Which religion or belief is the dumbest

the culture of deference

antiskeptic wrote: »

The belief that only the people to have rejected what they were taught as children are smart and objective .. is pretty dumb.

phutyle wrote: »

The dumbest belief is one that thinks that others shouldn't be allowed to believe something.

mariebeth wrote: »

The belief that your beliefs are better than anyone elses, whether you're Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Atheist, Wiccan, or whatever.

Even if you were told to believe in hell, that god was everywhere, the church was the word, moses parted the sea, noah and the ark, praying to someone in the clouds, bread becoming christ?

THAT All other religious believers are going to hell, and so are the gays, peado priests are ok, gay women are ok because dopey popey doesn't recognise lesbians.

FFS I grew up in a country segregated by religion, and both of those were the same F**ing religion 400 years ago.

If their was a god there would only be one religion. It would never change and make up new rules as it went along.

Undergod

the culture of deference wrote: »

If their was a god there would only be one religion..

If there was an objective reality, scientists would never differ.

Ghost Buster

Not so much a 'religious belief' as a belief that religious folk constantly trot out with no basis and it bugs seven shades of bejaysas outta me:mad:.
Turned on Newstalk this morning at the tail end of a chat about the crisis in the church. Fr Iggy Something was on who is always quite sane and rounded in his views, the founder of Countmeout.ie and the editor of Alive were on the panel. The Alive editor constantly rattled on about "the great sense of despair , loss and emptyness in the secular community.
Anyone else feeling despair and emptyness cos I aint!:)

Dades

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Not so much a 'religious belief' as a belief that religious folk constantly trot out with no basis and it bugs seven shades of bejaysas outta me:mad:.
Turned on Newstalk this morning at the tail end of a chat about the crisis in the church. Fr Iggy Something was on who is always quite sane and rounded in his views, the founder of Countmeout.ie and the editor of Alive were on the panel. The Alive editor constantly rattled on about "the great sense of despair , loss and emptyness in the secular community.
Anyone else feeling despair and emptyness cos I aint!:)

Had the misfortune to hear that piece, too.

When are Newstalk actually going to get a guest on to counter the rhetoric waffle that comes out of their priestly guests? Much as I admire the countmeout guy, he was there only to talk about the website and not to take the 'other side' to task on some of the utter rubbish they came out with.

Turtwig

Ghost Buster wrote: »

The Alive editor constantly rattled on about "the great sense of despair , loss and emptyness in the secular community.

Donatello?:D

mcmoustache

Undergod wrote: »

If there was an objective reality, scientists would never differ.

What? I've read this sentence several times and it hurts my head. Why wouldn't scientists differ if there was an objective reality? An objective reality as complex as ours is bound to offer different interpretations to people simply as a result of it being picked up wrong by a single human brain. If humans were able to be correct all the time, you might have a point.


You may have noticed too that over time, through scientific discourse, that opinions begin to converge as incorrect hypotheses get discarded. As time goes on scientists, tend to come to agreement about the stuff that they deal with often and disagreement is usually confined to fringe stuff or new discoveries. For example, all scientists agree on Newtonian mechanics which has been around a while but there is plenty of disagreement on neutrinos and their oscillations.

I suspect (and this is just a suspicion) that given enough time, scientists will reach a consensus on more and more of what constitutes science and our realities objective nature will be revealed. This is getting into the realm of philosophers now, where everyone's crackpot opinion is equally valid so take this paragraph with a pinch of salt.

Undergod

mcmoustache wrote: »

What? I've read this sentence several times and it hurts my head. Why wouldn't scientists differ if there was an objective reality? An objective reality as complex as ours is bound to offer different interpretations to people simply as a result of it being picked up wrong by a single human brain. If humans were able to be correct all the time, you might have a point.


You may have noticed too that over time, through scientific discourse, that opinions begin to converge as incorrect hypotheses get discarded. As time goes on scientists, tend to come to agreement about the stuff that they deal with often and disagreement is usually confined to fringe stuff or new discoveries. For example, all scientists agree on Newtonian mechanics which has been around a while but there is plenty of disagreement on neutrinos and their oscillations.

I suspect (and this is just a suspicion) that given enough time, scientists will reach a consensus on more and more of what constitutes science and our realities objective nature will be revealed. This is getting into the realm of philosophers now, where everyone's crackpot opinion is equally valid so take this paragraph with a pinch of salt.

That's my point. Read it as a repsonse to the post I quoted.

annascott

Catholic. Break it down and look objectively.

mcmoustache

Undergod wrote: »

That's my point. Read it as a repsonse to the post I quoted.

Ah OK. One guy thinks that the existence of God would lead to one religion so you responded with an analogous sentence by substituting in "Objective reality" and "scientists" to show how ludicrous the idea was? Fair enough, I misread it as a claim that there was no such thing as an objective reality.

MagicMarker

annascott wrote: »

Catholic. Break it down and look objectively.

Ya wha?