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

291–300 of 320 posts

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#291

Post by azth »

lamontcg wrote: post #283
ken47 wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> some old white bearded cishet white male

And there's the straw man. I don't think anyone is arguing for the existence of such.

It seems you have some misguided (and caricaturic) presumptions, but those should not blur your thinking

The fact that we exist necessarily implies a Creator. Just because you're happy putting your head in the sand does not mean that reality will disappear when you do.

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#292

Post by kevinmchugh »

danhau wrote: post #118

This probably isn’t going to get read, but the HN comments to this post really are off putting. They show Reddit levels of naivety. Just spewing further insults and discrimination with no attempt in putting yourself in the author’s position. And enough straw to feed a horse (as someone else said the other day). I came to HN to get away from this sort of thing, but the Zeitgeist here seems to be just the same. Or is t…

This is a topic that 1) hacker news commenters can't resist and 2) is totally inappropriate for hacker news. Hence the flags.

Someone getting fired or disciplined at a big tech company always attracts comments here, not always good ones.

The reason certain topics are prohibited here is because even good commenters can get in too deep and end up writing bad comments. I hope people mostly don't hold my bad comments against me for too long, and I try to do the same for them.

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#293

Post by lamontcg »

azth wrote: post #288
lamontcg wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yeah you're just getting into word salad now, later.

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#294

Post by alisonkisk »

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.

No post body was provided.

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#296

Post by djkivi »

hotpotamus wrote: post #180
paganel wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comparing one’s religious beliefs with believing in the existence of Santa Clause misses the point completely and it validates what the author of the article is saying, i.e. that contempt for religion and, in the end, religious discrimination, is widespread in tech circles. (if it matters I’m an atheist myself)

In one sense I see why it's insulting, but isn't Santa Claus basically a benevolent god?

Not when he gives a lump of coal to the bad kids.

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#298

Post by wrzuteczka »

astrange wrote: post #261
wrzuteczka wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how being embodied helps consciousness emerge? If it’s just the statistical model that underpins the consciousness, then it doesn’t matter if it’s embodied or not. It doesn’t matter to the algorithm what hardware it runs on.

If you're not embodied you can't die and there's no particular need to be anything.

This seems irreverent to me. If you created an evolutionary algorithm, where these very complex statistical models competed for survival, I don’t see how that would help one of them become conscious.

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#299

Post by teekert »

azth wrote: post #268
InfamousRece wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way are they different? There is no evidence any divine entities are real just like there is no evidence that Santa is real.

The fact that you and I exist is sufficient evidence that the Creator exists.

And the fact that the creator exist is evidence that the creator’s creator exists, etc, etc.

Or is there a stop? And then what? Your stance creates more questions than it answers while introducing extra, unnecessary parameters.

Re: Religious Discrimination at Google

#300

Post by teekert »

azth wrote: post #267
teekert wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that you say “a Devine entity” suggests you are a monotheist. As such you are atheistic wrt many many gods. Do you take all believers in all of them equally seriously? Moreover, what is stopping me from defining Santa Claus as a Devine being?

> Moreover, what is stopping me from defining Santa Claus as a Devine being? Show me evidence that Santa Clause sent a message to us.

Show me evidence that your $GOD (presumably Jaweh, but then with his image altered by some additions to your holy book only part of your community accepted, the rest rejected the new prophet) has sent a message, and while you're at it, tell my all the others are not the correct messages.

To be pedantic, Santa sends me messages every year through Coco Cola commercials. But I'm going to assume you mean older messages.

Post reply on HN