RE: Religion and D/s (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

MollHackabout -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 5:26:21 PM)

Excerpted from: E. Larson and L. Witham, "Scientists and Religion in America."
Scientific American; Sep99, Vol. 281 Issue 3, p88.

The 40-Percent Solution

One number rings down through more than eight decades: 40 percent. Four in 10 of Leuba's scientists believed in God as defined in his survey. The same is true today. Somewhat more, about 50 percent, held to an afterlife in Leuba's day, but now that figure is also 40 percent.

Thus, one of Leuba's predictions, which we shall call his general theory of disbelief, failed. Progress in science, he wrote around 1914, would demand "a revision of public opinion regarding ... the two cardinal beliefs of official Christianity." He expected religious disbelief to grow among both American scientists and Americans in general. But scientists today no more jettison Christianity's "two cardinal beliefs" than their counterparts did in 1914. Gallup surveys suggest the same about the general population.

In the second part of Leuba's survey--his poll of the scientific elite--he found much higher levels of disbelief and doubt. In 1914 fewer than one in three of Leuba's "greater" scientists expressed belief in God and only a slightly larger fraction in immortality. In 1933 more than 80 percent of top natural scientists rejected both cardinal beliefs of traditional Christianity.

We shall call Leuba's second theory his special theory of disbelief. The "greater" scientists were less accepting of the supernatural than were "lesser" scientists, Leuba postulated, because of their "superior knowledge, understanding, and experience." The special theory is alive and well today: "You clearly can be a scientist and have religious beliefs," University of Oxford chemist Peter Atkins told the British press when the 40-percent result was announced in 1997. "But I don't think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word, because they are such alien categories of knowledge."

The 1998 NAS members perhaps provide a more immaculate sample of the elite than Leuba's starred entries did. Congress created the National Academy of Sciences in 1863, and after naming its first members Congress empowered them and their successors to choose all later members. Its current membership of 1,800 remains the closest thing to peerage in American science. And their responses validate Leuba's prediction of the beliefs of topflight scientists generations from his time. Disbelief among NAS members responding to our survey exceeded 90 percent. The increase may simply reflect that they are more elite than Leuba's "greater" scientists, but this interpretation would also please Leuba. NAS biologists are the most skeptical, with 95 percent of our respondents evincing atheism and agnosticism. Mathematicians in the NAS are more accepting: one in every six of them expressed belief in a personal God.



Hippiekinkster -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 5:26:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: xoxi

quote:

ORIGINAL: TotalState

Ugh, consider the source.  http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=111

LiveScience is a Creationist front.  Oh, sorry.  "Intelligent Design".  Hah!



Try this one that says that in 1998, 40% of scientists professed belief in a personal deity that answers prayers.
http://physics.ucsc.edu/cosmo/primack_abrams/htmlformat/Einstein4.html

(that ".edu" means it can't have a religious slant to it or the ACLU will be up in arms)

  Where is this alleged "poll" published? Where is a link to the source materiel? All you've done is quote some people who assert the existence of said 1998 poll.



xoxi -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 5:27:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

Herrn Einstein:
"I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

In response the telegrammed question of New York's Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein in (24 April 1929): "Do you believe in God? Stop. Answer paid 50 words." Einstein replied in only 25 (German) words. Spinoza's ideas of God are often characterized as being pantheistic.   http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein




The question wasn't "are scientists Christian" but rather "do scientists believe in God."

According to varying studies, the answer seems to be "yes, not all, but a sizeable percentage definitely do."



TotalState -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 5:27:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: xoxi

Try this one that says that in 1998, 40% of scientists professed belief in a personal deity that answers prayers.
http://physics.ucsc.edu/cosmo/primack_abrams/htmlformat/Einstein4.html

(that ".edu" means it can't have a religious slant to it or the ACLU will be up in arms)


No sources, a "to be published" tag (from 2000) and the tired old argument that Einstein believed in god (why doesn't anyone ever do any research?).  Just because it has .edu in it doesn't mean it is realiable, or I can show you some college home pages that will change your mind.

But fine, we all know that a X number of scientist (a clear minority, according to any reliable source, including even the unreliable one you just quoted) believes in god.  An even smaller number of these even try to prove their beliefs, and they generally keep them private and quiet, because they know they don't mix with fact finding or research.

Edit:  Mixed majority with minority, heh



Hippiekinkster -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 5:34:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SixFootMaster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster
Give me some examples of great scientists who are Xtians. Not "were", "are".

It is not up to science to prove that no god exists. It is up to those who assert that there is a god to prove their assertion.

Sigh. I hate linking to my own threads, but there is a link that goes straight to the heart of this argument. Part of my unappreciated effort in assisting people in the art of thinking rationally. [8D]
http://www.collarchat.com/m_1691586/tm.htm


Not really, unless they are trying to enforce that assertion. Contemporary Christians are much more "live and let live", it's the vocal minority and some really disgusting people (such as those that protest at the funerals and use them as publicity stages - blech). It would really help if reactionary Atheists would stay OFF the attack just because we mention our religion. That kind of intolerance leads to wars.

For the record though, the existence of a divine sentient cannot be disproved, but it can be proven - however the evidence for the latter does not exist to a convincing and conclusive level. However "The absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence" - Sherlock Holmes ;)

Six.

Uh, you do understand that Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character, right? And that Sir Arthur was a physician, and not a scientist, right? Laymen (particularly true believers) are awfully fond of that statement from a work of fiction. However, it just don't work rhat way in Science. Sorry, nice try, though.



xoxi -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 5:37:33 PM)

Alleged "poll"?

You ask me to back up my findings, and I do.  Now you say "well that poll might not exist" because it says something you don't agree with?

Fine...just to placate, here is a more indepth analysis of the poll:
quote:


In 1997, Edward Larson of the University of Georgia decided to revisit Leuba's study and evaluate the prediction that religious belief was disappearing, at least in the scientific community. Author of the book "Summer for the God's" and a professor of science law and history, Larson said that Leuba's original survey raised "good questions."     "They provoke responses and give much more insight into how people think than the vague Gallup poll question, 'Do you believe in God?'" he told a writer from Research Reporter.     Larson closely followed Leuba's methodology, repeating the same questions and attempting to find a representative sample which met the original survey profile. "I had no idea how it would turn out," Larson said.     60% responded, a figure considered high for any surveys. Of those, 40% expressed belief in a deity, while nearly 45% did not. Larson's survey also discovered that physicists were less likely to have such faith, while mathematicians were significantly more likely to believe in a supreme being, as defined by Leuba.


(just to make it clear, that poll was conducted by EDWARD LARSON of the UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA.) I'm sure Google might help if you want to look further into it. This is as far into research assistant mode as I'm going to get ;)


It also shows this separate poll which shows lower levels of belief. However it does show that there ARE scientists who believe in God.  Half of the people surveyed answered, and 7 % said they believe in a personal God.  However that number doubles to over 14% when concerning mathematicians, which interests me as I've heard it put forth many times that the language of God is numbers.
quote:


"NATURE" SURVEY -- LESS AND LESS BELIEF
    The follow-up study reported in "Nature" reveals that the rate of belief is lower than eight decades ago. The latest survey involved 517 members of the National Academy of Sciences; half replied. When queried about belief in "personal god," only 7% responded in the affirmative, while 72.2% expressed "personal disbelief," and 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism." Belief in the concept of human immortality, i.e. life after death declined from the 35.2% measured in 1914 to just 7.9%. 76.7% reject the "human immortality" tenet, compared with 25.4% in 1914, and 23.2% claimed "doubt or agnosticism" on the question, compared with 43.7% in Leuba's original measurement. Again, though, the highest rate of belief in a god was found among mathematicians (14.3%), while the lowest was found among those in the life sciences fields -- only 5.5%.


So there you have it. Low percentages of scientists believe in a personal God. That doesn't mean that science and religion are incompatable. Ironically enough that question goes to answer about a 'personal' God (one who answers prayers) rather than an impartial creator God like Einstein believed in...its just a guess but there might be higher numbers who believe in an impersonal God.

Unless of course you don't believe THIS poll exists either.

Edited because I forgot to source it:  http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm
*grin*



Hippiekinkster -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 5:39:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: xoxi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

Herrn Einstein:
"I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

In response the telegrammed question of New York's Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein in (24 April 1929): "Do you believe in God? Stop. Answer paid 50 words." Einstein replied in only 25 (German) words. Spinoza's ideas of God are often characterized as being pantheistic.   http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein




The question wasn't "are scientists Christian" but rather "do scientists believe in God."

According to varying studies, the answer seems to be "yes, not all, but a sizeable percentage definitely do."

Um, where in my quote do I use a word with the root "Christ"?

I'll come back to the dice thing. True believers are fond of quoting it out of context.



SixFootMaster -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 5:39:39 PM)

Elaine Howard Ecklund's study is from 2005, and suggests that there may be comparable levels of believers and non-believers. For instance 38% of natural scientists surveyed did not believe in God. That leaves 62% to be accounted for between agnosticism and believers. Clear minority? No clearer than those who definitively do not believe.

If we even take the figures from September 1999 of Scientific American, that between 5 and 10 percent of the scientific leaders of that time believing in a sentient divine (agnosticism and atheism = 90-95%) the number remains statistically significant.

Six.



xoxi -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 5:41:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

quote:

ORIGINAL: xoxi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

Herrn Einstein:
"I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

In response the telegrammed question of New York's Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein in (24 April 1929): "Do you believe in God? Stop. Answer paid 50 words." Einstein replied in only 25 (German) words. Spinoza's ideas of God are often characterized as being pantheistic.   http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein




The question wasn't "are scientists Christian" but rather "do scientists believe in God."

According to varying studies, the answer seems to be "yes, not all, but a sizeable percentage definitely do."

Um, where in my quote do I use a word with the root "Christ"?

I'll come back to the dice thing. True believers are fond of quoting it out of context.


Just because you seemed to be saying that believing in an impersonal God was the same as not believing in God at all.



Hippiekinkster -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 5:54:54 PM)

xoxi, I belong to another site where we have adopted a rule in the AUP (Acceptable Use Policy); to wit:

  • Whatever you post, if it is not your original work, you are required to cite your source; if you refuse to cite, expect your post to go missing, or in the case of persistent offenders, locked topics or time-outs.. If it is from a book, give the title, author, copyright date and holder of the copyright. If it is from an Internet source, a link must be provided.

    See, I'm funny about sources. If I don't see a link or a citation, it's possible that it is just made-up BS. I am NOT saying you did this; I just want to see where it originally came from. For instance, if you quote something from wingnut.com, some whackjob's opinion blog, I won't accept that as verifiable. If the same dudette on wingnut links to an article in Nature, or whatever (original source materiel), then I can examine the Nature article to see if I accept it as factual or not. What I accept as factual is mostly contained in the link to my own thread, which I am sure nobody read, because most people on interwebs forums are more interested in seeing their words in print, rather than getting to the truth.

    Do you understand?



    • SixFootMaster -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 5:58:28 PM)

    Subtee,

    The thread was created for an entirely different purpose, but a handful of religion bashers decided to make a dogs meal of it. I'd love to get it back on topic, I'm religion-neutral myself, I have and have had close friends in the past that were atheist, agnostic, pantheistic, thelemites, astarte followers, celtic reconstructionsists, wiccans, satanists, magicians, and demonologists. I really don't care what other people choose to believe, how they live their lives, or any of that. However, I'm not going to sit around while a couple of people spew ignorant and intolerant bullshit.

    For the record though, subtee? Xoxi is the OP, she started the thread with the best of intentions, all we have done is defend our faith, and try to clear the air regarding some of the ignorance that contemporary atheists posit as facts.

    Six.



    SixFootMaster -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 6:00:41 PM)

    I'll conclude with one more link:

    http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html

    Six.



    TracyTaken -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 6:04:03 PM)

    quote:

    "Did Albert Einstein believe in God?


    He most emphatically did not, and he said so over and over and over again.  Since you've done research, you must know that.  Why is that believer's try to "hijack" his words but completely ignore everything he ever said on the subject? 

    There have been numerous studies, like 40 in the last 80 years, that show scientists are *not* followers of religion.  Those with most knowledge about life on the planet (biologists) are the least likely to adopt any religious belief, and the more intelligent a person is, the less likely it is that person holds religious beliefs.

    It's not surprising that US scientists are not the religious sort and would be totally unconcerned about whose dick is where.  I suspect it would be even more pronounced in Europe.



    subtee -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 6:11:49 PM)

    FR to both of you [SixWhatever and xoxi]--edited for clarification

    Can you honestly say that this is not your M.O.? Do you stir shit up and argue for the sake of argument? How many threads have you commandeered for this "exercise?" It's all in the archives. It's what you do and you should be ignored. What would jesus do? Hah.

    Thanks for your thoughtful response to my and many others' thoughtful posts to the OP.



    xoxi -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 6:16:19 PM)

    Also I'd just like to add...apparantly "stirring shit up" is admitting that someone follows Christian morality because the first 4 pages of attacks were written while I was asleep.  How fucking intolerant is that? I came here with the purpose of discussing this and like I said in my OP I was particularly interested in seeing if there were any religions that worhipped female deities and believed in female supremacy.  The one part of my OP that people took issue with (the 'natural order' phrase) I retracted and apologised for.

    So unless my OP is what 'stirred shit up' by saying I have a certain belief, I'm guessing that subtee hasn't even bothered to read the first 4 pages. Considering she named "the OP, xoxi, and SixFoot" as three separate people, I have to guess that's the case.



    xoxi -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 6:18:34 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: subtee

    FR to both of you [SixWhatever and xoxi]--edited for clarification

    Can you honestly say that this is not your M.O.? Do you stir shit up and argue for the sake of argument? How many threads have you commandeered for this "exercise?" It's all in the archives. It's what you do and you should be ignored. What would jesus do? Hah.

    Thanks for your thoughtful response to my and many others' thoughtful posts to the OP.


    Um. I am the OP here.  I didn't come to this thread to stir shit up. I STARTED THIS THREAD.



    SixFootMaster -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 6:20:18 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: subtee

    FR to both of you

    Can you honestly say that this is not your M.O.? Do you stir shit up and argue for the sake of argument? How many threads have you commandeered for this "exercise?" It's all in the archives. It's what you do and you should be ignored. What would jesus do? Hah.

    Thanks for your thoughtful response to my and many others' thoughtful posts to the OP.



    Sigh,

    Xoxi is the OP.

    The posts by lally3, yourself, and one or two others, were on topic. Go back to page one. The bullshit and OT started there. By the time we woke up this morning there were 6 pages of it.

    I actually congratulated my slave last night before we went to bed on a well written and well thought out OP. Looked forward to hearing the responses since we have a fairly eclectic population on this board.

    We tried a number of times to get this thread back on topic, but certain members just couldn't leave the issue alone.

    So, if you want to apportion blame, at least do it correctly.

    Six.





    lally3 -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 6:22:31 PM)

    id like to say one little thing here.  which after all the cross posts might seem a little naive.

    jesus whoever he was, lead people who needed his leadership.  he listened to and lead the lost and in my book was probably the Dom to beat all Doms.  his strength has carried on for centuries and here we all are chattering away about him still.  whoever he was he was an incredible man.  not his fault that people since have used him to start wars.  not his fault that we cant all see eye to eye. 

    see, naive and soppy and im going to be flammed, i dont care....

    lally



    subtee -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 6:23:55 PM)

    quote:


    The posts by lally3, yourself, and one or two others, were on topic.


    And what respect was paid to them? How did you advance her OP with them? Are we to believe the question was in earnest and the answers sought when she/you didn't even bother to respond to them?





    xoxi -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 6:25:07 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: subtee

    You're brilliant:  "OP, xoxi," means you. I know who posted, I read all of the posts. I know that you ignored everyone who actually answered your OP. I know what you do; you both come to CM boards to argue...I just don't know what the hell you get out of it.


    You're delusional then if you think you "know what I do".  I already explained - the first 4 pages were written while I was asleep.  And then I saw what TracyTaken and Darcyandthedark were discussing and I was like "holy shit this is NOT what I started this thread for" and tried to get it on track...but TracyTaken kept saying she had the "right" to say what she wanted, and continued to insult my religion, saying it had no place in society, etc.

    I don't know what the hell you get out of your amateur psychoanalysis here but since you missed it the first time, here's a quick refresh. Page five.

    quote:

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: TracyTaken

    You could add those who belief in the Torah to your list (Jewish people).

    It's really, really bad to challenge people's beliefs, especially really destructive, hatefilled doctrine involving the abuse and murder of children and homosexuals, along with     genocide, patricide, matricide and homocide in general.  Then there's the lovely bit about the punishment for denying the "holy spirit" (eternity in hell). People who challenge others like that are really making a hate-monger list to which good people have to defend themselves.  Religion is sacred and should never be criticized or questioned, no matter what, because it's really *rude* to put good people in the position of having to defend their beliefs!


    Hi Tracy,

    I fully support your right to question religion.  However I stated in my OP that I did NOT create this thread to question what religion is good and what religion is bad. I said ANYONE has the right to disagree but that the thread is NOT saying Christianity is better or worse than any other religion.

    I would appreciate it if you would keep the focus of the thread I started on how YOUR religion affects YOUR views of D/s, and if you want to start a thread criticising Christianity/Judaism for not supporting homosexuality then I will be happy to chime in my (unpopular) views on the subject.  I just ask that you respect my thread and stick to the purpose it was created for - if you are belittling others beliefs they might be more hestitant to respond honestly and openly and that stunts discussion of a topic I consider interesting enough to have created a thread for.

    Thank you,
    Soshi


    And then she wrote:
    quote:

    Gosh, so sorry, but I did answer your question (as you must know) and was responding to a poster who was not you.  I didn't actually hijack your thread.  As far as belittling the beliefs of others - if you wanna stick a post out there that is both misogynistic and anti-homosexual, that is certainly your right.  It's my right to tell you that your belief is full of crap and not fit for consumption on this planet.  

    Have a nice day.

    And then I wrote:
    quote:

    Yes it is your right. I'm not a moderator so I can't force you to stop.  I was just asking you nicely if it might be possible for you to stick to positives, and discussion of your own personal experiences, rather than negatives and discussion of other people's experiences.

    I am both willing and able to defend my religious views.  I just didn't want to turn this into a "vs" or "debate" thread when my intent was to create a "sharing" thread.

    I don't know how my OP was misogynistic and anti-homosexual. I didn't even mention homosexuality. I would be happy to continue this discussion in another venue, just so this thread can maintain the original spirit it was created with.  If you are willing to discuss the merits of Christianity with me I will go make a thread in the politics section for us to play in...I'll even make the first post and sum up my own views, if you want.

    -Soshi



    And then she wrote this, claiming she "bowed out" but still adding a few insults with every new post

    quote:

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: xoxi

    I don't know how my OP was misogynistic and anti-homosexual.   I didn't even mention homosexuality.


    Let me help you out then:

    quote:

    The Bible states clearly that the natural order is for a wife to submit to her husband.  That is something that I personally believe...


    Homosexualiy is automatically *not* the "natural order."  Look up Aristotle for more about "the natural order."  Any wife *should* submit to her husband - that includes everyone who identifies as wife, me and my daughter included.  Where do you get off pronouncing belief about what I should be, or what my daughter should be, or how women should be, or how men should be?  How the heck do you think people will react when you state that it is your personal belief that roughly 1/2 of the population should be submissive to the other half?  You could state more clearly that you think ____ is your job in your role of wife.  But then you couldn't quote the Bible ... hmm, problematic.

    quote:

    I would be happy to continue this discussion in another venue,


    I wouldn't.  I did bow out of this thread, so why do you keep bringing up what you insist you don't want to talk about?


    So would you please point out where exactly I started "stirring shit up" here lady?



    Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>

    Valid CSS!




    Collarchat.com © 2025
    Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
    0.0625