The West is not atheist

[Apollo]

They are deeply religious secular liberal humanists. It may look like they are not religious, but it is merely a new form of religion with its own dogmas. Look at Sweden for instance, you can't call that an irreligious country as most of them are dogmatic liberals.

Discuss.

 

[Arman]

Dogmatic and religious are not the same thing. That's a very obtuse definition. Religion is tied to spirituality whilst dogmatism is a devotion to a secular belief like a political ideology imo.

 

[Apollo]

Dogmatic and religious are not the same thing. That's a very obtuse definition. Religion is tied to spirituality whilst dogmatism is a devotion to a secular belief like a political ideology imo.

It is. Their god is individualism and liberalism. The whole ideology of liberalism is unscientific. I have been reading Yuval Harari's book lately and he has enlightened me on the sham that is liberalism (a new religion).

 

[Arman]

It is. Their god is individualism and liberalism. The whole ideology of liberalism is unscientific. I have been reading Yuval Harari's book lately and he has enlightened me on the sham that is liberalism (a new religion).

What book?
I just found out this guy is a homosexual Jewish vegan...

 

[Apollo]

What book?
I just found out this guy is a homosexual Jewish vegan...

Haha, he's a good writer, don't judge by those labels. The second one (Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow).

 

[Noir]

Any religion is better than Islam which is a disgusting weapon created by some Arab warlord in 609 CE.It doesn't matter what you believe,there is still a place for you amongst humanity...that is untill you convert into Islam and become either a muslim foot soldier(males) and house slave(females).

If only 12th century corrupt somali rich man who acquired their wealth through trade with filthy Arabs didn't spread Islam to profit from koran sales.

 

[Arman]

Haha, he's a good writer, don't judge by those labels. The second one (Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow).

The man believes we'll have robot overlords. Just combine that with all his previous labels.
An article says all these elites have recommended the book.

@Inquisitive_ resident expert, please decipher this mess.

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

 

[EternalLightX]

Any religion is better than Islam which is a disgusting weapon created by some Arab warlord in 609 CE.It doesn't matter what you believe,there is still a place for you amongst humanity...that is untill you convert into Islam and become either a muslim foot soldier(males) and house slave(females).

If only 12th century corrupt somali rich man who acquired their wealth through trade with filthy Arabs didn't spread Islam to profit from koran sales.

My hero you speak the truth

 

[Rorschach]

They are deeply religious secular liberal humanists. It may look like they are not religious, but it is merely a new form of religion with its own dogmas. Look at Sweden for instance, you can't call that an irreligious country as most of them are dogmatic liberals.

Discuss.

I view them as materialists.

As for the Atheists - it's impossible to believe in nothing in the sense of that word. If anything, you believe in the mechanism that birthed the universe - whether it's cosmic soup, computer simulation, or a nothingness (whatever that might be).

It's a cop-out to argue a believe in nothing and to stop there. It cleverly allows you to spit from the side-lines at anyone who's brave enough to follow a belief system; as if nothingness is the natural state of reality or the null hypothesis. The whole conversation turns into an interrogation where the religionist is required to logically detail the existence of God - when on the other side the atheist bakhti can't do the same for nothingness. How is nothing refuted in the first place when we don't even know if it exists? No one can prove that nothing exists.

So for ease of dialogue, it'd be nice if you identified with one of the many quack hypothesis from your high priests e.g. computer simulation. No one has time for a prick that argues "I haven't made up my mind yet".

BarakAllahu Fiikum.

 

[Axmed Xaji]

I view them as materialists.

As for the Atheists - it's impossible to believe in nothing in the sense of that word. If anything, you believe in the mechanism that birthed the universe - whether it's cosmic soup, computer simulation, or a nothingness (whatever that might be).

It's a cop-out to argue a believe in nothing and to stop there. It cleverly allows you to spit from the side-lines at anyone who's brave enough to follow a belief system; as if nothingness is the natural state of reality or the null hypothesis. The whole conversation turns into an interrogation where the religionist is required to logically detail the existence of God - when on the other side the atheist bakhti can't do the same for nothingness. How is nothing refuted in the first place when we don't even know if it exists? No one can prove that nothing exists.

So for ease of dialogue, it'd be nice if you identified with one of the many quack hypothesis from your high priests e.g. computer simulation. No one has time for a prick that argues "I haven't made up my mind yet".

BarakAllahu Fiikum.

No one believes in nothing. Its just that the something we have in front of us is a joke and easily refuted. So there might be a god but it definitely isnt the Arab god.

So I agree that nothingness is crazy. Islam is too well documented and detailed. There's no way an all powerful creator would've come up with a religion thats so inept.

Bakhti iyo waxkadarana adaa ah

 

[Rorschach]

No one believes in nothing. Its just that the something we have in front of us is a joke and easily refuted. So there might be a god but it definitely isnt the Arab god.

So I agree that nothingness is crazy. Islam is too well documented and detailed. There's no way an all powerful creator would've come up with a religion thats so inept.

Bakhti iyo waxkadarana adaa ah

So you have no position to argue? Got it.

 

[Axmed Xaji]

So you have no position to argue? Got it.

You don't have to argue a position for the sake of arguing a position. You are Muslim so you can have a "position", not because it's logical or makes sense.

 

[Rorschach]

You don't have to argue a position for the sake of arguing a position.

What do you use as a reference point then? This is absurd.