[raverbashing]

> Except Taleb's thesis is not supported by history whatsoever.

Do you think the major religions got to be the size they are because people though their story was cute?

> totalitarian ideologies like fascism and Marxism consistently failed to gain traction

WWII and their aftermath shows exactly the contrary.

[dcolkitt]

> Do you think the major religions got to be the size they are because people though their story was cute?

Considering that the world's largest religion's central tenet is "turn the other cheek", I don't know if this is exactly a compelling argument for the primacy of intolerance.

It's almost certainly the case that the major world religions, as they're practiced in 2000 AD, are certainly much more liberal and tolerant than their Bronze Age counterparts. The arc of the moral universe is long, but over time it bends towards justice.

[raverbashing]

> largest religion's central tenet is "turn the other cheek"

True but that doesn't bode well with organizations that took upon themselves to enforce their alleged rules.

Or, in other words: Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition

> as they're practiced in 2000 AD, are certainly much more liberal and tolerant than their Bronze Age counterparts.

Yes, I can agree with this statement

[JKCalhoun]

I thought the major religions got to be the size they are because they tend preach conversion to their religion (other smaller religions do not).

[raverbashing]

Yes, but that wasn't pacific in a lot of cases.