Europe submits voluntarily

[Angra Mainyu]

Two points:

1. Actually, present-day Christian teachings are in nearly all cases more friendly (or less unfriendly) than present-day Muslim teachings. Compare, for example, the Catholic Church teaching on apostates (from their religion, of course), blasphemers, men who have gay sex, people who engage in adultery, etc., and the teachings of mainstream Sunni or Shia schools, and you get a huge difference (even if Catholic teachings are also bad).
2. Science weakened Christianity in the West, but it's not the case that it won. In fact, plenty of scientists are Christians, and mainstream Christian philosophers defend the alleged compatibility of Christianity and science. But it's not due to science (at least, not in any clear way; you can make your case if you like) that the Catholic church doesn't support burning or stoning people for any of the behaviors I listed above (or any other).

1.
The Middle-East only started industrialising in the 70s. Please make a fair comparison.

2
I'd argue that modern Christianity is a completely different religion than Christianity just two hundred years ago. Apart from a couple of symbols there's nothing left.

1. What do you mean a "fair" comparison?
You seem to be implying some unfairness on my part, but that's just wrong.
You made the claim that "It's not that Christian teachings are more friendly that Muslim one's". My point was that that claim is false. Present-day Christian teachings are in nearly all cases more friendly than present-day Muslim teachings. The comparison is apt because it illustrates my point. In other words, it illustrates the point that present-day Christian teachings are in nearly all cases more friendly than present-day Muslim teachings.
If the comparison were somehow unfair (why do you imply it is?), it would still be apt - since it would still in fact illustrate the point it's meant to illustrate -, and moreover, regardless of which comparison one chooses, the point would remain true - namely, it is in fact the case that present-day Christian teachings are in nearly all cases more friendly than present-day Muslim teachings.
What children, young adults, converts, etc., get "taught" if they're Muslims is much more unfriendly overall than what they're taught if they're Christians.
If you believe that my comparison is unfair, I would ask you to explain what you think I did that was immoral or irrational - seem you seem to be implying something like that by implying my comparison is unfair -, but I would still point out that it's a fact that present-day Christian teachings are in nearly all cases more friendly than present-day Muslim teachings.
When it comes to assessing the probable consequences of an increase in the number of Muslims - in this case, due to migration from the countries from where they're migrating -, the actual teachings that those Muslims were taught count.

2. It's not completely different, but it's very different. But regardless, even if it's completely different, I'm not sure what your point is, in this context.

 

[whichphilosophy]

This was inevitable;



Independent

The future of Europe looks bleak indeed.

This actually shows just how far the sensationalist title of this thread is from the truth. If Europe had indeed voluntarily submitted to Islam, then Islamic terrorists would have no reason to bomb Europe. The fact that there are still terrorists willing to bomb places in Europe for their cause indicates that they feel their cause has yet to be realized, and Europe has not, in fact, voluntarily submitted to them.

Can we close this thread now?

No
Bombings are still comparatively rare if you compare this to the holy wars in Ireland.
However with the sheer volumes being driven into Europe plus a small minority who arrive radicalized or those born in the UK (including converts) who become radicalized

Taking over a country by a religion is a slow process. It can be done by forced conversions if the forces are large enough or on a one by one basis by way of conversion.
We have immense security problems as British citizens were travelling at will to Syria and back hooking up with extremist groups and even joining their forces.

Only the collapse of our borders made it possible.

One things seems very likely and that is Islam is very likely to take over in Europe as the main religion. As it does attempts will be made to restore religion incorporated into the State.
The question is whether Islam will change in the same way Christianity did or it will progress slightly or even reverse to more ancient doctrines.

Could a rise in Atheism, and other non-Muslim religions counter such growth making restrictive government more difficult.

 

[angelo]

This was inevitable;



Independent

The future of Europe looks bleak indeed.

This actually shows just how far the sensationalist title of this thread is from the truth. If Europe had indeed voluntarily submitted to Islam, then Islamic terrorists would have no reason to bomb Europe. The fact that there are still terrorists willing to bomb places in Europe for their cause indicates that they feel their cause has yet to be realized, and Europe has not, in fact, voluntarily submitted to them.

Can we close this thread now?

Yet!! Has not completely submitted yet! What about in say, 50-100 years?

 

[bigfield]

This actually shows just how far the sensationalist title of this thread is from the truth. If Europe had indeed voluntarily submitted to Islam, then Islamic terrorists would have no reason to bomb Europe. The fact that there are still terrorists willing to bomb places in Europe for their cause indicates that they feel their cause has yet to be realized, and Europe has not, in fact, voluntarily submitted to them.

Can we close this thread now?

Yet!! Has not completely submitted yet! What about in say, 50-100 years?

Like a Christian waiting for Jesus to return.

 

[angelo]

So many muslim apologists tell us that if we don't get along with political islam, which islam is, or if we find a problem, then the problem is with us. The fact of the matter is that Mo attacked every single neighbor he had. His only success came through violence, not by peaceful negotiation. His dying words were to hurt, or kill Jews, Kafirs and xtians.
Muslims hold that Mo was the perfect man, a prophet from god, to be followed by all good muslims. Mo was islam and he was never compatible with any Kafir. Lying to Kafirs is allowed in islam if it furthers the cause of this death cult.
The one big lie is that islam can be compatible with Western culture. It is not and never will be. Whenever a sizeable minority of muslims congregate in Western society, they make more and more demands, like using their own sharia laws for example.

 

[faded_Glory]

It should be noted that, after decades of significant presence of Muslims in Europe, no Muslim political parties have yet emerged anywhere. If they are trying to take over as a body of people unified by their religion, they are not showing any signs of doing so through what would be the easiest and most straightforward way available: enter the political arena, establish political parties with programs based on Islamic teachings, and gather enough votes to enter local and national parliaments.

 

[bigfield]

So many muslim apologists tell us that if we don't get along with political islam, which islam is, or if we find a problem, then the problem is with us.

In your case, the problem is your inexcusable ignorance and apparent ability to approach the subject rationally.

The fact of the matter is that Mo attacked every single neighbor he had. His only success came through violence, not by peaceful negotiation. His dying words were to hurt, or kill Jews, Kafirs and xtians.
Muslims hold that Mo was the perfect man, a prophet from god, to be followed by all good muslims. Mo was islam and he was never compatible with any Kafir. Lying to Kafirs is allowed in islam if it furthers the cause of this death cult.

Muhammad carked it 1384 years ago. In the 1384 years since he died, the world, including the Islamic world, has changed drastically. Making predictions about Muslims today, based on the behaviour of a tyrant who died 1384 years ago, is just complete and utter unmitigated idiocy.

The one big lie is that islam can be compatible with Western culture. It is not and never will be.

If you don't know anything about history, your predictions of the future are worthless.

Whenever a sizeable minority of muslims congregate in Western society, they make more and more demands, like using their own sharia laws for example.

'They' don't demand Sharia law. This is what I mean by a lack of rationality; you take the actions of a tiny minority and generalise about an entire group.

 

[DrZoidberg]

1.
The Middle-East only started industrialising in the 70s. Please make a fair comparison.

2
I'd argue that modern Christianity is a completely different religion than Christianity just two hundred years ago. Apart from a couple of symbols there's nothing left.

1. What do you mean a "fair" comparison?
You seem to be implying some unfairness on my part, but that's just wrong.
You made the claim that "It's not that Christian teachings are more friendly that Muslim one's". My point was that that claim is false. Present-day Christian teachings are in nearly all cases more friendly than present-day Muslim teachings. The comparison is apt because it illustrates my point. In other words, it illustrates the point that present-day Christian teachings are in nearly all cases more friendly than present-day Muslim teachings.
If the comparison were somehow unfair (why do you imply it is?), it would still be apt - since it would still in fact illustrate the point it's meant to illustrate -, and moreover, regardless of which comparison one chooses, the point would remain true - namely, it is in fact the case that present-day Christian teachings are in nearly all cases more friendly than present-day Muslim teachings.
What children, young adults, converts, etc., get "taught" if they're Muslims is much more unfriendly overall than what they're taught if they're Christians.
If you believe that my comparison is unfair, I would ask you to explain what you think I did that was immoral or irrational - seem you seem to be implying something like that by implying my comparison is unfair -, but I would still point out that it's a fact that present-day Christian teachings are in nearly all cases more friendly than present-day Muslim teachings.
When it comes to assessing the probable consequences of an increase in the number of Muslims - in this case, due to migration from the countries from where they're migrating -, the actual teachings that those Muslims were taught count.

2. It's not completely different, but it's very different. But regardless, even if it's completely different, I'm not sure what your point is, in this context.

People respond to incentives. Islam today is different than Christianity today because economic incentives are different in the different regions. This can explain all the differences. This means that a Muslim moved to the west should start to change their faith in a liberal fashion. Which is exactly what we get. The fact that it doesn't happen overnight is used as evidence of Islamic evil. As if that proves that Islam is fundamentaly different to Christianity. I'm sorry if reality disagrees with you.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

1. What do you mean a "fair" comparison?
You seem to be implying some unfairness on my part, but that's just wrong.
You made the claim that "It's not that Christian teachings are more friendly that Muslim one's". My point was that that claim is false. Present-day Christian teachings are in nearly all cases more friendly than present-day Muslim teachings. The comparison is apt because it illustrates my point. In other words, it illustrates the point that present-day Christian teachings are in nearly all cases more friendly than present-day Muslim teachings.
If the comparison were somehow unfair (why do you imply it is?), it would still be apt - since it would still in fact illustrate the point it's meant to illustrate -, and moreover, regardless of which comparison one chooses, the point would remain true - namely, it is in fact the case that present-day Christian teachings are in nearly all cases more friendly than present-day Muslim teachings.
What children, young adults, converts, etc., get "taught" if they're Muslims is much more unfriendly overall than what they're taught if they're Christians.
If you believe that my comparison is unfair, I would ask you to explain what you think I did that was immoral or irrational - seem you seem to be implying something like that by implying my comparison is unfair -, but I would still point out that it's a fact that present-day Christian teachings are in nearly all cases more friendly than present-day Muslim teachings.
When it comes to assessing the probable consequences of an increase in the number of Muslims - in this case, due to migration from the countries from where they're migrating -, the actual teachings that those Muslims were taught count.

2. It's not completely different, but it's very different. But regardless, even if it's completely different, I'm not sure what your point is, in this context.

People respond to incentives. Islam today is different than Christianity today because economic incentives are different in the different regions. This can explain all the differences. This means that a Muslim moved to the west should start to change their faith in a liberal fashion. Which is exactly what we get. The fact that it doesn't happen overnight is used as evidence of Islamic evil. As if that proves that Islam is fundamentaly different to Christianity. I'm sorry if reality disagrees with you.

First, you're changing the subject. You made a false claim about Islamic teachings and Christian teachings. I pointed that out.
Second, present-day Islam and present-day Christianity are overall quite different in that the former has usually considerably more evil teachings. As I already explained.
Third, no, that's not how it works. People who have faith in some religion (or generally ideology, even if not traditionally called "religion") usually keep it, especially if there are others like them, and specially if their commitment is strong. For example, you keep the faith in your left-wing ideology. Anyone who points out mistakes is not only seen as wrong, but is the subject of your unacceptable attacks. You are wrong, and will remain wrong no matter what. If you and several of your in-group members were to migrate abroad, you would likely not change your ideology because of it.
Fourth, you win: your tone and persistence got me to leave. I'm not as patient as I used to with internet hostility. It's stressful.

 

[KeepTalking]

This actually shows just how far the sensationalist title of this thread is from the truth. If Europe had indeed voluntarily submitted to Islam, then Islamic terrorists would have no reason to bomb Europe. The fact that there are still terrorists willing to bomb places in Europe for their cause indicates that they feel their cause has yet to be realized, and Europe has not, in fact, voluntarily submitted to them.

Can we close this thread now?

No
Bombings are still comparatively rare if you compare this to the holy wars in Ireland.
However with the sheer volumes being driven into Europe plus a small minority who arrive radicalized or those born in the UK (including converts) who become radicalized

Taking over a country by a religion is a slow process. It can be done by forced conversions if the forces are large enough or on a one by one basis by way of conversion.
We have immense security problems as British citizens were travelling at will to Syria and back hooking up with extremist groups and even joining their forces.

Only the collapse of our borders made it possible.

So, you agree that, unlike the hyperbolic thread title, Europe has not submitted, voluntarily, or otherwise.

One things seems very likely and that is Islam is very likely to take over in Europe as the main religion.

It doesn't seem at all likely to me, but that's not what this thread is about. It is about Europe having already submitted to Islam, which has definitely not happened.

As it does attempts will be made to restore religion incorporated into the State.

IF it does, and IF it does not modernize and become more moderate in the process. Those are two very big IFs. At the current rate of conversion, it will take about 440 years for 50% of Europeans to convert to Islam. I don't see why anyone alive today is concerned about what religious demographics may be like nearly 500 years from now. And, of course, that ignores the fact that atheism and religious non-affiliation is also on the rise in Europe. Both cannot possibly continue to increase until they are both at 50% of the population, and predicting which one will hold the course over the next several hundred years would be and incredibly futile endeavor.

The question is whether Islam will change in the same way Christianity did or it will progress slightly or even reverse to more ancient doctrines.

Could a rise in Atheism, and other non-Muslim religions counter such growth making restrictive government more difficult.

And, with those questions on the table, and no conceivable way to answer them in the near future, it seems rather ridiculous to scream and cry about Europe having already submitted to Islam. Thank you for your participation, you have helped to show that the idea upon which this thread is predicated is absolute nonsense.

- - - Updated - - -

This actually shows just how far the sensationalist title of this thread is from the truth. If Europe had indeed voluntarily submitted to Islam, then Islamic terrorists would have no reason to bomb Europe. The fact that there are still terrorists willing to bomb places in Europe for their cause indicates that they feel their cause has yet to be realized, and Europe has not, in fact, voluntarily submitted to them.

Can we close this thread now?

Yet!! Has not completely submitted yet! What about in say, 50-100 years?

It still will not have submitted. pile another couple hundred years on there, and you will still see no submission. On the other hand, I remind you that this thread was opened with a title and opening post that claimed Europe has already submitted. I am glad that you now agree with me that this has not happened.

 

[DrZoidberg]

People respond to incentives. Islam today is different than Christianity today because economic incentives are different in the different regions. This can explain all the differences. This means that a Muslim moved to the west should start to change their faith in a liberal fashion. Which is exactly what we get. The fact that it doesn't happen overnight is used as evidence of Islamic evil. As if that proves that Islam is fundamentaly different to Christianity. I'm sorry if reality disagrees with you.

First, you're changing the subject. You made a false claim about Islamic teachings and Christian teachings. I pointed that out.
Second, present-day Islam and present-day Christianity are overall quite different in that the former has usually considerably more evil teachings. As I already explained.
Third, no, that's not how it works. People who have faith in some religion (or generally ideology, even if not traditionally called "religion") usually keep it, especially if there are others like them, and specially if their commitment is strong. For example, you keep the faith in your left-wing ideology. Anyone who points out mistakes is not only seen as wrong, but is the subject of your unacceptable attacks. You are wrong, and will remain wrong no matter what. If you and several of your in-group members were to migrate abroad, you would likely not change your ideology because of it.
Fourth, you win: your tone and persistence got me to leave. I'm not as patient as I used to with internet hostility. It's stressful.

That is the subject I am discussing. If we keep the faith of our parents then how do you account for the evolution of ideas? You know the stuff Hegel was on about? Being lefty in the 30'ies or 70'ies is different than being lefty today. If ideas don't evolve how do you account for new ideas being introduced. At some point Islam was a new thing. How come people converted in the first place?

I have another theory to why you don't want to keep discussing this

 

[whichphilosophy]

It should be noted that, after decades of significant presence of Muslims in Europe, no Muslim political parties have yet emerged anywhere. If they are trying to take over as a body of people unified by their religion, they are not showing any signs of doing so through what would be the easiest and most straightforward way available: enter the political arena, establish political parties with programs based on Islamic teachings, and gather enough votes to enter local and national parliaments.

We could have said that about Christianity. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the West. In recent years Europe has been driving in millions each year. This would have some impact on changing our societies. Statistically the West could become mainly Islamic in just over a generation. As the West changes, we would ask whether Islam just like Christianity will go through a reformation. Only a few Muslims are a problem and are in fact more so in Muslim societies than in the West.

 

[angelo]

It should be noted that, after decades of significant presence of Muslims in Europe, no Muslim political parties have yet emerged anywhere. If they are trying to take over as a body of people unified by their religion, they are not showing any signs of doing so through what would be the easiest and most straightforward way available: enter the political arena, establish political parties with programs based on Islamic teachings, and gather enough votes to enter local and national parliaments.

Given enough time and numbers that will come no doubt. Already there are moslem politicians in many parliaments in the Western world. How do you think they've taken over most of sub Sahara Africa, Turkey, most of the Middle East including Afghanistan, Pakistan Iraq, Syria, Egypt and wherever there are moslem majority populations!

 

[angelo]

In your case, the problem is your inexcusable ignorance and apparent ability to approach the subject rationally.

The fact of the matter is that Mo attacked every single neighbor he had. His only success came through violence, not by peaceful negotiation. His dying words were to hurt, or kill Jews, Kafirs and xtians.
Muslims hold that Mo was the perfect man, a prophet from god, to be followed by all good muslims. Mo was islam and he was never compatible with any Kafir. Lying to Kafirs is allowed in islam if it furthers the cause of this death cult.

Muhammad carked it 1384 years ago. In the 1384 years since he died, the world, including the Islamic world, has changed drastically. Making predictions about Muslims today, based on the behaviour of a tyrant who died 1384 years ago, is just complete and utter unmitigated idiocy.

The one big lie is that islam can be compatible with Western culture. It is not and never will be.

If you don't know anything about history, your predictions of the future are worthless.

Whenever a sizeable minority of muslims congregate in Western society, they make more and more demands, like using their own sharia laws for example.

'They' don't demand Sharia law. This is what I mean by a lack of rationality; you take the actions of a tiny minority and generalise about an entire group.

And you are blinded by idealistic ideology. Meanwhile, every day a new islamic terrorist attack kills dozens and injures hundreds.

 

[TSwizzle]

At some point Islam was a new thing. How come people converted in the first place?

When you have a scimitar hovering over your neck, it's not exactly a free choice.

 

[faded_Glory]

It should be noted that, after decades of significant presence of Muslims in Europe, no Muslim political parties have yet emerged anywhere. If they are trying to take over as a body of people unified by their religion, they are not showing any signs of doing so through what would be the easiest and most straightforward way available: enter the political arena, establish political parties with programs based on Islamic teachings, and gather enough votes to enter local and national parliaments.

Given enough time and numbers that will come no doubt. Already there are moslem politicians in many parliaments in the Western world. How do you think they've taken over most of sub Sahara Africa, Turkey, most of the Middle East including Afghanistan, Pakistan Iraq, Syria, Egypt and wherever there are moslem majority populations!

Strange that you have so little confidence in the strength of the Western ideals and way of life. Yes, there are Muslim politicians in many parliaments of the Western world, and these parliamentarians subscribe to the programs of the parties they are members of. You know, social-democrat and liberal parties. I don't understand why you can't see that the flow of ideas is a two-way street, not one where Muslims influence Western thought but no Western thoughts will ever penetrate Muslim minds. That is just not how the world works.

 

[TSwizzle]

Strange that you have so little confidence in the strength of the Western ideals and way of life.

No surprise when one is constantly bombarded with hand wringing opinions about how "Western ideals and way of life" are shit.

 

[bigfield]

In your case, the problem is your inexcusable ignorance and apparent ability to approach the subject rationally.


Muhammad carked it 1384 years ago. In the 1384 years since he died, the world, including the Islamic world, has changed drastically. Making predictions about Muslims today, based on the behaviour of a tyrant who died 1384 years ago, is just complete and utter unmitigated idiocy.

The one big lie is that islam can be compatible with Western culture. It is not and never will be.

If you don't know anything about history, your predictions of the future are worthless.

Whenever a sizeable minority of muslims congregate in Western society, they make more and more demands, like using their own sharia laws for example.

'They' don't demand Sharia law. This is what I mean by a lack of rationality; you take the actions of a tiny minority and generalise about an entire group.

And you are blinded by idealistic ideology. Meanwhile, every day a new islamic terrorist attack kills dozens and injures hundreds.

'idealistic ideology'

That doesn't lend any support to your poor arguments.

 

[KeepTalking]

Strange that you have so little confidence in the strength of the Western ideals and way of life.

No surprise when one is constantly bombarded with hand wringing opinions about how "Western ideals and way of life" are shit.

The surprise is that you seem to have bought those arguments, and are extrapolating from them with great zeal.

 

[faded_Glory]

Strange that you have so little confidence in the strength of the Western ideals and way of life.

No surprise when one is constantly bombarded with hand wringing opinions about how "Western ideals and way of life" are shit.

I don't understand what you are referring to.