#51 Posted by dccomicsrule2011 (26988 posts) - - Show Bio

Well I know Religion hindered my Sexual Activity... I mean there was a lot of chicks who I wanted to bone when I was a Christian... but because "Jeebus" said I can't bone any chicks unless I was married to them... I had to pass up the cooch... and that made me Mad ! Well until I started to do my own thing regardless of what that Ole Book of Violence, Magic, Love said.

I lol so hard when I read this.

#52 Posted by laflux (17548 posts) - - Show Bio

Well I know Religion hindered my Sexual Activity... I mean there was a lot of chicks who I wanted to bone when I was a Christian... but because "Jeebus" said I can't bone any chicks unless I was married to them... I had to pass up the cooch... and that made me Mad ! Well until I started to do my own thing regardless of what that Ole Book of Violence, Magic, Love said.

HAHA

#53 Edited by ImNemotheGemini (845 posts) - - Show Bio

Nope not all ! Religion has made me a more open person and diverse in many fields of study and people skills ! I be the best I can be for the glory of God ! But remain Humble (to the best of my ability because I'm naturally egotistic !)

#54 Posted by EnigmaLantern (763 posts) - - Show Bio

In my opinion (and I hope no one gets offended, in any way), religion can be considered one of the main reasons why science even exists. Religion proposed an idea, and made people believe it to be true and by doing so it caused certain individuals, such as Galileo, to challenge these ideals and beliefs using the thought that there may be more than what religion claims to be.

However, in early times religion, to a certain degree, did hinder development of science, through infamously burning scientists and individuals who opposed to views of religion, or "God". It wasn't until later that the Renaissance, "the age of enlightenment" or "the age of science", that religious beliefs began to be challenged openly and a more diverse as well as free form of thinking was born.

I would happily credit religion with being the trigger that inevitably created Science, and that religious people may work together with scientists or even be scientists, but that's not to say religion made it easy for people who wished to undertake the task of being "free-thinkers" possible. Science has, of late, proven time and time again the false claims and beliefs laid out by religions in general. Often discrediting with proof and evidence (which is something religion has always failed to provide) that religious beliefs and ideals are outdated.

I honestly believe that religion was a necessary step in human evolution, of the mind, in order to advance us further as a species, but it is an outdated step and it is in the past, which is why I struggle to understand why people must keep referring to the past, when the future has a bigger role to play in our lives and therefore greater importance. Religion, in the modern day, can be considered to hinder the progress of science greatly, while if religion did not constantly reject and challenge the evidence put forward by science then science may of developed and advanced further than it is today.

But I have nothing wrong with people who have religious beliefs while also keeping an open mind and accepting the views of others, no matter how contradicting those views may be, and vice-versa with people who follow science too.

#55 Posted by OverLordArhas (7793 posts) - - Show Bio

@enigmalantern:

That is one way to analyze it. Btw, good one.

But in those times people like Galileo were called heretics and persecuted.

#56 Posted by OverLordArhas (7793 posts) - - Show Bio

Well I know Religion hindered my Sexual Activity... I mean there was a lot of chicks who I wanted to bone when I was a Christian... but because "Jeebus" said I can't bone any chicks unless I was married to them... I had to pass up the cooch... and that made me Mad ! Well until I started to do my own thing regardless of what that Ole Book of Violence, Magic, Love said.

LOLZ

#57 Posted by King Saturn (225186 posts) - - Show Bio

You know what's really sad ? This mentality that "Some Christians" hold in America that Gay Marriage being passed in this Country will cause America to be destroyed by a Wrathful God... as if God is somehow just so please with the history of America right now... a nation that was essentially built upon the hands of Thieves and Slave Owners and ruthless White Christians who did all kinds of horrors to Minorities... I wish those Certain Christians with Get the Fack out with Dat Bullsh!t... It's really getting old.

And what about this sh!t you here about The Good Ole Days ? Man I miss the Good Ole Days.......... What Good Ole Days ? Back when Black People was considered lesser than White Folks ? Back when you had Colored and White Folk water fountains and bathrooms ? How about back when the KKK was running over n!ggas in the 19th century cause they was pissed over Blacks being Freed ? Those Good Ole Days ?

#58 Edited by WillPayton (9829 posts) - - Show Bio

Yes, religion has historically hindered both progress and "change" in general. That's the nature of religion, to preserve the status quo. Galileo is just one example. Look at Islam. The Arab world used to be at the forefront of mathematics and science. Many of the astronomical names we have today come from the Arab scholars who named the stuff they saw in the sky. But over time Islam has turned that area of the world into the most backwards and anti-science parts of the planet.

Religion has nothing to offer as far as understanding of the universe, which is why having blind faith on it retards progress. Science is based on observing the world and making logical deductions, not first deciding what you want to believe and then cherry-picking stuff to fit that world-view.

If people still believed in religious doctrines we'd still think the Earth was the center of the solar system, that we were created by magic from dirt, that diseases are caused by "evil spirits" or witches or other nonsense.

#59 Posted by WillPayton (9829 posts) - - Show Bio

#60 Posted by Hypnosis (369 posts) - - Show Bio

You know what's really sad ? This mentality that "Some Christians" hold in America that Gay Marriage being passed in this Country will cause America to be destroyed by a Wrathful God... as if God is somehow just so please with the history of America right now... a nation that was essentially built upon the hands of Thieves and Slave Owners and ruthless White Christians who did all kinds of horrors to Minorities... I wish those Certain Christians with Get the Fack out with Dat Bullsh!t... It's really getting old.

And what about this sh!t you here about The Good Ole Days ? Man I miss the Good Ole Days.......... What Good Ole Days ? Back when Black People was considered lesser than White Folks ? Back when you had Colored and White Folk water fountains and bathrooms ? How about back when the KKK was running over n!ggas in the 19th century cause they was pissed over Blacks being Freed ? Those Good Ole Days ?

+1

#61 Posted by GunGunW (1006 posts) - - Show Bio

Not really. I think people need to accept that it's not going away love it or hate it.

#62 Posted by WillPayton (9829 posts) - - Show Bio

@gungunw said:

I think people need to accept that it's not going away love it or hate it.

That's a counter-productive attitude.

#63 Posted by The_PAIN (720 posts) - - Show Bio

Religion is restrictive, they feed you nonsense in hope of controlling you and your wallet. They hate change and innovation if it contradict with their teachings even if many will benefit from it.

They will ask you to do good for the sake of a reward or fear of a punishment that if all we know maybe made-up.

Bunch of hypocrites, why not do good for the sake of doing good.

#64 Posted by GunGunW (1006 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton: I should have added I also don't think it should go anywhere.

#65 Posted by WillPayton (9829 posts) - - Show Bio

@the_pain said:

Religion is restrictive, they feed you nonsense in hope of controlling you and your wallet. They hate change and innovation if it contradict with their teachings even if many will benefit from it.

They will ask you to do good for the sake of a reward or fear of a punishment that if all we know maybe made-up.

Bunch of hypocrites, why not do good for the sake of doing good.

Hence why I dont think religion is any basis for a morality. If you cant do good because you think it's good in and of itself, if you have to do it because of a future reward or to avoid eternal punishment, then that's no morality at all.

#66 Posted by OverLordArhas (7793 posts) - - Show Bio

@the_pain said:

Religion is restrictive, they feed you nonsense in hope of controlling you and your wallet. They hate change and innovation if it contradict with their teachings even if many will benefit from it.

They will ask you to do good for the sake of a reward or fear of a punishment that if all we know maybe made-up.

Bunch of hypocrites, why not do good for the sake of doing good.

Point taken

#67 Posted by pooty (11753 posts) - - Show Bio

@pfcoolio14: @lvenger: Can you post a link to the polls you are using? I saw one that said 51% of scientist believe in a higher power. Not in a biblical God. but a higher power. and many of those scientist polled were philosophical scientist not biologist or chemist etc. also it was said that if you take away atheist you lose 90% of scientist. I think they would have been scientist anyway. They would still want to know how god did what he did.

Online
#68 Posted by OverLordArhas (7793 posts) - - Show Bio

@pooty said:
@overlordarhas said:

I do not want to attack anybody, but the Church (Any) seems to hinder change.

hinder what kind of change? give some specifics if you can

Example is Geo and Heliocentric Theory, Cloning, Big Bang (Opposed Creation Theory), the ideas they consider radical dealt violently (witch hunt), etc.

#69 Posted by WillPayton (9829 posts) - - Show Bio

@pooty said:

@pfcoolio14: @lvenger: Can you post a link to the polls you are using? I saw one that said 51% of scientist believe in a higher power. Not in a biblical God. but a higher power. and many of those scientist polled were philosophical scientist not biologist or chemist etc. also it was said that if you take away atheist you lose 90% of scientist. I think they would have been scientist anyway. They would still want to know how god did what he did.

According to this, 72.2% of the scientists polled do not believe in a "personal God".

That was in 1998. I'd bet money that the current number of non-believers is higher.

#70 Edited by Pfcoolio14 (1138 posts) - - Show Bio

@pooty:

I explained it to the other guy cause he asked the same question so go over our conversation. I already posted the link to the Harvard and Oxford supported study on the first page. I originally had another site but I forgot about it. Any who the study said 50% were religous, 1% were those that believed in a higher power as you put it, and 49% were atheist. I explained the 90% thing to two other people on the first page so go back to that too. Sorry, I don't like posting the same discussions again. But if you want to talk about something else, I'll be happy to do so. It's just tedious typing the same thing.

#71 Edited by Pfcoolio14 (1138 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton:

The study I posted was in 2010, just saying. Another was 2009. And they were also supported by Oxford and Harvard. Not discrediting your thing though. However I would like to know the representative sample used.

Edit:

Nvm I read it and this is the same experiment I was talking about. They didn't accurately project the beliefs of scientists across the board because they only interviewed those within the NSA. This showed the beliefs of those within that group instead of using a random sample to accurately depict the beliefs of scientists all across the United States. I think my article talks about that and I justbhave to mention that not using a random sample makes the experiment flawed. The NSA is a group of 2, 000 within about 2 million American scientists

#72 Posted by pooty (11753 posts) - - Show Bio

@pooty:

I explained it to the other guy cause he asked the same question so go over our conversation. I already posted the link to the Harvard and Oxford supported study on the first page. I originally had another site but I forgot about it. Any who the study said 50% were religous, 1% were those that believed in a higher power as you put it, and 49% were atheist. I explained the 90% thing to two other people on the first page so go back to that too. Sorry, I don't like posting the same discussions again. But if you want to talk about something else, I'll be happy to do so. It's just tedious typing the same thing.

Edit:

Nvm, I read it. Just like the other, instead of using a broader representative sample, they only stayed within the NSA which doesn't accurately project the belief of scientists within the United States, but within that group. They should have used a random sample. So like my article said this previous survey was flawed.

I completely missed your link because links are usually highlighted but I understand some computers won't let you link. my oversight. most polls are flawed. we may never know the real numbers

Online
#73 Posted by Pfcoolio14 (1138 posts) - - Show Bio

@pooty:

I guess you could view it that way, glad to know we could come to a conclusion.

However, while I have you here could I ask you a quick question. Why do you always underline your posts?

#74 Edited by pooty (11753 posts) - - Show Bio

@pooty:

I guess you could view it that way, glad to know we could come to a conclusion.

However, while I have you here could I ask you a quick question. Why do you always underline your posts?

On another forum i use, it is so difficult to separate who says what. so i underline to show what part is mine. it's a habit now. hope it doesn't throw you off

Online
#75 Posted by The_PAIN (720 posts) - - Show Bio

The Scientist Poll could not be all that accurate, grants and other research perks maybe withdrawn to them if the sponsor is quirky on the issue.

#76 Posted by Pfcoolio14 (1138 posts) - - Show Bio
#77 Posted by Bruxae (14008 posts) - - Show Bio

So much yes.

#78 Posted by Yung ANcient One (4899 posts) - - Show Bio

Well history has shown us that it has but I like to think that it doesn't always.

( + )

#79 Posted by Glitch_Spawn (17132 posts) - - Show Bio

Well I know Religion hindered my Sexual Activity... I mean there was a lot of chicks who I wanted to bone when I was a Christian... but because "Jeebus" said I can't bone any chicks unless I was married to them... I had to pass up the cooch... and that made me Mad ! Well until I started to do my own thing regardless of what that Ole Book of Violence, Magic, Love said.

The Rev!

#80 Posted by pooty (11753 posts) - - Show Bio

Well I know Religion hindered my Sexual Activity... I mean there was a lot of chicks who I wanted to bone when I was a Christian... but because "Jeebus" said I can't bone any chicks unless I was married to them... I had to pass up the cooch... and that made me Mad ! Well until I started to do my own thing regardless of what that Ole Book of Violence, Magic, Love said.

Hebrews 11:25 is what they would throw in my face.

Online
#81 Edited by Lvenger (21246 posts) - - Show Bio

@pfcoolio14: Whilst the study may have its flaws, as WillPayton says, the number is likely to be higher than the limited, biased projection the NSA study uses.

#82 Edited by Pfcoolio14 (1138 posts) - - Show Bio

@lvenger:

I don't think you're getting my point. The study I presented disproved the one done on the NSA. The NSA study said that 93% of scientists were atheists. That was disproven and it was shown to be 49% in the one in 2009 and 2010. I don't see how you could think that the number is above 93%. Lots of scientists are bound to be religous because America is a religous country.

Edit:

I see where you confused. The one that said 49% were atheists wasn't biased. Oxford used a random sample. The one done back in the day that said 93% were atheists was biased because it only took scientists from the NSA insteadmof all over the board. You could see what I mean better in my response to Will. I believe there's a bit of confusion between us. That'll help fix it up.

#83 Posted by Lvenger (21246 posts) - - Show Bio

@pfcoolio14: I never said it was 93% after you posted that message about the biased nature of the study. Nor did I say the Oxford/Harvard one was biased. I was saying that the number of scientists who are atheists is bound to have increased from its last figures. That's what I was saying.

#84 Edited by Pfcoolio14 (1138 posts) - - Show Bio

@lvenger:

The study was 3 years ago. That's not really a window for dramatic change.

And also, you're leaving out the possibility that religous scientists numbers mightnhave increased too.

#85 Posted by Lvenger (21246 posts) - - Show Bio

@pfcoolio14: Fair point. But generally, secularism is spreading in America which has got the more deeply religious parts of the country irked off needless to say.

#86 Edited by lykopis (10746 posts) - - Show Bio

@pfcoolio14:

I know of that book and while it's worth the read since there is indepth interviews with several scientists -- there is some problems in that the two areas of science were not identified separately, as in half were social scientists, the other natural. It would have been interesting to have seen if there were any disparity between the two. Furthermore, it wasn't so much religious that was counted but rather "spiritual" and in that sense, what one personal finds spiritual can be independent of a belief in a god. An example of this is the author marked down scientists who practiced yoga as part of the percentage who were religious due to this spiritual designation although they identified themselves as being atheist.

I am not knocking the books' findings, and I do think it's worth a read but to declare half the scientists in the US are religious would be erroneous. If anything, this book provides an insight as to how professors deal with the religion/science issue when teaching their students about findings which oppose traditional religious thinking.

As for the question of religion hindering potential, of course it does. Muslims would have far exceeded what they accomplished hundreds of years ago had they not been required to adhere to the tenets in the Qaran.

#87 Posted by EnigmaLantern (763 posts) - - Show Bio

@enigmalantern:

That is one way to analyze it. Btw, good one.

But in those times people like Galileo were called heretics and persecuted.

Was that comment sarcastic?

True, but I still believe it to be relevant to the point I was making.

#88 Posted by King Saturn (225186 posts) - - Show Bio

@pooty said:

@king_saturn said:

Well I know Religion hindered my Sexual Activity... I mean there was a lot of chicks who I wanted to bone when I was a Christian... but because "Jeebus" said I can't bone any chicks unless I was married to them... I had to pass up the cooch... and that made me Mad ! Well until I started to do my own thing regardless of what that Ole Book of Violence, Magic, Love said.

Hebrews 11:25 is what they would throw in my face.

Never seen anyone use that passage in this context... especially since it's referring to Moses. Really the passage itself does not make any sense because it says somewhere in there that Moses regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ... how could Moses do that when he does not know who a Jesus Christ is ? Moses only knew of Yahweh or "The I am that I am" God at that point. Sounds like either Paul or whoever wrote this passage is fudging the truth a little bit. ( that might be the NIV interpretation's spin though too )

LOL

#89 Posted by pooty (11753 posts) - - Show Bio

@pooty said:

@king_saturn said:

Well I know Religion hindered my Sexual Activity... I mean there was a lot of chicks who I wanted to bone when I was a Christian... but because "Jeebus" said I can't bone any chicks unless I was married to them... I had to pass up the cooch... and that made me Mad ! Well until I started to do my own thing regardless of what that Ole Book of Violence, Magic, Love said.

Hebrews 11:25 is what they would throw in my face.

Never seen anyone use that passage in this context... especially since it's referring to Moses. Really the passage itself does not make any sense because it says somewhere in there that Moses regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ... how could Moses do that when he does not know who a Jesus Christ is ? Moses only knew of Yahweh or "The I am that I am" God at that point. Sounds like either Paul or whoever wrote this passage is fudging the truth a little bit. ( that might be the NIV interpretation's spin though too )

LOL

You know they didn't use the whole scripture. they cut it up to make their point: don't risk your relationship with god over temporary enjoyment of sin. SMH

Online
#90 Edited by King Saturn (225186 posts) - - Show Bio

@pooty said:

@king_saturn said:

@pooty said:

@king_saturn said:

Well I know Religion hindered my Sexual Activity... I mean there was a lot of chicks who I wanted to bone when I was a Christian... but because "Jeebus" said I can't bone any chicks unless I was married to them... I had to pass up the cooch... and that made me Mad ! Well until I started to do my own thing regardless of what that Ole Book of Violence, Magic, Love said.

Hebrews 11:25 is what they would throw in my face.

Never seen anyone use that passage in this context... especially since it's referring to Moses. Really the passage itself does not make any sense because it says somewhere in there that Moses regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ... how could Moses do that when he does not know who a Jesus Christ is ? Moses only knew of Yahweh or "The I am that I am" God at that point. Sounds like either Paul or whoever wrote this passage is fudging the truth a little bit. ( that might be the NIV interpretation's spin though too )

LOL

You know they didn't use the whole scripture. they cut it up to make their point: don't risk your relationship with god over temporary enjoyment of sin. SMH

Yes, that is correct.

I guess the obvious answer to this question would be King Solomon... I mean dude had how many concubines and God seemed to be okay with it... only reason God was angry with Solomon was because as he went after women of other cultures he began to worship other Gods and Idols. Yahweh was never made at Solomon for having the b!tches though... in a way, he would probably tell you himself that he gave Solomon those "Hose"

#91 Posted by lykopis (10746 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton:

I had missed the video link you provided when I first posted, sorry. His last comment is perfect.

Revelation replaced investigation.

Indeed.

#92 Posted by Pfcoolio14 (1138 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis:

I don't remember the yoga part you're talking about. The only time she mentioned that was when she was talking about Spiritual practices related to volunteering activity. Even then, she did separate religion and spiritual practices. She called the spiritual entrepreneurs and said they find a half point and are not religious.

She did separate the ten scientists she interviewed though. She named the specific half the were from and the their specialization. Any who, that's aside from the point.

But why is it so hard to believe that at least half of scientists in the United States are religious? 78.4% of people in the United States are Christian. 4.7% are other religions like Jewish, Muslim, Hindu etc. Only 16.1% of people in the United states claim no religious affiliation. And among those, only 1.6% identify as atheist. The others are agnostic or said they don't believe anything in particular.

America is a religious country, so it only makes since that at least half of scientists are religious.

#93 Posted by WillPayton (9829 posts) - - Show Bio

@lykopis:

I don't remember the yoga part you're talking about. The only time she mentioned that was when she was talking about Spiritual practices related to volunteering activity. Even then, she did separate religion and spiritual practices. She called the spiritual entrepreneurs and said they find a half point and are not religious.

She did separate the ten scientists she interviewed though. She named the specific half the were from and the their specialization. Any who, that's aside from the point.

But why is it so hard to believe that at least half of scientists in the United States are religious? 78.4% of people in the United States are Christian. 4.7% are other religions like Jewish, Muslim, Hindu etc. Only 16.1% of people in the United states claim no religious affiliation. And among those, only 1.6% identify as atheist. The others are agnostic or said they don't believe anything in particular.

America is a religious country, so it only makes since that at least half of scientists are religious.

The answer is very simple, scientists are not a representative sample of the population in general. Also, the polls show that a majority of NAS scientists dont believe in God.

If you want a more specific answer: It's because scientists are trained in things such as logic and generally much more educated and intelligent than the general population. So, if we're talking about belief in ancient superstitions, yes it makes sense that scientists believe in that stuff far less than the general population. This is especially true when said superstitions make claims that are clearly untrue to any competent scientist.

#94 Posted by Pfcoolio14 (1138 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton:

I know they aren't a representative sample, I'm just trying to be logical. If a majority is religous(85%), then I'm guessing that at least a significant amount are religous. Especially since only 1.6% in the US are atheists. The study I presented confirms those beliefs. And I already presented to you the flaws and problems people had with the NSA study in 1998. But to each his own. The rest of your stuff seems heavily opinionated and I'm not in the mood for an argument soI won't comment.

#95 Posted by Batman242 (4862 posts) - - Show Bio

@pyrogram said:

Historically no? Modern days yes.

Yup.

#96 Posted by OverLordArhas (7793 posts) - - Show Bio

@overlordarhas said:

@enigmalantern:

That is one way to analyze it. Btw, good one.

But in those times people like Galileo were called heretics and persecuted.

Was that comment sarcastic?

True, but I still believe it to be relevant to the point I was making.

Not at all :)

#97 Posted by WillPayton (9829 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton:

I know they aren't a representative sample, I'm just trying to be logical. If a majority is religous(85%), then I'm guessing that at least a significant amount are religous. Especially since only 1.6% in the US are atheists.

It doesnt matter what percent of the US are what, scientists are not a representative sample. That's all there is to it.

You can disregard the rest, but it's entirely relevant because the reason why scientists are not a representative sample is related to knowledge and beliefs. So of course they're not going to have similar beliefs to the general population.

#98 Posted by Pfcoolio14 (1138 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton:

I know they're not a representative sample. But what I am saying is that it is highly plausible based on that information. And as I said, the study I presented confirmed that so I don't see why we're arguing.

On to the rest, you do realize that scientists are individuals too right. Each has his own set of beliefs and was raised differently. Some support things and some don't. They're not all the same. And so it happens, 50% are religous.

#99 Posted by WillPayton (9829 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton:

I know they're not a representative sample. But what I am saying is that it is highly plausible based on that information. And as I said, the study I presented confirmed that so I don't see why we're arguing.

On to the rest, you do realize that scientists are individuals too right. Each has his own set of beliefs and was raised differently. Some support things and some don't. They're not all the same. And so it happens, 50% are religous.

Yeah I'm not sure why we're arguing either. =)

Yes, I understand they're all individuals... i'm talking about the statistics of the entire population.

Anyway, it's not important.

#100 Posted by Pfcoolio14 (1138 posts) - - Show Bio