2 pages of false associations

1/25/2010 6:01:22 PM

Quote :

"Why is it socially (and legally) unacceptable to question beliefs about religion and judge someone’s character on those beliefs when we do it on almost every other conclusion or opinion someone can form? If you walk into an interview with a birthday hat and clown shoes on because somehow you thought that would be a logical thing to do, you would absolutely be judged on this opinion, and if you couldn’t defend it, you most likely would not be hired."

It's perfectly acceptable to use religion as a qualifier when someone's religious practice directly interferes with the ability of the person to perform their job. When it's not, it's like any other non-admissive, such as favorite-food, choice of under-wear, which side of toast gets buttered, etc. These things do not need to be justified.

1/25/2010 6:12:30 PM

^Right. If I wasn't Jewish I wouldn't have been hired as a Jewish youth worker.

1/25/2010 6:36:12 PM

^^ Why shouldn't employers be able to hire based on favorite food or anything else? In a private business, the owners should be able to employ whoever they want based on whatever criteria they choose. I don't see how that's unfair to anyone. Of course, they should also be allowed to decide who to serve (or not to serve), whether or not to allow people to smoke, etc. Just as I can decide who can drive my car, ride in my car, smoke in my car, etc. I own it, I should be able to make the decisions. At what point do we stop running other peoples' lives?

1/25/2010 6:56:06 PM

Well, ghotiblue, we tried doing things your way, and it turned out that in large parts of the country the only people who could get decent jobs or service were white. So basically racist assholes ruined it for all of us.

1/25/2010 7:18:07 PM

Quote :

"There are also many logical reasons to suggest that this cause matches the description of the Biblical God"

let's hear these reasons

1/25/2010 8:18:11 PM

Quote :

"Why shouldn't employers be able to hire based on favorite food or anything else? In a private business, the owners should be able to employ whoever they want based on whatever criteria they choose"

Actually they shouldn't.

1/25/2010 8:20:29 PM

Quote :

"Well, ghotiblue, we tried doing things your way, and it turned out that in large parts of the country the only people who could get decent jobs or service were white. So basically racist assholes ruined it for all of us."

There are other ways for these issues to be dealt with besides legislation. If society judges a business to be unethical, it is their responsibility to speak out, protest, boycott, etc. I think for the most part today businesses would find it very difficult to grow very large while engaging in blatant discrimination. Most people would not support such a company. Sure there may be specialized businesses aimed at certain people of specific races, religions, etc. But why should this not be allowed? As I said before, owners of a private business should not have any obligation to employ or serve anyone other than those they choose. I don't see why we have to try to force everyone to be more tolerant at the point of a gun. That seems to be the wrong approach to me.

1/25/2010 10:12:05 PM

Quote :

"Actually they shouldn't."

Why not? Should you be forced to allow anyone who wishes to enter your home? What's the difference?

1/25/2010 10:14:00 PM

Quote :

"let's hear these reasons"

I don't think this thread was intended to be a debate on religion. I merely wanted to point out that there are logical arguments for both sides. I think both sides have well thought-out, respectable arguments. I just think both sides of the debate deserve to be shown respect, and those who try to minimize religion to a delusional fantasy would do well to consider that it is possible that they don't have everything figured out.

1/25/2010 10:27:23 PM

because this is america and everyone has a chance to make it. you don't have to be born into a certain family or creed. without these laws all that goes down the drain.

gohitblue is like an alien or something.

1/25/2010 10:32:54 PM

Yeah, I'm confused.

I thought it was understood that we don't discriminate based on these things because bad shit inevitably happens when we do. Somebody gets a little uppity, and next thing you know there's millions of innocent people dead and millions more traumatized forever. Sure, once the initial horror subsides, we all have sex and there's a baby boom, and those baby boomers can go on to do some pretty cool shit like get high on LSD and have sex at virtuoso rock concerts. But we all got together and agreed that even the LSD sex isn't worth it.

1/25/2010 10:45:57 PM

Quote :

"I'm suggesting that pretty much everybody makes some decisions based on flawed logic or erroneous "facts," on a daily basis. We're not machines, and you and 1985 are no exception."

Are you suggesting that all people operate on the exact same level of rationality? What about the religious person who rejects empiricism outright?

I said:

Quote :

"What if the employer felt that rational thought was a necessary attribute for the position, and that certain (or all) religious beliefs were simply incompatible with that standard?""

You said:

Quote :

"Well, then that employer would be acting just as irrationally as the religious person, which leads me back to the question of what qualifies him to judge other people's rational thought processes."

I doubt you really want to stand by this position. You can't believe that all religious beliefs are rational. Unicorns. Fairies. Nymphs. Sun gods. Rain gods. Voodoo. Yes, even virgin births, resurrections and six-day creation theories. Is there no point at which we're allowed to relieve stupidity of its religious cloaking device? Should we truly treat all beliefs as potentially just as rational as any other? I doubt you think that. You're just looking for an exception.

Quote :

"And when you deny somebody of opportunities because of something that does not tangibly interfere with their job, you are making them second class citizens."

That's a clever trick. Clearly, intelligence, or at least the ability to think critically, is tangibly related to many jobs. You square this fact with your position by arguing that religion can never have anything to do with intelligence or critical thinking, a position which, again, I doubt you're willing to stand by.

[Edited on January 25, 2010 at 10:52 PM. Reason : ]

1/25/2010 10:48:02 PM

Quote :

"There are other ways for these issues to be dealt with besides legislation. If society judges a business to be unethical, it is their responsibility to speak out, protest, boycott, etc."

Society did speak out...by electing officials that would pass that legislation.

1/25/2010 11:00:30 PM

Quote :

"What about the religious person who rejects empiricism outright?"

This person would probably be demonstrably ill-suited for most jobs, and you wouldn't need to know his religion to recognize that. A person who rejects empiricism outright is not, for example, going to graduate from a reputable University.

Quote :

"You can't believe that all religious beliefs are rational. Unicorns. Fairies. Nymphs. Sun gods. Rain gods. Voodoo. Yes, even virgin births, resurrections and six-day creation theories."

I don't necessarily think that any religious belief is rational. Clearly none of them can be proven with reason. Just as clearly, a person can be capable of rational thought without having to base every decision on it. I know it infuriates you, but there are plenty of religious people who demonstrate remarkably high levels of intelligence and critical thinking in their jobs.

Quote :

"Is there no point at which we're allowed to relieve stupidity of its religious cloaking device?"

If your job application and interview process is designed at all competently, the cloaking device would be stupid, and the stupid person would be revealed as such. Or you could use religion to screen people, and in the process rule out capable employees because you think what they do on Sunday morning is stupid.

Quote :

"Should we truly treat all beliefs as potentially just as rational as any other? I doubt you think that. You're just looking for an exception."

I don't think we should be treating beliefs at all in these matters. As I said earlier, if a person has the qualifications and doesn't disrupt the workplace, they can have the job.

Quote :

"You square this fact with your position by arguing that religion can never have anything to do with intelligence or critical thinking, a position which, again, I doubt you're willing to stand by. "

Never said any such thing. No doubt there are people for whom a relationship can be found between stupidity and religion, political affiliation, and choice in television programming. But I'm not going to ask someone applying for a job, "Do you watch Jersey Shore? Yes? I'm sorry, the position is no longer available." Because I don't care what stupid thing a person does outside of work if it doesn't affect job performance.

There are far, far, far better ways to screen for intelligence and critical thinking than by inquiring as to their religious beliefs. Or you can hire lazy agnostic idiots while rejecting hardworking Mormon geniuses.

----

Quote :

"I don't see why we have to try to force everyone to be more tolerant at the point of a gun."

You aren't forcing them to be tolerant, you're forcing them to act tolerant. The "being" will follow in time. Historically it's seemed to be a pretty effective way to reduce racism in this country: arrest people who act on it.

Yeah, it would be hard for a business to thrive now if it discriminated. Not so in 1960, when businesses large and small in the South discriminated against blacks. Things are better now. Do you think maybe that is in part because we forced people to act tolerant?

[Edited on January 25, 2010 at 11:46 PM. Reason : ]

1/25/2010 11:43:43 PM

So, to hold a religious belief is to demontrate at least some tendency toward irrationality (per your own definition of religious belief), but if an employer were to consider this fact, he or she would be acting "just as irrationally as the religious person." This is wonderful reasoning.

Also, I've been taking a very narrow approach to this thread. I haven't argued that I would personally screen for religious belief. I haven't even argued that all religious belief is irrational. I only question whether it's right to say that an employer must ignore an applicant's demonstrated tendency to think irrationally, just because that tendency happened to reveal itself in the form of religion.

[Edited on January 26, 2010 at 12:14 AM. Reason : ]

1/26/2010 12:06:53 AM

Rejecting a candidate because of something that has nothing to do with their qualifications is pretty irrational, if you ask me.

I doubt that the man has ever lived who did not make a couple of major irrational decisions in their life. These could have far more profound impacts on job performance than religion. It'd probably be wiser to ask, "Did you marry a horrible shrew/deadbeat bastard?" Because an irrational decision resulting in a bad spouse could lead to fatigue, anxiety, and credit issues, all of which are legitimate job issues.

You're singling out religion here as a chief indicator of irrationality, which in itself doesn't make much sense. But what makes even less sense is that you seem to suggest that employers would be better off looking at possible signs of poor critical thinking skills than they would be testing actual critical thinking skills.

Why open a pandora's box of belief-based discrimination when there are logic and personality tests designed by learned men of science and evaluated over years of implementation?

Quote :

"I only question whether it's right to say that an employer must ignore an applicant's demonstrated tendency to think irrationally, just because that tendency happened to reveal itself in the form of religion."

The issue is whether religion is the only demonstrated form of irrationality. Because if it is, so what? If they are otherwise rational and competent, hire them. If they show that they are irrational or incompetent in the work context, reject them for those reasons.

[Edited on January 26, 2010 at 12:19 AM. Reason : ]

1/26/2010 12:17:34 AM

Quote :

"Rejecting a candidate because of something that has nothing to do with their qualifications is pretty irrational, if you ask me."

1. Critical thinking is a job requirement.

2. What people believe reflects on their ability to think critically.

3. Therefore, what people believe has nothing to with their qualifications?

1/26/2010 12:39:51 AM

If you don't think like me then you aren't qualified.

/thread

1/26/2010 12:48:03 AM

I disagree with #2. What people believe may reflect whether or not they thought critically on one issue, not whether or not they are good at critical thinking.

A person who gets good grades at a good university has a demonstrated capacity for critical thinking. A person who has performed well at other jobs requiring critical thinking has a demonstrated capacity for critical thinking. A person who performs well on a critical thinking test has a demonstrated capacity for critical thinking. All of these things are pretty good examples of proof that a person has a grasp on reason; you can't fake your way through critical thinking for too long in any of those situations.

Religion is proof of nothing except that, in his/her personal life, the applicant does not always exercise the same critical judgment skills that they have clearly demonstrated to you that they possess. So what?

1/26/2010 12:53:08 AM

You keep assuming that belief in a higher power is an irrational thought. There are things on this earth that are not explainable by the science we have, so what's wrong with having a theory or a pretty good feeling that there are other forces at work?

Your arguments are based on the belief of the Christian version of G-d. So why don't you stop grouping all religions in with just one?

[Edited on January 26, 2010 at 9:04 AM. Reason : -]

1/26/2010 9:04:31 AM

He's grouping all Abrahamic religions into one, which I don't see a problem with.

There's not really a "problem" with it, but those of us who adhere to the theory that "that which has the most likelihood of occurring is probably true" tend to look towards the idea of a divine being with a sense of skepticism.

1/26/2010 9:08:01 AM

^^ no one’s talking about a belief in a “higher power” people are talking about the belief that magical sky fairy created the earth 8000 years ago, or that Christians are the only people that go to heaven, or that God wanted George Bush to be elected because it was “god’s will”, or any other clearly irrational belief that people hold in the name of a higher power.

[Edited on January 26, 2010 at 9:09 AM. Reason : ]

1/26/2010 9:08:53 AM

For the record, I agree with ghotiblue, not on his religious views, but on the view that you should be able to hire (or not hire) anyone for any reason you want. It's called a private business for a reason. mambagrl suggested that if there weren't anti-discrimination laws, businesses would start discriminating again. Personally, I would refuse to go to a business that specifically didn't hire minorities or Christians or whatever. That's unacceptable, and you have the ability to "vote with your money." I think there are enough people that feel the same to where a business would never be able to get away with that kind of behavior, except maybe in the south.

1/26/2010 9:12:20 AM

Quote :

"There are things on this earth that are not explainable by the science we have"

See, how can this not devolve into a religion thread when people say stuff like this?

1/26/2010 9:12:57 AM

Quote :

"Society did speak out...by electing officials that would pass that legislation."

But this is exactly the wrong approach. If we see injustice, we should try to change it through changing the attitudes of other people, not by forcing everyone to act the way we think they should. I'm sure most here would agree if we apply this to abortion, or other issues of "legislating morality". Free choice, right? Well, I'm just being consistent in my view. We should advocate voluntary change through education and awareness, not take away freedom to force the world to conform to our individual views.

[Edited on January 26, 2010 at 9:34 AM. Reason : most]

1/26/2010 9:28:42 AM

Quote :

"What people believe may reflect whether or not they thought critically on one issue, not whether or not they are good at critical thinking."

It may not necessarily be an indicator of their ability to think critically on other issues, but it certainly might.

I might agree that there are probably better ways to test for rationality, but I wouldn't rule it out as an easy way to start narrowing down the field of candidates. Sure, I might spend the time and energy to give each applicant a standardized critical thinking test, but if time was short, I might just ask if they think the earth is 10,000 years old. I might also ask whether they believe in remote viewing, alien abductions, fortune telling, or any number of questions not related to religion. I just see no reason why religion can't also be included.

And by the way, I think you've essentially conceded the OP's point (if not mine) when you noted the exception of the paleontologist. I would add that there are actually many cases very similar to this, and they're not just limited to the fields of natural science. For example, if I were hiring a lawyer, I might be hesitant to hire someone who believes that God's law takes precedent over the laws of man. I could go on forever with similar examples.

Quote :

"A person who gets good grades at a good university has a demonstrated capacity for critical thinking."

Be serious.

[Edited on January 26, 2010 at 9:48 AM. Reason : ]

1/26/2010 9:46:57 AM

So despite me pointing out that sound logical reasoning can be used to achieve a belief in God, you still hold to your stubborn view that all faith is irrational? Seems like you're the one being illogical here to me.

1/26/2010 9:55:56 AM

Quote :

"So despite me pointing out that sound logical reasoning can be used to achieve a belief in God,"

Actually, still waiting on this.

1/26/2010 10:01:22 AM

Quote :

"So despite me pointing out that sound logical reasoning can be used to achieve a belief in God, you still hold to your stubborn view that all faith is irrational? Seems like you're the one being illogical here to me."

That was suggested by GrumpyGOP, not me. I said: "I haven't even argued that all religious belief is irrational." I have so far only put myself in the position of the employer who feels that some or all religious belief is irrational and indicative of one's intellectual competency.

I'm not going to address your earlier reference to the Kalam Cosmological Argument because it would undoubtedly derail what has been a relatively successful thread. If you want my opinion on that, make a new thread.

[Edited on January 26, 2010 at 10:11 AM. Reason : ]

1/26/2010 10:09:20 AM

Quote :

"Actually, still waiting on this."

I have already mentioned William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument. The basic premises are:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Strong arguments for these premises (focusing on #2) are made by Dr. Craig using philosophy, mathematics, and science.

Once we establish that there was a first cause, Dr. Craig expands on the nature of this cause. The cause must have been eternal and unchanging, as otherwise another cause would be needed for its existence or change. Additionally the cause must be a free agent since its effects are not eternal but temporal. It must be able to decide to cause a change in existence, or any effect of the cause would have been present eternally just as the cause itself.

Whether or not you agree with these claims is unimportant to this thread. The point is that this is a perfectly sound and reasonable argument based in logic. Further, it is not the only logical argument put forth in defense of faith. Therefore, it is undeniable that it is possible to have faith while being a logical rational person.

1/26/2010 10:38:43 AM

Way to ruin the thread, jackass.

1/26/2010 10:42:59 AM

I'm not attempting to derail the thread.

Quote :

"Whether or not you agree with these claims is unimportant to this thread. The point is that this is a perfectly sound and reasonable argument based in logic. Further, it is not the only logical argument put forth in defense of faith. Therefore, it is undeniable that it is possible to have faith while being a logical rational person."

It's not a debate about whether it's right or wrong, it's a debate about whether it's logical. And it is. That's the only point I'm trying to make.

1/26/2010 10:51:00 AM

Number 1 is not true a priori. Thanks for playing.

1/26/2010 10:59:50 AM

Quote :

"Therefore, the universe has a cause."

Yes, that's correct. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing what came before the beginning of our current universe, or what exists outside of our universe. Because of that, we can only speculate as to what came before. No one knows what came before the big bang. I don't there's any reason to believe that some form of intelligence was behind it, given that intelligence seems to be an animal attribute, and no animal would be capable of creating matter out of thin air, or molding a massive amount of matter in any meaningful way.

1/26/2010 11:05:06 AM

I never claimed that the argument cannot be refuted, and don't think it is necessary to debate it here. Of course God cannot be proven, but a logical theory does not need to be proven to be true to remain logically consistent. My objection is solely to the claim that religion is illogical. There are many logical arguments that can be made in defense of religion, I only provided one which I feel to be particularly strong. So to claim that belief in God is illogical is categorically false.

1/26/2010 12:25:29 PM

There's nothing illogical about saying "there may be a god or gods." It's technically a possibility. A belief is something that you know to be true. If you believe in a god, it's not just that you think there may possibly be a god. You believe there is a god. So, I would say it is illogical to believe in something that cannot possibly be verified, but not illogical to say that something may exist outside of our realm of understanding. All Christians I've ever known aren't just saying that God might exist, they're saying that he does exist and he does interact with our world. That's a very different claim that has no supporting evidence, and could cause people to behave in ways they would not if they didn't hold that belief.

Also, to separate theism from religion, religion (or at least Christianity) is definitely illogical. It contains contradictions, such as "God changes" and "God is unchanging." Both cannot be true, so the religion as outlined by the bible is not a logical belief system.

[Edited on January 26, 2010 at 12:34 PM. Reason : ]

1/26/2010 12:33:03 PM

^you are seriously misinformed.

1/26/2010 12:40:39 PM

I believe this thread is stupid.

1/26/2010 12:46:00 PM

^^Let me guess. Your version of religion is completely logical and supported by the evidence. I just haven't cherry picked the correct verses to support my own indoctrination.

1/26/2010 12:52:07 PM

Quote :

"It may not necessarily be an indicator of their ability to think critically on other issues, but it certainly might. "

That's a big "might," though, and that makes it a terrible way to weed out candidates. Add to that the near-certainty that rampant abuse would occur and I think you have an awful policy that is rightfully not permitted.

You're not finding out whether or not the person can do the job, you're finding out whether they believe something that you personally disagree with and find silly.

Quote :

"And by the way, I think you've essentially conceded the OP's point (if not mine) when you noted the exception of the paleontologist."

No. It's possible to be a religious paleontologist. I believe that Bob Bakker is among this number. It's not possible to be a paleontologist who doesn't believe in dinosaurs. There is a world of difference.

In this case, and in the case of the lawyer, you run into situations that are nigh on impossible. A person who doesn't believe in dinosaurs is not going to make it through the years of school required to be a paleontologist. A lawyer whose work in law school constantly reverts back to God's law over man's law is not likely to do well.

The point is, in both cases you're going to run into red flags without having to ask questions about religion.

1/26/2010 1:37:06 PM

Quote :

"A belief is something that you know to be true."

Not really. A belief is what you think to be true, based on your particular experiences and observations. I believe that I will go to sleep tonight and wake up again in the morning. Not because I know it to be true, but because that is what has happened in my life up to this point. It is a completely logical belief for me to hold, even though it cannot be verified. That is what philosophy (of which theology is part) is all about. Once an idea can be proven, it ceases to be part of philosophy and moves into the realm of science.

Anyway, I don't think a debate on religion is going to lead anywhere productive. To return to the topic of affirmative action in general, does anyone plan to address this:

Quote :

"If we see injustice, we should try to change it through changing the attitudes of other people, not by forcing everyone to act the way we think they should. I'm sure most here would agree if we apply this to abortion, or other issues of "legislating morality". Free choice, right? Well, I'm just being consistent in my view. We should advocate voluntary change through education and awareness, not take away freedom to force the world to conform to our individual views."

1/26/2010 2:02:01 PM

Quote :

"^^Let me guess. Your version of religion is completely logical and supported by the evidence. I just haven't cherry picked the correct verses to support my own indoctrination."

Quote :

"you are seriously misinformed."

/thread

1/26/2010 2:31:52 PM

Just go ahead and demonstrate how I'm misinformed about, then. If this is so cut and dry, it shouldn't be too hard to do.

1/26/2010 2:44:27 PM

I'm not here to force you to believe in my beliefs or convert you. We are all given the free will and the ability to make our own choices. Just as I have chosen for myself, you are free to do the same. I just ask that you don't try and force your misinformation down mine and everyone else's throats and try and pass it off as fact.

1/26/2010 3:11:10 PM

"Consequences of False Beliefs"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs-KZqTTyGs

1/26/2010 11:45:18 PM

i thought this was just another OMG Religion Is Supid thread ... but this, right here:

Quote :

"Religious views, on the other hand, are presumably something one comes to conclude through rigorous logic."

made me LOL.

1/26/2010 11:57:09 PM

Quote :

""Consequences of False Beliefs""

I watched this. Even ignoring the bias of the source, it wasn't very impressive. I'd be happy to argue about it in another thread, but in spite of attempts (like yours) to derail this one I won't play along here.

1/27/2010 1:14:09 AM

Joe, can you tell me then, if not by logic, how you came to your view on religion? And if it is not via rational thought, tell my why I shouldn't doubt your capacity to think critically?

1/27/2010 3:06:54 AM

If irrational beliefs and critical thinking were mutually exclusive, then no one would posess critical thinking.

1/27/2010 9:50:02 AM