Slashdot Mirror
JPL Employee's Firing Wasn't Due To Intelligent Design Advocacy, Says Judge
SternisheFan writes with an update to a story from earlier this year about a lawsuit in which David Coppedge alleged he was fired from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory for his advocacy of Intelligent Design. Now, a judge has ruled that Coppedge was legitimately dismissed for performance reasons. From the article:
"n 2009, he apparently got a bit aggressive about promoting these ideas at work, leading one employee to complain. The resulting investigation found that he had also aggressively promoted his opinion on California's gay marriage ban, and had attempted to get JPL's holiday party renamed to 'Christmas party.' ... Coppedge was warned about his behavior at work, but he felt it was an infringement of his religious freedom, so he sued. Shortly after, as part of a set of cutbacks on the Cassini staff, he was fired. In court, Coppedge and his lawyer portrayed him as being targeted for promoting an idea that is, to put it mildly, not popular with scientists. But JPL's legal team introduced evidence that his aggressive promotion of it at work was part of a pattern of bad interactions with his fellow employees that dated back at least five years earlier."
Religious people are fucking stupid, delusional idiots anyway.
-- Ethanol-fueled
An advocate of Intelligent Design who wasn't competent to work in a scientific organization? I'm SHOCKED!
Not really....
In other words, he had been acting like an asshole at work for years, and when cuts came around, they decided to get rid of an asshole. Guess what? If you act like an asshole at work, you MIGHT GET FIRED.
If you don't adapt......
I demand it, because you are the truly intolerant one who won't let me scourge the land of the heretics and unbelievers.
See, my freedom is greater than yours.
Don't you get it? Didn't that Blunt Amendment teach you anything? The right to DENY contraceptive coverage for religious reasons is FAR more important than people having the CHOICE to get what they want.
Which would be to murder babies in gruesome ways, so you know I'm really doing what's right.
Besides if they didn't want to get pregnant, they wouldn't. Their bodies have ways to shut it down.
Give you an example: A neighbor woman of mine worked for a car dealership. She is an avowed atheist (I am not, but I let people think & believe what they wish, though she & I had some "intense discussions" about it, not angry, just objective ones). The dealership is owned by "hardcore" Christians. She voiced her opinions on it & it got her "canned"... guess what?
She collected enough in a lawsuit to buy a new home next to mine (nice place, brick house, good shape, etc.) & iirc, she collected around 50 grand (which she had for the home in mortgage, tax escro, etc./et al).
* It seems to be "the reverse" in this case with JPL though...
Personally speaking - Yes, I believe there IS a God, and yes, that he created everything. Something HAD to have, & anything that's capable of THAT, is "GOD" to me... & yes, I believe in this:
"GOD DON'T MAKE NO JUNK!"
That said, I think that evolution goes "hand-in-hand" with Creationism - in that God, being perfect, WOULD create organisms capable ot adaptation to WHATEVER circumstances...
APK
P.S.=> Anyhow/Anyways - JPL was not that smart on this one - This is an area that can cause ANY BUSINESS, hassles... legal hassle!
... apk
"In a letter to Beatrice Frohlich, 17 December 1952 Einstein stated, "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve." [8] Eric Gutkind sent a copy of his book "Choose Life: The Biblical Call To Revolt" [9] to Einstein in 1954. Einstein sent Gutkind a letter in response and wrote, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein#section_2
Let's suppose that somebody at JPL was promoting atheism, complained that the Christmas party should be renamed to the Holiday party, and suggested that California allow gay marriage. Would that be offensive as well? Be careful about piling on with "serves him right" when somebody is fired for what amounts to political incorrectness in the workplace. Without more detail I am skeptical of the accusations that he was "too aggressive" with this stuff or that it was a serious dereliction of his job. In my experience, many atheists are offended even by any public display of personal religious belief and practice, or any religious people engaging in discussion with others about it. They think religious people should be forced to maintain an appearance of secular belief when in public places, which is actually absurd and offensive in its own way.
As a religious person who works professionally with a diverse bunch of colleagues, I have experienced offensive pushing of personal beliefs from atheists much more often than from religious colleagues. And frankly, it's my habit to just smile and get along. I don't think my colleagues should be fired for promoting atheism, gay marriage, abortion, or what have you.
There is classes for re-training behavior issues of what is/isn't acceptable. And, they don't fire on cutbacks, different word term is used during cutbacks. There should be special departments to handle employees issues. I've been to NASA's Christmas Parties, New Year's Parties, and NASA's family festival picnics. The employee should of been sent to these classes and if the supervisor is disgruntled with a few employees like Mr. Sweet. Then employees could of been sent to another shift and/or the supervisor could of been sent to another shift.
In a free society, everyone should be able to hold their own opinion, no matter how stupid or wrong ... but pushing it on others is just rude, and he can enjoy his opinion on his own time.
Let's assume that he is even right for a moment on all his issues. He is in an environment of people who really don't like any of these positions; yet he keeps bringing them up and pushing them in others' faces. Can you imagine what this tool was like to work with on normal issues?
I suspect he was fired for not being able to read others and play well with others. In an engineering/science world this would be quite an accomplishment to stand out by having poor social skills.
I know a parent at a private school who was equally religious about her health-food lifestyle and was always pushing it down people's throats. The other parents suddenly had important texts to send when she showed up. Where she crossed the line was when she began to try an enforce her view on the other kids arguing it was unfair to her kids to have to see them eating junk food like milk, wheat based bread, and cheese. The school asked her not to enroll the next year.
There are people who don't understand boundaries and they can create a poisonous atmosphere.
It is like fat people being angry when skinny people eat donuts. Fat people aren't the problem, donuts aren't the problem, it is the fat people imposing on the skinny that is the problem.
Why the fuck is this case still in court and not already dismissed?
Two topics which shouldn't be discussed in the workplace (unless it relates to the business). Also, on a personal note, I think celebrity gossip should be avoided as well since, when I hear my colleagues talking about the latest news of all things Kardashian, I apparently fall into a fugue state and start talking incessantly about going back in time to stop Bruce Jenner. I have no idea what I'm supposed to stop him from doing, but it's kind disturbing nonetheless.
According to Prince Hubertus, Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." [16]
Einstein had previously explored the belief that man could not understand the nature of God. In an interview published in 1930 in G. S. Viereck's book Glimpses of the Great, Einstein, in response to a question about whether or not he believed in God, explained: Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things. [17]
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein#section_2
That makes sense because you already share the same beliefs as your "religious colleagues". So why would the "personal beliefs" be "offensive" to you?
Since you do not share the same beliefs as the "atheists" then their beliefs are more "offensive" to you when they interject them.
Are they being an asshole about it? Because those don't seem like work-related subjects.
You don't seem to be understanding the situation.
It isn't the nature of the beliefs.
It is the asshole pushing them in an asshole'ish fashion and INSISTING that his "freedom" is more important than anyone else's freedom to NOT have his religious beliefs inflicted upon them AT WORK.
I do IT support at a mid-size engineering company and there are probably more than a few fundie employees. Some of them have inspirational quotes pasted to their monitors and religious calendars hanging on the wall. But they don't ask me if I accept the Lord Jesus Christ as my personal savior. They don't kneel and pray as I'm fixing their PC. We get along fine.
Except for one guy, who kept a huge spread of religious tracts at his cube, and would often place them in the bathrooms and sink areas. He got layed off; I think he wasn't particularly focused on the job he was hired to do.
Believe what you want; bad behavior is what gets you in trouble.
Now if only they'd do something about the lady who bathes in so much perfume you can tell which hallways she's walked in the past half hour without the aid visual observation.
Including Einstein, I presume?
Einstein was not religious. A bunch of morons are trying to rewrite history, complete with made-up quotes. Look it up.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
id watch it
These scientists are a bunch of wusses. They should have issued a severe warning five years ago and fired him at the second or at most the third offense. CDesign Proponentists have no place in a science lab.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
It is interested that practicing and promoting Christian sharia law while accepting taxpayer handouts is acceptable, even mandatory, by the wing nut right, and considered protected speech, but any other religious law is considered illegal activity. Case in point. We have holiday parties because some don't want taxpayer money to be used to indoctrinate their kids into the some Christian ideal that physical gifts, not love or the acceptance of the savior is the critical parts of Christmas. We see this in the fact that many Christians want Christmas sales, not holiday sales, to cement the connection between manufactured secular good and a very important, at least to some, Christian festival. This promotion is to such a point that many have called such separation between religion and the money changes a 'war on Christmas.' It seems simple enough to say we don't like sharia law, and it is cause for termination to promote it, but obviously if one is Christian wasting taxpayer money to annoy your workers is a god given and constitutional right.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Wonder if the guy knew this bit of history about the JPL?
Maybe there are relatively equal amounts of pushing in most directions (we're all human and like to share our opinions) and you just happen to notice the kind which is offensive to you more?
Extreme -isms are things that prevent even the most similar groups of people to become separated. This causes division and discomfort.... isolation and ostracism.
In this case, the guy was preaching to the wrong crowd even if they tried to tolerate him for at least 5 long years. But then again, their tolerance was probably viewed as acceptance... that what he was doing was okay somehow. I see guilt on both sides.
Expect to see more of this sort of thing. Here is the thing. In my estimation/opinion, Christianity is 'done'. There is no good reason for anyone to follow this religion anymore. The reason for that is that it has been scientifically disproved. So what you are seeing now is, people whose entire lives have been raised on this belief system we now have concrete evidence to debunk, attempting to use the legal system like a bludgeon to cover up the evidence.
What we are in right now with situations like the ID movement is denial. There are people out there who Christianity has been all they've known there entire lives. They will go through all manner of mental gymnastics to try and fit this bronze age myth into the scientific world as much as possible. Here's the problem. It's going to kill us if we don't stop this.
For one thing, we have severe environmental issues that are getting worse by the day, and we have diseases that are getting more difficult to treat. People who believe in Christianity, are also to some extent rejecting modern medical science. There was a US Congressman who advocated not vaccinating females against a kind of cervical cancer because the Bible said so.. Many children die in the US due to things like faith healing.
Are you entitled to your religion? Sure. But you are not allowed to ban science you don't like because it goes against your religion. The supernatural claims of the Bible just patently false. There is no Holy spirit, there is no salvation by Jesus, or any other such insanity. You can think that if you want too, but you are not allowed to tell other people what they can do, and create and invent. You aren't allowed to impose your religion on other people.
Thank you for registering your belies with Slashdot. by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 03, @01:21PM (41865493)
I also believe that belief is spelled with an f. But you're poor grammar makes me laugh and just serves to make it obvious you are the same AC troll that has been stalking me. You always make it so easy.
And my beliefs are quite relevant and on topic to those story. The reason I know of my neighbor's story is because we can discuss it while visiting and sharing a beer. I expect to talk to her about it this afternoon, actually. It is quite enjoyable to get along with one's neighbors. Maybe you should try that AC troll instead of spending all of your time posting on Slashdot.
APK
P.S.=> You manage to blow it on even random topics that have nothing to do with your failure to understand how computers and networking work...
...apk
That's really the whole point of it, when religitards are saying "religious freedom".
Right. Notice that his position in the lawsuit was that he was being persecuted.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I work with a guy who through the years has slowly shown his beliefs. We often have cigarette breaks together and talk about whatever. He knows that I'm really interested in science and archaeology and one day he says "So did you hear they found Noah's Arc?" My blood boiled at this statement alone. A couple Korean evangelicals had claimed to have found the Arc. There wasn't even strong evidence that this could be the Arc but here he goes claiming it is Noah's freaking arc... I corrected him, probably with some visible agitation. Then he came back with "Yeah, well wouldn't that be cool if it was Noah's Arc?" I replied "not really," that isn't what I believe in so it wouldn't be pretty cool for me. What I will give you is that it would be amazing, not just that they found it but that every animal on earth was in fact put on one boat by God's orders, that would be amazing." My response pissed him off too, he paused and his cheeks flushed.
After a few moments we started talking about his dog, who I agree is probably one of the most awesome dogs around...
So I do think he's pretty loony for believing in a literal interpretation of Noah's Arc. I thought he had a greater capacity for critical thinking but oh well that's my opinion and my belief. What matters is that was the moment he found out what I believe and I found out what he believes. From that point forward we both dropped it, we haven't talked about religion again. That is how you handle situations like this. If the non work-related conversation causes conflict at work, that conversation better not happen again. Why can't more people do this?
See subject-line above... & from your 'p.s.', it appears you're "projecting" WHY you're doing it (thus, I have to ask you a simple question - HOW MANY TIMES have I actually totally 'dusted' you on things technical in computing that you feel the need to impersonate me, like some jackass troll would?)
* Very lame...
APK
P.S.=> Come on already - that's LOW (but, not a 1st by any means)... apk
I'm not afraid to express my belief system is all... pretty simple!
* It's pretty sad to see others giving me guff over it as you appear to be, but no biggie - however, impersonating me as you did here -> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3228787&cid=41865867
(LOW!)
APK
P.S.=> Did you *think* that was some "original clever trick", troll? See - I've got, literally, around 40 recorded instances of this happening before this (I was advised to do tracking of them as I find them since it started) - so, you can stop "playing around", or rather you SHOULD, before you get yourself into trouble (I've seen it happen before is all)...
... apk
When all the women in the office came to my desk and demanded to know why I had stopped sexually harassing them. I'm gay and they apparently liked the behavior the personnel manager had warned me about.
Wasn't me - everyone here pretty much KNOWS I hate "grammar/spelling nazi trolls"...
* Unbelievable - it's nearing 50 posts I have recorded where trolls impersonate me here (the one done here wasn't as bad as others, but, it's STILL attempting to impersonate me!)
APK
P.S.=> On a lighter note though? Perhaps I do understand why though - Whoever the troll is doing it, WISHES he/she were me!
... apk
The troll you're responding to isn't me... Pretty much EVERYONE here KNOWS I hate "grammar/spelling nazis", since we all make typos now & then!
* Personally, I look at those goofs this way: IF YOU, as the "grammar/spelling nazi" cannot determine the meanings of words or phrases from the context in which they're used, misspelled or not? YOU are the one with the problem!
APK
P.S.=> They're some fool impersonating me. The only post I made was this one -> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3228787&cid=41865279 and this one -> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3228787&cid=41866161 (warning the troll to stop) as well as this one doing the same -> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3228787&cid=41866161 and this also by this point, asking WHY they're doing it -> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3228787&cid=41865867 ... apk
What I think what religious people don't get is that the non-religious people don't care what Einstein's views on religious were, because they don't need constant confirmation of their beliefs. Not running into god(s) every single day of their lives is enough.
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
Still, it's a 'touchy' area. I hope JPL's mgt. & human resources folks spoke to him first, gave him verbal warnings & then later written ones, first... typically, I'd think @ least (and perhaps you or others can 'clarify' this better or set me straight on it, either way works) they would HAVE to follow that, before outright "canning" him.
* I wonder if they DID do those things first (then again, it probably depends on the H.R. procedures & policies @ their place of work or state laws etc.)...
APK
P.S.=> In any event, I have someone impersonating me in this thread, & I warned them nicely to stop it (I've been recording when this happens on /. & I find it or others tell me about it when they suspect it's not I posting, & 9/10 times, they're right) - thus, last I have to say here @ this point... whoever the troll is, they're not very intelligent doing it is all (can cause hassles for them one day)...
... apk
goes around trying to force his religious dogma on everybody (while, of course, refusing to do it himself) then whines when his actions backfire on him, so he thinks he's a victim.
Republican leadership = Idiocracy
Slashdotters.... The fear and loathing of the single disagreeable working alone? Are you lucky, noobs, or uncalibrated?
The only thing worse than a domineering, coercive, arrogant person is when it isnt a domineering, coercive, arrogant person. ...And firing that is more difficult.
The funniest thing about the whole ID position is that I've played around with neural networks and genetic algorithms over the years. Cool thing about genetic algorithms, you just set some parameters and let your critters compete until one does what you want. You know how many of those you're actually interested in? One. Or maybe four or five from the last generation. Any intelligent creator isn't going to bother saving all those generations of failures! Such a creator would only save one or a few from the last generation, the ones that do the job he designed his critters to figure out how to do. And he's going to put those fuckers TO WORK! That's hardly the scenario I'd be hoping to find myself in.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The next time I hear one of my fellow employees mentioning Dawkins at work, I will submit a formal complaint, just to get the ball rolling.
Folks, notice the very number of comments on this news item, as if this was some major controversy. That alone, gives you an idea of the power of religious indignation and how pestering and obnoxious this guy's proselytizing must have really been.
Einstein rejected the label atheist, which he associated with certainty regarding God's nonexistence.
even so 'short' a time ago as this, people were threatened (death threats and other, uhm, career-limiting things) if they did not go along with the mainstream religion.
you cannot go by what someone says, if they felt fear for what might happen if they were honest.
only very brave folks would dare admit that they were athiest.
and back then, it was extremely uncommon to 'fess up' about your true feelings on this subject.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
"How about logging in so that couldn't happen?" - by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 03, @03:33PM (#41866733)
I see NO NEED to be a registered 'luser' here - why? Well, for one?? I don't "live for karma points", after all... I am here to hopefully LEARN things OR to correct misinformation (especially from the "Pro-*NIX" trolls around here that SPOUT IT, endlessly - & you wonder WHY your OS' of choice are in dead-last place on PC desktops & Servers combined?? Don't - people aren't stupid & SEE RIGHT THRU IT!)
Speaking of which: Why don't YOU logon & use YOUR registered 'luser' account then?? Pot calling the kettle black, eh???
---
* Now, the FUNNIEST PART of what you said? Gives away "your game" & I can prove it now!
"Or are you afraid to see how bad your karma would be?" - by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 03, @03:33PM (#41866733)
LMAO - Talk about "projecting" & TELEGRAPHING your "puny goals", lol... please: "Oh, sure, I'll run & do that", right? WRONG!
You'd like that just so you can "downmod" MORE of my posts unjustifiably? No thanks... lol, especially since you've said this before:
"First off, why don't you just get an account instead of posting AC? Some (many) of us are tired of you're trolling and would like to be able to mod you down." - by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 23 2011, @01:08PM (#36219132)
FROM -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2177744&cid=36219132
That's only PART of the reason i don't join - since, as is, you downmod 1/2 of my posts unjustifiably anyhow! Instead, why don't you just outright disprove points I make instead?
You know damn well why - you CAN'T & quite obviously based on this stupidity you do like impersonating me that is the case, & that's that...
All you have is this juvenile behavior of yours - I suggest growing up, or getting serious help of somekind.
APK
P.S.=> You can call my "putting you in YOUR place" trolling, but all I ever use is facts that always "blow away" those I post them to, because they're misinforming others or using 1/2 truths... that's all! IF you can't handle that? Grow up, or leave - pretty simple!
... apk
No text, title says it all.
Sorry folks...
You could help by not responding... you say you "warn" the trolls but are just feeding them.
"that @ some point in time here on this forum (or perhaps another), I utterly LEVELLED him in some debate regarding "things technical" in computing"
You assume you beat me in some argument and that you've been tailed by me forever. I'm actually new to this, and have never lost or won an argument with you (who wastes their time on such stupid arguments online anyways?). I just do it because you make it so easy to be trolled. I had expected you will figure it out, but I guess you are kind of special...
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3229177&cid=41868513
The historical event of a worldwide flood CAN be proved or disproved.
Stopping the sun can be proved or disproved.
The order of creation can be proved or disproved.
The Christian God, being THE ONE WHO WROTE THE BIBLE is proven nonexistent because it would be impossible to exist: it would have to be all-knowing AND write the bible internally inconsistent while having it all be true.
Personally I'm ok with JPL sacking someone who believes in intelligent design because of their belief. Acceptance of an empirical verification mechanism seems central to the job. I'm also fine with a chaplain being sacked because he's an atheist.
You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge... or hustle.
Read the thread history. It started, not with a Christian saying "Einstein's belief legitimises mine", it started with an atheistic troll saying "All religious people are fucking stupid".
Einstein wasn't brought up as a confirmation of belief, he was brought up as a counter-example. And even if that particular example isn't a great one (Einstein wasn't a Christian, but he didn't outright reject the notion of divinity, so he's not really a star witness for either side), there are plenty more to fall back on.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
He obviously got the better of you or you wouldn't be doing such childish things.
So that's the addled mentality of trolls coming from you? Take his advice and grow up.
If the personal information in addresses the ac troll is posting about apk is truth then gettnig an attorney to contact geeknet might be a good idea to put the troll into hot water since doing it without apk's permission is against the law.
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3229179&cid=41869275
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3229179&cid=41869275
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3229179&cid=41869275
A Case Related
by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 03, @10:24PM
That of the Michael E. Mann of Penn. State Univ. currently and former employee of Virginia State University.
Well .... to cut to the chase ... Mr. (sans Dr.) Michael E. Mann has displayed his insufferable ... Attitude (i.e.
Gay Asshole) onto the world through the IPCC with monument-us backing from the likes of James E. Hansen
and Kevin Trenberth (also Gay Assholes).
Since shortly after the Nobel Committee awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Mr. Albert Gore and the IPCC (an ... i.e. janitor ... who cleaned up things littered by dogs in .... IPCC relented to say that Imperial Majesties Capital Ship Michael E. Mann was not awarded
organization and not to any or someone individual
the hallways
the 2007 Noble Peace Prize.
Well.
What is up with this 'Nobel' Committee?
Seems these days they cannot distinguish between a human and thing ... i.e. Capital Ship. Land sakes people!
If the most Illustrious Fornicators of Anthropogenic Global Warming cannot distinguish between a noun and
a THING then I for one would certainly want my money back from the the American Geophysical Union!
XD
You can waste your time all you like that way, it gets you nowhere.
Where does it get you, somewhere other than nowhere? Unless you type ten times faster than him (or more likely them), it is also wasting more of your time.
Which law in which jurisdiction? And what about the trolls not posting personal information? If it really is one troll making all of those posts, they aren't doing it without a proxy, due to the limits Slashdot puts on AC posts from an IP address. So much for tracking them down then, assuming they are even in the US.
Read the thread history. It started, not with a Christian saying "Einstein's belief legitimises mine", it started with an atheistic troll saying "All religious people are fucking stupid".
Einstein wasn't brought up as a confirmation of belief, he was brought up as a counter-example. And even if that particular example isn't a great one (Einstein wasn't a Christian, but he didn't outright reject the notion of divinity, so he's not really a star witness for either side), there are plenty more to fall back on.
While It's kind of sad when some obnoxious jerk wants to poke religious folks in the eye, it's kind of amusing that the best the religious folks can come up with is an agnostic. That said, as an atheist it seems that placing faith in a demonstrably false belief system (i.e., most religions) isn't the best way to find truth.
It is, however, a great place to find comfort, meaning and the certainty that some enormously powerful being is in your corner. Which is very satisfying for many people. We all create meaning for ourselves. Who is that obnoxious jerk (or me or anyone else for that matter) to judge the beliefs others. Even if those beliefs are demonstrably false, we should respect that others believe differently. Just don't try to force me (or anyone else) to believe the same way.
I'd also point out (which seems to be lost on a lot of the folks here) that most people, even though they may believe in one or more deities) are not christians.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
I highly doubt that was the case, being a highly intelligent man myself I wouldn't deny the possible existence of god(s), it's just as foolish in believing the rich pasta that falls from thine holy meatball powers our universe.
AC Kinks fan here...I stand..err, sit corrected. I guess that just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
Apparently, some people have way too much time on their hands.
Doctor, Doctor. help me please, I know you'll understand
There's a timed device inside of me, I'm the self-destruction man
There's a red, under my bed
And there's a little green man in my head
And he said, you're not goin crazy, you're just a bit sad
Cause there's a man in ya, gnawin ya, tearin ya into two.
Silly boy ya self-destroyer.
Paranoia, the destroyer
Self-destroyer, wreck your health
Destroy your friends, destroy yourself
The timed device of self-destruction
Light the fuse and start eruption
(yeah, it goes like this, here it goes)
Paranoia, the destroyer
(heres to paranoia)
Paranoia, the destroyer
(hey hey, here it goes)
Paranoia, the destroyer (and it goes like this)
JPL is operated by CalTech. It's not a government agency, although virtually all of its budget comes from NASA. So it's subject to the same rules as any private employer that does government contract work.
While It's kind of sad when some obnoxious jerk wants to poke religious folks in the eye, it's kind of amusing that the best the religious folks can come up with is an agnostic.
Who said that was the best? He was just the first off-the-top-of-the-head response from a particular person, not the best example the entirety of the religion could collectively come up with.
That said, as an atheist it seems that placing faith in a demonstrably false belief system (i.e., most religions) isn't the best way to find truth.
I always find the fetishism many atheists have towards rationality amusing, since atheism isn't a particularly rational belief (that would be agnosticism). It's very hard for a belief system to be "demonstrably false" when that system includes as a basic premise a conscious entity that can transcend the physical laws of the universe. Unprovable, yes, but not provably false. That's a distinction that many self-described paragons of rationality don't seem to be able to grasp.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
That said, as an atheist it seems that placing faith in a demonstrably false belief system (i.e., most religions) isn't the best way to find truth.
I always find the fetishism many atheists have towards rationality amusing, since atheism isn't a particularly rational belief (that would be agnosticism). It's very hard for a belief system to be "demonstrably false" when that system includes as a basic premise a conscious entity that can transcend the physical laws of the universe. Unprovable, yes, but not provably false. That's a distinction that many self-described paragons of rationality don't seem to be able to grasp.
I did not say that belief in "god" was demonstrably false. My apologies. I should have been more clear -- saying something like this: most religions incorporate false belief systems (e.g., the world was created six thousand years ago in seven days, or that Brahma split himself in two to create man and woman, etc., etc., etc.).
If we look to science and rationality, we know these creation myths to be just that -- myths. We don't have a clear (at least not clear enough for my taste) picture of what happened in the several hundred thousand years after whatever events *appear* to have manifested this corner of space-time as we can't observe the photons involved, but we do have a pretty clear picture of how our solar system was formed. We don't have a clear picture of how life on Earth got started, but we do have a number of theories that *actually fit the evidence we do have*. We have an idea (with lots of gaps) of how life evolved from very simple forms into the myriad of forms we see in the fossil record and living today.
That's the nice part about science and rationality. I became an atheist (after being an agnostic for most of my adult life) when I came to the conclusion that agnosticism is refusing to use the information we have available to us to describe how the universe works. If evidence is discovered that invalidates the theories (or, in this context, beliefs) we've put forward and relied upon, we give them up and try to get closer to the truth. AFAICT, atheism best describes reality. Should other evidence be uncovered that gives the lie to that, then I'll re-evaluate my beliefs.
If that's fetishism, I better go and join FetLife and join the appropriate group, huh?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Anybody who gets too close to speaking the truth about homosexuality, for example, will be fired, for 'offending' the wonderful, not mentally ill at all (because they told us so) 'gays'...
Okay. I'll bite. What is "the truth about homosexuality?" Please include appropriate citations to support your position.
Thank you. That is all.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
I have to know though: What's it TASTE like, eating your own words flavored w/ the "bitter taste of defeat" (by facts), & your foot in your mouth?
Why do I ask this? Simple, I've already demonstrated how often you impersonate me and make fake posts that you respond to. It is you that is the one arguing with yourself.
* Good luck - you'll NEED it (and a hell of a lot of data to the contrary since your own words blew you away).
APK
P.S.=> It was just TOO easy... Thanks for making ME look good as per usual, & YOU? Not so good... apk
About time you wised up and took those meds of yours! You've mentioned before how you've forgotten to take them and you make such a mess when you do. I'll take this as an apology.
APK
P.S.=> Still, you evaded disproving facts I used, and avoided a question!
You never told me how your words tasted though, lmao, when you had to "eat them" (lol), flavored with "the bitter taste of SELF-DEFEAT" & your FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH (lmao), due to shooting your mouth off, and yet again?
If you can't handle people saying a few stupid, useless things on the internet, you need to grow up or leave. Otherwise, you will spend a lot of time talking at people who don't listen, only being heard by others that think you are stupid in a different way for not seeing the pointlessness in what you do.
Entirely incorrect. Atheists are those without a belief in a god or gods. It's not an assertive position. Theism is the assertive position; an atheist is any person not taking that position - the 'a' in atheism literally means "without"; "theism" is belief in a god or gods.
Don't you realize how stupid what you're doing, really is? Apparently not... Oh well, hopefully, you'll GROW UP, get over it
Sound advice that applies to more than one person here... probably everyone bothering to reply to this at all...
The JPL is not connected to any church or religion. It is secular in that sense of the word. But the JPL is not an organization formed to promote a secular (non-religious) world view. If it were such an organization, they could fire someone for promoting religious ideas or other ideas contrary to the view they are promoting. But then they also could not receive government money. The Establishment Clause works both ways: The state can not spend money on promoting religion, but it also can not spend money on inhibiting religion.
Jan
There is only one law needed when it comes to modern day inereactions with society. "Don't do anything unusual." This covers the guy that had a perfectly legal chemistry lab, that there was no law against but they took all his chemicals anyway, to just about anything at all. If you're neighbor, or someone nearby hasn't done it before, or done it recently, "they" will find that it is somehow illegal, one way or the other. Go with the flow... be like everyone else... sheeple...
I do find it amusing that the very existence of those who believe in 'intelligent design', actually disproves 'intelligent design'. Nobdy 'intelligent', or exercising any 'design' responsibility, would have created a small bunch of religious extremists, of such massively below average intelligence, who believe the world is only a few hundred years old, reject carbon dating, reject fossil record evidence, believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, and believe in gods, trolls, witches, fairys, jesuses, or mohummuds.
The reality of any design process, for anyone who has worked in industry, is actually one of iteration. This tends to support to support the scientific fact of evolution, which is also a highly iterative process.
Creating 'god(s)' to avoid having to resarch viable, and rational explainations for the behaviour of the physical systems of our universe is just crassly stupid, when examined in any depth. All the fundementalist zealots are doing, is transferring the problem from explaining the how/why of some physical process, to branding it the work of their deity, and then having to explain the even more difficult question, of what process resulted in the creation of their deity, and how can its existence be verified by applying the scientific method. Since, so far, no religious nuts have ever been able to prove the existence of their fairy/troll/god, the evidence seems to suggest that they are actually rather stupid and pathetic individuals, hanging on to ridiculous and crazy ideas, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
I mean, really.
I work in a different NASA centre, and while I'm pretty sure two of my coworkers actively practice some kind of religion -- a couple of books in one's office, and the other one wears a yarmulke -- for the most part, I have *no* idea of anyone's religious beliefs or lack of same. Certainly nobody has brought it up in conversation, much less try to convert anyone else.
This is how it should be everywhere outside a church/religious institution.
The whole discussion if there is a god or not, is entirely moot as long as we don't have a clear definition, how "God" is defined. Since religion usually claims god is beyond comprehension, this is not possible. Yes, there is an article on Wikipedia. But the definition there is based on terms like "sacred" and "holy", which is defined by the perception of the believers. So, before harassing each other for (not) believing in god, can we find a common base to define what this god *exactly* is, that I'm supposed to believe or not to believe in?
Trolling is a art!
hahaha apk got to you and your childish posts show us that much.
Speak for yourself. The reaction the troll (you) are showing is proof enough of it.
This is how I just KNOW I've so utterly blown you away on technical debates in computing before, see subject-line.
APK
P.S.=> You can waste your time all you like "ne'er-do-well", it only makes me laugh knowing you are...
... apk
This is how I just KNOW I've so utterly blown you away on technical debates in computing before, see subject-line above.
APK
P.S.=> You can waste your time all you like "ne'er-do-well", it only makes me laugh knowing you are...
... apk
I could care less for "karma points". Morons like you live for them. They're all you've got. You've obviously done zero in the art & science of computing, so that's your "pride & joy"... unbelievable.
* NOW I see how trolls "think"... like fools!
APK
P.S.=> How CHILDISH can you get? What are you, like 10 yrs. old, that you live for "karma points" on a forums?? LMAO...
... apk
You sound scared.
The trolls stalking this apk guy have nothing better to do and they wonder why they're just trolls?
Hello Paul.
Hello Paul!
I was, at one time, a very religious Orthodox Jew. We are not known as evangelists, except to our own strays. That's a joke. Kind of. But at work, especially as a contractor, I never even engaged in religious discussion. Well, there are some people that can't leave a Jew alone, especially one that is identifiable as one (wearing the usual stuff, etc.). I had a "boss" - in quotes because I didn't report to him, although he was the VP of the division. The French corp that owned the research lab I contracted for (via a third party), had this Opus Dei Catholic in Charge, and he was a member of the French Nationalist Aristocracy.
Do ya want me to spell out what that meant for every Jew that had to interact with this guy? I shouldn't have to do a "disputation" on why we don't accept any Messiah, except our Messiah - on and on. It's a good thing I was in technical market research and he was a VP with 3B Euro budget.
by the way, that lab was a disaster. They followed, they took no initiative to lead in B2B, and I can now say, after being post-reviewed by very critical colleagues, that my plans submitted on the topics they targeted, would have been a major win - assuming proper execution. Instead, they followed a year behind facebook and all the other crap/ and left B2B supply chain behind.
I hope that the Adulterous Aristocrat is happy and finds a few new Jews to bait. (he had sex with his secretary temp in his bay area office - a married, catholic, Opus Dei French Aristocrat)
Wait, speak for myself, as in I should learn to ignore when APK says stupid things and move on?
So, APK posts because he thinks he is performing a service informing people, the AC troll posts because he is being entertained... and you post because? For someone complaining others don't do anything with their life, I hope they listen to what you say and no what you do.
Mostly confused, as APK hasn't explained how he thinks it is so easy for him to apply US law in South Africa.
and they wonder why they're just trolls?
No wondering needed, we've know for a long time: because it is fun and APK makes it too easy. He thinks he is winning, but he doesn't realize we aren't even playing the same game. The only wondering going on is why he bothers making it so easy.
but I don't care if he was fired for creationism advocacy.
If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done?
Atheist isn't an assertion of there being no god. Do people not have fucking dictionaries? The word a-theist simply means one who does not subscribe to any theist belief. It's dumb that the word even has to exist. Is there a word for people who are not astronomers? A word for people who are not cartographers? A word for people who are not lawyers? Of course not.
"aggressively promoted his opinion on California's gay marriage ban"
LOL. Unlike his employers, of course, who wouldn't promote their OWN opinion on gay 'marriage', would they... (sarcasm).
In my workplace, anybody who says ANYTHING remotely not in favour of gays and how wonderful they are, will be hauled before a kangaroo court, and threatened with dismissal.
We all know that 'god' doesn't exist, but we sure as hell know that cultural Marxists (totalitarians) have taken over our country. Anybody who gets too close to speaking the truth about homosexuality, for example, will be fired, for 'offending' the wonderful, not mentally ill at all (because they told us so) 'gays'...
Sounds like you're a flaming closet case. One night in the woods in the ozarks, you going squeeeee! squeeee! squeee!. Dumbass homophobe. No offense meant to gays. I hate homophobes. I'll defend any gay/lesbian from you homophobic retards anywhere anytime.
An intelligent person will come up with the idea "I don't know" or "I'm not sure" every time they ask the questions religious people and atheists claim to know for certain. It often takes a scientist to entertain the idea of being uncertain.
Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
But the people who make a big deal out of their Atheism with Capital A do, which people who make a big deal of their Theism with Capital T recognize because they see their mirror image, thus Einstein quotes and interpretations fly back and forth like machine gun fire where ever these two fight.
And that rises interesting question: should future archeologists uncover a few scrambled pieces of this thread 10,000 years from now while examining the early Internet culture, would they conclude that Einstein was a prophet or a pagan god of some kind? Would they speculate that the early physicist was named after this obscure mythical being? And would opening the Archive of 4chan melt their faces off ?-)
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
This was a "short" time ago, only if you live in western Europe or the urban United States. People living anywhere else on Earth, today, are placed under constant duress to either actively support the local prevailing religion, or, at best, maintain an obedient silence.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Let's just say that what Einstein called God (the God of Spinoza) was not really what anyone trying to justify their own religious beliefs would want to use to support an argument from authority.
Spinoza's central claims were that 1) there was no immortal Soul or afterlife 2) God is abstract, impersonal, and unknowable 3) God is Nature (capital N). This is the exact opposite of the personal god of any current modern Abrahamic religion would like people to believe.
What Einstein was effectively saying when he believed God wasn't playing dice with the universe was that he didn't buy into weak or modified anthropic principle to explain random vacuum fluctations eventually leading to -> big bang leading to-> our observed universe with singing dancing meat. He thought it was more deliberate, but that isn't remotely the same thing as intelligent design either. He (nor Spinoza) didn't necessarily believe that humans were special or the "goal" of Nature. Spinoza didn't even believe in free will although he believed that men _believed_ they had free will and that the distinction is important.
That was how humble they were, as far as that went. They were too humble to think we are special, nor can we make strong assertions about things that they felt are unknowable.
Spinoza and Einstein chose to call this idea God out of lack of a better term to describe the ultimate insignificance of us to it (Nature).
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
IANAL
Take off every Sig. For great justice.
It may have started with somebody trolling, but that doesn't change the fact that a religious person invoked Einstein in an attempt to prove that an authority figure (to atheists) agrees that religious people are correct in their convictions. What they didn't realise is that their attempts were futile because atheism does not have authority figures, only spokespeople. Richard Dawkins doesn't set the agenda for atheism, he simply verbalises what the others were too politically correct to say themselves. There is no 'leader' of atheism, just as there is no 'leader' of Anonymous. Atheists are a bunch of people who have come to the same conclusion independently, without (and often despite) somebody pushing a power-motivated agenda down their throats.
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
So whenever an atheist says all religious people are stupid, there is no defence, because any attempt to provide an example is a logical fallacy.
Viva la reason!
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Anybody who gets too close to speaking the truth about homosexuality, for example, will be fired, for 'offending' the wonderful, not mentally ill at all (because they told us so) 'gays'...
Okay. I'll bite. What is "the truth about homosexuality?" Please include appropriate citations to support your position. Thank you. That is all.
The two real truths about homosexuality are
1. Homosexuals do not reproduce
2 It has almost always been illegal yet has always been around.
Anybody who gets too close to speaking the truth about homosexuality, for example, will be fired, for 'offending' the wonderful, not mentally ill at all (because they told us so) 'gays'...
Okay. I'll bite. What is "the truth about homosexuality?" Please include appropriate citations to support your position. Thank you. That is all.
The two real truths about homosexuality are 1. Homosexuals do not reproduce 2 It has almost always been illegal yet has always been around.
Citations please.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Don't happen enough.
The year is 2012. Ignorance, delusion, and under-educated opinions being pushed as facts are unacceptable.
Just to add in. Not all religious employers are that way.
I had a boss who was apparently very religious. He was very good however at keeping his personal beliefs separate from his workplace jobs, and was tolerant of others in general.
Please explain your reasoning. The conclusions you draw make no sense whatsoever. I'll agree that a logical fallacy provided as an example is no defence, but I think you have your cause and effect mixed up. And I'm not sure how this is even relevant to what I said.
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
OP: All religious people are fucking idiots
GP: Here's an example of religious person who wasn't a fucking idiot*
You: Look how all those religious people need constant confirmation of their beliefs by appealing to authority.
* Yeah, Einstein wasn't a good example, but there are plenty of people who are.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
I'm not arguing that every religious person is an idiot. I never said that. I'm arguing against the citing of Einstein (or anybody else) as a reason that religion is justified, because appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. This wasn't strictly on topic, but I find Einstein being used as a reason to promote religion frequently and it touched a nerve for me; by the amount of up-mods the post got I'm guessing it hit home for others as well.
If I quote somebody, it's because I like what they said, not because I like the person. I personally think Dawkins is an asshole, but he happens to be a very eloquent asshole who says things which do a great job at summarising the reasoning behind atheism, so I may occasionally quote him. Putting his name at the end isn't to give weight to the words I say, it is to give credit so people don't think I thought this up myself. If you're going to argue for religion, don't quote figures in authority expecting their status to provide extra weight to the words. Provide logical arguments, and if you are stealing these arguments from somebody then provide a reference so that you aren't plagiarising.
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
No, it still sounds like APK scared you, so you gave up.
Yes, you should ignore APK's posts, because whenever AC trolls like you reply, they are just asking for punishment and get it.
You just can't accept that APK has beaten you, so you try to act like you are playing some different game to convince yourself otherwise.
I am still laughing, because I have beaten you at every technical topic you have tried to challenge. Now you try to make trolling out as if it were some contribution to computing art. Just grow up already and do something productive with your life.
APK
P.S.=> Maybe you are older than 10 years old. To be so self deluded about your own abilities and importance takes time, so maybe you are more like 12 years old. LOL...
...apk
I know you didn't say that. The OP did. And when someone argued against the OP, you criticized them for appealing to authority. So it looks like there's no way for a religious person to argue: either they sit in silence and are slandered, or they apply a perfectly logical argument (providing a specific example to counter a general statement) and are accused of fallacy.
What is logical response to "religious people are all fucking idiots" if you're not allowed to cite examples of well-known intellectuals who were also religious, without being accused of an appeal to authority?
And you were modded Insightful because your post aligned with the prevailing Slashdot opinion, while mine was modded Troll because it didn't.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
There were actually two posts in between OP and the response which were on Einstein's views on religious. The topic had changed.
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!