Top ten most harmful beliefs

[SoulMonster]

According to Bob Carroll from skepdic.com:

1. Jihad / the caliphate / Sharia.

2. Christian evangelism.

3. Vaccines are harmful and should be avoided.

4. Climate change is not happening, but if it is then it is not caused by humans and is nothing to worry about.

5. Anti-GMO beliefs.

6. Criminal injustice (profiling, eye witness testinomy, polygraph).

7. Quack cancer treatments.

8. Energy healing, homeopathy, and naturopathy.

9. Supplements are essential to a healthy lifestyle.

10. Self-help programs (LGATP).

[Len Cnut]

There's no such thing as a harmful belief, it's how people act upon their beliefs that is or can be harmful.

[LyndaRose]

really?

[DieselDaisy]

According to Bob Carroll from skepdic.com:

1. Jihad / the caliphate / Sharia.

2. Christian evangelism.

3. Vaccines are harmful and should be avoided.

4. Climate change is not happening, but if it is then it is not caused by humans and is nothing to worry about.

5. Anti-GMO beliefs.

6. Criminal injustice (profiling, eye witness testinomy, polygraph).

7. Quack cancer treatments.

8. Energy healing, homeopathy, and naturopathy.

9. Supplements are essential to a healthy lifestyle.

10. Self-help programs (LGATP).

I take these,

[Heisenberg]

Bob Carroll from Monsanto.

[username]

According to Bob Carroll from skepdic.com:

1. Jihad / the caliphate / Sharia.

2. Christian evangelism.

3. Vaccines are harmful and should be avoided.

4. Climate change is not happening, but if it is then it is not caused by humans and is nothing to worry about.

5. Anti-GMO beliefs.

6. Criminal injustice (profiling, eye witness testinomy, polygraph).

7. Quack cancer treatments.

8. Energy healing, homeopathy, and naturopathy.

9. Supplements are essential to a healthy lifestyle.

10. Self-help programs (LGATP).

Something much more harmful than all of these things combined, are opinions without nuance. Like this one.

And it's just incredibly ironic for someone from Monsanto to call anything at all "harmful". Bunch of slimebags...

[Bumblefeet]

I would put fossil fuel dependence first followed by Global Warming denial.

Also "Wir schaffen das".

[DieselDaisy]

According to Bob Carroll from skepdic.com:

1. Jihad / the caliphate / Sharia.

2. Christian evangelism.

3. Vaccines are harmful and should be avoided.

4. Climate change is not happening, but if it is then it is not caused by humans and is nothing to worry about.

5. Anti-GMO beliefs.

6. Criminal injustice (profiling, eye witness testinomy, polygraph).

7. Quack cancer treatments.

8. Energy healing, homeopathy, and naturopathy.

9. Supplements are essential to a healthy lifestyle.

10. Self-help programs (LGATP).

Something much more harmful than all of these things combined, are opinions without nuance. Like this one.

And it's just incredibly ironic for someone from Monsanto to call anything at all "harmful". Bunch of slimebags...

Neil Young's current bête noire!

[Heisenberg]

According to Bob Carroll from skepdic.com:

1. Jihad / the caliphate / Sharia.

2. Christian evangelism.

3. Vaccines are harmful and should be avoided.

4. Climate change is not happening, but if it is then it is not caused by humans and is nothing to worry about.

5. Anti-GMO beliefs.

6. Criminal injustice (profiling, eye witness testinomy, polygraph).

7. Quack cancer treatments.

8. Energy healing, homeopathy, and naturopathy.

9. Supplements are essential to a healthy lifestyle.

10. Self-help programs (LGATP).

Something much more harmful than all of these things combined, are opinions without nuance. Like this one.

And it's just incredibly ironic for someone from Monsanto to call anything at all "harmful". Bunch of slimebags...

Is he really from Monsanto? My previous post was reaction to his let's say GMO propaganda, funny how he manage to slip it on the list.

[Georgy Zhukov]

Amen to homeopathic medicine. Might as well be smoking.

[-W.A.R-]

Religion is the biggest crock of bullshit

ppl are free to believe in anything they want even if its some imaginary being but keep it to yourself. stop trying to shove that bullshit on others.

[SoulMonster]

According to Bob Carroll from skepdic.com:

1. Jihad / the caliphate / Sharia.

2. Christian evangelism.

3. Vaccines are harmful and should be avoided.

4. Climate change is not happening, but if it is then it is not caused by humans and is nothing to worry about.

5. Anti-GMO beliefs.

6. Criminal injustice (profiling, eye witness testinomy, polygraph).

7. Quack cancer treatments.

8. Energy healing, homeopathy, and naturopathy.

9. Supplements are essential to a healthy lifestyle.

10. Self-help programs (LGATP).

Something much more harmful than all of these things combined, are opinions without nuance. Like this one.

And it's just incredibly ironic for someone from Monsanto to call anything at all "harmful". Bunch of slimebags...

Is he really from Monsanto? My previous post was reaction to his let's say GMO propaganda, funny how he manage to slip it on the list.

This Bob Carroll has't anything to do with Monsanto as far as I can tell: http://skepdic.com/refuge/bio.html

You don't need to work for Monsanto to realize the GMO food is safe and a necessity to feed an ever growing population.

According to Bob Carroll from skepdic.com:

1. Jihad / the caliphate / Sharia.

2. Christian evangelism.

3. Vaccines are harmful and should be avoided.

4. Climate change is not happening, but if it is then it is not caused by humans and is nothing to worry about.

5. Anti-GMO beliefs.

6. Criminal injustice (profiling, eye witness testinomy, polygraph).

7. Quack cancer treatments.

8. Energy healing, homeopathy, and naturopathy.

9. Supplements are essential to a healthy lifestyle.

10. Self-help programs (LGATP).

Something much more harmful than all of these things combined, are opinions without nuance. Like this one.

The original source contained explanations for each of the points on the list, with explanations for why the author thougth they were among the top ten most harmful beliefs. Does that make it more nuanced for you?

[Heisenberg]

According to Bob Carroll from skepdic.com:

1. Jihad / the caliphate / Sharia.

2. Christian evangelism.

3. Vaccines are harmful and should be avoided.

4. Climate change is not happening, but if it is then it is not caused by humans and is nothing to worry about.

5. Anti-GMO beliefs.

6. Criminal injustice (profiling, eye witness testinomy, polygraph).

7. Quack cancer treatments.

8. Energy healing, homeopathy, and naturopathy.

9. Supplements are essential to a healthy lifestyle.

10. Self-help programs (LGATP).

Something much more harmful than all of these things combined, are opinions without nuance. Like this one.

And it's just incredibly ironic for someone from Monsanto to call anything at all "harmful". Bunch of slimebags...

Is he really from Monsanto? My previous post was reaction to his let's say GMO propaganda, funny how he manage to slip it on the list.

This Bob Carroll has't anything to do with Monsanto as far as I can tell: http://skepdic.com/refuge/bio.html

You don't need to work for Monsanto to realize the GMO food is safe and a necessity to feed an ever growing population.

No one has proved that GMO food is safe. It takes decades to determine how genetically modified organisms affect humans and animals.

Edited January 30, 2016 by Heisenberg

[SoulMonster]

According to Bob Carroll from skepdic.com:

1. Jihad / the caliphate / Sharia.

2. Christian evangelism.

3. Vaccines are harmful and should be avoided.

4. Climate change is not happening, but if it is then it is not caused by humans and is nothing to worry about.

5. Anti-GMO beliefs.

6. Criminal injustice (profiling, eye witness testinomy, polygraph).

7. Quack cancer treatments.

8. Energy healing, homeopathy, and naturopathy.

9. Supplements are essential to a healthy lifestyle.

10. Self-help programs (LGATP).

Something much more harmful than all of these things combined, are opinions without nuance. Like this one.

And it's just incredibly ironic for someone from Monsanto to call anything at all "harmful". Bunch of slimebags...

Is he really from Monsanto? My previous post was reaction to his let's say GMO propaganda, funny how he manage to slip it on the list.

This Bob Carroll has't anything to do with Monsanto as far as I can tell: http://skepdic.com/refuge/bio.html

You don't need to work for Monsanto to realize the GMO food is safe and a necessity to feed an ever growing population.

No one has proved that GMO food is safe. It takes decades to determine how genetically modified organisms affect humans and animals.

It takes generations to determine if ANY new food, whether that food originates from old-schoold breeding programs or from modern genetic engineering, is safe to consume. Fact is that there is NO REASON to assume GM food is any unhealthier than food derived from old-school cultivation and breedings programs, and hence we shouldn't require that GM food to have to pass testings that span decades and generations.

But yes, GM food, like ANY new food, can be unhealthy. It really depends on the type of genetic modification that has taken place, doesn't it? I mean, if you engineer corn to produce a toxin then that specific GM food will not be safe, right? No one will deny that. So far, none of the GM foods that have been approved for markets around the world have been demonstrated to be any more unhealthy than their non-engineered counterparts -- which is why they are approved. But genetical modifications to food simply isn't an inherently unhealthy methodology. It is just a quicker version of old-schoold transtional breeding and cultivation, with some extra features.

[SoulMonster]

Apropos: The reason why the belief that GM food is dangerous, is dangerous, is of course because GM foods is a more efficient way of feeding the world. It simply gives larger harvests. And if this innovation is hindered because of a fear of the unknown, or because of misinformation, then we are all worse off. And it is rather strange how persistent this fear is, despite GM food having been on the market for a few decades now. We all eat it, almost daily. In the US you don't even have to label food as being genetically modified. In Europe you only have to do it if teh GM content is more than 0.9 %. So many processed foods over here contain just under 1 % of genetically modified soy or whatever. We all eat it.

[Heisenberg]

I agree with most of it, but GMO is not like what we have encountered so far. There is justified fear how some genes can affect our descendants and what consequences can cause, and not only among ordinary people but also among experts. Until then, for me GMO is not safe. In my country GMO is totally unnecessary, in fact it would destroy domestic institutes and domestic seed production. We are fine with our domestic varieties and hybrids.

[SoulMonster]

I agree with most of it, but GMO is not like what we have encountered so far. There is justified fear how some genes can affect our descendants and what consequences can cause, and not only among ordinary people but also among experts. Until then, for me GMO is not safe.

The great majority of experts, me included, are in agreement that genetical engineering per se isn't a harmful technique, and that there is no reason to assume a priori that GM foods is any more dangerous that non-enginereed foods or that is requires any more testing than what it is subjected to today already.

But as I said, it really depends on what kind of modifications you do to the plant. You could very easily create a harmful food through genetic engineering. Just as you can with selective breeding and cultivation. I find it slight paradoxical that farmers are allowed to make any kinds of changes to their cattle or plants through old-school breeding without any consumer concerns over the safety of their food, while making the same changes through a more cost-effiicient method like recombinant genetics, suddenly makes it scary. Again, it is not HOW you make the changes that is important, but WHAT those changes are.

[darknightfan]

A belief in TB

[AxlisOld]

Anti vaccing based on some chick who posted naked a bunch.

"My child showed signs of autism 6 months after being vaccinated!!!"

Oh, you mean the age at which doctors start being able to diagnose autism? Sweet. Must be the vaccine.

[Heisenberg]

I agree with most of it, but GMO is not like what we have encountered so far. There is justified fear how some genes can affect our descendants and what consequences can cause, and not only among ordinary people but also among experts. Until then, for me GMO is not safe.

The great majority of experts, me included, are in agreement that genetical engineering per se isn't a harmful technique, and that there is no reason to assume a priori that GM foods is any more dangerous that non-enginereed foods or that is requires any more testing than what it is subjected to today already.

But as I said, it really depends on what kind of modifications you do to the plant. You could very easily create a harmful food through genetic engineering. Just as you can with selective breeding and cultivation. I find it slight paradoxical that farmers are allowed to make any kinds of changes to their cattle or plants through old-school breeding without any consumer concerns over the safety of their food, while making the same changes through a more cost-effiicient method like recombinant genetics, suddenly makes it scary. Again, it is not HOW you make the changes that is important, but WHAT those changes are.

For example, at my university my professor of genetics is a supporter of GMO. Others, most of them senior professors who don't have much to do with genetics are great opponents. But they all agree that in our case GMO is unnecessary and dangerous to domestic agriculture and institutes.

I am not aware of any kind of changes in old-school breeding that are the same as those in GM? But I agree, for ordinary people GMO name is the scariest part.

I am a student of the Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Field and Vegetable Crops. What are you by profession?

I still don't agree with that guy who claims that 'anti GMO beliefs' are fifth most harmful in the world. He really looks like some guy from Monsanto. And there is no place of 'belief' here, it is about scientific evidence, which does not exist, not counting unconvincing Monsanto researches.

[SoulMonster]

I agree with most of it, but GMO is not like what we have encountered so far. There is justified fear how some genes can affect our descendants and what consequences can cause, and not only among ordinary people but also among experts. Until then, for me GMO is not safe.

The great majority of experts, me included, are in agreement that genetical engineering per se isn't a harmful technique, and that there is no reason to assume a priori that GM foods is any more dangerous that non-enginereed foods or that is requires any more testing than what it is subjected to today already.

But as I said, it really depends on what kind of modifications you do to the plant. You could very easily create a harmful food through genetic engineering. Just as you can with selective breeding and cultivation. I find it slight paradoxical that farmers are allowed to make any kinds of changes to their cattle or plants through old-school breeding without any consumer concerns over the safety of their food, while making the same changes through a more cost-effiicient method like recombinant genetics, suddenly makes it scary. Again, it is not HOW you make the changes that is important, but WHAT those changes are.

For example, at my university my professor of genetics is a supporter of GMO. Others, most of them senior professors who don't have much to do with genetics are great opponents. But they all agree that in our case GMO is unnecessary and dangerous to domestic agriculture and institutes.

I am not aware of any kind of changes in old-school breeding that are the same as those in GM? But I agree, for ordinary people GMO name is the scariest part.

I am a student of the Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Field and Vegetable Crops. What are you by profession?

I still don't agree with that guy who claims that 'anti GMO beliefs' are fifth most harmful in the world. He really looks like some guy from Monsanto. And there is no place of 'belief' here, it is about scientific evidence, which does not exist, not counting unconvincing Monsanto researches.

- If they "don't have much to do with genetics", then they aren't necessarily more informed on the subject than any random person, and I certainly wouldn't call them experts. Among experts, the consensus is clear: genetic modification isn't in itself dangerous, it is what kind of modifications that are done that can potentially be dangerous.

- Consider changes to size. This is rather easily achieved through classic breeding/cultivation because it doesn't have to involve more than changes in expression of one single gene. We have done this with most animals and plants we use as food. They have become supersized. This genetic manipulation through breeding and cultivation doesn't happen quickly, though, it usually takes numerous generations before significant changes in size is acheived, and many of teh foodstuffs we eat has growth to their present size through centuries and millenia of incremental size increases. But it has routinely been done. It can be done much quicker with modern genetic manipulation that results in the exact same genetic changes.

- I have a PhD in bacterial genetics but have taught biotechnology and molecular genetics at university level, including topics on GMO.

- The assumption that GM food is dangerous is an assumption that exists despite having no scientific support, and hence I believe it is correct to call it a "belief". All the scientific evidence we have, which includes genetic understanding of the biochemical and physioogical changes that happen as a result of specific genetic modifications, and safety testing of specific GM foods on animals and humans, as well as GM foods having been consumed for decades now, point to all approved GM foods being perfectly safe to eat, at least as safe as their non-engineered counterparts.

[Snake-Pit]

It's stupid to be closed minded it's dangerous if you trust the British as being 'the good guys' without questioning the Empire history and today's current affairs and asking why so many seem to hate 'our freedom'.

We're all evil in the grand scheme of things, just, we're portrayed as the lesser of these evils, but, it's all fucked up, blood has been spilled over resources since the dawn of time.

So the quicker we stop saying 'me good you bad'; the better.

It's just French to oppose anything non republic.

So freedom sort of goes out the window as to not offend the masses.

Which is really dangerous if you're a minority surrounded by a bunch of idiots who suggest you should look like them and make that law. Either in France or Isis, both of you, telling women to cover up, telling women to take it off, telling people what to do, that's bull shit when you introduce penalties over that. France is easily offended and so are tribal leaders - both pathetic because, and I'd tell you - They both believe they are righteous.

Fuck that logic.

Edited January 30, 2016 by Snake-Pit

[arnold layne]

How is Christianity a harmful belief? Christianity has helped millions of people.

[Snake-Pit]

How is Christianity a harmful belief? Christianity has helped millions of people.

Catholics hating on the Protestants, who both hate on the pro choicers, who hate on the bastards who got them there..

[SoulMonster]

How is Christianity a harmful belief? Christianity has helped millions of people.

Christiany isn't on the list, Christian evangelism is.