u/nino3227

This is why saying things like “Islam is a religion of peace,” “this is not real Islam,” or “these are just bad people using Islam to do bad things” is largely unpersuasive to many non-Muslims in the West.

The reason is that many of them are not judging Islam primarily by its theology or by what Muslims say Islam ought to be. They look at the societies of Muslim-majority countries and at the outcomes they associate with them: levels of prosperity, individual freedom, women’s rights, LGBT rights, education, democracy, and so on.

From that, some draw a fairly simple conclusion: they would not want to live in, or see their families live in, societies with those characteristics.

That is not a rigorous way to determine what Islam itself causes. Muslim-majority countries differ enormously, and their outcomes are shaped by history, institutions, politics, economics, conflict, and many other factors. It is ultimately a crude and unreliable heuristic.

But perceptions matter. If Muslim-majority societies consistently performed much better across measures of human development, freedom, equality, and quality of life, I suspect arguments about Islam would encounter considerably less skepticism and hostility in the West.

As a Muslim, how do you deal with the fact that the single biggest predictor of whether someone is Muslim is simply being born in a Muslim country to Muslim parents?

How do you reconcile your personal conviction with the reality that your faith is, statistically, a product of your geography?

People in Christian, Hindu, or Buddhist regions inherit their religion in the exact same way. Is it fair that billions of people are supposedly born into the "wrong" faith through zero choice of their own, while others get a free pass simply by being born into a Muslim family?

To be clear, I am not arguing here whether Islam is "true" or "false." My question is about how people come to believe it is the absolute truth.

The reality is that personal conviction is overwhelmingly a product of upbringing and geography, rather than an objective, critical, or neutral analysis of world religions.

If people chose their faith based on a neutral analysis of evidence, religious belief would be randomly distributed across the globe. You would see equal proportions of people in Tokyo, Riyadh, Paris, and Cusco independently examining the evidence and arriving at Islam. Geographic boundaries wouldn't dictate belief maps any more than they dictate who accepts the laws of physics or mathematics.

Instead, religious belief mirrors national borders and family lines almost perfectly...

As a believer, how do you deal with the fact that the single strongest predictor of a person's religious affiliation is simply geography and familial indoctrination?

While converts obviously exist, statistically they represent a very tiny fraction of overall religious demographics. The VAST MAJORITY of believers did not arrive at their faith through adult reasoning or investigating alternative doctrines but they simply inherited the religion of their parents. As a matter converts are generally offset by people opting out or moving away from their inherited religion

How do you HONESTLY reconcile your personal conviction with the fact that your belief structure is, statistically speaking, largely a product of your upbringing? Do you think you were just "lucky" to be born in the right country, in the right family, into the right religion?

How is it possible for an observation like this not to fundamentally challenge a believer's faith?

As an atheist, I find it disheartening that there is no consensus with my neighbors regarding the supremacy of our Constitution and laws. Because of this, I have stopped engaging with such people, instead of acting like I was ok with such a stance, which I recognize is yet another strain on our social cohesion.

How do you guys do it? Do you accept that some people believe their gods laws should take precedence over any man made law, and be ok with that? Is that not much of a big deal?

On parle souvent de la pression que mettent les hommes sur les standards de beauté féminine etc, mais franchement étant papa de 3 jeunes filles, moi c'est l'attitude des femmes qui me gave. A chaque fois ce sont des compliments sur la beauté ou l'apparence physique; "qu'est ce qu'elle est beeelle", "tu es trop jolie comme ça!" Etc etc. C'est maintenant que j'ai des enfants que je capte à quel point c'est récurrent et ça vient de partout grand-mère, amies, inconnus chez le médecin ou dans l'ascenseur ...

Ce qui me gonfle c'est que ça renforce l'idée que la beauté est LE critère qui définit la valeur sociale d'une femme, dès l'enfance. Je n'ai pas autant constaté ce genre de compliments des hommes vers les filles ni des femmes vers les garçons

Pour faire suite au post sur la définition de la richesse cette semaine, je constate que pour moi beaucoup (trop) font la confusion entre les deux notions.

1. Le niveau de richesse est simplement et efficacement défini par le patrimoine net (stock) à un instant T. Pourquoi? Parce que cela représente simplement la valeur nette de nos possessions si l'on devait les écouler (toutes ou une partie) rapidement sur le marché. Ce qu'on ne peut pas/plus vendre ne nous rend pas plus riche. On peut avoir gagné des millions sur les 10 années précédentes, si à l'instant T notre patrimoine net est nul ou négatif, nous ne sommes pas riches.

2. ​"Vivre comme un riche", c'est différent, c'est beaucoup moins factuel et on parle surtout de train de vie. On peut être propriétaire de son 4 pièces à Paris mais avec des revenus assez faibles (ex: retraite). On est alors riche car le patrimoine est important et peut être vendu sur le marché ou transmi, mais on ne vit pas forcément comme un riche car les revenus ne sont pas assez élevés. À l'inverse, on peut avoir de gros revenus et peu de patrimoine. Si on claque 10k par mois en loyers élevés et dépenses de consommation finale excessives, on "vit comme un riche", mais on n'est factuellement pas riche si le patrimoine n'est pas là