To be honest I'm a bit tired of "theists" and "atheists" arguing that one is right and the other wrong. While I must admit, I've ran across far more "atheists" who approach the situation in much less of an "I'm right, you're wrong" way, many of them are just as set against the possibility of _____(fill in the blank) as theists are against ______(quite literally just a blank this time). The extreme of either just seems to be a bit absurd to me. I can't say that it is for sure, but it certainly appears so. There are just too many possibilities (infinite?) for us to limit ourselves to any dedicated mindset that "this is". Ultimately what it comes down to is "are these thoughts producing any actions that do harm to others?" If indeed they are, then I don't see how it cannot be concluded that they are wrong. How about trying to understand others beliefs (everyone has em), rather than immediately taking one of two stances, those being: 1. Mine are already right, so there's no need to try and understand theirs. 2. Mine may not be "right," but theirs are certainly wrong (illogical). It's these extremes that make it so easy for people to simply dismiss others thoughts. Hell, I've ran across people that pride themselves in their "open mindedness," but are still too set in their ways that they fail to fully analyze (to the best of their abilities) other thoughts. It's not just about listening to or reading them, the question why might they believe this in the first place should always come up. We deal alot with probability, but let's just throw that concept out of the window until we've actually made an honest attempt at understanding what someone else is or isn't saying is probable in the first place.
extremists, on either end, regardless of what they're fighting for, are messed up, but they are needed in society. In a perfect world, people open up their eyes and try to understand other peoples' points of view, respecting the choices they make in life, and in return, you get respect for your own beliefs. unfortunately, this is far from being a perfect world. Therefore, anytime there's one extreme in pretty much anything, (this also depends on political systems) there always seems to be the complete opposite extreme, which balances the first extreme group. Put all these extreme peasants aside, and you got the regular normal balanced people, in the middle, who would rather not waste their energy following any extremist organisation... Balance is key, in anything. Imagine having a country where there were plenty of extremist christians and no extremist athiests. It would suck just as much as the opposite would suck. So let these two groups fight all they want, and hopefully they will keep eachother in check (on a good case scenario)... In the meantime, I won't settle for labeling myself as one thing or another. It's all just silly.
Yeah, but that is assuming that the extremes of both coexist and to the same degree. Sometimes there's only one grouping around one side of the extreme, or there are two groups centered around each polar end, but one holds much more sway than the other. Really it's just best to find a balance between the two opposites rather than try and allow both extremes to coexist equally. If a maintained equilibrium were possible than I could see the two competing extremes being beneficial to society, however that's usually never the reality of things. I think there's a much better chance at getting people to find balance within an ideology rather than attempting to group two groups of people at the extreme ends of an ideology and hope that they balance eachother out. Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics" does a wonderful job at explaining extremes and their counterparts (the opposing extreme), at least much better than I can.
you're absolutely right, but unfortunately, that'll never happen... there will never be a middle ground on many issues... How can you find a middle ground between extremist religions, where their twisted beliefs tell them to look one way, and anything other is wrong. and the abortion issue, how do you find a middle ground with something that some people consider murder and others consider a piece of meat? Hopefully, in time, people will be able to bend a little, open up their eyes and respect others, but history shows that it's very unlikely to happen... too many things in the way; culture, religion, etc etc etc.. But yeah, I think the middle of everything should work...
I don't bend for other people. I know the bible is a book of fairytales. I refuse to coddle to people's imaginary friends. I'm not going to "bend a little" because some people are stupid. that's just encouraging the bad behavior.
i haven't had a chance to read this book, but it's on my list i saw it at borders on saturday but i had to buy the book i intended on buying. I thought I'd share http://www.examiner.com/x-2770-Chri...Atheist-Defends-Religion-is-a-compelling-read
would anyone who holds a belief be considered extreme in a way? are we defining this by believing in absolute truths?
No one is asking you to...and although I do not personally believe in the Bible in a religious sense it actually does have many truths and amazing themes as well. Nowadays historians mostly use what has become known as the "social science methodology" or study of the environment as a whole to gain "concrete" knowledge of the past as opposed to the older narrative style or "historiography" in which the focus was more on individuals throughout history. So we've come to understand the Bible as a rather narrative means to portray much of what was actually taking place at the time it's various books were being written. In order to discover "truth" in the Bible one must use what they refer to as critical realism. Essentially one must first believe that there are facts behind a historical narrative only shrouded with narrative mysticism etc... Ultimately the question should not be whether or not the Bible contains historical truths (because it in fact does), rather the question should be how we might go about ascertaining its accuracy. The various books were written within the contexts of their time and as such many of them are simply plays on the happenings of that specific time. Holding the Bible to be absolute truth would be an extreme, however holding it to be entirely fiction would be as well in my honest opinion. I'll give it a look see. For the most part yes, in regards to believing in absolute truths. It's a bit absurd to hold any ideology to be an absolute whether that be by means of absolute truth, or infallibility.
I don't think so. . . if that's the case then we can't believe (or not believe) in anything cause we'll be considered extremists.
I think the manner in which someone holds a belief is the primary concern for this idea; if someone holds a belief to the point where they aren't willing to consider other views, for instance, it's getting in the way of a cooperative society.
Cooperation in some people's minds means submission and that word is not part of an extremist vocabulary.
