Animal homosexual behaviour under-reported by scientists, survey shows

I don't consider myself as religious, but this is just such a bad take.

I too dislike religion, but judging people based on their beliefs and discrediting their views because of it is exactly the problem.

I think understanding one's own biases is not a problem. Ethics in science is currently a problem. Political lobbying affiliations and funding sources for studies should really be prominently displayed as well.
I disagree. For hundreds of years, illogical religious beliefs have biased science. People should have a right to know if scientists have religious beliefs so they can be weary of their agendas affecting the results. Many religious beliefs are obviously illogical and make no sense and if a scientist believes them, it does illuminate the likelihood of the accuracy of their results.

For many years "scientists" said homosexuality was caused by "mental illness" and then suddenly they decided it's not. There were entire scientific programs devoted to racist beliefs that were psuedoscientific and often impacted by religious views justifying racism. Of course religion biases science and is a problem in having unbiased research!

I don't think we should outlaw religious people from practicing science, but their views should at least be known so people can scrutinize their work more closely.
- Question… do you realize how fascist this sounds?
  
  You might mean well, but all you’re doing is changing who’s being discriminated against.
  
  Not cool.
  
  The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition defines fascist as an advocate or adherent of fascism, A reactionary or dictatorial person, An adherent of fascism or similar right-wing authoritarian views.
  
  I'm not saying right now we need to put all religious people to death, I am just tired of their lies infecting science. The idea that the delusional morons who believe their deities float on clouds and their virgins give birth are capable of objective science is preposterous. If such "miracles" exist, then the universe doesn't follow laws of math. Yes, if we are living in a simulated reality that can be hacked then such miracles could happen, but unless a religious scientist is practicing Kali, I don't want their religion polluting data with bullshit.
  
  No. You’re just saying we need to label religious professionals.
  
  Because that’s a thing literal Nazis never did
  
  The yellow badge was part of a racist ideology based on eugenics pseudoscience.
  
  This is not race or ethnicity based or part of a political movement. However, if you are a conservative Christian who believes that a virgin gave birth, that Sunday bread has supernatural properties, and listen to the Pope and religious sermons on a regular basis, then YES, IT DOES AFFECT YOUR FETAL PAIN STUDY when you clearly are trying to outlaw abortion because your religion wants that.
  
  My wanting to know the religious bias of someone believing in illogical fairy tale bullshit is not the equivalent of Nazism, who would have put someone like me to death many times over. I don't want bullshit to taint science. It's an understandable request. The atheists of the world have been dealing with religious bullshit for so long, it's fair to want real data.
  
  If we had the religious bias of scientists clearly known, it would be illuminating in many ways, including scientific equivalency which has become the new moral equivalency.
  
  Right now you have "one the one hand, these 90 scientists believe we are all going to die from global warming but these 10 scientists think this is a normal trend"
  
  I would MUCH rather have "on the one hand, these 90 scientists who believe the world is governed by math think we are all going to die from global warming, and these 10 catholic scientists who think a virgin got pregnant and gave birth without sexual fertilization and that jesus will always protect the planet think this is a normal trend"
  
  this is not a ridiculous or fascist position and religious bullshit has infected climate science, and studying psychology, and led to justifications for racism and homophobia and OFTEN results in scientific conclusions that conveniently seem to at first line up with religion... until more and more data eventually proves it to be bullshit. This is not about discrimination. I want bullshit out of the data set.
  
  I understand your position and I get what you are going for, but...
  
  I submit to you Ayn Rand.
  
  Atheists can be giant pieces of shit, too.
  
  She used her atheism to argue for the benefit of selfishness and promoted dumbass "great men" theories of humanity. She was not Christian but ascribed to similar belief in the need for bullshit heirarchies with lazy fucking losers stealing the value created by labor sitting at the top.
  
  Like her daddy before communism. Waaah so sad for daddy's violently fascist supporting little girl.
  
  So I don't think it would solve as much as you think.
  
  Humans are not rational creatures. We are rationalizing creatures and we can rationalize and justify almost anything to ourselves for any reason, religion isn't needed for it. Rand and many others are fine examples of it. She rationalized it because she was a rich kid who had her riches taken back by workers and she didn't like that.
  
  Humans are bullshitters, removing religion won't change that.
  
  Like does anyone think Donald Trump is seriously, actually religious? Anyone? A guy like him would exist with or without religion.
  
  Many many people think Trump is a practicing Christian. Like 90% of white evangelicals.
  
  And, do you think, that a scientist who happens to be LGBTQ, doing a study on monkey sexuality, is able to be not biased by their worldview?
  
  That because they seem to agree with you they’re immune from bias and are therefore totally trustworthy?
  
  How pedantic do you want to get?
  
  Either the science is good or it’s not. Either the study was conducted to minimize bias, the data is clean, and the conclusions come from verified evidence, or it’s not. We don’t need to know what particular flavor of human someone is- everyone is biased. Most studies are funded by private interest, and opening people up to rampant discrimination isn’t going to change that.
  
  Some people can be religious and understand metaphor: some people can be atheist and understand metaphor. Some prime can be religious and interpret religion literally: as can some atheists (eg ” those people believe all the species on earth fit on a boat" when obviously, many religious don't). I'm reading statements that make good points, either way. Maybe peer review being more stringent would address a lot?
  
  i'm sorry that you have to live with such anger in your heart, G*D bless your poor soul 🫰🫰
  
  and let reason one day remove your cognitive short-comings and bestow you with hate for the injustice minorities have had to suffer at the hands of the religious
  
  Do you realize how passive-aggressive that sounds?
  
  Why do religious types always drop this when they really have nothing to say? "Oh I believe in something that is so hateful and has caused many pain but why are you so angry?!!? Omg poor thing! Bless you!.".This is how I know someone isn't truly following these things with their heart. They're following it to feel superior to those who don't believe or who don't practice the way they do. I've never seen hate like religious hate.
  
  they do this when they have nothing to say AND lack power
  
  if this religious person had power and knew who I was and where I was, and there was a government of like-minded religious dullards, they would be more than willing to light the first twig
  
  It's only "oh you poor thing" because my logic has over-whelmed their feeble religious brain like a tidal wave subsuming the shore and they are falling back on delusions of "i hope this person receives mercy.,.. because they are so EVIL!!!!!!!!!!! and the sky god knows all!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
  
  it's meaningless blather that tells you nothing of the true destructive power of religious idiots
  
  the funniest part to me is i grew up in a 'new age' 'way of living' ("it's not a religion, it's a state of mind","it's not a church, it's a community center") i only betrayed my family by becoming a christian maybe a decade ago. i remember making the conscious decision the summer between 4th and 5th grade that i would do everything in my power to be the best human being possible, better than anyone ever was, i prayed and i told god that i wouldn't even curse, and i remember at least feeling that i had tried so hard to achieve that, and god never even made my life better, i don't even want to linger on what could have had me so desperate and questioning at that age, but i became an out and open atheist from that point, the thing is i never stopped reading, and i never stopped questioning. Philip K Dick is one of my favourite authors, especially reading Radio Free Albemuth, and more so the actual reality of his history and what the guy went through. have you ever heard of a guy Theodore Sturgeon? i would personally recommend More Than Human and Godbody. you need to understand that the very concept and idea of such a force has been going on longer than the now western Christ, and once i chose to stop fighting humanity and to worship it instead, it made living a bit easier for me and those around me, and honestly, i absolutely hate organized religion myself, but that's what makes the JC guy so cool once you get too know the history, the founding idea is v based, have you ever seen Life of Brian? there are more entertaining ways to spend your time on the internet when we'll all die in the water wars, i'm only tedtalking here since i'm 2 4lokos in, christ has more carl jung points than star trek, but they achieve the same purpose
  
  and, uh teehee you fell for the b8, m8, u mad bro??
  
  Not advocating for the other person, but there's a big difference in what you're comparing it to. People choose their religion, and they choose their profession. If those 2 things are in direct conflict, like a religious scientist, the audience of their work should be made aware of that conflict.
  
  Most people are born into their religion, as a matter of culture. Frequently, religion is integral to their culture, and even if they do choose to leave that religion, it likely will leave an indelible mark- good or bad-
  
  Their purpose is to other-ize religious scientists, exactly like what the yellow star was used to do to Jews by Nazis, (and at other times and places.) I think we all know what Nazis did to those they otherized.
  
  The rhetoric is absolutely the same kind of justification for forcing it is also the same. When non-Jewish Germans started sympathies with Jews, do you think they admitted it was to encourage discrimination and bigotry, or do you think they said things like “we know it’s difficult, but they do shoddy work and you should know that you need to keep an eye on them.”
  
  Couching it in the rhetoric of atheist enlightenment doesn’t make it okay. It’s still bigotry, and while the OC might not realize that, meaning to or not, it’s still advancing bigotry.
  
  when treated with ideals of respect and tolerance, religious people still adhere to the tenants of their religions leading to bigotry and stupidity
  
  being tolerant of the religious is like being tolerant of a pack of rabid hyenas. I suppose it's the kind thing to do to the rabid hyenas, but it may not be the best option for those who are not rabid hyenas
  
  the religious burned scientists at the stake. i think having skepticism towards the rational ability of religious scientists is not bigotry when religious irrationality has been shown to have broad and constant historical validity
  
  Yeah. So. To clarify, you’re okay with discriminating against people, so long as they’re the right people?
- What field would be the cut off? Is religion going to influence how a metallurgist analyzes microstructure? How about how a chemist developing new polymers? Who gets to decide? If a scientist allows their religion, or any external influence, to influence their work they are a bad scientist. Which is why we have peer review and reproducible results. There is no need to label anyone. If their work is shit there is mechanisms to correct it, which we are seeing in the article.
  
  People's relationship with religion is not up to you, just how the opinions of the religious shouldn't get to dictate the lives LGBT+. They might be in it for community and don't belive the "fantasy". If an individual is spouting hate that is one thing, but judging individuals by their religion is the same persecution the religious zelots dish out.
  
  Edit: some wording
  
  As someone who absolutely hates religions and the effects it had on science and animal welfare on the european continent. I 100% agree with you.
  
  I don't care for the cut off statement, because who cares about metallury if a faith doesn't affect it?
  
  The labelling and lack of privacy is always a bad development. Always. It is the first step needed to prosecute any group. The holocaust museum's wall paper are chronological steps that the nazi's took to gain power and strip away human rights. And the wallpaper goes on and on, floor to floor.
  
  People should be free to believe, but they should be taught not to obfuscate or ignore observations just because of religion. Especially in the fields of medicine and biology. Especially in women's health.
  
  The cutoff statement was a question for the previous commenter to show that only some science is relevant to religious beliefs and therefore their thinking is flawed.
  
  I disagree here. It isn't a flaw in logic to think it should apply when religion interferes with the research. Just because the person didn't make a distinction, doesn't mean it was flawed thinking.
  
  The flaw is intolerance and breech of privacy. Which we shouldn't tolerate intolerance and protect every member of society.

It's not about religion, haters will be haters, religion is just a tool haters use to prop up their views

There's a mutualism there. Assholes promote religion as a way to get status and impunity. Religion promotes assholes because they're useful in manipulating populations raised to be asshole-like.
So it’s religion
Someone teaches them to hate. That is often religion.

They are already supposed to declare conflicts of interest.

I don't think most people would consider their religion a conflict of interest. I would agree that it is for scientific research, and probably a whole lot of other things...
- My brother is an astrophysicist, and a Catholic. It's fascinating to me, honestly.
  
  Back when I went to church, my viewpoint was that God created all the rules of nature and is pretty hands off after that. I also thought that dressing up for church was stupid. If god was real, he wouldn't give a rats ass what people wore to church. And I thought all the rituals were quite silly. What's the point of going to church when you check your mind out for an our. Were you really there? And that was before cell phones and ear buds. They don't change anything but sure would have made it more tolerable.
  
  Yeah, I got over feeling like I was supposed to go church and be atheist.

You have an ideological viewpoint that says that all people with a certain identity are wrong. And you present yourself as moral.

You sound like a fundamentalist, to me.

I interpreted it as "You hold beliefs that directly contradict the work you're performing, therefore, you have a bias that needs to be shown wasn't a factor in your research by having your research successfully replicated by those who do not share your bias."

A Crusade was never launched on behalf of science, people were never burned at the stake because of science, babies are not still being mutilated at birth against their will (circumcision or genital mutilation of young girls) because of science, and AIDs was not spread unchecked across the world due to government's lack of science.

It's religion, it ruins literally everything, especially science.
- I'm a strong atheist, but you're kinda pick and choosing the facts. Skepticism isn't about replacing one dogma with another.
  
  China had a whole thing with persecuting those with religious beliefs. It's certainly the minority, but state enforced atheism has created great horrors. Anything can be warped and disfigured into a horrific belief system used to justify anything.
  
  Those who are religious should be held to the same level of scientific scrutiny as everyone else. There's no evidence to show that Andrew Wakefield was Christian, and look at the shit show that caused
I don't read it as saying they're wrong. I read it as saying it's unreliable. If someone has a cacaine addiction, I'm not going to trust them to hold on to some crack and not use it. If they can prove themselves reliable then they may be trusted.

I don't think I agree with this person's opinion, but it's not what you said it was.
- I think a better way to phrase that might be: I'm not going to trust a cocaine addict who tells me that cocaine is a safe and healthy alternative to my morning cup of coffee. I would like to see those findings peer reviewed and replicated by people that don't have a vested interest in making access to cocaine easier.

I'm as atheist as atheist gets, and I completely disagree with this, and it honestly smacks of edgy teen r/atheism. Just because you're religious doesn't mean you'd engage in that kind of dishonesty. Some of the greatest scientific discoveries in human history were made by religious people.

Also:

"Religion just ruins everything, like running a computer with Windows." "@secretlyaddictedtolinux"

Username absolutely does NOT check out, lol

The only people with no religion are solipsists. Believing in consensus reality is a religious view. What's it like being a solipsist?

Uh, no.
- If you have a scientific argument for realism, I'd love to hear it, and so would every scientist ever, because it's never been proven.
  
  Nobody said anything about realism. Realism and religion are not the only two options.
  
  You think I consider realism a different option than religion? I'm afraid you've misunderstood the point of my comment very fundamentally. Realism IS a religion. It's the largest and most harmful religion. And every fake atheist who believes in reality while espousing the dangers of religion is a hypocrite. I'm not an atheist, but I wish we had more of them, and less realists.
  
  Seems like I did. I don't think I'd call realism a religion, though I don't know much about the viewpoint. In what way is realism more harmful than other religions?
  
  http://soulism.net is the best source on this
  
  Realism is capable of serving as a justification for colonialism, supremacy, and genocide even in the absence of apparent religious belief. For example in Australia, some of the cultural genocide against indigenous people took the form of taking Aboriginal kids away from their parents and putting them in white families. There is a Christian justification for this, which is that the kids need to be taught religion. But first off, you can do that by building a church in their community, no kidnapping required. And second, the realist justification, which is that the children must be taught reality, strikes a more fundamental chord in people and appeals even to fake atheists. The idea was that if you taught them maths and English and science in a white school, and European culture and manners and worldview in a white family, you'd "civilise" them. This happened all the way into the 1970s. There's a lot of people, Christians included, who think that kidnapping a child to teach them Jesus is wrong. But if you instead say you're going to teach them consensus reality, and use words like "education" and "lifting out of poverty" and "they're being deprived with their biological parents", you'll convince more people that kidnapping is morally right.
  
  And this trend that realism is more complete and more broadly appealing than Christianity or any other religion holds true across many demographics. Realism is a better excuse for bigots to abuse trans people, otherkin, people with schizophrenia, indigenous people, other neurodivergent people, etc. Some Nazis were Christian and some were "atheist", but all of them were realists.
  
  if you instead say you're going to teach them consensus reality, and use words like "education" and "lifting out of poverty" and "they're being deprived with their biological parents", you'll convince more people that kidnapping is morally right.
  
  Excuse me, what? In what modern context is this occurring? That Australians think this is morally right? I run in very left wing circles, but I don’t think I know of any Australian who thinks this is a morally right positions, or that when this was done it the past it was ok, save maybe extremists like Pauline Hanson, even then I don’t think she’d put that opinion out there in public.
  
  Also this doesn’t make sense, you say you can teach a child religion by putting a church in their community, but the only way to teach them consensus reality is to kidnap them, instead of, I don’t know, building a school in their community?
  
  For the record, as a rule I don’t support cultural genocide, all indigenous peoples should be given equal opportunity to stay connected to their heritage as well as participate in “consensus reality”, one shouldn’t have to choose, especially if one’s people have existed on the land for 50k+ years.
  
  You're right, few people think this was okay these days. The arguments I'm talking about apply to the cultural conditions of the 1970s, when people did think this was okay.
  
  A school can teach numbers and letters, and those are part of reality, but cultural values are more slippery, and they're also part of consensus reality. The reason that racists in the government kidnapped children is for total cultural immersion, and the eradication of indigenous reality.
Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes
- Hey Sith!
it's a very sexy and aerodynamic experience