Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Religious Discrimination at Google

cajundiscordian.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 320 posts

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#281

Post by lamontcg »

azth wrote: post #274
lamontcg wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That question isn't relevant to my life.

Of course it is, because of the implications that come out of it. Either it came out of nothing (a logically absurd claim), in which case nothing really matters. Or, it was initiated by an entity, The Creator, in which case you'd want to know what He has to say about how we conduct our lives and what comes next.

You're making a hell of a lot of assumptions. There's no evidence of a creator, no evidence the creator is a "He" and no evidence that it is remotely human with human concerns and that it cares about what we do one way or the other, or that it has any involvement after creation. You're projecting a creator that looks and thinks like you with absolutely zero evidence, which is alternatively your own lack of imagination or too much imagination depending on how you slice it. And we can go around and around on this argument, which after 50 years on this planet I can reassure you that I've seen it before. Even if I grant you a Creator (which I don't, we can always assume an infinite multiverse instead or just that cosmology allows for a causeless effect) then there's nothing that falls out of that other than the existence of a Creator. You then wind up with something like Spinoza/Einstein's God or the Prime Mover that agnostics like to consider. There's no evidence of any of it though.

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#282

Post by hotpotamus »

ken47 wrote: post #275
lamontcg wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh yes on the first one. The Big Bang definitely happened and all the details of the study of the CMBR (for one thing -- there's many others like the Lyman Alpha Forest) show that it did. The universe was once much, much smaller and the density was higher and the temperature was a plasma. You can try to hide being "did you actually see it happen?" kind of arguments, but there's a massive amount of actual evidence beh…

Isn't it called the big bang theory, not the big bang fact? How many reputable scientists can you cite that would publicly declare the big bang as a fact rather than a theory? I wonder if the person to whom I was originally responding finds your dogmatism as objectionable as dogmatism of a traditionally religious nature.

Ah, that old silly word game - haven't actually seen it in awhile. The definition is available if you'd care to read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Science also refers to the theory of gravity, which I would suspect we can agree exists.

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#283

Post by lamontcg »

ken47 wrote: post #278
lamontcg wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That question isn't relevant to my life.

As a casual philosopher, it seems like the big bang theory as the origin of everything falls apart under a trivial question. To you, such a discrepancy may be "irrelevant" to your life, but you're in the minority. The vast majority of people in this world are religious for a reason. They want to understand the bigger picture, and their curiosity does not stop when their finite logical facilities do.

It doesn't "fall apart", it just doesn't have any answer for what came before it.

That doesn't disprove what it can prove. We know the universe used to be very hot and dense and expanded and cooled.

What I don't buy is that because we don't understand something -- like what came before the big bang -- that it necessarily implies the existence of some old white bearded cishet white male who cares about our day to day lives.

I'm perfectly happy with having absolute uncertainty about what came before the big bang. There doesn't need to be any explanation, and there certainly doesn't need to be a religious explanation.

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#284

Post by _8j50 »

Renaud wrote: post #51
krisoft wrote: post #23

Quoting the most concrete example he gives: > If you start talking about your religious beliefs at a social event people treat you like you just farted in their face. They frequently will scrunch up their faces and might ask a question like “Do you REALLY believe all that stuff?” When you tell them that you do they might even go so far as to say “Sorry that’s just not the kind of thing I associate with someone as sma…

It’s quite baffling to me that people would start talking about religion at social events that are not related to religion in the first place. To me, one of the basic rules of social etiquette is never talk about religion or politics unless you’re amongst people who share your views or it’s a specific religious or political gathering. If I’m attending a social function, I certainly don’t want to hear about your relig…

I disagree heavily. You would talk about the latest movies, your pet,etc... but Religion is offtopic...why? It literally is the most important thing outside of work to most religious people. If people say they don't feel comfortable with the topic of course they should change it.

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#285

Post by _8j50 »

krisoft wrote: post #23

Quoting the most concrete example he gives: > If you start talking about your religious beliefs at a social event people treat you like you just farted in their face. They frequently will scrunch up their faces and might ask a question like “Do you REALLY believe all that stuff?” When you tell them that you do they might even go so far as to say “Sorry that’s just not the kind of thing I associate with someone as sma…

You are right, he did not state actions taken against him based on his beliefs so it isn't employer discrimination.

However, the fact that this thread is flagged speaks volumes. In the global west in general there is an unhealthy extremisim between being anti-religious or a force-it-down-your-throat extrimist.

An argument could be made that lack of education about religious tolerance has resulted in a hostile workspace against religious people in companies with very secular workers and against people who don't have a religion at very religious workspaces.

The sword cuts both ways and it is a shame even mention of a discussion about tolerance is met with such hostility. You don't have to take a person's belief seriously in order to be respectful or tolerant of them, especially in the work place.

That said, I have no reason to believe OPs claims are correct.

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#286

Post by quantified »

azth wrote: post #279
quantified wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I can verify the software to some degree there, or (more usually) find the bugs. So this is the bug-free simulation? It's easier to run the simulation and see what happens, so much state to initialize. Without evidence, that's why it's called faith. There are thousands of unfalsifiable possible starting points, the Judeo-Christian one is laughable.

> Without evidence, that's why it's called faith No one said faith should be based on blind belief. You can most certainly have faith based in evidence. It's not a dichotomy.

There are many religions, and across them they are mutually incompatible. Which ones have evidence for themselves that demonstrates another is false?

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#287

Post by _8j50 »

Hammershaft wrote: post #149
Renaud wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s quite baffling to me that people would start talking about religion at social events that are not related to religion in the first place. To me, one of the basic rules of social etiquette is never talk about religion or politics unless you’re amongst people who share your views or it’s a specific religious or political gathering. If I’m attending a social function, I certainly don’t want to hear about your relig…

> To me, one of the basic rules of social etiquette is never talk about religion or politics unless you’re amongst people who share your views or it’s a specific religious or political gathering. This strikes me as a tradition that seriously bolsters religious & political partisanship in America.

That's a crappy rule and it is incompatible with democracy. Part of the reason "freedom of expression" tenants exist is because voters need to be able to convince their peers on various issues. Religion is literally why people believe everything they believe in and asking people to avoid religious topics instead of discussing how to converse controversial topics without causing offense is precisely how you end up with social bubbles of extremes ready to tear apart society to destroy each other.

Part of that however is telling others explicitly when their topic of choice makes you uncomfortable and them ceasing the discussion after clarifying their intent immediately.

Same thing with politics, superpacs and millions in advertising money isn't how politicians should reach out to voters, it is supposed to be by voters talking to people on the other side about their guy and his/her policies. Civilized discourse about controversial topics is a corr foundation of a free society. And it is being eroded by modern social media driven society.

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#288

Post by azth »

lamontcg wrote: post #281
azth wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it is, because of the implications that come out of it. Either it came out of nothing (a logically absurd claim), in which case nothing really matters. Or, it was initiated by an entity, The Creator, in which case you'd want to know what He has to say about how we conduct our lives and what comes next.

You're making a hell of a lot of assumptions. There's no evidence of a creator, no evidence the creator is a "He" and no evidence that it is remotely human with human concerns and that it cares about what we do one way or the other, or that it has any involvement after creation. You're projecting a creator that looks and thinks like you with absolutely zero evidence, which is alternatively your own lack of imaginatio…

The evidence of The Creator is your very existence.

He is just how we are able to articulate in our language. We are limited, and He chose to reveal Himself using He, so who are we to question?

> or that it has any involvement after creation

Provably false.

We have hard evidence for our belief and faith. Here's a good starting point: www.provingislam.com

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#289

Post by azth »

quantified wrote: post #286
azth wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Without evidence, that's why it's called faith No one said faith should be based on blind belief. You can most certainly have faith based in evidence. It's not a dichotomy.

There are many religions, and across them they are mutually incompatible. Which ones have evidence for themselves that demonstrates another is false?

Just because there are many mutually exclusive religions, does not imply that none of them are correct. Look up genetic fallacy.

The "Abrahamic" faiths have demonstrated themselves, but only one remains uncorrupted: Islam. You can check out provingislam.com for some hard proofs.

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#290

Post by throwoutway »

Renaud wrote: post #51
krisoft wrote: post #23

Quoting the most concrete example he gives: > If you start talking about your religious beliefs at a social event people treat you like you just farted in their face. They frequently will scrunch up their faces and might ask a question like “Do you REALLY believe all that stuff?” When you tell them that you do they might even go so far as to say “Sorry that’s just not the kind of thing I associate with someone as sma…

It’s quite baffling to me that people would start talking about religion at social events that are not related to religion in the first place. To me, one of the basic rules of social etiquette is never talk about religion or politics unless you’re amongst people who share your views or it’s a specific religious or political gathering. If I’m attending a social function, I certainly don’t want to hear about your relig…

I disagree. People have mocked others that hold my beliefs (negative) and I respond with a positive view. Why is it somehow deemed acceptable to denigrate religions at social events, but if you say you believe X then it’s “baffling”?
Post reply on HN