Juan: 10Brandonr:Religion, as a general term, is not, though, inherently dangerous. Revealed religions are inherently absurd and revealed religions have been used as tools for causing a lot of damage a lot of times. Church and state have been sides of the same coin for thousand of years. If you see no danger in all those things...so be it.
10Brandonr:Religion, as a general term, is not, though, inherently dangerous.
Of course, whenever we show people that the church is evil and abolish it people have been free and prosperous. Communist China and the USSR illustrate this quite nicely.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
I hope in a free society everyone can mind their own damn business, and live and let live. Gay, Religious, Atheist, Straight, White, Black, let's just do what we feel comfortable with, not be judgmental of other people's personal business, and focus on increasing prosperity.
The militant liberals are just as silly as the militant conservatives.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Juan: 10Brandonr:Religion, as a general term, is not, though, inherently dangerous. Revealed religions are inherently absurd and revealed religions have been used as tools for causing a lot of damage a lot of times. Church and state have been sides of the same coin for thousands of years. If you see no danger in all those things...so be it.
But pretty much anything can be used as a tool for causing a lot of damage. The idea of "democracy" and "freedom"(though obviously not freedom) were some of the reasons for the US to kill people in Afghanistan and Iraq. The church and state have been on sides of the same coin for a long time- but so have corporations and states. Anything partnering with the state turns dangerous.
I would argue that religion itself leads to authoritarianism. If B thinks A can talk to God, B might tend to listen to him. Even if A tells him to make C submit to the authority of A. Although, I think you have a point in that all irrational beliefs can lead to authoritarianism, but I think democracy has become a religion at this point. The only difference is that god has become known as "the people", and voting is the new sacrament.
I would argue that religion and state lead to authoritarianism, particularly theocratic authoritarianism. Religion that cannot inherently violate the non-aggression principle, cannot logically be evil, only illogical. In the same sense that a "stupid" person that cannot violate the non-aggression principle cannot logically be evil, he can only be stupid.
My argument makes the libertarian assumption that evil is coercion against the life, liberty, and/or property of another individual.
10Brandonr: My argument makes the libertarian assumption that evil is coercion against the life, liberty, and/or property of another individual.
Then you must expang the religion to any moral philosophy that coerce. If in my ethical system it is alright to vilolate private property if its owner does X (givirng X is not evil in your system), then the philosophy is evil.
"We are nothing. Mankind is all. By the grace of our brothers are we allowed our lives. We exist through, by and for our brothers who are the State. Amen."
10Brandonr: aestheticbend: Considering this is on a Dawkins website, I am sure there is point in engagement. Recently, Dawkins made the argument that evolution is supported by the diversity of dogs that has come about in the last 20 000 years. I just about laughed that a renowned biologist would use an example of articial selection to support natural selection. Intelligent design arguments are full of crap, but what a shitty response that was. Why? Artificial selection and natural selection are essentially very similar events. Richard Dawkins uses the example of artificial selection to display how selective pressures distinguish characteristics of species over time. (not that it has anything to do with austrian economics)
aestheticbend: Considering this is on a Dawkins website, I am sure there is point in engagement. Recently, Dawkins made the argument that evolution is supported by the diversity of dogs that has come about in the last 20 000 years. I just about laughed that a renowned biologist would use an example of articial selection to support natural selection. Intelligent design arguments are full of crap, but what a shitty response that was.
Considering this is on a Dawkins website, I am sure there is point in engagement. Recently, Dawkins made the argument that evolution is supported by the diversity of dogs that has come about in the last 20 000 years. I just about laughed that a renowned biologist would use an example of articial selection to support natural selection. Intelligent design arguments are full of crap, but what a shitty response that was.
Why? Artificial selection and natural selection are essentially very similar events. Richard Dawkins uses the example of artificial selection to display how selective pressures distinguish characteristics of species over time. (not that it has anything to do with austrian economics)
Not really. Natural selection results in a decrease in the genetic diversity of a species. So while it can explain how a species changes, it does not explain how complex organism have descended from less complex ones. Thus the need for Neo-Darwinism to include Variation.
Heartless Voluntaryist: I would argue that religion itself leads to authoritarianism. If B thinks A can talk to God, B might tend to listen to him. Even if A tells him to make C submit to the authority of A. Although, I think you have a point in that all irrational beliefs can lead to authoritarianism, but I think democracy has become a religion at this point. The only difference is that god has become known as "the people", and voting is the new sacrament.
I would argue that you're an idiot.
Juan:How does your non-sequitur invalidate historical facts, please ? If anything it shows, as was pointed out a few times, that communism is just another set of irrational beliefs.
You said religion was cause, the USSR clearly disproves that.
Juan:Are you playing dumb ? Religion was the cause at times A, B, C, N, communism was the cause at time X. All those are historical facts. Did you read Bastiat's quote ? What's your learned opinion ? Maybe Bastiat was cultural marxist ? Thomas Paine too ?
That's funny, I don't remember saying anything about cultural marxism. And yes I did read the quotation, what's your point?
GilesStratton: Heartless Voluntaryist: I would argue that religion itself leads to authoritarianism. If B thinks A can talk to God, B might tend to listen to him. Even if A tells him to make C submit to the authority of A. Although, I think you have a point in that all irrational beliefs can lead to authoritarianism, but I think democracy has become a religion at this point. The only difference is that god has become known as "the people", and voting is the new sacrament. I would argue that you're an idiot.
I can see you have good arguing skills with the ad hominems and all. I think your a good example of religion causing people to abandon reason though. Instead of engaging in intellectual debate you call names and say that the USSR disproves the point that religion leads to authoritarianism.
Heartless Voluntaryist:I can see you have good arguing skills with the ad hominems and all. I think your a good example of religion causing people to abandon reason though. Instead of engaging in intellectual debate you call names and say that the USSR disproves the point that religion leads to authoritarianism.
And I can see you have comprehension issues.
No, you were setting up a strawman. Nobody claimed that the absence of religion led to people becoming rational and respectful of property rights. So your point about communism is invalid. If any thing it just goes to prove that all irrational beliefs can be harmful.
For what it's worth...http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/2008/12/on-austrian-economics.html
http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/
Heartless Voluntaryist:Nobody claimed that the absence of religion led to people becoming rational and respectful of property rights.
And yet it was implied.
...but, I think your forgetting that religion is not just any moral philosophy that encourages or practices coercion. If you're saying that any belief that justifies coercion to be evil than you're totally rational, but if you're implying that religion (def: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.) in general is, in the libertarian sense, evil, then I think you're dead wrong.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap