Why is religion and the bible always holding our society back?

[Higher Tech]

@Higher Tech @Sensitive Blake Griffin @NoMayo15
That said, we are going to continue to claim that religion hinders scientific and technological advancement... when we know that with the majority of the world religious and most of the inventors, scientist, leaders, and philosophers being religious throughout history.. we went from beating rocks to outer space and cloning animals.

I understand that people want to pretend that a belief in God hinders critical thinking, logic, etc. That is just not true. How can you hype up science and dis religion and then turn around and say something psychologically false like that?

Has anyone noticed the number of anti religion threads and the not so many, if any, anti science threads. Most religious people enjoy and support scientific efforts.

Human beings have done things to control others and hinder ideas, with or without religion. Only a few have used religion to hinder some idea of scientific advancement. But to make generalizing statements like the one's you all are making is just dumb. So for example, I have people that work with me that could steal the accounts of thousands of people, take their savings and probably not get caught - if that happened technology would not be to blame for the devastation that would cause. If my neighbor developed a biological disease or virus that could be spread easily, and he got upset and put it in the University's water system... I'm not going to be an idiot and say that the study of biology is to blame.

We're on here reaching for the stars bringing up Bush and Stem cell's n sh1t. When we know that ethical ramifications are considered on a variety of topics, by people who are believers or not believers. Not to mention most religious people aren't against stem cell research and most Muslims consider it fard for us to pursue this, due to it's potential.

Agree with the OP, and you're as ignorant as a bible thumper who cares about ho.mo marriage. I don't care, but I don't see how either side can claim they're right. Anti gay marriage people, have sucky arguments..and the lawyer for the GOP is doing a HORRIBLE job right now- it's embarrassing, even Sotomayor is tearing him up.

However, marriage was created 10's of thousands of years ago.. FOR a purpose, preserving the family structure and insuring that people play their roles. Men + Woman. Now 10's of thousands of years later we randomly want to add same sex and re-define the concept. Well why can't we met in the middle and not change the meaning of something that has meant something to humans for so long... ? Why couldn't gays come up with a word, and purpose to get the rights while calling it something else? There is an entire LGBT vocabulary so you can't tell me they can't come up with words and meanings. Easier solution would have been a fight to equate the rights of civil unions to that of marriage.. Not Forcibly attempt to change the minds, comfort, mindset, traditions, and definitions of billions of people all at once, Just because the smallest fraction of a society says so.

Im not anti-religion. I'm anti bullshyt. If you are religious and you're not using it for "evil" shyt. More power to you, I'll never shyt on your beliefs. But at the same time, you can't try to beat me over the head about religion (I'm not saying you did) and not expect a retort from me. I have no problem respecting anyone's beliefs, but when they become public, so will mine.

I bolded the last paragraph because I agree with you 100%. I wish the LGB community would accept "civil unions," with all the perks of marriage. The problem is they want to be recognized as something that is named for a specific purpose. They want to change the definition, and I think it's the wrong fight. They should be "married" as domestic partners in a civil union. I never understood the sanctity of marriage argument until it was served to me recently, pretty much in the same way as you served it to me.

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

lol @ marriage being created to "preserve the family structure and play their roles"...Gender roles and identity are social constructions...marriage was mostly so men could define what was their property. Marriage in a broad sense is the joining of two things.. has nothing to do with male or female. You can argue that all day but it's just semantics. Why do heterosexuals feel the need to force homosexuals to call it something different? shyt is completely irrelevant.

 

[88m3]

I don't think the state should impose on churches.

I also don't think religious people should impose on same sex couples.


It should be much more simple than everyone is making it.


There are so many more important issues we need to be dealing with as a country its a shame.

The politicans and courts are to blame.

Education, minimum wage, the economy, ssi, infrastructure, wage equality, inflation all more important.

 

[NoMayo15]

That said, we are going to continue to claim that religion hinders scientific and technological advancement... when we know that with the majority of the world religious and most of the inventors, scientist, leaders, and philosophers being religious throughout history..

Sure some important figures were also religious, but many of them did it in spite of their beliefs, rather than because of them. I'm not arguing that all religious people hold back the rest of us from progressing. I'm addressing one problem of people using Christian dogma to try to prevent something they might otherwise be okay with had they not had those beliefs. Barnone brings up a great point that some people only use the bible to justify prejudices they already have. But if the rest of us didn't see that as a valid argument, and a valid source of moral values, then those bigots wouldn't have the bible as an option. Of course the OP is using broad generalizations, but we have to admit that a certain percentage of people use religion to impact the rest of us ... some times for the worst.

However, marriage was created 10's of thousands of years ago.. FOR a purpose, preserving the family structure and insuring that people play their roles. Men + Woman. Now 10's of thousands of years later we randomly want to add same sex and re-define the concept. Well why can't we met in the middle and not change the meaning of something that has meant something to humans for so long... ? Why couldn't gays come up with a word, and purpose to get the rights while calling it something else? There is an entire LGBT vocabulary so you can't tell me they can't come up with words and meanings. Easier solution would have been a fight to equate the rights of civil unions to that of marriage.. Not Forcibly attempt to change the minds, comfort, mindset, traditions, and definitions of billions of people all at once, Just because the smallest fraction of a society says so.

I bolded the last paragraph because I agree with you 100%. I wish the LGB community would accept "civil unions," with all the perks of marriage. The problem is they want to be recognized as something that is named for a specific purpose. They want to change the definition, and I think it's the wrong fight. They should be "married" as domestic partners in a civil union. I never understood the sanctity of marriage argument until it was served to me recently, pretty much in the same way as you served it to me.

I think this goes back to the civil rights movement, Plessy verses Ferguson, separate but equal mantra. I think the lessons we were suppose to take from that is it is very difficult or impossible for the state to implement separate but equal institutions for different groups. The in-group, or majority class, would always get an unequal amount of benefits over the out-group. I think gays and their supporters don't want to be seen as different in any circumstance, and see this potential problem with supposed "separate but equal" institutions of marriage. If it's going to be the same thing, why not just call it the same thing? What power does the word marriage have? Definitions of words change all the time .... so what the hang-up about re-defining this one? Why does it personally hurt you to change how you think of marriage to include same-sex couples?

Are you serious with this bullshyt? Thats how religion is holding us back? Is this the new liberal constitution. Sexual orientation. I always knew you fakkit lovers had a thing for beast lovers, p3dos and necrophiliacs and the incestuous. I remember you on sohh admitting you're cool with a man marrying his mother and them having the same rights as homos because it doesnt effect you. It was at that moment i knew i didnt have to respect your pathetic thoughts as it concerns equality.

What problem do you have with mothers and sons marrying?

 

[Higher Tech]

Sure some important figures were also religious, but many of them did it in spite of their beliefs, rather than because of them. I'm not arguing that all religious people hold back the rest of us from progressing. I'm addressing one problem of people using Christian dogma to try to prevent something they might otherwise be okay with had they not had those beliefs. Barnone brings up a great point that some people only use the bible to justify prejudices they already have. But if the rest of us didn't see that as a valid argument, and a valid source of moral values, then those bigots wouldn't have the bible as an option. Of course the OP is using broad generalizations, but we have to admit that a certain percentage of people use religion to impact the rest of us ... some times for the worst.





I think this goes back to the civil rights movement, Plessy verses Ferguson, separate but equal mantra. I think the lessons we were suppose to take from that is it is very difficult or impossible for the state to implement separate but equal institutions for different groups. The in-group, or majority class, would always get an unequal amount of benefits over the out-group. I think gays and their supporters don't want to be seen as different in any circumstance, and see this potential problem with supposed "separate but equal" institutions of marriage. If it's going to be the same thing, why not just call it the same thing? What power does the word marriage have? Definitions of words change all the time .... so what the hang-up about re-defining this one? Why does it personally hurt you to change how you think of marriage to include same-sex couples?


What problem do you have with mothers and sons marrying?

It doesn't personally hurt me, it's not personal to me at all. My point is that marriage was defined years ago with purpose. This is equal as it gets, with their own word to define their union. It's separate because it's different, it's not the same as marriage. They love each other, cool. Wanna be together forever, cool. But I still believe marriage is a word reserved for a male/female union.

 

[Blackking]

Sure some important figures were also religious, but many of them did it in spite of their beliefs, rather than because of them. I'm not arguing that all religious people hold back the rest of us from progressing. I'm addressing one problem of people using Christian dogma to try to prevent something they might otherwise be okay with had they not had those beliefs. Barnone brings up a great point that some people only use the bible to justify prejudices they already have. But if the rest of us didn't see that as a valid argument, and a valid source of moral values, then those bigots wouldn't have the bible as an option. Of course the OP is using broad generalizations, but we have to admit that a certain percentage of people use religion to impact the rest of us ... some times for the worst.

I don't think that we need to hold everything to the necks of Christians for everything that happened in the middle ages. Especially since during the same time it was religious people bringing advancement to the world as well as others. Also, truth is, people USE religion. Those people would have used something else if religion wasn't convenient as sh1t. I told a chick after I hit once that I couldn't take her out cuz I'm Muslim n she wanted to go to a BBQ spot- truth was i just wanted to hit that one time, and she was like 10 pounds passed my limit.

Concepts don't kill people, people kill people.. A pious Muslim or Christian isn't going to prevent a cure for a disease being created or kill a doctor over abortions. normal people don't do sh1t like that and contrary to some beliefs- religious people are the normal people.

I think this goes back to the civil rights movement, Plessy verses Ferguson, separate but equal mantra. I think the lessons we were suppose to take from that is it is very difficult or impossible for the state to implement separate but equal institutions for different groups. The in-group, or majority class, would always get an unequal amount of benefits over the out-group. I think gays and their supporters don't want to be seen as different in any circumstance, and see this potential problem with supposed "separate but equal" institutions of marriage. If it's going to be the same thing, why not just call it the same thing? What power does the word marriage have? Definitions of words change all the time .... so what the hang-up about re-defining this one? Why does it personally hurt you to change how you think of marriage to include same-sex couples?

That's not the lesson we should have gotten, the lesson is that when completely separated the dominate group will sh1t on the rest.
This doesn't relate to gays because the are fully integrated with our society, culture, political landscape, lives, and business world. They want validation not rights and validation of a lifestyle is not a civil right. The basic right to be gay hasn't been an issue. They OBVIOUSLY would be fighting to get civil union's to match tax and medical rights of the- 10's of thousands of years old institution of marriage. They want to shake and re-define something that humans have accepted since we could think str8.. to be something completely different. They want validation for a lifestyle that is biologically uncommon and unproductive to our species.

If I waned to stick my penis in another man's ass but also wanted to visit him in the hospital in the case of a car accident - logically I would push and fight for the rights to do those things. I wouldn't care less about what they called it.

Difference between them in black civil rights and causes. Black people actually have to fight for a place at the table and can't hid there skin if they wanted to. Also, Black people want the actually rights and opportunities. IF early childhood education increased, drug war went away, resources in urban areas increased, racial profiling decreased, etc - black people would be happy even if the bill was called the 'fukk u people bill'. We've always just wanted basic rights and representation.

What problem do you have with mothers and sons marrying?

lol

 

[NoMayo15]

It doesn't personally hurt me, it's not personal to me at all. My point is that marriage was defined years ago with purpose. This is equal as it gets, with their own word to define their union. It's separate because it's different, it's not the same as marriage. They love each other, cool. Wanna be together forever, cool. But I still believe marriage is a word reserved for a male/female union.

Okay, so why not have a different name for interracial couples that marry? For centuries that wasn't the norm either, right? It's different so it should be separate, right? So why redefine marriage for those few individuals that want to marry those of different races?

You basically said a whole lot of nothing with this post. You said it's different because it's different. Okay, but why should it have a different name? Why can't you readjust your definition of the word to a union between two people. Why does marriage have to be reserved for male/female unions? You gave no reason why that idea of marriage shouldn't be changed.

Not to mention you didn't address my point that "separate but equal" institutions are never equal. To prevent discrimination in the future, no group should be separated or singled out -- regardless of if it's a biracial couple or same-sex couple.

 

[NoMayo15]

I don't think that we need to hold everything to the necks of Christians for everything that happened in the middle ages. Especially since during the same time it was religious people bringing advancement to the world as well as others.

Who's talking about the middle ages? I'm talking about Christians today!

Also, truth is, people USE religion. Those people would have used something else if religion wasn't convenient as sh1t.

Maybe. But at least it gives them one less irrational justification to be against something.

I told a chick after I hit once that I couldn't take her out cuz I'm Muslim n she wanted to go to a BBQ spot- truth was i just wanted to hit that one time, and she was like 10 pounds passed my limit.

Concepts don't kill people, people kill people.. A pious Muslim or Christian isn't going to prevent a cure for a disease being created or kill a doctor over abortions.

This is just patently false. Good people can be motivated to kill others, especially if they sincerely believe God is on their side.

That's not the lesson we should have gotten, the lesson is that when completely separated the dominate group will sh1t on the rest. This doesn't relate to gays because the are fully integrated with our society, culture, political landscape, lives, and business world.

They're slowly becoming more and more integrated, but this is a relatively recent phenomena. Gays are still being shat on for the most part. And if you implement a separate institution, it's possible that this would make it more likely for them to be shat on in the future. Yeah you and I are saying the same thing. The hetero majority might shyt on the homo minority if their union is seen as a separate thing.

They want validation not rights and validation of a lifestyle is not a civil right.

Noooo, they just don't want to be treated differently. And if you create a different institution that's "suppose" to be the same thing, then you open them up for being treated differently ... regardless of the intended results.

If I waned to stick my penis in another man's ass but also wanted to visit him in the hospital in the case of a car accident - logically I would push and fight for the rights to do those things. I wouldn't care less about what they called it.

Well, that's your prerogative, but luckily there are smart people who try to forsee potential problems in law before they're implemented. It's not just validation, it's looking at history and trying to prevent a potential problem that has happened in the past.

lol

This is a valid question. Actually this is sort of coming up in another thread. You give me a legitimate argument against this type of incestuous relationship. I'm not saying there are none, but under the right circumstances, I might have absolutely no problem with it.

 

[Brown_Pride]

How the hell can science be used to control people? Science is EVIDENT. No control is necessary. The evidence is there, logic supports it. For religious folks it's just "THATS WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS!!!!" no evidence..no logic..

Really, you aren't saying much with your hypothetical future "scientific horrors". What am I supposed to say to that? We're talking about shyt that hasn't happened and probably wont happen. Science has been the only thing to illuminate this cold dark world in the past 200+ years. Without it we're back to barely living to the age of 18 and being trapped in the cycle of nature.

science has been used to justify everything from eugenics, to slavery to murder. Not that it was sound science but it was perverted and used as a tool to accomplish a goal. The best monsters in history used both science and religion to accomplish their ends a la Hitler.

I see what has been done "in the name of" religion and because i'm both scientifically minded and religious minded I can see that with a few tweaks here and there a good many of those same attrocities could have been done in the name of science. And to be honest when it does happen "in the name of science" we are fuked for the simple fact that science is "fact", meaning irrefutable...or that's what we'll be made to believe.

Ultimately religion does come down to belief, ergo the ability to call BS so easily now.

Religion kept those with power in power so it remained the status quo. Once "they" realize science is easier to sell they paradigm will shift.

 

[BlvdBrawler]

I don't think they're holding us back, but they sure are stupid as hell.

Edit: I'm talking about religion, not God.

 

[Brown_Pride]

to me, the worst part about religion is how completely arrogant you have to be to 'know' that YOUR god is the one who is running shyt, who will be judging us, etc. none of you christian fools believe in the sumerian gods; you completely blow them off because you 'know' that jesus is the real god and all the ones that came before him were pretenders

and then policy comes from this

matter of fact, would anyone who believes that jesus is 'the' god like to address the fact that he was irrelevant 3000 years ago?

well first off he wasn't irrelevant 3000 years ago, he was in the bible as a prophecy from jump...not really the point though.

Second. Anyone telling you they KNOW and can PROVE that they are right, is as you said arrogant as fuk. I don't know. I believe. I have faith. Which ironically is what the bible says you should have.

IMHO if God wanted you to KNOW he was there he'd come out every Sunday on time square jumbo tron and say what's up. For whatever reasons though FAITH is a key tennant of Christianity.

Faith in God, faith in Jesus, faith in eternal salvation, FAITH FAITH FAITH.

None of this is verifiable, quantifiable or testable. It is a belief.

I can tell you why i believe, share experiences, outside of that it requires every person who believes to take that leap of faith.

BACK TO OP....

I think it's fair to say the use of religion has held us back. It has pushed us forwards in some regards as well.

Slavery was a result of commerce, justified by religion & science.

gay marriage is prohibited in the bible, the bible is NOT the government. Ergo it's not religion hodling us back but the government.

this wholesale zero sum blame religion for our woes nonsense is down right ignorant and ironically intellectually dishonest and scientifically false.

 

[Mowgli]

What problem do you have with mothers and sons marrying?

 

[NoMayo15]

Exactly. Thank you for conceding that point.

And if I remember correctly, I think the conversation went to gay brothers or lesbian sisters marrying. No, I have no problem with this either. I'm not aware of any legitimate, secular reasons for preventing this type of union. I agree that it's fukking weird and gross.... but so what? I don't know what kind of harm it causes.... but I might be wrong. Someone enlighten me.

 

[Higher Tech]

Okay, so why not have a different name for interracial couples that marry? For centuries that wasn't the norm either, right? It's different so it should be separate, right? So why redefine marriage for those few individuals that want to marry those of different races?

You basically said a whole lot of nothing with this post. You said it's different because it's different. Okay, but why should it have a different name? Why can't you readjust your definition of the word to a union between two people. Why does marriage have to be reserved for male/female unions? You gave no reason why that idea of marriage shouldn't be changed.

Not to mention you didn't address my point that "separate but equal" institutions are never equal. To prevent discrimination in the future, no group should be separated or singled out -- regardless of if it's a biracial couple or same-sex couple.

I just see it as different, I just do. However, I dont have a horse in this race, so regardless of the outcome, I wont really care.

 

[NoMayo15]

I just see it as different, I just do. However, I dont have a horse in this race, so regardless of the outcome, I wont really care.

Well.... stop that. You should care. When there are people arguing for the second-class treatment of another group, and their only argument is "Duh by-bul sez iz WRONG!", then yeah... I think you should be interested to speak out against that. But if not, that's your prerogative.