March 13th, 2012
10:08 PM ET
Terminated employee claims bias against intelligent design
By Stan Wilson, CNN
Los Angeles (CNN) - A former veteran systems administrator for NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory claimed during opening arguments in a civil lawsuit Tuesday that he was wrongfully terminated for expressing his views on intelligent design.
David Coppedge, who spent 15 years on the Cassini Mission, one of NASA and JPL's most ambitious planetary space explorations, asserts that he was unlawfully fired under his employer's anti-harassment and ethics policies. JPL contends Coppedge created a hostile workplace while expressing his religious views with co-workers.
His suit also claims that supervisors wrongly admonished him for distributing DVD documentary films titled "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" and "The Privileged Planet," which present biological and cosmological explanations for intelligent design, according to the complaint.
Coppedge claims he never forcibly compelled colleagues to accept his idea of intelligent design in the workplace. Intelligent design is a conviction that life is too complex to have developed solely through evolution and that the universe was designed by an intelligent entity.
CNN's Belief Blog – all the faith angles to the day's top stories
JPL, based in Pasadena, California, is one of the world's most prestigious institutions for scientific research and development institutions. In Coppedge's civil lawsuit, he describes JPL's space missions as designed, in part, to explore the origin of the universe, uncover whether life exists elsewhere in the universe - or is improbably confined to earth - and whether conditions necessary for life to exist reside elsewhere in the universe.
Launched in October 1997, the Cassini mission to Saturn included a sophisticated robotic spacecraft that orbited the ringed planet and provided streams of data about its rings, magnetosphere, moon Titan and icy satellites. Cassini was the largest interplanetary mission ever launched, with the largest technical staff and participation of 18 countries.
In his role, Coppedge was responsible for making technical and scientific recommendations to management and developing presentations about various technical capabilities of new systems and upgrades, his attorney William Becker Jr. said during opening arguments. During his tenure, Coppedge developed a "sincere interest in the scientific evidence behind life's origin," which led to his conviction about "intelligent design."
Coppedge shared the view that life and the existence of the universe derived not from "undirected material processes," but from "intelligent cause," said attorney Becker.
In March 2009, Coppedge claims that his supervisor advised him that co-workers had complained that he was harassing them over debates about his religious views and coercing them in the workplace into watching DVD programs about intelligent design. During his opening statements Tuesday, attorney Becker Jr. told a judge hearing the case that Coppedge's supervisor threatened him with termination if he "pushed his religion" and ordered Coppedge to refrain from discussing politics or religion with anyone in the office.
During that 2009 meeting, Coppedge alleges, his supervisor became angry and belligerent asserting that "intelligent design is religion" and ordered him to stop. "The tone of the meeting and conduct were abusive and constituted harassment," his attorney said in court.
JPL spokeswoman Veronica McGregor said the lawsuit "is completely without merit, and we intend to vigorously fight the allegations raised by Mr. Coppedge."
In their response to the civil suit, attorneys for JPL stated in court documents that one of Coppedge's co-workers complained to his supervisor that Coppedge made her feel so uncomfortable in discussing "non work related topics" that it bordered on harassment. The supervisor encouraged Coppedge to limit his discussions about topics like religion and politics to periods like lunch breaks, according to the response.
The documents state that other co-workers complained they also felt harassed when Coppedge expressed views in favor of California Proposition 8, the ballot initiative in 2010 that defined marriage between and man and woman.
"David Coppedge alienated his co-workers by the way he acted with them, and blamed anyone who complained about those interactions," according to JPL in their response. "He accuses his former project supervisor and line manager of making discriminatory and retaliatory employment decision, when they had in fact protected him for years."
JPL alleged that Coppedge "was seen as stubborn, unwilling to listen and always having to do things his way, which frustrated project members and resulted in errors."
Coppedge was demoted after eight years as lead systems administrator and terminated last year. He cited those actions as a factor in basis for his suit claiming religious discrimination, retaliation, harassment and wrongful demotion.
JPL has denied Coppedge's termination complaint, contending he was among 246 employees laid off as part of a downsizing plan that affected 300 staffers.
"JPL complies with all applicable state and federal employment laws including laws governing freedom of expression," said JPL spokeswoman McGregor.
California Institute of Technology operates JPL, which is federally funded under a contract with NASA. Scientists are employed by the Caltech.
The case has generated interest among advocates of intelligent design. The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian civil rights group, and the Discovery Institute, a proponent of intelligent design, are supporting Coppedge's lawsuit. The National Center for Science Education, which supports the teaching of evolution in public education, is closely monitoring the case.
Coppedge is seeking damages for wrongful termination, including attorney fees. The nonjury trial is expected to last four weeks.
*An earlier headline for this article identified David Coppedge as a scientist. His attorney later said that despite his technical work with computers, he is not a scientist.
About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.
This sounds like a story that belongs on the front page of Fox News.
It was yesterday.
Sorry but if you believe in intelligent design, I can't believe you call yourself a scientist. That's an oxymoron (emphasis on moron) if I've ever seen one.
he didn't believe in intelligent design (although he famously believed in god) but kurt godel did not subscribe to the theory of evolution. interesting that h was one of the 10 greatest scientists of the last century. there is a place for this type of thought in science.
Kurt Godel wasn't a scientist, he was a mathematician. Big difference.
Plain and simple he is a CHURCH FREAK
A bias against intelligent design? I hope so!
That's exactly what I was thinking. I certainly hope it does.
Scientific bias is a dangerous thing. Suppose scientist DO find evidence of a God (and I'm not suggesting either way), would scientific bias cause them to reject their findings in favor of a more widely accepted theory? See, you think 'scientific bias' is a good thing. It's not. It holds the possibility that evidence of intelligent design would be hidden away because it doesn't contribute to other scientific foundations.
Bias against something that has no scientific merit is not dangerous. Get a clue...
I believe intelligent design has merit, but should not be pushed on co workers in the work place.
So, um' yeah. Which god is responsible for intellegent design? Which? Budaha? The Christian God? Or maybe it was Allah? Or maybe you all have it wrong and it was actually Itzamná, the Mayan god of creation. How are you ever going to proove which god created earth? Discuss..... I'd really like to know the answer here!! Which god created the earth etc. Please DO tell! and proove it! 🙂 Thank you.
I'm not a proponant of ID Mike, however, I do believe the response would be that the designer is, at this point, unknown. Very much like scientists cannot definatively tell us that the big bang, or the hyper-inflation theory, or even the steady-state model and plasma cosmology simply don't answer WHERE it all started, simply that it had a beginning point and how the universe came to be after that inital event.
I do not believe ID has merit, but I agree that work is not the place to push either of those beliefs.
Whether Mr. Coppedge is a secular (evolutionary) scientist or a Creationist scientist, he's a scientist no less. And he brought his scientific expertise to the table. When he was hired by NASA, did they ever ask him what his religious beliefs were? I'm sure not, because that would be discrimination to even ask. But this begs to ask the question, in a field like science and exploration, wouldn't you think a religious belief would be relevant to such type position and responsibility? If you hire a Christian scientist, you know what his conclusions are going to be. You know what he will base his work on.
Besides, if he had a good argument, he was not heard and was therefore silenced by firing him. I'm pretty sure NASA has exaggerated the claims that his co-workers were complaining about him. They have to say that to bring validity to their defense. At best, Mr. Coppedge's co-workers most likely did not go along with his conversations on intelligent design for fear of company retaliation. They did however, receive/take his DVDs when they could've just rejected it.
" Whether Mr. Coppedge is a secular (evolutionary) scientist or a Creationist scientist, he's a scientist no less."
Point 1 – he was not a scientist
Point 2 – "Creationist scientist" is an oxymoron – no such animal.
"I'm pretty sure NASA has exaggerated the claims that his co-workers were complaining about him. They have to say that to bring validity to their defense. At best, Mr. Coppedge's co-workers most likely did not go along with his conversations on intelligent design for fear of company retaliation."
But you do agree this is nothing more than pure speculation.
"in a field like science and exploration, wouldn't you think a religious belief would be relevant to such type position and responsibility? If you hire a Christian scientist, you know what his conclusions are going to be. You know what he will base his work on."
-- No. absolutely not. "Belief" has no place in science. Science is based NOT on "belief", but on objective evidence". If you "know what his conclusions are going to be", then there is no point hiring him, as a.) he is not a scientist, b.) he supposedly can give you the answers without doing any science.
So the question being really begged here is : why hire ANY religionist, without requiring a disclaimer from them, stating their beliefs won't interfere with their methodology..if that's even possible. Probably best not to hire them at all, except for low level, no responsibilty jobs, as from what you just said, they can't objectively evaluate anything. Thanks for making their case for them.
"Whether Mr. Coppedge is a medical doctor or a witch doctor he's a doctor no less. And he brought his medical expertise to the table."
Creationism/ID fits NONE of the the requirements for a scientific theory. Further, ID supporters like Michael Behe have said *in court* that ID is as much science as is astrology. (not astronomy) Don't believe me? Look up the transcripts of the Kitzmiller v. Dover court case. Behe's testimony is a hoot!
"Coppedge was responsible for making technical and scientific recommendations to management and developing presentations about various technical capabilities of new systems and upgrades" If his recomendations include anything about intellegent design he is not doing his job. The "scientific recommendation" of intellegent design will not furhter the "technical capabilities of new systems and upgrades."
The problem is that Coppedge held a relatively senior position in JPL and had some number of people working under him (imagine a manager at a McDonald's) or over whom he had some level of supervisory control. In this position it is almost impossible for him to express such views without it feeling like coercion. He should have been aware that his position carried a weight that makes it uncomfortable for coworkers to publicly disagree with him.
His religious beliefs should not be relevant at all...whether he's a Christian, a Muslim, an atheist, or an agnostic, he should still reach the same decisions based on the same information.
But, the more important thing is that you can't actively promote your religious beliefs, and harass fellow employees about their beliefs, because that does create a hostile work environment. There is no question about whether his coworkers complained about him, as even his lawyer's opening statement states that is the purpose for the meeting with his supervisor.
As for them accepting the DVD's...that's like when someone brings in a snack that you really DON'T want, but accept begrudgingly because that's how polite society operates. And if he is aggressive and impossible to deal with, a lot of times it's easier to accept the DVD & avert the conflict than to get into yet another argument with him.
And finally, he was laid off, not fired...
A manager/supervisor has a LOT of power over those who work for him. Just the hand-off of a DVD to a subordinate has an implicit message that you had better watch this and tell me about because I have the ability to make your job miserable. Any action a supervisor takes has far-reaching impacts on the employees who work for him. A smart supervisor knows this and refrains from bringing his personal life into the work place, no matter what its attached to. So I consider a supervisor "asking" people who work for him to "consider" Intelligent Design, is very much coercive. The very most he shoudl have done would have been to leave his DVD in a common area and do nothing more.
If a doctor in a hospital gets fired for "expressing his views" that beads and rattles were effective treatment against cancer, he would be out in a second and no one would complain. Why is it an issue here?
Actually, there have been cases where doctors pushing religious or alternative medicine then were hit with disciplinary action or firing have indeed sued with some media attention. There was even a high profile case a while back where the doctor ran their own 'medicine' business with the local sheriff's wife as a 'distributor' and was able to have the people who reported him arrested...
If he were a biologist, you would have a point. But he works on jet propulsion, which is a different domain entirely. His quack theory presumably does not overlap with the science he needs to do his job effectively. If it was ever demonstrated in the workplace that it did impact his effectiveness at his actual work, his ID beliefs would be grounds for dismissal then. It is shown over and over that many scientists and technical folks are susceptible to quackery. However, as long as they maintain rationality and skepticism in their specific area of expertise, this is not a problem that needs to be redressed with termination. (This is of course setting aside all harassment issues in this particular case.)
For those who claim that Intelligent Design is a valid scientific theory, maybe you can help me out –
I can't seem to find the actual theory. Can you tell me what refereed scientific journal, or scientific peer-reviewed book it was published in? I'm also interested in which accredited research universites are doing research in ID.
What ? You never heard of the Woo Woo Journal of Magic and Design ?
The Answers in Genesis website is the prime online source for all your Creationist double-think needs.
After a while, your brain might start to melt so I recommend taking it in small doses.
As they used to say, when you are on the clock the company is paying you to do your job. In this case, as a taxpayer, I'm concerned NASA money was used by this administrator to further his personal beliefs. After all the Cassini project was government funded. I could care less what this guy did on his unpaid time as long as he didn't interfere with my life.
Yeah, It was on the job, that's the point.
The Cassini space craft was conceived of by God at the dawn of time, as a test for mankinds ability to get closer to UrAnus, thus the kingdom of God.
I am a Pastafarian and my Jesus is a Pirate.
Why am I not surprised that the Discovery Inst/itute has taken up this guy's cause.
They are the leading rabble rousers in the Creationist world – but not so much becuase they truly and honestly believe in Young Earth Creationism.
They openly admit that their goal isn't to teach what they think is fact. An internal memo leaked in 1999 dubbed "the wedge doc.ument" described the Discovery group's objective in pushing for creationism to be taught in schools as "to defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies". They want to use Intelligent Design as a "wedge" to separate science from its allegiance to "atheistic naturalism".
In other words, they fear that teaching FACTS to children will drive them away from religion.
Regardless, the fired scientist doesn't have a leg to stand on.
While I'm sure that his disruptive behaviour in the workplace was a factor is his dismissal, it wasn't the only reason – he was part of a downsizing initiative and was not the only person to get the boot.
No matter what one's beliefs, common sense dictates that religion, politics and se/xuality are not appropriate topics for the workplace.
That deen is what transforms humanity from the lowest of the low to the representatives of God on earth. The Qur’an tells us: “Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: ‘I will create a vicegerent on earth…’” (Qur’an, 2:30)
As a representative of God on earth, we are given a very great responsibility. It is a trust so heavy that even the mountains rejected it. Allah tells us in the Qur’an: “We did indeed offer the trust to the Heavens and the Earth and the mountains; but they refused to undertake it, being afraid thereof: but man undertook it; he was indeed unjust and foolish.” (Qur’an, 33:72)
As believers, we should never lose sight of this responsibility. It is the fulfillment of that mission that transforms us from ‘asfala safileen’ – the lowest of the low (Qur’an, 95:5), into ‘khaira ummatin ukhrijat linnaas’ – the best of people arisen for mankind. (Qur’an, 3:110)
But how can we be that “best of people”? Allah describes how in His book: “Ye are the best of peoples, risen up for mankind, commanding what is right, forbidding what is evil, and believing in Allah… ” (Qur’an, 3:110).
The essence of that struggle is to believe, to fight for Truth and to strive against evil. And as soon as we give up that noble struggle, we will become among those people who Allah describes in surat Al-Asr as being in an utter state of loss. Allah also describes the ones who will be saved from that state: “Except such as have faith, and do righteous deeds, and (join together) in the mutual teaching of truth, and of patience and constancy.” (Qur’an, 103:3)
And, so, if we continue to abandon this greater mission and purpose, we will have transformed the perfect vision of existence into nothing more than a collection of dots.
Other things that the koran tells us:
o "Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)
"Believers, when you encounter the infidels on the march, do not turn your backs to them in flight. If anyone on that day turns his back to them, except it be for tactical reasons...he shall incur the wrath of God and Hell shall be his home..." (Surah 8:12-)
"Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme." (Surah 8:36-)
"...make war on the leaders of unbelief...Make war on them: God will chastise them at your hands and humble them. He will grant you victory over them..." (Surah 9:12-)
"Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:27-)
"It is He who has sent forth His apostle with guidance and the true Faith [Islam] to make it triumphant over all religions, however much the idolaters [non-Muslims] may dislike it." (Surah 9:31-)
"If you do not fight, He will punish you sternly, and replace you by other men." (Surah 9:37-)
"Prophet make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home." (Surah 9:73)
"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-)
"Say: 'Praise be to God who has never begotten a son; who has no partner in His Kingdom..." (Surah 17:111)
"'How shall I bear a child,' she [Mary] answered, 'when I am a virgin...?' 'Such is the will of the Lord,' he replied. 'That is no difficult thing for Him...God forbid that He [God[ Himself should beget a son!...Those who say: 'The Lord of Mercy has begotten a son,' preach a monstrous falsehood..." (Surah 19:12-, 29-, 88)
"Fight for the cause of God with the devotion due to Him...He has given you the name of Muslims..." (Surah 22:78-)
"Blessed are the believers...who restrain their carnal desires (except with their wives and slave-girls, for these are lawful to them)...These are the heirs of Paradise..." (Surah 23:1-5-)
"Muhammad is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Surah 48:29)
"Shall the reward of goodness be anything but good?...Dark-eyed virgins sheltered in their tents...They shall recline on green cushions and fine carpets...Blessed be the name of your Lord..." (Surah 55:52-66-)
What that book says about itself, and it's as'sumptions and views is irrelevant. It's circular logic. Either use something objective, or stop the nonsense.
About intelligent design;
Imam dies in mosque arson attack in Belgian capital on Monday Evening 12 March.
Belgian coach crash in Swiss tunnel kills 28 on Tuesday Evening 13 March
Strange how things work out and how it is when you make people suffer the suffering comes back to you... Heavenly Justice...
May GOD have mercy on all the deaths involved due to one sick mind..
Yeah your god certainly does have a sick mind, causing ALL that suffering.
It is our deeds that comes back upon us...
If a wound should touch you – there has already touched the [opposing] people a wound similar to it. And these days [of varying conditions] We alternate among the people so that Allah may make evident those who believe and [may] take to Himself from among you martyrs – and Allah does not like the wrongdoers – (3:140).
Time for some godly payback in the area of many sick minds:
The terror and aggression of Islam and Allah via a Partial and Recent and Not So Recent Body Count
As the koranic/mosque driven acts of terror and horror continue:
The Muslim Conquest of India – 11th to 18th century
■"The likely death toll is somewhere between 2 million and 80 million. The geometric mean of those two limits is 12.7 million. "
and the 19 million killed in the Mideast Slave Trade 7C-19C by Muslims.
and more recently
1a) 179 killed in Mumbai/Bombay, 290 injured
1b) Assassination of Benazir Bhutto and Theo Van Gogh
2) 9/11, 3000 mostly US citizens, 1000’s injured
3) The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, US troops killed in action, 3,480 and 928 in non combat roles. 102,522 – 112,049 Iraqi civilians killed as of 9/16/2011/, mostly due to suicide bombers, land mines and bombs of various types, http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ and http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf
4) Kenya- In Nairobi, about 212 people were killed and an estimated 4000 injured; in Dar es Salaam, the attack killed at least 11 and wounded 85.
5) Bali-in 2002-killing 202 people, 164 of whom were foreign nationals, and 38 Indonesian citizens. A further 209 people were injured.
6) Bali in 2005- Twenty people were killed, and 129 people were injured by three bombers who killed themselves in the attacks.
7) Spain in 2004- killing 191 people and wounding 2,050.
8. UK in 2005- The bombings killed 52 commuters and the four radical Islamic suicide bombers, injured 700.
9) The execution of an eloping couple in Afghanistan on 04/15/2009 by the Taliban.
10) – Afghanistan: US troops 1,385 killed in action, 273 killed in non-combat situations as of 09/15/2011. Over 40,000 Afghan civilians killed due to the dark-age, koranic-driven Taliban acts of horror
11) The killing of 13 citizen soldiers at Ft. Hood by a follower of the koran.
12) 38 Russian citizens killed on March 29, 2010 by Muslim women suicide bombers.
13) The May 28, 2010 attack on a Islamic religious minority in Pakistan, which have left 98 dead,
14) Lockerbie is known internationally as the site where, on 21 December 1988, the wreckage of Pan Am Flight 103 crashed as a result of a terrorist bomb. In the United Kingdom the event is referred to as the Lockerbie disaster, the Lockerbie bombing, or simply Lockerbie. Eleven townspeople were killed in Sherwood Crescent, where the plane's wings and fuel tanks plummeted in a fiery explosion, destroying several houses and leaving a huge crater, with debris causing damage to a number of buildings nearby. The 270 fatalities (259 on the plane, 11 in Lockerbie) were citizens of 21 nations.
15 The daily suicide and/or roadside and/or mosque bombings in the terror world of Islam.
16) Bombs sent from Yemen by followers of the koran which fortunately were discovered before the bombs were detonated.
17) The killing of 58 Christians in a Catholic church in one of the latest acts of horror and terror in Iraq.
18) Moscow airport suicide bombing: 35 dead, 130 injured. January 25, 2011.
19) A Pakistani minister, who had said he was getting death threats because of his stance against the country's controversial blasphemy law, was shot and killed Wednesday, 3/2/2011
20) two American troops killed in Germany by a recently radicalized Muslim, 3/3/2011
21) the kidnapping and apparent killing of a follower of Zoraster in the dark world of Islamic Pakistan.
22) Shariatpur, Bangladesh (CNN 3/30/2011) - Hena Akhter's last words to her mother proclaimed her innocence. But it was too late to save the 14-year-old girl. Her fellow villagers in Bangladesh's Shariatpur district had already passed harsh judgment on her. Guilty, they said, of having an affair with a married man. The imam from the local mosque ordered the fatwa, or religious ruling, and the punishment: 101 lashes delivered swiftly, deliberately in public. Hena dropped after 70 and died a week later.
23) "October 4, 2011, 100 die as a truck loaded with drums of fuel exploded Tuesday at the gate of compound housing several government ministries on a busy Mogadishu street. It was the deadliest single bombing carried out by the al Qaeda-linked al-Shabab group in Somalia since their insurgency began. "
Muneef: Stop quoting books written by fallible human beings as fact....or provide EVIDENCE to prove "fact"
Are you nuts, Muneef? The death of a bunch of Belgian school kids was divine retribution for the murder of an imam? You think maybe Allah can target the actual murderer next time? Hey, I'll gladly hand him over the American soldier guilty of the Afghanistan murder. But if Allah's justice is to kill more kids than that jerk, then he himself should hang.
The quran is a very backward, scientifically incorrect, and immoral book. For example, it openly states that its ok to BEAT women, women are INFERIOR to men, and that all women are permanently ill.
You ask: Show me where quran supports beating of women?
Quran condones wife beating:
"As for these from women, fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart and scourge them." – Quran Chapter 4:34
Muham_mad also suggests threatening your wife with the scourge as a constant reminder:
"On the authority of Muhammad (peace and blessing of Allah be upon him), he said: ‘Hang up your scourge in a place where your wife (or wives) can see it.’ – Kash-shaf (the revealer) of al-Zamakhshari (Vol. 1, p. 525)
And after beating your wife:
"a man must not be asked why he beat his wife." – Quran sura 4:34
You ask: Show me where Quran says that women are inferior to men?
Muham_mad said that a woman's intelligence is half that of a man:
The Prophet said, "Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?" The women said, "Yes." He said, "This is because of the deficiency of a woman's mind." Abu Dawud (2142)
From Quran: "If they party liable is mentally deficient, or weak, or unable Himself to dictate, Let his guardian dictate faithfully, and get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her. " – Quran Chapter 2:282
This clearly shows that Islam regards women inferior to men. That's why under Sharia (Islamic) law, two women are needed to make up one male witness.
So even if a muslim woman has a PHD, her intelligence is only half that of an illiterate muslim man! Oh the logic used by Muham_mad is outstanding!
When it comes to inheritance, the quran also shafts women:
"Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females" – Quran Chapter 4:011.
Here we clearly see that Islam views women as below men.
Even allah wants to send his godly messages to men only:
"And before thee also the messengers We sent were but men, to whom We granted inspiration: if ye realise this not, ask of those who possess the Message." – Quran Chpater 16:043
"Allah chooses messengers from angels and from men for Allah is He Who hears and sees (all things)." – Quran Chapter 22:075
You ask: Show me where Quran says that women are permanently ill?
"They question thee (O Muhammad) concerning menstruation. Say: It is an illness, so let women alone at such times and go not in unto them till they are cleansed. And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as Allah hath enjoined upon you. Truly Allah loveth those who turn unto Him, and loveth those who have a care for cleanness." – Quran chapter 2:222
So Islam and Muham_mad considers menstruation an illness? Oh my another amazing logic from Quran! I guess women are cured of their illness after they stop menstruation.
What a great insult to women the quran is. Muneef, do u think:
a) if ur daughter got married to a muslim man,and u visited her one day only to see slash marks on her body, the quran states that u cannot question your son-in-law about the beating he gave ur daughter. u agree to this?
b) do u agree that ur wife is half as intelligent as u? or do u agree that ur wife is half as intelligent that the most illiterate muslim man?
c) do u consider a woman's period to be an illness?
I will not debate with you after all my English nor my time would allow me but can say one thing all that was in the Quran was for a reason that only GOD knows of nor me or you or any body else is knowably capable of reaching the core of GOD's wisdom behind those teachings...after all men and women are not alike by any means and hold many differences between them...any way am glad of your awareness much better than many here...
Both deaths are not ok with me,nor the burning of a house of worship whether was a Mosque or a Church or any Temple...,negativity has brought sorrows for both sides
Believing that an Invisible Sky Man, who grants wishes, created the universe is akin to believing that wood nymphs and garden fairies make flowers bloom. Leave childish beliefs behind and keep religion out of my science and I promise not to show up to your church on Sundays and spout science fact.
My elder sister n me tolerate milk. My little sister does not. Our ancient Egyptian ancestors may have reared cattle so what explains my sister not evolving. Note that my tribe does not rear cattle nor do they drink milk traditionally. Variation is true. Evolution? Well not so true.
Nii Nii the stupid guy, it does not matter if you believe in evolution...science has said it is correct and has said you are stupid for not believing facts over fiction.
Nii, you just disproved your own point ! See how stupid that is ? You also know NOTHING about variation, and evolution. You REALLY need to go get an education, and stop making a fool of yourself.
Don’t mind me. Some times I am very stupid, and I know that I don’t have a clue what evolution is, but I do know that it goes against the bible so I don’t believe it.
I am sure INSANITY doesnt have far 2 go now! Its not a question of me or u. Its me asking questions in all dxns n not sleeping cos someone says he knows de answer. I've seen theories disproved n theories that r extrapolations of others like evolution r de weakest. Put things in perspective.
Unlike what TruthPrevails Nii says I know that evolution does not go against the Bible. It is not something to be believed like the Apostles Creed. It is a working proposition. I have seen this mistake time and time again. Science texts and the Bible do not have to be "TRUE" but they have to work.
"Science texts and the Bible do not have to be "TRUE" but they have to work."
If the bible is the works of an all-knowing all powerful god, then they better be TRUE or your religion is a farce.
Variation is the material that natural and se-xual selection work on. Darwin focussed a large part of his work on demonstrating such variation.
You example demonstrates very well that you have no concept of evolution, natural selection, or genetic variation in the slightest regard. I would ask you educate yourself, but I'm afraid you might get that wrong.
guess living in the belly of a fish and prophecies are totally true too huh? d u m .B @ $ $ ! ! !
Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things
Prayer is for the insecure.
Theism is not healthy for anybody or anything.
When I was a child a prayed to God. About half the time I got what I wished for. As an adult I began praying to Humphrey Bogart and about half the time I got what I wished for. The belief in am Invisible Sky Friend who grants Wishes is not in line with healthy minds, progressive thought, and advanced civilization.
Atheism seems to work pretty well for my cat.
"Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things"
Neither are Crusades.
To get a gauge of just how inane the belief in intelligent design is in the 21st Century, here are some areas they must ignore, any one of which proves beyond rational argument that, not surprisingly, the World did not start about 6,000 years ago at the behest of the Judeo-Christian god, with one man, one woman and a talking snake.
First and most obviously is the fossil record. The fossil record is much, much more than just dinosaurs. Indeed, dinosaurs only get the press because of their size, but they make up less than 1% of the entire fossil record. Life had been evolving on Earth for over 3 thousand million years before dinosaurs evolved and has gone on evolving for 65 million years after the Chicxulub meteor wiped them out.
The fossil record includes the Stromatolites, colonies of prokaryotic bacteria, that range in age going back to about 3 billion years, the Ediacara fossils from South Australia, widely regarded as among the earliest multi-celled organisms, the Cambrian species of the Burgess shale in Canada (circa – 450 million years) the giant scorpions of the Silurian Period, the giant, wingless insects of the Devonian period, the insects, amphibians, reptiles; fishes, clams, crustaceans of the Carboniferous Period, the many precursors to the dinosaurs, the dinosaurs themselves, the subsequent dominant mammals, including the saber tooth tiger, the mammoths of North America and Asia, the fossils of early man in Africa and the Neanderthals of Europe.
The fossil record shows a consistent and worldwide evolution of life on Earth dating back to about 3,500,000,000 years ago. There are literally millions of fossils that have been recovered, of thousands of different species and they are all located where they would be in the geological record if life evolved slowly over billions of years. None of them can be explained by a 6,000 year old Earth and Noah’s flood. Were they all on the ark? What happened to them when it docked?
Lions, tigers, bears, and wolves eat a lot of food – meat- which means its food would itself have to have been fed, like the food of every other carnivore on the ark. A bit of “back of the envelope” math quickly shows that “Noah’s Ark” would actually have to have been an armada of ships bigger than the D Day invasion force, manned by thousands and thousands of people – and this is without including the World’s 300,000 current species of plants, none of which could walk merrily in twos onto the Ark.
Secondly, there are those little things we call oil, natural gas and other fossil fuels. Their mere existence is another, independent and fatal blow to the creationists. Speak to any geologist who works for Exxon Mobil, Shell or any of the thousands of mining, oil or natural gas related companies that make a living finding fossil fuels. They will tell you these fossil fuels take millions of years to develop from the remains of large forests (in the case of coal) or tiny marine creatures (in the case of oil). That’s why they are called fossil fuels. Have a close look at coal, you can often see the fossilized leaves in it. The geologists know exactly what rocks to look for fossil fuels in, because they know how to date the rocks to millions of years ago. Creationists have no credible explanation for this (nor for why most of it was “given to the Muslims”).
Thirdly, most of astronomy and cosmology would be wrong if the creationists were right. In short, as Einstein showed, light travels at a set speed. Space is so large that light from distant stars takes many years to reach the Earth. In some cases, this is millions or billions of years. The fact that we can see light from such far away stars means it began its journey billions of years ago. The Universe must be billions of years old. We can currently see galaxies whose light left home 13.7 billion years ago. Indeed, on a clear night, one can see many stars more than 6,000 light years away with the naked eye, shining down like tiny silent witnesses against the nonsense of creationism.
Fourthly, we have not just carbon dating, but also all other methods used by scientists to date wood, rocks, fossils, and other artifacts. These comprehensively disprove the Bible’s claims. They include uranium-lead dating, potassium-argon dating as well as other non-radioactive methods such as pollen dating, dendrochronology and ice core dating. In order for any particular rock, fossil or other artifact to be aged, generally two or more samples are dated independently by two or more laboratories in order to ensure an accurate result. If results were random, as creationists claim, the two independent results would rarely agree. They generally do. They regularly reveal ages much older than Genesis. Indeed, the Earth is about 750,000 times older than the Bible claims.
Fifthly, the relatively new field of DNA mapping not only convicts criminals, it shows in undeniable, full detail how we differ from other life forms on the planet. For example, about 98.4% of human DNA is identical to that of chimpanzees, about 97% of human DNA is identical to that of gorillas, and slightly less again of human DNA is identical to the DNA of monkeys. This gradual divergence in DNA can only be rationally explained by the two species diverging from a common ancestor, and coincides perfectly with the fossil record. Indeed, scientists can use the percentage of DNA that two animal share (such as humans and bears, or domestic dogs and wolves) to get an idea of how long ago the last common ancestor of both species lived. It perfectly corroborates the fossil record and is completely independently developed. It acts as yet another fatal blow to the “talking snake” theory.
Sixthly, the entire field of historical linguistics would have to be rewritten to accommodate the Bible. This discipline studies how languages develop and diverge over time. For example, Spanish and Italian are very similar and have a recent common “ancestor” language, Latin, as most people know. However, Russian is quite different and therefore either did not share a common root, or branched off much earlier in time. No respected linguist anywhere in the World traces languages back to the Tower of Babel, the creationists’ explanation for different languages. Indeed, American Indians, Australian Aboriginals, “true” Indians, Chinese, Mongols, Ja.panese, Sub-Saharan Africans and the Celts and other tribes of ancient Europe were speaking thousands of different languages thousands of years before the date creationist say the Tower of Babel occurred – and even well before the date they claim for the Garden of Eden.
Seventhly, lactose intolerance is also a clear vestige of human evolution. Most mammals only consume milk as infants. After infancy, they no longer produce the enzyme “lactase” that digests the lactose in milk and so become lactose intolerant. Humans are an exception and can drink milk as adults – but not all humans – some humans remain lactose intolerant. So which humans are no longer lactose intolerant? The answer is those who evolved over the past few thousand years raising cows. They evolved slightly to keep producing lactase as adults so as to allow the consumption of milk as adults. This includes most Europeans and some Africans, notably the Tutsi of Rwanda. On the other hand, most Chinese, native Americans and Aboriginal Australians, whose ancestors did not raise cattle, remain lactose intolerant.
I could go on and elaborate on a number of other disciplines or facts that creationists have to pretend into oblivion to retain their faith, including the Ice Ages, cavemen and early hominids, much of microbiology, paleontology and archeology, continental drift and plate tectonics, even large parts of medical research (medical research on monkeys and mice only works because they share a common ancestor with us and therefore our fundamental cell biology and basic body architecture is identical to theirs).
In short, and not surprisingly, the World’s most gifted evolutionary biologists, astronomers, cosmologists, geologists, archeologists, paleontologists, historians, modern medical researchers and linguists (and about 2,000 years of accu.mulated knowledge) are right and a handful of Iron Age Middle Eastern goat herders were wrong.
Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things. Need proof? Read some of the drivel posted above !
Colin, many Christians, including myself, have explained numerous times in writing that Noah's flood was not global, but regional. We've also explained about the 3 earth ages and 3 Heaven ages where God destroyed the 1st earth age, recovered from His anger and created this earth age, the 2nd one we now live in. As of this writing, that I know of, God has yet to reveal to seekers (writing in the Bible) specifically how old the world is. I am sure that with God revealing more of His truth with those that seek, more understanding of His truth will be revealed. Scriptures are the same. We don't change them. However, seekers do comprehend more of His truth that were hidden from previous generations. Therefore, the scientific theories of how old they assume the world to be, are just that ... assumptions based on scientific theories, wishing (or should I express it as your praying) that they are indeed absolute facts. Therefore, the debate continues.
Colin there is a fish found in fossil records and written off as extinct but then rediscovered as a deep sea creature. The human genome project also discovered that living things do not follow a uniform periodic table like elements. Biology is the Archilles' heel of atheistic claims.
The superiority complex which makes some "scientists" cast away the large body of Judaeo-Christian learning is baffling. Hebrew culture arose in the Fertile Crescent within Sumerian and Egyptian culture. They were not Bedouins. It is sad that such slander should be perpetrated against them.
@prayer changes nothing: i would say colin's drivel is far better then your oh so enlightening state found through out cnn blogs of " prayer changes things". even when asked to provide studies and evidence of such a thing you ignore them and keep posting the same garbage again and again and again. either your a troll or a coward to not defend your statements.
@heavensent: 1) how do you know the flood wasn't global? according to scripture "17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.[g][h] 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark. 24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days." notice it said every mountain was covered and everything was killed not on the ark. so that is trying to reinterrpt the scripture planly written in the bible to satisfy a hole in the whole flood theory.
@nii: biology and the sciences aren't an achilles heel to atheists. it's our friend. science and free thought are the enemy of the church and religious indoctrination. as humans explain more and more natural phenomenon there is less and less reason to buy into the whole religion thing. before religion taught people that angry gods were throwing lightning bolts down upon the earth, science found out it was caused by the same process that static electricity produces a spark. religion once taught humans that the earth was the center of everything, until one astronomer proved them wrong.....they even called him to rome to testify about his findings, then put him under house arrest when his findings didn't match scripture, the same as most followers of faith use scripture to say they are correct when they don't even know they have no leg to stand on. faith doesn't require proof, science demands proof.
Wasp, The word "World" in Genesis 7:17-19 is "erets" in the Hebrew and means a particular part of the earth, not the entire globe.
HeavenSent: How are you so sure of that? The word world as defined by any dictionary is: The earth. The universe. The earth with its inhabitants. The inhabitants of the earth; the human race. You can't go changing the definition to suit the story. Science has already debunked the whole global flood issue anyways, so the bible story has been proven false whether you wish to agree or not. I think the reality is that you simply don't care what the truth is.
Obviously you do not know what the Periodic Table is. How extraordinarily scary for an engineer. You MUST be lying. Do you even know what the Periodic Table is ? Please post LARGE SIGNS in front of ALL bridges you design, so we can all avoid them. That statement, "The human genome project also discovered that living things do not follow a uniform periodic table like elements" would not be made by a sixth grader. You are making a fool of yourself. What "elements" exactly DOES the human genome "follow" ? Have YOU discovered some hitherto unknown elements ? OMG ! Really, even we didn't think you were THAT ignorant.
TruthPrevails, you posted "HeavenSent: How are you so sure of that? The word world as defined by any dictionary is: The earth. The universe. The earth with its inhabitants. The inhabitants of the earth; the human race. You can't go changing the definition to suit the story. Science has already debunked the whole global flood issue anyways, so the bible story has been proven false whether you wish to agree or not. I think the reality is that you simply don't care what the truth is.
Answer: I told you a year ago that I love studying Jesus' truth which includes discovering what others that seek His truth have uncovered throughout the years (including Hebrew, Greek, etc. scrolls and texts). To superficially read through the Bible in the English language, as you non-believers claim that you have done, is of course, a waste of yours and everyone's time since it's obvious that you haven't a clue to what you are reading. Some of the sciences can debunk all they want, it's just certain folks misunderstanding along with their ingrained ignorance of His truth. I told you before, it would be nice if we were all on the same page uncovering His truth. Since you refuse, you can keep your frustrations to yourself as I am sure, others will eventually be thrilled that the truth is pure science and Jesus' wisdom are in complete agreement. Always were, always will be.
Your god claims that he was going to kill all living things on earth not on the boat. Was that a lie? If you seriously claim that the flood was local and not global, why not simply have Noah and the family walk over to the next valley?
Also, in this area of the world, there are various species of obligate carnivores. These species must eat meat, fresh meat, or they die. These animals were on the boat much longer than 40 days. The were on the boat 9 months. What did these obligate carnivores eat? Once the boat landed, it would have taken generations to re-establish land-based vegetation to enable the herbivores to eat and then reproduce in sufficient numbers to allow the preditor-prey relationship to re-establish. There would not be fresh meat for the obligate carnivores to eat for years and years.
Heavensent has been spouting off about "his truth" for over a year and still has not provided concrete evidence of her creator. anything you read from this blogger is nothing but speculation and hearsay.
@heavensent: ok so you just admitted to not studying anything other then "his truth". ok so in which language would people who read the bible not be concidered ignorant, by your defintion? if a mistake was made in translation then the people responcible should recall all bibles written with that translation and re-distrubute the correct translation, but i'm certain when it said " the mountains we're covered by 15 cubics" that would imply everything was under water. no way to re-interpet those words or play around with their meanings.
You tried. At least the responses are kind of funny.
In short, Please get a life or a job t least
Nii, there are LOTS of ancient life forms that still exist, up to and including blue green algae. If you anti-evolutionists would ever bother to learn what evolution actually says before presuming to criticize it, MAYBE we could at least get some intelligent DISCUSSION going.
This is not an argument against Intelligent design. This is the usual faithless spew from a selfish angry child.
Colin, I appreciate your points, and some are well made.
Just a note, the animals were not carnivores before the flood. They did not eat meat till after the flood. God changed the diet of humans in Genesis 9 when Noah got off the ark. God did this was that many of the plants that had nourished man before the flood had now died off. Plant degeneration would also effect the nutritional value of plants.
There had to be something, because the dove brought back a leafy twig in its mouth.
If you at the teeth of Neanderthals, notice they have larger molars and smaller canine teeth than present humans. They had thicker enamel (they would need this if they lived longer than we do), and had well worn third molars, or wisdom teeth. We don't use our wisdom teeth today.
One must look at natural selection versus evolution. Say a tongue of an ant-eater would be more likely to reproduce and pass the genes for a long tongue onto their offspring. This is not evolution. They are did not become fish, or birds. And the tongue is still a tongue.
A lot of things happened at the fall of man, before the flood as well.
Was the flood world wide? I hear both sides. The Mediterranean was a valley and Gibraltar split so to speak to let the Atlantic Ocean in. Another one is the Black Sea, where the narrow passage is its only indication of something happening.
Having said that, those had to be huge depressions, not improbable, because the Dead Sea is a good example of this existing even today.
We find fossils in the Rockies, and the explanation was it was once a sea. We find Mammoths frozen still eating and petrified trees in the Arctic. This all could indicate a traumatic shift, either due to global flooding, the curse, magnetic polars and so on. Geologists would have a better idea looking at the rock layers.
Are the Rocky Mountains growing or shrinking? How fast do they do this? Does it correspond with dinosaurs?
There are many questions, but to leave God out of the picture is doomed to rationalize with man's finite thinking, which we know from either side of the argument doesn't bode well with time.
I believe in Intelligent Design, I also believe in Jesus. I believe God does not want to interfere with our daily lives thereby giving full confidence we have freedom of choice. I however believe in His grace, otherwise we would have wiped each other off a long time ago. Even as far back as 1992 when WWIII almost happened, but that's another story. We were a few minutes away from a Russian panic frenzy in the North Sea.
Excellent break down!! Thank you Colin! 🙂
Colin, you post this crap every time a creation related article pops up. For starters, you're confusing Intelligent Design with Young Earth Creation. Intelligent design doesn't really concern itself with the age of the earth or even belief in the God of the bible. They only point out that evolution is completely insufficient in describing the complex systems we see in our universe. The evidence points to intelligent design, so that's what they believe.
If you think the flood was global:
1. How can noah build such a large cruiseliner to hold ALL the animals of the earth with primitive tools?
2. How can noah accommodate a lion and a zebra on the same ship without the lion having his zebra for lunch?
3. How can noah (who thought that where he lived in his little part of the world was actually the entire world) save the indian bengali tigers, australian kangaroo, polar bears, penguins that he doesn't even know exist because he's a primitive man????
4. From no 3, IF noah did bring polar bears and penguins onto his ship, did he build a special refrigerator to keep them from dying (cause u know they cant survive in warm climates)
5. If this supposed flood did occur, why can't scientists find a plethora of fossils from that point in time of all the dead animals? did god use special water in the flood that dissolved all the bones of the animals?
6. In order to flood the whole planet, you would need 3 times the amount of water that already exists on this planet, and you would essentially destroy the planet. And where did all that extra water go? It just disappeared or evaporated??
If you think the flood was regional:
Then ur god is a petty small god of the middle east, who really didnt know about humans and other animals existing AT THE SAME TIME in other parts of the world. Yet in the bible he said that he was angered and killed all humans with the flood. That is untrue since other civilizations were alive in other parts of the world at that time.
And HeavenSent, as for Jesus's truth: Do u think that Jesus really was god when he (and everyone else during this era) thought we lived on a flat earth?
Remember during the temptation in the desert, when Satan took Jesus to a high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the earth? Obviously both Jesus and Satan and the biblical authors who made up this story did not know that the earth was round. No matter how high a mountain I take you to, you cannot see all the kingdoms of the earth because the earth is round. Jesus who u consider god was not aware of this simple fact. How can someone who u attribute a god status to not know that the earth is round??
Again in revelation, the bible says that after the last battle between good and evil, Jesus will come back through the clouds for ALL TO SEE. This again points out that Jesus/biblical authors thought that the earth is flat. But in reality, because the earth is round, if Jesus comes through the clouds, less than a quarter of the earths population will see him. Not everyone. This again shows that the main figure of christianity is implying that the world is flat. How can Jesus be a god by thinking that the earth is flat?
Primewonk, you posted “Your god claims that he was going to kill all living things on earth not on the boat. Was that a lie? If you seriously claim that the flood was local and not global, why not simply have Noah and the family walk over to the next valley?
Answer: Noah and his family were the only righteous people in that area. The flood was regional to ensure the killing of the Giants (Genesis 6:1-8) that resided in the area.
Also, in this area of the world, there are various species of obligate carnivores. These species must eat meat, fresh meat, or they die. These animals were on the boat much longer than 40 days. The were on the boat 9 months. What did these obligate carnivores eat?
Answer: The animals that were found in the region of the flood were brought onto the ark. Seven of every clean animal and two of every unclean animal.
Once the boat landed, it would have taken generations to re-establish land-based vegetation to enable the herbivores to eat and then reproduce in sufficient numbers to allow the preditor-prey relationship to re-establish. There would not be fresh meat for the obligate carnivores to eat for years and years.
Answer: Read Genesis 8 again with an opened mind and eyes. John Brooks is correct, how would the dove come back with an olive leaf in her mouth if this were a global flood?
WASP, in response to your post “@heavensent: ok so you just admitted to not studying anything other then "his truth". ok so in which language would people who read the bible not be concidered ignorant, by your defintion? if a mistake was made in translation then the people responcible should recall all bibles written with that translation and re-distrubute the correct translation, but i'm certain when it said " the mountains we're covered by 15 cubics" that would imply everything was under water. no way to re-interpet those words or play around with their meanings.
Answer: You assume that His truth is all I’ve studied. When translating from one language to another, it is up to the reader to research definitions of words used and how they were used (e.g., would future generations know what the slang “my crib” means? They would have to research the slang terminology uses of that period of time.
LetsThink123, you posted what is on all the non-believers rag sites. I believe it’s you that needs to use your mind, along with ask your own questions.
As for the earth being flat. Only non-believers at the time believe this lie. Christians at the time were told about what is written in Isaiah 40:22.
Colin has it bang on. People who believe in a 'God' who created everything, also believe the most powerful, most complex, pinnacle of all things was the first thing to appear in the universe. Everything else has to start at the simplest, most basic form of existence. It's like believing that the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel was built first, then the foundation below it added later. Listen, God ( actually Gods), were created by primitive peoples to take the responsibility of everyday events that were crucial to life, like finding food, water, and the sun rising away from the people and burdening an unseen provider. It's called human nature. As societies became more sophisticated, they required less Gods to pray to.Catholics and Christians ignore earlier religions that they ripped off, like Buddism. We feed our kids crap like Santa Claus and the Easter bunny to get them to behave, well guess what, every time you write a cheque to your Church, you just wrote a letter to Santa. God was created in our image.
Prayer changes things
While you set in prayer,everything around you changes and you have done nothing except hope for change.
People who take action in life make things happen. If I sat in prayer 24/7,every day of my life would be irrelevant to to world around me. Take action in life and make the world a better place to live.Do not expect things to magically or miraculously happen just because you wish it. We are all responsible for the deeds we do in life and no amount of prayer takes away that responsibility. If you do a terrible act in life,no amount of prayer will take away that act though you might wish others to forgive you for that act. Be a better person. Stop using religion's as your reasoning for your actions in life and use common decency for all things around us.
7.Naturalism is true; therefore, there is no need for God.
A.Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through natural laws, it does not mean that God does not exist since God is, by definition, outside of natural laws since He is the creator of them.
B.Some might say that if all things can be explained via natural laws, then it means there is no evidence for God.
i.But, can all things be explained via naturalism? No, because naturalism has not explained all phenomena known today, nor can we assert that all things in the future will be explained via naturalism because we do not know all phenomena that can and will occur. Therefore, it is not a fact that naturalism can explain all things. Therefore, God is not negated via naturalism.
You have just reinvented "god of the gaps". Congratulations.
B.Naturalism is true; therefore, there is no need for God.
i.Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through natural laws, it does mean God does not exist since God is, by definition, outside of natural laws since He is the creator of them.
a."Actually, it would. "All things" includes God. Laws, not being things, are not created."
i.This becomes a semantic argument. The laws inherent in the nature of God are peculiar to Him alone. Since God is different than the universe, the laws of the universe do not need to be identical with those inherent in God's nature. Natural science presumes to quantify phenomena based upon naturalistic observations. By definition, this excludes God's existence; or at the very least, it excludes the possibility of evidences for God's existence to be interpreted apart from the naturalistic forced mold. Again, this is an issue dealing with presuppositions.
ii.Some might say that if all things can be explained via natural laws, then it means there is no evidence for God.
a.But, can all things be explained via naturalism? No, because naturalism has not explained all phenomena known today, nor can we assert that all things in the future will be explained via naturalism because we do not know all phenomena that can and will occur.
i.Your premises do not entail your conclusion ("There are things which cannot be explained via naturalism").
i.I disagree. I think my statement makes perfect sense.
b.Therefore, it is not a fact that naturalism can explain all things. Therefore, God is not negated via naturalism.
i."But it is not a fact either that there are things which cannot be explained by naturalism."
i.Explain, then, how and why the gentle cooing of a baby warms the heart of a mother. In your naturalistic explanation, quantify and predict future "warm fuzzies" in the heart of the mother, or why poetry speaks to one person and not another. While you're at it, use your naturalistic principles to prove that I love my wife. Come on, not everything is quantifiable and repeatable through observation. We are not that simplistic in our makeup.
ii."Your God is negated by naturalism in the same sense that Allah is negated by Christianity. But I agree that naturalism is just one worldview. It has the advantage of needing the smallest amount of working assumptions (aka "presuppositions"). "
i.You make my point when you say the Christian God is negated by naturalism. This does not mean the Christian God is proven to not exist - a negative that, I hope, you weren't trying to prove through naturalism. Nevertheless, again you have helped me to make the point that naturalism, by definition, excludes God. This is why you stated, "your God is negated by naturalism." Unfortunately for you and other atheists, naturalism does not negate God's existence. Naturalism is only sufficient to explain many aspects of the universe and its behavior. But if God is "other" than the universe, then to be so pompous as to say that naturalism negates God's existence is to subject an infinite God to finite principles based on human observation. This is a presupposition of error on your part.
About your examples with the warm feelings and love. They not only can be explained by naturalism but the can be quantified and repeated. It's all chemicals in the brain which gives these feelings. If I could activate that section of someone's brain they would still feel that 'fuzzy feeling' no matter what was happening to them at that time. Naturalism may not completely disprove a god, but it does disprove a personal god that interacts in our universe. So far, naturalism has explained almost everything the human race has observed and there is no reason to believe that it won't one day explain everything in the universe.
Nothing like posting a screamingly obvious logical fallacy under the name 'truth'.
A.To lack belief in God appears to be a defensive position since the assertive atheist positions are wrought with logical problems (shown above). If the atheist says he "lacks belief" in God, then it appears his goal is to maintain a position that is unattackable since then he has no position to attack.
The problem is that "lacking belief" in God is an intellectual position made by a choice to "lack belief." Therefore, it is a position since it is the result of a choice. Any position held must have reasons, or it is not a position. It would be nothing. The atheist who asserts that he lacks belief is asserting a position of lack of belief.
B.My cat lacks belief in God, as does my computer. Are they also atheists? Therefore, simply lacking belief is not a sufficient statement since it can include animals and inanimate objects.
C.If you say that "lacking belief" refers only to yourself as a human being, then see point A.
@"truth": exactly, we have no postion on god because we don't believe in it. it's like saying because you don't believe in santa anymore you have to have a postion as to why you don't. that's easy to answer because santa doesn't exist. no other answer is needed. simple enough.
Its possible to believe in God, "the holy spirit", not the creator and doer of magic.
A.To say "I believe there is no God" is a conscious choice. Then, on what do you base your choice: evidence, logic, faith, or a combination of the three?
i.If evidence, then what positive evidence is there that disproves God's existence?
a.There can be no such evidence, since evidence is physical in nature (evidence is an effect and/or result of something in reality). How could evidence disprove the existence of God who is, by definition, the creator of reality and separate from it?
(I am defending the Christian God as revealed in the Bible).
b.Testimony is admissible in court as evidence, but no one can rightly testify that God does not exist.
ii.If logic, then what logical proof do you have that negates God's existence?
a.At best, logic can only disprove theistic proofs. Disproving theistic proofs does not mean there is no God. It only means that the proofs presented thus far are insufficient.
b.Logic can be used to disprove theistic evidences that are presented. Negating such proofs is not a refutation of all possible proofs, since no one can know or present all possible proofs of God's existence. Therefore, negation of proofs does not disprove God's existence.
c.If there were a logical argument that proved God did not exist, it has not yet been made known. If it were known then it would be in use by atheists. But since no proof of God's non-existence has been successfully defended by atheists, we can conclude that thus far there are no logical proofs for God's non-existence.
iii.If faith alone, then the position is not held by logic or evidence and is an arbitrary position.
iv.If by a combination of evidence, logic, and/or faith, then according to the above analysis, neither is sufficient to validate atheism. A combination of insufficient means does not validate atheism.
B.For someone to believe there is no God is to hold that belief by faith, since there is no evidence that positively supports atheism and there are no logical proofs that God does not exist. It is, after all, virtually impossible to prove a negative.
"To say "I believe there is no God" is a conscious choice." This would not even be a question had not someone else claimed there is one.
"There can be no such evidence, since evidence is physical in nature" Then without any evidence we can perceive, why would anyone conjecture about it's existence?
"since no proof of God's non-existence has been successfully defended by atheists, we can conclude that thus far there are no logical proofs for God's non-existence." And by this logic you are a mass murderer because you cannot disprove that you had nothing to do with all the people who just died when you wrote your post. Prove to me it was not your post that caused the old woman down the road to die in her sleep or the man who just got hit by a car or the child that just found out they have cancer. Prove it please, and if not then I guess it's safe to assume you are a danger to society and should be executed as soon as possible, right?
Testimony is admissible in court as evidence, but no one can rightly testify that God does not exist.
In the absence of proof one way or the other, the fall-back / default answer is NOT that it IS true.
iii.Testimony is admissible in court as evidence, but no one can rightly testify that God does not exist.
a."So if no one can rightly testify that I haven't killed my daughter, will the court convict me of murder ?"
i.Again, the atheist misses the point. When an atheist says he "believes" there is no God, or he "knows" there is no God, he cannot logically and authoritatively demonstrate that what he "believes" or "knows" is objectively true. Of course, this precludes any attempted atheist logical proofs that God does not exist. The atheists have not come up with one yet. If they had, they would be using it everywhere. Nevertheless, the issue of his daughter has no relevance to the point at hand that an atheist cannot logically and authoritatively demonstrate that God does not exist.
C.If logic then what logical proof do you have that negates God's existence?
i."See above. God's existence has to be proven, his non-existence doesn't have to be proven in the absence of objective evidence in his favor."
a.Again the atheist is missing the point, which is clarified under the initial comment (2A) "To say 'I believe there is no God is a conscious choice. Then, on what do you base your choice: evidence, logic, faith, or a combination of the three?" [emphasis added] He has failed to take this into context in his comment. He has failed to answer the possible atheist's objection which would claim that logic demonstrates that there is no God. This is why I responded by asking, "what logical proof do you have that negates God's existence?" It is a logical question to ask, but this atheist is apparently responding without thinking the argument through and without paying attention to context.
A.To say "I believe there is no Santa" is a conscious choice. Then, on what do you base your choice: evidence, logic, faith, or a combination of the three?
i.If evidence, then what positive evidence is there that disproves Santa's existence?
a.There can be no such evidence, since evidence is physical in nature (evidence is an effect and/or result of something in reality). How could evidence disprove the existence of Santa who is, by definition, the creator of reality and separate from it?
(I am defending the Christian Santa as revealed in the Bible).
b.Testimony is admissible in court as evidence, but no one can rightly testify that Santa does not exist.
ii.If logic, then what logical proof do you have that negates Santa's existence?
a.At best, logic can only disprove theistic proofs. Disproving theistic proofs does not mean there is no Santa. It only means that the proofs presented thus far are insufficient.
b.Logic can be used to disprove theistic evidences that are presented. Negating such proofs is not a refutation of all possible proofs, since no one can know or present all possible proofs of Santa's existence. Therefore, negation of proofs does not disprove Santa's existence.
c.If there were a logical argument that proved Santa did not exist, it has not yet been made known. If it were known then it would be in use by atheists. But since no proof of Santa's non-existence has been successfully defended by atheists, we can conclude that thus far there are no logical proofs for Santa's non-existence.
iii.If faith alone, then the position is not held by logic or evidence and is an arbitrary position.
iv.If by a combination of evidence, logic, and/or faith, then according to the above analysis, neither is sufficient to validate atheism. A combination of insufficient means does not validate atheism.
B.For someone to believe there is no Santa is to hold that belief by faith, since there is no evidence that positively supports atheism and there are no logical proofs that Santa does not exist. It is, after all, virtually impossible to prove a negative.
"Testimony is admissible in court as evidence, but no one can rightly testify that God does not exist."
and no one can testify that god does exist. Just iike no one can testify that leprechauns exist, or the easter bunny, or santa claus, or.....well you get the point.