“Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success. This persistence, however, can always and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain.”
–Adolf Hitler, “Mein Kampf”
You’re dodging the issue. Please tell me who the greatest mass murderers of history are. Then tell me which of them, if any, were religious in nature.
The fact that Hitler claimed that religious belief was necessary in his actions proves nothing. Empirical evidence is what matters.
I’d disagree: Property-based coalitions (ie. “us and ours ,and them and theirs”) are the most dangerous things conceived by man.
Religion, race, nationalism, politics - all of these are just arbitrary ways to distinguish “us and ours” from “them and theirs”.
Senters, don’t animals display property-based coalition behaviour? Is it not an adaptive thing? Biological, as well as cultural. Even genetic.
You’re quite right, roger: I should have specified large scale property-based coalitions, which one could hardly describe as a mechanism which is “adaptive to the environment” given that it destroys (or at least, drastically affects) that environment in a manner which animal or even human tribal coalitions avoid, thus retaining some measure of equilibrium which large-scale conflict can overturn in a trice.
F*ck me - it’s taken six months but SM agrees with me about something! To kill two birds with one stone - if that’s allowed, survival of the fittest and all that - may I just say that I disagree completely with this statement and also disagree totally with Sentie’s latest political spectrum thingie. Religion is not harmful in and of itself - it’s the practitioners that one needs to watch. Institutional safeguards are needed here as in all other areas.
The Crusades question was answered for me. It was a war over real estate.
Daniel Quinn has argued that the most dangerous thing every conceived man is agriculture. He actually makes a pretty good case. Then there’s the Jenny Holzer slogan, “Private Property Created Crime,” which works as well as any in declaring the most dangerous idea ever conceived by man. Given the abstract simplicity of such statements and the complexity of actual events, it is possible to argue many such notions, but one can always counter by saying that evil wasn’t really about this, it was really about that.
Follow up question: what is the most dangerous thing ever conceived by woman?
Oh, very nice. Why bother answering the issue, if he comes up with an example, all you have to do is say “Oh, well just because (insert name) claims to be religious doesn’t mean anything.” :rolleyes:
It is brutally unfair for anyone to point out the weaknesses and flaws in specious arguments, and it would be worse if such weak and specious arguments were to continue to be exposed for their weaknesses and flaws rather than become persuasive by mere repitition.
You miss the point. There’s a huge difference between opinion and evidence.
Hitler supposedly believed that spiritual belief was necessary to support his views. (I say “supposedly” because his own religious beliefs – or lack thereof – are a matter of dispute.) Even if his statement was sincere, it was still mere opinion.
So again, I ask you… Who were the greatest mass murderers in history, and how many of them (if any) were religious?
Moreover, Hitler’s view (even if sincere) doesn’t actually address the issue at hand. At best, it would imply that spirituality is necessary for oppression. It would say nothing about whether religiosity is indeed the most dangerous thing conceived by man.
Put me down as agree with the thread’s title, my man.
Your reasons being…?
I have to agree further the assertions of Brutus.
The pursuit of socialism has caused the most deaths,
Mao 40Million
Hitler 34M
Stalin 20M
in my opinion. I challenge you to submit the figures of those killed in the name of religion.
Communism is not socialism, my man. The relationship between fascism and socialism is even more tenuous.
And (as I mentioned earlier) body count isn’t necessarily the only way to quantify ‘dangerous’ (OK, it’s quite a good one).
Ok let’s just call them secular political ideologies. Which would make political science the most dangerous thing ever conceived by man.
What about language/communication? Without language, how would orders to kill have been given?
I don’t think it’s possible to take this thread very seriously; the OP might just as well have said “I really hate some forms of religion and I wish it would all just go away!”
I’ll say it’s a good one. If you can name me anything that’s remotely as good (objective and relevant) I’ll eat my keyboard.
A matter of dispute? By whom? Those that say Evolution is a matter of dispute?
The very book he wrote and the speeches he gave does more than suggest his opinion on his own relgion:
He seems to be a Christian, religious, and sure of his own beliefs to me. I fail to see how there could possibly be dispute at all. Except by those with fingers placed in ears.
Yes, Agree. Deadly thing that. Religion.
“When in comes to bull####…bigtime, major league bull####…you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims…religion.”
George Carlin
“The only force more devastating than a nuclear holocaust is a group of Christians fresh out of church.”
Matt Polek