 |
|
|
|
 NASA's Cassini space probe snapped this photo of jets spewing from Saturn's moons.
March 13th, 2012
10:08 PM ET
Terminated employee claims bias against intelligent designBy 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.  |
|
|
|
Prayer changes things .
(Since you felt the need to copy and paste, I will as well...)
Oh yes because the catholic version of "child care" is so much healthier. Prayer changes nothing, so stop embracing coincidence as providence, your life will have much more meaning when you realize that you are in control of it.
And doesn't it bother you when people insist on thanking jesus or god for accomplishments and good fortune? I know that chance and place of birth play a large role in how your life turns out, but it is the decisions that you make that impact where your life ends up, not some overseer with a "plan" for you. Credit your friends, your parents, your collegues, whoever. But most of all, give yourself a little credit. And stop wasting time murmuring to yourself with your hands clasped together and a sense of adulation for a celestial dictator that isn't there. (Thankfully!)
Prayer changes things
Each post is a heartfelt encouragement to prayer
Prayer is talking with God
Pray without ceasing in 2012
Prayer really changes things
You like all atheists were mistaken and come off looking like the copy paste fraud that you are.
Such as posting "Prayer changes things" over and over?
So long as it is a sincere desire to spread the power of prayer why not post it until everyone gets it?
Well I would not call it fraudulent since I wrote it. I would call it displacement, if anything. The proselytizing prayer of this person must be met in kind. So fraudulent is a bit of a stretch, try again.
When you wish upon a star
Makes no difference who you are
When you wish upon a star
Your dreams come true.
It is written.
I suppose I should wish for the lottery win on a clear night then. More stars.
This of course is BULLSHlT. Why won't your god cure an amputee?
Regeneration is a work in progress. God is God to everyone.
Prayer never changes anyhting
Proven
Do plants need to pray? How about bunnies? I don't imagine god would send bunnies to hell for not praising him.
Creation is in order and follows the Lordship of God, Mankind has been given the option to choose their own path. The intelligent choose God, the rest follow you.
Yes lets promote the idea that people are sheep, and that is somehow a positive thing. This type of faith is what is so detrimental to progress.
Hmm – whose prayers change things, and why doesn't all prayer change things...a friend asked for a new house – got one; another friend asked to be cured from leukemia, God didn't answer her prayers – she died; another friend asked for wisdom on how to care for her elderly father, an alcoholic – still drinks, she still has no knowledge on what to do about it – never thought to maybe look up information about elder care. I believe that its important to see inner wisdom and the council of friends and wise and knowledgeable people...but God, if he/she exists created us – right...oh yes w/ brains...we should be honoring that by using them... I can imagine if God exists every day he is saying to himself/herself "why do people keep asking me for things I have not control over, or really could care less about (people are asking for a new shinny house to replace their perfectly fine house while millions are homeless around the world, hungry, sick, etc.)...why are they not using the gifts and skills they have".
Sounds to me NASA is has a bias against a religious imbecile working on multi million dollar projects designed to advance scientific knowledge... as they very well should.
Sure there's a bias against intelligent design in the scientific community, just like there are biases against anything that cannot be proven and is a product of wishful thinking. Good riddance, religious idiot (I know, that's a redundant phrase).
"there are biases against anything that cannot be proven and is a product of wishful thinking."
I know. I get the same treatment when I try to offer my truth about the end of the rainbow!
Atheist filth (I know that's a redundant phrase).
Ah, Toad. So christian!
Yes how christian; If you disagree with my dogma, you are hell-bound refuse.
He claims a bias against intelligent design. Isn't it obvious? Of course there is a bias against intelligent design, especially at NASA (or at least there should be). It is admission that you are willing to suspend rational thought for the sake of myths and imaginary friends. I feel that religious "thought" and belief should bar you from many types of employment, especially scientific employment. Those that would give up rational thinking, to "save their hides" in a non-existent afterlife, are not mentally fit for certain jobs. Leadership of a country is included. Look at G.W. Bush and the entire republican field for president. They are without a doubt clinically insane. Especially the mormon one. At least the other fairy tales have some historical background (despite their lack of reason as). Mormonism is just a complete farce and it is astonishing that it has caught on in this fashion. But then again 80% of this country believes in mythical slave holders, and at least 60% believe this celestial plantation owner created them. So maybe I am not that surprised.
AAthiest– I respect your belief that God does not exist, however these comments border on bigotry. I don't know if that was intended or just the heat of the discussion. Since religion is NOT based on science (the real topic of this thread), the belief in the existence of God is not provable one way or the other.
Why is it everyone can be a scientist except for God?....Human pride is so fragile.
@Scientist
If you feel that my disdain for irrational thinking is bigoted, then you would be correct. People are allowed to feel and believe whatever they want, but keep it at home. It does not belong in public and is detrimental to the progress of the human species. I admit some of my more colorful descriptions were the heat of the discussion, it does happen sometimes, but I do not regret, and would not retract any of it. Sometimes strong language and rhetoric are necessary to put forth a cogent argument.
As far as your comment as to the relevance of my contribution to this thread, I feel I have just used more colorful language to express my main narrative; Religion should be private, and kept completely separate from science, education, and state.
AAthiest– By this logic, shouldn't anti-religion also be kept private and out of science, education, and state?
@Scientist
That is a poor argument, because if society was not inundated with religion on a daily basis, people like myself would not need to defend the need for it's demise. Some may let the proselytizing go unchallenged, but I feel a societal obligation to curb the onslaught of irrational thinking.
But that is actually besides the point since atheism cannot be "kept out of" anything. It is a simple statement that one does not believe in a god. Secular living is simply life without the influence of religion. Science, education, and the governing of a nation should not be kept in line with ancient myths when modern science and thinking have shown us so much more. Science adjusts it's views based on what is observed. Education in all other aspects of development (ie. history, english, etc.) should be taught in concert with historical facts, modern thinking and convention. To run a government based on faith is completely ridiculous, as well as potentially harmful. The state should be run in accordance with what is best to maintain human dignity and a standard of living that we as a people can all agree on. Religion has no place in any venue but the private.
AAthiest– Your rationale for keeping religion out of science is just as flawed as deniers of evolution. I agree with you entirely that religion is not rational nor should it ever claim to be rational. Once religion claims to be rational, faith disappears. However, faith and science can and do coexist quite successfully. Examples of Einstein, Darwin, Galileo...all believers of deity and quite successful scientists. You seem to be making the same mistake that the deniers make in assuming that acceptance of truth will somehow shatter faith (or vice versa). I seek truth wherever it may be. In the case of evolution, I accept it entirely due to the rational experiments that have failed to disprove. In the case of the existence of God, it is based entirely on faith. Throughout this thread and in the court's decision on ID, the scientific reasoning behind this flawed idea (among others) is that it is not testable. The existence of God is not testable scientifically; therefore your denial of his existence is based on faith just as is my belief in that existence. This argument, therefore could continue ad infinitum.
AAthiest–how is your 'societal obligation to curb irrational thinking' (your beliefs no God) different from a religious person's 'societal obligation' to 'proselytize' (their belief in God)?
Well first, atheism is not a belief. Second, you are promoting a method of thinking that goes against the attainment of knowledge by analysis of evidence. I am promoting rational thought and coming to conclusions based on observable phenomena. One thought process seeks to advance the development of mankind, while the other wishes to further regress into the bronze age beliefs of desert tribes.
No atheist has ever said in an argument "Belief in god is ridiculous", without having first been accosted by someone trying to "save" them by saying that they should believe. So if you shoot at me, I am inclined to return fire. So a religious person does have the right to freedom of speech, as we all do here in America, but religious freedom comes at a price.
Why do you say atheism is not a belief? It may not be a religion but it is a belief.
AAthiest– No way to prove that there is a God means that there is no way to prove that there is no God. Therefore any argument one way or the other must be based on belief. You are guilty of the same logic ID proponents use in placing creationism in a biology classroom.
-AAthiest– Your rationale for keeping religion out of science is just as flawed as deniers of evolution. I agree with you entirely that religion is not rational nor should it ever claim to be rational. Once religion claims to be rational, faith disappears. However, faith and science can and do coexist quite successfully. Examples of Einstein, Darwin, Galileo...all believers of deity and quite successful scientists. You seem to be making the same mistake that the deniers make in assuming that acceptance of truth will somehow shatter faith (or vice versa). I seek truth wherever it may be. In the case of evolution, I accept it entirely due to the rational experiments that have failed to disprove. In the case of the existence of God, it is based entirely on faith. Throughout this thread and in the court's decision on ID, the scientific reasoning behind this flawed idea (among others) is that it is not testable. The existence of God is not testable scientifically; therefore your denial of his existence is based on faith just as is my belief in that existence. This argument, therefore could continue ad infinitum.-
This argument assumes that faith is somehow a positive thing, which I do not feel that it is. And it may be for some people and you are correct in saying that many great scientists were men of faith, but they also were very private about it. The burden of proof for god's existence is on the believer, not on the disbelieving. Not being able to disprove evolution does not mean you have faith in it, since there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that shows the viability of evolution as an explanation for the lives we live now. There is absolutely zero evidence for god, so not being able to disprove it does not mean you should accept it as fact, which is what most of the religious do.
I agree with you on one point, that a man can believe in a higher being and be a great scientist. But I can assure you that this man does not use any scripture in his analysis. Being able to differentiate a person's faith from what is scientifically true and provable is not something that many are capable of, but I would see no problem with. That type of person intentionally suspends rationality for his/her own personal reasons, but is capable of making the distinction and is aware of the flaws inherent in that type of belief. I know for certain that type of person would never take the scripture literally.
Atheism is not a belief, as it is defined as a lack of belief. It is really quite simple and there are no two ways about it. I have been shown no evidence to believe the existence of god, so I choose not to, in the same way that I do not believe in unicorns or pegasus in the form of mythical creatures.
I will quote as best I can an excerpt from a German author: "Religion in a dark age makes sense, in the same way that it makes sense for you to be led down a trail in the dark of night by a blind man, as he will know the trail better than anyone, as he is always in the dark. But when daylight comes, it no longer makes sense to be led by a blind man." This was from Christopher Hitches book.
*Hitchens
Belief is not the same thing as religion though. I could say I believe that Kentucky is the best team in college basketball, and that is a belief. Maybe if I had no opinion either way then that would be a lack of belief. But atheism is a belief that there is no god.
AAtheist– Does this mean you are recanting your statement that 'I feel that religious "thought" and belief should bar you from many types of employment, especially scientific employment'?
I would like to pose a thought experiment based on some simple parameters:
1. God is benevolent
2. This god is omnipotent
3. This god loves and cares for you
4. He has a plan for you
If these parameters were needed to define a god, should he exist, would you not say that with all of the suffering and death and disease in the world, that the existence of god through the condition of our species would be more readily disproved than anything?
Recant, no. Rephrase, perhaps. I admit that I did not feel I would get into this type of discussion today (which I have rather enjoyed). To address my rather ambiguous statement, I would say that action based on religious thinking would be what I would want abolished. I do not wish to judge the thoughts of others if they do not become action. So would I divorce religious thought and science? No, that is not my place nor is it anyone elses. But action based on that thought, yes I absolutely would.
Aathiest– Ah yes, Epicurus' 'problem of evil'. Please allow me to counter with a parallel though experiment and see if this helps:
1. Mothers are benevolent
2. Mothers are stronger than babies
3. Mothers love and care for babies
4. She knows what is best for you
And yet she takes her loved babies to a doctor and allows the doctor to poke sharp metallic needles in them... Part of faith suggests that I don't know what God's plan is for me or anyone else.
Aatheist– If you are saying that science and religion can coexist, but that religion cannot replace science then I am in complete agreement with you.
@J.W.
You are correct in that believing in something does not make you religious. But if I said that I believed I was the best golfer in the world, (I don't golf) would you not find my statement of belief to be completely ridiculous? I have not shown that I can even hit a ball, let alone claim to be the best. So like god, there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that I can golf. (Maybe i will go to the driving range and have a go, the weather is nice.) Unfounded belief is my concern.
I am having quite a good time with the civil and intelligent discussion we are having today, and you have put forth some reasonable counters to my comments. I disagree with mother knowing best by the way. I have not seen her since I was 6 years old. But it was a good counter nonetheless. And science has shown that the babies do need medicine, and that infant mortality has decreased dramatically with the advancement of science. Plus, a little pain builds character, and an infant is not going to be harmed by a needle of medicine.
AAtheist– It is quite an enjoyable discussion. Your original comment was a bit out of character with many of the athiests I know; I am glad we have delved a bit.
If there is an immortal God, we are immortal spiritual beings and this life is but a flash, much like a vaccination. The pain and suffering that we receive in this life either teaches us not to do stupid things or (depending on how we handle it) can make us a better person. This 'vaccination' of suffering will make a big difference later.
I like the analogy. My problem is with the fundamentalist people who take the scripture literally, and those people are the ones that I detest, and have such vitriolic speech for. People like Santorum, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and others like them who spout messages of hatred and bigotry to their credulous audiences. Those that say the attacks of 9/11 and the deaths that resulted from it were "god lifting his protection to get our attention". This type of speech is something no decent person should have any taste for.
Aathiest– pardon the term, but AMEN.
That is ok lol I know you mean well.
The absence of a belief is NOT a belief. 0 x 1 = 0.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZIHsqpRXvA&feature=player_detailpage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSEvbxu6yPQ
Momo-Why is Man is an animal? Enjoy the delusion. Btw., whoever made the video needs to learn how to breath and talk. Talking too fast is no proof you evolved from chimps, ya know?!?!
Ghountry–the danger in discrediting someone for how they 'breath and talk' is you discredit your own arguments (why is man is an animal).
The art of breathing is very important. Everyone should value their breath and learn to breathe while talking...
Man is a mammal. Did you skip ALL your science classes, or didn't you get past 4th grade?
My question for all the believers in God is how strong is your faith. Resistance to the heliocentric theory of our solar system was by churches afraid that this discovery would discredit God. How many out there can believe in God and that the Earth orbits the sun? Are these two beliefs incompatible? Why then is evolution and a belief in God incompatible? –serious question.
Here's the interesting part. These folks are in a very pronounced minority. There are 2 billion Christians on earth. Of that number, 90% – 1.8 billion – belong to sects whose official p[osition is that there is no problem with a faith in the Christian version of a god, and an understanding that evolution is a fact. It is ONLY amongst the fundamentalists that we see this choice to be igorant. And unfortunately, a majority of the remaining 200 million Christians who choose ignorance, live in the US.
I don't think evolution and belief in God is incompatible unless you take the creation story literally. Personally I think the author was just giving his version of what happened. There were no humans around when the earth was formed, so no one knows what really happened.
The fact on this article is just the tip of the iceberg. NASA's not the only government run insti.tution to fire Christians. Many public school teachers that are Christians have been fired because of their beliefs, especially around Christmas and Easter time, when they merely mention the reasons behind the seasons and don't advocate Santa Claus and the Easter bunny with its colored eggs (funny how the different colors of eggs represent the rainbow's colors).
I don't know if many of you know this, but a true Christian doesn't leave their beliefs at home when they leave to go to work or school or anywhere we decide to go.
Wow, misrepresenting your own claims and the "no true scotsman fallacy" all in one post.. It must be the average christian.
The reasons for the seasons – you mean the early Christian church co-opting pagan celebrations in order to gain converts?
Well before Easter was associated with the zombification of your deity, it was a widely celebrated pagan holiday marking the rebirth and renewal of spring. The very word "Easter" comes from the Saxon goddess Eastre and the Teutonic dawn goddess of fertility, Eastra. Cybele, the Phrygian fertility goddess, had a consort, Attis, who was believed to have been born via a virgin birth. Attis was believed to have died and been resurrected each year during a three day period at the end of March.
Sound familiar?
How would you feel if your child attended public school and the teacher made the class fast during Ramadan?
Regardless – this guy was fired as part of a massive round of layoffs. If I were HR and had to make tough decisions like which 200 people to get rid of, the names at the top of my list would be those who had complaints filed against them by co-workers. This fellow had been pestering his peers with his prosthelytizing so much that several had registered complaints against his unprofessional conduct.
You're free to carry your faith with you wherever you go – but you're still expected to maintain an air of professionalism in the workplace. The office is not a place to preach about religion, politics or se.xuality.
Please supply links to credible news sources that doc.ument these many Christians being fired.
Well, you should leave your religion at home. Religious "thinking" has no place in the public forum. It is irrational and dangerous, and this was something that even the founders of this country were well aware of.
@Doc Vestibule:
So jesus was the first zombie? Well you know what we do with zombies...
@ Primewonk
Here are a few links out of so many (popular outlets first):
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/teach_devout_kicked_out_kcSdgrrk2I6CA40Ue3kBUO
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1237204/Christian-teacher-lost-job-told-praying-sick-girl-
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/christian-teacher-under-investigation-for-opposing-
"So jesus was the first zombie? Well you know what we do with zombies..."
And it's obvious that Christians prefer to metaphorically eat brains then use them...
@BoldGeorge – So a woman hit's a child and uses the "My hands are so weak I can barely hold a bible" defense when any rational person would know gripping strength in your hands has nothing to do with your ability to swing them at a child. Though if you want to keep lying to yourself and believe that some christian hating principal colluded with a child's parents to get her fired. If those are the best examples of the attacks on Christians you just proved Primewonks point.
@GodPot
Well, yes that is true, but I was thinking shoot him in the head. Walking Dead style...best show on TV by the way.
@ BoldGeorge.
Sorry, but fail.
Perhaps you missed the part where I asked for "credible news sources".
In your first example, the NY Post is not a credible source. And when googling the woman, the story only shows up in fundiot rags. Give me a credible source. Heck give me a link to her filing a suit for wrongful termination.
Your second example is from a Murdock rag in England. Same thing George – give a credible source and a link to the filing of a wrongful termination suit.
Your 3rd example is an incomplete link – although I can tell you now that again, FAUX News is not a credible source. Remember, these are the fools who went to federal cout stating they have a consti.tutional right to lie to the public. So, same deal George – a link to a credible source and a link to the lawsuit.
Good. Then that simply limits the number of places of employment that they can introduce their fantasies.
To the defendant:
Do you have any believers of ID in your staff?
test
"...and resulted in errors."
And when you are working on a project that cost $3.26 billion, causing errors is really all you need do to be fired.
On the other hand, religion has been the primary source for moral guidance for centuries, then with one fell swoop of a court decision, this moral guidance in schools was taken away, with nothing to replace it; we live everyday with that legacy – a vacuum of moral guidance.
@dave
You said, "On the other hand, religion has been the primary source for moral guidance for centuries, then with one fell swoop of a court decision, this moral guidance in schools was taken away, with nothing to replace it; we live everyday with that legacy – a vacuum of moral guidance."
Religion is not the source for moral guidance. Religions merely codified already existing morals. Religion is the carrot and the stick to keep the dimwits, sorry, masses in line.
The morals of any religion are those of the times that that particular religion began. They tend to resist change or adaptation to a changing society. At some point the morals espoused by religion will, on balance, no longer fit the society as a whole. At that point it is best to abandon religion (which is inevitably done too late).
Just FYI, the sole responsibility for raising children lies with the parents. If you feel that society has suffered because the fairy tales were taken out of school, you should look at your fellow believers. You make up 80% of the population. The bulk of the "decline" is caused by christians.
If you are reading this post you are on this thing called the internet. The internet is a tool that grants you access to great amounts of information. Google allows you to find information. If you were to utilize these tools in order to research the court cases that took prayer out of schools, you would find that the major court cases were brought forth by Catholics, Mormons and Jews. These parents did not want someone else telling their kids how to pray. Thiests took prayer out of schools because they did not want other thiests to tell their kids how to pray. There is only a moral vacuum if the parents are failing at home. Sorry parents, you have to get off your lazy butts and teach your own kids morality.
No, no it wasn't.
Religious co-opted morality as it's dominion, but there was morality before religion and there are millions of perfectly moral, non-religious people walking around right now. Religion is not required for morality.
And even if it were related, SCIENCE CLASSROOMS are not where we teach morality. It is where we teach science. Religion has no place there, just like algebra shouldn't be taught in a history class, or French verb conjugation in a music class.
@ Lying for..
That you even have to explain it at all is depressing enough.. Why you christians not think things through?!?!!?
But there is something to replace it. Two things in particular. First, the school shootings happening in secular schools almost every week. Probably the result of social decay. Second, confusion. Schools teach a phounding dokyument what says "all men are CREATED equal", then treach evolution which teaches that the UNequally EVOLVED will not survive. One poster below hailed the progress of the internet. Maybe he hasn't discovered that you can spread lies and hate by mouth or the internet.
@ Primenumber – You need to be careful with cause and effect. For instance, I can turn things around and posit that the downfall started in the mid/late 50's when we added "under god" to the pledge, and "in god we trust" to our money.
That is the most hollow argument that religious irrationalists put forward. I believe that altruism for the sake of positive feedback from those that you help is far more rewarding than "Well I will help you, but only because jesus won't let me in if I don't". I do not see what the issue is with the golden rule. It is an evolutionary imperative to have positive interaction with those outside of your immediate family.
But aside from that, who the hell would want to preach a "morality" from a book as corrupt and evil as the bible? Religion, despite some charitable accomplishments, is not absolved of all of the evil that it has commited, all the fear and bigotry and hatred that it has espoused in the name of it's holy imaginary friend. I would be ashamed of myself if my morality came from an organization as hateful and prejudice as religion.
Morality, just like philosophy, can be taught without invoking imaginary beings and imaginary places. Both areas of study SHOULD encourage truth versus fantasy. This is a MAJOR problem with religion, in that blatant lies are being taught. So, where exactly IS the morality in religion?
No creator needed in this "good-bet" scenario
Think infinity and recycling with the Big Bang expansion followed by the shrinking reversal called the Gib Gnab and recycling back to the Big Bang repeating the process on and on forever. Human life and Earth are simply a minute part of this cha-otic, sto-cha-stic, expanding, shrinking process disappearing in five billion years with the burn out of the Sun and maybe returning in another five billion years with different life forms but still subject to the va-ga-ries of its local star.
That's depressing.
I think people should embrace the overall insignificance of our existence here, since that makes the wonder of our existence in this cosmic chaos so fascinating.
Also, that theory would mean that the universe will have always just "existed", which still obeys the laws of conservation of mass and energy.
Some brains just do not operate the same as others.
Most people actually call it the big crunch. I've never heard of the gib gnab. Just fyi.
An anagram of big bang (gib gnab).
Since we are increasingly accelerating away from most other structures in space, it currently appears that no Big Crunch will occur. If there is no rebound in the universe, this lends to the brane collision origin of the Big Bang, versus a cyclic universe.
Why is it depressing? The universe went on before you, and it will on long after you are gone.
Infinity only exists in mathmatics.
Most religion is simply a business. The pastors equate their financial income, what they can take from incoming revenues, with success like everyone else: 'I make enough to buy a nice house and car, so I must be doing a good job of getting the word out for god' So the pastor/clergyman is a salesman for god, and he gets a cut of the proceeds.
The non-existence of an 'active' god that answers prays has already been proven. People pray for their golf-score, so you would think their prayers during tornados and hurricanes would be much more earnest and heart-felt, yet christians have no more ability to survive natural disaters than the general population.
So if we have an 'inactive' god, we also have an 'inactive' spaghetti monsters and boogie-men too.
Honest christians would simply declare they entertain this mythology because it makes them feel better about themselves and the world, and that if you roll in this mythology, you can feel better about yourself and your world too.
Of course there is bias against bulls... in science!
Science flies people to the moon, religion flies people into buildings.
Science USED to fly people to the moon.
🙁
Clyde M
The science is still there. It's just the money that's dried up.
Why is it that some people need some sort of deity to explain life? Life exists, came about through evolution, and will die. Those are the facts, so what's the big deal? If you want to believe some ancient religious books that say otherwise, go ahead, but don't bring it to the lab where science is taking place. Intelligent design is not a theory because a theory is based on scientific evidence, not speculation.
Scientists have already proven thaat unicorns exist. They were a mythicisation of the rhinoceros. As to proving that God exists give us more time... lol
People science is about searching for answers to questions humans ask. Intelligent Design is older than Spontaneous Existence as a theory of origin. Einstein believed it and so did a whole lot of scientists. Evolution and the Big Bang are as much for one as the other.
@nii: links please. i want to read where this is true. ID as i have known it is bs from the modern era.
Nii
Are you making an argument that older ideas about the origin of the universe, ideas made before the invention of different telescopes expanded the range of our senses, are better than modern ones? That's like saying that we knew more about the microscopic world before the invention of the microscope!
Wow... That is all I have got in response to your rampant lack of intellect. On top of that, if that were in fact a true statement, we now call those "mythical" creatures rhinos. The horse with a horn thing, pretty sure that those do not exist.
Early in Einstein's career, astronomers didn't know about other galaxies. Funny how science EVOLVES.
AGuest9
Yes, Einstein would be amazed by what we've learned since his day, just as Newton would be amazed by his discoveries. That's the way with science; new discoveries shed more light and old ideas have to be thrown out. Religion, however, insists that the old be maintained despite whatever new discoveries are being made. Religion does evolve when it has to, though. Just look at how God's character has changed since he was "walking in the Garden". Now, he's LOVE incarnate.
Prayer changes things .
Then why is crime so much greater in the US where people still believe this rubbish?
The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs!!!~ .....
Oh yes because the catholic version of "child care" is so much healthier. Prayer changes nothing, so stop embracing coincidence as providence, your life will have much more meaning when you realize that you are in control of it.
And doesn't it bother you when people insist on thanking jesus or god for accomplishments and good fortune? I know that chance and place of birth play a large role in how your life turns out, but it is the decisions that you make that impact where your life ends up, not some overseer with a "plan" for you. Credit your friends, your parents, your collegues, whoever. But most of all, give yourself a little credit. And stop wasting time murmuring to yourself with your hands clasped together and a sense of adulation for a celestial dictator that isn't there. (Thankfully!)
If scientists refuse to disprove the existence of unicorns, does that mean they're real? Are scientists obligated to disprove anything or everything that isn't real? Is everything true until science proves it's false? That's quite a burden to place on science. We would all be better served if those who make the claims were required to provide the proof.
That's what he was doing , when he was fired. Another reader that thinks life is a happy accident. How absurd.
joe
What proof do you imagine was contained in those DVDs? Persuasive arguments designed to appeal to people's emotions, maybe, but what objective proof? Have you ever read "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus"? Reading it makes you want to believe that Santa is real, and makes the belief seem quite reasonable. So, if rhetoric were the measure of actual truth, science would be about public speaking and composition skills, and not experimentation.
Why imagine what was on them. Conduct your own study and view them.
RS
If they're anything like the creationist arguments being presented here then I'm not missing much, am I?