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."
An advocate of Intelligent Design who wasn't competent to work in a scientific organization? I'm SHOCKED!
Not really....
Yes, I completely agree.
-- Ethanol-fueled
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......
There are still people out there who believe Einstein was religious?
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Einstein wasn't religious. In fact he did not believe in a god. Religious people like to pull select quotes from him to make him appear to be religious, to use as an argument from authority against atheists, but there is a detailed letter that he wrote in which he categorically denied believing in god.
Yes, Christians post his picture and a quote about knowing God on facebook all the time.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Einstein wasn't religious.
Newton was, but I think most people would be comfortable labeling him delusional :P
But Einstein was not a fanatic trying to force his believes on others. Religion is fine if kept polite. The bible states 'neither cast ye your pearls before swine'. Dont waste your time on those not willing to listen. Freedom of religion is fine, freedom of speech is great. You dont walk into the center of the opposing opinion and start shoving your ideas down their throats and expect open arms and high fives. Bible thumpers can be a bit nuts, but atheists can be equally nuts. JPL justly fired a nut.
"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.
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?
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.
Yeah, but that alchemy thing >_>
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
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
Yes, Christians post his picture and a quote about knowing God on facebook all the time.
Made-up quote you mean.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Im still not really clear why anyone should care about the religious beliefs of Newton or Einstein.
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.
It's not bad behavior if you're doing the lord's work... right? right? And of course, nothing can harm me because God's got my back... right?? And if you reject me? It's the devil. No one is responsible.
If he was fired simply for his personal belief in ID, that would be discrimination. But he wasn't, he was fired for repeatedly harassing staff. Again, you do not have a right to proselytize at your place of work.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
This, ever so much.
I personally do not believe in a god.
My workplace however is full of religious people, primarily christian I believe.
My boss, whom is self-adamantly religious, is one of the nicest, kind and generous people I've had the pleasure of meeting. My boss is also the founder and one of three owners of the company.
Other than as side effects, the fact he is religious has never once come up. The fact that I am not has never once come up.
He has mentioned in conversation details that indicate he is, such as "a friend from church" and such. He has never once pushed anything religious on me or anyone else that I'm aware of.
In fact I have no idea if he is even aware of my own beliefs.
Recently I spoke with him about hiring another person for my department. He took my requirements list and went to make a posting on a job site.
The next day he came back with a resume, saying this was a friend from church he's known for some time who he wanted me to consider.
This was the first time religion was ever discussed between us, and then it was only to state flat out that I shouldn't base my hiring decisions on the fact this is his friend, or that he is from his church. I should base it on nothing but his qualifications just as with any other resume sent in.
What matters about a person is not what religion they are, if any, but if they are the kind of person that does not force their ideals on others.
People who can't take the hint that you don't want to talk about a subject, and especially so after being told, are the problem. People who force whatever ideal they have on others out of context are the problem.
As you say, the ones that are nuts.
I too have had the displeasure of knowing such an atheist, which might have been a little worse as he assumed I would be a kendered spirit and help push his arguments or something.
I couldn't stand being around him any more than the religious nuts who do the same thing.
It really shouldn't be this hard to keep your personal crap personal, and can't understand why so many people feel such a strong need to piss off others and make them hate your cause by proxy of your poor behavior. It's like enticing someone with pain and stabbing instead of cookies and chocolate. But they can't grasp all humans are not clones and do not believe the same things.
The world would be such a better place if we could round up all the nuts and fling them off into the sun :/
Heavy use if fragrances is as much a disturbance as pushing your religion on coworkers. There are jus some people who seem to refuse to understand that there are boundaries that one should live within in any social group.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
They tolerate Behe at Lehigh University. He does his job, and does not misuse his academic position to further his private aims within the confines of the University. Firing him because of his belief in ID would be wrong.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
When religious people try to back up their (bogus) scientific arguments, they like to cite religious scientists as if it the existence of scientists who are religious makes the arguments more compelling. "Famous scientist X was religious, so shouldn't you accept my religiously-motivated supposedly scientific arguments too?" It's basically an argument by authority.
It's irrelevant, of course.
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?
Without a doubt. I lost one job because my boss was a Catholic nut job. He decided once he found out I was gay that I wasn't needed anymore. Of course couched in terms of performance.
It's not bad behavior if you're doing the lord's work... right? right? And of course, nothing can harm me because God's got my back... right??
Best to find out if God's got your back in court before you start harassing your coworkers.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Religion is like a penis. It's okay to have one, play with it, show it to people if they wanna see it, but you just can't whip it out in public and start cramming it down peoples' throats...
I also believe that belief is spelled with an f. But you're poor grammar...
This is something I've learned from years and years on the Internet and on Usenet. Never, ever post about spelling and grammar (unless it's particularly bad). You are virtually guaranteed to make your own mistake while posting such a comment. It's a law of the universe or something.
Anyway, on your original post, I have to say that these things can go either way. People do have human interactions at work, so, to the degree that non-work related interaction is acceptable, religious discourse would seem to be as well. Providing the courts in question are reasonably just, I would imagine that your neighbor probably didn't let her views impinge on her work as much as the JPL guy and/or that the reaction of her employer to those views was more extreme and discriminatory than the reaction of JPL to this employee. For example, if JPL just repeatedly asked the employee in emails and meetings to please stay on task, and the car dealership people screamed at your neighbor that she was a whore of Satan and would burn for all eternity, that would explain it. Actually since the parties doing the firing would have been pretty neutral in the case of JPL but religiously partisan in the case of the car dealership, that by itself might account for the different outcomes. A larger, more heterogenous, organization can probably make a stronger claim to impartiality.
You polled all of them? It's possible, you know, that people who oppose abortion do so because religious leaders have told them if they don't they'll go to Hell. It's possible they oppose abortion because their patriarchal viewpoint disdains women having sex without their father's approval. It's possible that they oppose abortion because they don't want women to have any control of her own body.
You can say why you oppose abortion, LordLimecat, but don't try to tell us why "people oppose abortion".
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
There is classes for re-training behavior issues of what is/isn't acceptable
Yeah, I've seen A Clockwork Orange too.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Too bad you weren't a 10 year old boy. I doubt he would have found fault in your performance.
Fairly certain Einstein never said he knew God on Facebook.
Im still not really clear why anyone should care about the religious beliefs of Newton or Einstein.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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!
You might want to look into either getting an account or using some sort of public key signing for your posts, or some other authentication scheme. Maybe get a website and copy and paste time stamped copies of your posts there.
Alchemy and occultism in Newton's sense meant "I'm a scientist but I don't know what science is." He wanted to understand the world, even though the methods for doing so weren't worked out very well yet. In an era when we didn't have any clue how causality actually worked, sometimes that meant entertaining bizarre notions which we know only in hindsight were superstitious.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
If an atheist is claiming, as they often do, that religious people are all a bunch of idiots, then pointing to a famed religious scientist is absolutely a valid counterpoint.
But Christianity in the US and Europe is not "polite": its adherents and officials constantly insult non-members, and, worse, churches misuse taxes paid by non-members to finance their operations and recruit.
In theory, your statement sounds perfectly reasonable... but interestingly enough, in over two decades of living and working as an adult among the widest range of English-speaking subcultures imaginable, I've yet to meet a single one of these "aggressive atheists" of which you speak.
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
You might want to look into either getting an account or using some sort of public key signing for your posts, or some other authentication scheme. Maybe get a website and copy and paste time stamped copies of your posts there.
I agree. I don't know about the feud you two ACs have going - but whichever one of you is complaining about being 'impersonated' could just get a free /. account, and put an end to this.
That's just cuz God unfriended him after Einstein stopped showing up for his Farm.
Einstein wasn't religious at all. He did believe in God, but his notion of the deity was pretty abstract.
Aside from that detail, I agree with your post. I'd even go one step further: many atheists like to label themselves "skeptics", a label which once described critical examination of fringe science, but which now is simply an excuse for bigoted, ad hominem attacks on anybody or anything that doesn't align with the prejudices of said "skeptic." Basically a fancy word for trolling.
I should add that I myself am an atheist, but one that respects the beliefs of the religious. I can name many religious people who are intelligent, tolerant, and open-minded.
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?
Agreed. Every religion is fine as long as it is not shoved down one's throat. Including atheism.
There just aren't that many famous present-day scientists. Everyone was taught about Newton and Einstein in school, so they know about them. Hawking is probably the only other scientist that might get recognition, and even that's largely because his disability makes him a talking point, rather than his contributions to science (which most laypeople don't really have a grasp on).
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Maybe you should follow the thread of this conversation. The original post was:
Religious people are fucking stupid, delusional idiots anyway.
Bringing up Einstein and Newtown wasn't a case of arguing from authority, it was bringing a specific example of well-known, intelligent people, to counter the sweeping general claim that all religious people are stupid.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
damn, and i thought "Anonymous Coward" was a unique nick
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
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.
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."
Atheism ! = Religion
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Suppose you were gay, living monogamously with a partner, and wanted the same government-granted rights and privileges in your relationship that heterosexual couples enjoy.
Further suppose that your boss was a Mormon who worked tirelessly for laws like California Proposition 8, designed specifically to deny you those benefits.
Would you still be as favorably disposed toward his "free" exercise of religion, given his demonstration that he couldn't keep his delusions out of the voting booth?
You were missing my point. I wasn't saying people went back to Newton/Einstein because there were no modern Christian scientists, I was saying there were no famous modern scientists (Christian or otherwise) these days. Of the pople you listed, I only know three (Dyson, Knuth and Bakker), and I'm significantly more interested in that sort of thing than the average person. If you asked the guy on the street, they might know Dyson, because of vacuum cleaners. That's about it.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
I absolutely agree, but unfortunately not all atheists feel as you do.
When I was in the military, there were 3 very incompetent people (among several bases) that they couldn't get rid of. When they'd done the final straw and court marshal was being called for (in one case he was caught in a no smoking, explosives storage area sitting on a stack of bombs smoking a cigarette) and they'd run to Social Actions screaming, "I'm a minority, they're discriminating against me." and Social Actions would deny the prosecution. Hell, they wouldn't even let the losers be transferred.
The point is, just because someone claims they are being unfairly persecuted, it may just be their imagination or lowlife attempt to justify their improper actions.
(It sounds like this guy was one of those types, but we only know what has been posted/printed.)
This was the first time religion was ever discussed between us, and then it was only to state flat out that I shouldn't base my hiring decisions on the fact this is his friend, or that he is from his church.
That's a bad idea. Hiring someone who is friends with your boss in a social context outside the workplace is likely to cause all sorts of complications. You should absolutely take that into account.
How should I know? You've got to act the sockpuppet who modded it as "Troll".
You are welcome on my lawn.
What makes you think a "present-day scientist" in any less superstitious than any other human? What makes you think the conclusions being reached today are not in fact stupid and wrong?
The scientific method.
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.
Bringing up Einstein and Newtown wasn't a case of arguing from authority, it was bringing a specific example of well-known, intelligent people, to counter the sweeping general claim that all religious people are stupid.
It doesn't help when it's a lie about Einstein, and Newton was from the 18th Century.
irrelevant to what they believe (that he believed in god).
much like whether or not god was made up is irrelevant to their beliefs.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
I think I understand it quite well. I have a considerable personal experience with that particular cult - my parents were devout atheists.
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
But your contrived example goes directly against the actual example that GP provided. Every indication is that his boss is not the type of person to support Prop 8, because he understands his personal beliefs are not suitable for everyone.
Would you still be as favorably disposed toward his "free" exercise of religion, given his demonstration that he couldn't keep his delusions out of the voting booth?
Straw man. That's not what happened, it's a completely made-up example. Obviously someone who is forcing his religious views into law is a twat. This does not negate GP's point or experience.
The only valid point that can be inferred from your statement is that yes - militant atheists are marginally more tolerable in that they are annoying and try to force their beliefs on others, but do *not* try to codify their beliefs as law.
Given the rest of your troll, i think I'm giving you too much credit ;)
Actually, come to think of it, try out this perspective: you fervently believe in the Christian mythos. You *know* that it's your duty to save the soul of everyone who can be saved. But some people are trying with equal fervor to keep your perspective out of schools. Looked at that way, atheists too are trying to use legislation to enforce their beliefs -- at least from the perspective of a subset of people.
But Christianity in the US and Europe is not "polite": its adherents and officials constantly insult non-members, and, worse, churches misuse taxes paid by non-members to finance their operations and recruit.
No, the vocal minority does this including subscribers to particular faiths whose beliefs require them to do this.
The silent majority is silent - they keep their beliefs to themselves. You don't hear about it, so you make the mistake of believing that they don't exist or that they believe (or don't) as you do.
Atheism ! = Religion
Agreed. Atheism is not a religion. But some atheists proselytize their lack of religious beliefs with a fervor that can equal that of the most outspoken evangelicals.
Yeah, sure - here's a tip. Get your own resume in order if you don't hire his bud.
FTFY. I don't know GP's boss, so there's a chance it doesn't actually apply. But the sentiment you were expressing goes beyond religious beliefs.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
This is what is called a "strawman". Your hypothetical atheist is garbage. What atheists claim is that religious people have no basis for their religious beliefs, and are likely as not to be wrong. Being an idiot is an extrapolation you're free to make, based on your imaginary friends in the clouds.
As an atheist, I'd point out that I don't claim that religious people have no basis for their religious beliefs. Far from it, there are (depending on the religion) tens, hundreds or even thousands of years of religious thought, writing and doctrine that religious folks can draw on in forming their religious beliefs.
The fact that, at least from a scientific standpoint, none of it can be scientifically validated leads me to believe that religions are not a a good mechanism for describing our universe. Anything else is speculation.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
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
It’s tricky but important to tactfully communicate such things to your coworkers. Your cube neighbor may be so used to her perfume (applied or—ahem—natural) that she’s unaware it’s bothering anyone. Better to risk some mildly hurt feelings now than to bottle up annoyance until it overflows sometime down the road.
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
You must not be a U.S. citizen. The U.S. has laws against discriminatory practices. If you don't want to hang around certain types of people on your own time that is fine. The workplace is another matter entirely.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
Not really. We see real proselytizing from religious people on a constant basis (some bordering on mania) and yet when an atheist dares to speak up suddenly they're the ones accused of being "shrill" or "proselytizing."
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
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.
Entirely incorrect, eh? That's bold talk from a one-eyed fat man.
You posit that lack of belief in a god or gods does not imply disbelief in the existence of same.
Au contraire. A lack of belief (confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof) in something (god, the tooth fairy, whatever) necessarily implies belief in the the lack of that thing.
Let's try a little experiment:
belief == confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof
Lack of belief == a lack of confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof >/p>
One who lacks confidence in the existence of god == atheist.
Thanks for playing. I sure hope you're an ESL person.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
The silent majority of Christians voted for Prop 8, is intolerant towards atheists, and accepts government funding to promote its religion. And even if you don't hold those beliefs, remaining a church member and remaining silent in the presence of intolerance and injustice by your church makes you responsible.
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 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.
I'm pretty sure that the Devil has all the best lawyers.
(Speaking as an otherwise atheistic individual).
What's your opinion of the Christians in government who set the policies on education and science funding?
No sig today...
Im still not really clear why anyone should care about the religious beliefs of Newton or Einstein.
They like to imagine that the most intelligent people in history believed in their god, that their religion has some sort of scientific rigor.
No sig today...
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!
Einstein wasn't religious at all.
Neither was he passive about sharing his beliefs, patriotism in particular he found contemptible...
No sig today...
Non-religious people are fucking stupid, non-delusional idiots anyway.
Seriously, if there is nothing to religion, why do people fight so hard against it? Why not allow it to be called a Christmas party? Why can't he voice his opinions on gay marriage? Everybody for gay marriage is allowed to share their opinions.
Of course he shouldn't have been combative. That's just stupid too. But God forbid anybody but a Muslim become combative. (Then we all have to apologize to them).
Welcome to the beginning of Farenheit 451.
21st Century Renaissance Man
The same privileges like higher tax rates? Sign them up. Maybe it will help the deficit.
21st Century Renaissance Man
It's been nine months since that incident, I did not hire his Jesus bud, and no ill will has come of that. Not two months ago I was selected for a raise as well.
This might be hard for some to grasp, but what I said was true, it does not at all matter if the person is religious, what matters is how they act and what they do. I still stand firmly by that.
You were lucky and found an outlier. I would not encourage others to follow your example.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
It's not whitewashing—science was not yet widely accepted. All forms of mysticism, theology, and philosophy are merely attempts to understand the world; some are misguided, certainly, especially when the scientific method directly refutes them, but I think you underappreciate the philosophical immaturity of that period in history. Intent here matters much more than outcomes or method.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
I should add that I myself am an atheist, but one that respects the beliefs of the religious. I can name many religious people who are intelligent, tolerant, and open-minded.
See, I don't get that. I respect the religious, and the religious' right to having their beliefs, I just don't see why I have to respect their beliefs. I understand the line between skepticism and prejudiced denialism is hardest to see for those who have crossed it, but it's hard to trust the good faith of your criticism when you throw blanket statements like that, mischaracterizing skepticism as simply "critical examination of fringe science", labeling everyone now claiming to adhere to skepticism as a troll... Although, it's great that you are skeptic about skepticism and the people who claim to be skeptics, which along being skeptic about one's own skepticism are both important requirements for properly being a skeptic to begin with, which is more a philosophy of life than the glorified peer review you make it out to be.
Einstein wasn't religious at all. He did believe in God, but his notion of the deity was pretty abstract.
I suppose it can be argued that it all hinges and the meaning of the word "believe", but aside from that, what can I get away with calling "God"? Truth, Liberty, Love, Free Speech, the Right to Property, Gravity? At some point saying that someone "believes in God" because they apply that label to something simply becomes an easy cop out. eg.: Christians who say "God is Love" don't stop at that, and at some point have to profess their specific devotion to Jesus Christ as their savior. If I can pick and choose the meaning of "believe" and "God", then "I believe in God" becomes some sort of tautology, everyone "believes in God":
10 LET BELIEVE_IN$ = "Adhere to the philosophical principles of"
20 LET GOD$ = "Skepticism/Atheism"
30 PRINT "I " + BELIEVE_IN$ + GOD$
Speaking of "I don't get", I don't get how you can respect a person and not their beliefs. If you treat their beliefs with condescension, you're not treating them respectfully.
Agreed. But does that make him "religious"?
You must not be a U.S. citizen. The U.S. has laws against discriminatory practices. If you don't want to hang around certain types of people on your own time that is fine. The workplace is another matter entirely.
If that's in response to the guy who says he was fired for being gay: in plenty of states in the US there is no protection against that at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_employment_discrimination_in_the_United_States
Welcome to the beginning of Farenheit 451.
You have a point. I am a strong believer that "bible thumpers" of any flavor are simply willing to believe anything, and have been tamed into not thinking for themselves, on purpose! The New Testament is a mere reinforcement and further dissuasion of free thought for the Old Testament, and the Qu'aran is merely a plagiarism of them. (or so I've heard. I have yet to finish reading The Bible, and I haven't started the Qu'aran. So here I am believing what others say about it.)
But we must never burn our books. There are inspirational things in there, and strange clues about things to come. If you kill someone, you perform a terrible crime against that person, their family, and any children they might have had. However, if you destroy the knowledge, even false knowledge, within a book, you perform a crime against anyone and everyone who might have read it; you deny its possibilities for all humanity.
Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
but I don't care if he was fired for creationism advocacy.
If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done?
I don't think the previous fellow was trying to tell you what you think, but I can state unequivocally that I am not. I am telling you that you are using the term 'atheist' incorrectly, irrespective of the literal English translation of the original Latin word segments..
A person who does not have a belief in a religious deity is an agnostic, one who says, "I don't know."
An atheist is a person who states, "I know. There is no god." These terms are often commingled, but their meaning is generally clear, although obviously not to you.
You decide what you think, and if you feel strongly about it, tell us. But you don't get to re-define the common and accepted meanings of terms when you do so. If you claim to be an atheist but describe yourself as an agnostic, it is, whether deliberate or not, misleading.
Dave Kelsen
--
Mediocrity requires aloofness to preserve it's dignity.
Or Linus Torvalds.
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.
It's not just an issue of "bible thumpers". There are plenty of religious people in my office. I couldn't care less. They're all nice people that I enjoy working with. I also enjoy Christmas. I mean, it's an awesome time full of gifts and cold weather and decorations and gatherings. I'm not going to piss myself over it being called Christmas, because I just don't give a shit.
But when religion determines who can and can not get married (something that has nothing to do with religion), manipulates society, denigrates entire groups of society, benefits from tax exemptions, promotes anti-constitutional stripping of people's rights, influences things like MPAA ratings, influences politics (every politician has to kiss religious ass and pretend to be religious and imply that he's going to push for religious assertions in government), influences education and scientific progress . . . then fuck them.
You can believe whatever you want, but when it begins to impact other human beings, fuck you in the fucking face, as far as I'm concerned.
I am a devout non-astronomer!
Seriously, you are a fucking moron. You've made it clear from your last two posts that nobody can have an intelligent discussion with you. Go back to trolling the discussion sections of the articles drudgereport links to.
I wouldn't claim that religious people are all idiots anymore than I would claim a very smart person who believes in numerology is an idiot. They hold a very stupid and ignorant belief, but that doesn't render everything about them stupid. However, in many instances, it can be a really great indicator.
I believe Paganism is even older than the most popular religions in America. Therefore, it must be be even more legitimate.
Thanks Mr. Kelsen. You nailed it.
I think what our linguistically challenged friend is trying to say is (note that this is a guess based on my understand of what you wrote AC, not an attempt to tell you what to think, say or do), is that non-belief in something does not preclude the existence of that thing. For example, the ancient Hebrews worshipped Hashem as their god. They did not, however, worship Ba'al as a god even if they may have believed that Ba'al existed.
No, that doesn't fit with our definitions but why should words have to have explicit meanings when our friend can define them however he likes? I mean it's not like changing the meaning of words to suit your world view is a new concept.
In any case, I'm not going to further involve myself in this AC's personal quest for meaning. He or she clearly has their own idea about the meaning of common words, which makes it difficult to discuss the subject when we can't even agree on the definition of certain words.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
That's a very strained definition of belief. And, no, a lack of belief does not necessarily imply belief in an opposite or contrary view, or even that there is such a thing. For theism, which espouses belief in a god or gods, one is not of that state if one does not hold that belief. One might not even know about the idea of god or gods; but still, because one does not hold the belief, that makes one atheist.
You see, atheism has no catechism, no book, no rules: there's no "why" to it, because it's not a positive assertion. I'm unconvinced by supernatural arguments. I could easily be convinced by concrete evidence. I don't assert there is no god or gods. There might be. There might be elves, too. Fairies. Ghosts. Etc. I just have no reason to think so at this point.
So I hold no such belief. My confidence in these ideas is extremely low, but my belief is entirely lacking. Belief is, in the end, a personal assertion of, or perception of, some kind of truth. Truth, for me, requires both evidence and consensual experience. I can't get to a perception of truth with a complete lack of evidence, so... no belief. There's no evidence there isn't a god or gods, either. So I can't get to truth there, and so I hold no belief there.
What is confusing you is that some folks do make the claim "there is no god or gods", and, while they are atheist, they are going well beyond a simple lack of belief, for whatever reasons they might have. Just as a Christian theist goes well beyond "there is a god" with some very detailed specifics, and in a very different direction than a Hindu theist does, an atheist may go well beyond atheism with other ideas in the same sphere, and in a very different direction than I do. But it's not a given, and you shouldn't treat it as if it is.
Finally, I am far from alone in this basic take on atheism. It is neither a new idea, or a particularly debatable one. One of the interesting things about it, in fact, is that you usually hear it coming from theists. I would submit to you that theists, of all the people in the world, are least qualified to tell you what it is myself, and people like myself, think. If you want to know, ask. But please, stop trying to tell us what it is we think about things.
Oh, I get it now. You can call the dictionary definition strained if you like. Frankly, I don't much care what you think or believe. Not because I have any animosity towards you. I don't even know you. I certainly don't care enough to attempt to define *your* beliefs, an most certainly not enough to try to dictate my beliefs to anyone else.
If you think that a lack of belief in a god or gods is not the same as belief in the lack of them, by all means do so. I disagree. However, I wouldn't ask anyone to think or believe in a certain way. If that's how I came off, please accept my apologies.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
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.
Random non-sequiter.
The first post is combative and not really insightful (even though modded as such). Some religouus people are fucking idiots. Most are not. I wasn't even commenting on the article, I was commenting to the OP. Barely read TFS.
Comments on the summary. This guy is an ass. Always has been, always will be. He would be an ass if he was gay, muslim, evolutionist, or even a AGW believer, and he deseerved to be fired. He needs to just realize that Christians are and will always be second class citizens in the USA.
21st Century Renaissance Man
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.
The scientific method doesn't prevent anyone from reaching wrong conclusions, it just means they'll probably get eventually corrected.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
one way i've heard this summarized is that "newton wasn't the first scientist; he was the last mystic."
for a few decades after newton, there was this adaptation by mystics of "natural magic," to use newtonian mechanics to discover occult knowledge (or less charitably to couch their nonsense in fashionable terms). imho, they were just a few centuries early; nowadays we call that "artificial intelligence" or "machine learning."
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
There is a difference between explaining logic and rationality, and explaining that something completely unproven exists and wants you to burn in hell... I hope you see that.
There is a difference to you. I hope you see that.
It's often all about perspective. Not many people will have their minds changed about something they deeply believe - no matter how logically correct the arguments against it are.
That means to them repeated and persistent attempts to tell them they are wrong (however logically) are just as offensive as their attempts to tell you that you are wrong (however illogically).
It is the only reason for opposing abortion that I have actually heard from the people who oppose abortion.
If there are any others I would be interested to hear them.
Wouldnt it be enough to just label those claims as absurd and ignore them? If someone is determined to think Im an idiot, Im probably not going to convince him otherwise no matter what I say, and it seems rather a waste of time to try.
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.
Funny to think God was a scientist and rejected organized religion as well. See how that turned out....
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
You must not get out much.
I, too, have never met one. Also, you don't see them in the media, unlike the aggressive religious types which get constant media attention.
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
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.
The word "religion" usually refers to belief in supernatural beings. It's being twisted here to mean other things.
To state the problem formally: All religious people are evangelists, not all evangelists are religious.
(in my understanding of the word)
No sig today...
So, people who believe in vampires but don't believe in God are religious?
Again, you've spoken to "the people who oppose abortion"?
I haven't heard anyone say that they oppose Barack Obama "because he's a nigger", but do you really doubt that there are such people?
You are welcome on my lawn.
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!
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!
Well the guy who posted "First" sounds like an aggressive atheist: "Religious people are fucking stupid, delusional idiots anyway."
In truth I think that aggressive atheism is more of a response to aggressive Christianity. But neither one is spending much time reflecting on their own beliefs, as they are so busy with that of others'.