I'll try to elaborate if you want, for when you come back

The premise is according to muslims: islam is spreading to the entire world, and it is growing faster than all other religions, therefore it is true. But if we were to take two opposing ideas and observe that one idea has more popularity, we can't say that the more popular one is objectively correct while the other is false. That is an argumentum ad populum, an appeal to popularity.

Islam is only growing because muslims have more children than those of other religions, or the religious unaffiliated. They have several more children on average than others.

Breeding like rabbits

Multiple wives and welfare states tend to encourage that

Women don't have any opportunities in their countries. they do much less than women of other religions. They're at home all day, and so they have lots of kids.
And apostasy. Once you enter the religion, you don't leave the religion

With Christianity, people leave with no consequence (unless they live in some cult-like family, I suppose)

Under penalty of death too Lel

(and well, other consequences that they may have when they die, naturally)

Yeah

The more you read into Islam, the more you see just how insecure they are about their religion and faith

They just can't get over it when you challenge them

And it becomes absurd by the second when they throw fallacy after fallacy after you, or make stuff up as they go

#notallmuslims lel

is there a stream?

in about 48 minutes, yeah

Gotta love that daylight savings lol

@RoadtoDawn I don’t think it’s really as simple as ad populum.

@Salacious Swanky Cat What i said earlier i was just being funny, but i also believe that atheism is defensible (you said you don't think it is), as i think everything a person "believes" needs to be challenged. The other thing you said (which is true), that not everyone has all info on a topic/issue so flaws can form.

But I'm Flawless!

*unless i'm not*

@RoadtoDawn it’s that insecurity which I find tragically hilarious

The problem with finding it necessary to challenge everything is, you become an autistic skeptic on everything

Everything about its doctrines rely on turning someone into a yesman

@Shadows agnosticism is defensible; atheism isn’.

@Salacious Swanky Cat nowadays, people blend those two terms together

@Salacious Swanky Cat atheism is also slowly dying

the definition of atheism has changed to make them seem reasonable, yet it hasn't alleviated their fatal problems

@Deleted User @RoadtoDawn Islam claims to be a continuation of judo/Christianity, but completely contradicts it in every way. The role and life of Jesus is completely different in every way too.

@RoadtoDawn heh, its great how vigilance just turned into some kind of autism.

@Deleted User totally agree. Atheism has no good arguments. Agnosticism is far more defensible

@Shadows Thankfully, I was able to survive my Skeptic phase. Those times were not something to be proud of lol

when you take things to their logical conclusion, you become a caricature

@RoadtoDawn yes people conflate the two. It’s dumb and done on purpose.

Skeptics have the same problem as classical liberals in that it's all incoherence

is this whole DST thing throwing everyone else off too? I feel lost without my Matt & Blonde fix already lol

I probably won’t watch all of it because I like sleep. Lol

@RoadtoDawn what’s incoherent about classical liberalism?

It's a cult of reason, materialism

@Salacious Swanky Cat I don't think that is true. I can make a great case for either of those. But i do agree that agnosticism is more understandable.

They try to make logical arguments that forsake the transcendental, while simultaneously making a transcendental argument