What really are the ten most harmful books?

[Lord Zentei]

Why Malthus?

Because he was wrong but provided complacent governments with a rational and moral justification for not helping the starving.

I must admit to not benig entirely familiar with Malthus as he isn't entirely "current". However I do know that it inspired Darwin when he wrote the Origin of Species.

I'll have to go with Dianetics...

I agree with this, though the scope of it's influence is limited.

[RedImperator]

The Prince, by Niccolò Machiavelli. Published posthumously in 1532.

What harm has that done? All he really did is write down what people had been doing for millenia

It popularized the idea the expediency was not only effective, it was morally justified. Although Machiavelli himself would not agree that "the ends justify the means," that is how people understood The Prince. It justifies and legitimizes unethical acts committed in the quest for power.

Of course people had already been doing that since the dawn of time. But The Prince made it morally acceptable.

That's absurd. All Machiavelli did was present the practical rules for survival as a ruler of a Renaissance Italian city-state, developed by those rulers in a form of natural selection (those who didn't follow them didn't rule for very long), as an instruction manual. The most notable thing about it is that it's the first European study of politics fully divorced from theology, philosophy, and yes, ethics, and for that, it could be considered one of political science's founding documents. What it DIDN'T do was cast an aura of respectability on the practices within it, and if it had never been written, those practices still would have continued, and likely someone else would have written them down later.

And it's worth noting that the book was roundly condemned as immoral when it was published, and "Machiavellian" is not a compliment.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I think that a text or book cannot be blamed for the damage it does realy if it's not a normative text. Lots of people try to say that the Theory of Evolution is bad becaues it inspired social darwinism of Herbert Spencer, but Evolutionary theory and Natural Selection, from what I understand, is descriptive, not normative.

Several of the books on that list are merely discriptive, not normative. Some are normative, and I think those are the ones that deserve credit for inspiring damage.

Although I don't understand why a book describing secular humanism was mentioned there. Isn't that a good philosophy? How can that ne harmful?

I also think that "harm" seems to be quite relative. The people who say it is harmful vary.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

AHHH EDIT: I am sorry. I accidently clicked the wrong damn thread! This belongs in the other one. My bad.

[Knife]

Plenty of people have been killed and oppressed in the names of relgions other than Christianity & Muslims. For Hinduism just look at the caste system it prop/s up in India also the activities of the BJP & a little while ago a little something called partition.

I'm not overly familure with that side of the world, so I'll take your word for it. I didn't know that Hinduism was used as a justification for the caste system, I thought that had more to do with the still tribal and/or feudal like culture.

Of course Hitler would have done “fucked up shit without writting it” he did after dictate it when in prison for trying to lead a coup against the Weimar government.

I was refering more to the 'final solution' than anything. That he was a power monger is without saying.

Mein Kampf on it’s own had relatively little to do with Hitler’s rise to power which had a lot more to do with his skills as a speech maker & political campaigner in conjunction with the whole WWI & great depression thing.

In comparison in das kapital & the rest of his writings Marx set out powerful ideas that inspired huge numbers of people long after his death.

No, but it gave people a chance to 'own a piece' of Hitlers thoughts and idea's. That's the bit of this thread. Hitler wrote down his bullshit and people bought it and took part in it.

From the little I’ve read of it I suspect thats because they were racist assholes long before they read Mein Kampf & sought it out because of Hitler’s reputation. He may have been a fantastic orator but his writing is poor & doesn’t approach the power or persuasiveness of say Marx for example.

True they were probably already racist, but again, it gives them something to unite with, to associate with. That makes the damn book harmful in that people will still rally around the damn thing like it's relevant.

[Thirdfain]

The Prince, by Niccolò Machiavelli. Published posthumously in 1532.

What harm has that done? All he really did is write down what people had been doing for millenia

If that's grounds for dismissing it from the list, then all the religious shit should be off as well.

What came first, the Idiot or the Bible? I'd guess Idiot.

[Darth Wong]

The Prince, by Niccolò Machiavelli. Published posthumously in 1532.

What harm has that done? All he really did is write down what people had been doing for millenia

If that's grounds for dismissing it from the list, then all the religious shit should be off as well.

Bullshit. No one runs around worshipping "The Prince" and trying to make others follow its teachings.

What came first, the Idiot or the Bible? I'd guess Idiot.

True. However, the idiot died and has no more influence over the world. The Bible lives on, and is indoctrinated into the minds of countless new idiots every year.

[Zero]

Just one thing about Hitler, and Mein Kamph... the real reason that shit like the holocaust happened was because of the absolute hatred catholicism had inspired for the jews in europe. Hitler just used hatred that was already there. Anti-semitism was noting new at all...

[Thirdfain]

True. However, the idiot died and has no more influence over the world. The Bible lives on, and is indoctrinated into the minds of countless new idiots every year.

Machiavellian thought lives on today (and indeed preceeded it's namesake in many ways,) much the same way the blind cattle-like religion we see in the Bible was around before and after the creation off the book.

I'm saying the bible is a symptom, not a disease. People were gullible sheep long before the Bible was written, and will probably continue to be so long after the Bible is forgotten or changed beyond recognition.

This is the point I am trying to make.

[Darth Wong]

True. However, the idiot died and has no more influence over the world. The Bible lives on, and is indoctrinated into the minds of countless new idiots every year.

Machiavellian thought lives on today (and indeed preceeded it's namesake in many ways,) much the same way the blind cattle-like religion we see in the Bible was around before and after the creation off the book.

You're obviously not getting the point. The Bible has gone well beyond merely describing existing conditions in society and is now a major force for retarding progress.

I'm saying the bible is a symptom, not a disease. People were gullible sheep long before the Bible was written, and will probably continue to be so long after the Bible is forgotten or changed beyond recognition.

This is the point I am trying to make.

And it is bullshit. Most of Biblical stupidity comes directly from the primitive and ignorant era in which it was made, and would not magically resurface if the Bible and Bible worship disappeared.

[Thirdfain]

You're obviously not getting the point. The Bible has gone well beyond merely describing existing conditions in society and is now a major force for retarding progress.

There's plenty of ancient, retrograde books floating around full of compelling and stupid ideas. The Bible is only notable for being the book which the populace at large has happened to grasp on to.

And it is bullshit. Most of Biblical stupidity comes directly from the primitive and ignorant era in which it was made, and would not magically resurface if the Bible and Bible worship disappeared.

I say that primitive ignorance is still available in abundance today, both at home and abroad. There are plenty of people who beat "uppity women," insult "dirty fags," and so forth, all without giving half a shit about the bible or any other religious book. Intolerance, racism, sexism, morality through tradition of dubious value... Alll of this exists in abundance in places which have never seen a bible.

[Darth Servo]

Alll of this exists in abundance in places which have never seen a bible.

And those places would be....?

[Lord Zentei]

And it is bullshit. Most of Biblical stupidity comes directly from the primitive and ignorant era in which it was made, and would not magically resurface if the Bible and Bible worship disappeared.

<looks at new agers and pseudoscientists>

Sadly, I have to disagree. Though their bullshit is arguable less hateful than that of the Bible.

[The Cleric]

Alll of this exists in abundance in places which have never seen a bible.

And those places would be....?

Many places in Africa.

[Thirdfain]

Alll of this exists in abundance in places which have never seen a bible.

And those places would be....?

Well, every Hindu country in the world, for one. OK, they've SEEN the bible, but it's hardly the source of their problems.

[SyntaxVorlon]

I would point out that Lenin was in favor of State Socialism, not communism. If so he would have put to his subsequent Premiers the task of compartmentalizing communities into small self-sufficient communes and dissolved the soviet government. Marx was not simply a state socialism proponent and the manifesto is directed more at uprooting capitalist power by getting rid of the capitalists directly and controlling government by election.

During the mid 19th century there was a major debate about Universal Male Sufferage in England, the result many were afraid of in this course, would be all the stupid little people voting in incompetants who would destroy the kingdom. In On Liberty, Mill espouses these views pointing out that while everyone deserves equal right to vote, the upper classes ought to get equaler voting rights.

Marx thought, "Soon the proletariat will have the vote, soon they shall be the ruling class, the ones who can declare government policy, here's this nice manifesto about how you should all go about it." Make no mistake, he was perfectly in favor of violence in extreme cases, but they were only cases at a localized level. Basically he saw the industrialization of England and the way that capitalism worked to be equivalent to the food shortages in Paris that escalated more and more until it caused enough unrest to make the 3rd estate act. The 3rd estate acted by putting its richest bourghers into power, creating the rule of the bourgeoisie. Now just imagine that happening all over again as market slumps get worse and worse and factory workers keep getting shafted more and more. And there you go.

And I would also point out that he's not completely wrong, governments in Europe and North America became much more liberal where workers gained power and voting rights.

[Darth Servo]

Alll of this exists in abundance in places which have never seen a bible.

And those places would be....?

Many places in Africa.

I thought the Catholics had that place covered.

[Darth Wong]

Alll of this exists in abundance in places which have never seen a bible.

And those places would be....?

Many places in Africa.

Koran, Bible, close enough.

[Darth Wong]

Alll of this exists in abundance in places which have never seen a bible.

And those places would be....?

Well, every Hindu country in the world, for one. OK, they've SEEN the bible, but it's hardly the source of their problems.

Logic review, fucktard: the statement "A is not the only thing that can cause B" is not the same thing as "A does not cause B", nor does it validate the claim "there would be no less of B if A weren't around".

By this fucked-up moron logic, there would be no less sneezing and coughing if the flu were made extinct tomorrow, because it's possible to sneeze and cough even if you don't have the flu.

[Thirdfain]

Oh, come on. Religion and it's assorted peccadillos have existed in one form or another in pretty much every society in history. The very concept of modern humanism is a very new meme, and has never been as widespread as it is today in the history of civilization.

Are you seriously claiming that if Christianity wasn't broad and powerful, people wouldn't be just as godawful? Fuck, no. They'd just have another crusty old book to wave around and scream about.

By this fucked-up moron logic, there would be no less sneezing and coughing if the flu were made extinct tomorrow, because it's possible to sneeze and cough even if you don't have the flu.

That's a ridiculolus analogy. The Bible exists because people are generally insular, xenophobic, and retrograde. The flu doesn't exist because people cough and sneeze.

If we got rid of the Bible today, certainly, it would be a blow (at least temporarily) against the fuckwittery it espouses. But to say that removing the Bible from the annals of history would in any way dimish the amount of religous bullshit in the last two thousand years is ridiculous. This joint would be Muslim, or Zoarastrian, or some other nasty little relgious concept.

The era which spawned the Bible, and therefor set the stage for much of European history, was rife with superstition. There were dozens of nasty cults with the potential to become international beasts and bastions of intellectual conservatism. Any one of those would have risen to fill the gap.

[Plekhanov]

The Prince, by Niccolò Machiavelli. Published posthumously in 1532.

What harm has that done? All he really did is write down what people had been doing for millenia

If that's grounds for dismissing it from the list, then all the religious shit should be off as well.

What came first, the Idiot or the Bible? I'd guess Idiot.

No it isn’t religious texts provide a bunch of arbitrary rules which harm people who follow them and tell these followers to do unpleasant things to people who don’t follow these arbitrary rules. They do massive harm to the world.

In contrast the Prince set out one mans thoughts on how statecraft should be carried out, nothing he wrote down was particularly earth shaking Machiavelli’s major innovations were 1. writing that stuff down in an upfront manner 2. writing it down in Italian rather than Latin.

It’s a notorious book but unlike the bible can’t be directly tied to much,

You're obviously not getting the point. The Bible has gone well beyond merely describing existing conditions in society and is now a major force for retarding progress.

There's plenty of ancient, retrograde books floating around full of compelling and stupid ideas.

And this means that the Bible isn’t a harmful presence in the world why exactly?

The Bible is only notable for being the book which the populace at large has happened to grasp on to.

Exactly, which is why it’s one of the 10 most harmful ever.

And it is bullshit. Most of Biblical stupidity comes directly from the primitive and ignorant era in which it was made, and would not magically resurface if the Bible and Bible worship disappeared.

I say that primitive ignorance is still available in abundance today, both at home and abroad. There are plenty of people who beat "uppity women," insult "dirty fags," and so forth, all without giving half a shit about the bible or any other religious book.

You may think that homophobia is natural that’s only to be expected as you could from a bible infested society, however it isn’t and the high levels of people obsessed with “dirty fags” in US society is directly attributable to Christianity and the Bible.

Intolerance, racism, sexism, morality through tradition of dubious value... Alll of this exists in abundance in places which have never seen a bible.

And this means that the bible hasn’t been a powerful influence upon western society continually reinforcing such things why exactly?

Alll of this exists in abundance in places which have never seen a bible.

And those places would be....?

Well, every Hindu country in the world, for one. OK, they've SEEN the bible, but it's hardly the source of their problems.

Thomas apparently travelled to India c.50AD and there have been Christians there ever since of course it never really caught on like it did in Europe but still you’ll have to try again for you places untouched by the bible.

Anyway as Mike pointed out that’s besides the point the fact that there are non-Christian idiots doesn’t mean that the bible hasn’t done a great deal of damage

[Darth Wong]

Oh, come on. Religion and it's assorted peccadillos have existed in one form or another in pretty much every society in history. The very concept of modern humanism is a very new meme, and has never been as widespread as it is today in the history of civilization.

Are you seriously claiming that if Christianity wasn't broad and powerful, people wouldn't be just as godawful? Fuck, no. They'd just have another crusty old book to wave around and scream about.

Then why is there less of this behaviour in parts of the US which are less religious, fucktard? Coincidence?

By this fucked-up moron logic, there would be no less sneezing and coughing if the flu were made extinct tomorrow, because it's possible to sneeze and cough even if you don't have the flu.

That's a ridiculolus analogy. The Bible exists because people are generally insular, xenophobic, and retrograde. The flu doesn't exist because people cough and sneeze.

Wrong, and wrong. The Bible originally came into being because people in that era were much more ignorant than they are today. And actually, the flu does exist because people cough and sneeze, because that's how it's transmitted, moron.

If we got rid of the Bible today, certainly, it would be a blow (at least temporarily) against the fuckwittery it espouses. But to say that removing the Bible from the annals of history would in any way dimish the amount of religous bullshit in the last two thousand years is ridiculous. This joint would be Muslim, or Zoarastrian, or some other nasty little relgious concept.

Prove it. The statistical correlation between religious faith and intolerance is well-established within any otherwise homogeneous population (eg- look within America), so the statistics already argue against you. What's YOUR evidence?

The era which spawned the Bible, and therefor set the stage for much of European history, was rife with superstition. There were dozens of nasty cults with the potential to become international beasts and bastions of intellectual conservatism. Any one of those would have risen to fill the gap.

Once again, prove it. Not all religions are equally bad, and no amount of you repeating this false claim will make it true.

[Coyote]

Thirdfain, religious beliefs and sheep-like behavior that leads to stupidity may have been around for years, and may be in abundance regardless of the prescence of a modern Western Bible... but that doesn't mean that it should be shrugged off. One should fight stupidity, not let it become the lowest common denominator of acceptable behvior.

[Elfdart]

I'm surprised nobody mentioned Malleus Maleficarum -aka "Hammer of Witches", a book that caused a lot of torture, rape, mutilation and murder as a direct result of people reading it. Unlike the other books listed, it's not just the demented ravings of psychopths -it's a how to guide. Even the Inquisition condemned it. The number of people burned or hanged as witches has always been wildly exagerrated, to the point of delving into Farrakhan Math, but that still leaves a large number of people (mostly old widows) being burned alive for "crimes" that not only didn't take place, but that couldn't have taken place.

[The Yosemite Bear]

The Prince, by Niccolò Machiavelli. Published posthumously in 1532.

what do you mean?

it's the first and only book that explains in words that even an inbred dumb church appointed monarch's son can understand, just how politics is played and politics has remained quite true to the portiate painted.

Niccolo M. was one of the rennisansse's big proponets of republics over the rights of kings, he just get's blackend because he was accurate in his description of the state.