Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Maxperson]

Mayhaps you've read the actual survey/report Accountemps used that inspired that article, but my reading of it showed two things:

1. The survey asked the executives “How many typos in a resume does it take for you to decide not to consider a job candidate for a position with your company?” There's no mention as to the 'why' there.
2. Accountemps are the ones suggesting a (possible) "why", without presenting any evidence that it comes from said executives.

Number 2 is false. They are not the one suggesting anything, they are stating why the manager do what they do. They don't have to have it in their survey for them to have discussed with the managers why they do what they do.

I've also not seen evidence that the trashing of said sloppy resumes is due to the assumption of sloppy work habits. There are other plausible (and less potentially libellous or slanderous) reasons for doing so.

Google it. It's all over the place.

Maybe such evidence does exist. I'm not going to go searching for it, nor am I expecting you to. But you haven't shown it here.

Sure, there's no proof they're myths. I'm no expert (or even an amateur) in the subject, but my understanding is that there's some archeological evidence that some sort charismatic person was present in the area around Jerusalem a couple millenia ago, and may have sparked a couple of major religions.

Given that a lot of what is written about him is scientifically impossible though...

We're making invisibility suits and discovering how to do a lot of what was scientifically impossible 50 or 100 years ago. Also, science may not be everything.

People don't believe in science. A lot of anti-science folk sure like to project such an idea, trying to liken the idea of science into a religion.

A lot of people including scientists believe the big bang even though the theory is based only on events we can observe now and can't actually prove. People also observed events and attributed them to God. There could very well be 12 other theories that also fit the observable events. There is a lot of faith that goes on in science. They just mask it better.

My favorites are 1) many years ago I read in an astronomy magazine that some scientists believed that there was once no matter in the universe, but the conditions were right for matter to pop into existence from nothing and eventually it condensed into the mass that exploded into the big bang. Conditions were not right for that anymore, so it couldn't happen these days. 2) I read in another science magazine the theory that the universe has always existed and never had a beginning.

Those same scientists deride religions that believe that God popped into existence from nothing or has always existed and never had a beginning. It's hysterical.

Science works by convincing people of the idea that some theory or another is our best (or at least a useful) current model for understanding a particular phenomenon. This convincing is done by showing observations, linking evidence, and producing repeatable predictions based on said theory's model. Eventually, certain predictions don't continue to match observations, and new models are designed.

Sure. Science is more likely to change it's beliefs than a religion is, but that still doesn't stop people who believe in a theory from believing in science.

 

[Maxperson]

Edit: I also wanted to pull this forward again, since [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] didn't answer it and we kind of swept past it...

OK, but earlier...

Emphasis mine.

How is that not putting personal reasons before business reasons?

Because I clarified how I would truly run my business in a later post and wasn't quite that way. I thought it was you I answered it to.

 

[billd91]

A lot of people including scientists believe the big bang even though the theory is based only on events we can observe now and can't actually prove. People also observed events and attributed them to God. There could very well be 12 other theories that also fit the observable events. There is a lot of faith that goes on in science. They just mask it better.

Just because a theory based on the observations we can make now and the evidence and understanding we have now might be incorrect doesn't make believing it now an act of faith akin to religion, at the very least, it's probably not the way most religions want faith to operate. If they were truly so similar, then I think a lot of religious groups would be embarrassed because it would pretty much drop the pretense that the objects of religion exist prior to the social construction of the religion.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Unlikely, but also not unreasonable fear of true transvestites.

The only long-term study of transgender outcomes concluded that “Male to Female” transsexuals retain male-pattern criminality, including crimes against women.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885

Presumably, even though not all transvestites transition into becoming transsexuals, that observed pattern would remain roughly true.

Now, while it is true that women and children have historically demonstrable reasons to fear men in concealed/unusual places- much moreso than the opposite- decriminalizing transvestism in bathrooms for those diagnosed with a gender dysphoria is unlikely to be any great advantage for predators. Is it creepy? Certainly, for many women it is, and I have no good answer for that beyond what I have already stated here.

First of all, it isn't a simple preference for drag. Diagnosed dysphorics are often encouraged to try to live as the opposite gender by trained healthcare professionals, especially if they plan on having gender reassignment surgery. Most predators would probably not have that.

Second, as pointed out, the truly offending behavior- preying on women or children- would remain illegal.

Third, a predator intent on dressing in drag to hunt women & children is unlikely to be thwarted by legal issues.

Fourth, all of the above applies to jackasses who think it would be funny to do so as well.

 

[Kramodlog]

Unlikely, but also not unreasonable fear of true transvestites.

Change transvestites for guns and you've just made an argument for gun control. Funny.

 

[Maxperson]

Just because a theory based on the observations we can make now and the evidence and understanding we have now might be incorrect doesn't make believing it now an act of faith akin to religion, at the very least, it's probably not the way most religions want faith to operate. If they were truly so similar, then I think a lot of religious groups would be embarrassed because it would pretty much drop the pretense that the objects of religion exist prior to the social construction of the religion.

Yes, it pretty much does make it an act of faith like religious ones. The basis is the same. That basis is, "I believe X is true based on Y observable events." Science is just much more willing to challenge its faith than religions are.

 

[Umbran]

Number 2 is false. They are not the one suggesting anything, they are stating why the manager do what they do. They don't have to have it in their survey for them to have discussed with the managers why they do what they do.

Did they "discuss" with the same people they surveyed, all of them? Then it is still surveying.

If they only "discussed" with a subset of those they surveyed, then they are taking anecdotes and generalizing, which isn't a valid technique for getting at the truth.

 

[Maxperson]

Did they "discuss" with the same people they surveyed, all of them? Then it is still surveying.

If they only "discussed" with a subset of those they surveyed, then they are taking anecdotes and generalizing, which isn't a valid technique for getting at the truth.

A survey deals only with the specific survey questions it asks. If the people conducting the survey later ask the participants why they answered the way they did, then it's not a part of the survey. It would still be a valid thing to place into the article the way they did, though.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Just because a theory based on the observations we can make now and the evidence and understanding we have now might be incorrect doesn't make believing it now an act of faith akin to religion, at the very least, it's probably not the way most religions want faith to operate. If they were truly so similar, then I think a lot of religious groups would be embarrassed because it would pretty much drop the pretense that the objects of religion exist prior to the social construction of the religion.

It's a trick of religious groups that want to discredit science, so it is lowered to the level of religion. It's not that these people want religion to operate like science, it's that they want to make you believe that science operates the way religion does. Part of this ruse is seen when people argue that evolution or the big bang is "just a theory." They do it to make you think that these scientific theories are just like any other theory. You have a theory on who Jon Snow's mother is? That theory is equal to the theory of evolution. It disregards the rigorous process that a scientific theory goes through. So you'll end up getting arguments that science is the same as religion.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The confusion is made possible by the difference between the scientific use of the term "theory" and the layman's use of the word, which is actually more akin to how scientists use "hypothesis." Then the conflation (intentional or not) begets confusion.