That's literally laughable. Religion is a conscious choice to believe in something for which there is no evidence (which is colloquially known as "faith"). Allowing evidence to provide an understanding of how the natural world works is not the same as choosing to be a part of a community that is not based on reality.

It seems that we’re mostly in agreement that it’s the broad category of humans who are culpable

Correct. However, we differ in our definition of extremism, which I define as intolerance of others, willful ignorance of the natural world, and desire to restrict the rights of others based on their interpretation of Bronze Age manuscripts.

[–] Haagel@lemmings.world -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It is laughable, especially coming from someone making homage to Neils Bohr. Did he not choose to lend assistance to the building of the bomb? Of course he advocated for peace after the fact...

I believe that all people should be held accountable for their actions, regardless of their beliefs. You probably believe that nuclear science justifies the nuclear proliferation. I don't.

I define extremism as violence upon others. Both secularists and religionists are capable and culpable.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

At 20 comments on this post, maybe that’s enough thread-sitting, @Haagel@lemmings.world.

[–] Haagel@lemmings.world -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What is "thread-sitting"?

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Perhaps not a well-known term, which I believe originated at MetaFilter: http://faq.metafilter.com/221/threadshitting-and-threadsitting

[–] Haagel@lemmings.world 0 points 10 months ago

OK. Point taken. 👍🏼