In The News

[SpaceMarines]

Science and religion are like ice cream and spinach: you want to keep them on separate dishes as they do not mix well.

Yet some fool went ahead and did this:

[Cvalda]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/03/28/guys_who_do_housework_get_less_sex.html

In marriages where women performed all the typically female tasks (cleaning, cooking, shopping—called "core work" by the researchers), couples had sex 1.6 times more per month than couples where men carried out all these traditionally female chores. In marriages where men helped out but stuck to stereotypical male tasks ("non-core" work such automobile maintenance, yard work, bill-paying, and snow shoveling), couples had sex 0.7 times more than those where women performed the traditional male tasks. But, as the researchers point out, even in marriages where men did 40 percent of the "female" chores, couples experience "substantially lower sexual frequency than households in which women perform all the core [typically female] chores." Put simply: There appears to be an inverse relationship between husbands doing traditionally female tasks and sexual frequency.

I don't know what's more depressing: the results of this study or the fact that these "happily married couples" only had sex five times a month on average. Seriously? Five times a month? Jesus Christ.

[KirklandSignature]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/03/28/guys_who_do_housework_get_less_sex.html

In marriages where women performed all the typically female tasks (cleaning, cooking, shopping—called "core work" by the researchers), couples had sex 1.6 times more per month than couples where men carried out all these traditionally female chores. In marriages where men helped out but stuck to stereotypical male tasks ("non-core" work such automobile maintenance, yard work, bill-paying, and snow shoveling), couples had sex 0.7 times more than those where women performed the traditional male tasks. But, as the researchers point out, even in marriages where men did 40 percent of the "female" chores, couples experience "substantially lower sexual frequency than households in which women perform all the core [typically female] chores." Put simply: There appears to be an inverse relationship between husbands doing traditionally female tasks and sexual frequency.

I don't know what's more depressing: the results of this study or the fact that these "happily married couples" only had sex five times a month on average. Seriously? Five times a month? Jesus Christ.

Well most if not all religous couples only do it for procreation. Think of that! Of course you can be like Jim Bob and his f*cked up clan and do it once every other year with a child being the result of it.

[BANE]

Can science and religion even coexist going forward? Personally, I would prefer that religion just "goes away" as I dont see any positives to those who embrace religion. Call me a dickwad but I personally think atheists are intellectually and ethically higher in status than those who embrace any sort of religion. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way but heck, maybe I'm alone in this sort of thinking(atheism>religion)

[maledoro]

Science and religion are like ice cream and spinach: you want to keep them on separate dishes as they do not mix well.

You're comparing religion to a nutritious, leafy green?

Well, I was gunning for the negative perception of the flavor, and not the health benefits.

Nah, religion is more like marmite.

That's a better symbol. I'm gonna steal that.

Science and religion are like ice cream and spinach: you want to keep them on separate dishes as they do not mix well.

Yet some fool went ahead and did this:http://www.tasteandtellblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Spinach-Ice-Cream-recipe-taste-and-tell-2.jpg

"Fool" is far too gentle a word.

[Vickers]

Some ignorant redneck dumbasses dry-humping their bibles and not really accomplishing much is hardly a war.

[ShadowPred]

Science and religion are like ice cream and spinach: you want to keep them on separate dishes as they do not mix well.

Yet some fool went ahead and did this:

http://www.tasteandtellblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Spinach-Ice-Cream-recipe-taste-and-tell-2.jpg

What f**king torture is this?!

[DoomRulz]

Can science and religion even coexist going forward? Personally, I would prefer that religion just "goes away" as I dont see any positives to those who embrace religion. Call me a dickwad but I personally think atheists are intellectually and ethically higher in status than those who embrace any sort of religion. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way but heck, maybe I'm alone in this sort of thinking(atheism>religion)

Then you're an idiot. Atheists can be just as dangerous as any religious fundamentalism and I would actually argue that atheists can in fact be more intolerant than some religious folks.

[Cvalda]

Then you're an idiot. Atheists can be just as dangerous as any religious fundamentalism and I would actually argue that atheists can in fact be more intolerant than some religious folks.

Gimme a list of of all the crimes and terrorist acts committed in the name of atheism in the past decade.

[Vickers]

Then you're an idiot. Atheists can be just as dangerous as any religious fundamentalism and I would actually argue that atheists can in fact be more intolerant than some religious folks.

Gimme a list of of all the crimes and terrorist acts committed in the name of atheism in the past decade.

Yup, religion has often proved to be more evil than the "evil" it protects us against.

[BANE]

Then you're an idiot. Atheists can be just as dangerous as any religious fundamentalism and I would actually argue that atheists can in fact be more intolerant than some religious folks.

Gimme a list of of all the crimes and terrorist acts committed in the name of atheism in the past decade.

The great Kentucky Kwik-E Mart raid.

Lack-of-religious fundamentalist monsters, the lot of them.

[Cal427eb]

Then you're an idiot. Atheists can be just as dangerous as any religious fundamentalism and I would actually argue that atheists can in fact be more intolerant than some religious folks.

Gimme a list of of all the crimes and terrorist acts committed in the name of atheism in the past decade.

http://listverse.com/2010/06/05/10-people-who-give-atheism-a-bad-name/

[DoomRulz]

Then you're an idiot. Atheists can be just as dangerous as any religious fundamentalism and I would actually argue that atheists can in fact be more intolerant than some religious folks.

Gimme a list of of all the crimes and terrorist acts committed in the name of atheism in the past decade.

Ever heard of economic atheism? Look no further than Joseph Stalin's regime or Adolf Hitler's.

Then you're an idiot. Atheists can be just as dangerous as any religious fundamentalism and I would actually argue that atheists can in fact be more intolerant than some religious folks.

Gimme a list of of all the crimes and terrorist acts committed in the name of atheism in the past decade.

http://listverse.com/2010/06/05/10-people-who-give-atheism-a-bad-name/

Well there you go, look who's #1.

[Vickers]

10 people who give cat lovers a bad name:

[list 10 people who are really bad people who happen to love cats but didn't necessarily commit any atrocious acts in the name of cats][/list]

[Cvalda]

It's cute that neither of you could actually answer according to my criteria.

Conversely, the list of religious terrorists over the past decade would be frighteningly long indeed.