[pax]

Awhile back, there was a thread that went on interminably arguing about evil belief systems. In it, people variously proved that Christianity, Catholicism, protestantism, Islam, pantheism, emperor worship, and communism (atheistic 'state-as-religion') have killed a lot of people.

Unfortunately, the thread devolved into the standard (and boring) "my god can beat up your God" squabble, and was subsequently closed. I hope that doesn't happen here. :scrutiny:

But I want to discuss the question, "What is the most dangerous belief on the planet?"

My thesis is that one single belief enabled almost every incident of genocide, democide, and politicide in history -- that whenever a million or more people have been killed at one time, one belief enabled the murders.

It is true that adherents of every single one of the world's religions have put people to death in the name of their religion. But it is also true that adherents of various non-religions (such as atheistic communism and Nazi fascism) have done much the same thing.

Keeping in mind that atheistic communism killed millions this past century alone, it is not the belief in a Creator God that is the causative factor. Nor can it be the inherent vileness or violence of any particular belief system that enables these mass murders, because people have been killed in the name of even the most peaceful religions. (Heck, there are even self-proclaimed "pacifists" throwing stones and beating people on the streets in the name of their beliefs.)

After thinking about it awhile, I've come to realize that no matter how vile, violent, unreasonable, or fanatical the belief, its adherents can't kill millions of other people unless they are in control of a powerful government.

R.J. Rummel, author of Death By Government, calculates that in the twentieth century alone, states murdered about 162,000,000 million of their own subjects. No amount of private crime could have taken such a toll. Only governments can concentrate the power needed to rack up such an awful statistic.

I therefore conclude that the benevolence of powerful government is the most dangerous belief on the planet.

pax

Power kills, absolute power kills absolutely. -- R.J. Rummel

[El Tejon]

The belief that one is owed anything just by existing, i.e. the looter syndrome.

[aikidoka-mks]

That there are no absolute, objective knowable truths.

Mark

[dustind]

I am not sure if this fits, but lies and misinformation that isn't countered by the other side of the argument. Almost every bad thing in the last century happened because the people only saw one side of an issue, and the truth was held from them.

Maybe the belief that it is ok to deny(or inhibit in any way, no matter how small) peoples individual freedom for any reason other than direct harm to another individual.

[spacemanspiff]

"this sort of behavior is left to the psychotic, dogmatic, fundamentalist believers you see on your t.v. everyday letting off bombs and killing people in the name of God. Beliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning. A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing..."


a person must break down their beliefs and determine how much faith they have in them. they must also decide what "faith" really means to them. the definition of "faith" is: the assured expectation of things hoped for but not yet fulfilled.
to have faith in a belief is saying "i dont have proof of this but i believe in it anyways." faith is often void of logic.

beliefs are not dangerous when the person believing in them has an open mind, enough so that they can let their mind be changed by considering new evidence, or by adopting a different interpretation of evidence already considered.

i have faith in my beliefs, but if someone can show me a better way, i'll take it.

[sonny]

That there are no absolute, objective knowable truths.
If what you say is true then it in itself is exactly what you claim to be a non absolute,objective and knowable.....:D

[Standing Wolf]

I therefore conclude that the benevolence of powerful government is the most dangerous belief on the planet.

I'm not sure it's the single most dangerous, but it's definitely up near the top of the list, along with the belief that people have the right to control other people.

[pax]

The belief that one is owed anything just by existing, i.e. the looter syndrome.
El Tejon, the looters can't loot unless there is a government with sufficient power to let them do it.
That there are no absolute, objective knowable truths.
aikidoka-mks, how is that dangerous to other people? It might turn the believer's mind to mush, but how is it dangerous to others?
I am not sure if this fits, but lies and misinformation that isn't countered by the other side of the argument. Almost every bad thing in the last century happened because the people only saw one side of an issue, and the truth was held from them.
dustind, I think lies & misinformation aren't dangerous until someone holds enough power to kill other people on account of them.
Maybe the belief that it is ok to deny(or inhibit in any way, no matter how small) peoples individual freedom for any reason other than direct harm to another individual.
dustind, that one is near the top of the list, too. But it is no threat at all, unless the person who believes that has some form of power over other people's freedom.
Beliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning. A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing...
spacemanspiff, was that something you wrote or that someone else penned? If so, who?

In any case, it's a silly statement. "Beliefs are dangerous." Which beliefs? All of them? I think you'd agree with me that (to choose one example among many possible) belief in the law of gravity is fairly innocuous and even beneficial. At least, I'm not going to go jumping out of airplanes without some means of countering gravity. Does this mean my mind is non-functional on this point? If so, I'd still prefer to have a parachute, if jump I must.

pax

It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. -- Voltaire

[MeekandMild]

I therefore conclude that the benevolence of powerful government is the most dangerous belief on the planet.

I think you have the essence of it. As long as people who argue, fight and disagree have about the same power they tend to fight or bluff to a standoff. Even families like the Hatfields and McCoys armed with the most modern of infantry weapons and no compunction produced no massive bloodshed, just a few dead cousins.

But you have a major problem when power is increased beyond that of the common people to defend against. A government run by Mr. Bush might be benign but the whim of the voters might give another Clinton the same power and people will start disappearing, lawyers start "committing suicide", interns shot in "freak accidents" et cetera.

I'm not B.S.-ing you here. There is solid proof from Roman history (http://www.roman-emperors.org/impindex.htm). If you look at the link you will see that the great Caeser Augustus was followed by tiberius, then by Caligula and it was 27 years until Claudius gave the people some relief. Well in my humble opinion 27 years of Clintons would totally ruin us.

[Tag]

"Beliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning. A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing..."

Maynard from Tool had this on one of his CD booklets, I don't know were he got it from, possibly he wrote it, but this was not the first time I'd seen it...

[Tag]

I'd have to say our collective belief that this society is the correct one. Agriculture, on a large scale, destroyed tribal life, and bred a greed infected mockery of man. I'd say our belief in modern society is as deadly as any other...

That and the apathy of all the good men in this and other countries. :banghead:



ps. great question, deserves more thought.

[MeekandMild]

I would think in terms of danger, beliefs are less dangerous than power. I would think that even a benign, introverted and harmless religion such as Wicca would be a nightmare if a less scrupulous adherent were able to governmentally enforce the threefold rule.

[Tag]

I tend to think it is not so much the ability of the government to focus power which leads to death destruction and many bad things. It is the beliefs of the people doing the ground work which allow such horror's to materialize. An evil government has no power without the hearts and minds of some of the populace.

[Blackhawk]

If you're going to grant credibility to Rudy Rummel, you might just as well get him right. He concluded that:"Concentrated political power is the most dangerous thing on earth." Except for Iraq also being an example, Hitler, Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, and a host of others support his thesis, and let's certainly not forget the Inquisition!

I'm not to tickled with his cheesy co-opting of Lord Acton's earlier maxim "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" with "Power kills, absolute power kills absolutely." It kinda makes me think he noticed a few truisms and opportunistically made a career out of them, but it's more likely that he just studied historians like Lord Acton since that's a much easier course than having to do any original thinking.

All in all, Rummel's work reminds me of cars build by American Motors Corporation in the late '60s or today's personal computers-- assemblies of many parts made by others.

[pax]

Blackhawk,

Who would you recommend I read to balance Rummel? And are you saying he is wrong, or only that he is not original?

pax

After all, all he did was string together a lot of old, well-known quotations. -- H. L. Mencken on Shakespeare

[aikidoka-mks]

Sonny

If what you say is true than it in itself is exactly what you claim to be a non absolute,objective and knowable.....

Yes - that is pretty much what I would say to someone claiming to believe that. I would probably try to lead them to that gently/sneaky but they are clearly claiming the very thing they wish to deny is possible.

pax,

Because it seems to me that such a belief leaves the person open to anything. An example could be anti-gun zealots who can't be swayed by the overwhelming evidence in favor of RKBA. If it is because they dont believe in objective, absolute truths at all; imagine what else they can be led to believe that is false and quite possibly very harmful. They have no protection whatsoever.

Mark

[Lebe]

,.. is the most dangerous belief of all,..

http://www.sobran.com/columns/020108.shtml

[pax]

I tend to think it is not so much the ability of the government to focus power which leads to death destruction and many bad things. It is the beliefs of the people doing the ground work which allow such horror's to materialize. An evil government has no power without the hearts and minds of some of the populace.
Tag,

Supporting & extending what you wrote.

Choosing one example among many possible: Hitler was legally empowered in a free election. Once he was in power, he held onto his power by demogoguery, secret tribunals, sleight-of-hand, and the various machinations common to all politicians. He couldn't have gotten in office, or continued in power, without willing henchmen to do his foul deeds.

How did the German state get so much power that it could kill 6 million European Jews? As you pointed out, a state can get that much power only because the beliefs of the people enable it to do so. What beliefs? In 1930s Germany, it was anti-Semitism, surely. And coerced eugenics and nostalgic nationalism and the woman's place is in the home and various other nasty and not so nasty doctrines.

But in back of all these was the belief that a powerful German state was a good thing. That was the one belief shared by nearly all Germans, the one belief which enabled Hitler to demogogue his way into power, the belief which enabled the great mass of people to shut their eyes to the evil that was building around them. They thought they were free, they thought they were safe, and they thought that they would be both freer and safer if their nation's government had more power.

They were wrong.

Meek, I agree with you about Clinton. But I'll say that there is more danger from a Bush than from a Clinton. Clinton, at least, had a vocal and tireless minority of the people raising their voices at his abuses of power. Thus his power grabs, ugly as they were, were pretty limited in success. The same people who yelled about government expansion under Clinton are quiet today, for the most part -- and the folks on the other side of the aisle are always in favor of more & bigger & more powerful government. So having a Bush in office is more dangerous than having a Clinton in there.

pax

Man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts. – Ronald Reagan, farewell address, 1/11/89

[spacemanspiff]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning. A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


spacemanspiff, was that something you wrote or that someone else penned? If so, who?

In any case, it's a silly statement. "Beliefs are dangerous." Which beliefs? All of them? I think you'd agree with me that (to choose one example among many possible) belief in the law of gravity is fairly innocuous and even beneficial. At least, I'm not going to go jumping out of airplanes without some means of countering gravity. Does this mean my mind is non-functional on this point? If so, I'd still prefer to have a parachute, if jump I must.

that paragraph was from the liner notes of Tool's album "Aenima". my opinions differ from that sentiment however. i can't stop believing in the things i have faith in. that doesn't mean i am closed minded however. i can debate and discuss my opinions, thoughts, and beliefs, and try to do so often so that at the very least, my faith in them is strengthened.

but go back for a second. read the sentences just before 'beliefs are dangerous'. it is describing the people who take their beliefs to a fundamentalist level. i think you and i have discussed this before, have we not? in this case, a 'fundamentalist' is someone who believes in a cause so much that they cannot accept that they could be mistaken. it is their way or no way at all. these types of beliefs could fit the description of militant islamic factions. or even christianity, look at the crusades. or david koresh.

now, seperate your faith, your beliefs, from facts, facts are things that are proven 100%. its a fact that gravity pulls toward the center of the eart. its a fact that i am fat.
is it a fact that our universe was created by a higher power?
is it a fact that we came about by evolution?
what hard evidence do we have of either origin? words written in a book that fewer and fewer people put any stock in? fossil records that are incomplete and offer no explanation how species evolved into other species gradually?
a creationist will tell you he has faith that the earth was created. a evolutionist will tell you he has faith that the fossil record will someday prove without a doubt that we evolved from a primordial ooze.

some people have faith that televangelists are really in communication with god. they give their money just because someone says "god told me to tell you to reach deep into your hearts and your pocketbooks and take his hand."
some have faith that allah calls for a jihad against the infidels.
some have faith that the Book of Mormon was inspired by god.

which one is correct? does it matter? maybe not, maybe what matters is what people do with their beliefs. do they act on them? do they commit crimes because of them?

i'll pick on myself for a few minutes now. i was raised believing that only 144,000 will go to heaven, that the earth will be turned back into the paradise god originally intended, and that all the wicked will be destroyed at armageddon. my faith is in those beliefs. many people are appalled at hearing those doctrines, as they conflict with what they have been taught. heres the key though, that many fail to recognize. i dont think that my beliefs are superior to other peoples beliefs. i came upon my conclusions based on what i have read in the bible, and the faith (remember, assured expectation of things HOPED FOR, THOUGH NOT BEHELD) that i have. other people have faith in what they have interpreted to be truth, right? so i allow for the option that i am incorrect. fundamentalists do not, remember?

whats the resolution? beliefs are usually void of logic, and rarely can be associated with rational thought. but society has to abide by rules over the faith and beliefs of all. for example, just because a person has faith that allah calls for a jihad doesnt mean that person is allowed to act on those beliefs. heres a better example. did you see the movie 'frailty'? the father in that movie had such faith in what he believed to be true, so much that he commited murder.

i guess my point is, that beliefs are dangerous when they infringe upon the lives of others.

[Lone_Gunman]

Most dangerous belief on the planet?

That 9mm is as effective as 45 ACP!!!

[Drizzt]

The most dangerous belief?

The absolute certainty that you are right, so much so, that you are unwilling to hear any other viewpoints.

[sm]

I'm thinking along the lines of Drizzit.

One party has a belief, he is so right,he must assure this position. Misinformation ,Miscommunication Misinterpretation and Misuse of resourses are used to re-enforce and fortify this belief.

Apathy and Complacency of a people makes this task much easier.

[Blackhawk]

And are you saying he is wrong, or only that he is not original?Let me take a different tack. A recognized and honored historian ponders his life's work and summarizes it with a quip that becomes very well known: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Take it apart. Savor the nuances. Assume it's true, and draw come conclusions from it to guide you in dispensing power to your minions as you assume rulership of the world. What does it warn YOU about as you become more powerful? After a few years of contemplating that famous quip, you'll suddenly realize WHY it's survived and become well known. It's a proverb, a truism, an axiom, a maxim and all that.

Later, somebody says "Power kills, absolute power kills absolutely." The statement is just plain stupid. There's not a single concept the statement itself embraces that's even true! To get meaning of value from it, you have to go back to the original by Lord Acton.

So is Rummel wrong? Rummel doesn't rate anywhere near high enough to even be noticed much less wrong. Rogers and Freud had the professional gravitas for each be right or wrong in their arguments about mental disorders. But who could judge?

I fear that Rummel doesn't even understand what he says any more than William Jennings Bryan did at the "high points" of his career. Even so, many of the word strings Rummel wrote ring true, such as his homage to a person's natural right to the tools of his defense, but I keep wondering if he said them from the core of his being or from their resonance among his audience in a type of the skill Bryan had.

We recently suffered through another gifted politician who could eerily sense what his audience wanted to hear and had no compuctions in saying the words even though he seems to this day to lack any palpable moral convictions.

[Mal H]

I was going to answer pax's philosophical question, but Drizzt essentially said it for me.

The most dangerous belief on the planet is the belief that your belief is the only true belief. And I should add that anyone here who doesn't believe that, can go to ... Oh, nevermind. ;)

[pax]

Blackhawk,

Lord Acton's actual words were, "Power tends to corrupt, and the more absolute the power, the more absolutely it tends to corrupt." Not nearly as catchy as the popularly-remembered but wrong quasi-quote.

Thanks for the excellent critique. I understand what you were saying a lot better now.

pax

Famous remarks are very seldom quoted correctly. -- Simeon Strunsky

[Baba Louie]

The most dangerous belief on the planet...

That any one man/leader is 100% correct 100% of the time or is to be trusted with 100% of your unquestioning loyalty and given 100% of your power.

Sometimes I feel it's followed by one who tells you "It's for our children of tomorrow that we do this deed today." I choose to never totally trust anyone who uses that last line, however true it may be at the moment.


Always question authority.

Adios

[sm]

pax, very good topic, thanks!

Everyone, great input.

Mal...:D

[Blackhawk]

Lord Acton's actual words were, "Power tends to corrupt, and the more absolute the power, the more absolutely it tends to corrupt." Not nearly as catchy as the popularly-remembered but wrong quasi-quote.I shouldn't argue with that since I never met the man nor was I able to look over Bishop Mandell Creighton's shoulder as he read the letter from Lord Acton in 1887 even though it sometimes seems like it. :D What the letter supposedly said was: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
Even so, the condensed version has the same meaning and implications as the "original" unlike Rudy's feckless rendition.

[pax]

The most dangerous belief on the planet is the belief that your belief is the only true belief.
The absolute certainty that you are right, so much so, that you are unwilling to hear any other viewpoints.
Drizzt, re1973, Mal H --

Is it so dangerous to have a belief and to stick with it in the face of angels, demons, and all the blowhards in the world telling you otherwise? How would we have built civilization without such stubborn minds?

I think of Galileo, forced to recant Copernicus' theory that the earth revolves around the sun, murmuring: "Nevertheless, it moves!" Was he right or wrong to hold so fanatically to his own belief?

I think of Ignaz Semmelweis, who had the temerity to suggest that medical students should wash their hands after dissecting corpses, if they were going to assist at childbirth. He clung to this radically new, unproven and at that time unproveable belief despite the laughter and scorn of his colleagues. Was he right to do so?

Indeed, I think of a mother I know, whose little girl was 'not quite right' and who stubbornly kept taking her to one doctor after another until the trouble was found. She wasn't convinced by some authority telling her otherwise; she knew what she knew and was going to cling to that belief. Was she wrong to do it?

Were any of these people dangerous to others because of their stubborn beliefs?

pax

Merely having an open mind is nothing; the object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid. -- G.K. Chesterton

What objectivity and the study of philosophy requires is not an 'open mind,' but an active mind - a mind able and eagerly willing to examine ideas, but to examine them critically. -- Ayn Rand

[pax]

Urk! Blackhawk, you are right. :o I knew I should have looked it up instead of lazily quoting from memory.

Thanks.

pax

Quoting: the act of repeating erroneously the words of another. -- Ambrose Bierce

[Elmer Snerd]

The most dangerous belief on the planet is the belief that your belief is the only true belief.

This is partially correct. The most dangerous belief IMO is:

"Our belief is the only true belief and it is our right and duty to harm or kill those who do not believe as we do."

[jmbg29]

"Beliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning. A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing..."I encourage all people that find the above to be profound, to choose not to believe that jumping off a 300ft cliff (no rope, no anything) will kill them. Then they should test their non-belief.

Let me know how it works out. :rolleyes: :scrutiny: :uhoh: :barf:

[pax]

Our belief is the only true belief and it is our right and duty to harm or kill those who do not believe as we do.
That one is dangerous, all right. It can kill one or a dozen at a time.

It has not, and cannot, kill millions at a time -- without a powerful government in place to enable it to do so.

pax

Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? -- Thomas Jefferson

[Tag]

"Our belief is the only true belief and it is our right and duty to harm or kill those who do not believe as we do."

Or possibly even more dangerous...

Our belief is the only true belief and it is our duty to impose it on the rest of humanity.

The danger lies in the minds eye of the people that belief means to convert.

The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for all good people to do nothing – Winston Churchill

[sm]

pax wrote:"Is it so dangerous to have a belief and to stick with it..."
----
pax, No.

The original question:"But I want to discuss the question, "What is the most dangerous belief on the planet?".

My reply was in reference to the negatives mentioned in your original post :

quote:"My thesis is that one single belief enabled almost every incident of genocide, democide, and politicide in history -- that whenever a million or more people have been killed at one time, one belief enabled the murders."
---------------

So why did I reply no when asked is it so dangerous to stick with a belief system? Because I think ,[B] I[B/] have to add the word intent. In this context lets use firearms for example. Are firearms dangerous ? By themselves with nobody to implement them, no. A loaded gun sitting on a desk with nobody around is not going to do anything but sit there. NOW if someone has INTENT to do harm and picks this firearm up and uses it for evil--its become dangerous. Again the gun is just sitting there on the nightstand, an intruder breaks in, homeowner grabs the gun with INTENT to protect themself, weapon may or may not have to be used but the INTENT to protect themself was implied.

Anything can be positive or negative. Medicine to relieve pain for instance , is the intent to relieve pain, to get intentionally high from taking a higher dose, or is the intent to overdose by taking a lethal dosage?

Intent perhaps is the primary key of a belief system.

Its been said that money, sex, power, and greed is the root of crimes. I --well --perhaps this can be dissected down to just greed. The intent is self gratifiction via money, power,or sex.

Influence of a Church, Military, Political influence, material gain (land, ports, trading routes,demographics, sphere of influence, population, raw materials, natural resources...etc.)

Was the INTENT of belief system for positive or negative?

[Tag]

I suppose the Intent of a belief can be twisted to just about any ends... look at christianity down through the ages.

[sm]

^ granted, but I 'm not going to isolate a single "religious" group or sect. This topic is very thought provoking and --well--don't want to have it locked ( ok my intent is selfish).

Look at our Constitution and BoR , and the intent.

Sad to say but the easiest way to build one's self up is to tear someone else down. Many "conflicts" were intentionally started because of what I posted earlier --greed.

That said many 'conflicts' , if you will, were because the intent was a positive one to free a people. Yeah I know whom is right and whom is wrong gets asked here. When through history a known belief is negative, and through history various positives are known, the intent to do good is a positive belief system.

[sm]

I'm against gun control. Why, because history has shown that a populace without the means to defend themselves are vulnerable , be it their own gov't or outside influences. So IMO the intent of disarming a populace by one's own gov't or by outside influence like the UN is a dangerous belief system based on history.

Our Forefathers noted this, intentionally designed the Constitution and BoR to protect the populace from gov't. Intentionally set up in essence to protect themselves from themselves . That greed thing again.

[Pendragon]

Well, I believe that my beliefs are correct and that most other religious beliefs are therefore false. My beliefs are mutually exclusive.

However, my beliefs also stipulate that people have a right to their incorrect, untrue beliefs. So - you are all wrong, but I do believe that is your right ;)


I think the biggest problem with pinning all the atrocities on the various religions is that people who are power hungry are very good at infiltrating religions and using them as cover for their abuses.

The people who become abusive almost never follow the tenents of the religion they profess - it is my opinion that they harm the religion they profess as much as they people they destroy.

Great topic.

I would say that they most dangerous belief on earth is the belief that anyone should have unchecked power and no accountability. Our system has checks and balances for a reason - very very few other systems have the accountability and power sharing ours has. Yet still, the bad ones try and get around it...

[Al Norris]

I was going to go with simplicity, but I see you want something more sinister, so....

My Country Right or Wrong.

The sinister form of, "We are right and all of you are wrong."

[Hal]

- Apathy and/or "good intentions".



"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a time of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality." - Dante's Inferno

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
Sam Johnson -- maybe. Not really sure, but at least my intentions are noble :D

[rennaissancemann]

The most dangerous belief on the planet is that anyone outside of your group is less than human, who's lives lack the same intrinsic value as those within your group, and who can be treated in any manner your group deems necessary.

The abuses of religion, government, tribal warfare, ethnic strife, etc. can all be distilled down to this one principle.


Respectfully,

[Dorrin79]

I'm with Ayn Rand on this one

The most dangerous belief is that there is something superior to the mind and ego of man - be it a god, or the combined wishes of his peers.

Either of those leads to altruism.

And we all know where altruism leads...

[Drizzt]

pax, I qualified my statement with being unwilling to even listen to another viewpoint. In my mind, this renders someone unable to change. Someone who is so certain of their own moral superiority that they cannot even fathom there being a different opinion, makes for a person who can often be quite willing to impose their beliefs on others.

When in a discussion with an anti-gunner, some of our biggest frustration is that, when presented with facts, their blinders go on, and they ignore same in favor of emotion. I think most of us are certainly willing to listen to an anti's argument, then pick them apart with facts and logic, but if we expect the same in return, all we will get is shrill screams, expletives, and accusations of being racist, child-killing, and all sorts of other things...

[mercedesrules]

I'm with Pax on this one. In fact, I'm not sure that I would include the word "powerful".

MR

[Soap]

That force needs to be enacted towards peacable people.

[BigG]

Lots of good ideas here...

Maybe not the very worst but on the list I'd include the propensity of gumt to perpetuate itself.

Gumt solutions should be temporary and then the department responsible should dissolve, instead, a problem is identified and, rather than solving it, the gomt department perpetuates the problem because it is the raison d'etre.

Think of poverty, drugs, alcohol, as examples.

[David Scott]

IMHO the most dangerous belief is "that's the way things are, because that's the way they're supposed to be". In other words, complacency. Rejecting the right and duty to question the status quo.

Blacks were slaves because that's the way it was supposed to be, based on a whole lot of unfounded assumptions about the "inferiority" of anyone who wasn't White, Christian, possessed of the technology and desire to dominate others.

Women were chattels because that's the way it was supposed to be, based on a whole lot of unfounded assumptions about their frailty and unfitness for things like math, science, money management and government.

King George taxed the crap out of the 13 Colonies because that's the way it was supposed to be, based on a whole lot of unfounded assumptions about the "divine right of Kings" and the idea that bloodlines qualified nobles to rule over commoners.

Gun rights have been whittled away because that's the way it was supposed to be, based on a whole lot of unfounded assumptions about government's duty to act as nanny to a population of mildly retarded children who might hurt themselves.

Billions have been killed in the name of nationalism, religion, race, or other distictions, because that's the way it was supposed to be, based on a whole lot of unfounded assumptions about one group of people being inherently "better" than another.

The most dangerous belief is that things are all right, there's no need to worry about why stuff happens. The most dangerous belief is the one that persuades you to let others make your choices for you.

[Tag]

Peacable people are little more than victims waiting for a tyrant. Any people must be ready and willing to take up arms.

[hops]

'That power will not corrupt you.'

Most people are arrogant enough to believe that power will not effect them and that they will be the master of such power.

[Tag]

"The most dangerous belief is the one that persuades you to let others make your choices for you."

I think that is an excellent answer.

[pax]

I suppose the Intent of a belief can be twisted to just about any ends... look at christianity down through the ages.
Tag, I agree. Christianity, in both its Catholic and protestant forms, has an abysmal record of killing people throughout history. So does Islam. So does Judaism (by people both for and against it). So does pantheism, atheism, Hinduism, etc. Any religion you can name has killed people whenever it had the power to do so. Not all religions have ever attained that power, but those that have, have had people killed on account of them.

Which is where we came in. I don't think the problem is with any set of beliefs, because every single one of them can be and has been twisted to justify murdering people.

Nor can we solve it by simply not believing in anything at all (I'm not jumping off any cliffs today) or by refusing to really believe whatever we believe (the world has advanced because brave men and women have clung to their beliefs in the face of the world telling them otherwise). Everybody believes something; you have to believe in order to live. And if you were to try to enforce not believing in anything, you'd end up killing a lot of people (I think the Soviets tried that route).

As Meek pointed out, when power is roughly equal between individuals or their groups, no matter how hostile they are, they tend to fight and fuss their way to a standoff. But when the power is not equal between them, then we get Jews marching to concentration camps and native Americans trodding down the Trail of Tears and starving Ukrainians and mass pogroms and all rest of the weary, dreary, bloody history of the world.

That's why I say the problem isn't with any particular religion, or even with believing that your own religion is utterly right and everyone else's is utterly wrong. No matter how fervent the belief, it can't kill very many people until it has accumulated the power do so.

That leads us right back to what I said in my first post: No private religion, no matter how fervent, could have killed over 160,000,000 people in this last century alone. Only governments can concentrate the power needed to rack up such an awful statistic. I therefore conclude that the most dangerous belief of all is the belief that powerful government is a good thing.

pax

It's getting uncommonly easy to kill people in large numbers, and the first thing a principle does - if it is really a principle - is to kill someone. -- Dorothy L. Sayers

[ahenry]

I therefore conclude that the benevolence of powerful government is the most dangerous belief on the planet.On of the most deadly attacks ever made on American soil didn’t come from a government at all. The potential for that “non-gov’t” entity to kill more lives (both American and non-American) in its quest for “whatever” is substantial.

[Tag]

Well said Pax,

I am in agreement with you on all points save one. To my knowledge Budhists have never focused their influience to enslave or "clense" their land. They seem to hold true to a higher calling, somthing many throughout history have proclaimed to do and killed millions in the porcess. I wonder why this belief has succeded were almost all others have failed?

The Tao?

I don't know these things.

[tyme]

There is no most dangerous belief, as setting any allegedly dangerous institutional belief on a pedestal creates paranoia, which leads good people to do terrible things to prevent the spread of an idea. See: "terrorism," "communism," "holy wars," etc.

[pax]

On of the most deadly attacks ever made on American soil didn’t come from a government at all. The potential for that “non-gov’t” entity to kill more lives (both American and non-American) in its quest for “whatever” is substantial.
ahenry,

*blink* Let's add this up, shall we?

On one end of the scales, we will put 160,000,000 lives -- people snuffed out by their own governments in just one century alone.

On the other end of the scales, we will put the 3,000 people killed in one day on American soil, by fanatics who plotted the attack for years and who had to steal even the planes to manage it.

Assuming that the religious fanatics could manage a similar feat every single day for 100 years, the final toll at the end of the century would be around 109,575,000.

109,575,000 < 160,000,000+

Nope, tyranny is still more deadly than terrorism. And powerful government is still the most dangerous thing on the planet.

Or are you saying that only American lives matter ... and that our government, no matter how powerful, could never become as evil as those other governments?

That exact belief (with only a name change) is what allowed Hitler to slime his way into power.

pax

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. -- George Orwell

[pax]

Tag,

Run a search for Tamil Tigers, rebels, Sri Lanka, and Buddhism. You might be surprised what pops up.

pax

Heaven have mercy on us all -- Presbyterians and Pagans alike -- for we are all somehow dreadfully cracked about the head, and sadly need mending. – Herman Melville

[Sean Smith]

Government by religion, or government that takes the place of religion, are the two worst ideas in human history. Really, they are aspects of the same concept: state infallibility, which logically leads to unlimited exercise of state power. Only the alleged source of that “infallibility” differs.

In the first, the ultimate authority of the state comes directly from God. Religious institutions and political institutions become one. This form of government by its very nature removes all theoretical constraints on state power, because if power comes from God, the state can justify any use of power to enforce His will. Unfortunately, the men who have the power interpret that “will”… God doesn’t hold conference calls. Thus God’s will becomes whatever the state wants, rather than the other way around. The government does not, in fact, become more “moral,” because the spiritual institutions become degraded as their political dimension grows. Government by God is a tyrannical abomination, because in reality it is government by man, with God reduced to a pretext for unlimited power. The Taliban in Afghanistan and the Ayatollahs in Iran are obvious examples of this at work.

In the second, the state itself is made the object of worship, directly or indirectly taking the place of God. Here, a new myth is created, rather than relying on old ones, to elevate the leadership to a level where their authority can naturally expand into all aspects of human life. The state may either attempt to co-opt religion, as the Nazis did, or ban it entirely, as the Communists did. The end result, however, is identical. North Korea is possibly the scariest, most extreme example of this sort of government... according to North Korean propaganda, 1,000 birds came from heaven to take Kim Il-Jong "home." :barf:

[srschick]

I believe I am better than you

[ball3006]

they are against drinking alcohol.....found a neat little house to retire in about 80 miles from here but it is a dry county and I would have to drive 30 miles to get a beer.....chris3

[Sean Smith]

I'm in a quasi-dry (no liquor, just beer and wine) area. What a sick, twisted, bizarre bit of tyrannical B.S. THAT is! :rolleyes:

Now I keep a bottle of scotch next to my PC on general principles. :evil:

[mercedesrules]

Sean Smith said: In the second, the state itself is made the object of worship, directly or indirectly taking the place of God. Here, a new myth is created, rather than relying on old ones, to elevate the leadership to a level where their authority can naturally expand into all aspects of human life. The state may either attempt to co-opt religion, as the Nazis did, or ban it entirely, as the Communists did. The end result, however, is identical.

Yes, a government like this second type would probably have some sort of solemn pledge recited in the schools each day during which each student worships a symbol of the state. Other religious ceremonies or recitations in the schools would have to be prohibited. People might start to look to the state for food, medical care, retirement income or guidlines about how much water their toilet tank should hold.

MR

[pax]

mercedesrules --

:D Brilliant.

pax

Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are not even capable of forming such opinions. -- Albert Einstein

[bobs1066]

Dangerous belief?

"There's no speed limit on the shoulder!"

[Tim Burke]

There is no need to debate this one, pax nailed it at the outset.
It isn't just that governments can concentrate the necessary power, but also that they can mandate defenseless victims. We can decide that Canadiens are subhuman, and invade, but they are free to fight back, and they will. This will have a negative impact on our ability to kill them. Governments are so much more efficient at killing their own subjects, because they make them defenseless first.

[Mal H]

pax - I just got back to this thread. I have to turn your rebuttal back on you somewhat. I can only speak for myself and what I was thinking.

Is it so dangerous to have a belief and to stick with it in the face of angels, demons, and all the blowhards in the world telling you otherwise? How would we have built civilization without such stubborn minds?

I think of Galileo, forced to recant Copernicus' theory that the earth revolves around the sun, murmuring: "Nevertheless, it moves!" Was he right or wrong to hold so fanatically to his own belief?
.
.
.

Were any of these people dangerous to others because of their stubborn beliefs?

The Galileo analogy is perfect to prove my point. However, I would apply the "most dangerous belief is the belief that your belief is the only true belief" axiom not to Galieo, but to his inquisitors. It was they who refused to accept any belief other than their own dogmatic one. Galileo, on the other hand, looked beyond the accepted "reason" and found a better answer to the structure of the universe. Stubbornly sticking to your guns, so to speak, isn't a bad thing as long as you are willing to listen and contemplate other ideas that may be presented. However, stubbornly sticking to your own beliefs with your eyes and ears shut tight isn't. That was my point.

[English John]

How about.............. "It can't happen to me".

[pax]

Stubbornly sticking to your guns, so to speak, isn't a bad thing as long as you are willing to listen and contemplate other ideas that may be presented. However, stubbornly sticking to your own beliefs with your eyes and ears shut tight isn't. That was my point.
Mal,

Thinking about it.

I think this only holds up if (since) Galileo was really right and his inquisitors really wrong. "What if....?" is always a fun game to play with history, but what if Galileo had been utterly wrong in his theories? Would he have been any less right to stick to his own observations of the way the world worked and to utterly reject the views of those who insisted otherwise?

Even if he were wrong in his observations, I think he'd have been right to cling to his beliefs in the face of authority telling him otherwise -- because the words they told him contradicted what he had seen with his own eyes and what his own ability to reason had taught him.

I keep thinking about my friend, dragging her baby girl to one doctor after another because she "knew" something was wrong with the child. She knew it, although the best of authorities had told her otherwise. She wasn't going to accept the word of some other person (no matter how authoritative) over the things her own eyes had seen and the reasoning her own mind had done.

The seeing and the reasoning were past tense, but her rejection of other's opinions happened in the present tense. IOW, her eyes and ears were utterly shut on that issue by the time others got to her.

Nahhhh. Mal, we're going to have to disagree. I'm right on this one and am not open to changing my mind. :D

pax

Human beings are perhaps never more frightening than when they are convinced beyond doubt that they are right. -- Laurens Van der Post

[ahenry]

Nope, tyranny is still more deadly than terrorism. And powerful government is still the most dangerous thing on the planet. Speaking in terms of oppression (Hitler and Stalin like), how many people have died at the hands of the American gov’t? Over two centuries that you can pull from here and what number do you get? If I asked you to select the most powerful gov’t in the world, just off the top of your head, might you come up with America? Comparing the American gov’t (currently most powerful and historically one of the powerful) and terrorism (and I will refrain from stating what form of terrorism) sure indicates to me that terrorism has been far more deadly. Perhaps you think differently? Can a gov’t kill millions upon millions? I absolutely think so, as you have so aptly illustrated. Is a gov’t by definition and of necessity, the most deadly concept in the world. I absolutely think not.

Or are you saying that only American lives matter... Come, come. Not only are you smarter than that, you know me better than that. Did I not even specifically include non-American lives in my sentence? I know its in there somewhere... No need to try and find a point I didn’t make so you can knock it down.


...and that our government, no matter how powerful, could never become as evil as those other governments? Now, I know you teach your kids and I am sure you wouldn’t let them get away with such debating tactics. I realize the written word can sometimes lead to miscommunication but that you could possibly think I said anything remotely like that is shocking.

[pax]

Speaking in terms of oppression (Hitler and Stalin like), how many people have died at the hands of the American gov’t? Over two centuries that you can pull from here and what number do you get? If I asked you to select the most powerful gov’t in the world, just off the top of your head, might you come up with America? Comparing the American gov’t (currently most powerful and historically one of the powerful) and terrorism (and I will refrain from stating what form of terrorism) sure indicates to me that terrorism has been far more deadly. Perhaps you think differently?
ahenry,

American government has historically been fettered about with all sorts of safeguards and shackled with "checks and balances" -- checks and balances that almost all members of the voting public believed were a good thing.

In fact, Americans once believed that a powerful, centralized government was the most dangerous thing on the planet. And that was why American government, in its early years, didn't have unchecked power over its citizens. (Btw, there's an equivocation in your post that needs to be addressed: a government's power over its own citizens does not necessarily equate to its military power over other nations. When you speak of America being the "most powerful," you are using the term to mean the strongest militarily, strongest over other countries. But America is still very far from being as powerful over its own citizens as say, China or North Korea. So in that sense, America is not the most powerful government in the world and never has been.)

The safeguards against American government becoming too powerful over the lives of its citizens are no longer in place. (Really, it is a miracle that the paper tiger lasted as long as it did.)

More significantly, the voting public no longer believes that those safeguards are even a good idea. They see what powerful governments have done all through history; they watch the tragic tale on their tv screens nightly. And still they think, "It can't happen here, because it has never happened here before."

It's like having to pee on the electric fence for yourself, only less embarrassing and more likely to get you killed.

Come to think of it, "It can't happen here" is a pretty darned dangerous belief, too. Maybe that is the most dangerous belief in America.
Can a gov’t kill millions upon millions? I absolutely think so, as you have so aptly illustrated. Is a gov’t by definition and of necessity, the most deadly concept in the world. I absolutely think not.
Now where did I say that? I said powerful government was the most dangerous thing on the planet.

But, to keep the thread focused, we were talking about the most dangerous belief in the world -- not about the most deadly thing in the world. Which brings me back to my primary point: the belief that powerful government is good and benevolent is the most dangerous one in the world.

There are many people who believe that a large, powerful government is necessary for the preservation of the peace and the security of the people; that the larger the government, the better able it is to create peace and safety. However, history has shown that it is the large and powerful governments which kill the most -- no matter what the external threat.

Good citizens believe that the more powerful the government becomes, the safer its citizens will be. That belief is the fuel which empowers government to murder millions.

pax

I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive. -- Thomas Jefferson

[MeekandMild]

Pax, on the opposite side, what is the most beneficial belief?

I think it would probably be couched in the terms of

Mind your own business.
Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
To your own self be true.
An it harm no one, do what thou will.
Good fences make good neighbors.
Never vote for an incumbent.

or something simililar.

[Tag]

"An it harm no one, do what thou will."

That is my favorite.

[mercedesrules]

"An it harm no one, do what thou will."
To prevent later arguments and court cases about the wording, can we change it to "An it harm no one else, do what thou will"?:)

MR

[MeekandMild]

Pax,

Think of the problem as an iterative set.

IMHO governments evolved for two reasons, first to redistribute food and other vitals to reduce impact of famine and second to provide collective defence.

Back in the time of "mitochondrial Eve", when whatever disaster thinned down the human race to a few dozen individuals about 80,000 BC, the redistribution network must have been very primitive, consisting of family groups who shared food. Gradually the networks would have enlarged with the population and there would have been competition between them.

Competition would have eliminated some systems of government very early (like where is matriarchal anarchism practiced now except among the Bushmen of the Kalahari?) but others would have had a compeditive advantage. Whatever tribe had a "big man" who could inspire the people to share their wealth to keep folks from starving and could organize them to fight off enemies a bit better would have developed the biggest kingdom.

Fast forwarding a few millenia we find that nothing sticks people together better than shared work habits, shared ideas about how to work together and shared ways of doing things... ie cultural beliefs. So we get tribes and early city states.

Fast forwarding a few more millenia we find large polyglot kingdoms like the Medes, the Babylonians, the Romans et cetera. They find more efficiency in suppressing local religions, local cultures and substituting more abstracts. The Roman practice of Mithrism comes to mind as being the "perfect" warrior religion but it substitutes most of the family or regional deities for more abstract principles such as "light", "fire", et cetera, making it easy to absorb many cultures.

At each step ot the ladder of complexity there are more levels of redistribution, more efficient and deadly defences and more pressure at the top to keep the underlings controlled.

Then we come to modern times. The most efficient and powerful state religions are now entirely non-theistic. Pick one: Communism, Socialism, Democracy, the New World Order. Complexity has gotten to the point where the leaders have power over not just individual people but entire regions of the world. So they are now entirely divorced from the underlings.

This makes it easy for Stalin to wipe out the Ukraine for resettlement, for Saddam to kill a hundred thousand Kurds. In two hundred years we have gone from Andy Jackson killing a couple of hundred unwanted individuals to Hitler killing a few million to Mao killing a few tens of millions.

So I'm wondering if the most dangerous belief might be the belief that more COMPLEX and LAYERED government is better?

[Ol' Badger]

Everyone knows that its the Great Pumpkin that is the only true good!!!:D

[modifiedbrowning]

The belief that human beings are inherently good?:confused:

[Tag]

ModifiedBrowning,

I will always believe that human beings are inherently good. You may be correct that it is dangerous to do so.

Pax,

I did some searching for these Timal Tigers. It is amazing stuff.

I guess no belief is exempt...

[MeekandMild]

Pax, one redundant thought here. I wonder what you would find if you actually looked up the history of Christian and Jewish church violence? Not talking about the violence done by governemnts which were composed of people who were nominally Jewish or Christian, but violence by the clergy or henchmen of the clergy.

I think that much of what so many folks here accept as "common knowledge" is 10% truth and 90% myth. In fact I would daresay that the same sort of historic revisionism which tries to MINIMIZE accounting of socialist, Nazi, Fasicist, Communist etc violence tries to MAXIMIZE Christian and Jewish violence. And for the same reasons, to legitimize whatever brand of socialism the revisionists are trying to push.

Not calling names here but some of the folks appear to have learned all they think they know about Western religions from reading "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion".

[igor]

Tag: Our belief is the only true belief and it is our duty to impose it on the rest of humanity.

Very pithily put. And I would by no means restrict the definition of "belief" here no any religious notion (nor do I imply that you do, I'm not trying to read your mind). If one adds the specific angle of "ends that justify the means", we could start to see a pattern here.

My old man, a retired Protestant minister and (despite that) one of the wisest men I've had the honor to know, has been shaking his head in disbelief and sadness at the TV lately. He saw the last round of inspiring speakers with a mission given from some higher entity, the cheering masses and the sudden deterioration of public discussion under the boot of propaganda and indoctrination. "The difference between man and ape should be the ability to learn from historical mistakes and here we see the same stern faces with glassy eyes all over again. And the young men march where the piper leads them." That's what he says. :( :banghead:

Also very much to the point, mercedesrules: Yes, a government like this second type would probably have some sort of solemn pledge recited in the schools each day during which each student worships a symbol of the state. Other religious ceremonies or recitations in the schools would have to be prohibited. :scrutiny:

pax, I think that the above fits well with your original suggestion as well. It's an angles thing.

Great topic, a sad world in a situation destined to deteriorate.

[Tag]

Igor,

I most certainly do not restrict my definition of belief to religious pursuits.

It's the "this is the way we've always done it, the way it's always been" notion, Coupled with the knowledge that what is being done is right, that breeds the deep seeded danger.

Could it be that the search for the most dangerous belief is an empty one? As no one is a position to ask that question is free of the influences of the Danger...

[MeekandMild]

Our belief is the only true belief and it is our duty to impose it on the rest of humanity. Even if the belief is that there are no absolutes and that there is no belief greater than the others?

[igor]

meek, that doesn't sound like something "worth" imposing on others to me... :scrutiny:

[Tag]

"the belief is that there are no absolutes and that there is no belief greater than the others"

good thought, but wouldn't that leave the "believers" in limbo?

A belief is only as dangerous as the people who believe make it.

PS. Actually, if you did indeed truly believe that no one belief was any better or more entitled than any other belief... wouldn't you just end up trying to impose that viewpoint on others... possibly through the use of focused government force?

[MeekandMild]

I think that trying to impose the belief that there are no beliefs better than others, i.e. moral relativism is very dangerous. "There is no right nor wrong, no absolute, no way of judging what is fit nor unfit."

Limbo? Yup. Dangerous believers? Listen to National Public Radio for a week or two and judge for yourself, (if it doesn't make you come down with a major depression so you have to be hospitalized for shock therapy that is). :rolleyes:

[nualle]

pax and everyone who's responded: Great thread!
pax initially posited: I therefore conclude that the benevolence of powerful government is the most dangerous belief on the planet.
MeekandMild thoughtfully added: So I'm wondering if the most dangerous belief might be the belief that more COMPLEX and LAYERED government is better?
I like both these thoughts a lot. But for the "absolutely most dangerous idea," I find myself wanting to search into the individual, rather than the collective. My candidate, therefore, is: the belief that it is legitimate (a good, or even minimally acceptable thing) for an adult to be led in any ethical matter.

Put another way, it would be that "I was just following orders" is a valid defense. All the deadly crimes of governments have been ordered at the top, but carried out by average Joes following their orders. All involved bear culpability.

Perhaps these ideas, the collective and the individual, require each other and so amount ultimately to the same thing.

[Chipper]

Great thread! Lots of thought provoking responses. I am somewhat puzzled though as to how everyone seems to have talked all around the topic but missed the fundamental premise that a belief is formed and held by an individual.

Religions and governments with all of their doctrines, policies are laws are an outcome or outgrowth of beliefs shared by individuals. When differences in beliefs become great enough then divisions occur which produce other religions and governments. These division can be caused by distances such as between England and China. They can be caused by interpretations of holy writ, laws and policies. They can be caused by the extrapolated practices such as observing the sabbath or not observing the sabbath or the secular smoking or not smoking. Nevertheless, the belief is first formed in and held by the individual.

Based on the individual then, I find that it is the belief that the individuals shall be as gods experientially knowing both good and evil that is at the most dangerous belief. As this becomes a shared belief amongst people all manner of justifications are found or contrived to set one's self over others and to exercise authority over the lives of others. This can be done individually, in a commercial or other organized setting and, of course, by the most common forms, religions and governments which serve to control the logical development of beliefs and/or the behaviors, practices and properties of individuals.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having beliefs or having confidence in the correctness of one's beliefs. Man was made to believe. I have never seen the Eiffel Tower and have no basis to believe that it even exists. I do have the testimony of thousands, perhaps millions of eyewitnesses, books, photographs, films and other assorted and sundry ephemera that bear witness to the fact that the Eiffel Tower does, indeed, exist. Therefore, I believe that it does exist. Does this make wrong? A fool? A simpleton who makes it by on belief alone? Quite simply, no. It does not. As a matter of fact, I am quite convinced it does exist and will argue that it does when my belief in it's existence is challenged. To many, this will seem a "no-brainer". A point of no contention. Yet, for me, the existence of the Eiffel Tower remains only a belief as I have never seen it, nor do I plan to in the foreseeable future. I know of no pieces of the tower that available to show proof of my belief. I certainly cannot afford to fly non-believers to France to go look at the Eiffel Tower to substantiate my belief. If non-believers will not accept my belief, my only recourse is to leave them in their unbelief or I could act on the most dangerous belief and find some method to coerce their compliance with my belief.

I could demonstrate that I am superior due to my belief by flying someone over to see it. If this will work with this belief, then why not for others? I could easily set myself up as one who knows because I have demonstrated superiority in belief. I would have authority. I can now parlay this newfound credibility and authority into something more permanent and more to my own self-gratification. Being a man, I could easily devise systems that will make life better for everyone and mostly for me. My errors then become systemitized to the point that long after my death, my beliefs and my errors live on in some form.

I know that is quite the imaginative work here but, I wrote it to demonstrate that it can, has and will continue to operate in this manner. This is how governments, religions and other forms of systemitized come into being. Individually and collectively, those beliefs that are harmless may be an affront to our personal sensibilities but what is the problem as long as they remain harmless? When systemitized errors developed and entrenched by beliefs bring death and destruction to us, then we do have cause for concern and action. If it brings death and destruction to other peoples our concern then is that it does not happen to us. Those people reap the rewards or consequences of their beliefs just as we reap the rewards or consequences of our beliefs.

As witnessed by the many pithy phrases on this thread, everyone believes something. Even unbelief is a form of believing just as choosing not to decide is a choice. The fact that humans believe is not a problem. The problem is what humans do believe. Thousands of years of governments and religions still prove that systemitized error will always be a failure yet, I wouldn't expect anything resembling change as long as the world continues.

Chipper

[Jeeper]

The belief that your religion is right and others are wrong.

[MeekandMild]

The belief that your religion is right and others are wrong. How about: the belief that the the belief that your religion is right and others are wrong is wrong.

[pax]

Put another way, it would be that "I was just following orders" is a valid defense. All the deadly crimes of governments have been ordered at the top, but carried out by average Joes following their orders. All involved bear culpability.

Perhaps these ideas, the collective and the individual, require each other and so amount ultimately to the same thing.
Nualle,

It's been too long since we talked. Good to see you again. :)

Re the individual and the collective, I think you are onto something there. Handing your conscience over into another person (or group's) keeping seems always to lead to nuffin' but trouble.

Interesting that one of the posts nearest yours suggested (Jeeper's) -- The belief that your religion is right and others are wrong.
It is interesting because in some ways that is nearly the opposite of what Nualle said.

If Nualle is right, I cannot ethically hand my conscience over to someone else. I can't say, "I was just following orders" or "Everyone else said to do (whatever)."

But if Jeeper is right, I must hand my conscience over to others, rather than really relying upon my own ethical reasoning and my own beliefs.

That's quite apart from the amusing bit of tail chasing such statements result in. When people say no beliefs are really right and no beliefs are really wrong, they are saying that their belief (that there are no right beliefs) is really right and my belief (that there is a right belief) is really wrong. :D

pax

Truth is. Belief is not required. -- Gerry Roston

[sm]

So I decided to focus on the word belief :

be·lief ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-lf)
n.
The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: "My belief in you is as strong as ever."

Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: "His explanation of what happened defies belief. "

Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English bileve, alteration (influenced by bileven, to believe), of Old English gelafa. See leubh- in Indo-European Roots.]

Synonyms: belief, credence, credit, faith
These nouns denote mental acceptance of the truth, actuality, or validity of something: a statement unworthy of belief; an idea steadily gaining credence; testimony meriting credit; has no faith in a liar's assertions. See also synonyms at opinion
Antonyms: disbelief
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is belief a result of enviroment, culture, or religious affliliation?

If intent is a launch tool is this where it comes from?

Dependent on the degree of influence of enviroment, culture, religious affliation. ? Maslows' Law?

[edamon]

Islam is the greatest threat on this planet currently.

Look around the world, ever conflict involves people of
this religion going after another group. From the chech's
to the middle east to the south east.

-d

[pax]

edamon,

Did you read any of the other posts?

From the first post on the thread: Awhile back, there was a thread that went on interminably arguing about evil belief systems. In it, people variously proved that Christianity, Catholicism, protestantism, Islam, pantheism, emperor worship, and communism (atheistic 'state-as-religion') have killed a lot of people.

Unfortunately, the thread devolved into the standard (and boring) "my god can beat up your God" squabble, and was subsequently closed. I hope that doesn't happen here. :scrutiny:
pax

With most people unbelief in one thing is founded upon blind belief in another. -- G. C. Lichtenberg

[griz]

There are exceptions but most of the examples of a religion mass murdering people were when the religion ran, or was interchangeable with, the government. Pax may have said it better but I’ll go for brevity here. The religion couldn’t have killed multitudes without wielding governmental power.

W e need some sort of award for the years best thread. (In my best announcers voice) For outstanding civility while debating contradictory views, and for an exceptionally good topic, this thread wins the High Road award!
:D

[MeekandMild]

Edamon, I tend to agree with griz here.

Religions which are dangerous are dangerous because they wield governent powers. But how or why do they obtain the powers in the first place?

For a religion or other meme to become a government there must be a number of factors in place. First the religion must have sufficient number of adherents to squelch dissent. Second it must have the belief in its leadership it is right to squelch dissent. Third it must have adherents which believe in its divine right to squelch dissent. Fourth it must have the will to punish those who dissent.

On the other hand there are religions which have none of these factors. I immediately think of Quakerism, which is, as far as I can tell the exact opposite of all four factors.

[edamon]

I never stated that other religions were better then Islam.

Just that the followers of Islam have made it the
most "dangerous belief" for the rest of the world -
presently.

Most of our happy terrorist groups out there operate
independantly of government control or direct support.
Al Qaeda comes to mind.

Certainly "governments" in history have enabled most the
mass killings accredited to religion. However, present day
we have the unique situation that griz noted. You could
certainly point to Afghanistan as a government that enabled
them, but Al Qaeda operates throughout the world, including
this country without state support.

-d

[igor]

edamon,

it wouldn't hurt to get a grip on the discussion in the thread before sharing.

[edamon]

Igor,

that would involve 4 pages of reading, short attentions span are super.

-d

[MeekandMild]

I belive I'm going to bump this back up to the top. Call it shameless manipulation.

[Intune]

We are by & large communal creatures with a propensity towards, um, how shall I put it, laziness or visions of self-grandeur? This may not be the correct term but hear me out. In our veritable rabbit warrens, if we have others to forage for our food and bring it to us we have perceptibly “elevated” our individual self above those gatherers. And if others defend, build, police and provide various infrastructures for our warren, we, even while hopefully providing SOME contributory cog to this machine, are having much more done FOR us. Fat, happy rabbit doesn’t have to worry near as much in a given day. Ahhh. Thus the insidious ceding, and make no mistake, it IS ceding of power, begins. Certain self “rights” are slowly eroded for the trumpeted good of the collective. Seemingly benign and philanthropic at the onset, (do it for the children) the ramifications nonetheless exist and if history is any guide, will one day potentially rain (reign) terror on those selfsame warrens.

Pax, thank you for this thread for it has reminded me that the 2nd Amendment is the one that keeps us free from tyranny. ANYTHING that infringes on that right is at direct odds with a free people. We should be in the streets insisting (peaceably) on the restoration of our rights for we have indeed ceded some of OUR power already. This is one fat rabbit who’s gonna get lean and sharpen these chompers. A pen, a sword and a voice multiplied by millions cannot be ignored. And it starts with me. Thank you again.

[Zedicus]

Religion + Politics = Worst Idea in the History of Bad Ideas....

[telomerase]

I'd have to agree with Pax (and George Washington). From memory, so don't quote me: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master". Government is dangerous even when everyone is thinking like that. When people get so TV-saturated that they start thinking of government as their mother (that bakes them those delicious crop subsidies out of other people's money), or their father (who protects them from those big evil terrorists by making sure that pilots can't have guns...), then we're headed for trouble.

If I were trying to pick the worst sub-item of belief in government "benevolence", though, it would probably be the belief that government should be allowed to inflate and deflate at will. No praetorian guard ever did such a good job of keeping the very worst elements in power. And how many people have the slightest idea how the Fed works, or how much of our wealth it transfers to the world's dictators? Once in a while it makes the news (as when Clinton used it to "find" tens of billions for the Mexican bank kleptocrats in one lump sum).. but mostly people like to argue over million-dollar issues. The trillions of dollars in offical and unoffical foreign aid since WWII are just too big to think about.

Rummel is right to point out that governments killed many times more people than criminals in the 20th Century... but someone needs to point out that the US taxpayer paid for a lot of their bullets. And we still are; look who bought the North Koreans their nuclear reactors....
http://freedom.orlingrabbe.com/lfetimes/dictatorship_nemesis.htm

[MeekandMild]

Religion + Politics = Worst Idea in the History of Bad Ideas.... Subtract religion from the equation and it still computes. The problem is the politics part. For the left side of the equation you could put any word you want... Pineapples+ Politics... Gazebos+Politics... Ants+Politics... Canned Peaches+Politics...

[brookstexas]

MTV is about music...

[MicroBalrog]

The belief that it's good to persecute others merely for being different.

[geekWithA.45]

Quick reply, before I go back and read 5 pages of thread ;)

It seems that the worst of government, politics, religion, mobs, and so on all have two things in common:


The belief that the initiation of force (to gain compliance, for example, or to blatantly oppress) is valid for any of a number of reasons that aren't authentically valid,

and

A concentration of power such that the aforementioned initiation of force can actually be achieved.

Now, I go back to read this awesome thread from the beginning.

[MeekandMild]

Howzabout...the collective is greater than the sum of its parts???

[telomerase]

Maybe the belief that there is a huge conspiracy among the rich and powerful to help you? This seems to be very attractive to many people, whether "conservative" or "liberal". Even when politicians are caught lying, murdering, etc., it's all excused by the theory that "they're doing it for our own good", "they're only hurting the OTHER religion/ethnic group/race", or the ever popular "they know more than we do (because they feed us so many lies)".

[cpileri]

History bears agreement with Pax (and others) who stated to the effect that

TRUSTING THAT OTHERS WILL PUT YOUR INTERESTS BEFORE THEIRS

is the most dangerous belief.

'others' being mankind in general, and especially governments

- though it may be ok to trust your mother, wife, or a few friends, if your that blessed.

'interests' being physical safety, financial solvency, religious and personal freedom.

My own thoughts, and not original, is that none of the other things above amount to a hill of beans if you are DEAD. So safeguarding your life is paramount, allowing you to pursue the others as you will. One a people are foolish enough to trust someone else with their safety- all other freedoms are lost. (see, i told you it wasn't original)
C-

[Blain]

The most dangerous belief is that of those who believe they have the right to interfere with the free will and liberties of other sentient individuals.

[tyme]

That runs smack into the problem of competing rights, where nobody can agree. Do you have a right to smoke in a public establishment ("non-smokers should go elsewhere"), or do those non-smokers have a right to patronize that public establishment even if it means smokers must smoke elsewhere?

[English John]

Remember Olestra (sp?). That stuff was supposed to be so bad that it would kill you. I watched someone on a talk show telling the host and the audience that if we insisted on supporting it in the market place that the government should BAN it because it is so bad for you. (It eventually died out of the market on its own.) We are seeing an attack on Mc Donalds fast food almost to that extent today because of the obvious problem Americans have with obesity (but I read a study that SAID so). We all must be children who have to be led by the people who are better than us and know what is best for us. Same thing with guns, and any other unpopular product of the moment. Their mantra is "Trust me, I know what's best for you." Only thing is, that these people that have my best interest at heart have forgotten one thing: Who in H*** are YOU to tell ME how to live my life? As long as I am not stepping on your toes, get out of my face. Maybe they want us to "do it for the children."
You are right about our freedoms (The price of freedom is eternal vigilence.), I guess if the Ist Amendment is no longer the watchdog (do you really trust the media to give "fair and balanced" reporting?) the 2nd Amendment may have to be. John

[Moparmike]

It is the right of the owner of the private establishment to decide who can perform what legal activities on the private property. I am facing a similar issue in my hometown, and cant believe the ignorance. The two main parts of their argument is "health...for the children...health..." and Righteous Indignation. Logic has no place in their arguement, or they would be pro-owners' rights instead of anti's.

Yay OT rants about local events.

Edited to add comments abou the rest of the thread: Wow! Excellent thread. Enjoyed reading all of it. I dont know that I can really add anything of value to it.

My belief that I should have power over you, know all that you do, etc. and that it is a one way power street is better than your belief and anyone who doesnt believe that will be crushed under the wheels of MY NEVER-ENDING TYRANNICALY DESPOTIC RULING MACHINE!!!BWWAAAHHHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Our Jolly Bhuddist Televangelists (JBT's) will be around shortly for your indoctorination. Thank you and have a nice day.




:scrutiny: :neener:
That said, "boredom" is a dangerous thing...

[jimpeel]

The most dangerous belief on the planet is "It can't happen here!"

[MrAcheson]

Bah! Government? There are far more important things out there than the nature of government. Lots of different government models can work given the opportunity. My vote goes for one of these two:

People are basically good.

This is a damnedest lie that has ever been told. People are not born good. People are born selfish little bastards who want everything right now be it food, water, attention, or amusement. It is goodness which must be taught. Selfishness, intolerance, and every other vice come naturally. We naturally corrupt everything we touch. That is why you need to question authority. Everyone is corruptible by something, even if its by their own flawed good intentions.

The world is fair.

Its not. You can try and treat it like it is with courts and laws, but fundamentally the world is broken. Nothings ever perfect or can become so. You can only push that inherent brokenness out into the corners so far before you hit diminishing returns and the bodies start piling up.

[tyme]

It is the right of the owner of the private establishment to decide who can perform what legal activities on the private property.
Tee hee. "...what legal activities..." Well, if smoking in a public establishment is illegal, the owner doesn't have the right to allow it anymore. :)

I suspect you meant that the owner has a right to decide who can perform what activities as long as they don't hurt other people. And then you're back to whether smoking is considered "hurtful" of others.

[Dilettante]

(Dustind)
I am not sure if this fits, but lies and misinformation that isn't countered by the other side of the argument. Almost every bad thing in the last century happened because the people only saw one side of an issue, and the truth was held from them.

I like this. I want to extend it a little bit.

I think that bad ideas usually die a quiet, insignificant death, or barely linger on harmlessly, unless there is some kind of coercion to keep people from questioning them.

I've spent a lot of my life around universities, where I've seen this in the form of political correctness. People can be seriously ostracized if they dispute some popular prejudices, e.g. the equal "validity" of all "cultures".

That tactic works especially well with young people, and insecure people (which includes most academics unfortunately).

Obviously this is pretty small potatoes compared to the coercion used in places like Iraq (up till April!) or Saudi Arabia. And in those places the governments have gotten away with even more BS.

So I think the most critical thing might be how tightly ideas are controlled, not a particular false belief.
After all, how many different, contradictory weird theories did Chairman Mao alone come up with over the years?

[Graystar]

Any belief that places greater importantance upon the life of an entity of any sort (god or government) than upon the life of individual humans is extremely dangerous. That is when people die for the sake of the entity.

[another okie]

The most dangerous belief on the planet is the perfectibility of humanity, the idea that if we just have enough social workers, counselors, police officers and welfare that everything will be perfect and violence and hate and fear and hunger will vanish from the earth.

People who believe this believe it as a religion, and cannot be persuaded otherwise by experience or history or reason. If a regulation doesn't work, they just say that means more regulation is needed.

This belief is certainly related to the beliefs mentioned above that "people are good" and that "life is fair."

[Erik]

"What is the most dangerous belief on the planet?"

Religion(s).

[pax]

Erik,

You are right that religion has killed a lot of people. But various non-religions (communism, naziism, nationalism) have certainly killed a lot of people too.

I re-iterate my first post on the thread: it doesn't matter what the rest of the belief system is, nor how vile its tenets. No matter how nasty evil a belief is, it cannot kill millions of people without the aid of a powerful government.

Therefore, the most dangerous belief on the planet is the belief that powerful government is good and benevolent.

pax

The worst evils which mankind has ever had to endure were inflicted by bad governments. The state can be and has often been in the course of history the main source of mischief and disaster. -- Ludwig von Mises

[yy]

"It's not my fault."

This leads to:

"I'm not responsible for what happened"

and a whole lot of excuses and justifications

and finally,

"I'd like someone to take care of me by making -THEM- pay"

I posit that if enough percentage of a population subscribe to the above de-evolotuion, we'd get that concentration of power and the abuse of that power.

Pax: this belief does not involve any abstract concepts such as governments, leadership, etc. This is a seed that grows into great evil.

edited to add:
Nualle: perhaps this short form summarizes your keen observation?

[Hangman]

"What is the most dangerous belief on the planet?"


That any govt can be trusted. Leads a lot of people to get suckered into being useful idjits.

And I aint just talkin bout the dims.

I'm talkin bout *you*, Republican.