You can’t fight either directly. Fight stupdity and both go away.
Probably shouldn’t be fucking around with other countries either unless directly attacked.
Institutionalized religion is bad, religion for yourself isn’t imho. I can understand the need for answers, although I don’t necessarily need them. I think that is part of tolerance, to accept the believes of others.
I can understand the need for answers, although I don’t necessarily need them.
Btw do you think atheists always need answers for everything? I think atheists can be okay without knowing the answer. The religious people are the ones who always wants an answer(wrong answer counts) and they always explain thinks they can’t explain as “god’s creation/mystery/whatever”
No I certainly don’t have have all the answers, the people that think they do are a huge problem.
I can understand the need for an explanation, but I simply don’t have that need, although I like to know how things work. But if we as humantiy don’t know I don’t think its so bad.
Yeah, if you try to change the facts because of your believe we have a problem. If your religion can adapt to new facts (or live besides them) I don’t really care.
People created god as an explaination of how the world is created and maintained. People who do science really knows that we can’t know everything for sure, and are familiar and okay with not knowing that thing.
I said we cant know everything but we must be okay with that. Religion just takes something they see and put the “god made this” label and refuses to question god.
If religious people don’t have that need for explaination, would they belive god created everything? Aren’t they okay with saying “we don’t really know how everything was created”?
I can understand the need for an explanation
Religion usually explains with something wrong and the followers simply take it as real truth. Don’t say atheists are the ones who need explaination for everything
There is no one religion and they sure don’t handle conflicts with science the same way, so which one are you talking about?
For example, Buddhism in its core is accepting of change in the world and aims to adapt.
which one are you talking about?
Which is “your” religion? I’m pretty sure it isnt Buddhism. I am talking about whatever religion that puts “god” as almighty and the one who made everything including us.
I dont have one, but its an important part of peoples lives, so i think about this stuff.
The point being, that i have less issues with that way of resolving conflicts between your believes and scientific facts.
Thoose “god belivers” are like against spirit of science. Not scientific facts but scientific spirit of accepting that we have much more things to know and cannot put a god as someone who made everything the way it is, without questioning.
You don’t need religion to believe in something, did this occur to you? I don’t have anything against people who believe some even weird shit. Let me hear it, let us discuss it, but do as you please (who am i to judge? I don’t know the truth).
But the moment you enter some cult (or religion if you prefer that term), you’re on my hate-list. They are to control the weak sheeple. Period.
Why do people always take it, that belief equals religion?
“Religion for yourself” in the age of internet of called “personal belief”. So, the term “religion” now only means, like it or not, “institutionalized religion”.
This is 100% caused by the fact that people “identify” as Y (not using X as a variable, as it is now a fucking confusing buzzword), and are subsequently grouped together in “echo rooms” by various platforms algorithms. This happened so overwhelmingly that in less than a decade, it redefined the default behavior of people, online, and you will now see people automatically seeking those echo rooms. Even on Lemmy, where people are literally seeking instances that will validate their own beliefs, and block those they do not share.
Thats … Just your believes man
If you keep away from social media as much as possible (as anyone should) its not so bad. I know a few people, that don’t go to church but believe in god.
No one feels great by being critiqued, but its necessary imho.
Oof.
Please do elaborate
An adult that still believes in Santa might not lead to anything bad, but it leads to them indoctrinating their children to also believe in Santa into adulthood,
And if some dude can live on the north pole and travel to every home on earth in one night, then other equally ludicrous ideas might not sound so far fetched
And before you know it you’re wearing radioactive stickers to rebalance your chakras, sticking jade eggs up your ass to bring luck and you’re blowing up a shopping mall because your imaginary friend hates gay people
This is a classic slippery slope fallacy. Millions of religious people exist from all sorts of ideological spectrums. The vast, vast majority are not evil and don’t do bad things.
The extremism present in religious people is also apparent and present in atheists, agnostics, or whatever generic belief system you can think of. Religion by itself doesn’t cause extremism: ad hominems, whataboutisms, and disinformation causes extremism. Constantly comparing yourself to an enemy and convincing yourself you are in the absolute right causes extremism. Sure, you see some ‘religious’ people going crazy and shooting up places. They also have manifestos that are completely detached from reality in a way that reeks of far-right propaganda and disinformation, and never any real coherence or thought given to the religious teachings they supposedly follow (if they mention their religious texts at all, it’s often cherry-picking or outright incorrect).
We should not try to fix the issues of mental health that plague a lot of countries by going after religion. If anything, that would only backfire by virtue of validating any persecution complex religious people might have. We should instead focus on providing affordable mental healthcare that is easily, immediately accessible and normalized for the wider population, as well as providing clear sources of valid information and having any questionable sources that construe facts and claim to not be news sources in lawsuits or elsewhere be forced to clearly denote themselves as not news regularly.
What if I keep a jade egg in my ass just for fun?
That sounds an awful lot like sexual depravity, which makes god sad for some reason so i believe you’ll be cast into a fiery pit to have your skin melted off, regrown, then melted off again, for all eternity. And this will be just, a punishment that fits the crime
And while you’re in excruciating pain for all eternity just remember: god loves you ♥️
I recently visited reddit and was horrified to see how many people there say “Lol he believes in sky dady, his opinions are worthless, ban all religion” and even some extreme comments like “All christians are pedoes” and I am seeing this rising slowly on lemmy as well
Any sort of extremism is bad, whether that’s religious, political or atheistic(?), and thats what we should be fighting, banning hijabs is not gonna do any good
Extremism is not bad. The only proper response to fascism is antifascism, for example. Balance is not a virtue, that’s like saying we need both the KKK and the antiracists to make a nice balance.
‘Two wrongs make a right’
What did an avg. Christian do who works 9-5, barely makes up enough money to support his family and kids, to be a called a pedophile, just the fact that he prays to a god? I love lemmy but All civil discussion is lost when you go against the majority opinion, which ironically enough is the exact same thing that fascist right wingers do, but ofc it’s not the same thing
Are you legitimately calling antiracism and antifascism a “wrong” just so you can take this “enlightened centrist” approach? What the fuck. Again, extremism isn’t a bad thing in and of itself, it depends on what you’re being extremist about. Being extremely antiracist? Good. Being extremely racist? Extremely bad.
The average Christain who works 9-5, barely makes enough money to support his family and kids, is also homophobic, transphobic, racist, and sexist. It is the minority among religious people to take the correct approach.
I am not blaming religious people, but Religion itself.
What did an avg. Christian do who works 9-5, barely makes up enough money to support his family and kids, to be a called a pedophile, just the fact that he prays to a god?
That’s indeed very rude behavior towards your hypothetical person.
which ironically enough is the exact same thing that fascist right wingers do, but ofc it’s not the same thing
Middle Ground Fallacy. Just because two sides exist does not mean the truth is somewhere in the middle. There are issues where one side is objectively right. Supporting the side that is wrong does not make you a advocate for civility; it makes you wrong.
Now, could there be more polite discussion? Sure. Does that mean anti-theists should allow religion to further taint our politics, rights, and conversation? Absolutely not.
GTFO of here with this bullshit.
Any sort of extremism is bad…
“I want to kill all brown people like the crusaders before me”
“I want him to not be allowed to do that and if he does he should be dealt with severely and quickly.”
“now now guys you’re both being too extreme”
When it comes to atheists vs religion, I know which group I’d trust to not firebomb my workplace.
Making his point…
The Naxalite-Maoists of India are explicitly atheist and they also firebomb innocent people.
Political and religious extremism are two sides of the same coin.
The coin is human nature.
Pls tell me which religion says to kill brown ppl
Ask the crusades
They killed “pagans” not “black people” there is a difference.
*brown
Weird how it was almost exclusively brown people who were targeted as pagans.
Idk, latwians aren’t brown
Religion is for the feeble minded.
I’m sorry, no hate or incivility intended towards you as a person, but this idea is pandering centrist bullshit.
Woah.
Centrist?
I mean, yeah. On one hand, you have pretty much all of Conservatism which is empowered largely by religious ideology, and is propelling the West full-speed towards fascism. On the other hand, you have people’s freedom to believe in an authoritarian skydaddy who gives them permission to seek dominion over other people without being challenged.
This take sits right in the middle: “Yes, extremism is largely a result of religious indoctrination, but don’t hurt people’s feelings by challenging their beliefs.”
No, sorry. Challenging people’s bullshit supernatural beliefs is very method in which we attack extremism. If those beliefs justify cruelty, there is no shame in telling a person that their beliefs are bullshit and their behavior is reprehensible.
There is also a modern definition of fascism as “Inequality through mythological and essentialized identity”. Basically you foster belief that because of some mythos you are special (gender, ethnicity, religion), and that allows you to deserve more or discriminate against the others. Religions that demand blind faith are contradict modern science more or less have to foster part of this thinking. Not that you need religion for this but it’s close. And not all extremism is fascist ofc.
Yes, because it’s basically the “hey guys, not all cops are bad” take but applied to religion.
Like yeah obviously don’t be a hateful asshole and persecute religious people, obviously, but pretending there is no value in tearing down religious structures is apathetic centrist enabling bullshit. We should shine a light wherever ignorance dwells, not turn a blind eye to it.
deleted by creator
Pascal’s wager doesn’t even attempt to make a philosophical argument for God’s existence, and it only works if you assume a singular god. Of course in this case it’s Christianity.
So let’s say someone agrees that it’s better to worship a god on the off chance they exist than to not do so and end up in hell, now what? Where do I go from here? You’ve opened up a can of worms because now I have to decide what the logical choice is (since PW only relies purely on logic) in which god to choose.
The “logical choice” only works when you have a singular alternative, but if you have a dozen different gods to choose from then everything falls apart. The only logical thing to do is to worship the god with the worst hell, on the off chance that they are the one true God. At least you spared yourself from that.
In the end though the wager essentially only sees/works with atheism and one religion, which is why it’s so flawed. The moment you introduce multiple religions to a coin toss logic scenario it fails to work.
deleted by creator
You are talking about different and compatible critiques of pascal’s wager, and your condescension at the beginning of the post is unwarranted because he is correct, just not talking about the same thing you are.
In regards to the wager, the actual canonical depiction of Hell wasn’t eternal torture but instead not being allowed into God’s presence so, eh…
Miss me with turning into Fanta regardless
deleted by creator
Your assumption is that religion wants you to suffer.
Religion, in my experience, wants you to be compassionate, accepting and give back to the community. This is not extreme.
deleted by creator
Most people talk about Religions people being fanaticists with a disregard for human wellbeing. (Outside of their religion) I associate this with the sects that emigrated to America due to prosecution in Europe and American New religons. (Amish, those Utah people etc., those wierd evangelicals(?))
Of course there are also good religious groups in America.
Removed by mod
I beg to differ. This bullshit was right below it in my feed for some reason:
Thanks, I hate it
Removed by mod
Ok, but why in meme format?
“extremism” is what neoliberals invented to liken egalitarians with Nazis to make themselves look good.
Well that’s certainly a hot take!
Religion doesn’t hurt anyone if you accept everyone’s beliefs and don’t go too far with your religion
What is “too far” though? Is raising your children to follow specific religious rules already too far? Because I think it is, but many others think that’s okay. What about expecting your surroundings to accommodate your religion? At what point exactly is that going too far?
That’s the point. They all start nice and friendly. And the more power they gain, the more hardcore it gets. The first step (joining a cult) is already “too far”
Sure, in the same way that not knowing how to count or add and subtract numbers doesn’t technically hurt anyone. But it sure as fuck stifles their potential in life and they would definitely be better off getting educated on the topic.
Tell me you are a Christian who is sad that people keep calling out how Christians have vitriolic hatred for their fellow man with telling me you are a Christian.
Also anyone get a strong feeling that by extremist, OP means Muslims not Christofacist in the US
- I am not a christian lol
- I mean extremism by any person who uses religion as an excuse, not any particular one
All religions are extreme.
so 80% of the population are extremists?
Is 80% religious practioners? I mean I probably show up in some statistics as protestant.
I probably show up in some statistics as protestant.
According to the guy I replied to that makes you an extremist.
If you look up “% people in (your area) religious” you’ll find roughly 80% identify as one religion or another. If religion is the problem it’s 80% of the population.
But I am not religious. So seemed not so reliable stats
You just said you were Protestant
We should be fighting religion.
Removed by mod
Every time someone uses extremist as a pejorative
We should be fighting
You can make a religion out of this
Guess the name of this Darwinist extremist! (hint: he was fundamental in establishing Holocaust Remembrance Day on January 27th)
“In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always a means for improving a species’ health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher evolution.”
I’m sure many of you will find a clever way to justify his murder of eleven million Jews and other “weak” people, and dragging half of the world into the deadliest conflict of all time, all because of his extreme application of Darwinian evolution theory.
What a weird way to favor religion
I didn’t mention religion at all. I’m supporting OP’s statement by demonstrating that all humans and all ideologies are capable of extremism.
You didn’t demonstrate that “all humans and all ideologies are capable of extremism.” You demonstrated that Nazis are extremists. Do you honestly not see the difference or are you simply muddying the waters so you can argue in bad faith?
I’m actually claiming that Darwinism is extremist and that it is implicated by name in the murder of tens of millions of people.
FWIW, in my experience as a scientist and science educator, “Darwinism” isn’t a real term used by anyone besides religious nut jobs looking to create a straw man. Just so you know.
Scientific advances are not extremist. People who understand the scientific method and make use of scientific advances are not extremists. People who use scientific advances to commit atrocities are extremists.
Edit: and you still didn’t demonstrate that “all humans and all ideologies are capable of extremism.”
What’s wrong with using the term Darwinism? I think it’s a good umbrella category to include the varieties of evolution theory such Lamarckism, neo-darwinian evolution, modern evolutionary synthesis and extended evolutionary synthesis. What term do the people who aren’t “nut jobs” use?
I’ve made some pretty decent claims about the universality of extremism. I’d love for you to point me to a community of humans who haven’t done something extreme.
What term do the people who aren’t “nut jobs” use?
Evolution. If we’re feeling pedantic or spicy, “the theory of evolution.”
And you still didn’t address the fact that understanding and believing in a scientific advance does not make one an extremist. It doesn’t place you in the same ideological group as people who use that scientific advance for a crime. People who believe the theory of gravity are not “gravitationalists” or “Newtonians.” Moreover, if I use gravity to commit a crime, that doesn’t implicate everyone else who believes that gravity exists. I understand how nuclear reactions work; does that make me a “nuclearist” and therefore complicit in the bombing of Hiroshima?
I’d love for you to point me to a community of humans who haven’t done something extreme.
Secular humanists. There are a number of others I could cite if I felt like pushing your buttons, but I’ll stick with the single option so you don’t get distracted.
Not just Hitler, the whole of the Nazi party and their public propaganda was based on extreme Darwinism.
An important official Nazi Party publication, Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte, edited by Alfred Rosenberg, occasionally featured articles promoting evolution. In a 1935 article Heinz Brücher praised German biologist Ernst Haeckel for paving the way for the Nazi regime. In addition to mentioning Haeckel’s advocacy of eugenics and euthanasia, Brücher highlighted Haeckel’s role in promoting human evolution. Brücher reminded his readers that Haeckel’s view of human evolution led him to reject human equality and socialism. In 1941 Brücher published another article in Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte on evolution through natural selection. Several times he stressed that the principles of evolution were just as valid for humans as for other orgarisms. He closed the essay by explaining the practical application of evolutionary theory:
The hereditary health of the German Volk and of the Nordic-Germanic race that unites it must under all circumstances remain intact. Through an appropriate complianmce with the laws ofnature, through selection and planned racial care it can even be increased. The racial superiority achieved thereby secures for our Volk in the harsh struggle for existence an advantage, which will make us unconquerable.
In Brücher’s view human evolution is an essential ingredient of racial ideology, not a hindrance to it. In 1936 Heberer launched an attack on antievolutionists in Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte. He praised Haeckel and stressed the affinities of Darwinism and human evolution with Nazi ideology.
The history is really quite fascinating and it’s rarely taught in your state-mandated evolutionary biology classes!
You are so full of shit.
Nothing about Hitler (I assume you smugly meant him) was following Darwins teachings.On the other hand he off course was a lifelong catholic…
The above quote is lifted from Mein Kampf, Hitler’s infamous manifesto. The Nazi party referred to Darwin by name. Please read a history book.
Of course, the Americans also indulged in the fucked up practice of eugenics, inspired by Darwinism.
Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, was the guy who started the scientific discipline of eugenics.
Darwin is well known to be a pretty shit person and inspired a lot of justifications for racism but that doesn’t discredit the theory of evolution.
He may have proposed the idea first but the mountains of evidence supporting evolution came long after him.
Completely discrediting him because he was a shit human being would be like saying a particular mathematical theory is incorrect because the person who proposed it 100 years ago was a pedophile. His personal convictions are irrelevant at this stage and how his theory was used to justify genocide is similarly irrelevant
I’m not critiquing the theory of evolution. There are plenty of scientists doing that already.
The discussion is about whether extremism is unique to religion. I’m arguing that dangerous extremism can be justified in a variety of ways, even via Darwinism. It’s human nature.
I think that this thread highlights our tendency towards selective bias.
What now?
I don’t think anyone but you believes this thread is about wether extremism is unique to religion.
Obviously there are other forms of dangerous extremism.
Nazis were pretty fucking extremist.
Now they were not (at least not primarily) extremist Darwinists off course, but extremist racists and antisemites (among other things).But the meme makes the insecure loser guy say “We should be fighting religion”.
And what I think this thread truly highlights is, that a majority in it doesn’t see it as a loser thing to fight religion.Ffs fighting racists and fascists is way more important than fighting religion at this specific point in history.
Still religion is also a cancer that should be fought in my opinion, and seemingly in others as well.Perhaps you didn’t see my other comment so I’ll copy it here. Yes, the Nazis were explicitly motivated by Darwinism.
You appear to be a German (judging by your handle). It should be pretty easy for you to confirm the history.
Not just Hitler, the whole of the Nazi party and their public propaganda was based on extreme Darwinism.
An important official Nazi Party publication, Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte, edited by Alfred Rosenberg, occasionally featured articles promoting evolution. In a 1935 article Heinz Brücher praised German biologist Ernst Haeckel for paving the way for the Nazi regime. In addition to mentioning Haeckel’s advocacy of eugenics and euthanasia, Brücher highlighted Haeckel’s role in promoting human evolution. Brücher reminded his readers that Haeckel’s view of human evolution led him to reject human equality and socialism. In 1941 Brücher published another article in Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte on evolution through natural selection. Several times he stressed that the principles of evolution were just as valid for humans as for other orgarisms. He closed the essay by explaining the practical application of evolutionary theory:
The hereditary health of the German Volk and of the Nordic-Germanic race that unites it must under all circumstances remain intact. Through an appropriate complianmce with the laws of nature, through selection and planned racial care it can even be increased. The racial superiority achieved thereby secures for our Volk in the harsh struggle for existence an advantage, which will make us unconquerable.
In Brücher’s view human evolution is an essential ingredient of racial ideology, not a hindrance to it. In 1936 Heberer launched an attack on antievolutionists in Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte. He praised Haeckel and stressed the affinities of Darwinism and human evolution with Nazi ideology.
The history is really quite fascinating and it’s rarely taught in your state-mandated evolutionary biology classes!
Oh yeah for sure, fascism is not specifically a religious thing, reactionary ideology can easily form without religion, it’s just unfortunate that religion offers a great justification for exclusion and persecution. Religion can exist without fascism and fascism can exist without religion, but they tend to get along.
I’m not talking about Fascism. There were several European countries that adopted Fascism with mixed results.
Only the Nazi party murdered eleven million Jews and several million other “weaker races”. They explicitly referred to Darwinism as their justification.
