I would expect that most of the window of peoples' perspectives in most religions fall in the "mostly true, but we don't know which bits, so we'll be tolerant of people who disagree about which bits". Extremists are the people who say "Absolutely true, thus anyone who disagrees on any of it is a *"

As an example, I believe that things usually fall to the ground when dropped, but I've seen a number of counter-examples, and I'm aware of some disagreement at the margins over exactly how quickly those things fall. An extremist would say "Anyone who disagrees that things fall with an acceleration of 9.8m/s^2 is a transgressor".

edit: format

I think it has something to do with one's tolerance of other people's version of truth.

There are no versions of truth. Those are called opinions if there can be more than one.

There are very much different versions of the truth; even at a fundamental level. Do you know what a reference frame in Physics is?

What you are alluding to are different observations of the truth. The concept of reference frames depends on the universality of the laws of physics, which by definition means that there can only be one version of the truth. By the time your reference frame catches up to another, the observations converge.

By relativity and quantum mechanics, some frames can never catch up with some others.

seer and seen are described from the vedic times. there is a third element called the enabler.

person, box, light all are required for the person to declare there is a box. I dont see a box is an observation which is correct for a visually challenged person or person in the dark. they dont become truth.

Agreed. Although that doesn't stop people having their own perceived truth which is what I was referring to.

Yeah. Their opinions which they believe to be true.

Most people say they believe some of the ideas in their religion, but often act like they don't.

Extremists believe many of the ideas of their religion with certainty, and act in accordance which can lead to behaviour that is illogical from an outside perspective or ethically unhinged. Extremists are the ones who take their religion too seriously.

You can be an extremist about other ideas too. Like a raw vegan. Arguably regular vegans too - there's no health reason to be 100% vegan vs 95% - probably the contrary.

I don’t think extremism is about whether the claim is true or not. It’s about what the claim is. If you’re a gravity extremist, it would suggest that your views on gravity are very different from what’s considered mainstream.

The original meaning of "religion" in Arabic ("Din") is law. What you call "religious error" is tantamount to "illegal behaviour" to others.

That made me naïvely curious about 'Aladdin'; yep: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D8%B9%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%A1_%D...

Seems unrelated to Hindi (via Sanskrit) दिन 'din' meaning 'day' though. (Not that I expected it because 'day' and 'religious' are similar in meaning, just curious because there is overlap, and borrowed terms (well, with Persian, but those in turn often derived or cognate with Arabic, at least in my idly curious Wiktionaring experience anyway).)

It makes me think of "dan" too as in the Tribe of Dan in the Bible. Dan = judge. Daniel = god (el) judges me. The Tribe of Dan supposedly spread out and, some say, seeded other civilizations up the Dan-ube river up into Dan-mark. For real.

Wait until you hear about Ta-Allah-hassee.

That din has a short i. The one in Alaa’adin, (despite how Disney would have you say it) is a long i.

Ah! Ok, dīn, turns out it is borrowed into Hindi (दीन) with the same faith/religious meaning, I just wasn't aware of thag so didn't twig, and yes, thought 'Aladdin' had a short 'i'. (I suspect that predates Disney.)