UK Atheists Hope to Eliminate Jedi Population

[raankh]

Ouch, that means Intelligent Design should be "No Religion" as well. The Church of the FSM is built on the exact same principles, after all.

Alternatively, if only "state acknowledged" religions are in categories, then there's a whole slew of really religious people that aren't included.

Seriously, is that the kind of "statistics" behind this census? What a complete f'king waste of money. It's not even remotely scientific.

intelligent design isnt a religion. its creationism masquerading around with a fake lab coat. intelligent design is a construct used by religious people, not the religion itself.

Of course, by that logic, Creationism isn't a religion either. It's just a construct used by religious people as well, not the religion itself.

Since all religions are constructs, I don't agree that ID isn't a religion. It's as much a religion as Presbyterianism or Jainism -- both constructs in wider frameworks usually called "Christianity" and "Hinduism" respectively.

 

[Conor147]

Ouch, that means Intelligent Design should be "No Religion" as well. The Church of the FSM is built on the exact same principles, after all.

Alternatively, if only "state acknowledged" religions are in categories, then there's a whole slew of really religious people that aren't included.

Seriously, is that the kind of "statistics" behind this census? What a complete f'king waste of money. It's not even remotely scientific.

intelligent design isnt a religion. its creationism masquerading around with a fake lab coat. intelligent design is a construct used by religious people, not the religion itself.

Of course, by that logic, Creationism isn't a religion either. It's just a construct used by religious people as well, not the religion itself.

Since all religions are constructs, I don't agree that ID isn't a religion. It's as much a religion as Presbyterianism or Jainism -- both constructs in wider frameworks usually called "Christianity" and "Hinduism" respectively.

you seem to be confusing "religion" with "religious precept/idea".

ID isnt a religion any more than the bible is a religion, or the talking snake is a religion, or "turtles all the way down" is a religion, or hercules is a religion, or the christian explanation for "how wine and bread become the flesh of jesus" is a religion.

youre right, creationism isnt a religion.

 

[raankh]

Ouch, that means Intelligent Design should be "No Religion" as well. The Church of the FSM is built on the exact same principles, after all.

Alternatively, if only "state acknowledged" religions are in categories, then there's a whole slew of really religious people that aren't included.

Seriously, is that the kind of "statistics" behind this census? What a complete f'king waste of money. It's not even remotely scientific.

intelligent design isnt a religion. its creationism masquerading around with a fake lab coat. intelligent design is a construct used by religious people, not the religion itself.

Of course, by that logic, Creationism isn't a religion either. It's just a construct used by religious people as well, not the religion itself.

Since all religions are constructs, I don't agree that ID isn't a religion. It's as much a religion as Presbyterianism or Jainism -- both constructs in wider frameworks usually called "Christianity" and "Hinduism" respectively.

you seem to be confusing "religion" with "religious precept/idea".

ID isnt a religion any more than the bible is a religion, or the talking snake is a religion, or "turtles all the way down" is a religion or hercules is a religion, or the christian explanation for "how wine and bread become the flesh of jesus" is a religion.

youre right, creationism isnt a religion.

Ah, but ID isn't a singular thing. It's a body of ideas and practices. If it isn't a religion, and neither creationism, then what is a religion? How many ideas and/or practices do you have to incorporate in order to call it a religion, and not a set of religious ideas? Or is it by virtue of some historical pretext that religion becomes religion? Who decides, then?

There is no such thing as a least common denominator for "Christian", "Hindu", "Jew", "Muslim" and so forth that could allow us to say that those are valid religious denominators, but "Sufi", "Karaite", "Mormon" or "Creationist" is not.

Neither is there something in the body of ideas of Intelligent Design that would disqualify it as a religion. By the text-book definition it is more of a religion than Buddhism, even.

 

[Conor147]

Ouch, that means Intelligent Design should be "No Religion" as well. The Church of the FSM is built on the exact same principles, after all.

Alternatively, if only "state acknowledged" religions are in categories, then there's a whole slew of really religious people that aren't included.

Seriously, is that the kind of "statistics" behind this census? What a complete f'king waste of money. It's not even remotely scientific.

intelligent design isnt a religion. its creationism masquerading around with a fake lab coat. intelligent design is a construct used by religious people, not the religion itself.

Of course, by that logic, Creationism isn't a religion either. It's just a construct used by religious people as well, not the religion itself.

Since all religions are constructs, I don't agree that ID isn't a religion. It's as much a religion as Presbyterianism or Jainism -- both constructs in wider frameworks usually called "Christianity" and "Hinduism" respectively.

you seem to be confusing "religion" with "religious precept/idea".

ID isnt a religion any more than the bible is a religion, or the talking snake is a religion, or "turtles all the way down" is a religion or hercules is a religion, or the christian explanation for "how wine and bread become the flesh of jesus" is a religion.

youre right, creationism isnt a religion.

Ah, but ID isn't a singular thing. It's a body of ideas and practices. If it isn't a religion, and neither creationism, then what is a religion? How many ideas and/or practices do you have to incorporate in order to call it a religion, and not a set of religious ideas? Or is it by virtue of some historical pretext that religion becomes religion? Who decides, then?

There is no such thing as a least common denominator for "Christian", "Hindu", "Jew", "Muslim" and so forth that could allow us to say that those are valid religious denominators, but "Sufi", "Karaite", "Mormon" or "Creationist" is not.

Neither is there something in the body of ideas of Intelligent Design that would disqualify it as a religion. By the text-book definition it is more of a religion than Buddhism, even.

name one "practise" that intelligent design entails.

this road of semantic argument could lead you to define "existentialism" as a religion. or "humanism" a religion. or "atheism" a religion. "the scientific method" as a religion. "non-religion" as a religion. its retarded.

"Religion is a belief of some superhuman power or powers, in particular a god or gods, which usually involve obedience, reverence, and worship; and as part of a system which defines a code of living, especially as a way of achieving spiritual or material improvement."

the sole purpose of the introduction of intelligent design was to distance creationism from religion in order to loophole through legal objections to RELIGION.

P.S. i understand what you are saying, and i know what you are arguing can be argued, but its just semantics and atheists/theists alike will object.

 

[Azmael Silverlance]

400,000 PPL PUT JEDI!?????
REALLY??????? REALLY????????
Daaaamn thats like my entire home town was populated with Jedi :O
I wonder how low the jaws of the clerks who counted this dropped after gettting the final results
But even tho its a funny joke it does hinder the counting and shouldnt be done.....but i guess the jedi cant help themselfs

 

[raankh]

name one "practise" that intelligent design entails.

this road of semantic argument could lead you to define "existentialism" as a religion. or "humanism" a religion. or "atheism" a religion. "the scientific method" as a religion. "non-religion" as a religion. its retarded.

"Religion is a belief of some superhuman power or powers, in particular a god or gods, which usually involve obedience, reverence, and worship; and as part of a system which defines a code of living, especially as a way of achieving spiritual or material improvement."

the sole purpose of the introduction of intelligent design was to distance creationism from religion in order to loophole through legal objections to RELIGION.

P.S. i understand what you are saying, and i know what you are arguing can be argued, but its just semantics and atheists/theists alike will object.

Well, it's more than a matter of semantics. I'm arguing for the futility of an external observer to decide what is a religion and what is not, at least based on rational arguments on the content of a particular system of belief.

"Religion is a belief of some superhuman power or powers, in particular a god or gods, which usually involve obedience, reverence, and worship; and as part of a system which defines a code of living, especially as a way of achieving spiritual or material improvement."

Yup, there's the text-book definition I referred to, which would technically disqualify Buddhism and Jainism but certainly encompass Intelligent Design. Which is ridiculous. It matters very little to the Buddhist praying for good health and much money, at least. That definition is in itself coloured by a (probably secular) Christian vantage point.

The practises of religions define the symbolism that encodes the belief -- such as Sabbath in some Christian delineations and most Jewish. As such, the exhibits that ID folks set up depicting dinosaurs and humans co-existing is an ID practise.

No matter what the purpose of introducing ID was, now there are certainly believers that have the faith irrespective of the original intent. They are certainly religious, and if asked "What do you believe?" they will answer "in Intelligent Design and a benevolent Creator". Sure, it's still the Abrahamic God they believe in, but that's true for a large part of religious people worldwide, irrespective of what actual religion they have.

You could also argue that Christianity was introduced as a political tool during the Roman Empire. That in no way diminishes its validity as a religion.

I've met (and debated with) people from both Christian and Jewish backgrounds who have ID as a faith and partake in the same congregation. There simply cannot be a rational argument, from my experience, that this is not a religion. They behave as if they do follow a religion, and I claiming, it then is.

 

[pipers_r_gods]

How come Scientology, Christianity, Hinduism can be religions, but Jediism can't? All of them believe in a fictional thing that's supposed to help and guide everyone. Being a Jedi (if I cared to waste my life with religion) would be the first thing I went for and I would embrace it wholeheartedly.

The government should just deal with it.

 

[Conor147]

Well, it's more than a matter of semantics. I'm arguing for the futility of an external observer to decide what is a religion and what is not, at least based on rational arguments on the content of a particular system of belief.

"Religion is a belief of some superhuman power or powers, in particular a god or gods, which usually involve obedience, reverence, and worship; and as part of a system which defines a code of living, especially as a way of achieving spiritual or material improvement."

Yup, there's the text-book definition I referred to, which would technically disqualify Buddhism and Jainism but certainly encompass Intelligent Design. Which is ridiculous. It matters very little to the Buddhist praying for good health and much money, at least. That definition is in itself coloured by a (probably secular) Christian vantage point.

The practises of religions define the symbolism that encodes the belief -- such as Sabbath in some Christian delineations and most Jewish. As such, the exhibits that ID folks set up depicting dinosaurs and humans co-existing is an ID practise.

No matter what the purpose of introducing ID was, now there are certainly believers that have the faith irrespective of the original intent. They are certainly religious, and if asked "What do you believe?" they will answer "in Intelligent Design and a benevolent Creator". Sure, it's still the Abrahamic God they believe in, but that's true for a large part of religious people worldwide, irrespective of what actual religion they have.

You could also argue that Christianity was introduced as a political tool during the Roman Empire. That in no way diminishes its validity as a religion.

I've met (and debated with) people from both Christian and Jewish backgrounds who have ID as a faith and partake in the same congregation. There simply cannot be a rational argument, from my experience, that this is not a religion. They behave as if they do follow a religion, and I claiming, it then is.

it doesnt matter if they have "faith" in it. that applies to everything for which there is no evidence. according to your logic, belief that fairies wings are of a certain colour or texture is a religion, belief in bigfoot is a religion, belief in the invisible pink unicorn is a religion. whether or not you can make a semantically sound and valid argument to forward such propositions is irrelevant, it still sounds retarded and nobody will agree. some things are allowed to just be retarded, unevideneced, fatuous bullshit without being automatically put in the category of separate "religion" in its own right.

 

[Ghengis John]

All this hub-ub over 400,000 people? I bet had they said nothing, the amount who ticked Jedi would have petered off anyhow after the release of the prequels.

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

Now aiethiest are trolling to get moar cencus numbers?
JERKS!
IF I LIVED IN THE UK, I WOULD SOOO PUT FUCKING JEDI!

 

[RoBi3.0]

strictly speaking religion is simply a belief structure that governs your life.

IMHO there really is no difference between believing a man gifted with special power from high all knowing entity can raise a man from the dead, walk on water, turn water to wine, cure leprosy, and come back from the dead and believing a man gifted with special power from high all knowing entity can build a laser sword, shoot lightening from his hands, sense the lose of a massive amount life a galaxy away, effect people's thoughts, and come back from the dead.

 

[Flauros]

How come Scientology, Christianity, Hinduism can be religions, but Jediism can't? All of them believe in a fictional thing that's supposed to help and guide everyone. Being a Jedi (if I cared to waste my life with religion) would be the first thing I went for and I would embrace it wholeheartedly.

The government should just deal with it.

The problem isnt with the few people who ARE considered Jedi, its the people who just put Jedi down for the heck of it, making the census inaccurate.

 

[Musclepunch]

Maybe they'll issue the m.o.d more money to look into laser swords and blasters. Han solo sums religion up well here,
"I've seen a lot of strange stuff, but I've never seen anything to make me believe there's one all-powerful force controlling everything. There's no mystical energy field controls my destiny"

 

[AMMO Kid]

Spoiler

then why does the bible condone slavery?

Because the bible was written in a time where lots of people chose to be slaves, rather than live on the streets and starve. It doesn't condone mistreatment of slaves and such, it constantly tells masters to be kind to their slaves. You have to view the bible in a historical and cultural context, you can't just throw out random comments like that or else you're bond to not understand a lot of what it has to say. hope this helps

hardly. this logic can excuse anything, as long as its the norm of its time. this kind of logic is used to justify the paedophilia of muhammad in the qur'an and sirat. this is pure, lazy thinking. if slavery was accepted today, still (which it would be if the bible was still an authority), would that mean slavery isnt a heinous, immoral practise? no. of course not. dont be absurd.
if the bible is supposed to be at all divine, it should vindicate the morality of the future, not be supplanted by it.

and dont bullshit about treating slaves with kindness. this is absurd.... nothing more than demonstrably false and easily rebutted kindergarten apologetics.


* Exodus 21:20-21 and Exodus 21:26-27 regulates the beating of slaves, and states that the owner may not be punished if the slave survives for at least two days after the beating.
* Leviticus 19:20-22 gives instructions about the sacrifices that should be made if a slave owner has sex with or rapes an engaged female slave. The slave herself is punished with whipping, but no sacrifices or punishment are required if the slave is not engaged.
* In Leviticus 25:44-46 the Israelites were allowed to buy slaves from other nations, and then hand them down as an inheritance.
* In Leviticus 25:39 buying your brother as a slave is allowed.

You seem to have completely ignored the context on these verses

Exodus 21:20-21 - I have to admit this is harsh, but the beating it talks about it isn't meant to be a "I beat you cause I felt like it" beating, it's a "you stole something from me/sexually assaulted a woman in my house (quite common in old days)"
Leviticus 19:20-22 - These verses aren't talking about if the slave is raped, it talks about if the slave "carnally" sleeps with someone with full consent, so punishment is just
Leviticus 25:44-46 - Again, you totally ignore the context. It never says, "you can buy slaves from other nations," but rather "out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you." After Israel took control of the lands of the Canaanites, Amorites, Jebusites etc. some nations who currently owned the land allied themselves with or went into optional slave labor for the Israelites so that they would not kick them out of their cities and lands by force (AKA killing them off). These people knew that this was a possibility and totally consented, thus it is not unfair for them to be taken as slaves, because they chose that
Leviticus 25:39 - What is your problem here? "If a countryman of yours becomes so poor with regard to you that he sells himself to you, you shall not subject him to a slave's service." In other words, don't make your countrymen slaves!

its 10pm. youre walking down a dark alley. theres a woman screaming and a man trying to rip her clothes. he has a knife to her throat. what do you do?

"WELL I HAVE NO IDEA WHATS GOING ON HERE, NO CONTEXT, NOPE. ILL JUST KEEP ON WALKING AND WONT MAKE ANY JUDGEMENTS BECAUSE I DONT HAVE ANY CONTEXT".


but then you contradict yourself by saying

"I have to admit this is harsh"

well then its finished. you admit that you see a conflict between your superior morality and that of bronze aged men. how do you resolve this? logical, rational people resolve it by saying that the bible isnt divine, but the work of men who have been supplanted by better, more moral, more reasonable successors.

It seems like rather than head on addressing what I just proved that you grabbed the first thing you could find to rage about and throw up a smokescreen around all the rest. Can't I ever find NICE atheists to have these conversations with? Cause all you guys ever seem to do is rage...

Anyway, I shouldn't have typed that phrase. I read the verse, thought "wow... that's harsh!" Then looked at the immediate context and slapped myself for being so silly (forgetting to erase the previous comment). And ask anyone I know, I'm a very rational person.
PS Please respond nicely. I do love these conversations but when the other person just rages out at me it really ruins it.

 

[Tiger Sora]

I can't wait for the Canadian census to roll around this year. Fun will be had.
Believe in the force you must. Be the only way to write it on the census, yes yes.

And thats so great 400000 people put Jedi down in the UK. Amazed so many people did this when there was no facebook and way less people on the internet anyways.

 

[Conor147]

It seems like rather than head on addressing what I just proved that you grabbed the first thing you could find to rage about and throw up a smokescreen around all the rest. Can't I ever find NICE atheists to have these conversations with? Cause all you guys ever seem to do is rage...

Anyway, I shouldn't have typed that phrase. I read the verse, thought "wow... that's harsh!" Then looked at the immediate context and slapped myself for being so silly (forgetting to erase the previous comment). And ask anyone I know, I'm a very rational person.
PS Please respond nicely. I do love these conversations but when the other person just rages out at me it really ruins it.

im confounded and perplexed as to how you came to the conclusion that i was raging. really, i can barely remember this conversation, thats how little i care.

but if you dont see the double standard, then theres no point in continuing this. if you read mein kampf and find "...jews are subhuman..", you can hardly say "well thats what everyone in nazi germany thought, they didnt know any better" i cant come to the conclusion that this is a wicked, heinous work that as been rightfully supplanted. or "i dont have the context, no idea what this means" cant make any judgement on this.

the very fact that the bible was called to the stand when the slavery abolition debate was ensuing in america, proves my point patently. anything else is just a feckless attempt at rationalizing away history.


"in 1856 Reverend Thomas Stringfellow, a Baptist minister from Culpepper County in Virginia, wrote an essay called "A Scriptural View of Slavery", which is full of passages that support his opinion, such as:

"Job himself was a great slave-holder, and, like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, won no small portion of his claims to character with God and men from the manner in which he discharged his duty to his slaves."

"It is certain that God interposed to give Joseph the power in Egypt, which he used, to create a state, or condition, among the Egyptians, which substantially agrees with patriarchal and modern slavery."

"If, therefore, doing to others as we would they should do to us, means precisely what loving our neighbor as ourself means, then Jesus has added no new moral principle above those in the law of Moses, to prohibit slavery, for in his law is found this principle, and slavery also.""

the very fact that the bible can be used to justify slavery, the very fact that it ALLOWS one of the most immoral practises in the history of humanity (the complete removal of individual freedom) is enough to show that it is the work of wicked bronze aged men, and not god.

 

[Kargathia]

the very fact that the bible can be used to justify slavery, the very fact that it ALLOWS one of the most immoral practises in the history of humanity (the complete removal of individual freedom) is enough to show that it is the work of wicked bronze aged men, and not god.

And who are you to say that god isn't a total dickwad in the first place? =)

But seriously, wasn't this Jedi thing about people who didn't want to completely deny that they had some spiritual beliefs, but didn't really sign up to any religion?

 

[Verkula]

How about they just add the "Jedi"s to "No Religion"? Kinda obvious, but oh no, they actually take it seriously.