Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The employer should have made more of an effort to rectify the situation.

I once refused to serve a couple of Skinheads wearing white power ralley shirts who came in to the Staples I used to work in, I didn't get fired, infact I was so pissed off at their presence that they sent me to lunch early.

In the end, nobody was worse off.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Despite religious beliefs often being metaphysical it doesn't mean they have to be irrational.

Isn't the basis of most religion the willing rejection of 'rational' though in favour of belief? Belief is very often inconsistent with rationality, since faith rejects the need for proof, the cornerstone of rationality. it's not possible to have it both ways on a specific issue. Either you side with what can be proven, or side with what cannot. The shades of difference in that decision are somewhat meaningless.

But yeah, I agree with the judge in this case tbh. If you have a Job, you do it, regardless of your religious beliefs. If it conflicts with them, either lose the job or lose the religion, don't try and claim you can have your cake and eat it too.

However many religions see evidence in the physical world that validates their faith. Take miracles as an example.

And also the notion of a personal relationship with God, not an "imaginary friend" but a real tangible relationship. Athiests and agnostics cannot understand this, since they have no relationship with God. So they don't consider this as evidence.

GG

IceRaptor wrote:
Isn't the basis of most religion the willing rejection of 'rational' though in favour of belief? Belief is very often inconsistent with rationality, since faith rejects the need for proof, the cornerstone of rationality. it's not possible to have it both ways on a specific issue. Either you side with what can be proven, or side with what cannot. The shades of difference in that decision are somewhat meaningless.

Sorry if I don't subscribe to "all-or-nothingism." If you want to go oldschool Christian "Faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen." It's what a "perfect" Christian hopes and what he can't see, neither of which negate that thing existing objectively as well. There are good, logical authors in the ranks of the vast majority of religions. Belief is just a means of understanding what they know to be true for some. Hope that helped some.

And, on the flipside, a quote from Martin Luther.

"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding."

IceRaptor wrote:
Isn't the basis of most religion the willing rejection of 'rational' though in favour of belief? Belief is very often inconsistent with rationality, since faith rejects the need for proof, the cornerstone of rationality. it's not possible to have it both ways on a specific issue. Either you side with what can be proven, or side with what cannot. The shades of difference in that decision are somewhat meaningless.

Its entirely possible to accept a certain premise without proof, and the move forward from that premise only on the basis of proof. One assumption does not an irrational process make.

Indeed, there is no reason that the acceptance of theism needs to be irrational. Someone who accepts a belief in God because it makes him feel better is not irrational. It would, however, be irrational to continue believing in God if doing so made you feel bad. Unless of course you wanted to feel bad, but that is a whole other issue.

generalgrog wrote:And also the notion of a personal relationship with God, not an "imaginary friend" but a real tangible relationship. Athiests and agnostics cannot understand this, since they have no relationship with God. So they don't consider this as evidence.

Without evidence, there's no way to determine the existence of the other party. If you swear to have a 'personal relationship' with someone named Fooglarb Xarbie, but can't produce some material item that defines that person, you would be suspected of fabricating that person. It doesn't matter if you believe some intangible, unprovable, logically vacuous entity named Fooglarb Xarbie exists; your belief alone is not sufficient evidence of Xarbie's existence. Which hey, that belief is fine - it's your life after all.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
There are good, logical authors in the ranks of the vast majority of religions. Belief is just a means of understanding what they know to be true for some. Hope that helped some.

As a lapsed Christian, I understand the line of thought in that sentiment, but I reject it as logically sound. Belief in the unprovable is certainly far from novel, but it (should) carry no weight in inter-personal dynamics. A belief that the core of the Earth is made of Gouda is as 'rational' as the belief in any 'supernormal' being. A belief in string theory is just as 'rational'. But this is what the role of experimentation is for; it separates what is currently known from what is not currently known. Sure, we may 'discover' what we currently think of as supernatural in the future, but until that point it's simple conjecture. Which a point I think we both agree upon!

Do you have faith in space? How do you know there is such things as other planets? How do you know there really is a place called France? If you've already been to France how do you know its not a great big tent city that closes up daily?

There are not facts, only belief.

dogma wrote:Indeed, there is no reason that the acceptance of theism needs to be irrational. Someone who accepts a belief in God because it makes him feel better is not irrational.

A 'belief' in an unproven article is not inherently irrational. 'belief' in unprovable articles are borderline irrational, since they are beyond the realm of rational thought. Accepting a belief in a god-figure because it makes you feel good is imminently logical. Belief that the god figure creates rain by scooping up water with their hand is not. Belief that the god-figure creates rain by motivating sub-atomic structures, also logical. There's plenty of room for rational belief in the unknown realms of science. But therein lies the point - 'belief' that is informed by, and altered by logic is rational (by definition). Belief that will-fully disregards physical evidence is not rational; the person is choosing their belief as superior to rational thought.

Now granted, physical evidence can lie. We are poor judges of the true cause of events most times. But generally the point remains intact, I think.

Falconlance wrote:And, on the flipside, a quote from Martin Luther.

"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding."

And I counter-quote your counter-quote. You reciprocate. Then we both realize that playing blue versus blue in Magic is a waste of time

IceRaptor wrote:Without evidence, there's no way to determine the existence of the other party. If you swear to have a 'personal relationship' with someone named Fooglarb Xarbie, but can't produce some material item that defines that person, you would be suspected of fabricating that person. It doesn't matter if you believe some intangible, unprovable, logically vacuous entity named Fooglarb Xarbie exists; your belief alone is not sufficient evidence of Xarbie's existence. Which hey, that belief is fine - it's your life after all.

You operate under the assumption that the only proof one has is a blind guess. Some people have personal evidence. Some have scientifically verified and unexplainable miracles. Others have very convincing personal experiences that defy odds. In contrast, just because one says something doesn't exist doesn't mean that it doesn't. Doesn't it? And I agree that things with no evidence are a waste of everyone's time. And if they're not, give me $1,000 and I will cure all that ails you.

France can be measured. God cannot be measured. Come on, Frazz!

Well, I've been up mountains and know the air gets thinner, so I can believe there is no air in space.

I've seen other planets through telescopes.

I've been to France numerous times and looked around and found no inconsistencies in the illusion. In fact there are French people in my office, and they speak French and act as if the place really exists.

It seems unlikely that the whole of France, my colleagues, the Eurostar, my aunt and so on were got up by someone as a con trick on me personally. If they were, the people who did it went to a lot of trouble because they also made up Switzerland and Italy to sustain the illusion.

At one level absolutely everything is a matter of belief that the universe outside your brain exists in any form at all.

For that matter, your brain could be a simulation running on a high spec computer.

This does not mean that things for which there is no evidence are as likely to exist as things for which there is a lot of evidence.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:s is a blind guess. Some people have personal evidence. Some have scientifically verified and unexplainable miracles..

What's a scientifically verified miracle? Isn't that just a regular event.

Frazzled wrote:
There are not facts, only belief.

Interesting. So it is belief in an improving market which causes the market to improve? Not the financial transactions that people make which have the unintended consequence of improving the market, but the actual belief that the market has gotten better?

Frazzled wrote:There are not facts, only belief.

At a philosophical level, sure. There's no ironclad guarantee that the sun will rise in the east and set in the west for those of us in North America. It's only through repeated observation that we're pretty sure it's going to continue doing so with a very high probability of success. But that's a place that's pointless to argue from; if you require an absolute certainty of a fact, you either go abstract with math or drop out of the discussion, right? Instead we talk about very high probability events (like the sun rising) as 'facts', and low probability events as 'guesses' or 'belief'. So semantically dancing around those terms doesn't get us anywhere

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:In contrast, just because one says something doesn't exist doesn't mean that it doesn't. Doesn't it?

And I agree that things with no evidence are a waste of everyone's time. And if they're not, give me $1,000 and I will cure all that ails you.

I can levy no proof that god does not exist (and would not be inclined to do so, since that's not my belief). There's little proof that would prove the existence of Abraham's god, not definitely. We don't know a great deal about reality that is still 'real' and will continue to be so despite our ignorance. However, speaking socially, it tends to be better to accept stances that have some basis in the 'delusion' we all share, rather than an individual's personal 'delusion'.

I have zero problem with someone believing that God is a cab driver somewhere in Thailand if that's their stance; just stop trying to act like your belief is valid outside of your own head


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Not the financial transactions that people make which have the unintended consequence of improving the market, but the actual belief that the market has gotten better?

Sure seems that way most of the time

Falconlance wrote:France can be measured. God cannot be measured. Come on, Frazz!

I can't measure France. I've not been there this century. As such its a belief that France exists. If someone tells me that France exists I have to believe: 1) they aren't lying to me or aren't inaccurate; 2) they themselves exist.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
There are not facts, only belief.

Interesting. So it is belief in an improving market which causes the market to improve? Not the financial transactions that people make which have the unintended consequence of improving the market, but the actual belief that the market has gotten better?

In the sense that people buy things in the market because they believe the price will increase, and the price of things does increase when they are in demand, this belief is the mechanism by which the market works. I'm talking about shares and so on, not actual items or commodities for use.

But then I learned all my economics from a sexy Italian grad student, and the thing she taught me was that curves are the source of all the trouble.

IceRaptor wrote:
'belief' in unprovable articles are borderline irrational, since they are beyond the realm of rational thought.

That's rhetorically tautological.

Rational thought is thought governed by the principles of rationality, or the ability to accept reason as a means for dictating action. One can behave rationally in accepting an unprovable premise if there is sufficient reason to accept that premise, where reason need not indicate that said premise is true. Rationality is not the same thing as logic. You're conflating the two.

IceRaptor wrote:
Accepting a belief in a god-figure because it makes you feel good is imminently logical. Belief that the god figure creates rain by scooping up water with their hand is not. Belief that the god-figure creates rain by motivating sub-atomic structures, also logical.

One can be a metaphor for the other. You see this type of thinking a lot amongst believers who work in the physical sciences. Hell, you see it amongst atheists in the scientific community. Think on how Richard Dawkins waxes poetic about the nature of the Universe.

IceRaptor wrote:
There's plenty of room for rational belief in the unknown realms of science. But therein lies the point - 'belief' that is informed by, and altered by logic is rational (by definition). Belief that will-fully disregards physical evidence is not rational; the person is choosing their belief as superior to rational thought.

Sure, but to say that religion is founded on that idea shows a great deal of ignorance about religion as a general category. There have been, and are, plenty of examples of religious people who devote themselves to rationality.

George Spiggott wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:s is a blind guess. Some people have personal evidence. Some have scientifically verified and unexplainable miracles..

What's a scientifically verified miracle? Isn't that just a regular event.

Unlikely remission of cancer is a good example.

It does happen. As a believer you can take it as evidence of the Hand of God at work. As a scientist you can simply say it is the most outlying event on the bell curve. As a New Ager, you can take it as evidence of the power of positive thinking.

The placebo effect is real, so perhaps that is not such a stupid idea.

Kilkrazy wrote:
In the sense that people buy things in the market because they believe the price will increase, and the price of things does increase when they are in demand, this belief is the mechanism by which the market works. I'm talking about shares and so on, not actual items or commodities for use.

But ultimately the fact of purchase determines the state of the market. If a large chunk of people believed they had made a purchase, but had never transacted with anyone, then the market price would not be affected as though they had made a physical transaction.

Rejecting fact altogether leads us to the brain in a vat, where everyone except the person possessed of the brain is caused by a belief of that brain.

Kilkrazy wrote:

But then I learned all my economics from a sexy Italian grad student, and the thing she taught me was that curves are the source of all the trouble.

Frankly, it requires a sexy italian grad student to fully demonstrate the truth of that statement.

I approve!

dogma wrote:
But ultimately the fact of purchase determines the state of the market. If a large chunk of people believed they had made a purchase, but had never transacted with anyone, then the market price would not be affected as though they had made a physical transaction.

I'm no Economics buff, but isn't that the basis of every major scandal we've had in the marketplace?

George Spiggott wrote:What's a scientifically verified miracle? Isn't that just a regular event.

As above.

IceRaptor wrote:
[I can levy no proof that god does not exist (and would not be inclined to do so, since that's not my belief). There's little proof that would prove the existence of Abraham's god, not definitely. We don't know a great deal about reality that is still 'real' and will continue to be so despite our ignorance. However, speaking socially, it tends to be better to accept stances that have some basis in the 'delusion' we all share, rather than an individual's personal 'delusion'.

The moment a belief starts to factor in anything of a social nature it defeats the true purpose of said belief existing. I'll take the personal delusion any day If I need to adjust my beliefs by my own experiences or some other criteria that I deem worthy at some point in the future, so be it. We know what's in front of us. Some people just have more in front of them than others. But then some of those people think they're special consequently and ruin it for everyone else. Generally speaking, I don't think it's wrong or shameful or proud or whatever "socially approved" term is allowed to say that you think you're right. The only person you have to prove it to is you, anyone else who agrees is just gravy. If you stay truly honest to yourself you'll figure out if you're being stupid soon enough.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
I'm no Economics buff, but isn't that the basis of every major scandal we've had in the marketplace?

Not that I'm aware of, major instances of fraud generally have to do with the misrepresentation of what is being purchased, rather than the misrepresentation of the act of purchase. People often give other people money with the understanding that the person in question will use the money wisely, or make a previously agreed to purchase, but in those instances where such a scandal takes place the issue isn't that the person mistakenly believed they had made a purchase. Though they may equivocate the two ideas in their minds.

I'm imagine something more akin to what happens when you swore you did something, say locked a door, but never actually did. I'm also assuming that the process operates as a mechanism for purposes of simple illustration; fully breaking down the causal relationships implicit in something like E-Trade would take at least 1000 words.

Orlanth wrote:So lets see.

A Christian cannot refuse to offer sex conselling advice to homoesexuals but this is acceptible:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23414476-muslim-checkout-staff-can-refuse-to-sell-drink.do

There has got to be a difference in crossing the line of a faith between scanning a bottle of alcohol you are not consuming and examining a couples sex life and being expected to advise on that.

I wonder what would have happened if the counseller was a Moslem.

The difference is that in the Muslim case its a rule that has been introduced by sainsbury's. It's not enshrined in law that they can refuse to serve alcohol, nor should it be.

I would say that in either case it should entirely at the discretion of their bosses. If they wish to humor them and allow them not to perform certain duties then fine. If however they decide to dismiss them neither should be allowed to bring an unfair dismissal claim on the basis that their religion forbade them to do a task which they know they would be asked to do on signing up.

Salisburys decided to grant their religious employees an exception to a rule, relate did not. Nothing more sinister to it than that.