The most annoying beliefs

evidence please... otherwise i fail to see why your opinion is any more credible than mine????

fuck this is confusing

 

I don't understand your logic here.

Oh, I know. While the belief in a supreme being is not harmful in itself, much of the doctrine that comes with it (organised religion) is what does the real damage.

 

Ah sorry, I hadn't seen this. You got there first:2thumbsup:

 

Refer to my previous posts where I explained the situation in detail.

 

is there a right or wrong answer to either political or economic trepidation?

 

If the subject is constructing buildings, the architect's opinion is more credible than the hot air ballooon enthusiast.

There is the relative worth of opinions (an atheist's opinion to a group in the church or to an atheist group) and there is the credible worth, the value with which opinions can be backed up by experience, fact or simply by the giver being more learned than others on a given subject. An objective system of judgement is essential for the true credible worth of opinions to be recognised.

In a discussion like this, many opinions will change hands but only those recognised by others will have any worth, for we are all experts on our own beliefs and largely clueless about everyone else's. I think that the opinions that are expressed by those who know the true meaning of their opinions are normally the most successful and truthful.

 

Eeew, we had the same train of thought. Gay!

I don't understand the question.

 

okay

i fail to understand the point you make

the 'real stuff' (scientifically, something that can be explained) versus the unanswerable am i correct? :frown:

you judged this post.

you said validity comes with explanation - as it seems i have none by your very standard

please clear this up - suggest the correct answer since you know the difference between what is right and what is wrong.

 

the saintly razy tree hahaha I like it

yes, I obviously find some beliefs idiotic, what I was trying to say was just that there are ways of disagreeing with someone, and if someone is attached to their belief (e.g. Christianity) I wouldn't tell them that was idiotic because they are likely to take it personally, but that's just me.

but you can present an argument and change someone's mind, though in my experience people rarely change their beliefs, especially down the pub, but that can be fun anyway.

 

not my problem musty :mickey:

 

The OP used the word "belief" in the title of this thread which - IMHO - differs quite a bit from an opinion in that it is much stronger. If you do believe in something, that particular thing will become your reality although it might be completely irrational to others. That belief will be your truth .... but yours alone. Unless someone shares it of course.

So what is the "true meaning" of an opinion and how truthful can it be?

 

It's alright, I've got tits.

 

what a pile of fucking psychobabble.

 

I was referring to news items about the economy and politics and such. Sometimes on a program like Question Time, you get a real gem on the panel who hits nails on heads with a lot of what they say, many of them Euro-skeptics. Because people have very little understanding of the EU, particularly the economical and political realities of such an organisation, or they choose to support the popular image of a united Europe, it is easy for them to disagree with certain views on the grounds that they are anti-European. In fact, the views are based on what is required to improve the country, based on mathematics and realistic goals within the current system; they are not based on what would be the most anti-European path of action. Because these opinions are based in reality, quite realistic and presented in standard language, they can sound rather bad in the minds of people used to being activated by certain political buzzwords. Thus, a stricter border policy is branded as "xenophobic", "anti-European" and "borderline (pun intended) racism" when it is in fact one of the very few possibilities towards realistically repairing the nation's economy. Instead, the good words like "growth", "sustainability" and "equilibrium" are plastered all over the idea that Britain can support many many many more migrant workers and that all their tax money is good for us.

The people that share that latter view are either 1) Lying or 2) Have no understanding what happens to the tax money in the country and what more migrant workers will do to the national minimum wage and average salary, especially in times of inflation. People nowadays are gifted with these opinions by others, they are shrewdly imposed upon them with no need for effort on their behalf, wrapped in a lovely sparkly NLP parcel of attractive jargon, much in the same way they are sold worthless products.

 

That's just your opinion. Feel free to post elsewhere.

 

i was giving the fingermouse a response.


in regards to immigration - it's just a question of balance i'd say.

maybe for every 'rationale opinion' regarding it's fallacy... there's a perplexing yet equally rationale opinion

suggesting it can be a good thing?

perhaps the value of different perspectives isn't so bad after all...

what makes a relevant person in this day and age?? a man born without an asshole??

 

it was a self reference

satire perhaps - i don't want to be shooting myself in the foot.

 

"a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty."

what am i?

 

Heh, I like the definition. I was trying to be droll.

Immigration was just an example. Everything is a question of balance, in some ways, and the phrase itself suggests hints of politicians past.

The value of perspectives, yes, like I said, the important value in an opinion can be only become worthy if it is recognised by others. More difference of opinion would be nice to see in economics these days!

A person's relevance is subjective to the situation.

 

The first option on the list!!

THINGS WERE MUCH BETTER IN THE PAST (Quality of things,way of life,etc)