discrimination against religious fanatics: DH edition

[Dre89]

Well because religious people are statistically healthier, athiests claim that's why it evolved.

The problem is that apart from Reaver, everyone else is citing negative impacts, without statistics, yet when I cite positive impacts with statistics, you play the cause-correlation fallacy card. It's a double standard.

 

[rvkevin]

Well because religious people are statistically healthier, atheists claim that's why it evolved.

Which atheists (preferably evolutionary biologists)?

By the way, being healthier is not evolutionary adaptive unless it increases reproductive fitness so you would need to flesh out the details. I don't remember seeing a link for that article, so could you link it?

 

[ballin4life]

Well because religious people are statistically healthier, athiests claim that's why it evolved.

The problem is that apart from Reaver, everyone else is citing negative impacts, without statistics, yet when I cite positive impacts with statistics, you play the cause-correlation fallacy card. It's a double standard.

You have to have, you know, reasoning. You ESPECIALLY can't say "here's my correlation, therefore being religious makes you happy". There are so many other factors involved that it's ridiculous.

The people citing negative impacts are actually attempting to show a causal chain from religion to the negative impact. E.g. the doctrine of religion is to accept religious teachings above science, therefore this will have a negative impact.

 

[rvkevin]

The problem is that apart from Reaver, everyone else is citing negative impacts, without statistics, yet when I cite positive impacts with statistics, you play the cause-correlation fallacy card. It's a double standard.

You haven't actually cited a positive impact (not to mention you haven't actually cited anything), nor have you shown that religion causes better results. All you have shown is that they are correlated with each other. Here is another correlation: ice cream and drownings. Increased ice cream sales is correlated with increases in drownings. The equivalent of what you are saying is that if we ban ice cream (decrease ice cream sales), then it will necessarily lead to a decrease in the correlated effect (in this case, drownings). This is to mistake correlation for causation. The sale of ice cream does not even in the slightest cause drownings, yet they are correlated to each other. Only if they are causally linked will decreasing the cause lead to a decrease in the effect. You have to actually show that they are causally linked, not just assert it. You should try to learn how to use statistics before you accuse people of using double standards.

 

[Dre89]

I would have thought that separate statistics showing correlations with health, happiness, and lower suicide rates would suggest causation.

If not, I don't understand what it would take to show you religion causes positive impacts.

Similarly, what is there to suggest that a secular society is better?

All you have is that religion has caused killing, but I have also shown that people have killed because a lack of religion.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

A lot of people think that President Obama is a Nazi, and if it makes them happier, then we should just let them alone to spread their message to others.

Right?

 

[rvkevin]

I would have thought that separate statistics showing correlations with health, happiness, and lower suicide rates would suggest causation.

No. Using my previous analogy, it would be like saying I have shown separate statistics showing correlations with strawberry, vanilla, and chocolate ice cream, so that shows that ice cream causes drownings, right? Would that convince you?

If not, I don't understand what it would take to show you religion causes positive impacts.

Linking to the study would be helpful. As for what it would take, you would need to use the scientific method to show that the data fits better with your hypothesis rather than competing hypotheses.

Similarly, what is there to suggest that a secular society is better?

Depends on what you mean by better, but I suspect this would qualify:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdtwTeBPYQA. It's important to note that based on these statistics, this is not to say that atheism causes better countries. It is entirely possible that better countries cause atheism or it may be a combination of the two. However, two claims it does refute is that the lack of religion will cause societal peril, and its corollary.

All you have is that religion has caused killing, but I have also shown that people have killed because a lack of religion.

You have? Can you please explain how, given any desire, the action "killing" can be logically derived from "I don't believe in God." It just does not compute. Again, we are talking about causal connections here. Killing logically follows from certain sets of religious beliefs. It is not the case for atheism.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I think a large part of the issue here is what we are each doing.

I am pointing to an effect (the ignorance of logic and science), and then building a direct link from that to the behaviors of religious peoples, specifically that the bible itself demands that, should logic itself question the bible, you shrug off logic. You have also never given us any other thing that would disprove or trump this, thus pointing to it being a coincidence.
You are pointing to an effect (the suicide rates), and then pointing to statistics of nations that happen to fit somewhat with the effect, while ignoring all other possible factors, including ones we have handed you.

To add to rkevin's analogy, what I am doing is pointing to the ice cream shop about 10 feet offshore surrounded by extremely rough rapids, showing that people still go there for some reason, and using that, plus evidence of various people drowning there, as a correlation between people eating ice cream from that shop and people drowning.

 

[ballin4life]

I would have thought that separate statistics showing correlations with health, happiness, and lower suicide rates would suggest causation.

If not, I don't understand what it would take to show you religion causes positive impacts.

Maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster is worth more than you think!

Similarly, what is there to suggest that a secular society is better?

Reasoning?

All you have is that religion has caused killing, but I have also shown that people have killed because a lack of religion.

As I said multiple times, the question was about WHICH IS MORE.

I mean, people have killed because of shoes too, but I'm pretty sure more people have killed because of religion than because of shoes.


Also this is unrelated but too good to not post:

 

[Sucumbio]

One week later, another thread turns into Dre. vs everyone else. heh.

It's not like that at all. If the company needs to change their policy to accommodate religious practices, unless it will cause an "undue hardship" to the company, they are required by law to change their policy. It is not the same for other practices. This means that religious practices are given special treatment over secular practices.

Well, okay but can you think of a situation where this applies? For instance, service industry workers often find themselves working on Holy days, because their absence isn't tenable. And at the hiring point, a stipulation from the prospect "I have to have Christmas off" may result in not being hired, because the company is within the right to expect all employees to work all days of the year regardless of reason. Exceptions to this are almost universally accepted as for bereavement due to death of a close family member (which is often defined), sickness (to a degree, repeat offenses or lack of a doctor's excuse can result in termination) and jury duty (a legal obligation.) What I'm saying is that most of the time so long as you don't conflict with company SOP you're in the clear. EEOC may mandate that a company has to allow you certain rights, but the scale is tipped in favor of the employer in most regards, because it's not about the employee's rights to do non-work related things on Company time, it's about having the right to not be discriminated against. I know it's a fine line, but you won't find many employers giving Muslims an extra 10 minute break 4 times a day so they can pray, for instance. So the real question is what is "undue hardship." In the case of service industries, anything that takes them away from the cash register qualifies, and so little is left for the employee to fall back on as an out, religious or otherwise. This tells me that the preferential treatment to which you refer is negligible in practice, although noteworthy on paper.

See? This is what I'm talking about. These people should be homeless. Yes, it's within your rights to piss everyone off. But to expect to get jobs despite of that? ****. This world is such a ****ed-up place.

Constitution says Hi. Of course it seems ridiculous to allow them to ... live even. But the US was founded on the principle of freedom, and so they too are protected.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Fair enough. But why are they allowed to vote? And why is a congressman allowed to keep his job after a message like this? Hell, why should we trust people who have no grip on reality with jobs at all?

Well someone else addressed this and it turned into a -why Democracy is a crock- kinda thing, but remember that Democracy assumes that everyone has a say, not that everyone knows how to govern themselves.

No, Nazism ≠ National Socialism. Nazism is the religion which names Hitler its prophet, and the national socialistic agenda its holy text of rules. It is by all means equivalent to most modern religions in almost every section (hell, the bible calls for genocide too!). Why can a follower of this faith be discriminated against, but a christian not only cannot, but can get days off due to their belief?

I'll go with it, even though the distinction is purely hypothetical. And in point of fact, EEOC is mainly a separate branch of government that enforces laws on the books regarding discrimination. The EEOC will always side with the discriminated. Essentially an employer must still consider someone for hiring even if they're a Nazi. But if the Nazi starts to create a hostile work environment, the company is within their right to terminate them. So in this case, the Nazi is still viable for hire (which is why Fred Phelps' congregation get jobs) but if they don't leave their political ideology at home, they're in trouble, and the EEOC will side with the company and those harmed. You have to think of it in terms of common sense, too. Obviously Nazism is wrong as it promotes genocide. So too does Extreme Fundamental Islam. So in either case, an employer, though taking a chance, will still be compelled to consider them for hire. They too are committed to providing a safe, hostility-free environment for their employees, so the odd-ball in the equation, the fundamentalist, will have to check themselves, not just because they're in a severe minority, but because they have an obligation as an employee to adhere to the Company guidelines the same as everyone else, to maintain a peaceable workplace.

 

[rvkevin]

For instance, service industry workers often find themselves working on Holy days, because their absence isn't tenable. And at the hiring point, a stipulation from the prospect "I have to have Christmas off" may result in not being hired, because the company is within the right to expect all employees to work all days of the year regardless of reason.

The company is not within their right to expect their employees to be available every day of the year. They would need to show (using hard data, not theory) that breaking that rule would result in undue hardship. A company usually doesn't have all their employees working every day, so I fail to see why it would be untenable for a small percentage of employees to opt-out on a specific day. So, this means that, as a general rule (exceptions may exist, i.e. accountant during tax season), it would not cause an undue hardship to allow flexible scheduling for a small percentage of employees while requiring others (those not in the protected class) to hold to the schedule.

For example (concerning the service industry), employee A and B wish to take Saturday off, A for religious observation, B for secular reasons. The schedule is made and employee B is scheduled to work on Saturday. The employee asks for a change and is told "if you can convince someone else to switch shifts with you, then it is acceptable, if not, the schedule stands." Nobody is willing to change times, so employee B works on Saturday. Switch the tables with employee A being assigned to work Saturday and they sue the company because it would not cause an undue hardship to the company to re-arrange the schedule so that employee A works on Sunday and employee B works on Saturday. This means that, by law, employee A is afforded more rights when it comes to workplace accommodation. My point is that religious observation should be on par with other practices and that it should not be given special treatment; not that it is a burden on the company's bottom line.

 

[Sucumbio]

Okay I did misspeak... I meant that one may need to have "open availability" to any day of the year. But given your example you are correct, because a manager who does the schedule when faced with "which one of the two do I give off" would essentially choose the one with the religious obligation to avoid anything bad happening like a lawsuit. In point of fact this happens to my wife constantly. She being nonreligious does not attend church on Sundays, and often has to cover the Sunday morning shift because most other employees including managers are in fact, in Church. This being the deep south and bible-belt country it's unlikely that her complaint would be heard, and it's even more likely if she were to close her availability for Sunday mornings that it would effect her overall schedule (her former employer Walmart has a policy that only 100% open availability will result in being scheduled maximum hours.) So basically she'd be stuck working Sunday mornings to cover people who attend something she doesn't agree with, or be shorted a pile of hours. Fair? No, absolutely not, I agree with you there. It's something that needs addressing but this is where I find a difficulty in determining where one's rights infringe on another. Most of the time religious freedom is paramount. But freedom -from- religion is also a concern, especially to atheists. It's almost as if to say atheists are pariahs to the system.