• @mildlyusedbrain@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    161 year ago

    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 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.

    • R0cket_M00se
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year ago

      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.

        • @retrieval4558@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          31 year ago

          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

      • 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.

    • @Gladaed@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      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.

        • @Gladaed@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          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.

  • @meyotch@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    371 year ago

    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.

      • Cowbee [he/they]
        link
        fedilink
        161 year ago

        Religion teaches and reinforces bigoted and anti-science views, generally. Yes, there are good people that reject this basis of their religion, but religion itself has done far more harm than good.

          • Cowbee [he/they]
            link
            fedilink
            131 year ago

            All major religions reject science by asserting the baseless claim of divinity. They propose a foundational divine, without any proof. This is anti-science.

            As for being bigoted, quick examples are Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions supporting homophobia, transphobia, sexism, strong gender roles, and more.

          • Cowbee [he/they]
            link
            fedilink
            111 year ago

            You’re putting words in my mouth, lmao. I explicitly separated Religious people from Religion itself, and you’re tying them together as slander.

            Religion has done more harm than good as it has been the foundation of racism, homophobia, sexism, transphobia, rejection of science such as Evolution, and more. Religious people can be good, and have done good things, but Religion itself is harmful.

            I respect people’s rights to practice, but I don’t respect Religious people using religion as justification for anything bigoted, anti-science, or generally harmful.

            • @Haagel@lemmings.world
              link
              fedilink
              -11
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The audacity of claiming that religious adherents are uniquely racist!

              Racism is literally the foundation of Darwinism, as explicitly stated by Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the DNA double helix.

              It’s right there in the title of Darwin’s book: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

              It’s human nature to fight each other, and the tendency towards extremism is universal.

              • Cowbee [he/they]
                link
                fedilink
                101 year ago

                I did not claim religious people were uniquely racist, only that religion supports and reinforces racism. Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth and actually answer my actual points.

                Human Nature is a naturalistic fallacy, and is a way to avoid actually addressing whether or not religion assists and reinforces racism or not.

                • @Haagel@lemmings.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -101 year ago

                  You said it’s the foundation of racism.

                  foundation noun foun·​da·​tion 1 : the act of founding here since the foundation of the school 2 : a basis (such as a tenet, principle, or axiom) upon which something stands or is supported the foundations of geometry the rumor is without foundation in fact

                  Technical arguments don’t change the fact that Darwinism is inherently racist.

      • @meyotch@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        26
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Something about my religious leaders wanting to strap electrodes to my junk and torture me for being gay has given me some strong opinions. Don’t you dare dismiss my experiences as invalid, I’m fighting terrorists here.

        • @tourist@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          111 year ago

          My friend is estranged from his family because he is trans and they don’t accept him because the bible says blablabla

    • Because apparently Christianity is the only religion in existence and all religious people want you to practice their religion. Or something.

    • @CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      141 year ago

      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.

      • @smitten@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        01 year ago

        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.

  • @Vespair@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    12
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’m sorry, no hate or incivility intended towards you as a person, but this idea is pandering centrist bullshit.

    • @JargonWagon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      0
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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

      • BreakDecks
        link
        fedilink
        English
        91 year ago

        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.

        • @LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          2
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

      • @Vespair@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        71 year ago

        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.