Every time someone uses extremist as a pejorative
Tbf extremism itself isn’t wrong. Any perspective can be considered extreme if it is too different from the status quo. Different isn’t necessarily bad.
Granted religious extremism is typically far right reactionary ideology which is bad so I’m not really defending it. However, I find that a lot of people, especially Americans, call anything that radically challenges the current system extreme and therefore bad.
You are half right but I understand where you are coming from, you see extremism as what the bigots tell you it is (feminism, LGBT+, etc). But I in fact thing that taking an idea and turning the notch to a 100 always turns it bad, for example: Feminism turns into misandry when turn to the extreme, right wing turns into facism, black right movements can turn into black power, religion turns into cults, etc.
But I agree that there are some cases in where this does not apply like gender equality (but thought I don’t know how that works tho).
This is an aspect of horseshoe theory which is pretty meh tbh. Could you not say that the current status quo is extreme? It would have been considered that way by monarchists back in the day. Extremism is just radical change to the current social order which can end very well or very poorly.
Personally I think labelling ideologies as extreme is a way for those who benefit from the current social order to encourage those who don’t to dismiss radical change as dangerous and destructive rather than an opportunity for growth.
Capitalism is an extreme change when compared to feudalism but it is better no?
If you’re interested I’d really recommend reading blackshirts and reds by Michael Parenti pdf audio. it’s a relatively short read at only 154 pages but it really helped develop my views on this subject
We should be fighting religion.
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.
“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.
If extremist = trying to convince others, who are not interested, to join you relligion, then I agree
Well then you should not try to convince people to accept atheism as well🤷🏻
Edit: This is not a serious counter argument in case it isn’t clear, ofc no one is going to every individual person, events and stalls are put up for this purpose, so it is obv. that the only one who will go there are the ones who are interested, there should be no force involved
I think the argument for moderation is the worst in the religious context.
Pascal was right about his Wager in one way. If god exists, it should change everything for you. Especially the christian one. Eternity in pain or pleasure outweighs everything.
If that is your reality, how is failing god moderation?
Seriously if you don’t want people to die from cancer at all, how is that not extermist?
Are reference point defines “moderation”? Look at us vs eu politics.
Even if you want to define moderation as the average or median position in a society, then Nazism can be moderation if you get enough Nazi together.
Wake up, my fellow extremist.
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.
Could you show me that assumption? I don’t see that assumption present in my comment. Please help me to understand your perspective. Thanks.
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.
How is that related to my comment and how does that answer my request for clarification? I am sorry but this seem completely unrelated.
Religion is not a useful tool and it’s not good in general
Are you kidding me? Religion is supremely useful in controlling and exploiting people. It promises all of the wonderment and fantasticnous you can imagine while also promising the absolute worst nightmares you can imagine, and all you have to do is pay and pray, and the prayers are optional.
“Work in service to your masters and you will be rewarded after you’re dead. Defy your masters and you will be punished for eternity” is the perfect tool of control for the uneducated/unintelligent.
Religion is not a useful tool and it’s not good in general
People who are active in religious congregations tend to be happier and more civically engaged than either religiously unaffiliated adults or inactive members of religious groups, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of survey data from the United States and more than two dozen other countries.
That’s just saying “people who are in a social community are happier and more engaged than those that aren’t” because most social communities are currently religious focused.
Sure. Doesn’t change the fact that Religion can be used as a tool for social engagement and can have a measurable, good effect on people’s lives.
When people misuse a hammer to cause harm you don’t blame the hammer.
“guns don’t kill people, people kill people”, does that mean there should be zero regulations on guns?
Religion is the same, and historically has been the CAUSE not the TOOL for countless genocides and “justified” killings.
“guns don’t kill people, people kill people”, does that mean there should be zero regulations on guns?
Strawman. I was mentioning hammers, are there any regulations on hammers? I never once called a gun a tool.
Religion is the same, and historically has been the CAUSE not the TOOL for countless genocides and “justified” killings.
If you believe the people causing genocides wouldn’t have fun another reason to excuse them I have a bridge to sell you. The Holocaust wasn’t motivated by religion.
Yeah, I’ll give you the strawman, sorry about that. Made sense before I said it.
The Nazi belief was absolutely a religion. Not one of deity, but of superiority. A group of people held the same belief and tried to beat that belief into the whole world. TBH, sounds just like the crusades, just less successful. Thank goodness.
The Nazi belief was absolutely a religion. Not one of deity, but of superiority.
That agrees with my point that if you managed to abolish all religions people would still find excuses to perform atrocities. They’ll just do it in the name of their “superiority” instead of their “god”.
Religion is ignorance and refusal to face reality.
As long as people behave, treat others, and vote according to the sacred scriptures written by a crackhead thousands of years ago, and their influence shapes the world around me and puts a limit to my freedom, then there will be no distinction between religion and extremism. The lesser of two evils is still evil.
I’m a pansexual protestant Christian skepticist, who has not once tried to convert anyone and votes for far left parties. Please enlighten me how I’m inherently ignorant and taking your freedom.
Somewhere along the line churches have gotten it all wrong, along with supporting corrupt politics. So it’s them that needs fixin is how I see it
Please enlighten me how I’m inherently ignorant
Despite millenia of disproven lies about a non existing almighty being, you still believe this being indeed does exist and indeed is almighty without ever having any measurable effect on the world whatsoever.
How is that not ignorant?
and taking your freedom.
I don’t support the statement that you personally take away anyones freedom.
But organized churches have a long standing tradition of suppression and if you are part of one you support that at least indirectly.I think you understand neither what a skepticist is, nor how religion or free churches work. And by your logic I assume you have to be an anarchist, since every government that ever existed - or society for that matter - has exercised some form of suppression.
I think your overgeneralizing, intollerant way of thinking is sickening and hardly better than that of a racist or sexist.
And please don’t tell me what my beliefs are. That’s pretty church-y of you.
I think you understand neither what a skepticist is, nor how religion or free churches work.
Well you’re wrong in both, but I am curious why you would think that.
And by your logic I assume you have to be an anarchist,
Hilariously wrong here.
since every government that ever existed - or society for that matter - has exercised some form of suppression.
Care to explain what that has to do with anything I said in this thread?
I think your overgeneralizing, intollerant way of thinking is sickening and hardly better than that of a racist or sexist.
And I think you resort to personal insults because you have no valid arguments against my positions.
But please humor me and tell me how I am intolerant in an comparable way to a racist or sexist.And please don’t tell me what my beliefs are. That’s pretty church-y of you.
I’m a pansexual protestant Christian
Are you kidding me? You told about your beliefs yourself.
And it’s especially rich after your whole post made assumptions about me.
Well you’re wrong in both, but I am curious why you would think that.
You claim I believe in an almighty being, yet this is a key point where a skepticist might disagree with your average Christian. Moreover you claim I am supporting oppression, yet you don’t even have the slightest idea what church I’m in and what they do or ever did. So you seem to have either huge misconceptions or you are prejudiced to a point where you are dismissive of anything that doesn’t fit your narrative.
I’m a pansexual protestant Christian
Are you kidding me? You told about your beliefs yourself.
This just shows how you don’t view Christians as individuals at all. Claiming to know exactly what I believe in based on that sole statement is exactly as silly as me claiming: ‘I know what you believe, because your are an atheist.’ Acting like you know a strangers beliefs for certain is arrogant to say the least.
Care to explain what that has to do with anything I said in this thread?
Well, you judge churches based on the fact that some where oppressive in the past (and yes, I know some are still today). Based on that you either have to hate pretty much all governments, since it obviously doesn’t matter whether anything have changed, or you have double standards.
And I think you resort to personal insults because you have no valid arguments against my positions.
If you feel attacked by me calling out your intolerant and overgeneralizing way of thinking, that’s just because you are unable to defend yourself against a fact. Your words leave no other conclusion than that your are extremely prejudiced against Christians. You might have expressed yourself badly once, but you doubled down on your hate and ignorance. You might have good reasons for it, but would you excuse someone being racist for having had bad encounters with an ethnic group? Just as you probably wouldn’t, neither do I excuse your statements about Christians.
I didn’t want to reply at all because it is starting to get ridiculous and noone else keeps reading this.
But please just for the sake of being honest, show me where I am intolerant or hateful?
I replied to other comments in this thread as well, there should be plenty to pick from.Show me my intolerance, show me my hate.
I even make it easier for you.
I think religion is a cancer to society.
I think all religions are basically cults.Make a straightforward argument how my statements are either hateful or intolerant.
Because while those statements are my honest opinion, I am still strongly in favour of freedom of religion.
I would never forbid anyone from practicing their religion as long as they don’t infringe on someone else’s rights in doing so.
I don’t hate anyone for being religious. There are wonderful religious people.Still I think they are wonderful despite their religion, not because of it.
I don’t even hate you, despite your ongoing insults towards me.
I just think you are very wrong on a fundamental level and haven’t yet learned to deal with being told so.
It was necessary when we understood nothing. Thats not an excuse we can use anymore.
We have understanding. We have gained knowledge that makes religion meaningless. It did its job, served its purpose. Now its time to grow beyond it.
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.
Yes. It’s Adolf Hitler.
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 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!
A distinction without a difference. Religion produces demonstrable harm to many people. To be religious is to be an extremist. The entire idea that a being from your imagination should influence my behavior is whack.
To be religious is to be an extremist.
Over 80% of people in the US believe in one religion or another. The country is not 80% extremists.
Because apparently Christianity is the only religion in existence and all religious people want you to practice their religion. Or something.
