UK Atheists Hope to Eliminate Jedi Population

[Mad1Cow]

Wow, now are they actually against Jediism as a religion, or just asking that only the truly faithful make their mark as Jedi. This is a very important distinction, one is just accurate accounting, the other amounts to religious discrimination and great disrespect to the religions that Jedi draws from, namely Buddhism and Taoism.

It's probable intention is to say "if you're a nerd, be a nerd. If you actually believe in the proper Jedi by all means put it down". It's a survey at the end of the day, not a holocaust.

 

[Blindswordmaster]

Wow, now are they actually against Jediism as a religion, or just asking that only the truly faithful make their mark as Jedi. This is a very important distinction, one is just accurate accounting, the other amounts to religious discrimination and great disrespect to the religions that Jedi draws from, namely Buddhism and Taoism.

It's probable intention is to say "if you're a nerd, be a nerd. If you actually believe in the proper Jedi by all means put it down". It's a survey at the end of the day, not a holocaust.

Then that's no big deal, it's just asking people to tell the truth.

 

[Conor147]

no i have definitely NOT confused belief with likelihood. as i asserted, belief is dependant on likelihood. when i say "believe 50%" i mean "believe the likelihood is 50%". it was only shorthand and i think you know this and are just trying to throw a red herring. i believe it was actually you that has confused belief with likelihood, as i demonstrated with my hypothetical that is both valid and sound and as of yet unrefuted.

which of my premises were false and/or how was my conclusion not inferred by my premises?

If belief is dependent on likelihood, does that not imply that theists are right? After all, they believe the hardest.

Joking aside, are you just throwing out words about debate at random and hoping for the best? A premise has to be built around something which we both accept as true, and for best effect has to be provably true. The only one you have given so far is that the search for alien life is unresolved. You then follow this by saying "so you are 50% sure that aliens exist?". No. I am 0% sure, because I have no belief. The actual percentage probability of there being intelligent alien life is down to the number of planets with inhabitable atmospheres, and as such our estimate of this probability can be changed by the new evidence found as in the case you give ("here is some evidence that there are thousands of earth-like planets in a tiny part of the observable universe"). My belief may be swayed by this, but even then it will be moved from "I don't believe in intelligent alien life" to "I do believe in intelligent alien life". The only possible intermediary stage would be an internal conflict of whether I believe or not.

Do I therefore believe "the likelihood is 50%"? No. I have no idea what the actual probability of there being alien life out there is, but it probably isn't exactly 50% anyway. If someone were to tell me the probability is exactly 90% and they could prove it, my belief may be swayed by this as I described above. But belief can just as easily be used to defy probability. Anyone who has played Warhammer 40K and uttered the immortal phrase "Anything but a one to pass" can attest to this. In this case, the probability of rolling a one is 1/6, naturally. But you can still believe it will happen. However, in the case of religion this is all a moot point anyway as there is absolutely no way to calculate the probability of a God.

The only way belief could work as a percentage is as a binary system, that is to say 100% being 1 belief (believing something is true) and 0% being 0 belief (having no belief). Even then this is leaving out all possible developments of your personal belief. For example, believing there is a God but he doesn't take the forms given by any religion and as such it is an overly simplistic way to view things.

"If belief is dependent on likelihood, does that not imply that theists are right? After all, they believe the hardest."

no. they believe it without any justification. this is why faith is an abomination. when i said "belief is dependant on likelihood", i was assuming that the believer was rational and cared about the likelihood when deciding what to believe.


i read your entire comment, and cant be bothered replying with a paragraph for each sentence. so to summarise, it seems like you are just withholding a consideration of evidence and decision on belief. to you it seems that belief or likelihood doesnt even come into it unless you can be absolutely sure. if you dont believe or disbelief, you are just an apatheist, and nothing i have said applies to you.

 

[Conor147]

As I say you're obviously trying to win a war with someone who doesn't even care about fighting anymore. It wasn't so much the fact that you weren't laughing it was more the I WANNA CONTINUE ON THIS ARGUMENT BECAUSE I'M RIGHT AND YOUR WRONG!!! This is why I took the route in life of, "fine, if it helps, I'll let you believe you're right, just let me go back to my fun". He's not grasping at straws in the midst of losing an argument, he doesn't care about the argument, he's taken his straws, walked out the boxing ring and started making jokes with his straw. I can't help but laugh over this matter which brings me back to my point...

Laughter. It helps =P

hardly. if he posts a comment, ill respond. thats how it is and has been. ive posted as many comments to him, as he has, me.

but if hes too pathetic to continue to defend his position then thats fine. it seems like you realise hes been utterly raped, so hopefully he will realise hes been utterly raped too, and start to deal with reality on realitys terms, and maybe even start to realise that he doesnt need religion to be a good person.

 

[CrimsonBlack]

Yikes, this has turned a bit nasty...

 

[Conor147]

its a shame. i thought this forum was above that kind of censorship.

i wonder why religious beliefs are considered above criticism and beliefs regarding politics etc are fair game.

or maybe its just a butthurt moderator that took what i said personally? wouldnt be surprised.

 

[AngloDoom]

And frankly, whether purposefully or by accident, your arguments paint Atheists -- all Atheists -- as petty, conniving, and intolerant.

Exactly how you, and these atheists, paint anyone daring to believe in religion. Or wishing to mark Jedi on their census.

Furthermore, your arguments are schizophrenic, occasionally irrelevant, and always confusing.

Funny, as quite a few other people seem to understand them, could it be perhaps - God forbid - that it's you at fault?

I hope that you'll have slept the night before you reply to this, and that the morning will have brought some sense into your head so that I can at least understand whatever point you're trying to make. But if not, I'll quit this whole damned conversation with you, because it's going nowhere by the direction of prejudice and utter nonsense.

See, passive-aggression doesn't work on me, because I've had decades of this nonsense. You're failing to give people credit for a concerted effort to make religious affiliation not matter, and you're failing to see that the acts of the Atheist Council - or whoever they are - are simply proselytizing, in the same way that any other religious group would do.

Here's a simple one: What current charitable event has been made by Atheists, in their name, that doesn't involve tearing down something constructive?

Because it's reasonably easy to name one for the Christian Church, the Scientologists, the Muslims, Buddhists and even the Jedi.

Atheists just put an agnostic slogan on a bus for the lulz.

I think you are confusing "atheist" with "dickheads", although I do admit a lot of us seem to believe that their lack of faith is disturbing cool.

I'd just like to point out that the reason an atheist would not put an atheist name to an event is that atheism isn't a religion. Saying "We did this event in the name of atheists" is like making a charity event in the name of those that didn't collect Pokemon cards.

I'd argue the people who go around baiting and abusing others based on their religion are anti-theist: people I do not want to be associated with simply because I do not have the same beliefs as others. I have many Christian friends, several Muslim friends, a Hindu friend, and several agnostics. On the 14th I may be headed over to a party my Christian Union friends have made. I have no problem with those who follow a religion, and any problems I have with a particular faith don't provoke me enough to go paint the word "GODFAG" on a church.

 

[Mad1Cow]

Yikes, this has turned a bit nasty...

Agreed, can we go back to making panda happy?

 

[Kukakkau]

Why do they even need to know? They have no reason to care.
I'm still fucking putting Jedi.

So the government can try to supply proper religous buildings/facilities to the areas that need them? The consensus is because they need to care about these things.

It just screws up the consensus and makes the government think "there's a lot of jedis now - we're gonna have to put money into that"

Unhelpful and pretty immature to do it to be honest

UK athiest - I don't care what people put but it's completely unhelpful to do that

 

[BlackIronGuardian]

NMow, if they'd called the campaign ''Order 66,'' that would have been funny.

 

[Red Right Hand]

"If your religion is of low enough importance to you to that you are willing to put in a religion from 3 good sci-fi films from years ago, and 3 more recent rubbish ones,please consider ticking 'No Religion' instead"

Well considering that the religion of Christianity is a religion from one book thousands of years ago, i'm kind of struggling to see the difference between that and Jediism(?). They're both as legitimate as each other.

Not to say that religious people are not entitled to their beliefs. You can believe whatever you want to believe, I just have a problem with people telling others that saying you follow the Jedi religion is somehow less legitimate than following, say, catholocism.

 

[CrimsonBlack]

its a shame. i thought this forum was above that kind of censorship.

i wonder why religious beliefs are considered above criticism and beliefs regarding politics etc are fair game.

or maybe its just a butthurt moderator that took what i said personally? wouldnt be surprised.

Ah come on mate, lighten up a little.

I agree that religious beliefs should not be above criticism. As H.L. Mencken delightfully said: "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart".

Yikes, this has turned a bit nasty...

Agreed, can we go back to making panda happy?

I make pandas happy all the time! Unfortunately that makes me a bit of a panda-botherer and I've been banned from many a zoo.

 

[CrimsonBlack]

"If your religion is of low enough importance to you to that you are willing to put in a religion from 3 good sci-fi films from years ago, and 3 more recent rubbish ones,please consider ticking 'No Religion' instead"

Well considering that the religion of Christianity is a religion from one book thousands of years ago, i'm kind of struggling to see the difference between that and Jediism(?). They're both as legitimate as each other.

Not to say that religious people are not entitled to their beliefs. You can believe whatever you want to believe, I just have a problem with people telling others that saying you follow the Jedi religion is somehow less legitimate than following, say, catholocism.

Mmmh, but that's not what they said. It said "If your religion is of low enough importance TO YOU". And come on, if you're going to put Jedi without really being a Jedi, then that makes you, to be American about this, "a bit of a douche". And unhelpful.

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

"If belief is dependent on likelihood, does that not imply that theists are right? After all, they believe the hardest."

no. they believe it without any justification. this is why faith is an abomination.


i read your entire comment, and cant be bothered replying with a paragraph for easy sentence. so to summarise, it seems like you are just withholding a consideration of evidence and decision on belief. to you it seems that belief or likelihood doesnt even come into it unless you can be absolutely sure. if you dont believe or disbelief, you are just an apatheist, and nothing i have said applies to you.

Apparently, despite reading the whole comment, you missed the part immeidately after that where I said "Joking aside".

Your summary seems off. Perhaps I did not make myself clear enough for you to understand. I think belief is binary, either you believe or you don't. The only other position is not choosing either side due to either feeling you aren't in a sufficiently knowledgeable position to make a decision* or because of an internal struggle. All of these positions can be changed by evidence, but by definition belief is not entirely dependent on statistical probability or evidence. As such, until completely irrefutable evidence has proven one way or the other, belief is necessary.

"if you dont believe or disbelief, you are just an apatheist, and nothing i have said applies to you." On the contrary. I neither believe nor disbelieve in a God. But I have spent some time thinking about it, and have come to the conclusion that neither is the right position from a purely logical viewpoint. As I have described previously, it is impossible to create any kind of analysis of the probability of a God exisitng in some form. You can see from a logical viewpoint that most religions are illogical, in that many of the arguements drawn from them can be shown to be wrong, for example evolution replacing creationism, the earth orbiting the sun etc.

*For example, someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in a God (in any form) could have found both the arguments of theists and atheists insufficiently compelling to choose between the two.

hardly. if he posts a comment, ill respond. thats how it is and has been. ive posted as many comments to him, as he has, me.

but if hes too pathetic to continue to defend his position then thats fine. it seems like you realise hes been utterly raped, so hopefully he will realise hes been utterly raped too, and start to deal with reality on realitys terms.

You know they really need to come up with a new title for this logical fallacy. The one where you declare yourself the winner because your opponent has ceased in furiously arguing with you for the any amount of time.

Oh wait, it's the Chewbacca Defense!

 

[Mad1Cow]

its a shame. i thought this forum was above that kind of censorship.

i wonder why religious beliefs are considered above criticism and beliefs regarding politics etc are fair game.

or maybe its just a butthurt moderator that took what i said personally? wouldnt be surprised.

Ah come on mate, lighten up a little.

I agree that religious beliefs should not be above criticism. As H.L. Mencken delightfully said: "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart".

Yikes, this has turned a bit nasty...

Agreed, can we go back to making panda happy?

I make pandas happy all the time! Unfortunately that makes me a bit of a panda-botherer and I've been banned from many a zoo.

I'm sure the zoos were better off for your amazing gift. Now if only we could make the Monkeys stop raping frogs ¬_¬

Also have to say I completely agree with that quote. I'm more for trying to learn everything and get myself well cultured. People call me an idiot for not taking a side, but I respect views on everyone's side so long as they don't impact on me or my living habits...

 

[the D0rk One]

Yikes, this has turned a bit nasty...

Agreed, can we go back to making panda happy?

Yup.

Besides, this is a win-win cuz Jedi don't count as followers of the REAL players out there, so no hurt ho foul anyhow.

 

[RYjet911]

Basically, religion annoys me enough as it is.

Jedi is certainly entirely fictional, created by George Lucas and whoever else assisted in coming up with stuff for Star Wars, assuming he had any assistance in that respect. I don't know much about the franchise to be honest.

Therefore, Jedi annoys me more than most other religions. It's there with Scientology.

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

its a shame. i thought this forum was above that kind of censorship.

i wonder why religious beliefs are considered above criticism and beliefs regarding politics etc are fair game.

or maybe its just a butthurt moderator that took what i said personally? wouldnt be surprised.

Actually it's because you've been repeatedly indulging in ad hominem attacks. Anyway, it's not censorship since:

A) None of your comments have been removed entirely.
B) You have not yet been prevented from posting.

Probation merely means they have their eye on you.

 

[Conor147]

its a shame. i thought this forum was above that kind of censorship.

i wonder why religious beliefs are considered above criticism and beliefs regarding politics etc are fair game.

or maybe its just a butthurt moderator that took what i said personally? wouldnt be surprised.

Ah come on mate, lighten up a little.

I agree that religious beliefs should not be above criticism. As H.L. Mencken delightfully said: "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart".

im not familiar with the probation system and what it entails, but im guessing that i could be banned. so essentially im being banned for criticising religion. this is the 21st century and im being reprimanded for criticising religion. have we not learned from our mistakes? what the enlightenment taught us? thats why im sad

and i dont see how religion is supposed to be respected if it cant be honestly criticised? how is it respect if it is mandatory? in the same way donating to charity is not benevolence if it is mandatory, its tax.

surely if im being honest about religion and regarding it on its own terms and merits, im the one thats respecting it? rather than hiding it away from the outside world like an embarrassing relative?

 

[Red Right Hand]

"If your religion is of low enough importance to you to that you are willing to put in a religion from 3 good sci-fi films from years ago, and 3 more recent rubbish ones,please consider ticking 'No Religion' instead"

Well considering that the religion of Christianity is a religion from one book thousands of years ago, i'm kind of struggling to see the difference between that and Jediism(?). They're both as legitimate as each other.

Not to say that religious people are not entitled to their beliefs. You can believe whatever you want to believe, I just have a problem with people telling others that saying you follow the Jedi religion is somehow less legitimate than following, say, catholocism.

Mmmh, but that's not what they said. It said "If your religion is of low enough importance TO YOU". And come on, if you're going to put Jedi without really being a Jedi, then that makes you, to be American about this, "a bit of a douche". And unhelpful.

Fair point. I didn't really take the first sentence into consideration. I was more focused on the latter part.

To be honest though, I don't really give a shit about religion at all so I am going to put Jedi down.

I would put my own faith down but there's no possible way that I could do that with the options that they provide on the census, so fuck 'em.

My point still stands though. Jediism is just as legitimate a religion as any other in the world.