the 700+ million people across even a 'couple of hundred years' moved goalpost?


You're just awful, dude, I can't even believe you think you're making a good argument here. It's not limited to reproduction and you know this. You know that the other contributing factor is mass immigration which is far more about politics than population biology.


I've already addressed the silly notion of endless immigration (not mass, twat) several times you despicable liar.


Tree wrote:And you know we're talking about some European countries, so the number doesn't even need to be 700+ million.


Drooling moron, the number required indicates the only scenario in which a European country could certainly become Muslim dominant because we're talking about very high level population models.


Tree wrote:Although it is much easier to go from 40 million to 700 million than to go from almost nobody (very very few Muslim in Europe last century) to 40 million. So your claim that it can't happen has no basis no matter how you look at it.


Even after being educated, you're still drooling bullshit.

There have been Muslims in Europe for a thousand years, you total fucking numpty. Until the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire reached all the way to the borders of Austria - there were millions of Muslims in Europe.


Tree wrote:
Can you map out the fertility rate of a population the same way... well yes, funnily, you can!


We can discuss that alone if you like.


No, I can discuss it, you lack the competence.


Tree wrote:Even the sources show that, while fertility has declined in most Muslim majority countries, it's still generally well above 2 live births per woman per life time. That's more than enough to sustain population growth.


It's actually 'replacement' not 'sustain population growth'.


Tree wrote:Most European fertility rates are not even high enough to maintain populations at current levels.


It's called 'sub-replacement'.

Immigrants to such countries experience the same shift in a matter of 2 generations.


Tree wrote:Given that Islamic theology and culture is very family oriented, more than the Christian and post-Christian Europeans anyway, I don't expect Muslim fertility rates (particularly in highly religious Muslim countries) to ever be equal to European ones.


Your expectations are naive, folksy, and ideologically driven.


Tree wrote:Mathematically speaking, is it possible, given enough generations for an indefinitely growing population A to surpass an indefinitely shrinking population B, even if population B is currently higher than population A.


Not when the forces on both are the same, meaning that the already declining fertility of Muslims will be further impacted by the forces at play in the nations they grew up in, and their grandparents immigrated to.


Tree wrote:But that's not my argument. You keep forgetting about the other elephant in the room: mass immigration. That's not showing any signs of stopping.


And again, you are lying.

In factual reality, we peaked nearly 2 years ago, and nations all round Europe have seen fewer and fewer migrant arrivals - Germany, for instance, reported a 69% decrease in migrant arrivals in 2017 over the previous year.

So it's a real problem when ALL your arguments are based on you emoting reality without giving a damn for what's actually true.


Tree wrote:And the Muslim population would still rise from 5% to 7.5% even with 0 immigration (roughly 50% increase). So there's something to work on internally, but it would be easier to do so without any more immigration.


To 'work on' - what the fuck are you yammering on about, ffs? Your liberal democratic values seem utterly absent, which makes all your hand-wringing about Muslims and their dissonance with Western social values all the more ironic.


Tree wrote:
You know, the mechanical reason why 40 million people don't turn into 700+ million people in a short period of time.


Mass immigration, dude. Mass immigration.


Mass migration? The think I keep telling you to go and look up so you don't look like a complete fucking numpty?

It's not a mass migration, you clueless wonder. Immigrants were coming from nations geographically separate, and for dozens of disparate reasons. Mass migrations are when a particular group changes geographical location all together. In reality, in human history there have been very few examples of mass migration, and they assuredly don't include the migrant crisis of the last few years.

Secondly, your febrile fantasy is still perplexing. Firstly, the notion that hundreds of millions of Muslims are going to up and migrate to Europe, secondly that any European nation would allow in so many people it couldn't support.

These are just fictions on your part, and you have given no reason at any point to allow them to stand. They are rejected - you're going to need a better explanation for your wild assertion.


Tree wrote:Nice strawman yet again to pretend that I'm talking purely about fertility rates.


Idiot still doesn't understand what terms mean.

It's not a strawman, you credulous cretin, it's my argument exposing how clueless you fucking well are. You are missing hundreds of millions of migrant Muslims to make up the numbers in your assertion that Muslims will become the dominant population in an European nation in the near future.... and all you can do is wave at an event that's lasted a couple of years and which has already peaked?

Then your fantasy scenario is shown to be wholly motivated-reasoning that is also simultaneously abjectly ignorant about reality.

What a surprise.


Tree wrote:
litany of xenophobic hate and fear-mongering.


Okay, I don't care.

Stop following a book that says I have to be killed or forced to pay protection tax and then I'll stop being a xenophobe to you. Very simple. Very fair.


I don't follow that book - Oh wait, I'm a Muslim now too because Tree's literalist mind can't penetrate such complex notions as explanations not being justification. I'll add it to the list of other things you've called me which show how utterly incapable of reasoned thought you remain.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:00 am
Jason BoreuUser avatarPosts: 15Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 12:45 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Tree wrote:I don't need to be "very confident" about an outcome to make rational decisions against doing X, Y or Z.

That said, I am very confident that unless a major change happens, we're heading towards a Muslim majority in some European countries. With mass immigration and higher fertility, it's as inevitable as a cracked hull with water pouring out of it leading to a shipwreck.


Yes Tree, we know you are very confident in your claims it's a shame that your confidence doesn't come with data good enough to warrant confidence in anyone else here.

Tree wrote:
Jason Boreu wrote:Well, your source showed that on the worst case scenario the percentage of muslims will be about 14%, that's hardly what one would call a muslim domination.


Again, my source only made predictions up to 2050.

My source NEVER said anything about what's going to happen after 2050, but you can think for yourself and extrapolate that based on the upward trend shown in that chart.


Tree are you really saying that because you can imagine it extrapolating therefore that's evidence that this is gonna happen?

Are you really using your imagination as evidence Tree?

Tree wrote:
Jason Boreu wrote:So yes Tree you do need to cite solid evidence, a.k.a. a good amount of evidence that's good enough for us to be pretty confident in your assertion, that after 2050 muslim population will explode because your source doesn't seem to suport your claim.


Okay, that's like asking for proof the ship will sink when it's filling with water and the hull is 14% full of water.

It's not hard to figure it out. Think for yourself. What do you think is going to happen if nothing is done to plug the hole where all the water is coming from? You don't need to be some physicist and make complicated calculations to figure this one out.


Yes Tree, from now on after this post i'm just gonna ignora all of your red herrings without even mentioning them.

Tree wrote:
Jason Boreu wrote:Which trend are you talking about? The very slowly takeover of Europe by the muslim horde? Well i don't believe that's gonna happen and your source also doesn't show that this is gonna happen anytime soon so why would i need to explain a problem that i don't even believe to exist?


I keep having to repeat this point only because you don't get it, Pew Research Center only calculated this up to 2050. They never said it will stop in 2050, they never said it's going to be 11% or 14% for all time.

The trend is a solid upward trend until at least 2050. Any reason you think that will change in 2051 or 2052? Any reason you can't do some extrapolation of that chart?


Yes Tree, and as i said in my previous post i won't respond to your repeated assertions that failed to convince the first time and from now on after this post i will do as i said in my comment above and just ignore every comment of yours that's just a repeated assertion from a previous post.

Tree wrote:Christ, next you'll be telling me you can't progress beyond first base unless you read a peer reviewed study on how to attract girls. I'm not interested in this pseudo-skeptic denial of the obvious masked as rationality.


Red herring. This post will be last time that they show up in my responses.

Tree wrote:
Jason Boreu wrote:I don't know.


You should. You're the one defending these policies of taking in millions of Muslim migrants and refugees and yet you can't even explain why these policies are good for Europe.


Am i? As i said in my previous post i don't believe in your claim that Europe is slowly being invaded by the muslim horde and your source showed the reality to be far from what you are trying to depict here. Also, Aparhafoc cited 4 sources which showed thousands of muslim migrants going back to their homes.

And last but not least, Tree stop trying to tell people what their position is, it's very arrogant and makes you look like a tool.

Tree wrote:Think for yourself more.


That's what i'm doing and that's why i don't swallow your right-wing fear-mongering propaganda.

Edited: to remove some unwanted claims from me and to add two bits.
"God is <empty assertion> for morality but i don't have to <burden of proof> that he exist first"

"If free will doesn't exist then <insert falacious appeal to consequence>"

-Christian logic
Last edited by Jason Boreu on Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:34 am
Jason BoreuUser avatarPosts: 15Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 12:45 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Sparhafoc wrote:
Jason Boreu wrote:Well, i asked for solid evidence which meant a good amount of evidence enough to be very confident in your claim and if you can't offer it then maybe you should stop showing such confidence in your claims.


This... very much!

Perhaps the most vital lesson each individual of our species needs to learn is the danger of certainty; how routinely it leads to terrible consequences, and how badly it ends up being judged by history.



Whatever the dangers of the certitude of Islamic theocracy, it memetically stands as a counterpoint, a contrast, a contradiction to our liberal, tolerant, and egalitarian societies, consequently seeing contingents of our own societies act in as equally blinkered and literal-minded a manner as those we are supposedly antithetical to is very sobering - just how thin the veneer of society and civilization really is in us. Well, at least some of us! ;)


Indeed. It makes me remember a quote from somewhere about religious faith but i think it fits perfectly here wich was something like "the less evidence you have the more confident the belief".
"God is <empty assertion> for morality but i don't have to <burden of proof> that he exist first"

"If free will doesn't exist then <insert falacious appeal to consequence>"

-Christian logic
Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:40 am
Jason BoreuUser avatarPosts: 15Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 12:45 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Sparhafoc wrote:
Tree wrote:Okay, I don't care.

Stop following a book that says I have to be killed or forced to pay protection tax and then I'll stop being a xenophobe to you. Very simple. Very fair.


I don't follow that book - Oh wait, I'm a Muslim now too because Tree's literalist mind can't penetrate such complex notions as explanations not being justification. I'll add it to the list of other things you've called me which show how utterly incapable of reasoned thought you remain.


Tree looks so deranged it's hilarious :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

OMG i'm laughting so hard now!

Also i would be very interested in seeing the list of things Tree called you, the ones i remember are: soviet spy(or something like that) and north korean simpathizer if i'm remembering correctly and now a muslim too :lol:
"God is <empty assertion> for morality but i don't have to <burden of proof> that he exist first"

"If free will doesn't exist then <insert falacious appeal to consequence>"

-Christian logic
Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:50 am
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Jason Boreu wrote:Indeed. It makes me remember a quote from somewhere about religious faith but i think it fits perfectly here wich was something like "the less evidence you have the more confident the belief".


Maybe Darwin?

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Dec 19, 2017 4:07 pm
Jason BoreuUser avatarPosts: 15Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 12:45 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Sparhafoc wrote:
Jason Boreu wrote:Indeed. It makes me remember a quote from somewhere about religious faith but i think it fits perfectly here wich was something like "the less evidence you have the more confident the belief".


Maybe Darwin?

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.


Yes! Although i more frequently tend to see some variations of that quote including the one i gave.
"God is <empty assertion> for morality but i don't have to <burden of proof> that he exist first"

"If free will doesn't exist then <insert falacious appeal to consequence>"

-Christian logic
Tue Dec 19, 2017 4:38 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Jason Boreu wrote:Also i would be very interested in seeing the list of things Tree called you, the ones i remember are: soviet spy(or something like that) and north korean simpathizer if i'm remembering correctly and now a muslim too :lol:


I don't recall the first one, but the 2nd is definitely correct as he claimed I am aiding and abetting the enemies of the US (by the nefarious and devious method of disagreeing with him on the internet), which in the particular thread concerned would have meant Tree was painting me as a North Korean stooge....


Tree wrote:Make no mistake, this is not in any sense constructive criticism of American policy, this is just regressive leftist shit slinging. I've seen your kind before, I know how you operate. All your efforts serve no other purposes than to: 1. convince young Americans to hate their own country and distort their perception of reality to such an extent they will support foreign policies that go against national interests 2. aid enemies of the US


A regressive left North Korean stooge, no less! :lol:

But he may well have called me a Soviet spy too - he's slung so much shit I've simply come to ignore it for the most part, unless it looks sufficiently fun to mock.

Others have included Communist, ANTIFA, Muslim apologist, racist, SJW, as well as a long foray into discussions of my sanity, others of my moral fiber, and most recently more than a thousand words on my intelligence or putative lackthereof.

In fact, I identified this trend 6 weeks or more back, by which point it had already become such thoroughly exposed idiocy it was more a source of amusement than anything else...


viewtopic.php?p=183643#p183643
Sparhafoc wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:I wonder if Tree and dandan/leroy took mind reading classes from the same place.



I would like to respond in greater detail, but there's just so much paperwork when it comes to sedition and subversion.

But you know how we radical regressive racist communist fascist Muslim lefties are... all work, no play!

Back to the Death to the Free World grindstone!


:lol:
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Dec 19, 2017 4:39 pm
TreePosts: 230Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Sparhafoc wrote:As I just finished educating you - Muslim fertility rates are dropping faster than European ones,


European fertility rates are already ridiculously low with some as low as 1.3 or 1.4 births per woman per life. Most families already to stick to 1 maybe 2 children. There is not much further that it can realistically go down, unless very large numbers of people just give up on having children entirely.

Your statement is of no importance to me and it's also very misleading. Your best example is Oman which went from 8.2 to 2.6 over 30 years. That's a 68% drop. It's a huge percentage, but there is no reason to believe that this trend will continue and another 30 years will mean another 68% drop from the current 2.6. It's not even remotely constant and there was a time between 1960 and 1982 where it actually climbed up a bit. Over the last 10 years there has been a decline, but nothing drastic as before. People are still having relatively large families (by European standards at least) and more than enough to sustain population growth for the time being.

See this chart as well that shows the rate of fertility decline slowing down:

https://knoema.com/atlas/Oman/Fertility-rate

and that's with Muslims in Muslim-dominant nations, so the descendants of Muslims immigrating to nations which are liberal and egalitarian, in which they receive equitable education,


You do realize they also receive religious education, right? They get it at home, in the mosque, maybe even a private religious school.

and in which contraceptives are the norm


Contraception isn't actually banned in Islamic law or in Islam countries. You can even get condoms and pills (though not the after pill) even in Saudi Arabia.

They have that, they just use it less because it's a more conservative family-oriented culture. They want to have families larger than Europeans do. And even if that gap is getting narrower, there is still a major difference between above and below replacement as one gets you population growth, the other does NOT.

will experience an even faster decline.


A faster decline is not going to happen and the decline in their own countries is slowing down as they reach a family size they're more comfortable with. Just because they don't want to have 7 children anymore doesn't mean they want to have 1-2.

Even if Muslim immigrants all had the exact same number of children born per woman as non-Muslim Europeans from day 1, the Muslim population would still grow from mass immigration continuing.

However Muslims are more than fertile enough to increase their numbers by 50% in Europe, even IF immigration was cut to 0, according to Pew Research Center.


Firstly, this is false - many Muslim nations are also sub-replacement fertility, secondly you're not fucking grasping the point at all, are you? :D


How many are sub-replacement? Can you give a straight answer rather than use this to try to conceal the fact that they still surpass European fertility rates?

Remember, we're talking about people immigrating into these countries, people who then have children who grow up wholly in those countries, who are steeped in the cultural and societal norms of their resident nations. Then they too have children... and these 3rd generation descendants are nearly undetectable in terms of their difference from their resident nation's fertility rates.


The first thing they will be "steeped in" is their household's values. European culture and societal norms come second. Don't count on it.

The problem is that you don't understand the factors going on here, and as usual, you put your ignorant, under-educated fiction above and beyond reality.


Do you understand the factors? Your analysis of the data is blatantly fallacious.

Secondly, yes of course you fucking dolt. Nations are not going to take on more immigrants than they can manage, aside from for compassionate reasons with refugees.


What a joke. How about compassion for your own damn citizens first? If you're a politician, they pay your fucking salary, not the refugee.

I love how your fantasy scenario entails hundreds of millions of Muslims being welcomed in by 'European Elites' which is crackpot code for 'democratically elected members of parliament'.


Well, let's see, there's already a housing crisis in many European countries, including Sweden, but nah, let's just take in more.

There's a wave of terrorism that could have been prevented if Europe never welcomed millions of Muslims, but let's ignore that too.

You keep forgetting about shadier special interests here. Cheap labor desires. Voters for the left. More income for landlords. (And yes, I'm a landlord that's going to trash talk other landlords, sue me bros, I know why mass immigration is so appealing to you.) In many cases it's just blind ideological dedication to multiculturalism no matter the costs, a feature of the far left for which no amount of dead bodies will stand in the way of utopia. These are just four special interest groups that would have an interest in pushing for mass immigration even if it hurts the country as a whole. You have to be really naive to think all policies are made in your interests.

Muslims =/= salmonella

Typical xenophobe, analogizing human beings with diseases.


A valid analogy is still valid whether you like the comparison used or not.

And as I've said, I've no problem with helping non-Muslims flee Muslim persecution and genocide.

You do not have a genuine concern for non-Muslims persecuted by Muslims, you're just using them as an excuse to defend mass immigration as a whole from Muslim countries.

In reality, the actual figure of Muslims in Europe is approximately 30-40% less than the baseline numbers used in the report, and amusingly, the report actually spells that out. Tree thinks that a baseline of 30-40% less is not going to have any impact on an explosive population growth scenario because Tree doesn't really have a clue what he's wittering about as reality is only useful insomuch as it can be fettered to his xenophobic narrative..


In reality,

The gold standard for measuring religious identity in this report is a census or survey question that asks, “What is your religion, if any?” The aim in this report is to measure identity sociologically rather than theologically. Individuals who self-identify as Muslim are classified as such, regardless of their level of adherence to what might be considered orthodox belief and practice.

http://www.pewforum.org/2017/11/29/appe ... opulation/

Personally I don't give a shit if they're moderates or extremists, it's not my job to give them the benefit of the doubt, it's their burden to earn my trust if they want it so badily, and I've long stopped doing that because it enshrines the notion that people aren't responsible for their choices. If you support an ideology, then I expect you to KNOW the contents of that ideology, including the bad parts and then make an informed decision of either continuing to follow that ideology or giving up on it. I no longer accept ignorance as an excuse as 16 years of this bullshit has lead us nowhere and just contributes to perpetuating this problem indefinitely.

They also try to estimate how many migrants are Muslim so the claim that they consider everyone from a Muslim majority country a Muslim is just false. See the segment called "Estimating and projecting the size and religious composition of regular migrants"

The article did say "in some cases it must be estimated indirectly based upon the national origins of migrants".

Estimating Muslim identity based upon the national origins is a bit different from saying "everyone from that country = Muslim".

The numbers are fairly accurate. No significant portion of those estimated 11%-14% will be Coptic.

Maybe some will be ex-Muslims, but I'd like to see some confirmation of that and you can start from the 5% we have now. I'm more than willing to have policies in place to help ex-Muslim flee Muslim persecution, but they can't be helped if they stay silent.

No, because unlike you, I am not obsessed with identity politics.


Neither am I, it's just a fact that Coptic Christians in Egypt (and non-Muslim Egyptians in general) are in danger of genocide by Islamic supremacists. Muslims are not. The situation is even worse for Syrian or Iraqi Christians.

Anyway, you're a selfish, self-absorbed asshat


Okay, consider that I'm still selfless enough to waste my valuable time to even tell you, you're on a high risk path and nothing good will come from your reckless policies.

from the USA - we Europeans clearly have superior values to you, and a higher sense of civic duty,


I wonder if that higher sense of whatever is reciprocated.

Doesn't look like it. You're being taken for a ride and you don't even know it.

so you let us decide what we do when it comes to the compassionate treatment of refugees, thanks all the same.


Too bad you don't get any refugee gratitude and you're being taken for a ride by people who will never like you.

Tell you what: you sort your shit out, grow some humanity, get educated, then we'll trust you more.


My humanity is limited to those who can reciprocate it.

If you want to pretend it's their failings and that the USA and Europe have no responsibility, then in the future you might want to stop advocating for pre-emptive wars.


Maybe we do have some responsibility, but that doesn't mean "taking millions of them in". If they are to be helped at all, it should be done in their homelands. It is far cheaper to help multiple people in Iraq or Syria on their soil than to feed, clothe and shelter one refugee in the west.

By the same token, Iraqis aren't free from responsibility either. They have just as much agency as Americans or Europeans do.

We got rid of their dictator and stabilized the region somewhat, rebuilt infrastructure, tried to transit to democracy. Whether that was a good decision or not on Bush's part (it wasn't), they could have used this as an opportunity to build a better country similar to what the eastern bloc did after the 90's, but, oh well, shit backward culture strikes again. Bush should have seen this failure coming, but equally, Iraqis have their blame for the utter failure that is Iraq.

Did Bush tell Sunnis to blow up Shi'ites or Kurds? No.
Did Bush tell Shi'ites to blow up Sunnis? No.

Can't put the entire blame on him.

No, I am dismissing your contention asserted in the absence of evidence.


Then feel free to go over Islamic history and see how Muslims treat non-Muslims in places where they are the majority or have power over them. Rarely does it end well.

Not obvious to reality, and not obvious to history either. Nationhood IS the common set of values; the pseudo-religion which binds secular citizens together. That's why Thai Muslims in the south still get on their knees and wai images of the Buddhist King of Thailand.


Nationhood is a paper.

And it's not even worth that if it's backed by nothing. Case in point, Iraq itself. Maybe Iraq could have been more functional as three separate countries to keep the three main factions from killing each other.

Still superior to the contemporary Christians' idea of killing them all and letting God sort it out.


You're a theological dunce. There is no requirement for Christians to kill non-Christians if they don't convert. All they do is preach till they're blue in the face. Then they leave you alone.

There is no "Christian State", no global terrorist network based on Christianity, and "radicalized" Christian youth all over the world aren't traveling the world to join it.

A protection racket that exists solely in your febrile mind.


What is the jizya?

No, no, no - this is your self-gratifying fantasy your'e stroking out in public, don't expect me to play the leg you're humping.


You're just in denial that the US has a one up on Europe.

I've already addressed the silly notion of endless immigration (not mass, twat) several times you despicable liar.


As have I, you repulsive degenerate.

There have been Muslims in Europe for a thousand years, you total fucking numpty. Until the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire reached all the way to the borders of Austria - there were millions of Muslims in Europe.


Yeah notice one thing, many eastern European countries including those under Ottoman subjugation at one point have a far lower percentage of Muslims today, some not even 1%, while the western European countries that were never under Ottoman subjugation went from almost no Muslim population in early 20th century to millions.

Image


In factual reality, we peaked nearly 2 years ago, and nations all round Europe have seen fewer and fewer migrant arrivals - Germany, for instance, reported a 69% decrease in migrant arrivals in 2017 over the previous year.


2015 and 2016 were particularly demanding years due to the refugee crisis, mass immigration however has been going on for decades.

So I'm not impressed because even with a 69% decline it's still too much.

So it's a real problem when ALL your arguments are based on you emoting reality without giving a damn for what's actually true.


No, they're based on the reality of the ideology, its violent history, its regressive values and its awful treatment of non-members and women.

And you're in no position to lecture me when you're driven by an agenda that doesn't even accept borders as a legitimate concept. You don't even realize how much you are in fact emoting so stop pretending to be objective.

To 'work on' - what the fuck are you yammering on about, ffs? Your liberal democratic values seem utterly absent, which makes all your hand-wringing about Muslims and their dissonance with Western social values all the more ironic.


Nice try getting around my point.

And I wasn't aware liberal democratic values include acceptance of fascistic levels of supremacism, violence and sexism masked as religious tolerance.
Wed Dec 20, 2017 5:32 am
TreePosts: 230Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Jason Boreu wrote:Tree are you really saying that because you can imagine it extrapolating therefore that's evidence that this is gonna happen?

Are you really using your imagination as evidence Tree?


No, I'm using pattern recognition.

You have a chart, it has a fairly predictable trajectory, figure it out.

Yes Tree, from now on after this post i'm just gonna ignora all of your red herrings without even mentioning them.


You haven't explained why they're red herrings.

Jason Boreu wrote:Which trend are you talking about? The very slowly takeover of Europe by the muslim horde? Well i don't believe that's gonna happen and your source also doesn't show that this is gonna happen anytime soon so why would i need to explain a problem that i don't even believe to exist?


Argument from incredulity.

Yes Tree, and as i said in my previous post i won't respond to your repeated assertions that failed to convince the first time and from now on after this post i will do as i said in my comment above and just ignore every comment of yours that's just a repeated assertion from a previous post.


Argument from incredulity.

Red herring. This post will be last time that they show up in my responses.


It is not.

Am i? As i said in my previous post i don't believe in your claim that Europe is slowly being invaded by the muslim horde and your source showed the reality to be far from what you are trying to depict here.


My source supports a solid trend of Muslim population growth in Europe.

Also, Aparhafoc cited 4 sources which showed thousands of muslim migrants going back to their homes.
[/quote]

Those sources don't back what he's trying to argue for.

The first one is called "Thousands of Iraqi refugees leave Finland voluntarily". Finland isn't all of Europe and "thousands" is a drop in the bucket when you're talking about millions of people over the continent.

The second article is "Muslims are leaving Denmark" and even that recognizes Denmark is stricter on immigration than other European countries

The third article is the same as the first.

The fourth is about a very small minority of refugees to Germany leaving. Another drop in the bucket. Not impressed.
Wed Dec 20, 2017 5:58 am
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

I'll hop back on this sinister merry-go-round in the new year: tis the time to be festive, not sweeping up other peoples' intellectual refuse.

Until then, Merry Christmas and pleasant and fulfilling New Years to one and all.... yes, even you Tree, although I very much doubt Santa thinks you've been a good boy! ;)
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Thu Dec 21, 2017 5:13 pm
australopithecusLime TordUser avatarPosts: 4347Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:27 pmLocation: Kernow Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Bitching about Muslims appears to be the new Godwin's Law.
Image
Thu Dec 21, 2017 6:34 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 878Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

It has been a while since I had the inclination or time to comment on what Tree is asking everyone to swallow but I still want to discuss his response to my last comments and a couple of other things (which means going a couple of pages back).

Tree wrote:Every choice comes with responsibility in life. That said, I don't agree that Christianity instigates any crimes. There is an imperative to spread the faith, it doesn't say you should do it using violence and it doesn't say you must have a theocracy.

Ok, so you don't agree. I imagine that executions for heresy in the past to jailing homosexuals for life today do not qualify as crimes since they have the force of law behind them but are you disagreeing with the perpretators of attacks on homoesexuals and abortion clinic bombers? There are numerous that claim to be acting as dictated by their faith.

So what you said about Muslims is that "regular Muslims bear responsability for the actions of the extremists Muslims because they're perpetuating an ideology that instigates some Muslims to commit crimes", that ideology being Islam.

Why shouldn't "regular Christians bear responsability for the actions of the extremists Christians because they're perpetuating an ideology that instigates some Christians to commit crimes", that ideology being Christianity?

Tree wrote:There may be some violence inherent to certain Christian cults, in which case, yes, Christians publicly declaring their allegiance to those cults do bear some level of culpability, same as people who publicly endorse bad fire safety advice are culpable to some degree if something bad happens as a result of that advice being followed. (Like telling people to use the elevator during a fire cause it's faster to evacuate. Don't believe it, don't do it.)

The problem with Islam isn't just Islamic cults, it isn't just AQ or the Islamic State, it's not just Wahhabism and it's not "Islamism" (a made up word that represents nothing) it's the regular form of Islamic doctrine. Sunni and Shi'ite forms are violent and theocratic and that applies no matter what school of jurisprudence you pick. It's constantly said Islam is not a monolith, that is true, but the differences are trivial and certainly nowhere near what it's implied when deluded apologists say "it's not a monolith".

So to answer the question above, it's because... the violence Christianiy instigates... is an irregular form of christianity?
While the violence instigated by Islam is the regular form of it?

So we're to conclude that Western Christianity today is the regular form while the Christianity that burned people at the stake or the Christianity that jails homosexuals for life are irregular forms?

And we're also to conclude that Muslims that live their day to day lives without hurting anybody, nor having the intent to, are subscribing the irregular form?

So in other words, the conclusion that I should draw is:
Regular Muslims that subcribe to irregular Islam bear responsability for the irregular Muslims that subscribe to regular Islam because they're perpetuating irregular Islam.
while...
Regular Christians that subcribse to regular Christianity bear no responsability for the irregular Christians that subscribe to irregular Christianity because they're... perpetuating regular Christianity or because they aren't perpetuating irregular Christianity?

Which one alleviates them from responsability? Why does it alleviate them?

And that's without discussing what criteria separates regular from irregular Christianity/Islam.

Tree wrote:Because he's in denial. He implied that Sargon of Akkad is alt-right and then used white supremacist endorsement of him as evidence of Sargon being alt-right.

I even asked him "How is Sargon alt-right?"

Didn't Sparhafoc answer that? Repeatedly?
Anyway, moving on...

Tree wrote:I don't care what conclusion you reach about me, and you want me to take your conclusions seriously too after you just pulled an ad populum on me?

Wow, more than one person reached the conclusion that Nazism is a good ideology for society to be based on, guess it must be good. Oh wait. Not.

That you are or that you are not does not change the fact that this is the conclusion being drawn, "based on our limited interactions" with you. So call it what you want but it simply is a matter of fact that many people reached the conclusion that you are a reprehensible human being.

I asked why that is and the above did not answer the question. I think you've provided an actual answer in a later comment so I'll check.

There we are:
Tree wrote:Just FYI, echo chambers are hard to persuade in general. I could probably go to Stormfront and argue with them against white nationalism and one of them could just as easily ask "Why do you think more than one person has reached the same conclusion that you're a cuck race traitor?"

Do you think I give a shit that echo chamber X or Y doesn't like to hear what I have to say?

So the reason that multiple persons reached a similar conclusion about you is because they live in an echo chamber? Though I wonder how you came to the conclusion that we live in an echo chamber and that somehow you're one rare if not the only person we ever encounter that comes from outside of it, my real question would be:

Can't there be the possibility that your position and arguments for it are just bullshit and that you are hard to persuade because you live in an echo chamber?
What makes you confident that everyone else here is somehow brainwashed while you are the possessor of the unbiased and sound truth? How have you find out?
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Wed Jan 10, 2018 8:01 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 12 of 16
 [ 304 posts ] 
Return to Religion & Irreligion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 7 guests