I ought to clairify about the job thing. I've never been asked in an interview, so as long as I don't say anything, it's a non-issue. However, having met a lot of the managers of several buisnesses on off-time, (my parents are involved with a lot of these people on managerial/personal levels) adherance to religion is really important to many of them. I know that many of them simply have stated that religion is crucial to them and that people without a strong religious belief arn't trustworth people, ethically or morally.

When my parents have friends over, I'm instructed not to talk about my religious views or my political views because it could ostricize them. It's a really clubby atmosphere over here, so personal views are taken really seriously.

Of course, I could get dishwashing jobs or something, but that's not really what I was talking about.

Oh, and about the Scouts. Well, none of my friends gave me any trouble, but I doubt any but a very few are aware of my religious agnosticsm/indifference. But it was in America, yeah.

Never having been part of a religious culture like that I can't really understand it, but it definitely sounds crappy. I can definitely see where constant subjection to that sort of religious person might make one anti-religion, especially if there's a dirth of counter examples involving religious people that aren't like that.

Quote from: Thanatos02I ought to clairify about the job thing. I've never been asked in an interview, so as long as I don't say anything, it's a non-issue. However, having met a lot of the managers of several buisnesses on off-time, (my parents are involved with a lot of these people on managerial/personal levels) adherance to religion is really important to many of them. I know that many of them simply have stated that religion is crucial to them and that people without a strong religious belief arn't trustworth people, ethically or morally.

Are these people managers at places YOU work at? If not, why is it an issue?

Also, since being religious isn't required or discussed in your interviews, what difference does it make? Its not like they corner you in the stockroom or whatever and demand you recite the 10 Commandments, is it?

People can believe anything they want. Its when they ACT on those beliefs in the workplace that a problem occurs. And that's what laws and courts are for.

On the whole, this thread demonstrates that some people are far too worried about what other people think, and far less worried about minding their own business - that goes for both sides of the debate.

Quote from: SpikeMy arguments?  I bowed out of that thread because  Akrasia started blasting all about with the PoE arguement which is only relevant to a very tiny conception of God, and was quite rude for a while with his drunken rants ...

:imsorry:
Yes, I feel rather badly about my behaviour during one part of that thread.  I've apologized for it a couple of times.

Quote from: SpikeI understood Akrasia's point. In fact, my entire arguement with him, prior to bowing out was on that very point. It wasn't relevant to dismiss 'this idea of God' when talking about the possibility of God, especially when many faiths don't require God to be benevolent at all.  The fact that he admitted it was so, then kept going on about it was part of why I left...

You still don't get it, do you?  The argument I mentioned is only one among many.  And yes it is directed only against a particular conception of God, but so what?  Other arguments are available that address other conceptions – and indeed, the notion that we need to posit 'supernatural entities' at all (whether God or not).  The only reason that I 'kept going at it' with respect to that one argument was because people kept levelling objections against it, and I found these objections utterly unconvincing.

One thing that you don't seem to appreciate, Spike, is that arguments – especially rather formal arguments like the one that I mentioned as an example in that other thread – tend to have precise targets (e.g. specific conceptions of God, or specific accounts of 'souls', etc.).  For the life of me, I couldn't understand why you failed to grasp this.

Quote from: Spike... I just get frustrated at the casual asumption that I must be some sort of bible thumper when I say 'that argument is shit' just because the argument in question is pro-atheist.:confused:

For the record, I never assumed that you were a 'bible thumper' for declaring an 'argument is shit'.  

I just thought that the reasons for your declaration were pathetic (as pointed out by Pseudoephedrine).

Quote from: James McMurray... Asking that sort of stuff here should be reported. Whether you report it to the interviewer with a simple "I'm not comfortable answering that" or report it to a lawyer depends on the extent of the questioning and how much you want to try to squeeze them because of it. In some companies you could get a guy fired and be almost gauranteed a "please don't sue us" hiring for yourself.

Having applied for philosophy jobs in the U.S. before, I know that many Christian colleges there require a 'Declaration of Faith' (or something analogous) as a condition of employment.  

Now, they're private colleges, so I fully appreciate their right to do this (indeed, I would defend their right to do this).  But it means that atheist philosophers are far more constrained in the range of jobs to which they can apply.  Given that something like 90+ percent of people with philosophy PhDs are atheists, that means that the small number of theistic philosophers seeking jobs have a huge advantage.

Anyway, making generalizations about a country as big as the U.S. is meaningless.  I lived in the Bay Area for three years (commuting to Stanford from San Francisco) and that area is about as 'atheist-friendly' as anywhere in the world.  On the other hand, I've heard horror stories from colleagues who have lived in places like Alabama, Georgia, and Texas.

Can we please keep the 10 Myths thread inside the 10 Myths thread itself?

Quote from: AkrasiaHaving applied for philosophy jobs in the U.S. before, I know that many Christian colleges there require a 'Declaration of Faith' (or something analogous) as a condition of employment.  

Now, they're private colleges, so I fully appreciate their right to do this (indeed, I would defend their right to do this).  But it means that atheist philosophers are far more constrained in the range of jobs to which they can apply.  Given that something like 90+ percent of people with philosophy PhDs are atheists, that means that the small number of theistic philosophers seeking jobs have a huge advantage.

Anyway, making generalizations about a country as big as the U.S. is meaningless.  I lived in the Bay Area for three years (commuting to Stanford from San Francisco) and that area is about as 'atheist-friendly' as anywhere in the world.  On the other hand, I've heard horror stories from colleagues who have lived in places like Alabama, Georgia, and Texas.

PRivate or not, they cannot, if they are an employer in the US, ask you about religion, marital status or race. I conduct a lot of interviews and get briefed many times on what is acceptable.

If you are truly being discriminated against in your job opportunities, you need to consult a lawyer. If you choose not to...well, my Dad always had a saying for that "If you wont do something about it, then the next guy sure wont."

Bill

Quote from: James McMurrayCan we please keep the 10 Myths thread inside the 10 Myths thread itself?

Seconded, please let's not have the PoE or any similar debates in this thread.  This thread is about why atheists are sometimes or often depending on perspective utter dicks.

I think, I may be getting my atheism threads mixed up.

Quote from: Thanatos02I ought to clairify about the job thing. I've never been asked in an interview, so as long as I don't say anything, it's a non-issue. However, having met a lot of the managers of several buisnesses on off-time, (my parents are involved with a lot of these people on managerial/personal levels) adherance to religion is really important to many of them. I know that many of them simply have stated that religion is crucial to them and that people without a strong religious belief arn't trustworth people, ethically or morally.

When my parents have friends over, I'm instructed not to talk about my religious views or my political views because it could ostricize them. It's a really clubby atmosphere over here, so personal views are taken really seriously.

Of course, I could get dishwashing jobs or something, but that's not really what I was talking about.

Oh, and about the Scouts. Well, none of my friends gave me any trouble, but I doubt any but a very few are aware of my religious agnosticsm/indifference. But it was in America, yeah.

Again, with all respect, is this due to your living with your parents? If not, are you invited to similar social gatherings? Are you invited to a social function and need to act appropriately? For instance, they have business associates over and you are asked to dress nice and be polite. Being polite, just so you know, usually means avoiding discussing politics and religion.

Anecdote  time:
When I was a freshman in college, far too long ago, I decided to announce to my mother (a devote conservative Lutheran), that I was not Christian. I am fairly sure she knew but I wanted to TELL her. So, at a Perkins, with her mother (my Grandmother) sitting next to her I told her with great bravado.

Her reply: No, you are Christian.

I was shocked at her insensitivity. Her intolerance. About five years later, it came up again and she was "Oh, yeah, I love you and am fine with that. Why wouldn't I."

Lesson of the anecdote: It is not necessarily what you say, so much as how you say it or when. Do the business associates of your parents need to know your religious beliefs? Do you need to present them in a confrontational manner? Is there even any reason to discuss it in company? There might be. I could imagine they might bring it up. I have been in situations where it is difficult to find a middle ground so I do sympathize.

Unfortunately, our modern society (IME) has grown towards if I speak the truth it should be loved no matter how I say it. You can take a critical approach to presenting your view and analyzing others or you can preach at someone. I have found, and this is my experience only, that if you a happy with your beliefs, you really do not need to convert anyone. Whether it is just me believing, or everyone on the planet does not matter.

I guess the point to my rambling is this. I do not know your situation but interacting with your parent's friends is their business not yours. Seek out friends who have similar interests. Some you will be able to talk about the local sporting event and others about your beliefs. One of the keys to happiness is knowing which your friends are.

Bill

Quote from: James McMurrayCan we please keep the 10 Myths thread inside the 10 Myths thread itself?

Oh yes, my apologies!    

After 55 pages, I actually hope that the 10 Myths thread starts to fade away soon, let alone colonize other threads.  My bad.  (I just can't resist replying to people when they criticize me ... it's a sign of a weak character, I know ...)

Quote from: HinterWeltPRivate or not, they cannot, if they are an employer in the US, ask you about religion, marital status or race. I conduct a lot of interviews and get briefed many times on what is acceptable.

If you are truly being discriminated against in your job opportunities, you need to consult a lawyer. If you choose not to...well, my Dad always had a saying for that "If you wont do something about it, then the next guy sure wont."

Bill

I am positive that private religious colleges have this right.  They're very open about it, declare it in their advertisements (in public job postings in the 'Jobs for Philosophers' section of the 'American Philosophical Association' website, etc.), and so forth.

If what they were doing was illegal, I am 100 percent positive that they would have been prosecuted by now, given all the legal philosophers and atheists in the U.S. who consult the publication in question.

My understanding is that only colleges that receive federal funding are prohibited against barring people of particular religions from being employed by religious institutions.  If a college receives no federal funding then they -- just like a private club -- can deny membership on the basis of religious affiliation.

Quote from: BalbinusWere I a Calvinist, I could answer this thread by simply noting that atheists have no choice in the matter.

One of a number of reasons that my mother's only manifest -- and clearly proclaimed -- bigotry is against the Calvinists. :haw:

!i!

Quote from: AkrasiaI am positive that private religious colleges have this right.  They're very open about it, declare it in their advertisements (in public job postings in the 'Jobs for Philosophers' section of the 'American Philosophical Association' website, etc.), and so forth.

If what they were doing was illegal, I am 100 percent positive that they would have been prosecuted by now, given all the legal philosophers and atheists in the U.S. who consult the publication in question.

My understanding is that only colleges that receive federal funding are prohibited against barring people of particular religions from being employed by religious institutions.  If a college receives no federal funding then they -- just like a private club -- can deny membership on the basis of religious affiliation.

This seems to go against every EOE law I have heard unless it is a description of your job; i.e. you must be able to teach a certain way or method or something like a pastor must be of the denomination of the church they are hired for. However, that said, my experience is not in education. I mostly deal with IT and engineering positions.

hmm, learn something new every day.

Bill

I see I missed a lot of "fun" in the off-topic forum these last few...weeks is it?

Bill, the Civil Rights Act has a loophole for religious institutions:

Quote2) it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for a
school, college, university, or other educational institution or
institution of learning to hire and employ employees of a particular
religion if such school, college, university, or other educational
institution or institution of learning is, in whole or in substantial
part, owned, supported, controlled, or managed by a particular religion or
by a particular religious corporation, association, or society, or if the
curriculum of such school, college, university, or other educational
institution or institution of learning is directed toward the propagation
of a particular religion.

Note that the school doesn't even have to have an explicit goal of teaching religion. I.e., of course it would be silly to force Baptists to treat Catholics on an equal footing when it comes to training their ministers. But this paragraph says that a school can discriminate on the basis of religious belief simply because the school is run by a religious group.

I suspect that a school can even qualify for tax-exempt status while discriminating on religious grounds. At least this memorandum suggests that--see section II. Of course the Bush administration has a habit of spurious and tendentious legal argument, but they provide a caselaw example. You can find the case,  AMOS, 483 U.S. 327, over at Findlaw.

QuoteWhy? Several reasons. On this thread, atheists who talk about being atheist are immediatly phrased as preachers or bigots by some.

WRONG WRONG WRONG.  

Pseudoephedrine is an atheist.  No one called him a bigot.  Balbinus is an atheist, no one called him a bigot.  

GRIM got called a bigot, by me, because he's a bigot.  Dawkins got called a bigot, because he's a bigot.

I even explained what exact qualities which led to that analysis.

Rambling paranoid diatribes about how all them nasty religious folks are out to get you are bigotry.  Period.  

You are projecting your own real life experiences and imagining events that haven't happened.