The end of the world as we know it

[OngBonga]

Global warming is bollocks, jfc. They've been on about it for well over a decade now, our summers are still shit, and Pacific nations haven't been reclaimed by the ocean yet.

I'd say it'll be one of the following...

1. Economic collapse leading to WWIII... possibly nuclear, but even without nukes, the economic consequences of a war between USA & Europe vs Russia & China would be terrible for all parties.

2. Volcanic winter - Yellowstone Park being the prime candidate, but there's Katla in Iceland too which has huge potential, not to mention the chain of volcanoes around Indonesia.

3. Disease

4. Extraterrestial event - massive meteor. Most ET events would be devastating for the impact area only, it would take a monster like the one that supposedly wiped out the dinosaurs to fuck the world up.

[wufwugy]

1. Economic collapse leading to WWIII... possibly nuclear, but even without nukes, the economic consequences of a war between USA & Europe vs Russia & China would be terrible for all parties.

This may change to my #1, but in a different way. I think it will have more to do with rot of human institutions. The source of the rot is probably twofold: (1) people living sheltered lives and having no sense of the ways of the world. An example of this sort of thing can be seen in how many westerners embrace the proliferation of a movement whose goal is to subjugate, murder, and enslave those very westerners (Islamism). (2) The organizing principle behind Islamism and the state. They're both totalitarian and both have a featured history of near total eradication of culture and freedom.

I think there is a remarkably high chance that we're on a mostly unavoidable path of Equilibrium (the movie) level totalitarianism.

[Poopadoop]

(1) people living sheltered lives and having no sense of the ways of the world. An example of this sort of thing can be seen in how many westerners embrace the proliferation of a movement whose goal is to subjugate, murder, and enslave those very westerners (Islamism). (2) The organizing principle behind Islamism and the state. They're both totalitarian and both have a featured history of near total eradication of culture and freedom.

1. Not true. Westerners don't exactly 'embrace' Islam. Nor is the goal of any mainstream form of Islam to 'subjugate, murder, and enslave' anyone.

You could argue 2) is true in the sense of countries like present-day Iran and Saudi Arabia. But neither of these countries has shown any interest in exporting their own brand of theocracy.

Also a distinction should be made between fucked up governments and the religion they've hijacked to provide themselves with legitimacy. Historically, Islam has been a much more tolerant religion than Christianity, and much less inclined to subjugation. Two examples are the Arab conquest of Persia and the Ottoman conquests of N. Africa, the Mid East, and the Balkans. In both cases the conquered peoples were allowed to keep their religion, culture and language.

[wufwugy]

1. Not true. Westerners don't exactly 'embrace' Islam. Nor is the goal of any mainstream form of Islam to 'subjugate, murder, and enslave' anyone.

You could argue 2) is true in the sense of countries like present-day Iran and Saudi Arabia. But neither of these countries has shown any interest in exporting their own brand of theocracy.

Also a distinction should be made between fucked up governments and the religion they've hijacked to provide themselves with legitimacy. Historically, Islam has been a much more tolerant religion than Christianity, and much less inclined to subjugation. Two examples are the Arab conquest of Persia and the Ottoman conquests of N. Africa, the Mid East, and the Balkans. In both cases the conquered peoples were allowed to keep their religion, culture and language.

Western education has let us down.

It is verified that Islam has encroached and eradicated. It has been steady and effective. A less proximate cause for why Islam does this is because it is the way of Muhammad. Muhammad abrogated every other element of Islam, and he spread his message as a warlord. "Moderate Islam" is half in this world and half out of it. It is still mostly sharia, but with some small not-fully-Muhammad elements. Note that the Islamic reformation is ISIS. Even the tiny degree of secularization to some small areas of Islam across the globe is apostasy to the way of Muhammad. As all religious reformations do, they go back to the scriptures. ISIS is scriptural Islam.

Islam was created with the purpose of destroying Christianity and western culture. Perhaps a good way of going over the head of the propaganda education we've all received is to look at how and why Islam spread and what has become of those regions. It successfully destroyed the origin regions of Christianity (and western values) and turned them into >98% Islam. ISIS is trying to follow Muhammad by turning them into 100% sharia instead. Everywhere that Islam goes, it becomes wholly Islam.

There's much more but I'll stop here.

[Poopadoop]

Muhammad abrogated every other element of Islam, and he spread his message as a warlord.

The historical arguments go both ways. There's plenty of examples of Christianity being spread by force.

"Moderate Islam" is half in this world and half out of it. It is still mostly sharia, but with some small not-fully-Muhammad elements. Note that the Islamic reformation is ISIS. Even the tiny degree of secularization to some small areas of Islam across the globe is apostasy to the way of Muhammad. As all religious reformations do, they go back to the scriptures. ISIS is scriptural Islam.

I'll try to pick out the more coherent bits here and reply to them.

First, ISIS is radical, fundamental Islam. It is not mainstream but outside of that. Whatever you've been told or heard Donald Trump say is the propaganda. A lot of the people living as muslims in ISIS controlled territory fucking hate it and don't want anything to do with it. A parallel can be drawn with Iran. 90% of the people living there don't support the government and would prefer democracy. They ignore dress codes in private. They buy alcohol on the black market and drink it in their homes. They had public demonstrations over the election and the army opened fire. It's a fucked up place. ISIS is another case where a group of assholes have co-opted a religion for their own fucked up purposes of seizing power.

Islam was created with the purpose of destroying Christianity and western culture.

I'm not a theologian but I'd be surprised if that was it's purpose any more than Protestantism was created to destroy Catholocism, rather than as a reaction to dissatisfaction with mainstream religion and an alternative way of worshipping the same God.

Perhaps a good way of going over the head of the propaganda education we've all received...

You're implying that people with tolerant attitudes to religion have been unduly influenced by their education. I would argue you've been unduly influenced by xenophobic, intolerant individuals.

... is to look at how and why Islam spread and what has become of those regions. It successfully destroyed the origin regions of Christianity (and western values) and turned them into >98% Islam. ISIS is trying to follow Muhammad by turning them into 100% sharia instead. Everywhere that Islam goes, it becomes wholly Islam.

Events in the middle east >1000 years ago were pretty minor compared to how Christianity has been spread historically. I've also quoted more recent examples that directly contradict your last statement.

I'm not defending Islam, I think all religion is fucked. But I think your kind of thinking is dangerous because it promotes the sort of mentality that will lead to a modern day crusade.

[wufwugy]

The historical arguments go both ways. There's plenty of examples of Christianity being spread by force.

There is an integral distinction. Scriptural adherence to Christianity is contrary to proselytizing by force. Religious reformations are always about a return to scripture. Christianity's reformations have been a wresting of the soul of Christianity away from the corruption of it by the Catholic warlords that you've described, and instead an embracing of Jesus.

Islam is the opposite. Scriptural Islam is the way of Muhammad. The way of Muhammad is jihad against non-believers by the sword. Muhammad abrogates every other aspect of Islam. This is taught in every mosque in the world. Muhammad was a warlord who murdered and enslaved, and he died with that as his final message.

First, ISIS is radical, fundamental Islam. It is not mainstream but outside of that. Whatever you've been told or heard Donald Trump say is the propaganda. A lot of the people living as muslims in ISIS controlled territory fucking hate it and don't want anything to do with it. A parallel can be drawn with Iran. 90% of the people living there don't support the government and would prefer democracy. They ignore dress codes in private. They buy alcohol on the black market and drink it in their homes. They had public demonstrations over the election and the army opened fire. It's a fucked up place. ISIS is another case where a group of assholes have co-opted a religion for their own fucked up purposes of seizing power.

ISIS is only radical to us. To the Islamic scriptures and their teachings, ISIS is the reformation, the return to scripture.

Most Muslims have elements of being "nominal Muslims" and elements of secularization. However, it is not from their scriptures and their teachings that they derive this.

I'm not a theologian but I'd be surprised if that was it's purpose any more than Protestantism was created to destroy Catholocism, rather than as a reaction to dissatisfaction with mainstream religion and an alternative way of worshipping the same God.

Its purpose was jihad against the non-Muhammad-like. In the scriptures, Muhammad's success was entirely by murdering and raping and subjugating. He preached early in life but it didn't work so he changed to being a warlord. Even the most liberal of Imams today teaches total abrogation by Muhammad of all previous teachings. Jihad by the sword is Islam's intent.

You're implying that people with tolerant attitudes to religion have been unduly influenced by their education. I would argue you've been unduly influenced by xenophobic, intolerant individuals.

I'm tolerant of people doing whatever they want as long as they don't infringe upon others. This means that I am tolerant of Muslims who do not infringe. What I am not tolerant of is an ideology with the express purpose of killing me.

Islam cannot be changed because of its scriptural backing, and the strategy of its goal to eradicate all non-Muhammad-like elements of the world involves creep. The danger of this creep is seen in things like how there is a movement of young Muslims in the western world, who come from parents who are slightly more secularized, turning towards ISIS and similar jihad. The reason for this is because of the reality that religions can only reform towards scripture, and Islam scripture is jihad.

Events in the middle east >1000 years ago were pretty minor compared to how Christianity has been spread historically. I've also quoted more recent examples that directly contradict your last statement.

I answered most of this already, but I'll add one thing.

It is not a coincidence that where Christianity dominates there is tolerance for other ways of life, while where Islam dominates there is tolerance for no other ways of life. The tiny degree to which there is some small tolerance (for example in Iran) is apostasy to Muhammad, and ISIS is Islam's "Protestant Reformation" trying to fix that.

I'm not defending Islam, I think all religion is fucked. But I think your kind of thinking is dangerous because it promotes the sort of mentality that will lead to a modern day crusade.

Interesting word choice. IIRC the Crusades make up ~<5% of the battles between Islam and the Christian West. The remaining battles were Islamic conquest upon Christian territory. The Crusades were a meager counter, curiously in Christian territory previously conquered by Islamic warlords.

[Poopadoop]

There is an integral distinction.

You know this isn't a phrase that is ever used in English right? Try just saying what you mean without sounding all high-falootin'

Scriptural adherence to Christianity is contrary to proselytizing by force. Religious reformations are always about a return to scripture. Christianity's reformations have been a wresting of the soul of Christianity away from the corruption of it by the Catholic warlords that you've described, and instead an embracing of Jesus.

That's a pretty broad statement. There's plenty of subsets of Christianity that didn't follow these lines, such as Mormonism.

Islam is the opposite. Scriptural Islam is the way of Muhammad. The way of Muhammad is jihad against non-believers by the sword. Muhammad abrogates every other aspect of Islam. This is taught in every mosque in the world. Muhammad was a warlord who murdered and enslaved, and he died with that as his final message.

Omfg you really believe that in mosques they are teaching people to kill all infidels?

ISIS is only radical to us. To the Islamic scriptures and their teachings, ISIS is the reformation, the return to scripture. Most Muslims have elements of being "nominal Muslims" and elements of secularization. However, it is not from their scriptures and their teachings that they derive this.

The best way to settle this is to ask a typical Muslim whether it is radical or not. I suspect they would mirror my arguments that ISIS is a corruption of Islam, not a return to it's roots or some kind of savior of the religion. Most of them fucking hate it full stop.

Its purpose was jihad against the non-Muhammad-like. In the scriptures, Muhammad's success was entirely by murdering and raping and subjugating. He preached early in life but it didn't work so he changed to being a warlord. Even the most liberal of Imams today teaches total abrogation by Muhammad of all previous teachings. Jihad by the sword is Islam's intent.

It's actually a lot more flexible than this. Jihad is only allowed when they are being directly threatened, such as when someone invades their home. It has to be called for by a top imam. There is no 'global jihad' currently in force against Christianity.

I'm tolerant of people doing whatever they want as long as they don't infringe upon others. This means that I am tolerant of Muslims who do not infringe. What I am not tolerant of is an ideology with the express purpose of killing me.

So you believe the main goal of Islam is to kill all non-believers? By that logic all those Muslims living peaceful lives next to non-muslims over the centuries were in fact traitors to their religion and should have been destroyed.

religions can only reform towards scripture...

Completely false. Protestantism when it emerged was no closer to scripture than Catholicism.

and Islam scripture is jihad.

Also false, at least in the way you characterize jihad.

http://islamicsupremecouncil.org/und...m.html?start=9

[a500lbgorilla]

Global warming is bollocks, jfc. They've been on about it for well over a decade now, our summers are still shit, and Pacific nations haven't been reclaimed by the ocean yet.

No trolling?

[OngBonga]

No trolling?

I see no evidence. I see plenty of motives for creating such a problem, or at the very least exaggerating it.

[a500lbgorilla]

I see no evidence. I see plenty of motives for creating such a problem, or at the very least exaggerating it.

Peer reviewed scientific literature is composed upon evidence. There's a lot of it.

[Savy]

Peer reviewed scientific literature is composed upon evidence. There's a lot of it.

Pfft science schmience