In a Sunday, October 1 op-ed, New York Times opinion columnist David French posits that Christian nationalism may not be "serious," but it is "very dangerous." He argues, "It's not a serious position to argue that this diverse, secularizing country will shed liberal democracy for Catholic or Protest...
According to this logic any ideology, world view, political leaning, or even opinion on beef stroganov is invalid because there is radical people advocating for it…
You belief in free market capitalism? Well fuck you, because you are just enabling Elon Musk. You believe in fair wages and social security? Are you trying to legitimize Stalin?! Oh you think black people shouldn’t be murder at random by cops? You are just advocating dor the Black Panthers now!
This is not an argument. You just invalidate anyone having a position on anything by this.
Other ideas are based in reality. Religion isn’t, and it’s useless in itself.
It seems to be quite prevalent for something that you consider useless in itself. But still you claim knowledge and ability to assess what is real and what isnt and judge people based on the extremists in that particular belief system. You are just mirroring the religious zealots in your dismissal and insult of anything outside your belief system.
So it also concludes that your criticism of religion is not because of the totalitarian institutions, terrible crime and inhumanity it created, but just that you want to replace the belief system used to justify these with your own.
Popularity fallacy? Really?
I reserve the right to think something isn’t real until it’s proven to scientific and legal standards.
No such thing as “extremists”. There are the believers (who follow the doctrines to the letter) and the cherrypickers, who follow whatever parts of the doctrine their own sense of morality and common decency decide they accept. The “good believers” tend to be the latter.
Stop projecting.
I just want people to be more rational and stop believing supernatural nonsense.
“I just want people to be more rational”
“I reserve the right to think something isn’t real until it’s proven to scientific and legal standards.”
How can you promote the latter and claim the former? Do you think something cannot be real unless is has empirical facts attesting to it? Do you reject logical facts? Like mathematics?
Do you think that legal standards have an inherently rigorous basis?
It’s really embarrassing to claim that you promote rationality when you almost certainly can’t provide a general description of philosophy of science.
But do you realize that every economic theory is based on that? So if you support the capitalist economy you believe in supernatural nonsense just as much like you’d do with socialism or communism.
And for scientific proves. Please explain to me how Higgs Bosons are proven? You just believe that the people at CERN did a good job because you believe in the surrounding institutions.
How do you consider people like Heisenberg? He said that the first sip from the cup of science makes you an atheist, but at the button god awaits. Is quantum physics supernatural nonsense now? After all unless you are a researcher in that particular field it is all just you believing people who believed someone who considered it evidence of some god…
And that is where all this “Atheism is superior hurr durr” circlejerk breaks down. You end up in the same fallacies as the religious zealots because you deny nuance and take fundamental positions.
OK, you’re either a troll or a fundamentalist, either way it’s useless trying to discuss anything else with you.
You claimed that normal Christians, Muslims, Jews or any other religious group are equal to radicals that commit atrocities in the name of their religion.
How can you remain blind to the fact that you are a fundamentalist who is full of prejudice and vile against billions of people based on your personal superiority complex?