Not hiring someone on grounds of Religious belief

[SativaDiva]

Religion, in my opinion, is a way to control the masses. Some people feel the complete with religion in there life, which I think, they subconciously need to be controlled. Without it, they may feel unbalanced and who knows what happens next.

 

[Oli]

Religion, in my opinion, is a way to control the masses

Evidence forthcoming??

 

[Baron Max]

Religion, in my opinion, is a way to control the masses. Some people feel the complete with religion in there life, which I think, they subconciously need to be controlled. Without it, they may feel unbalanced and who knows what happens next.

I was just reading that and thought:


"Love, in my opinion, is a way to control the masses. Some people feel complete with love in their life, which I think, they subconciously need to be controlled. Without it, they may feel unbalanced and who knows what happens next."

And just as the original post, there's no proof, there's no evidence, there's nothing but opinion based on .....what? Anyone can make a statement, or post their opinion, but ....what's it mean? Nothing.

"I think that the moon is made of cheese!" Oh, and the dust and rocks that the astronauts found is just "stuff" that landed on the cheese!!

Baron Max

 

[geeser]

I was just reading that and thought:


"Love, in my opinion, is a way to control the masses. Some people feel complete with love in their life, which I think, they subconciously need to be controlled. Without it, they may feel unbalanced and who knows what happens next."

you can subsitute any word, such as hate, fear, hysteria., etc......

there's no proof, there's no evidence, there's nothing but opinion based on ...what?

fact, as there is no god/gods then what other reason can there be for religion, if you tell people that they will be killed by the all and powerful oz, if they dont do this or that, their fear of retribution, will keep them in order.
it's just basic common sense.

"I think that the moon is made of cheese!" Oh, and the dust and rocks that the astronauts found is just "stuff" that landed on the cheese

that's funny I do too. and on the dark side, theres 200 ft high kangaroo elephants, called kangaphants, they have to be that big because of the low gravity, they stay on the dark side because there shy.

 

[Baron Max]

fact, as there is no god/gods...

To make that statement as a "fact", then shouldn't you have proof of it?

Or do you mean that you have a "reasoned" opinion that there is no god(s)?

Baron Max

 

[geeser]

no I know theres no god, it only takes one small speck of a thing, to prove it exists, and no one since the dawn of time or religion has shown, any evidence hence why all religions rely on faith alone, however as I can not travel the entire universe and look in every nook and crannie, and check to see if it's hiding there, it would be foolish to say something absolutely does'nt exist, just like I cant be sure theres life on another planet somewhere, so until such time as someone can prove the 0.0000000000000 infinitum 001, possiblity that a god exists, I can be 99.999999999999 infinitum, sure it doe'nt, as such the onus is on the one who asserts it exists to provide proof.

and dont forget there are kangaphants on the dark side of the moon, they exist, but I have no prove of it, take it on faith.

 

[SVRP]

Hmmm, I assume I'm being rational and objective
If there IS a god then I can explain no better than this:
Which I've posted once elsewhere, this is from The Sacred Theory of the Earth by Thomas Burnet which "proved" using the Bible that Atlantis existed IIRC.
If there is a god then by definition god gave us the free will and thirst for knowledge that we have, plus the senses and thought processes we use to evaluate that information, therefore if there is a god and science is wrong it's because we've been misled or incorrectly equipped BY HIM to think about the world.

Interesting quote, Oli, but I may have to disagree with Thomas Burnet.

The religious applicant may be right, but as per the post above, if the applicant finds himself in a situation where his beliefs conflict with science he'll choose his belief. It's a question of "would you hire someone who operates in the real world using the observed laws of that world, or do you want someone who hypocritically uses them until he decides they no longer applyand then goes against them?"

But in what field of science would that apply? If a religious person applies for a job & is capable of acquiring an interview with the employer, then you have to assume the religious applicant has the necessary skills for the job in that field of science. What field of science would not consider a religious person?

What proof would both sides accept? Well the scientist/ sceptic will accept that god exists if there solid evidence. As far as I can see the believer will not accept non-existence on any proof, it's a matter of faith.
It comes down to if there is no evidence of god then there is no need for belief, on one side, and the other side says, effectively, regardless of lack of evidence I WILL believe. In fact I vaguley remember reading somewhere that one prominent believer said "if the church itself should prove there is no god, it would still not alter my faith". That is a good defintion of irrational.

I understand some things you are saying, Oli. But wouldn’t you think if a person is zealously religious would they study a science discipline that would be contrary to their beliefs? My answer to that would be no. Therefore, if a religious person is an applicant to a job in a field of science then that science is in conjunction with what he believes.

Now as for the question whether God exists or not
First, major national science organizations have publicly proclaimed that they cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. They are neutral on the subject.
Second, if God does not exist, then life began through some type of “spontaneous generation”. But it has already been proven by science that life comes from life.
Third, scientifically speaking, can you prove any major figure in the past? The answer to that would be ‘no’.

So what evidence will be acceptable as proof of God’s existence?

 

[geeser]

If a religious person applies for a job & is capable of acquiring an interview with the employer, then you have to assume the religious applicant has the necessary skills for the job in that field of science. What field of science would not consider a religious person?

all of them I hope, how can you take what a religious person says or does seriously, aledge scientist or not.

But wouldn’t you think if a person is zealously religious would they study a science discipline that would be contrary to their beliefs? My answer to that would be no. Therefore, if a religious person is an applicant to a job in a field of science then that science is in conjunction with what he believes.

science and religion are mutually exclusive, and never the twain shall meet.

Now as for the question whether God exists or not
First, major national science organizations have publicly proclaimed that they cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. They are neutral on the subject.

they can be 99.9999999999999 recurring that a god does not exist, but as they can not travel the cosmos and check everywhere to see, they have to say it's not absolute.

Second, if God does not exist, then life began through some type of “spontaneous generation”. But it has already been proven by science that life comes from life.

time, chance and natural chemical processes created life in the beginning. life is made up of atoms, molecules, and chemical reactions, it's just simply chemistry and nothing else, life originated by chance chemical reactions. could you post up where it has been proven, that as you said "life comes from life", as it new to me and the entire science community

Third, scientifically speaking, can you prove any major figure in the past? The answer to that would be ‘no’.

the answer is yes, 2686 - 2613 B.C.the 3rd Dynasty.(4686 years ago)Pharaoh Netjerkhet also known as Djoser his mummy is in the collection of Qasr el-Aini in Cairo there was an older one from the first dynasty, but since lost of the pharaoh Djer around 3150 - 3050 B.C.95150 years ago)

The first Egyptian pyramid was the step pyramid for the pharaoh Djoser at Saqqara. The pyramid formed a stairway for the dead pharaoh to ascend to the heavens.
there is a lot of info on the net and in books etc..

During an excavation in 1924-26, a pedestal of a statue of Djoser was found. This complex represents the first major work in stone. That is, unless there are other works that have yet to be found.

so you see we have evidence for ancient people but no evidence can be produced for a god.

So what evidence will be acceptable as proof of God’s existence?

there is none. unless it wants to show it's self, but pigs will fly first.

 

[SVRP]

all of them I hope, how can you take what a religious person says or does seriously, aledge scientist or not. science and religion are mutually exclusive, and never the twain shall meet.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -- Albert Einstein.

time, chance and natural chemical processes created life in the beginning. life is made up of atoms, molecules, and chemical reactions, it's just simply chemistry and nothing else, life originated by chance chemical reactions. could you post up where it has been proven, that as you said "life comes from life", as it new to me and the entire science community

http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Spontaneous_Generation.html
http://www.panspermia.org/pasteur.htm

And could you post up the experiment that proves life came from chance?

the answer is yes, 2686 - 2613 B.C.the 3rd Dynasty.(4686 years ago)Pharaoh Netjerkhet also known as Djoser his mummy is in the collection of Qasr el-Aini in Cairo there was an older one from the first dynasty, but since lost of the pharaoh Djer around 3150 - 3050 B.C.95150 years ago)
During an excavation in 1924-26, a pedestal of a statue of Djoser was found. This complex represents the first major work in stone. That is, unless there are other works that have yet to be found.

Without any documentation or written word, how did the scientists know that this was the mummy of Djoser? In other words, what was about the mummy itself that said, “This is Djoser”?

so you see we have evidence for ancient people but no evidence can be produced for a god.

You have evidence because of documentation. Without documentation you wouldn’t know who existed in the past. That is archaeology and history. There are hundreds of mummies found by archaeologists, but without documentation we will never know who they were.

The question still remains - what evidence will be acceptable as proof of God’s existence?

 

[geeser]

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -- Albert Einstein.

"There are those in the know, and there are those who believe they know.
"-- Medicine Woman.

http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Spontaneous_Generation.html
http://www.panspermia.org/pasteur.htm

is this all you can come up with science that's over a 150 years old, we come along way since then.
why chemical evolution is the correct view, chemical evolution has not been falsified. One would be irrational to adhere to a falsified hypothesis. they have only presented a case that chemical evolution does'nt seem plausible at this time. By the nature of the case that is all one can do. In a strict, technical sense, chemical evolution cannot be falsified because it is not falsifiable. Chemical evolution is a highly likely reconstruction of a unique past event. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050911103921.htm

Without any documentation or written word, how did the scientists know that this was the mummy of Djoser? In other words, what was about the mummy itself that said, “This is Djoser”?

perhaps your a complete idiot, but they found the tomb/pyramid first, the body was'nt laying out in the sun waiting for some one to pass by, they read the hieroglyphics on the stones inside and out, there was'nt a note pad by the body, saying this is djoser, they found a pedestal of a statue of Djoser, so everything pointed to the pyramid being the tomb of pharaoh djoser, so I think the could be pretty certain the mummy was him, but of course nearly five thousand years ago somebody could of opened the sarcophagus, took his body out and replaced it with another mummy, just for the fun of it.

You have evidence because of documentation. Without documentation you wouldn’t know who existed in the past. That is archaeology and history. There are hundreds of mummies found by archaeologists, but without documentation we will never know who they were.

the documentation is often written in the stone of the pyramids, hence why archaeologists learn to read hieroglyphics.

The question still remains - what evidence will be acceptable as proof of God’s existence?

there is none.

 

[SVRP]

"There are those in the know, and there are those who believe they know.
"-- Medicine Woman.

And Medicine Woman is the source of your information? How sad.

is this all you can come up with science that's over a 150 years old, we come along way since then.
why chemical evolution is the correct view, chemical evolution has not been falsified. One would be irrational to adhere to a falsified hypothesis. they have only presented a case that chemical evolution does'nt seem plausible at this time. By the nature of the case that is all one can do. In a strict, technical sense, chemical evolution cannot be falsified because it is not falsifiable. Chemical evolution is a highly likely reconstruction of a unique past event. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050911103921.htm

Louis Pasteur experiment still stands and is consider the one to overcome for abiogensis to have any value. Present day biologists and scientists know that even today. And the Miller-Urey experiment produced organic compounds & not life. You still have no proof but just a theory. Where is the experiment that actually produced life?

perhaps your a complete idiot, but they found the tomb/pyramid first, the body was'nt laying out in the sun waiting for some one to pass by, they read the hieroglyphics on the stones inside and out, there was'nt a note pad by the body, saying this is djoser, they found a pedestal of a statue of Djoser, so everything pointed to the pyramid being the tomb of pharaoh djoser, so I think the could be pretty certain the mummy was him, but of course nearly five thousand years ago somebody could of opened the sarcophagus, took his body out and replaced it with another mummy, just for the fun of it. the documentation is often written in the stone of the pyramids, hence why archaeologists learn to read hieroglyphics.

So you agree without the written word or some documentation (like the hieroglyphics on the pyramid) no one would have known the mummy was that of Djoser. That, geeser, is not science but history.
And if archaeology and history is the source for finding past figures, then it is the same source to prove God exists.

 

[SativaDiva]

I was just reading that and thought:


"Love, in my opinion, is a way to control the masses. Some people feel complete with love in their life, which I think, they subconciously need to be controlled. Without it, they may feel unbalanced and who knows what happens next."

And just as the original post, there's no proof, there's no evidence, there's nothing but opinion based on .....what? Anyone can make a statement, or post their opinion, but ....what's it mean? Nothing.

Religion is a way of life for those who practice it. If one were to look at the religions of the world, they would notice a base similarity between them: They all have a set of rules ( or commandments or redes, etc, etc.). The followers of a religion chose that religion because the rules were compatible with the way that person felt comfortable leading their life . Also, in each religion, their is reward for following the rules, and there is punishment for disobeying them. This is why I believe religion to be a way to control the masses. Some believe in the government, some in love, some hate, some pride, etc. These are not classified as religions, but could be looked at as if they were ways of life. Everyone has a path they follow in life, whether it be fictional, denominational, ethical, whatever. Those that need control from other sources tend to rely on commercial religions. Those that can control themselves have some main attribute they live by. Hopefully, I explained this well enough for everyone.

 

[mustafhakofi]

So you agree without the written word or some documentation (like the hieroglyphics on the pyramid) no one would have known the mummy was that of Djoser. That, geeser, is not science but history.

no it's the science of archaeology.

And if archaeology and history is the source for finding past figures, then it is the same source to prove God exists.

how, the is no archaeological or historical evidence for god, jesus, or moses, only biblical mythology.
so there is no comparison, therefore god can not be proven, where are the bodies where is the dna, where is the geneology, where are the tombs.
until such time they can produce one ounce of evidence it must remain just myth.

 

[geeser]

And Medicine Woman is the source of your information? How sad.

that is one of the best quote's I've come across, all power to M*W elbow.

Where is the experiment that actually produced life?

theres is none as you well know, but there is none for life came for life either, chemical evolution has not been falsified, which is better than god did it, which is quite plainly stupid.

So you agree without the written word or some documentation (like the hieroglyphics on the pyramid) no one would have known the mummy was that of Djoser. That, geeser, is not science but history.

no it's Archaeological Science

And if archaeology and history is the source for finding past figures, then it is the same source to prove God exists.

not so, the bible is a book of myth, there has never been any Archaeological evidence for noah, cain and abel, moses, jesus, or god.

 

[Pi-Sudoku]

In the US that would be wrong to do. It would be considered discrimination. A person's ability to do the job should be the basis for there qualification for employment. To not hire them based on race, color, gender, religion, or lifestyle, is not allowable in the US and is against the law.

What if their lifestyle is as a criminal or peadophile?

 

[Clockwood]

Then it would be pretty hard to hire that person because they would be in jail.

 

[SVRP]

theres is none as you well know, but there is none for life came for life either, chemical evolution has not been falsified, which is better than god did it, which is quite plainly stupid.

There is where you are wrong, geeser, because Louis Pasteur's experiment implies that you need a source of life to make life. It still stands to this day and anything else is “blind faith” in a “scientific theory” which has no proof.

how, the is no archaeological or historical evidence for god, jesus, or moses, only biblical mythology.
so there is no comparison, therefore god can not be proven, where are the bodies where is the dna, where is the geneology, where are the tombs.
until such time they can produce one ounce of evidence it must remain just myth.

the bible is a book of myth, there has never been any Archaeological evidence for noah, cain and abel, moses, jesus, or god.

On the contrary, mustafhakofi & geeser, there has been plenty of biblical archaeology that has yet to supplant any of the history in the bible. For example, Sir William Ramsey, one of the greatest archaeologists of all time, spent 30 years of his life trying to disprove the New Testament, especially Luke’s writings. After intensive research, Ramsey concluded that Luke was one of the greatest historians of all time. It is not a myth as you would wish. The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth has been researched by independent news organizations, national magazines, and hundreds of historians and archaeologists. The resurrection is a historic event and shows the power of God. And God only needs one action to say it all.

 

[geeser]

On the contrary, mustafhakofi & geeser, there has been plenty of biblical archaeology that has yet to supplant any of the history in the bible. For example, Sir William Ramsey, one of the greatest archaeologists of all time, spent 30 years of his life trying to disprove the New Testament, especially Luke’s writings. After intensive research, Ramsey concluded that Luke was one of the greatest historians of all time.

Sir William Ramsey, was a Chemist
Sir William Mitchell Ramsay was an archaeologist be more thorough, please. and it would help if you post a link.
He was a theologian, he studied Divinity at Oxford, but never took the degree. He writes how he studied as a young man for his exams on the 39 Articles of Faith of the Church of England. (If I remember rightly, only believing members of the Church of England were allowed to attend Oxford or Cambridge University at that time)

He drew inspiration from the Bible, which he described as 'life-giving', and wrote how he studied Galatians for inspiration. He was also inspired by his mother's love for Paul. It seems fundamentalism ran in the family.

he set out to prove that St Luke in Acts had been Archaeologically correct in the naming of cities countries, I'm not disputing that luke was'nt an historian, physician, of the first order, but as a chronicler, he delved it to fantasy to often, as did the other gospel writers, when he writes of the resurrection, All of Christianity hinges on the Resurrection. as Paul says, without the resurrection of Christ “our preaching is useless and so is your faith. . . . If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile, and theres your wake up call.

It is not a myth as you would wish.

it's not a wish, I could'nt care a toss, I have no believe in a god, or jesus.

The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth has been researched by independent news organizations, national magazines, and hundreds of historians and archaeologists. The resurrection is a historic event and shows the power of God. And God only needs one action to say it all.

has it?
care to show, were they independant studies if any. or were they done by theologians.

Not only has the divinity of jesus been past over, but his existence as a man is more seriously questioned. Some of the greatest scholars of the world deny that he ever lived at all. A damning literature dealing with this inquiry, intensely serious and thorough in its research, is growing in all countries, and spreading like wildfire, that Christ is a myth. The question is one of great importance. For the Freethinker, as well as for the Christian, it is of extreme significance. The Christian religion has been a fact in the world. For good or for ill, it has drunk for centuries the best of mankind. It has slowed the march of civilization, and destroyed of some of the most intelligent minds: and it is to-day the greatest enemy of knowledge, of freedom, of social and industrial improvement, and of brotherhood of humanity. The progressive forces of the world are at war with this superstition, and this war will continue until the triumph of truth and freedom is complete. The question, "Did Jesus Live?" goes to the very basis of the conflict between reason and faith; and upon the decision depends, to some degree, as to whether religion or humanity shall rule the world.
Whether jesus had or had'nt lived, has nothing to do with what the church teaches, or with what we believe, It is wholly a matter of evidence. It is a question of science. The question is what does history say? If the thinking world is to hold to the position that jesus was a real character, there must be sufficient evidence to hold to that belief. If no evidence for his existence can be found; then it must be found that his story was created by art and ingenuity, like the stories of fictitious heroes, he will have to take his place with the host of other fantasy heros whose fancied lives and deeds make up the mythology of the world.

Did Jesus Ever Live or Is Christianity Founded Upon A Myth?
did jesus exist
did jesus exist - all sides to the question

 

[SVRP]

Sir William Ramsey, was a Chemist
Sir William Mitchell Ramsay was an archaeologist be more thorough, please. and it would help if you post a link.
He was a theologian, he studied Divinity at Oxford, but never took the degree. He writes how he studied as a young man for his exams on the 39 Articles of Faith of the Church of England. (If I remember rightly, only believing members of the Church of England were allowed to attend Oxford or Cambridge University at that time)

He drew inspiration from the Bible, which he described as 'life-giving', and wrote how he studied Galatians for inspiration. He was also inspired by his mother's love for Paul. It seems fundamentalism ran in the family.

he set out to prove that St Luke in Acts had been Archaeologically correct in the naming of cities countries, I'm not disputing that luke was'nt an historian, physician, of the first order, but as a chronicler, he delved it to fantasy to often, as did the other gospel writers, when he writes of the resurrection, All of Christianity hinges on the Resurrection. as Paul says, without the resurrection of Christ “our preaching is useless and so is your faith. . . . If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile, and theres your wake up call.

I think you better find the link to the William Ramsey that you have referred to, geeser. The one I am referring to was an archaeologist and not a theologian. If you read his biography it is not the same man you have illustrated above.

http://webminister.com/ramsay/rbi001.shtml
http://webminister.com/ramsay/rbi002.shtml
http://webminister.com/ramsay/home.htm

care to show, were they independant studies if any. or were they done by theologians.

Maybe this list will do & you will note the majority are not theologians.
http://www.tektonics.org/testimony/archmony.htm

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050613/jesus.html

http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/maier3.htm

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Lockwood/Germaine/Charles/1930/Cosmos/ch12.html

Whether jesus had or had'nt lived, has nothing to do with what the church teaches, or with what we believe, It is wholly a matter of evidence. It is a question of science. The question is what does history say? If the thinking world is to hold to the position that jesus was a real character, there must be sufficient evidence to hold to that belief. If no evidence for his existence can be found; then it must be found that his story was created by art and ingenuity, like the stories of fictitious heroes, he will have to take his place with the host of other fantasy heros whose fancied lives and deeds make up the mythology of the world.

This response at a science history website should answer that.
“There is plenty of historical evidence, from a variety of sources, that Jesus existed. No one who takes the trouble to familiarize herself with the evidence can doubt it. The "Enlightenment" position that there was no such person as Jesus of Nazareth, itinerant Jewish preacher, is quite dead.” (quoted from Dan Berger, Faculty Chemistry/Science, Bluffton College http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/feb99/919714996.Sh.r.html )

Other sources of interest
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=772399&page=1

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/

http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/naij3.html

http://www.rense.com/general43/jesus.htm

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_275.html

(Posting another person's words & passing them as your own is called plagiarism. Please note them as such & post the sources. )

 

[Pi-Sudoku]

Then it would be pretty hard to hire that person because they would be in jail.

Not if they have finished their sentence

In Britain a convicted peadophile would not be allowed to work with children