Top ten most harmful beliefs

[Rovim]

1. Metal is still alive, it's just resting

2. God is real

3. I am better than you, clan mentality

4. it's the birth right of every human to own a firearm

5. there is a meaning to life, I exist for a reason

6. all drugs are bad for everyone

7. pills can fix your life

8. there's a secret unified recipe to pick up chicks cause they're all basically similar

9. It's ok to walk your dog and not pick up the turds

10. it's a failure if people don't get married, have kids, and stay together for at least 50 to 60 years.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Rovim

[SLCPUNK]

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

Give me a break...hair splitting, semantic non-sense.

[DieselDaisy]

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.

Been reading up on the empire old boy? Bit of ''Men of Harlech...'?

[Gracii Guns]

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..

Snakes, hate is a very strong word which I find inappropriate. Catholics and "Protestants" have never hated each other. In England, Catholics were persecuted by the officially Church of England government, so I wouldn't imagine that the Catholics were "hating on" as much as being "hated on". I think that in day-to-day life though, that it was a more of a live and led live scenario (for those who didn't convert out of government obligation). And if you're alluding to Irish history, none of that was caused by religious division. The politicians used the churches as a way to access large groups of people to raise awareness and money for their completely political campaigns. (***In a nutshell***). You refer to "pro choicers" as if all Christianity stands for is matters on abortion.

I don't know why I bother trying to explain... you're not going to care, but I feel as though I have some sort of duty to correct you so you're less ignorant than before.

I'll get back to my work.

[DieselDaisy]

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..

Snakes, hate is a very strong word which I find inappropriate. Catholics and "Protestants" have never hated each other. In England, Catholics were persecuted by the officially Church of England government, so I wouldn't imagine that the Catholics were "hating on" as much as being "hated on". I think that in day-to-day life though, that it was a more of a live and led live scenario (for those who didn't convert out of government obligation). And if you're alluding to Irish history, none of that was caused by religious division. The politicians used the churches as a way to access large groups of people to raise awareness and money for their completely political campaigns. (***In a nutshell***). You refer to "pro choicers" as if all Christianity stands for is matters on abortion.

I don't know why I bother trying to explain... you're not going to care, but I feel as though I have some sort of duty to correct you so you're less ignorant than before.

I'll get back to my work.

...except during the reign of 'Bloody' Mary and to a lesser degree James II. Even Henry VIII, who may have broken with Rome but was thoroughly Catholic in theology, persecuted protestants.

To a certain degree though, the Church of England was seen as 'crypo-Catholic' and ''not thoroughly reformed'' by evangelical reformers like Thomas Cranmer and John Knox. It is best to see the Reformation as a battle between the competing influences of High Church (i.e. episcopal church government; sacramental; transubstantiation) and Low Church (i.e. devolved church government;justification by faith alone; sacramentarianism, i.e. the Eucharist is merely 'signs and symbols' and does not possess the substance of Christ). The Church of England maintained an episcopal form of governance, bishops and diocese. Anglican monarchs such as Charles I, James I and Charles II - were seen as cryo-Catholic; bestowing courtly privileges on Catholic nobleman; allying themselves with Catholic countries like Spain; prosecuting wars against Evangelical countries such as the Dutch Republic, etc.

The thoroughly reformed would be Calvin's Switzerland or Knox's Scotland. The Elizabethan Settlement was a sort of middle ground.

[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..

Snakes, hate is a very strong word which I find inappropriate. Catholics and "Protestants" have never hated each other. In England, Catholics were persecuted by the officially Church of England government, so I wouldn't imagine that the Catholics were "hating on" as much as being "hated on". I think that in day-to-day life though, that it was a more of a live and led live scenario (for those who didn't convert out of government obligation). And if you're alluding to Irish history, none of that was caused by religious division. The politicians used the churches as a way to access large groups of people to raise awareness and money for their completely political campaigns. (***In a nutshell***). You refer to "pro choicers" as if all Christianity stands for is matters on abortion.

I don't know why I bother trying to explain... you're not going to care, but I feel as though I have some sort of duty to correct you so you're less ignorant than before.

I'll get back to my work.

...except during the reign of 'Bloody' Mary and to a lesser degree James II. Even Henry VIII, who may have broken with Rome but was thoroughly Catholic in theology, persecuted protestants.

To a certain degree though, the Church of England was seen as 'crypo-Catholic' and ''not thoroughly reformed'' by evangelical reformers like Thomas Cranmer and John Knox. It is best to see the Reformation as a battle between the competing influences of High Church (i.e. episcopal church government; sacramental; transubstantiation) and Low Church (i.e. devolved church government;justification by faith alone; sacramentarianism, i.e. the Eucharist is merely 'signs and symbols' and does not possess the substance of Christ). The Church of England maintained an episcopal form of governance, bishops and diocese. Anglican monarchs such as Charles I, James I and Charles II - were seen as cryo-Catholic; bestowing courtly privileges on Catholic nobleman; allying themselves with Catholic countries like Spain; prosecuting wars against Evangelical countries such as the Dutch Republic, etc.

The thoroughly reformed would be Calvin's Switzerland or Knox's Scotland. The Elizabethan Settlement was a sort of middle ground.

Let's not forget in France, and their persecution of the Huguenots. My great grandmother's family was said to be part French Huguenot...

But, still, it's all dangerous when you won't tolerate another one's beliefs be it for power or personal peace of mind.

[Brunzopolis]

I would add current day "Skeptic" culture, itself, to the list.

That whole scene, to me, seems to share similarities with religious fundamentalism. Which is funny, since that is something they are always railing against.

[Snake-Pit]

It's dangerous to belief in Donald Trump for President.

[Len Cnut]

I dont think hes any more dangerous than a lot of others...and that isnt me trying to lessen the gravity of his particular brand of social putrification, just a reminder that we been putting up with equivalents for too long now.

[PappyTron]

The most dangerous belief that I can think of is Snake-Pit's drug-fueled belief that he has what it takes to start a successful company, it being on a par with Hitler's belief that invading Russia was a good idea.

Edited February 1, 2016 by PappyTron

[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.

Give me a break...hair splitting, semantic non-sense.

I disagree, i think the proposition of the thread title is over simplifying. If 500 people have a particular belief they can have 500 different responses to it and ways of acting upon it, ergo calling the belief in and of itself harmful is ridiculous and kinda harmful as a concept because these ideas then lead to the demonising of a particular belief. The truth is human beings are a mildly complex bunch and it is important to guard against a tendency to take the vagaries of human behaviour and use the findings as a means to settling on these broad assessments as some kind of accurate reflection on the nature of certain human beliefs and what they lead to.

[Snake-Pit]

The most dangerous belief that I can think of is Snake-Pit's drug-fueled belief that he has what it takes to start a successful company, it being on a par with Hitler's belief that invading Russia was a good idea.

We each define success based upon our own goals and whether or not they've been accomplished or not.

In that sense, I have a successful company that's doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing right now.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Snake-Pit

[wasted]

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.

Been reading up on the empire old boy? Bit of ''Men of Harlech...'?

This Sceptred Isle. It was interesting but it could have been bullshit.

[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.

- 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.

I am not talking much about technique of genetical engineering, which I do not know enough but I know that is not harmful per si, but more of what we have on the ground. When I said experts I meant experts around the world, not necessary from my university. There must be a reason why GMO is totally banned or strictly controlled in many countries. They have enough experts to conclude whether GMO in general would have benefits or not or whether is good or not, so there is not much room for belief.

There are many ways that can increase yield, the proper use of agricultural technology, irrigation, crop rotation etc. without using any GMO. We can take as example organic food as synonymous of healthy and safe food where GMO is prohibited.

Monsanto works on the slaveholder principle, once you start to use their seeds, entire production is based and conditioned by their products. As I said that would completely destroy domestic agriculture and economy that is based on agriculture, not only in my country but in other countries in the region, even if is safe as their non-engineered counterparts. Also it may cause significant changes in biodiversity, the disappearance of native species. Taking all into account, my anti GMO opinion is not harmful, I would say it's useful.

[Snake-Pit]

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.

I am not talking much about technique of genetical engineering, which I do not know enough but I know that is not harmful per si, but more of what we have on the ground. When I said experts I meant experts around the world, not necessary from my university. There must be a reason why GMO is totally banned or strictly controlled in many countries. They have enough experts to conclude whether GMO in general would have benefits or not or whether is good or not, so there is not much room for belief.

There are many ways that can increase yield, the proper use of agricultural technology, irrigation, crop rotation etc. without using any GMO. We can take as example organic food as synonymous of healthy and safe food where GMO is prohibited.

Monsanto works on the slaveholder principle, once you start to use their seeds, entire production is based and conditioned by their products. As I said that would completely destroy domestic agriculture and economy that is based on agriculture, not only in my country but in other countries in the region, even if is safe as their non-engineered counterparts. Also it may cause significant changes in biodiversity, the disappearance of native species. Taking all into account, my anti GMO opinion is not harmful, I would say it's useful.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/what-foods-looked-like-before-genetic-modification-2016-1?r=US&IR=T

What foods looked like before genetic modification.

[SoulMonster]

3 hours ago, Heisenberg said:

I am not talking much about technique of genetical engineering, which I do not know enough but I know that is not harmful per si, but more of what we have on the ground. When I said experts I meant experts around the world, not necessary from my university. There must be a reason why GMO is totally banned or strictly controlled in many countries.

Well, it certainly isn't because GM foods have been shown to be unhealthy in any way, because they simply haven't. Now I suggest you think of what other mechanisms exist that could prevent something that apparently is completely safe to eat from being accepted by consumers. There is much more, Horatio, between Heaven and Earth than simply rationality.

[Forsaken]

Religions that are wrong. 

 

[Snake-Pit]

1 hour ago, Forsaken said:

Religions that are wrong. 

 

Religion is like an abstract piece of art or a song; it's how you see it that's important. There is no right religion or wrong religion...

[PappyTron]

14 hours ago, Snake-Pit said:

The most dangerous belief that I can think of is Snake-Pit's drug-fueled belief that he has what it takes to start a successful company, it being on a par with Hitler's belief that invading Russia was a good idea.

 

We each define success based upon our own goals and whether or not they've been accomplished or not.

 

In that sense, I have a successful company that's doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing right now.

 

That's really deep, Snake-Pit. I wish you genuine success.

[PappyTron]

3 hours ago, Forsaken said:

Religions that are wrong. 

 

So, all of them then? Unless of course you have some actual evidence for the existence of the God that is worshiped by a given religion?

[wasted]

Holy fuck what happen. 

[Jackie Moon]

migrants are stealing "our" jobs.

We need them. Badly.

[shades]

By far the most dangerous belief is believing that there is no God,

all else pales in comparison because we are all going to where this matters, eventually

assuming you don't like extreme heat to the point of burning skin that is

 

I would say believing that ISIS will go away by itself, or by hugging them is up there too

believing that Iran will not continue to pursue a nuclear weapon is dangerous

Believing in Global warming to the point that we waste resources on "combatting" it is pretty lame

 

other than that most other beliefs are harmless 

[Snake-Pit]

Mankind doesn't like being told what to do.

Mankind might need being told what to do.

I don't know.

Proof of faith is also retarded.

[Snake-Pit]

Fore, faith in the lord/lady requires no proof so why would the lord/lady ever show himself/herself?

Like, HOW DO WE KNOW, that the father of all lies didn't set up organised religion and call mother earth a guy and make our creator 'the father' a guy not a girl?

Just saying... How do we know the people with the electric chair or crucifix symbol who tell you 2 lies WE KNOW IN OUR HEART OF HEARTS to be wrong; virgin birth, christ rising from the dead...

 

How do you know?

The one truth organised religion ever told anyone;

The devil lies to me.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Snake-Pit