Important distinction
Important distinction
241 comments
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 don't get what your sexuality has to do with anything, but anyhow.
Why do you have to be {insert cult-membership here} if you believe in something? Don't dare to believe {whatever} for yourself? Do you need to be told what to believe and how? You don't make it sound like that, yet you are christian, hence member of said cult? I don't get the correlation. Why does one rarely hear people say "i believe in some god, but I'm not a member of blahblah"?
-
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
-
Unfortunately I don’t think you will be able to actually getting anything from them. They clearly already look down on you for believing what you believe.
-
-
-
We should be fighting religion.
-
-
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.
-
-
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.
-
And there’s the problem with the idea of extremism to begin with. It’s only extreme because too different. The idea of extremist ideologies is inherently conservative, and really we should be judging ideologies by how they negatively or positively affect people.
-
-
Because apparently Christianity is the only religion in existence and all religious people want you to practice their religion. Or something.
-
Again, can you tell me how if you are not religious, how is religion influencing you? And how is your opinion different than any other religious extremist who also claims that anyone who doesn’t follow x religion is bigot? It’s the same thing where everyone is just hating everyone else who doesn’t share the same belief, except being an atheist somehow gives you a free pass to bash on everyone else’s belief, you all then should not be complaining if anyone starts saying all atheism is extremism
Edit: I am gonna clarify that I personally don’t think atheism itself is extremism, anyone has the right to chose what path they think is correct
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
-
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.
-
-
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?
-
It did, because believe systems are religions I didn't differentiate, because its besides the point.
-
-
-
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.
-
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
-
Which misses the point of my argument.
I don't say you are wrong. But my point is strictly about what people believe and how these beliefs should be quite important and turn "moderation" to "extermism" from their pov.
-
-
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.
-
You typed so much and understood so little.
I don't think pascal's wager works. Which is why I said, I said he is right about one thing which is the infinites reward fucking up everything. IF!!! there is a god, and he rewards and punishes you like pascal believed, then everything becomes irrelevant compared to it. Failing to follow god would be an extremist action. Unacceptable due to the unmeasurable damage it would cause. Think about it, in an atheistic world, a Terror Attack is bad, like really bad, but the damage is finite. In pascal's world, disbelief has worse consequences. The harm is bigger, to a literally infinite amount. For pascal, your disbelief should be worse than bombing a Christian church while there is a service.
-
-
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.
-
-
We should be fighting
-
You can make a religion out of this
-
You know how they say you only hurt the ones you love? Well, it works both ways.
-
-
-
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.
-
Tbf extremism itself isn't wrong
The same can be said about religion. Less than 20% of Americans identify as Atheist or Agnostic, the far right extremists do not have support from 80% of the population.
-
I wouldn't have disagreed. I'm not against religion
-
-
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
-
-
-
“extremism” is what neoliberals invented to liken egalitarians with Nazis to make themselves look good.
-
Well that's certainly a hot take!
-
-
No, we should be fighting religion.
-
Fighting Religion on its own fixes Extremism as a biproduct and nobody can convince me otherwise.
-
Ironic.
-
Does it though? The issues that feed extremism will still be there and find a new outlet.
-
Mussolini
-
-
-
You can't fight either directly. Fight stupdity and both go away.
-
-
I beg to differ. This bullshit was right below it in my feed for some reason:
-
Thanks, I hate it
-
-
-
-
-
Every time someone uses extremist as a pejorative
-
We should be fighting both
-
Do people willing to live in climate extremes count as extremist? /S
-
-
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
-
Both. Both. Definitely both.
-
Sounds like a pretty extremist view there buddy puts on my fighting skirt
-
If extremist = trying to convince others, who are not interested, to join you relligion, then I agree
-
The problem is that they aren't trying to convince anyone to join their religion, they are trying to remove the choice by changing laws to reflect their religion. They could give two shits about if you believe, as long as you obey.
-
Then it has nothing to do with religion. Religion is just the excuse to gain power over others.
-
-
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 have never had an athiest knock on my door and tell me I needed to stop believing in God or I am going to suffer for eternity.
The thing convincing people to be athiests isn't other athiests. Facts and logic are the missionaries for athieism.
-
-
-
I'm sorry, no hate or incivility intended towards you as a person, but this idea is pandering centrist bullshit.
-
Woah.
Centrist?
EDIT: Tried to make a joke and it seems to have missed the mark. Centrist was the least surprising thing in that comment to be shocked by, I thought, so only being shocked by that I thought would have come off as funny. Poe's Law prevails lol
-
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.
-
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.
-
-
-
Neither, fight the conditions underlying both.
-
Probably shouldn't be fucking around with other countries either unless directly attacked.
-
Bu-but they need Muh freedom!!
-
-
This thread is full of stupid, my eyes hurt.
-
I kinda miss r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM
-
-
True, but.. like... Can we also do both
-
Classic American perspective in the comments.
You know, a lot of regions have religions that aren't cults. Also tv mega churches are not common in the old world.
-
I'm Italian.
Four years ago the DDL Zan, a law that sought to fight language and deeds that amount to religious, political and racial discrimination by adding aggravating factors for sexual orientation, gender and gender identity, was proposed.
Among its detractors, the Vatican itself, who urged Italy to stop the law because, according to them, the Law calls into question church’s ‘freedom of organisation’ and threatens ‘freedom of thought’.
While those cartoonish evil cults aren't common, they are not the only evil religious organizations in the world. The head of one of the abrahamic religions, and one of the most popular religions in the world, fought against the freedom of my fellow LGBT+ individuals because of their supposed right of hate speech, apparently. So no, it's not an American perspective, and yes, all religions are evil.
-
As an American, the churches here are pooling resources to buy politicians and hospitals in low income areas to enforce their views on abortion and gender healthcare. The church is a business and religion is the advertisement that keeps that evil funded.
I’ve never seen the amount of pro religion comments as I’ve seen in this thread. And they’re all so… coughGPTcough ….verbose.
-
-
A system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object.
All religions are cults.
That there exist congregations that aren't actively being taken advantage of, or doing evil shit, doesn't mean people living their lives believing things that aren't real and making choices based on that belief, are harmless.
You can be the kindest soul on earth, but if you believe stabbing someone in the heart helps them, you might still do it.
Believers do that type of shit all the time, like words spoken while meaning well, but doing harm. They look at reality through the distorting lens of faith, they can't ever truly see it. There is a fatal disconnect between perception and reality.
They thank God instead of their doctor, they tell their depressed children to consult Jesus when they need medication, they feel crushed by bad luck because it can't just be bad luck, everything is god's plan, meaning they feel they deserve it.
Religion adds so many tiny twists to reality, and every single one hurts someone. Both the believer and those around them. If you haven't seen it happen, you're the exception, not the rule.
-
-
Ok, but why in meme format?
-
Interesting meme
-
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"
-
I don't expect anyone to do stuff to accomodate my beliefs, and if I have kids, I'll let them believe in whatever they want.
-
-
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.
-
I don't do much in my life because I believe in God...
-
-
-
Classic American perspective in the comments.
You know, a lot of regions have religions that aren't cults. Also tv mega churches are not common in the old world.
-
I am European and haven't been to the US in over 15 years and I still firmly hold the believe that religion is cancer and every religion is a cult, especially the christian organizations both big and small.
And don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about.
I was raised catholic and probably know my way around the bible better than most christians.Now what?
-
According to the 2012 Global Religious Landscape survey by the Pew Research Center, 75.2% of the Europe residents are Christians, 18.2% are irreligious, atheist or agnostic, 5.9% are Muslims and 0.2% are Jews, 0.2% are Hindus, 0.2% are Buddhist, and 0.1% adhere to other religions.
That is quite the persecution complex you have there if you believe 80+% of the people in Europe are in a cult.
-
-
What's the difference between cult and religion? That's basically how widespread it is.
-
Opinion on outsiders and interaction with outsiders as well as intrusiveness into regular life.
-
-
-
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
-
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.
-
-
Religion is for the feeble minded.
-
-
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
-
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
-
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!
-
241 comments