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

241–250 of 320 posts

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#241

Post by TulliusCicero »

0des wrote: post #15
WoahNoun wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just sentient but that the AI has a soul and deserves the full rights of personhood. Dude is mentally ill.

Do you feel the same way about people who believe their deity is a soul that was a person?

This seems like a fundamentally different question to me. Belief in a god explicitly depends on the unseen. You can't really even evaluate the personhood or lack thereof, there's nothing tangible to test.

If a god showed in in-person to whoever asked, easy peasy, then it'd be a different story.

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#242

Post by weakfish »

smitty1e wrote: post #167
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…

> 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. A major component of the current crisis is the willingness of some to scuttle traditional norms amd mores. One is now subject to evangelistic browbeatings from the "Woke" along Orwellian lines. Satan is now cast in orange, according to this faith, and the networks genuflecte…

What?

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#243

Post by TulliusCicero »

HuwFulcher wrote: post #185
tasuki wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your equation of Santa Claus with God reveals your prejudice and stereotyping of religious people. The person you're replying to never equated Santa Claus with any kind god. It was just a question. Would you take an adult insisting Santa Claus is real seriously? Do you think people are entitled to their beliefs, whatever they may be?

They didn’t explicitly state it but it’s heavily implied based on the context. No, I wouldn’t take an adult believing in Santa Claus seriously. They’re entitled to their beliefs and if they do their job well then I have no reason to have an issue with them. The issue I take is with the equivocation they have made. Believing in Santa Claus and believing in a divine entity are two drastically different things.

> The issue I take is with the equivocation they have made. Believing in Santa Claus and believing in a divine entity are two drastically different things.

Why? The only major difference I can see is that Santa Claus is explicitly understood as a made-up story, whereas Gods are believed in by others.

So there's social proof on the side of God, but in terms of tangible evidence they don't seem any different.

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#244

Post by ken47 »

wruza wrote: post #160
ekianjo wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Big Bang is the best available explanation of observed facts. Best available is not proof. The sun rotating around the Earth was also the best explanation for a long time in Human history. Traditional physics theory was the best until we started to observe things at the atomic level. Certitudes in Science don't age well, and should teach humility more than absurd dogma.

Is your last sentence applicable to religion?

I think it applies to humanity as a whole. There's a certain obsession with a false sense of control.

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#245

Post by KaiserPro »

l33t2328 wrote: post #161
KaiserPro wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can change your wealth much easier than you can change your race. Sure a rich person will have it a fucktonne easier than a poor person, regardless of race. However race is the first thing you see. As someone who is from the outside, Its especially obvious at points where the state or large institutions interact. (ie property, banking, police, airports etc etc)

Of course you can’t change your race, but we’re talking about some American analog of the caste system. Race just isn’t nearly as large a factor as money. Not even close

Except you can predict someone's life chances pretty accurately by location, and that location is a pretty good indicator of race.

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#246

Post by lowbloodsugar »

morelisp wrote: post #221
lowbloodsugar wrote: post #72

>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 smart as yourself.” If you start talking about r…

> If you start talking about religion at a corporate gathering then you may be infringing on the rights of the people you are talking to. Unless your "corporation" is actually a government institution, no person's rights are being violated. At most you're generating a lot of evidence for unfair dismissal/treatment lawsuits.

The law is literally "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964".

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#247

Post by drc500free »

igetspam wrote: post #201
drc500free wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Judaism is still around.

It teaches self sustaining levels long ago. New religions probably require much more viral spread to survive.

Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity are the same age, though. They cover two ends of the propagation strategy spectrum. Paul tried to position Christianity as a pivot from Temple Judaism like the Sanhedrin did with Rabbinic Judaism, but the "light" version that spread like wildfire among Roman slaves is what survived. Roman slaves didn't really care about Jesus's messianic genealogy or all the allusions to him being the final pascal lamb, it was the salvation story ( itself a repackaging of exodus) that resonated. So Christianity sees itself as a successor while Rabbinic Judaism sees itself as a continuation.

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#248

Post by [deleted] »

lowbloodsugar wrote: post #246
morelisp wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you start talking about religion at a corporate gathering then you may be infringing on the rights of the people you are talking to. Unless your "corporation" is actually a government institution, no person's rights are being violated. At most you're generating a lot of evidence for unfair dismissal/treatment lawsuits.

The law is literally "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964".

[deleted]

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#249

Post by lamontcg »

ken47 wrote: post #110
teekert wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are at a meeting with colleagues, one colleague suddenly starts to insist that Santa Claus is real. Do you take them seriously? Sure it’s freedom of speech but there will be some kind of drop in respect. I mean I get that you believe that one book trumps all of human science because you were raised that way but when you grow up your critical thinking skills should kick in. If they don’t, it’s very difficult to ke…

Can you prove the Big Bang occurred? If so, can you prove that nothing preceded a Big Bang? If you are as rational as you arrogantly imply, then the obvious answers to these are no. Are you equally appalled when you come across average people talking about these theories as if they are facts? I wonder.

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 behind that theory. It is more arrogant to reject the past 100 years of work on cosmology by thousands of scientists.

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#250

Post by eurasiantiger »

HuwFulcher wrote: post #176
eurasiantiger wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is notable that the first critic was the Magister of the Holy Palace, the church’s chief censor.

But wasn’t allowed to call it heresy until 1615, a while after Copernicus died. This isn’t an apologetic that the Catholic Church did the right thing, I’m not even Catholic. I’m trying to highlight that historically Christianity hasn’t been as anti-intellectual as many have been led to believe

> historically Christianity hasn’t been as anti-intellectual as many have been led to believe

That is absolutely not true. The 17th century was marked by the transition to the Age of Enlightenment, which carried an anti-anti-intellectual sentiment and thus found itself at odds with Christianity.

Post reply on HN