You can’t fight either directly. Fight stupdity and both go away.
Worst meme of the day for sure
I beg to differ. This bullshit was right below it in my feed for some reason:
I beg to differ. This bullshit was right below it in my feed for some reason:
Amazing meme
Thanks, I hate it
“extremism” is what neoliberals invented to liken egalitarians with Nazis to make themselves look good.
Well that’s certainly a hot take!
Interesting meme
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.
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
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.
My friend is estranged from his family because he is trans and they don’t accept him because the bible says blablabla
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.
How do you qualify “more harm than good”? You’re making a pretty broad claim about 85% of the world’s population, according to Pew Research.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Please provide sources for your claims, what religion you want to believe in is a different topic, read the books of all the major religions and see how many and which one of them is ‘bigoted’ and ‘Anti-Scientific’
If you are not gonna do that, atleast not fire such claims because you yourself don’t have the knowledge.
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.
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.
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.
Religion is for the feeble minded.
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.
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
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.
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.
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”?
Care to back your statement that ‘religion’ is ignorant? No one has any Idea what happens after death or are you enlightened enough to know and which case I would like you to tell us, which religion is taking away your freedom? You have the choice, you can follow any religion or leave it
Care to back your statement that ‘religion’ is ignorant?
You can just go back and read your own comments, makes a pretty strong case.
No one has any Idea what happens after death
What happens after is that brain stops functioning, as a result of that, your body starts to rot. Nothing else happens. Your brain, that I argue is the real you, stops functioning.
which religion is taking away your freedom?
My parents circumcised my penis when I didn’t know what they were doing, they permanently stole a part of me; and as a result of that crap, my sex life is ruined forever. They took away my freedom because of you shitheads who are ruining our world by influencing people into accepting religion. You guys have the audacity to claim that people have a choice after indoctrinating children of religions so that once they are adult they follow your religion.
If you are so about choices, then make sure your kids don’t get to know about superstitious beliefs until they are an adult and only then tell them about your fantasies that you believe that a bearded man is watching us from the sky. I bet your kid is going to think you’ve gone crazy.
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.Despite millenia of disproven lies about a non existing almighty being, you still believe this being indeed does exist
There is a whole area in Philosophy called Philosophy of Religion that would really like your disproof of the existence of such a being. They have atheists and theists alike.
Richard Dawkins has demonstrated that you don’t need to know a lick of philosophy to be an atheist. Simply cite anecdote as universal knowledge.
I don’t have to proof something doesn’t exist, someone that wants to be taken seriously has to proof why they would believe something does positively exist.
“what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”
If you are claiming something doesn’t exist you should prove it. Why should I take your argument seriously without proof? You see how this goes both ways?
No it doesn’t go both ways.
If something exists it should be easy to prove.
There should be some form of sign of it.On the other hand it is hard to disprove the existence of anything at all.
How do we know there is not some teapot in outer space?We can’t.
But that is no reason to believe there is one.No it doesn’t go both ways.
If something exists it should be easy to prove. There should be some form of sign of it.
This is absolutely not true. Things can exist without being accessible to you directly in a manner that makes it easy to prove their existence.
On the other hand it is hard to disprove the existence of anything at all. How do we know there is not some teapot in outer space?
Proving non-existence is not always hard. If we were arguing about the food in your fridge and I were claiming you had food in your fridge when you did not you could easily prove me wrong by just showing me the contents of your fridge.
More importantly, why does the hardness of doing a thing give you special status to make claims without proof? Seems like you are artificially constructing rules here solely because they benefit your position.
We can’t. But that is no reason to believe there is one.
The universe is massive. There are teapots here. Why is it not plausible to believe some other alien race would not also construct some kind of teapot? Also, consider the fact that all teapots here on earth are literally teapots in “outerspace” in some sense.
This is some serious goalpost movement. You just said there was proof.
I did what now?
I said there are millenia worth of disproven lies.
Which there are.Like that the whole world was flooded and repopulated by one single family, which is disproven by DNA samples.
Or that it is gods will that priest stay unmarried, which is historically agreed that it was a measure to keep wealth inside the church organization.
Or so so many more.I never said there was prove god doesn’t exist.
And like I said, there doesn’t need to be as long as there is no documented sign whatsoever that points towards god actually existing.I never said there was prove god doesn’t exist. And like I said, there doesn’t need to be as long as there is no documented sign whatsoever that points towards god actually existing.
You also said: “A nonexistent almighty being”. Did you mean no gods exist, or did you mean all the gods people claim to exist so far have been debunked?
More importantly, for the claim “no god exists” specifically, I disagree that no proof is required in general. There needs to be an actual proof as much as there needs to be a proof of the negation, that “a god exists”, for either to be worth accepting. If neither can be proved, why commit to believing the truth of either?
Additionally, disproving particular examples doesn’t prove the general rule. Having no documented sign pointing to the existence of a god does not confirm the absence of a god anymore than having no documented signs of a gas leak in your home confirms the absence of a gas leak in your home. Perhaps the detector you are using is broken, perhaps the type of gas leaking in your home is not detectable by your detector.
It would also be incredibly hard to design any kind of empirical test to confirm or disconfirm the existence of gods in general (not just the christian flavored ones).
I see where I misunderstood. To reframe, you’re saying that claims made by various religions/churches, which are presented as evidence of God, have been disproven, not that God has been disproven.
“Academic philosopher Michael V. Antony (2010) argued that despite the use of Hitchens’s razor to reject religious belief and to support atheism, applying the razor to atheism itself would seem to imply that atheism is epistemically unjustified. According to Antony, the New Atheists (to whom Hitchens also belonged) invoke a number of special arguments purporting to show that atheism can in fact be asserted without evidence.”
If only you could read, maybe you’d be more tolerant, but I doubt it, sigh.
The sheer arrogance to post a philosophical minority opinion paired with an insult and then end it with a sigh.
And while I am not particularly familiar with Mr. Antony’s work I can tell you that he either didn’t understand or purposefully misused Hitchen’s Razor insofar as you indeed can not apply it to Atheism the same way you can apply it to christianity.
The reason for that being that there is no particular thing at all you have to believe to be an atheist.
Atheism in and of itself doesn’t assert anything at all.
So there is nothing that could be dismissed.Atheism says there is no reason to believe in god.
How does Hitchen’s Razor dismiss that? It doesn’t.Not to mention your quote still is no argument towards the positive existence of god.
And if you don’t show me how I am supposed to be intolerant, I will take it as the baseless insult that it is and will no longer discuss with you.
Atheism says gods doesn’t exist. So yes, it very much goes both way.
Stop moving the goal post. You’re just an intolerant cunt that freely bash on people, insisting that any form of belief is bad, because you can’t conceive a good one in your defective brain.
I’m not trying to prove that gods exist, as unlike you, I’m not saying gods exist, because I don’t care about proving or disproving either way. I don’t feel so egocentric that I need others people to feel like I do.
It helps some people, and the only viable and truly defensible position is agnosticism. And like everything with humans, yes, it is sometimes used for evil. If that’s your argument, you’re against everything a human can ever use and you should become an hermit.
A cunty intolerant hermit, when you think about it, which would prolly help people more than the stupid points you’re trying to make.
PS : You’ve already proven your incredibly limited view by stating before that religion = Christianity basically.
Point me to a god and I’ll dismantle them.
What do you mean?
That no god can survive empirical investigation
Do you think I believe in a god?
Edit: Bonus question, do you think I’m claiming a god exists?
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.
Corporations have been stealing ever since the dawn of time, anyone working under a big company willingly is not the one to blame, and also what’s with this ‘I know everything’ stuff in the comments section? Is your only basis of hating 90% of the world’s population is that they believe in a god? If anyone can tell for a fact that God doesn’t exist, go on, but everyone knows its a matter of choice and you can’t prove that god doesn’t exist
You are all over the place.
But I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and reply to your specific points.
Corporations have been stealing ever since the dawn of time, anyone working under a big company willingly is not the one to blame
That is a strawman argument.
In most societies people are more or less forced to work for some employer, so I think it is hard to blame a worker for the company he works for.
And additionally I think one can blame a worker if they choose to work for the ethically worst companies.Is your only basis of hating 90% of the world’s population is that they believe in a god?
That is very insulting.
I don’t hate religious people, my mother is deeply religious and I truly love her.
But she is misguided and gives time, effort, believe and most of all money to an organization that still to this day promotes homophobia, suppresses women and staunchly defends child rapists.I don’t like that and I won’t stop criticizing it.
but everyone knows its a matter of choice and you can’t prove that god doesn’t exist
Off course it is your prerogative to believe in god.
I wouldn’t ever want to ban you from believing in whatever you want.But you shouldn’t be surprised if people put you in the same category with people believing in a flat earth or something like that.
If you just choose to believe random stuff without evidence than it is only natural that your opinion is not taken seriously.
It is not like there are to equally valid theories about what to believe.
One group believes in things if there is proof and one group believes in things because some dude from the bronze ages wrote it down.I am gonna make an apology for the fact that I am getting a little bit excited, which might be becoming apparent, religion is a complex subject and discussing so much matter is a bit complex and no one here in the comments seems to be interested in having a discussion but rather spouting nonsense against 90% of the world
But I will agree that I am also against giving money to organizations that promotes hate, whether it’s affiliated with religion or not, that money is better spent on a better cause, and I also respect the fact that you don’t hate religious people, but also there are lots of institutions affiliated with religion that work for a good cause, a lot of churches and mosque provide shelter, gurudwaras are famous for providing food, atleast where I live
The thing is I don’t think a person should be judged for their beliefs but rather they should be judged based on their actions, a person kills someone, it should be condemned, no matter if he is a priest or the pope, a person donates money to the charity and helps someone, that should be praised, no matter what he believes personally about god
Me believing in a flat earth is me disbelieving in a proven fact, you would be right to call me dumb, but there is no study that disproves the existence of god, so if anyone believes in one, you can’t call him/her dumb because it’s not against any proven fact, it’s just that he thinks that life around him is enough evidence that someone out there exists, and there is nothing unscientific or unreasonable about that, and spouting hate comments against them and claiming they are dumb, banning them for wearing a piece of clothing is just wrong, no matter how you look at it.
Nobody is saying that people should be judged by their religion. People here are saying Religion itself encourages anti-science and bigoted views.
Secondly, it’s absolutely unscientific to believe that the lack of disprove is sufficient evidence for belief. This is fundamentally unreasonable and is just as much proof as saying that pigs can fly when nobody observes them.
No, religious people are not morally wrong for being religious, and they are not to blame. Religion itself is.
Listen everyone! According to cowbee, we should make sure that from now on, nobody will ever put out any hypothesis ever again! It’s absolutely unscientific! Any claim should be absolutely 100% correct and if not, we should leave it at there!
Hey first and foremost, thanks for the good faith discussion.
I want you to be reassured that I don’t hate you for your religion.
And I don’t think you or any religious person is necessarily dumb.
We just happen to fundamentally disagree on certain points that seem to hold at least some value for both our lives.And I will gladly admit that believing in god has the fundamental difference to believing in a flat earth that you described. The flat earth is soundly disproven and the existence of god is not.
I would in reply try to refine my point to saying that I think believing in god is comparable to believing in the easter bunny or the often quoted flying spaghetti monster (that I purposefully didn’t want to invoke earlier).
Yes you are absolutely free to believe in any of those things.
I would fight to defend your right to believe in them.But I cannot ever accept it as truth or even an educated opinion to hold without any proof pointing specifically towards the existence of any god.
And not to end on a negative note.
I love life around me, I love nature, I love animals.
I think the world is a wonder.I do not believe any god made it the way it is.
I have no reason to believe that.
I just love it for itself.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
Sounds like a pretty extremist view there buddy puts on my fighting skirt
We should be fighting both
Do people willing to live in climate extremes count as extremist? /S
Religion doesn’t hurt anyone if you accept everyone’s beliefs and don’t go too far with your religion
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.
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”
We should be fighting religion.
I think people missed the humour in this photo looking like a clown Shapiro.
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
Trying to save a person by pulling them out of the cave of ignorance isn’t the same thing as trying to convince them that the boogyman wants them to stay in the dark. This is an enormous false equivalency.
Trying to save a person by pulling them out of the cave of ignorance
A religious person has the exact same argument…
Yes, I’m aware. The difference is in that one of our beliefs is founded in the observable world and the other delusion. One holds up to scrutiny and the other does not.
The difference is in that one of our beliefs is founded in the observable world and the other delusion. One holds up to scrutiny and the other does not.
Scientific scrutiny shows there are health benefits to belonging to a religious organization. The only thing that “holds up to scrutiny” is “I’m right and you’re wrong” which, again, the religious person also believes.
So instead of having “rules for thee but not for me”, maybe everyone should not be trying to force their beliefs on others.
Assuming we’ve read the same study, that study also showed the exact same benefits you’re describing could be achieved with regular yoga or meditation; it seems to me the real benefit is getting out of your own head and devoting yourself to something other than your internal monologue for awhile.
But beyond that, any health benefits are entirely an aside to whether or not the philosophy itself holds up to scrutiny, which no religion I’ve encountered does.
Finally, I don’t believe in rules for thee, not me. They are welcome to present their beliefs in the marketplace of ideas as well. I believe in the power of veracity; I am not challenged by false ideals. I’m not anti-proselytizing, i believe in proselytizing the proselytizers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
