Gregor Mendel was a religious monk. Gregor Mendel laid the fundamentals to almost everything we know about genetics. Why can't religion and science simply co-exist?

File: 50 KB, 429x600, 429px-Gregor_Mendel_Monk.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 07:29:20 2011 No.3384292 [Reply] [Original]

Gregor Mendel was a religious monk.

Gregor Mendel laid the fundamentals to almost everything we know about genetics.

Why can't religion and science simply co-exist?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 07:30:20 2011 No.3384299 File: 124 KB, 466x599, 466px-Stories_of_beowulf_grendel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Mega Grendel will fucking anything.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 07:32:20 2011 No.3384304 They do. But there are a lot of idiots who like to clutter every possible forum of discourse with dentifrice.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 07:32:20 2011 No.3384309 File: 40 KB, 496x371, pedos.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 07:35:20 2011 No.3384316 Please keep the small boys jokes to the minimum, fucktards happen in every community.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 07:38:20 2011 No.3384318 >>3384316 Yeah, but religions protect the rapists from the laws of the land, when they are supposed to obey those laws.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 07:38:20 2011 No.3384320

First of all, you have implied that because Gregor Mendel was a monk and also a scientist, that religion must be compatible with science. That is fallacious.

Secondly, science is based on empiricism, which affirms the necessity of supporting claims with evidence. Religion is based on faith, which denies that necessity. From an epistemological standpoint, the two are mutually exclusive.

The desire the merge the two comes from a love of both, and that's understandable. But it's wishful thinking. You can't have both, because religions are fraudulent, the supernatural doesn't exist, and science handily demonstrates this. They cannot coexist for the same reason that a fox cannot coexist with the hens in a henhouse. One is the natural predator of the other.

Here's the kind of shit you get when you try to mix the two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqVV2u_1ADA&feature=related

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 07:42:20 2011 No.3384331 >>3384320 co-exist doesn't mean mix the two.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 07:46:20 2011 No.3384347

>>3384331

Coexistence would require science to remain silent on the topic of religion (which it does for the most part, for the reason which immediately follows:) as all presently popular religions include as core tenets claims which science has disproven.

Otherwise it puts moderates in particular who pride themselves on being accepting of scientific findings in an awkward position where they must either accept said findings and change their beliefs beyond recognition or deny those findings for religious reasons, just like the creationists they despise.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 07:48:42 2011 No.3384352 >>3384331 Religion tries to take control of science, when science was trying to do some work. Apparently, they can't co-exist, because religion doesn't want a possible equal.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 07:50:20 2011 No.3384356 >>3384331 Religion tries to take control of science, when science was trying to do some work. Apparently, they can't co-exist, because religion doesn't want an imagined equal(like science even wanted to go there).

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 07:51:20 2011 No.3384358

>>3384320
You're trying way too hard, Sparky.

>>3384292
Interesting. I did not know that about Mendel. Why do you ask why religion and science can't co-exist? They do both exist, so you must be asking something else. Why are they mutually exclusive and opposing? Because some people treat them that way.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 07:54:20 2011 No.3384367

>>3384358

>>You're trying way too hard, Sparky.

I see you disagree. Please explain why rather than making dismissive jabs. :)

>>Why are they mutually exclusive and opposing? Because some people treat them that way.

No, it's because:

>>science is based on empiricism, which affirms the necessity of supporting claims with evidence. Religion is based on faith, which denies that necessity. From an epistemological standpoint, the two are mutually exclusive.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 07:58:20 2011 No.3384375 >>3384320 what the fuck did i just watch i tried to stop watching, but i couldnt it fascinates me that people believe this

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 07:59:20 2011 No.3384376 >>3384347 >all presently popular religions include as core tenets claims which science has disproven. Oh my god, do you actually BELIEVE that? What are you, 12?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:00:20 2011 No.3384378 >>3384376 Is that really all you've got? Yeah of course I believe that, it's plainly true.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:01:20 2011 No.3384380 My father was a physicist and worked at JPL for 25 years. He's also deeply religious and attends church weekly. The only people that want to make a conflict between religion and science are those that have an ulterior motive.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:02:20 2011 No.3384383 >>3384378 No, no it isn't. What core beliefs do you believe have been destroyed by science? I'm LDS so go ahead, teach me what you think I don't know about my religion.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:04:20 2011 No.3384387 >>3384383 All whites are the children of SmithJesus, and blacks are the people who didn't pick sides.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:04:20 2011 No.3384388

>>3384356
What the hell are you talking about? Even the fucking Pope says evolution is real.

Angsty atheist retards ruin everything. Newton and Euler did fine with a ridiculous strong faith in their religion and many other scientists throughout history who were religious.

Being religious has absolutely no negative effect on your ability as a scholar.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:07:20 2011 No.3384399

>>3384367
So black and white you are.

Religion is based on a set of beliefs, things assumed to be true without proof.

Science, too, is based on a set of beliefs, things assumed to be true without proof.

(Such as what you might ask.)

As I'm sure you believe, the scientific method is a way of investigating or acquiring/adjusting new knowledge. In this sense, science inquiry is as objective as possible. By using the scientific method, hypotheses can be constructed which are then assumed to be true given the prior procedures until falsified through the same method.

In the deepest sense, they're not mutually exclusive if you don't view them as such. They can be looked at as similar in the deepest structure, a set of ideas or ideals founded on simple self-evident truths.

I'm not for certain, but I remember hearing somewhere that Buddhism in particular teaches its followers to practice its faith, but to update their faith as necessary to adjust to new discoveries in science.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:08:20 2011 No.3384401

>>3384388

>>Angsty atheist retards ruin everything.

From this point on you have no right to complain about similar abuse being hurled at you. Fair notice, and thanks for the example of theists behaving how they typically behave.

>>Newton and Euler did fine with a ridiculous strong faith in their religion and many other scientists throughout history who were religious.

They had no other option. Religiosity among scientists has dropped as irreligiosity has become more accepted. Today, a majority of scientists are atheists, and over 90% of the most accomplished ones are.

>>Being religious has absolutely no negative effect on your ability as a scholar.

However it is thoroughly proven that the religious are, on average, less intelligent than atheists. I have on hand every study which investigated the relation carried out between 1920 and 1980, as well as several ones done in the past few years if you dispute the issue.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:08:20 2011 No.3384402

>>3384380
More like the idiots who know they're failures that will never truly accomplish anything great so they try to take out their angst on religion like Dawkins and try to belong to something so they can at least say that they saved science somehow. They'll never be some amazing contributer to science.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:09:20 2011 No.3384403

>>3384387
What the HELL are you talking about? Please tell me where in the official doctrine of the LDS church being
1. the Book of Mormon
2. the Doctrine and Covenants
3. the Pearl of Great Price
4. the Bible

does it ever say that?

In before you quote someone's opinion that lies outside those 4 books. Opinions of people in the LDS church have never been nor ever will be doctrine of the LDS church.

Since you claim to know so much go ahead, tell me where that doctrine exists.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:10:20 2011 No.3384405

>>3384388
>Being religious has absolutely no negative effect on your ability as a scholar.

Except that it precludes out of hand anything that contradicts any articles of faith. So whether it has "absolutely no effect" really depends on their being no overlap between the scholar's religion and what they are studying.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:11:20 2011 No.3384407 >>3384401 >no other option lolwat Do you even know shit about Euler? He was deeply disappointed in and hated atheists. Euler is THE GREATEST mathematician of all time.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:11:20 2011 No.3384409

>>3384399

>>So black and white you are.

Not an argument.

>>Religion is based on a set of beliefs, things assumed to be true without proof.

That's the entirety of religion.

>>Science, too, is based on a set of beliefs, things assumed to be true without proof.

Axioms are superior to dogmas in that they have a grossly disproportionate explanatory power compared to their information content. All scientific knowledge stems from just a few assumptions that can be summarized mathematically in a few characters. And these axioms have been validated after the fact by tangible applications, aka technology. The computer on your desk would not work if the foundational axioms of science were mistaken.

>>In the deepest sense, they're not mutually exclusive if you don't view them as such. They can be looked at as similar in the deepest structure, a set of ideas or ideals founded on simple self-evident truths.

It doesn't matter how you view them. Objectively, they are still mutually exclusive, period. I explained why here:

>>science is based on empiricism, which affirms the necessity of supporting claims with evidence. Religion is based on faith, which denies that necessity. From an epistemological standpoint, the two are mutually exclusive.

>>I'm not for certain, but I remember hearing somewhere that Buddhism in particular teaches its followers to practice its faith, but to update their faith as necessary to adjust to new discoveries in science.

So what?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:12:20 2011 No.3384412 Oh and, I'm going to go ahead and preemptively attack your idea that DNA evidence destroys the Book of Mormon http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DNA.shtml#others So good luck on that one.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:12:20 2011 No.3384413 >>3384407 >>Do you even know shit about Euler? He was deeply disappointed in and hated atheists. Euler is THE GREATEST mathematician of all time. Do you know what the "appeal to authority" fallacy is?

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:15:20 2011 No.3384419

>>3384402

More like religious posters here are powerfully frustrated with the indefensibility of their beliefs and rather than correctly interpret their inability to argue effectively with atheists as a sign that they are likely wrong, they become intensely hateful towards them, characterizing them as idiots in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary. But then if religious people accepted evidence, they wouldn't be religious. :)

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:16:20 2011 No.3384421 >>3384403 Sorry, I thought LDS were Mormons.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:16:20 2011 No.3384423 They're going to be so disappointed when they find out a lot of scientists who helped discover the things that go agianst religious actually say they further prove god's greatness and design lol.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:18:20 2011 No.3384426 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître You mad, atheists?

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:18:20 2011 No.3384427

>>3384409
>It doesn't matter how you view them. Objectively, they are still mutually exclusive, period.
Yes, it does. You're viewing them objectively, scientifically, self-referentially. Notice how you did not deny that at their cores they are similar. Notice how instead you labelled science's self-evident truths as axioms, and religion's self-evident truths as dogmas. Call them what you want, they're still self-evident truths.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:18:20 2011 No.3384429

>>3384423

>>They're going to be so disappointed when they find out a lot of scientists who helped discover the things that go agianst religious actually say they further prove god's greatness and design lol.

A majority of scientist are atheists. It's why Christians set up a foundation specifically to bribe some of them to make statements like that. (the Templeton Foundation)

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:18:20 2011 No.3384431 >>3384421 They are Mormons, and that doctrine you represented is [has been] the viewpoint of influential Mormons in the past, but it's not stated outright in their scripture. not the person you're talking to though~~

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:19:20 2011 No.3384434 Wait, is LDS the one where God comes from a planet where he's constantly having sex with all his wives and daughters?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:20:20 2011 No.3384436 >>3384413 Do you know the fact you have no proof while I do have solid evidence? If he did believe deeply in his faith he wouldn't have so deeply argued and got angry at atheists.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:20:20 2011 No.3384437 >>3384292 It can. But some religions are contradictory to modern science. The bibles age of the earth etc.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:20:20 2011 No.3384438

>>3384427

>>Yes, it does. You're viewing them objectively, scientifically, self-referentially. Notice how you did not deny that at their cores they are similar.

I explained why they aren't.

>>Notice how instead you labelled science's self-evident truths as axioms, and religion's self-evident truths as dogmas. Call them what you want, they're still self-evident truths.

No, they differ in their ratios of explanatory power to information content. Religious dogmas are 100% information content, 0% power. Axioms are 1% information content, 99% explanatory power.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:23:20 2011 No.3384441

>>3384436

>>Do you know the fact you have no proof while I do have solid evidence?

For what? I kinda jumped in. Were you talking to someone else before? When I said it was an appeal to authority I was only talking about your namedropping of Euler and mentioning that he hated atheists.

It seems like theists either cannot understand or pretend not to understand that the fact that a well known historical scientist was religious does not somehow prove that science and religion do not contradict. You can tell them as many times as you like and they simply won't acknowledge it.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:23:20 2011 No.3384442

>He is also commemorated by the Lutheran Church on their Calendar of Saints on 24 May – he was a devout Christian (and believer in biblical inerrancy) who wrote apologetics and argued forcefully against the prominent atheists of his time.[5]

Also modern atheists are scum. They need any excuse to make themselves feel better when deep down inside they are horrible failures who will never amount to anything.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:23:20 2011 No.3384443 >>3384442 >>Also modern atheists are scum. They need any excuse to make themselves feel better when deep down inside they are horrible failures who will never amount to anything. I work at JPL. Come at me, bro.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:24:20 2011 No.3384444

>Why can't religion and science simply co-exist?

They can. The problem that causes the apparent conflict is neither science itself nor religion itself, but something else. It's hard to describe what this something else is, as it often appears in different guises. One way it appears is in trying to make a science a religion or trying to make a religion a science. The two are very different critters using different methodologies to achieve different kinds of understanding about different kinds of things. The rejection of NOMA is one of the great intellectual failures of the modern atheist movement. Another way it appears is in onetruewayism. It is commonly said in places like this that religion is a set collection of dogmas, or believing things without any evidence, but this is not the case. Oh certainly, there are many loud people who make religion appear this way, but taking that as the standard for religion would be like taking time cube as the standard for what science is.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:25:20 2011 No.3384449 Apparently the Evangelicals are right. Mormons ARE scum of the earth.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:26:20 2011 No.3384451

>>3384444

>>The rejection of NOMA is one of the great intellectual failures of the modern atheist movement.

No, NOMA fails because all presently popular religions assert that the supernatural acts upon the natural (miracles, or past events described in scripture)

This is a violation of NOMA. NOMA only works if you radically change religion into something nobody would want to be a part of anyway.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:26:20 2011 No.3384452

>>3384441
It wasn't an argument of contradiction, just standing the fact that there have been great scientists who were deeply involved in their faith. When you speak of modern, how modern do you want? It's hilariously pathetic you try to prove that people who are religious cannot be outstanding scientists.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:27:20 2011 No.3384457 >>3384444 >>but taking that as the standard for religion would be like taking time cube as the standard for what science is. Except that a majority of Christians, Jews and Muslims worldwide are creationists.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:27:20 2011 No.3384458 Science adjusts its views based on whats observed Religion denies observation so that beliefs preserved.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:29:20 2011 No.3384461

>>3384452

>>It wasn't an argument of contradiction, just standing the fact that there have been great scientists who were deeply involved in their faith. When you speak of modern, how modern do you want? It's hilariously pathetic you try to prove that people who are religious cannot be outstanding scientists.

Calm down bro, I never said that people who are religious cannot be outstanding scientists. Never, not once. Only that a majority of scientists today aren't religious, and that citing a few examples of outliers or scientists from centuries ago when being openly irreligious was a death sentence isn't a valid argument.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:29:20 2011 No.3384462

We all know religious history and all the branches of Christianity, I'm assuming.

Each time people found new ways to worship god. To not be a stupid atheist, all you have to do is to believe in god. There's no religious requirement beyond that and the majority of Christians today are open to science. Catholics seem to be the ones with the most problems, but that's because they are the oldest but even the Pope admits over and over he believes in things like evolution.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:31:20 2011 No.3384469 >>3384457 bullshit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#Prevalence

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:32:20 2011 No.3384471

>>3384462

>>Each time people found new ways to worship god.

That's a cute way to say that they rationalized contradicting evidence.

>>To not be a stupid atheist, all you have to do is to believe in god.

Atheists are actually more intelligent on average than the religious.

>>There's no religious requirement beyond that and the majority of Christians today are open to science.

No they aren't. A slight majority of Christians worldwide are creationists, and even moderate Christians have beliefs which contradict findings from other fields of science.

>>Catholics seem to be the ones with the most problems, but that's because they are the oldest but even the Pope admits over and over he believes in things like evolution.

So what? Evolution isn't all there is to science, nor is it the only discovery which contradicts scripture.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:32:20 2011 No.3384472 >>3384457 Indeed, lots of people are stupid. What's your point? >>3384451 Like this guy, who has somehow missed the fact that science has always been a naturalistic endeavor that doesn't apply to the supernatural.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:33:20 2011 No.3384473

>>3384461
Oh god, you're retarded. It's fucking Euler, there was no death sentence btw. He argued with atheists, free ones that didn't get killed regularly. They were his colleagues.

Now what about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Hard_Townes

There was no death sentence.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:33:20 2011 No.3384474 File: 18 KB, 225x309, newtong.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Isaac Newton was a batshit insane alchemist. Isaac Newton laid the fundamentals to almost everything we know about physics. Why can't alchemy and science co-exist?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:33:20 2011 No.3384476 >>3384469 Does not account for Muslims.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:34:20 2011 No.3384477

>>3384462
>Catholics seem to be the ones with the most problems
>even the Pope admits over and over he believes in things like evolution

Then they don't have the most problems, do they?

40% of Americans believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:34:20 2011 No.3384479

>>3384473

>>Oh god, you're retarded. It's fucking Euler, there was no death sentence btw. He argued with atheists, free ones that didn't get killed regularly. They were his colleagues.

You cannot seriously argue that there were NO consequences for open atheism at the time. Nor can you claim nobody has ever been killed because they were an atheist. You'd be lying.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:34:20 2011 No.3384481

A scientist is a person who produces knowledge

while you are praying or thinking in god or going to church you cannot produce knowledge

I person who produced knowledge goes from rational skepticism to the credulity of religious dogma? well, that's hypocrisi, that person is wrong by thinking that the scientific method and faith are both equally valid, and if they support religion they are doing damage to humanity in the end

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:34:20 2011 No.3384478 >>3384473 >didn't get killed regularly People die when they are killed.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:35:20 2011 No.3384482 People can believe whatever they want. It's a free society.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:35:20 2011 No.3384485 >>3384441 >science and religion are not compatible, even though we see lots of examples of them being compatible.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:35:20 2011 No.3384486

>>3384438
>Religious dogmas are 100% information content, 0% power. Axioms are 1% information content, 99% explanatory power.

If religion and science are both composed of ratios using varying amounts of two concepts, content and explanatory power then representing them as different ratios of the same two elements prevents them from being mutually exclusive.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:36:20 2011 No.3384489 >>3384477 I'm going to need a credible citation on that.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:36:20 2011 No.3384492

>>3384472

>>Like this guy, who has somehow missed the fact that science has always been a naturalistic endeavor that doesn't apply to the supernatural.

What you don't seem to understand is that every currently prevalent religion includes claims about the natural, repeat, NATURAL world which science can test. And wherever it has, those claims have been debunked.

As an aside the reason why science focuses exclusively on the natural is because most scientists are well educated adults who understand that the supernatural doesn't exist except in the minds of children and the religious.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:36:20 2011 No.3384493 >>3384399 Wait, what? Science is EXACTLY about finding out the proofs

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:37:20 2011 No.3384494 >>3384485 >science and religion are not compatible, even though we see lots of examples of them being compatible. What we see are examples of doublethink. People pretending the two are compatible because they badly want them to be.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:37:20 2011 No.3384495 Science in the modern era is applied religion. It's a real shame, these children.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:38:20 2011 No.3384499 >>3384481 when i am very high i do not produce knowledge i smoke weed everyday does this mean i cannot be a scientist no matter what i do while sober?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:38:20 2011 No.3384500 >>3384482 >>People can believe whatever they want. It's a free society. Unless you're gay and want to marry. And that particular restriction on freedom is the fault of the religious.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:39:20 2011 No.3384502 >>3384494 That's not even an argument. Now being the atheist you are, what have you accomplished in science that rivals them?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:40:20 2011 No.3384508 >>3384500 Wtf? Aside from being completely irrelevant, that gets 0 sympathy from me because no one's stopping people from being gay, just from a formal ceremony recognizing that gayness.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:40:20 2011 No.3384509 >>3384499 but you could be a better scientist maybe I'm talking that religious scientists aren't doing humanity a favor, if they were atheists or credulous in god but against religion it would be better

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:40:20 2011 No.3384510 >>3384502 >>That's not even an argument. Now being the atheist you are, what have you accomplished in science that rivals them? I work at the JPL. You?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:41:20 2011 No.3384513 >>3384508 Invalid response. My argument stands. A particular group in our society is denied a right others enjoy for religious reasons.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:41:20 2011 No.3384516

>>3384500
The debate on homosexual marriage goes way beyond religious beliefs if you actually look outside your basement and see the cultural and social beliefs around the world. Stop being retarded.

Scientifically, homosexuality doesn't make any sense.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:42:20 2011 No.3384517 most of scientists are atheists, only some fucked up in the head are religious and that doesn't make them better scientists, they waste energy in religion that could be used in science

Let's see just how accepting of evidence these theists are. Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:42:20 2011 No.3384518

STUDIES OF STUDENTS

Thomas Howells, 1927
Study of 461 students showed religiously conservative students "are, in general, relatively inferior in intellectual ability."

Hilding Carlsojn, 1933
Study of 215 students showed that "there is a tendency for the more intelligent undergraduate to be sympathetic toward atheism."

Abraham Franzblau, 1934
Confirming Howells and Carlson, tested 354 Jewish children, aged 10-16. Found a negative correlation between religiosity and IQ as measured by the Terman intelligence test.

Thomas Symington, 1935
Tested 400 young people in colleges and church groups. He reported, "There is a constant positive relation in all the groups between liberal religious thinking and mental ability… There is also a constant positive relation between liberal scores and intelligence…"

Vernon Jones, 1938
Tested 381 students, concluding "a slight tendency for intelligence and liberal attitudes to go together."

A. R. Gilliland, 1940
Contrary to all other studies, found "little or no relationship between intelligence and attitude toward god."

Donald Gragg, 1942
Reported an inverse correlation between 100 ACE freshman test scores and Thurstone "reality of god" scores.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:43:20 2011 No.3384522

Brown and Love, 1951
At the University of Denver, tested 613 male and female students. The mean test scores of non-believers was 119 points, and for believers it was 100. The non-believers ranked in the 80th percentile, and believers in the 50th. Their findings "strongly corroborate those of Howells."

Michael Argyle, 1958
Concluded that "although intelligent children grasp religious concepts earlier, they are also the first to doubt the truth of religion, and intelligent students are much less likely to accept orthodox beliefs."

Jeffrey Hadden, 1963
Found no correlation between intelligence and grades. This was an anomalous finding, since GPA corresponds closely with intelligence. Other factors may have influenced the results at the University of Wisconsin.

Young, Dustin and Holtzman, 1966
Average religiosity decreased as GPA rose.

James Trent, 1967
Polled 1400 college seniors. Found little difference, but high-ability students in his sample group were over-represented.

Plant and E. Minium, 1967
The more intelligent students were less religious, both before entering college and after 2 years of college.

Robert Wuthnow, 1978
Of 532 students, 37 percent of Christians, 58 percent of apostates, and 53 percent of non-religious scored above average on SATs.

Hastings and Hoge, 1967, 1974
Polled 200 college students and found no significant correlations.

Norman Poythress, 1975
Mean SATs for strongly anti-religious (1148), moderately anti-religious (1119), slightly anti-religious (1108), and religious (1022).

Wiebe and Fleck, 1980
Studied 158 male and female Canadian university students. They reported "nonreligious S's tended to be strongly intelligent" and "more intelligent than religious S's."

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:43:20 2011 No.3384524

>>3384509
lul probably

but what if their religion gives them a sense of meaning and purpose that allows them to focus more effectively on their work?

and either way, that makes scientists who waste their time and intellect arguing against religion even worse than religious scientists

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:43:20 2011 No.3384526

STUDENT BODY COMPARISONS

Rose Goldsen, 1952
Percentage of students who believe in a divine god: Harvard 30; UCLA 32; Dartmouth 35; Yale 36; Cornell 42; Wayne 43; Weslyan 43; Michigan 45; Fisk 60; Texas 62; North Carolina 68.

National Review Study, 1970
Percentage of students who believe in a Spirit or Divine God: Reed 15; Brandeis 25; Sarah Lawrence 28; Williams 36; Stanford 41; Boston U. 41; Yale 42; Howard 47; Indiana 57; Davidson 59; S. Carolina 65; Marquette 77.

Caplovitz and Sherrow, 1977
Apostasy rates rose continuously from 5 percent in "low" ranked schools to 17 percent in "high" ranked schools.

Niemi, Ross, and Alexander, 1978
In elite schools, organized religion was judged important by only 26 percent of their students, compared with 44 percent of all students.

STUDIES OF VERY-HIGH IQ GROUPS

Terman, 1959
Studied group with IQ's over 140. Of men, 10 percent held strong religious belief, of women 18 percent. Sixty-two percent of men and 57 percent of women claimed "little religious inclination" while 28 percent of the men and 23 percent of the women claimed it was "not at all important."

Warren and Heist, 1960
Found no differences among National Merit Scholars. Results may have been effected by the fact that NM scholars are not selected on the basis of intelligence or grades alone, but also on "leadership" and such like.

Southern and Plant, 1968
Studied 42 male and 30 female members of Mensa. Mensa members were much less religious in belief than the typical American college alumnus or adult.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:44:20 2011 No.3384529

STUDIES Of SCIENTISTS

William S. Ament, 1927
C. C. Little, president of the University of Michigan, checked persons listed in Who's Who in America: "Unitarians, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Universalists, and Presbyterians [who are less religious] are… far more numerous in Who's Who than would be expected on the basis of the population which they form. Baptists, Methodists, and Catholics are distinctly less numerous." Ament confirmed Little's conclusion. He noted that Unitarians, the least religious, were more than 40 times as numerous in Who's Who as in the U.S. population.

Lehman and Witty, 1931
Identified 1189 scientists found in both Who's Who (1927) and American Men of Science (1927). Only 25 percent of those listed in the latter and 50 percent of those in the former reported their religious denomination, despite the specific request to do so, under the heading of "religious denomination (if any)." Well over 90 percent of the general population claims religious affiliation. The figure of 25 percent suggests far less religiosity among scientists. Unitarians were 81.4 times as numerous among eminent scientists as non-Unitarians.

Kelley and Fisk, 1951
Found a negative (-.39) correlation between the strength of religious values and research competence. [How these were measured is unknown.]

Ann Roe, 1953
Interviewed 64 "eminent scientists, nearly all members of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences or the American Philosophical Society. She reported that, while nearly all of them had religious parents and had attended Sunday school, 'now only three of these men are seriously active in church. A few others attend upon occasion, or even give some financial support to a church which they do not attend… All the others have long since dismissed religion as any guide to them, and the church plays no part in their lives… A few are militantly atheistic, but most are just not interested.'"

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:45:20 2011 No.3384531

Francis Bello, 1954
Interviewed or questionnaired 107 nonindustrial scientists under the age of 40 judged by senior colleagues to be outstanding. Of the 87 responses, 45 percent claimed to be "agnostic or atheistic" and an additional 22 percent claimed no religious affiliation. For 20 most eminent, "the proportion who are now a-religious is considerably higher than in the entire survey group."

Jack Chambers, 1964
Questionnaired 740 US psychologists and chemists. He reported, "The highly creative men… significantly more often show either no preference for a particular religion or little or no interest in religion." Found that the most eminent psychologists showed 40 percent no preference, 16 percent for the most eminent chemists.

Vaughan, Smith, and Sjoberg, 1965
Polled 850 US physicists, zoologists, chemical engineers, and geologists listed in American Men of Science (1955) on church membership, and attendance patterns, and belief in afterlife. Of the 642 replies, 38.5 percent did not believe in an afterlife, whereas 31.8 percent did. Belief in immortality was less common among major university staff than among those employed by business, government, or minor universities. The Gallup poll taken about this time showed that two-thirds of the U.S. population believed in an afterlife, so scientists were far less religious than the typical adult.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:46:20 2011 No.3384534

Common objections:

"But IQ tests are meaningless." These studies use a wide variety of different metrics of intelligence.

"Must be a narrow sample size" Actually these studies sampled from all walks of life, the only common factor being some sort of achievement most associate with high intellect.

"I found one study that has questionable wording or methodology, therefore the entire list is invalid." No, you're free to dismiss that one study, but the rest of the list remains.

"Some of these show inconclusive results!" Yes, that's because in the interest of honesty I included every study on the topic from the 1920s to the 1970s.

"These studies are from like the 1920s, and therefore invalid." See above, they continue into the late 1970s. Here are some more recent studies:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-God.html

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14765500/Average-intelligence-predicts-atheism-rates-across-137-nations-Ly
nn-et-al

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201004/why-atheists-are-more-intel
ligent-the-religious

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:46:20 2011 No.3384535 >>3384292 I don't see how being religious can help you to be a better scientist A good scientist want to know everything and question everything unlike religious people who just claim to know everything

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:46:20 2011 No.3384537 >>3384524 oh snap

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:46:20 2011 No.3384539 >>3384516 >>Scientifically, homosexuality doesn't make any sense. Homosexuality makes sense as a population control mechanism and as a group selection advantage. There's tons of literature on this.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:48:20 2011 No.3384546 >>3384535 And this is where you failed. Religious people don't claim to know everything, they put it in writing. The fact is, being religious doesn't mean you cannot be a great scientist.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:51:20 2011 No.3384553 >>3384546 >>The fact is, being religious doesn't mean you cannot be a great scientist. I agree, but that wasn't the topic of argument. OP insinuated that because some great scientists have been religious, that science and religion are compatible.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:51:20 2011 No.3384554

How come there are so many great Jewish scientists, Jewish prize winners, Jewish people get higher IQ scores, Jewish people have the highest amount of successes, and Jewish people have the greatest faith of any of the major Abrahamic religions especially I fucking love turning 13? You atheists are buttmad as fuck.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:53:20 2011 No.3384561 >>3384554 Being ethnically Jewish does not preclude one from being an atheist, and in fact ethnic Jews have one of the highest incidences of atheism. I love how theists use semantics and rhetorical sleight of hand to try to win arguments.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:54:20 2011 No.3384566

>>3384539
>population control

Except all the peer reviewers debunked it. It just doesn't make sense biologically. There's no higher amount of homosexuals per capita in densely populated areas and there's no mechanism in overpopulated species found in nature or genetics. The only explanation is psychological and we already know that's bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:55:20 2011 No.3384568 File: 7 KB, 251x201, Angry.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3384554 >implying seeds are people >YFW nearly every punishment God visited on humanity was because of the Jewish.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:55:20 2011 No.3384569 >>3384566 >>Except all the peer reviewers debunked it. Citation please. Keeping in mind your claim that 100% of peer reviewed studies have debunked it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:58:20 2011 No.3384575 scientists can be assholes too

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:58:20 2011 No.3384577

>>3384566

>> There's no higher amount of homosexuals per capita in densely populated areas and there's no mechanism in overpopulated species found in nature or genetics.

We also no longer have a need for our appendix. Yet for a long time we did, so there it is. Likewise with homosexuality as population control. The conditions which altered the Ph of the womb and thereby the hormonal development of the infant included prolonged malnutrition and physical stress, and is corroborated by more recent findings to the effect that the later in a sequence of children a particular child is born the more likely he or she is to be gay.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:58:20 2011 No.3384578

>>3384569
You mean every single scientific biology journal? There's none, look it up. There's theories but that's it. Besides, you're the one who made the claim that there "tons" of "evidence". I would like you to present it as well and to quantify its crediblity.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 08:59:20 2011 No.3384580 >>3384577 Correlation fallacy detected

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:00:20 2011 No.3384585 >>3384524 and either way, that makes scientists who waste their time and intellect arguing against religion even worse than religious scientists pure gold ^ ^

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:00:20 2011 No.3384586

>>3384578

>>You mean every single scientific biology journal? There's none, look it up.

No, I meant every single study on the topic. And it's your argument, YOU back it up, or concede the issue.

>>There's theories but that's it.

That conflicts with your claim that it's completely nonscientific.

>>Besides, you're the one who made the claim that there "tons" of "evidence". I would like you to present it as well and to quantify its crediblity.

You made the claim, you back it up. I never used the words "tons of evidence".

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:01:20 2011 No.3384588 >>3384577 That has absolutely no argument for population control, at all. The population control myth is fucking retarded anyway.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:01:20 2011 No.3384589 >>3384580 It's not perfect evidence but it's evidence, and he said none existed.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:02:20 2011 No.3384590 >>3384588 Cool opinions, bro.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:03:20 2011 No.3384592 >>3384586 >There's tons of literature on this. And I told you that literature wasn't credible or proven because it isn't. You made that claim first and I want to see all that literature you found, I bet you none of them are credible.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:03:20 2011 No.3384593

>>3384585

>>and either way, that makes scientists who waste their time and intellect arguing against religion even worse than religious scientists

Samefag, and also dumb thing to say. Religion gets in the way of science regularly and attempts to turn the public against it. Fighting it is a worthwhile endeavor for the same reason that preventative treatments are preferable to cures.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:04:20 2011 No.3384596

>>3384592

>>And I told you that literature wasn't credible or proven because it isn't. You made that claim first and I want to see all that literature you found, I bet you none of them are credible.

You haven't produced anything contradicting it, and I asked first.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:05:20 2011 No.3384597 >>3384589 No it's not. Evidence must be proven and it isn't fully proven nor accepted as fact by the scientific community yet. There's not enough study on it, it's not evidence. Just a correlation there doesn't hold any water to population control.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:06:20 2011 No.3384600 >>3384597 Wrong. Correlation is evidence. But it does not, by itself, prove anything.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:07:20 2011 No.3384604 >>3384596 Here's you go, every single journal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biology_journals Now it's your burden to find your credible peer reviewed gay population control bullshit. I said there wasn't any and I'm right.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:08:20 2011 No.3384605 >>3384600 Then it's not credible evidence which throws the whole thing out the window. It's not real evidence.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:09:20 2011 No.3384606

>>3384604

>>Now it's your burden to find your credible peer reviewed gay population control bullshit. I said there wasn't any and I'm right.

I notice you never disputed the kin selection explanation. And great job fucking posting a Wikipedia list. Now just go through it and present every example of a peer reviewed study concluding that homosexuality is not a natural population control mechanism.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:10:20 2011 No.3384607 >>3384605 What? Yes it is, what's so hard to understand about that? It's statistical in nature, which is a form of evidence, but NEVER is it the case that a single piece of evidence proves any theory. By your definition, NO evidence is real evidence.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:11:20 2011 No.3384609 >>3384489 >I'm going to need a credible citation on that. It's pretty easy to Google. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/20/40-of-americans-still-bel_n_799078.html

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:11:20 2011 No.3384610 >>3384606 You think that there is credible evidence, that's the point. Well guess what? There isn't any. I can't find something that doesn't fucking exist. THERE IS NO CREDIBLE STUDY ON YOUR BULLSHIT

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:15:20 2011 No.3384614

>>3384610

I'm willing to drop that half of the argument. But you still haven't addressed the kin selection explanation, and you have still failed to back up your claim that 100% of peer reviewed studies on the topic refute the population control theory.

In your next post either provide citations for every study on the subject that, as you claim, all refute the population control theory or concede and apologize for being a huge douchebag about it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:15:20 2011 No.3384615 >>3384606 Burden of proof. You said there are tons of literature. Prove it. He'll win because none of it passed peer lits.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:16:20 2011 No.3384618 >>3384615 I already conceded that. Now it's his turn to admit he was bullshitting when he said 100% of peer reviewed papers refute it.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:20:20 2011 No.3384619

By the way here's a citation for the kin selection theory: http://www.news-medical.net/news/20100205/Kin-selection-hypothesis-may-explain-homosexuality-from-an
-evolutionary-point-of-view.aspx

It doesn't really matter to me if the population control thing is wrong since that was never the lynchpin of my argument. Your original argument was that homosexuality is completely inexplicable from a scientific standpoint. If one of the two explanations I offered is true it doesn't matter if the other wasn't,

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:21:20 2011 No.3384620 File: 42 KB, 540x394, 1309101317199.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3384615 >>3384610 Samefag.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:23:20 2011 No.3384625

>>3384618
It's already been refuted.

There has empirical evidence and none of the papers on your shit ever pass. That's the point, if it doesn't pass then it doesn't ever get published and I bet you it regularly gets refuted. You see any peer reviewed papers homosexuality proven as population control? Then it failed and that's the papers.

Why? Because homosexuality being a population control is absolutely retarded. Anyone with common sense can guess why.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:25:20 2011 No.3384628 >>3384619 That's because it is. In your link, there is still no empirical evidence for that.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:26:20 2011 No.3384631

>>3384625

>>It's already been refuted.

Your claim was that 100% of peer reviewed studies refute it. You have yet to support this claim.

There has empirical evidence and none of the papers on your shit ever pass. That's the point, if it doesn't pass then it doesn't ever get published and I bet you it regularly gets refuted. You see any peer reviewed papers homosexuality proven as population control? Then it failed and that's the papers.

I have in the past. You're trying to get me to invest the time and energy to go dig them up at which point you'll refuse to budget. This is 4chan. I am in bed right now. I am not about to do a fucking research project so that some fundie can reject my work.

>>Why? Because homosexuality being a population control is absolutely retarded. Anyone with common sense can guess why.

Oh please, tell me.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:27:20 2011 No.3384634 >>3384625 >Anyone with common sense can guess why. You're right. Jewish people deserve to make Palestinians into soap and lampshades, because it's not a crime when Jewish people do it.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:28:20 2011 No.3384638

>>3384628

That's not what is says. It only says that we can't be sure that the conditions under which the experiment occurred were similar to the conditions in which ancient man evolved. The experiment itself did vindicate kin selection, within the culture where it was performed.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:29:20 2011 No.3384639 >>3384634 >because it's not a crime when Jewish people do it. Hey, that's like priests/ministers when they rape children. It's not a crime when they do it.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:32:20 2011 No.3384646

>>3384631
So you admit you're not willing to put the time into your bullshit. That just says everything, doesn't it?

It's because throughout nature we can see overpopulation not taking care of itself in a way of homosexuality. It never has in human or nature history I'm aware of unless you want to prove yourself by finding evidence of past overpopulation incidents in nature there half instantly turn gay. Going agianst what is naturally understood as the reproduction survival order is fucking retarded.

>>3384634
>strawman

There also doesn't make any sense.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:33:20 2011 No.3384652 >>3384646 >Anyone with common sense can guess why. <cough,eye for an eye,cough>

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:34:20 2011 No.3384654

>>3384638
There's so many factors to be considered, hardly is evidence. You're extremely defensive about this fact though and I have to assume you're nothing but some butthurt fudgepacker. It's not my fault you think that being gay is something that makes you normal and not something like a fetish or choice. There is no gay gene, deal with it.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:35:20 2011 No.3384657

>>3384646

>>So you admit you're not willing to put the time into your bullshit. That just says everything, doesn't it?

I can say the same exact thing about you.

>>It's because throughout nature we can see overpopulation not taking care of itself in a way of homosexuality.

Citation please.

>>It never has in human or nature history I'm aware of unless you want to prove yourself by finding evidence of past overpopulation incidents in nature there half instantly turn gay.

I don't have to, you've made the claim.

>>Going agianst what is naturally understood as the reproduction survival order is fucking retarded.

There are a few instances in which it confers group benefits. It should be self evident by the fact that gays exist that there is an evolutionary basis for it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:36:20 2011 No.3384659 Pets are overpopulating. Why aren't they all turning gay, brah?

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:37:20 2011 No.3384661

>>3384654

>>There's so many factors to be considered, hardly is evidence.

This isn't even a valid sentence, let alone a valid argument.

>>You're extremely defensive about this fact though and I have to assume you're nothing but some butthurt fudgepacker.

Nope, straight. Just not a fundie or a bigot like you.

>>It's not my fault you think that being gay is something that makes you normal and not something like a fetish or choice. There is no gay gene, deal with it.

Except there's plenty of studies confirming that there is: http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS378US378&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=gay+mic
e+study

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:38:20 2011 No.3384664 >>3384659 >>Pets are overpopulating. Why aren't they all turning gay, brah? Perhaps they are. Has there been a study on this?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:39:20 2011 No.3384668 >>3384657 I was hoping you'd say that. No where on any search engine could I find animals turning gay when they overpopulated in any incident just by searching. That's my proof. Go ahead, try it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:42:20 2011 No.3384674 >>3384668 I already dropped that argument earlier. Now I'm waiting for you to address kin selection (study here: >>3384619) and studies of homosexuality which proved a genetic basis (here: >>3384661)

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:49:20 2011 No.3384695

>>3384674
http://theweek.com/article/index/204971/whats-turning-straight-mice-gay
>No, not necessarily. Researchers didn't find a "gay gene," and there's no direct corollary between mouse brains and human brains. Estrogen "masculinizes" the brains of mice, but in humans it's testosterone that has that effect. Still, the study is intriguing to scientists seeking a genetic link to homosexuality.

No gay gene, just like I fucking said.

Everyone is well aware of kin selection but it's still just a hypothesis now fail forever.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:49:20 2011 No.3384696 >>3384399 >Science, too, is based on a set of beliefs, things assumed to be true without proof. stopped reading there. youre a retard, dont bother responding because i wont be reading it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:50:20 2011 No.3384698 faggotry is a mental disorder, it makes sense now.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:50:20 2011 No.3384699 >>3384695 >>No gay gene, just like I fucking said. It says not NECESSARILY. >>Everyone is well aware of kin selection but it's still just a hypothesis now fail forever. You still can't get your way, politically. Cry more. :)

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:51:20 2011 No.3384703 >>3384699 Politically? Oh please, society throws them trash. I'm happy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:52:20 2011 No.3384705 >>3384703 >>I'm happy. Then why are you so mad all the time?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:53:20 2011 No.3384706 >>3384699 lol, that's sad. Guess what, homo? No means no. It must be hard for you to be rejected by the vast majority of straight males out there.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:53:20 2011 No.3384711 >>3384705 You're the one maxing out your shift and caps key, kiddo. Don't try to project.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:54:20 2011 No.3384715 >>3384706 #1. Not gay. #2. You're losing in the courts. #3. Being a fundie bigot makes you less of a human.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:55:20 2011 No.3384723

>>3384711

>>You're the one maxing out your shift and caps key, kiddo. Don't try to project.

Different person. Just noticed how mad you've been throughout the thread.

You know, studies prove that homophobes are in fact latent homosexuals: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

Just admit it to yourself. You want cock in your mouth and ass.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:57:20 2011 No.3384731

>>3384715
And here we go.

This is why you will fail forever. Your emotion is clouding your judgment and it's very clear you're gay or you wouldn't be so defensive. Enjoy being fucked up the ass metaphorically and physically. You should be thanking me for that ass whooping I gave you. You know you loved it, homo. Peace out

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:57:20 2011 No.3384734
File: 28 KB, 390x310, myfacewhen.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

"The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies."

>>Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli.

>>Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 09:58:20 2011 No.3384738 >>3384715 >>3384723 >have the exact same sentence structure and posting pattern >not an obvious samefag lol, you are really upset all the kids picked on you for sucking dick.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 10:00:20 2011 No.3384744

>>3384731

>>This is why you will fail forever. Your emotion is clouding your judgment and it's very clear you're gay or you wouldn't be so defensive.

You just described yourself. Homophobes are actually repressed homosexuals themselves. See: >>3384734

>>Enjoy being fucked up the ass metaphorically and physically. You should be thanking me for that ass whooping I gave you. You know you loved it, homo. Peace out

For mature people, arguments are not combat but rather a way to arrive at a point of understanding. I was big enough to concede a point I could not defend. You were not. That speaks for itself. :)

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 10:00:20 2011 No.3384748 File: 39 KB, 400x456, batman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3384734 >n=35 >psychological studies >butthurt he has a worthless major and doesn't do real science

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 10:01:20 2011 No.3384750

>>3384738

>>lol, you are really upset all the kids picked on you for sucking dick

You don't have to keep up the act, you know. You're a homophobe and science has proven homophobes are privately gay:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

>>Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

Just be okay with who you are.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 10:02:20 2011 No.3384753 >>3384748 The field doesn't change the fact that only the homophobes' dicks got hard in response to gay porn. That's a concrete, indisputable result bro. You like looking at nude men. It's okay.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 10:03:20 2011 No.3384757
File: 23 KB, 320x319, monfuckingvisage.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli.

>>Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

>>Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli.

>>Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

>>Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli.

>>Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

>>Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli.

>>Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 10:04:20 2011 No.3384758 Faith is the will to understand reality. Science is the will to understand reality. One is based on claims (maybe "old science") One is based on the most modern and up-to-date observations

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 10:05:20 2011 No.3384766

>>3384744
>trying to save face because he's gay and embarrassed by that fact
>is an absolute full retard who confuses the word argument with debate
>thinks he's mature for arguing on the internet with an anonymous on a board like /sci/

I'm so fucking glad homosexuals are automatically removed from the gene pool.

OH SHIT, THAT IS WHY HOMOSEXUALS ARE THE WAY THEY ARE! I take it back alright. Homosexuality is definitely a scientific fact. It's a way to prevent cunts like you from reproducing.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 10:06:20 2011 No.3384774 >>3384758 >>Faith is the claim to understand reality, but with nothing to show for itself after thousands of years >>Science is the methodology for understanding reality that is proven to work by the computer you're using to read this ftfy

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 10:07:20 2011 No.3384780

>>3384757
Fucking old news.

"Homophobic = homo in denial"
It is that knowledge that lead to the creation of the word :
Phobia = fear, defiance over something

Fear and defiance in human behavior were explained a long time ago Why do they react so strongly? Because they feel (they know) they are personnaly concerned.
Simple.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 10:08:20 2011 No.3384785

>>3384766

Not gay, bro, and I wouldn't hide it if I were. And you're veerrrry clearly a repressed gay guy or you wouldn't be so defensive about it.

>>Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli.

>>Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 10:08:20 2011 No.3384786

So he's a faggot and a psy major.
His life is just full of misery and he's just not denying it anymore.
At this point, I just pity him.
Just leave him to drown in faggotry, they have high suicide rates.
Seriously, homosexuals have high suicide rates. They really do remove themselves quickly from the genepool.
Leave him.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 10:09:20 2011 No.3384793

>>3384786

Not gay, not a psy major. You're really desperate if you need to characterize me in a way that soothes your hurt ego. :)

>>Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli.

>>Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

>>Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli.

>>Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

>>Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli.

>>Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

>>Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli.

>>Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 10:10:20 2011 No.3384797 >>3384774 Wait, what? Christianity is one of the reasons Europe and America became the center of the entire world. It gave people motive and advanced society like nothing else in history ever did.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 10:10:20 2011 No.3384798
File: 40 KB, 640x480, areyoufrustrated.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli.

>>Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

>>Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli.

>>Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

>>Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli.

>>Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

>>Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli.

>>Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

>>Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli.

>>Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

>>Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli.

>>Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

>>Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli.

>>Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

>>Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli.

>>Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 10:11:20 2011 No.3384801 >>3384793 In all irony, you're just denying it. You have this ridiculous focus on penises and that's all I'm gonna say.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 10:13:20 2011 No.3384808 >>3384786 fine but homos don't fucking shut up. Hopefully he really does remove himself from the gene pool and I can party on tits in the world where everything is right.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 10:14:20 2011 No.3384814 >>3384797 Conquest and dominance, right of god. It was awesome. It was fucking ruined though by you-know-who.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 10:15:20 2011 No.3384818

>>3384801

No. In complete seriousness I, personally, am not gay. I support gay marriage mainly because I don't really care either way but it would make hardcore religious types miserable.

This is like when I argue with people on Stormfront and they insist that I am secretly Jewish because in their mind ONLY Jews have a motivation for objecting to Naziism.

Anonymous Wed Jul 13 10:17:20 2011 No.3384822

>>3384797

>>Wait, what? Christianity is one of the reasons Europe and America became the center of the entire world. It gave people motive and advanced society like nothing else in history ever did.

Becoming the center of the world via military conquest does not translate into a benefit for scientific research except monetarily. It was the enlightenment that gave us modern society and that was a movement *away* from religious dogma.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 10:31:20 2011 No.3384878 >>3384822 One could argue that a new system emerged from an older one. Notice the word "from" . Yup.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 10:33:20 2011 No.3384893 >>3384878 Right, which does not imply that the predecessor was valid. See: Astrology/Astronomy, Alchemy/Chemistry

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 13 10:42:20 2011 No.3384941 >>3384893 >>3384878 > emerged from substituted for science does not "emerge from" divine revelation you substitute investigation Astronomy did not "emerge from" Astrology it was a wholesale substitution, same for Alchemy/Chemistry

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math