Is it Ethical to be fired for stating Christian beliefs

Kaon

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2018
5,676
2,349
Los Angeles
✟111,507.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Celibate
Yes it is a matter of opinion, but this doesn't invalidate the distinction between justified belief vs unjustified belief.

Because the assessment is done by the person holding the beliefs, not by the person doing the critique.
It is "the eye of the beholder" at play and this is part of the person's personal epistemology (how they attain knowledge).

People tend to call justified beliefs "facts". I don't say that I believe in the moon. I say that it is a fact that the moon exists.
But when I don't have evidence in support of my position I use the word "Believe". I believe life exists in our universe beyond earth. I don't have proof of this, so it is self-proclaimed as a belief.

If a Christian is stating that they have faith, and believe in god. Then they are self-proclaiming to have an unjustified belief (a belief without supporting evidence) (to have not seen and yet believed). This is a self assessment.

It doesn't invalidate it, but it makes justification a matter of subjectivity and philosophy - which should have equal entertainment from learned minds of the same philosophical school of thought. Otherwise, you are kidding yourself thinking your elegant opinion is more true than what you seem unjustified - a conclusion that could only be subjective at best.
 
Upvote 0

Kaon

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2018
5,676
2,349
Los Angeles
✟111,507.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Celibate
This entire discussion is because - as a whole - we do not know the truth. That doesn't mean we are not blasted by the truth constsntly; it just speaks to our ability to decipher/discern the truth, and apply it.

Most of us are too arrogant to realize we are being lied to on an hourly basis.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,964
5,729
✟247,322.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
It doesn't invalidate it, but it makes justification a matter of subjectivity and philosophy - which should have equal entertainment from learned minds of the same philosophical school of thought. Otherwise, you are kidding yourself thinking your elegant opinion is more true than what you seem unjustified - a conclusion that could only be subjective at best.
However a person self assesses something as being justified is up to them, and it no doubt varies greatly from person to person and from situation to situation.

For example, if my wife tells me she baked cookies and I can see the freshly baked cookies on the table (but I didn't see her doing the actual baking) then I will tend to accept this as fact (justified belief). I won't ask her to prove it. I don't need more evidence, as her claim is a mundane one and the stakes are very low (I have nothing to lose if I am being fooled) and I have seen the freshly baked cookies and it seems highly reasonable that she baked them, I can't think of an obvious alternative.

If my wife claims that she snapped her fingers and the freshly baked cookies magically appeared, then I will require more evidence before I claim this is a justified belief. This is an extraordinary claim, and requires supporting evidence, just the fact that the freshly baked cookies are on the table doesn't mean she created them via magic. It is much more likely that she baked them, which would be a more mundane explanation.

But to believe something without any evidence that would meet the believer's criteria of "justified" then that would be considered an unjustified belief. At least the believer is in recognition of that and is honestly admitting to it.
Personally I try to avoid having this type of belief, but for some people they seem to take great pride, especially with regards to their religion. Some people appear to be very proud about believing while not having seen. I even think some people seem to take great pride in maintaining belief despite having(recognising) substantial evidence which is contradictory to their beliefs (a.k.a. flat earthers, or YECs)
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,106.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You perceive there is no persecution based on your perception of reality.

That's great and all, except I never said there was no persecution. I said that the facts didn't line up with the claim that the cause of the persecution, if any exists, wasn't because the guy was telling the truth. The facts show that he was just sharing a random opinion he had.

But in any case, what other alternative do people have other than to act based on their best model of the world around them - a model formed from perception, experience, rational thought, and so on? This is a good example one of those deep thoughts which seems insightful on the surface, but the more you think about it the less it really says anything. Yes, we don't have the ability to know reality with 100% complete absolute certainty. What are we actually supposed to do with that information? Sit around and do nothing? Act as if we can't learn anything? Seems totally self-defeating, and something no one actually would live by.

I simply don't see the point ... and if that's the best people can come up with to rationalize why some people shouldn't face consequences for saying minorities deserve to be tortured by beings more powerful than themselves, it shows that there's really no defense for that behavior at all.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Kaon

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2018
5,676
2,349
Los Angeles
✟111,507.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Celibate
However a person self assesses something as being justified is up to them, and it no doubt varies greatly from person to person and from situation to situation.

For example, if my wife tells me she baked cookies and I can see the freshly baked cookies on the table (but I didn't see her doing the actual baking) then I will tend to accept this as fact (justified belief). I won't ask her to prove it. I don't need more evidence, as her claim is a mundane one and the stakes are very low (I have nothing to lose if I am being fooled) and I have seen the freshly baked cookies and it seems highly reasonable that she baked them, I can't think of an obvious alternative.

If my wife claims that she snapped her fingers and the freshly baked cookies magically appeared, then I will require more evidence before I claim this is a justified belief. This is an extraordinary claim, and requires supporting evidence, just the fact that the freshly baked cookies are on the table doesn't mean she created them via magic. It is much more likely that she baked them, which would be a more mundane explanation.

But to believe something without any evidence that would meet the believer's criteria of "justified" then that would be considered an unjustified belief. At least the believer is in recognition of that and is honestly admitting to it.
Personally I try to avoid having this type of belief, but for some people they seem to take great pride, especially with regards to their religion. Some people appear to be very proud about believing while not having seen. I even think some people seem to take great pride in maintaining belief despite having(recognising) substantial evidence which is contradictory to their beliefs (a.k.a. flat earthers, or YECs)

None of it matters; all belief takes faith because none of us have the base to vindicate something as truth, absolutely. Evidence is a subjective thing; some people will commit suicide happily on the word of another human. It is what makes the individual comfortable with their belief.

Consider this: you have immense faith that your floor won't open up and swallow you into it. You may think it is based on sound "logic," and scientific evidence that it won't happen now, but it would be an illusion. We convince our psyches through belief, and evidence is a matter of psychological relief that we choose to indulge in for the purposes of vindicating our own thinking. We tell ourselves evidence is paramount to truth because we have accepted it as a school of thought. We ridicule others who do not share our measure of (un)belief out of our own psychological insecurity showing up in the form of our idea of reality being challenged.

It's actually a very complicated psychology that makes people scoff, for example.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,106.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
None of it matters; all belief takes faith because none of us have the base to vindicate something as truth, absolutely.

Is that a fact?

Consider this: you have immense faith that your floor won't open up and swallow you into it.

Personally, I consider this a near textbook example of equivocation.
 
Upvote 0

Kaon

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2018
5,676
2,349
Los Angeles
✟111,507.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Celibate
You know that for certain?

The one thing any human should be certain of is that they do not know the absolute truth. Otherwise, we wouldn't LET ourselves be exploited on such a massive scale throughout history, we wouldn't abdicate our God given sovereignty to other humans, and we wouldn't scoff at anyone.

Not even the fallen know the absolute truth, because If they did they wouldn't have fallen from perfection. Foolishness leads to degeneracy, and that is what humanity has been for the last seven millennia or so.

You think someone other the Word of God knows the absolute truth?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Kaon

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2018
5,676
2,349
Los Angeles
✟111,507.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Celibate
Is that a fact?



Personally, I consider this a near textbook example of equivocation.


...

Yes that is your right to consider anything... anything. But, your Socratic applications are making you lose the point.


Yes it is true that you don't need faith if you know the absolute truth. What do you think faith is?

(False) equivocation would be a misleading comparison that attempts to juxtaposition two situations into the same category. Faith that your floor won't open up and swallow you is a matter of consequential fact, not a false comparison to the context. Unless you know every single earth and human process at any time, you can't know whether or not you WON'T be swallowed into the ground. You have faith (that one believes to be knowledge, or evidence based on absence of events) that it won't open up under you right now. You trust what you have been told, and how you reason.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Kaon

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2018
5,676
2,349
Los Angeles
✟111,507.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Celibate
That's great and all, except I never said there was no persecution. I said that the facts didn't line up with the claim that the cause of the persecution, if any exists, wasn't because the guy was telling the truth. The facts show that he was just sharing a random opinion he had.

But in any case, what other alternative do people have other than to act based on their best model of the world around them - a model formed from perception, experience, rational thought, and so on? This is a good example one of those deep thoughts which seems insightful on the surface, but the more you think about it the less it really says anything. Yes, we don't have the ability to know reality with 100% complete absolute certainty. What are we actually supposed to do with that information? Sit around and do nothing? Act as if we can't learn anything? Seems totally self-defeating, and something no one actually would live by.

I simply don't see the point ... and if that's the best people can come up with to rationalize why some people shouldn't face consequences for saying minorities deserve to be tortured by beings more powerful than themselves, it shows that there's really no defense for that behavior at all.

You don't get it I believe: your entire system of evidence and facts is an illusion of subjectivity based on repetition of events and a consensus of accepted information ("evidence") used to vindicate the validity of something.

It is a romanticism of a handful of psychologies projected onto a population of people who are taught to readily accept this way of thinking. This is why every generation humans are thoroughly surprised, emotionally devastated and psychologically drained despite going through things that have happened before in history. The way of thinking prevents most all of us from seeing our thinking is controlled, and we have the illusion of free thought.

That is why I insinuated scoffing is one of fullest exhibitions of this confused psychology: it makes no sense for someone following a manufactured school of thought with limited truth to make fun of another challenging the school of thought. Your scoffing is a manufactured response taught to you through social programming.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,121
20,158
US
✟1,440,443.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It is if they're going to ask for sympathy, or in this case special privileges, by asserting they're being persecuted for simply telling the truth.

In the US, freedom of speech does not first require proving that one's speech is truth.

Actually, it's not the people speaking offensively who are asking for special privileges, it's the people who want offending speech stopped who are asking for a new special privilege not to be offended.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: rjs330
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,964
5,729
✟247,322.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
None of it matters; all belief takes faith because none of us have the base to vindicate something as truth, absolutely.
It is true that not much can be proven 100%.
Use of the scientific method (i.e. falsifiable claim, supported by evidence, verified, critiqued, repeated, etc) can absolutely prove a claim to be false. But cannot prove a claim to be 100% true, it can only prove that the claim is consistent with all the evidence provided so far.

Evidence is a subjective thing; some people will commit suicide happily on the word of another human. It is what makes the individual comfortable with their belief.
When we dispense with evidence, verification and critique, we remove the lab and just have a bunch of philosophers. Theoretical Science without experimental science would have taken us in a vastly different direction. For example we would have never have realised that a photon can take two paths from A to B simultaneously and interfere with itself. We would have never accepted Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, we would never have accepted that an electron can get from A to B without travelling through all the places in between (a.k.a. quantum tunnelling).

All we can know is that although our scientific "truths" can't be proven 100%, they can give us a very close approximation of the truth.

Consider this: you have immense faith that your floor won't open up and swallow you into it.
I wouldn't call it faith, I'd call it justified belief, based on a preponderance of evidence.

You may think it is based on sound "logic," and scientific evidence that it won't happen now, but it would be an illusion.
It seems to have been consistently true for the past 5 billion years of the Earth's history. But maybe tomorrow will be different????

We ridicule others who do not share our measure of (un)belief out of our own psychological insecurity showing up in the form of our idea of reality being challenged.
My participation in this thread has not been to ridicule believers.
My participation is to ask,

How can a non-believer choose the correct god when they aren't presented with any evidence? Doesn't it simply become a dice roll, (a matter of pure luck)?

If a god rewards the true believers and punished the false believers then isn't this god rewarding the lucky and punishing the unlucky?
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Now before you jump onboard and say 'Of course its ethical' consider the current case that has dominated Australian media and Australian sport in particular.

Israel Folau is one of Australia's (if not the world's) greatest Rugby Union players. He is a match winner. He is talented beyond belief and has won an array of national and international sporting awards. He is currently in the Australian Rugby Union team called 'The Wallabies'.

Despite Israel's strong physical appearance, he is a highly personable, gentle and kind individual. He is extremely likeable. Israel is a Christian of the evangelistic ilk.

Rugby Union has as a very strong code of conduct. You will rarely see referee abuse from players - it prides itself on respect for all players, the referees and supporters. International players have particular responsibilities as so many people, particularly juniors, see them as role models. This added responsibility to acknowledge that whats said publicly must accord with the code of conduct, whether its said on the field or off it, is reinforced in player contracts.

Israel, despite being a very nice person has repeatedly made the following types of statements:
That those that are gay, unmarried people having sexual relationships, those that drink to excess....[the list goes on] are sinful and all going to hell.

Now Israel, of course, is making biblical references inline with his christian beliefs. He's not saying terrible things per se....HOWEVER - it has clearly been a breach of his contract and despite just recently signing a four year contract and despite being Australia's shining star - he has been sacked.

Israel Folau to be sacked by Rugby Australia over homophobic comments

Australian rugby's position is that it goes to great lengths to be inclusive. It is not concerned with who you choose to love, or that your mother is a single mother, or your father is in some sort of defacto relationship. It does not want those representing the sporting code to alter that perception with statements indicating that those following the sport are lesser individuals and are in some way bad for their sexual choices or marital status.

So the debate - religious freedom of speech versus the right of a sporting to code to insist its code of conduct is followed.

This has cost Israel Millions of dollars. He has lost sponsorship worth millions and his International rugby career is ended unless he can change his public statements.

A person has the right to hold religious beliefs. A person has the right to state religious beliefs.

However, no one is obligated to give a person a platform from which to declare their religious beliefs. And if an organisation has a particular opinion, and a member of that organisation uses their position within that organisation to spread contrary beliefs to others, then that organisation is within their rights to remove that person from the organisation.

Let's turn it around - if it had been a teacher fired from a religious school because they started teaching atheistic ideas, would there be such an outcry?

Remember - you have the right to an opinion. Others are not obligated to give you a platform for that opinion, and if you have been given a platform for something else and you start using that platform to spread opinions they don't like, they are entitled to take that platform away.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,106.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The one thing any human should be certain of is that they do not know the absolute truth.

Is that certainty an absolute truth? Seems to be a bit of a contradiction there.

You think someone other the Word of God knows the absolute truth?

Words don't know anything.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,106.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
What do you think faith is?

Belief without evidence. Or belief despite evidence to the contrary.

(False) equivocation would be a misleading comparison that attempts to juxtaposition two situations into the same category.

Yes, in this case confusing "belief with zero evidence to back it up" and "belief in something which isn't 100% absolutely certain". The two aren't the same.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,106.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You don't get it I believe: your entire system of evidence and facts is an illusion of subjectivity based on repetition of events and a consensus of accepted information ("evidence") used to vindicate the validity of something.

It is a romanticism of a handful of psychologies projected onto a population of people who are taught to readily accept this way of thinking.

Citation needed.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,106.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
In the US, freedom of speech does not first require proving that one's speech is truth.

No, but making claims opens those claims up to criticism by others.

Actually, it's not the people speaking offensively who are asking for special privileges, it's the people who want offending speech stopped who are asking for a new special privilege not to be offended.

In this example, the Catholic organization wishes to have the special privilege of discriminating based on gender using taxpayer dollars.
 
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,964
5,729
✟247,322.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Actually, it's not the people speaking offensively who are asking for special privileges, it's the people who want offending speech stopped who are asking for a new special privilege not to be offended.
There is a difference between simply saying something that is offensive vs discrimination.
All discrimination is offensive.
But not all offensive statements are discrimination.

It is not a special privilege to demand not to be discriminated against.
All people/groups should demand not to be discriminated against.
All employers should demand that their employees (especially public ones) not make discriminatory statements.

The law allows people to make discriminatory statements, but just because it is legal, should you really do it? Is it a good representation of yourself and your values, of your family or organisation's values (by association with you)?
Just because you can, it doesn't mean that you should.
And if it is something you normally wouldn't do, then why argue if someone is taking away that "right" of yours?

Fortunately organisations can have policies (above and beyond the law) and often this takes the form of anti discriminatory policies which can be a firing offense for those people who break those policies.

What I don't get, is why some Christians argue the point on this matter.
As people living in a diverse community/society, can't they see the importance of getting along with others? This is just basic social manners.

Rather than argue for your right to discriminate, why don't you go out there into the world and do nice things? Be inclusive, be kind.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Zoii
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,121
20,158
US
✟1,440,443.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There is a difference between simply saying something that is offensive vs discrimination.
All discrimination is offensive.
But not all offensive statements are discrimination.

It is not a special privilege to demand not to be discriminated against.
All people/groups should demand not to be discriminated against.
All employers should demand that their employees (especially public ones) not make discriminatory statements.

The law allows people to make discriminatory statements, but just because it is legal, should you really do it? Is it a good representation of yourself and your values, of your family or organisation's values (by association with you)?
Just because you can, it doesn't mean that you should.
And if it is something you normally wouldn't do, then why argue if someone is taking away that "right" of yours?

Fortunately organisations can have policies (above and beyond the law) and often this takes the form of anti discriminatory policies which can be a firing offense for those people who break those policies.

What I don't get, is why some Christians argue the point on this matter.
As people living in a diverse community/society, can't they see the importance of getting along with others? This is just basic social manners.

Rather than argue for your right to discriminate, why don't you go out there into the world and do nice things? Be inclusive, be kind.

I think you're trying to invent a whole new meaning for "discrimination."

I have been discriminated against. I have personally had to deal with swimming pools, movie theaters, schools, stores, and such that have been closed to me because I am black. I was sitting there to hear my mother told, "Oh, no, he can't attend this school, he must go to George Washington Carver."

This is not discrimination we're talking about. You're trying to conflate concepts to bolster a failed argument.
 
Upvote 0