Jedi Knight Now (Not) Officially a Religion

osiris writes: "The Register is reporting that being a Jedi Knight is now an official religion in the UK after the 2001 census conducted earlier this year. The final number of 'Jedi Knights' has not been confirmed yet as only about 95% of the census forms have been returned. As you could probably imagine, the Home Office is none too pleased. Apparently though, you can't get fined for lying about your religion in the census." Actually, according to the story, this gives the Jedi way no more official status than Plumbing would have if everyone put that down.

Comments

Cool

[YT]

So when are the lightsabers coming out?

Re:Cool

[Mister Transistor]

If you remember your pseudo-lore, Jedi's in training have to make their own! Truly the hacker's spirit at work here!

Re:Cool

[J. Random Software]

... and every current or potential programmer ought to learn to implement CipherSaber from memory, for much the same reasons--especially now that recent events have made governments and citizens more hostile to privacy.

The sad thing is...

[BiggestPOS]

None of the people who check it are actually Jedi, whether they say they are or not :(. I don't remember the last time I saw anyone build a real working lightsaber....

Re:The sad thing is...

[Spootnik]

I've checked out the UK Statistics Office list of religions and it is indeed coded as 896.

Satanism is 331.

They even allow you to have your "Own Belief System" (code 344).

Re:The sad thing is...

[Muggins the Mad]

> None of the people who check it are actually Jedi,
> whether they say they are or not :

True, however many people profess to be christians/moslems/whateverists without showing any
real evidence of actually *believing*.

I find religious belief options on census reports to
be a good way of measuring the overall mental health of a country. :)

- MugginsM

Re:The sad thing is...

[91degrees]

I put a clear plastic tube onto a torch. Doesn't that count?

A religion is just a system of belief, so there's no reason not to believe that all life flows from the force. I guess the correct religion would be Force Worshiper or something though. Putting "Jedi" would be like a catholic putting down "monk"

Re:The sad thing is...

[Spootnik]

Yes, they do. Holy Church of Elvis is coded as 521.

Re:The sad thing is...

[Rogerborg]

• None of the people who check it are actually Jedi, whether they say they are or not

Prove that anybody who puts down Buddhist has been reencarnated.

Prove that anyone who puts down Catholic suffers the consequences of original sin.

Kind of missing the point of belief, aren't you?

Re:The sad thing is...

[Rogerborg]

• Your kind of missing the point of the joke.

Apparently so. One of us has a fault in our humour modules.

Once again, without a net

[banky]

http://www.snopes.com/religion/jedi.htm
contains the complete info on this BORING (IMHO) urban legend.

Re:Once again, without a net

[iapetus]

Indeed. The article you link says:

"There won't be any coding for Jedi," a representative of the ONS said. "So it won't be called a religion even if 10,000 people do it."

But there *is* a coding for Jedi, so I'd say they were somewhat wrong, yes?

None v. Atheist

[dmarcov]

Ok - so someone's really decided there needs to be separate categories for "Atheist" and "None". I want to see the discussion here the delineates the differences between someone who says there's no God (which seems to me to be saying that religion would necessarily be a fabrication), and "None" ... which means. I dunno -- pretty much the same thing? That there is a god and they choose not to believe -- it seems that you start to get into one of those Douglas Adams'-ish loops about proof denying faith, and without faith god being nothing -- with of course proof, proving god doesn't exist because god exists.

Re:None v. Atheist

[Jubedgy]

None is really agnostic...

As far as I understand it, atheism is a belief in itself that there is no god or whatever.

Agnosticism is saying sure there might or might not be a god, I don't care either way, let's just get on w/ our lives.

So I'd equate 'None' meaning 'no religion' with agnosticism rather than atheism (which could, itself, be considered a form of religion).

--Jubedgy

Re:None v. Atheist

[catbutt]

"None" means you don't have a religion or belief system or whatever. Like if you just don't think about it or give a shit.

Atheist means you are convinced there is no god.

(and agnostic means you've thought about, and haven't drawn any conclusions)

Re:None v. Atheist

[Reality Master 101]

Atheist: You take a definite position that there is no God (which ironically is actually a position of faith, but that's another debate).

Agnostic: You take the position that the existence of God is not knowable. This IMO is the most intellectually honest position.

None: I guess this means that you take absolutely no position at all on the subject.

Re:None v. Atheist

[bps300]

A lot of people confuse faith and religion. Religion is the organized practice of one's faith. An athiest is of the faith that there is no god, and belongs to the 'religion of atheism'. Some one who selects none believes that there is a god(s), but does not belong to any particular religion.

Re:None v. Atheist

[The Good Reverend]

"Atheist" is no more a position of faith than saying "I don't believe in 1000 foot tall purple gorrilas" is a statement of faith. Based on available evidence and the self-controdictions of most Gods (I'm using a Christian definition here), being an atheist is accepting the evidence for what it's worth.

Here come the flames...

Re:None v. Atheist

[dattaway]

None: "No Comment"

Re:None v. Atheist

[tshak]

It's one thing to be religously agnostic. This means that you have your beliefs but you don't associate them with a particular religion. I disagree with your definition being the most honest - rather, I believe that it's intellectually lazy. Although I'm not a fundamentalist (I don't believe that I KNOW all moral truth, for example), God has made himself known through many ways, and it behooves us to seek Him. However, if you are Atheist (great point on the faith issue), then you have nothing to pursue, because there is no god. If you are a "none", then you must the most intellectually lazy of all. They should add an option like "undecided but actively pursuing the Truth", for those who are not lazy, but are also unsure.

Re:None v. Atheist

[CamelTrader]

Atheist: There is no God.

Agnostic: God cannot be proved nor disproved.

None: God who?

Seriously though, it seems perfectly reasonable that a person who has a belief in a God (not necessarily any particular God) could be non religious, in that they practice no specific religion. It doesn't help that 'religion' has five definitions.

Re:None v. Atheist

[lemox]

None: I guess this means that you take absolutely no position at all on the subject.

I believe a friend of mine said it best when he called himself an 'apatheist'. ; )

Re:None v. Atheist

[Coward, Anonymous]

That *is* a belief though

Yes, but a belief doesn't imply faith. I believe that the dark side of the moon is not covered by rivers of chocolate milk. That I have no evidence directly disputing any chocolate milk moon river claims does not mean it is faith, just common sense.

Re:None v. Atheist

[dopplex]

None is not agnostic. An agnostic is not someone who can't make up his or her mind. What an agnostic actually believes in (Yes, real agnostics do believe in something...) is that the human race cannot know the form of a supreme being/beings or whether any in fact exist. In essence, agnosticism is the belief that there are some things that we as humans cannot know.
Agnosticism is a belief system in itself, and it most certainly doesn't fall under the category of "no religion".

Re:None v. Atheist

[Dwonis]

How is it lazy to say "insufficient data", rather than sitting in an infinite loop because you don't have anything concrete, just circular dependencies. I'd say that's smart, not lazy.

Re:None v. Atheist

[Malcontent]

"However, if you are Atheist (great point on the faith issue), then you have nothing to pursue, "

I disagree completely. If you believe in god then you know the answer. It's right there in the bible. There is no further need to pursue anything. you have been handed down your answer in a neatly bound volume and anybody who disagrees with you is an agent fo satan.

If you an atheists you have answer and have to seek one on your own.

Re:None v. Atheist

[efuseekay]

*sigh*, another statement of faith masquerading as an argument.

God has made himself known through many ways, and it behooves us to seek Him.

Please show scientifically testable/repeatable proof.

As for agnostics being lazy, you are accusing people who have spent a lot of time thinking about the issue and evaluating the evidence but came up with the an intellectually honest answer : "We don't have sufficient evidence to decide on whether God exists" of being lazy. I think that's a strawman argument.

I am an agnostic. I spend all my time seeking the Truth as a physicist. That's my job. And if I get lazy, my advisor will kick my butt. Perhaps you should widen your views about what constitutes "Truth" and what constitutes "Faith."

Feynman once said, "It's hard to sit on the Fence." Agnostics sit on the fence all the time, and Feynman's is right : it's not easy.

Re:None v. Atheist

[Malcontent]

What does this mean? Surely an atheists believes in japan or pluto. I have never heard an atheist say they don't believe grass does not exist.

Re:None v. Atheist

[Dwonis]

I've got much better things to do with my processing cycles than to ponder a unanswerable question. I'll reconsider when I get new information.

Re:None v. Atheist

[Chagrin]

Dyslexic, Agnostic Insomniac: Lies awake at night wondering if there is a Dog.

Re:None v. Atheist

[nathanh]

Too simplistic. You can break down Atheist into Strong and Weak positions. The definition you wrote is arguably one form of Strong Atheism but even that is stretching it.

Try and think of it like this: the Weak Atheist does not believe in the existence of God whereas the Strong Atheist position believes in the non-existence of God.

To further understand the problem: Atheism is about belief, not knowledge. Agnosticism is about knowledge, not belief. In practise you can be Gnostic and Atheist, Agnostic and Theist, or any other ridiculous combination.

Back to your definitions. Atheism isn't a position of faith, it's a statement of belief. The Strong Atheist could arguably be accused of having "faith" in their assertion of God's non-existence, but to do this would trivialise the meaning of "faith". Suddenly you have "faith" that you are hungry and "faith" that it is cold. Clearly this isn't the same meaning of "faith" that a Christian uses when they claim to have "faith in God".

I don't have much of a problem with your definition of Agnostic, although it's nothing like Huxley's original definition. But I hope you now understand that your definition of Atheist is the one popularised by the United States of Christianity, and is not a reasonable definition of Atheism.

Re:None v. Atheist

[Ian Bicking]

I disagree with the statement that atheists have nothing to pursue -- they have everything to pursue, the entire world is a source of spiritual conundrums and inspiration. We just don't tend to personalize it in a god. Buddhists are atheist (except maybe not the dumb ones that worship The Buddha, despite how that contradicts his teachings) -- it's not an unspiritual or even necessarily unreligious philosophical stand.

However, I agree that agnostics are rather lazy. Generally agnostics act on the belief that god does not exist, yet they will not say that they believe that god does not exist. Whether they know whether god exists or not isn't a very interesting question -- for a sufficiently demanding definition of "know" nothing is known. Arguments based on that are not insightful -- they are tedious and distracting.

The real question is how you live your life. Do you think about god in a concrete way, like "how could he let this happen", or "how would he judge me"? Do you speak to him? If you're looking the other way, then suddenly look inward, do you find an assumption that god exists?

If so, but you don't really "believe" that god exists, then I suppose you are agnostic. Perhaps a decent transitional phase, but it's a rather conflicted place to leave yourself.

If not, then you are an atheist. Trying to be all accepting by claiming you don't know god exists is just laziness. Say what you really believe. Say the truth about how you live your life. Don't be afraid to say you think other people are wrong -- that's not such a big deal, since at least you don't think they'll go to hell for being wrong :)

Re:None v. Atheist

[dopplex]

Well.. I see it more as a conviction that is actually based on the fact that there is no evidence. In fact, for agnostics the very evidence that validates belief (for me anyway) is the lack of evidence pointing towards anything else.
Your "typical agnostic" is not an agnostic. He or she is simply undecided, and never bothered looking up the word in the dictionary.

Word History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning "without, not," as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnsis, "knowledge," which was used by early Christian writers to mean "higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things" hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as "Gnostics" a group of his fellow intellectuals"ists," as he called themwho had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a "man without a rag of a label to cover himself with," Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870.

I also fail to see how someone who is truly agnostic (i.e. holds that man can not know for certain whether god exists, and in what form) is necessarily militant, any more than anyone else who is religious. An agnostic, (Like people who have other beliefs) is perfectly able to believe in what he or she believes in without trying to enforce it upon others.

This is not to say that none do - but there are those of every belief who are "militant".

Anyway, the ones who are particularly aggressive are probably just pissed that everyone keeps confusing us with those who are merely undecided, or who don't care.

Re:None v. Atheist

[PD]

Posts like yours are the reason why I identify myself as a weak atheist rather than an agnostic. To me they mean the same thing.

You think an agnostic is someone with nebulous wishy washy beliefs but not associated with any religion.

Just to be clear, agnostics do NOT believe in gods of any kind. They don't have any beliefs about them whatsoever, because there is no evidence to cause them to even hypothesize such a thing.

I think the term weak atheist is more clear about that, so I use it to mean the same thing as agnostic. An agnostic or a weak atheist can certainly take the step to say that no way, no how, can the Xtian god or the Muslim god, or any other humanly conceived god exists, because things that physically exist must be logically possible. No human conceived gods fit that criteria.

Re:None v. Atheist

[Rogerborg]

• Atheist: You take a definite position that there is no God (which ironically is actually a position of faith, but that's another debate).

You're inflating the importance of "god" with respect to any other proposition. Let's generalise atheist without taking the god squad line that debates about god are somehow special:

Scientist: You take a definite position that there exists nothing but that which you can observe.

Re:None v. Atheist

[magi]

Atheist: You take a definite position that there is no God (which ironically is actually a position of faith, but that's another debate).

This is unfortunately common view of atheism, and is mostly just a strawman usually used only by non-atheists. Atheism simply means that an atheist does not have a belief in any (supernatural or personal) god.

That doesn't imply that an atheist believes that there is no god. That view is called "dogmatic apriori atheism", which though probably exists, is not very common. The distinction in not, however, always so clear, depending on what viewpoint you take.

Atheism definitely is not a religion, as religion is much more that belief in something. Am I a Seventh Day Slashdottist, just because I believe that Slashdot exists? Atheism is just a non-belief, it doesn't have rituals, holy texts, or other institutions of religions. Not that religion is easy to define (there is no perfect definition for it).

Agnosticism means, as you said, that existence of gods is not knowable. This is a more general and epistemological issue, while atheism deals with a more specific and ontological issue. Therefore, most atheists are agnostics, and vice versa.

Re:None v. Atheist

[Reality Master 101]

"Atheist" is no more a position of faith than saying "I don't believe in 1000 foot tall purple gorrilas" is a statement of faith.

Actually, that's not true. We have no evidence for purple gorrilas, but we do have (supposedly) eyewitness accounts of Jesus being resurrected. I don't believe that evidence is very strong, but it is evidence.

I know you're next argument: Santa Claus. Let's hit that one. :)

We can actively disprove Santa Claus, because we can trace the origins of the legend, and see that it is clearly made up. With the Judeo-Christian God, it's not easy to see, because he's pretty much been around since the dawn of writing (8000 years?).

So to actively say that there is absolutely no God presupposes evidence that you don't have, and in fact, ignores that there really is some (admittedly weak) evidence for the existence of God.

Re:None v. Atheist

[Reality Master 101]

You're inflating the importance of "god" with respect to any other proposition.

Perhaps, but you're inflating the importance of the word "faith". It doesn't necessarily have to have religious overtones. It simply means a belief accepted without evidence.

Scientist: You take a definite position that there exists nothing but that which you can observe.

I don't know if you meant to put it that way, but that's definitely not true. In fact, Heisenberg says that we can't measure momentum and position at the same time, but that doesn't mean they don't exist at the same time. It's seems highly probable that there exists phenomenem outside of our measurable universe that we'll never know about it. Of course, that is unprovable by definition. :)

Re:None v. Atheist

[Reality Master 101]

But it's worth noting that non-belief in, or even denial of, gods does NOT equal claiming that one knows that no gods exist.

While I think my definitions are accurate (as definitions for these things go), I have to admit that I don't have a good word for "belief that the probability of God is extremely low". I think people latch onto Atheist for that, but that really doesn't cover it. Agnosticism doesn't cover it, either. I embrace Agnosticism, but I also embrace "low probability". I think we need a new word. :)

Re:None v. Atheist

[Reality Master 101]

Try and think of it like this: the Weak Atheist does not believe in the existence of God whereas the Strong Atheist position believes in the non-existence of God.

I don't really see the difference as far as the words go, but I see where you (and others) are going, and I have to admit there are a couple of categories that aren't really covered by the conventional terms:

1. The belief that the probability of God is very low

2. The belief that there is insufficient evidence at this time to believe in God, but am willing to review further evidence.

I believe these two stands do not fit in with the conventional definitions of Atheism and Agnosticism, although a lot of people probably latch onto one or the other word because there really aren't any words for these beliefs.

For the record, I am agnostic (the belief in God is unknowable, for proof see this post), and also believe in #1. I suppose everyone believes #2 to some extent, since if you die and appear before God, that's pretty strong evidence. :)

Re:None v. Atheist

[Tassach]

Atheism is a belief system. It implies an active denial of the superstitious belief in a supreme being or other supernatural forces. By blindly adopting a belief system without any supporting evidence, they fall into the same logical trap as theists. Agnositicm is another belief system, which basically says "I don't know if there is a god or not, but organized religions are all pretty silly and a waste of time".

Here's a handy conversion chart:

• Theism: Yes
• Atheism: No
• Agnostisicm: I don't know
• None: I don't care

Re:None v. Atheist

[Tassach]

Please show scientifically testable/repeatable proof' of the Battle of Waterloo

OK, let's see: you've got physical archaelogical evidence (tombstones, human remains, bullets, weapons, official documents, etc), -- This is what historical researchers call primary sources. There are also secondary sources: multiple, independently verifiable contemporary accounts of what happened.

I'd suggest taking courses in Historiography and Critical Thinking before responding.

Re:None v. Atheist

[geekoid]

don't confuse religion and God.

religion is a creation of man as a way to make a buck off God. So you could believe in God, and not have a religion.

Re:None v. Atheist

[geekoid]

faith (fth)
n.
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.

Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.

often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.

www.dictionary.com, use it.
A set of principles or beliefs.

Re:None v. Atheist

[Tassach]

To further understand the problem: Atheism is about belief, not knowledge. Agnosticism is about knowledge, not belief. In practise you can be Gnostic and Atheist, Agnostic and Theist, or any other ridiculous combination.

None of the 4 possible combinations ar "rediculous", all describe existing, widely held belief systems:

• Agnostic Aethist: "Weak Atheism", rationalism, etc.
• Gnostic Atheist: "Strong Atheism", Buddhism, Zen, new age spiritualism, possibly Shinto, some flavors of modern paganism
• Agnostic Theist: deism (cf Jefferson, Decartes, other Enlightenment philosophers)
• Gnostic Theist: most classical religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism)

This assumes that there are only two variables. There are probably more. I'll leave it to the philosophers to sort that out.

Re:None v. Atheist

[ryanwright]

That I have no evidence directly disputing any chocolate milk moon river claims

There is plenty of evidence directly disputing chocolate milk moon river claims. You didn't follow the Apollo missions? Now, if you were talking underground rivers, you'd have a point...

Re:None v. Atheist

[MaxGrant]

either on this world or some distant planet - someone has genetically engineered a "1000 foot tall purple gorrilla".

In the paraphrased words of William of Occam, "One must not multiply logical quantities beyond reason." Or, "the simplest explanation is always the best one."

The simplest explanation is that there is no 1000 foot tall purple gorilla because not only do we not see one, we don't even need one.

Atheism, at least mine, isn't just a refutation of the existence of a being I've never seen, or seen proof of. I also have never seen proof of the need of that being to complete my picture of the universe. The existence of God long ago moved from a question of "is or is not there" to "is or is not required." Theists, meanwhile, either don't understand or are rejecting a goodly chunk of modern science that directly implies that intellegent organization in the creation of the universe not only wasn't present, it wasn't necessary, or even possible.

I hate this kind of argument, because you are trying to do the same thing as creationists do to evolution; reduce the bar that creationism has to pass to be a science by reducing the scientific process that results in evolutionary theory to "just an opinion, everyone has one." I reject that; atheism isn't just a belief or an opinion arrived at because I was comfortable with it, it's a logical premise. You can refute it on logical grounds, you can throw rhetoric at it, you can throw facts at it. But you cannot defeat it by reducing it to the illogical level of "I believe in God because the Bible tells me so. . . " In what aspect of the statement "there is no god because there is no evidence of a god, nor evidence of a need for god?" do you see a leap of faith?

Re:None v. Atheist

[MaxGrant]

It is true, however, that the "hard" atheist position ("there is NO god") requires faith and is unscientific itself

No, it simply requires some deduction. No evidence exists for the existence of god. No need is demonstrated in any explanation of the universe's workings for the hand of such a being, and finally, the reason people postulate God in the first place is because they invented him in fiction in order to explain that which they originally did not understand. No proof, no need, and no reason. God is an illogical quantity, entirely aside from whether or not I've ever seen any proof. I don't need it, and I don't ask for it, because most of the activities God is alleged to engage in have been explained already by rational and repeatable means. The quite valid assumption is made that eventually we will have explained everything in the "space" that God used to occupy, and there will no longer be even the basic uncertainty to drive theism. This is why, in my opinion, fundamentalists rail so endlessly at evolution, because desribes in concrete terms how life arose on this planet, and is entirely independent of the hand of a fictional God.

The same is true for the afterlife. What is it that makes people imagine their consciousness could survive the death of their body? There's no evidence that your consciousness is anything other than the chemical activity of your brain's neurons, so when the brain stops functioning how can you imagine that this activity will continue? Even if it did, for what possible reason would that be so? You will not have eyes, so you will not be able to see. You will not have ears, so you will not be able to hear. You will not have hands or feet, so you won't be able to move around. Supernatural experiences were first described by people who didn't know how the body worked, so they just assumed that being a "ghost" meant you had ghostly eyes and ghostly ears and ghostly hands and ghostly feet, but the simple fact is we know those things are very fragile mechanisms and we know exactly how they work. What sense does it make to imagine they continue to work, somehow, after the physical components that make them function are destroyed?

Again the entire postulate that there is such a thing lacks evidence, and logical consistency. I certainly don't have to make a leap of faith to understand that when I die, I will lie in a coffin and rot. It's what I've observed. For the same reason I postulate that there is no God in charge of the Universe, or its creation, because there is no need for such a being.

Re:None v. Atheist

[Otto]

I don't see where the confusion lies.

How can you possibly argue that "I do not believe in god" is a statement of faith? It's not, and to me it seems that this is the very definition of atheism, a lack of belief.

Now, the statement "I believe there is no god" is a much stronger position to take. With no real evidence either way, this could be construed as a statement of faith, but I hesitate to call this atheism. It's akin to the "strong atheism" position mentioned earlier.

Re:None v. Atheist

[Otto]

Not at all. The agnostic is eschewing all systems by saying it's unknown and unknowable. He makes no statement about his beliefs other than to say he doesn't know the final answer. This is not the same as a lack of belief in deity. I know many agnostic christians.

Re:None v. Atheist

[nathanh]

None of the 4 possible combinations ar "rediculous", all describe existing, widely held belief systems:

I think they're all ridiculous :-) But I appreciate you listing out the combinations because it's a very clear way of demonstrating the orthogonal nature of Atheism and Agnosticism.

Sadly it seems there are people who read your list and still didn't get it.

Re:None v. Atheist

[nathanh]

www.dictionary.com, use it.

There's no need, because you just did, and you rather succintly proved my point.

The "faith" used when a Christian claims to have "faith in God" is a different definition to the "faith" meant by "belief without proof".

So when people say that Strong Atheists have "faith" just like the Christians have "faith in God" they are changing the meaning of the word halfway through the sentence. The first use of the word means something different to the second use of the word. It's a shyster trick. Something you'd expect a slick slimey salesman to use.

So the Strong Atheist has "belief without proof", just like the first definition you wrote. There's nothing wrong with this though. I "believe I am hungry" isn't something I can prove either. Or "I believe I'm in love". Or "I believe I am scared". Belief isn't something you can make an active positive decision on. It's just something you have. There's no magic switch you can flick to turn off your belief. Sure this is all belief without proof. If you want to take it to the logical extreme, this is faith, but it isn't the same meaning of faith that a Christian means when they take a "leap of faith" or "have faith in God" or "put their faith in Christianity". To trivialise faith like this would make it have no more meaning than common everyday thoughts.

And this is all orthogonal to the issue of whether Atheists in general have faith. I believe that they don't. Perhaps you'd like to call this faith?

A set of principles or beliefs.

Now this is interesting, because this is a third definition that wasn't on dictionary.com. You've just thrown it in at the end. And it's nothing like the previous two definitions that you wrote. What was your purpose here?

Re:None v. Atheist

[nathanh]

To express this another way, there is a more precise name for someone who has no belief in God - and that's "Agnostic". The name for someone who believes there is no God is "Atheist".

I'm afraid not. The Agnostic position makes no posit about their belief or lack of belief in God. It makes a claim about the knowledge that can be gained regarding God's existence. This is pretty clear given that the name has "gnostic" in it. Google search for Huxley Agnostic if you want to know more.

Re:None v. Atheist

[tshak]

No, both require equal faith. First, you are making assumptions based on a limited understanding of religon. I don't care about religon at this point. Yes, there are people who blindly believe what they believe because "mommy and daddy told me so". Just as there are people who believe what they believe becase "Mr. Science teacher told me so".

This has NOTHING to do with arrogant fundamentalists who believe that all are agents of satan if you don't share their same moral beliefs. Please don't confuse the issues because of your implicit passion against "religon". I'm simply stating that either way requires a reasonable amount of faith based on a set of untestable theories.

Re:None v. Atheist

[tshak]

I'm sorry to have made such a blanket statement. Most agnostics I know are lazy because they say, "well, I think there probably is a god but I'm not interested". This is of course, anecdotal evidence and I shouldn't be using it to define all agnostics as I understand that many are trying to seek the truth. I appologize for my reactionary comments.

Re:None v. Atheist

[Reality Master 101]

The file was not found, even after searching on any extensions to the file name. The file does not exist or is read-protected.

Hmmm; weird. I tried it again, and it works for me. I tweaked the link a little; try it again. If that doesn't work, try going to www.newsweek.com, and then click on the big "why do they hate us" graphic. That should take you to the link that I posted, which is http://www.msnbc.com/news/nw-101501issue_front.asp .

Let me know what happens... I'm curious if you still have problems. I'd really like for people to read that Newsweek article. It's a great in-depth analysis of the cultural problems surrounding the Middle East.

Re:None v. Atheist

[Malcontent]

"Just as there are people who believe what they believe becase "Mr. Science teacher told me so". "

Just to be clear.

The VAST majority of the knowledge in your head comes from the fact that someone told you it was true. In your very limited life and travels any knowledge you gained through direct experience is dwarfed by the knowledge you gained from books, tv, radio, internet etc. Do you believe that pluto exists? ever seen it yourself? ever see a picture of it? ever see a video? ever touch it or kick it? ever talk to anybody who has seen it or touched it?

How about bali or bengladesh? ever seen those? How do you know they exist? I tell you how it's because "Mr. Science teacher told you so". That's how humans transmit knowledge from one generation to another and from one human to another. It's this fact which separates us from the animals by and large.

Also not beliving in god requires no faith. None at all. Not beliving in something is the opposite of faith because faith involved beliving in something.

Mmmm. Jedi.

[Kreeblah]

Does this "religion" at all involve paying for the same "holy text" over and over again, in varying "special release" formats?

Re:*hehe*

[ackthpt]

Darth Vader, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name...

All it takes is a following and some faith....

[suso]

2000 years ago a group of people believed in a man called Jesus Christ. And now an enormous amount of our society is based around his sacrifice.

2000 years from now, perhaps the world will pray to a man named Luke Skywalker???

Re:All it takes is a following and some faith....

[biglig2]

Perhaps a better comparison would be between St Paul and Luke, actually.

I wanna know why no-one put down Sith! Come on in, the dark side's lovely!

Re:All it takes is a following and some faith....

[ryanvm]

2000 years from now, perhaps the world will pray to a man named Luke Skywalker???

I think seeing a DVD of just how much of a homo Mark Hamill is would pretty much dash any chance of that.

Re:All it takes is a following and some faith....

[NonSequor]

It should be habes. Hebes means "you are blunt" or "you are dull." Neither of those meanings fit in with nimium eruditionis, and besides, it's intransitive.

Makes you wonder...

[kypper]

Is our bible written as such: "Saul begot Jim... yes... mmmm-hmm.... Help him he could... yes..."

Re:And governments need this type of info because.

[Wolfier]

Donation allocation, maybe?

ThIs LiNe Is HeRe To ByPaSs FiLtEr

Anti-DMCA possibilities here

[heretic108]

Thinking along the lines of the Rastafarians who (in some places) have gained the ability to smoke pot legally as a 'religious sacrament'....

How about forming a new religion, dedicated to interpreting the holy scripture as given by the Great Kernel to humankind through /dev/random, and concealed in the Mysteries of the Digits of PI.

Amongst the religious edicts would be:
1) Any and all binary data may contain manifestations of the Lord Kernel. Therefore, followers are instructed to decode any and all binary data they get their hands on, and apply technical skills to defeat all encryption inherent in such data/code (including copy-protection barriers).
2) All followers must celebrate the Lord Kernel's holy abundance by freely sharing any data and code which they feel personally moved to make available.
3) The Lord Kernel's abundance takes precedence over any human notions of intellectual property
4) Members of the Church of the Great Kernel may transform their data in any way before transmission to other Members.

This way, the DMCA, SSSCA, ATA etc can be ruled unconstitutional as they interfere with religious practice.

Jedi Knight religion in the UK...

[Spootnik]

I guess after the very sexy 70's those in the UK needed a reason to stop getting laid...

Re:And governments need this type of info because.

[Ho-Lee-Cow!]

Actually, if you get enough of a population of something located in an area, what they are and their needs become important. Heavily Jewish areas of the US, for instance, often have vast influence over the local school schedules, since many of the kids aren't in school on those days.

What this means is that in the UK, should they amass enough Jedi Knights, that they will possibly have to make special considerations for facilities and transportation. Very serious stuff indeed.

*SMIRK*

When will Linux be a religion ?

[Billly Gates]

I had to say it. The sad thing is that it probably is for many people reading this post.

I bet after a few years of linux being declared an official religion, RMS will form the bGNULinux protestant movement agaisn't the mainstream linux church. :-)

You know Linus would cool with those pope hats. Especially at trade shows.

Re:When will Linux be a religion ?

[HuskyDog]

Well, I did enter "Linux" as my religion, but somehow it didn't get onto the list :-(.

Presumably we can conclude from this that significantly more people entered Jedi than Linux and that a religion has to reach a certain threshold before being listed. Does anyone know what that level might be?

It is quite evident to me that Linux is a religion, since we have a diety (Linus), a holy book (kernel source), rituals (re-compiling the kernel) and wars (KDE/Gnome).

The article admits that

[Ghoser777]

"As such, Jedi Knight is not officially recognised as a religion."

For whatever reason, the article starts off with the complete opposite statement. The point is that a lot of people are putting down Jedi for their religion because they want to mess with the British government. I can't believe this got posted on slashdot.

F-bacher

Re:The article admits that

[Rogerborg]

• point is that a lot of people are putting down Jedi for their religion because they want to mess with the British government. I can't believe this got posted on slashdot.

It's highly relevant under YRO (as this data is held on puters and used by a whole raft of government and quasi-government bodies). Britain leads the US in invasions of privacy and fucked up tech laws (we've had a DMCA since 1988). Anything that happens regarding privacy/censorship/state control in the UK is a good indicator of future behaviour in the US.

Sure, this time around the religion question is voluntary. But by not answering it, all you demonstrate is apathy. By giving a bullshit answer, you send a clear signal that you actively object to it.

The UK census start with the bold statement that (approximate quote) "This data is anonymous, will be used for statistical purposes only, and will not be used to identify you." Then the first question demands to know your name. Do they need to know the statistic of how many people have my name? I don't think so. The presumption is that I will lie on the census, and they need to know who I am so that they can prove this and punish me.

Go ahead and trot out the usual response of "it won't be used against you, stop bitching". If it's not going to be used, then why demand to know it? What purpose does knowing my name serve, other than to identify and punish? I'm not saying that it will be used, but if that's the case, then don't ask.

Similarly, I had to disclose who I work for and where I work. Exactly, not approximately. If this is being used only for traffic planning, why demand to know exactly this? Again, it's probably benign, but it's more information than is needed for the stated purposes.

For these reasons and more, I thoroughly enjoyed fucking with my census. The questions asked do not tally with the reasons given for asking them. I don't enjoy being fed bullshit or treated like an idiot, and so will take every possible opportunity to protest these censii by whatever means I have available. (Yes, I write to my representative regularly, politely and constructively, and just as regularly fail to get any response).

Re:The article admits that

[brigmar]

Of course, once you've put your religion down as Jedi, all other questions can be answered with:

"This is not the information you are looking for"

Re:The article admits that

[bungalow]

Sure, this time around the religion question is voluntary. But by not answering it, all you demonstrate is apathy. By giving a bullshit answer, you send a clear signal that you actively object to it.

Fine. Answer in a way that does demonstrate your active objection to the query. Some suggestions, to get you started:

• I actively object to this question
• noyb
• Seperate church and state

I know, this doctorine may not be as ingrained in UK as it is here. But it isn't as ingrained here as some might like either. That's why you (theoretically) are objecting in the first place.

Get one of THOSE listed on the census form, and see who "votes" for it or accepts it as their religiouis view, then you've made a statement.

Re:The article admits that

[Rogerborg]

• We might have a 'no copy-protection circumvention devices' rule, but it's never enforced

Whoa there! Bad laws shouldn't be excused just because they lie around unused for a while. This law can be viewed as benign only in the past tense, after it's been removed from the books. Until then, it's just another folly weakening our legal system.

Re:The article admits that

[Rogerborg]

• it's probably a good idea that lying on the census (about significant things, like how many people there are in your household) should be illegal and punishable by fine

Why? It's clearly explained that statistical information is collected to facilitate planning public services. I accept and agree with that, and am happy to volunteer this information and anything else that helps to make everyone's life easier. Heck, I don't even really object to giving detailed information and identifying myself.

What I specifically object to is being lied to about it. The census clearly states that it collects only statistics, but then it obliges me to provide identifiable information, and personally to certify that this information correct, under penalty of law.

By threatening and quantifying punishment for providing misinformation, the message is clear: we can check this information. Probably it never will be checked, but it's the threat of action that gives the lie to the claim of statistical use only. That's quite apart from the distasteful presumption of guilt, and the strange consequence that if this information can be checked, then the census form is extraneous and needn't be completed!

A census absolutely relies on the goodwill of the people. You can threaten dire consequences all you want, but you'll just encourage people to question your motives, and to provide the answers that they think you want to see.

Re:The article admits that

[Belgand]

Actually the statistics of how many people have a given name is rather interesting and can actually be somewhat useful in a historical sense. Anyone in the SCA knows the usefulness of census data that incorporates names as it gives you the ability to ascertain when a particular name came into common usage. While the government might not exactly have this in mind, it is a valid piece of data.

All joking aside --

[Jace of Fuse!]

The Jedi religion does in fact have many stated ideas that aren't too far from "real" religions, so who is to say that one can not actually proclaim themselves Jedi followers?

The question is a whole lot like asking "Is Discordianism Real?"

Any Discordian will tell you with absolute uncertainty that it probably isn't unreal. But just because the Discordian religion probably appeared first in a fictional novel doesn't mean that the beliefs are not valid, even if a bit loony.

I say if someone wants to be a Jedi, so be it. They have every bit as much a right to create miracles as any Christian, Jew, or Muslim. In fact, they're probably just as good at it!

Hail Eris! fnord

Re:All joking aside --

[Ho-Lee-Cow!]

But just because the Discordian religion probably appeared first in a fictional novel doesn't mean that the beliefs are not valid, even if a bit loony.

Discordia was actually worshipped in Rome. This was the source of a lot of angst in the Empire, since they were uptight about a lot of things, and especially people religiously inclined to buck the system.

The Greeks were much more laid back about the whole deal, so Eris herself enjoyed little to no known worshippers. Well, at least not that anyone would admit to seeing.

Re:All joking aside --

[alienmole]

Hail Eris! fnord

Hey, I saw that! Fnord... Am I supposed to to something now? :)

You saw what? fnord I'm afraid you must be mistaken...

Re:All joking aside --

[csbruce]

But just because the Discordian religion probably appeared first in a fictional novel doesn't mean that the beliefs are not valid, even if a bit loony.

And this differs from Christianity how...?

Re:All joking aside --

[BlueLines]

there is no fnord illuminati.

sincerely,

the illuminati

Census==outrageous

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

In theory, governments need to know where you live and what you do (and a couple of other things) to adjust the taxation system and to distribute aids more fairly, amongst other things. However, I bet many people fail to understand why the government needs to know their faith (unless some major Churches are subsidized by the state, but I don't know if that's the case in the UK). They can even be offended by some questions in the census form, like the racist piece of work the 2000 US census was.

So frankly I'm not too surprised that people answer bullshit when they see such questions : many of the people who answered "Jedi Knight" at the religious affiliation question probably felt the government had no business knowing it, and maybe the answer was in fact a way for these people to express their disapproval.

Re:And governments need this type of info because.

[ugliness]

From the Australian Bureau of Statistics...

Main purpose of the religion question

The religion question is included in the census as religious organisations are the biggest providers of services, outside of government, in a number of areas such as schooling, health services, aged care services, and community support facilities. The question is not designed to measure the degree of participation in particular religions and philosophies.

Rather, as many people access services in accord with their nominal religious affiliation, the statistics are highly useful for planning these services (eg many Catholics who do not actively participate in their religion send their children to Catholic schools). The religion question has been optional in all Australian censuses; this follows from a requirement in the Australian Constitution.

Questions for the many knights out there

[Alpha State]

Wouldn't the religion be just "Jedi"?

Does this cover the dark side of the force as well?

Can you be of the Jedi religion without being a knight?

What's the official Jedi position on abortion, contraception and religious killing?

How do you make those lightsabers anyway?

Sith lords

[Rebelli0n]

I wonder how many clever people put down Sith instead, and if the ppl at the home office understood it (or just ticked the seikh box).

Great!

[Black Parrot]

Does that mean we can buy the Sacred Action Figures tax-free now?

So where is Time Cube?

[Nathdot]

Looking at the census list of religions it would seem just about every permutation of praise gets a mention...

So where is Time Cube? It's a perfectly valid religious choice?

I thought four corner truth was ineffable. Could it be that Census is just another Evil Word Institution trying to suppress Gene Ray's beautious vision...

Let's all pull together and make time cube number 900 on the list come the next census

And the new religion's first dogma should be...

[gregwbrooks]

... the Immaculate Misconception: Believing that Jar-Jar Binks was a good idea. Ever.

I remember this

[Alien54]

The census earlier this year in NZ, had a similar story.

And the Gobernment was making alot of big noises bout arresting the people, etc. I wonder what happened there?

This is the link for the earlier story in the UK:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/18203 .html

But they haven't finished discussing what sort of reports to print out from the data. Which is a typical problem.

Re:I remember this

[Old Wolf]

The collector never came to get my forms. They're still sitting on my floor (with "Jedi" proudly written on some of them)

Purists might object?

[mrbkap]

It occurs to me that purist Star Wars fans might object to other humans calling themselves Jedi Knights. A Jedi Knight implies that the person has mastery of The Force, an as-of-yet non-existant force-field around (and through) everything and everybody. Nobody has been able to even sense this on Earth, much less control it. Therefore, by Star Wars standards, nobody can be one.

On the other hand, it is also an interesting concept in the fact that a Jedi is also completely calm, and in tune with his/her environment. By this definition, it might do some people good to attempt to be calm and in tune; they might be able to think their way more clearly, and act on less rash thoughts. If they define themselves this way, then it might not offend as many people. I believe that some people will still be irked by someone calling themself a Jedi Knight.

Just my $0.02 worth

Re:Purists might object?

[Dolly_Llama]

The Force, an as-of-yet non-existant force-field around

You mean no longer existant, right? As in long, long ago?

Or maybe the force is a radiated field dependent on distance from the source? As in far, far away?

Re:Mmmm. Jedi.

[Tim Macinta]

Does this "religion" at all involve paying for the same "holy text" over and over again, in varying "special release" formats?

No, that would be Scientology.

I actually sibmitted this story yesterday...

[Scrameustache]

And I find that the most interresting aspect of the whole thing is that it says something about culture, when something totally made up from a 23 year old movie shows up in a national census.

Exactly what it says is up to debate, but the statement is the real message. I doupt that the people who awnsered Jedi when asked aout their religion actually meant that they believe in an invisible force created by life that can be used to do magic.

I wonder how it feels to know you're the one that started all of this in the first place.

Re:I actually sibmitted this story yesterday...

[aozilla]

I doupt that the people who awnsered Jedi when asked aout their religion actually meant that they believe in an invisible force created by life that can be used to do magic.

I doubt that most of the people who answered Chritstian actually meant that they believe in a sometimes visible force created by God (for those Catholics and other trinity-believers, is God), that can be used to do "magic", i.e., the holy spirit.

Jedi as a real religion... at least in the US.

[veddermatic]

They would have to apply for and get tax-exempt status... which is really, really easy to do.

So, let's assume that this has been done in the UK... again, I don't know the laws there, so I am most likely talking out my buttocks, but.... This brings up two issues.

1) What is RELIGION? If enough people believe (or at least say they do on a form) is it a religion? It has to be, since all the "major" ones have the same burden of proof... "our book says we are the right one, therefore we are." Honestly, the Hindi, Christian, Asartu, whatever "creation" mythos and scriptures, and "otherworldly" places, people, etc. and so on all have the same logical proof (you can't prove OR disprove any of them) and so how do you define religion as a "belief system"? You can't, as none of them are "provable".

2) Who cares what religion you are? The "official" religion of England was created because one man wanted a divorce, yes? Does filling the form out "wrong" (claiming to be a Jedi) get you free stuff, a tax break, or a chicken in every pot? If not, who the hell cares?

The Church of Lucas...

[Arkoth]

An offical religion. Now we can see different churches of Lucas start popping up all over the UK. Imperial Church of Lucas, Rebel Church of Lucas, and a mercenary Church of Lucas etc.

I could see it now...George's body is created out of stone and displayed infront of the large church in shape of the imperial palace. The church bells sing the opening sequence to the movies at each mass. The large wooden church doors have the Lucasarts logo set in stone, inside the church is a large hall filled with flags fitting for the type of Church Lucas, people dressed up as the crimson guard protect the doors and keep order. Each chair holds a Holy book of Lucas praising Star Wars, and answers to Star Wars questions. After each mass a CCG and Star Wars convention breaks out allowing eachother to trade and share Holy Lucas items with one another.

Schedule for Church of Lucas:
Mondays: 12pm-12am Episode I-II-III worship.
Tuesdays: 5pm-10pm Episode IV worship.
Wednesdays:10am-3pm Episode V worship
Thursdays: 2pm-7pm Episode VI worship.
Fridays: 7pm-12am Lucas Worship, Star Wars Paintbattles (re-enacting the battles)
Saturdays: 8am-1pm Lucas Trivia, and book discussion.
Sundays: 6am-8am, 8:15am-10:15am, 10:30am-12:30pm Holy Lord of Lucas (Mace Windu type) delievers mass to it's worshippers.

Each church has several rooms dedicated to:

1.Playing the Star Wars Games (Jedi Knight, X-wing vs. Tie fighter, Rebellion, Star Wars Galaxies, and Galactic Battlegrounds)with state of the art Computer machines along with a T3 bandwith line with multiple redunancies with large internet providers in the UK. To guarntee you the follower isn't interrupted in your practices.

2.Mos Eisley look alike cantina for relaxation.

3.Dueling room to practice those lightsaber skills, and grow your knowledge with the force.

4. Hotel skyrise for followers to remain on the grounds of the Church.

Oh yes..I could see this as a possibility of becoming reality now that the UK Recognizes Jedi Knights as a religion.

Re:The Church of Lucas...

[sharkey]

Just wait until John Calvin Skywalker is born, and takes a stand against the straying Imperial Church. I bet he'll nail a list of which lines from The Phantom Menace contradict the facts as presented in the font-spring of all things Jedi, the original Star Wars Trilogy, not the Special Editions, to the door of Industrial Light and Magic.

Some religion based on fiction and other lies...

[Robber Baron]

Didn't Al Bundy do a similar thing when he started the "church of No, Ma'am"?

All kidding aside, these people don't seriously think they can start a religion based on science fiction, can they? Oh, wait a minute...

Is it a religion at all?

[CaseyB]

I don't think it really qualifies as a religion at all. It's simply a collection of people who study and practice a particular set of skills.

What is the "faith" of the religion? It all seems pretty self-evident to me, requiring no faith at all. The force is (in the context of the movies) an entirely real, scientifically provable phenomena, right down to the disappointingly biological midichlorians introduced in Episode One.

I don't recall the question of God ever being brought up in the movies. Is "Jedi" ever referred to in the movies explicitly as a religion?

Re:Is it a religion at all?

[Fixer]

I don't recall the question of God ever being brought up in the movies. Is "Jedi" ever referred to in the movies explicitly as a religion?

Yes.

In the first released film (A New Hope), Han Solo goes on a bit of rant about it, giving a line about "Ancient weapons and spooky religions are no match for a good blaster at your side" or something very close to that.

Re:Is it a religion at all?

[gorilla]

Also Moff Tarkin dismisses Vader's fears about the Jedi by saying "You're all that remains of that ancient religion"

Internesting law..

[T.Hobbes]

What would be the consequences of, with regard to the seperation of church and state, of this if you wrote in 'politics' as your religion?

lucas never claimed to be L. Ron Hubbard...

[motherhead]

Why not just scrawl in samuri, since kurosawa ( Kurosawa's historical spectacle The Hidden Fortress was credited
by Lucas as an important source for Star Wars) influanced to much of lucas's stuff.

I don't believe george ever said he was building a religion, just some good entertainment.

Strong/Weak/Agnostic

[Bugmaster]

Actually, the more correct division (according to infidels.org and my long-forgotten philosophy classes) is as follows:

• Strong Atheist: You take a definite position that there is no God, thus maiking a statement of faith.
• Weak Atheist: you acknowledge the possibility that God exist, but believe that the likelihood of this is too low to be taken seriously
• Agnostic - Unlike the Weak Atheist, you believe that the existance or nonexistance of God cannot even be estimated, but that's ok, since it doesn't matter anyway.

Oh the three positions, Weak Atheism is probably the most intellectually honest one. Strong Atheism is hypocritical, and Agnosticism seems more of a cop-out than a philosophical standpoint.

Re:Strong/Weak/Agnostic

[efuseekay]

Disagree. You are assuming that agnostics is making the "inability to prove god's existence" as a statement of faith. That's not true.

Agnostics have decided that it is not worth pursuing the idea of God after evaluating current evidence for it. If new evidence turns up, then agnostics are more than happy to reevaluate the situation.

And to agnostics, it does matter whether God exists or not. Basically, agnostics are people who "haven't figure it out yet". Maybe they are lazy, but there are some who have put a lot of thought into it but come up empty because there is not enough evidence.

That's not a cop-out by any means. And in my opinion (which everybody is allowed to disagree with of course), that's the most intellectually honest since it considers the evidence.

Re:Strong/Weak/Agnostic

[Reality Master 101]

And you're quite right: not all agnostics are "strict" agnostics: claiming that knowledge of god is impossible. This position is the one I find most nonsensical of all, since it claims to know a characteristic (unknowability) of a being which it claims one cannot know the characteristics of!

That is my personal view (and definition): that the nature of God is unknowable. It's the only characteristic that we can know, similiar to the fact that "I AM" is the only definite knowledge. But it's relatively easy to prove that the nature of God is unknowable. If we did have "proof" of God (let's say the Judeo-Christian God), how do we know that it's the "real" God? How do we know that it's not a God fooling us? Maybe it's simply an alien. Maybe the whole world is just a computer simulation and we are AI's running in a lab experiment, and they decided to send God down to see what happens.

Since you can always add another "shell" around God, therefore the existence and nature is unknowable.

Re:Strong/Weak/Agnostic

[Reality Master 101]

Of course, by this argument, the existence and nature of anything is unknowable. Substitute "my mom", "slashdot", or "Osama bin Laden" for "God" in the above post and it remains just as true.

Ultimately, yes, everything is unknowable except your own existence. But there is a difference between knowledge of Slashdot and knowledge of God. Most day to day knowledge is knowledge about subjective reality, that is, the reality that we assume based on our senses. That is the grand assumption that makes living day to day possible.

God is a different deal. God is dealing with objective reality, that is, what's really going on, rather than just what we assume is going on. When you start trying to discover what's really going on, then you are attempting to go beyond what is or isn't being fed into your senses, and thus are trapped having to deal with the fact that everything is ultimately unknowable.

Re:Strong/Weak/Agnostic

[Reality Master 101]

It's sheer nonsense for the only known characteristic of a thing to be that it is entirely unknown. If that's the only characteristic you have, you are essentially just as easily talking about an "unie" or any totally other undefined term.

Well, the nature of the definition of the word "God" is pretty slippery. I'm using the word as its generally accepted in the Judeo-Christian sense of "that intelligence which created the universe" or "that intelligence which runs the universe". In other words, was the universe created by a self-aware, intelligent entity, or was the universe made by "natural" processes? I think this definition covers what most people think of when they think of God; i.e., the clockmaker God.

That's the first fundamental question, and then the further questions are, if there is a self-aware, intelligent being behind the universe, what is the nature of that being? Is "God" really just a bunch of programmers running an AI simulation? That scenerio would fit the image of an all-powerful, all-knowing God.

Sure, you could just define "God" as "that process, natural or otherwise, that created the universe", but that wouldn't be very interesting. :)

So my point is that the question of whether there is a self-aware, intelligent being behind the universe is unknowable, because we are limited by our senses to the subjective reality of the universe. It seems to me that to "prove" God, you would have to be able to exist in the same place as God and look down on our subjective reality, like an AI in a computer program being able to "leave" the program and enter our world, and view the program he left. By being able to sense his own universe from beyond it, that would give him the perspective to know the nature of it.

Does it make sense that we can't ultimately know objective truth while we live inside that which we are trying to analyze? I can see the logic, but it's hard to describe in this Slashdot post. :)

Now, it's possible that after we die, we may get that "ultimate proof", as described by the Judeo-Christian faiths. In that sense, I suppose it's possible that it's "knowable". But given our current senses, and our limitations imposed by subjective reality, I don't think that the question of the existence of God is knowable.

The mother of false religions:

[pschmied]

I think that Kurt Vonnegut spelled out religion at its finest in his novel Cat's Cradle.

The beginning of the book of Bokonon states, "All of the true things I am about to tell you are shameless lies."

Seemingly a barb at the falsity of religion there is more than a little wisdom in his caution to not write off religion entirely. "Anyone unable to understand how a useful religion can be founded on lies will not understand this book either," writes Bokonon.

So, go my children and practice a religion, so long as it does good. Don't sweat the minor details (like the religion's veracity).

Ofcourse, I'll always hold a special place in my heart for Slak.

-Peter

No, not religion

[kenneth_martens]

I've seen the Star Wars movies, and read a great number of the "expanded universe" books. Although there are some inconsistencies in the details as presented by different authors, the best I can make out is that using the Force and being a Jedi Knight is not a religion; it is more like a philosophy or a profession. The Force is simply there to be used--it is not some sort of God to be worshipped. So you could be a Jedi Knight, use the Force, and be a devout .

Of course, I could be entirely wrong.

Hello. . . Fourth alternative anybody?

[Fantastic Lad]

This particular debate is hilarious!

It demonstrates with great clarity, (provided one is able to pull back from their damned tunnel vision first of all), just how bloody Christ-centric most of the world is. -By this, I mean, everybody wants to put everybody else in one of those three stupid little boxes; Atheist, Agnostic, or None; people, I find, tend to stutter like the brain damaged when you tell them that their little score card is a conceited piece of shit.

For instance:

What if you happen to be Native American Indian? That is, you believe in the spirits of the Earth, Water and Air, believe in magic and spiritualism and such, but have absolutely no use for a foul-tempered bearded man in the sky with a 'good' book.

"Atheist", while etymologically accurate in describing you, is too strong because while it means one doesn't believe in God, in a colloquial sense it firmly suggests that one also has no belief whatsoever in the spiritual realm, which would be a total misrepresentation.

"Agnostic"; The wait and seer's wonder-word, doesn't apply either, because the Native American isn't waiting to see anything; s/he is actively pursuing another religious system altogether, one which doesn't have a God, (graven or otherwise), and thus doesn't give a hoot one way or another about the self-important Christian Million Dollar Question.

And "None" is just, well. . , nice life. Hope Hollywood and Sony Entertainment are able to fill all the gaps in your heart; the things of man get pretty dry after a while. --The new season of Buffy certainly doesn't have the zing it used to. . . (Pardon my Soap Box here, but living a 'None' life appears to take a lot of medication (drugs, alcohol,), and mis-direction, (Hollywood, Games, War, going to work, kayaking like those guys in the cigarette ads, hunting for sex and love, and generally doing all the average-life things to distract yourself from the over-arching back ground noise of gnawing emptiness), and my favorite, over-rationalization, (Shit! Did I just see a unicorn? Why the hell does Asian Astrology work? How can this place be haunted? Why can a 60 year old Chinese guy punch through inch-thick steel plate that I can't even dent with a freaking sledge hammer? Why can I see auras? And Who is this Castaneda guy anyway? -Oh wait. . . That's right. I keep forgetting; It's that pesky swamp gas again! Ho ho!)

Gotta love that swamp gas!

-Fantastic Lad

Learn from the prostitutes

[DaSyonic]

Things like this don't work. A while back, some woman decided to start a church for her bordello ('whore house') in which the 'followers' would enter the 'temple' and perform 'religous services' and upon leaving, would leave 'a charitable religous donation'. Obviously, it got shot down, and they spent some time in jail if I recall.

You can not create a religion that violates the law without a lot of precedent. For example, a group of Indians, I dont recall the tribe, but they are the only group who may use peyote legally. Why? It's their religion, and they've been doing it for hundreds of years. If you had been doing this for many years before the DMCA, and all these laws, you might stand a chance. Otherwise, better just spend your time writing your local representatives.

Re:Learn from the prostitutes

[sharkey]

Well, yeah. Xenu was here 75 million years ago, remember. There's an old, old precedent right there.

Operation Clambake has more information, including info on Xenu.

Re:Learn from the prostitutes

[TGK]

Augh... I remember something about this. Isn't that a nicotene solution in water?

Re:Learn from the prostitutes

[kettch]

I seem to recall that some of the ancient worshipers of a god called Baal believed that every winter, Baal went comatose, and the only way to wake him and his girlfriend up in the spring for the growing season was to go to the temple and have massive orgies. Not that i care, but there's a precedent.

The meaning of life

[Glytch]

Calvin: Why do you suppose we're here?
Hobbes: Because we walked here.
Calvin: No, no, I mean here on Earth.
Hobbes: Because Earth can support life.
Calvin: No, I mean why are we anywhere? Why do we exist?
Hobbes: Because we were born.
Calvin (angry): Forget it.
Hobbes (angry): I will, thank you.

Re:Hello. . . Fourth alternative anybody?

[efuseekay]

Excellent post.

These are after all semantics. But one have to rely on them once in a while : especially when describing oneself to somebody who is impatient and only understand two possibilities "Are you or are you Not?"

I generally call myself an agnostic (which usually means I have to end up defining to most people what that means).

But the Truth is more than just that Million Dollar Question. And a lot more interesting.

If you are a patient one, then I am :

(a) unable to decide on the existence of Judeo-Christeo-type God due to lack of evidence
(b) unable to decide on viability of Buddhism as a world-view until the buddhists agree among themselves what it constitute to be one
(c) think New Age Religion is crap
(d) hunt for sex and love (mostly the former)
(e) think Buffy is hot, but the show is blah
(f) agree that Unicorn horns are good items to have, but don't kill the white ones
(g) think Bruce Lee rocks, Jackie Chan rolls
(h) agree that Native Americans have a intresting world view : especially their funny dilineation of what it means to be "nearest kin" but mostly think that their Element worship is misguided superstition
(i) which also means that I think superstition, magicks, seances, spiritualism, etc is all baloney (unless shown repeatable/testable proof of course)
(j) loves swamp gas too

Anything's possible..

[Danse]

If Hubbard can make up some crap and get people to follow it, I believe people will follow damn near any bunch of hogwash you offer them. And his stuff was REALLY off the wall.

Re:Anything's possible..

[bungalow]

If Hubbard can make up some crap and get people to follow it, I believe people will follow damn near any bunch of hogwash you offer them. And his stuff was REALLY off the wall.

So according to your argument:

A = Hubbard can invent a false religion
B = people follow it
C = a "correct" religion exists

if A then B
if C then B
not A
B or not B

Therefore not C?

What kind of logic is that? I'm not saying that my religious views are 100% logical, but if you are going to attack them on a "logical" basis, then at least do me the respect of using intelligent logic.

Re:Anything's possible..

[Danse]

I have no idea where you got C from. Certainly not from my post.

Church and State in the UK

[rjh]

unless some major Churches are subsidized by the state, but I don't know if that's the case in the UK

Given that the monarch of England is also the head of the Anglican Church, aka the Church of England, it's a fairly good bet that some major churches in the UK enjoy very strong government ties, to put it mildly.

Re:Church and State in the UK

[Paul Johnson]

Yup. The Anglican bishops sit in the House of Lords (the unelected upper house we have here). They are the "Lords Spiritual" rather than the "Lords Temporal". ISTR that there is also an allocation for Catholics and Jews, and the Muslims are demanding parity.

The idea of Yoda sitting on the Front Bench is a little startling though. "Hmmm. Make my maiden speech I will".

Paul.

Mormons vs. Jedi's

[Ukab the Great]

When a Jedi comes knocking door at my at 11AM to give me a pamphlet and ask me if I've ever used the force, I think I'm going to take them a lot more seriously. That lightsaber really stings!

Re:Mormons vs. Jedi's

[sharkey]

Now you can preach to the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses: Convert them to the Light Side of the Force.

Re:Mormons vs. Jedi's

[sharkey]

Yeah, we wouldn't want them on the fattening side of the Force.

Well, if they were, they might drop dead of cardiac problems BEFORE they got to my house. Every cloud has a silver lining.

Prosecution

[riggwelter]

Noone's going to get prosecuted, the census form makes it clear that the religion question is exempt from the requirement to be truthful.

The Jedi's Prayer

[circletimessquare]

Luke, I am your Father who art in Dagobah,
Obi-Wan be thy name,
thy Rebel Alliance come,
thy Force be done,
on Endor, as it is on Hoth,
give us this Pod Race,
our Jedi Temple,
and forgive us for forgetting about the Sith,
as we forgive those,
who let the batteries die in their lightsabers
and lead us not into the Empire,
but deliver us from Darth Vader.
Amen... hmmm... Strong is the force in this one... yes...

;-P

None vs. Agnostic

[evilandi]

Reality Master 101 Agnostic: You take the position that the existence of God is not knowable. This IMO is the most intellectually honest position.

No, an Agnostic is someone who takes the position that the existence of god(s) is irrelevent. I'm a millitant agnostic evangelist myself (although I put down Jedi Knight on the census to make a point- that asking a non-provable question on a census is a waste of time).

Think about it. All the useful bits of religion are actually morality and philosophy- "stealing is bad, being nice is good". All the useless bits are the theology and myths- "god is a bull with wings, god created Earth out of nothing" etc.

Agnostics know that you can keep the morals and the philosophy whilst ditching all the fluff about magical beings and supernatural forces.

For instance, I think that stealing (as in beer) is wrong because it is detrimental to individuals and to society as a whole. I don't need fear or love of a magical being to re-inforce that understanding.

Suppose the existence or non-existence of god(s) were finally, definitively proven.

If a god was known to exist, would that mean you would suddenly stop stealing? Of course not, because you didn't steal anyway because you already knew it was bad, for other reasons.

If gods were known not to exist, would that mean you would suddenlty start stealing? Again, of course not. You don't steal because you know it's wrong for other reasons, not because you have some fear or love of a god.

Therefore we have proven that the existence of gods is irrelevent.

Agnosticism has always made the......

[Schwarzchild]

most sense to me. I was an atheist until I found out about agnosticism and then switched because logically being an agnostic makes more sense than being an atheist. After all, as an agnostic you do take the position that you do not know whether there is or is not a god. This leaves you the opportunity to believe in a god if such evidence where to present itself.

Btw, there are atheists that are almost as fanatical about Atheism as there are muslims who are fanatical about Islam except that the Atheists are against religion.

Re:And governments need this type of info because.

[Xilman]

Maybe this is why everyone puts down "Jedi Knight" - no one cares.

I put down Jedi because I did care. I thought the question irrelevant and impertinent.

I very, very, nearly wrote in Frisbeetarian.

Paul

Principia Discordia, not Illuminatus

[TimFreeman]

But just because the Discordian religion probably appeared first in a fictional novel...

Discordianism probably appeared first in the Principia Discordia, which is too disorganized to be called a novel.

Re:Jedi as a real religion

[feorag]

"Who cares what religion you are? The "official" religion of England was created because one man wanted a divorce, yes? Does filling the form out "wrong" (claiming to be a Jedi) get you free stuff, a tax break, or a chicken in every pot? If not, who the hell cares?"

It could get very interesting in the next few weeks as the government plans to bring in laws against religious hatred. Don't ask me why, but I thought arson and assault were already illegal.

The government is going to have a fun time implementing such a law, especially when the first cases come to court and questions about what a religion is are asked. The census data demonstrates that religious belief (and even lack thereof) is remarkably diverse. While inclusion on the list of 'religions' doesn't indicate anything other than enough people wrote it in to be worth allocating it a number (to help the data entry people), it could be considered descriptive--this is what people in the UK think religion is.

Re:Mmmm. Jedi.

[ShavenYak]

The admission price is lower, for now. Remember, at one time L. Ron was just a bad sci-fi writer too. It's not unimaginable that Lucas might see the Jedi religion as a huge money-maker. Then again, he seems to have already made plenty; L. Ron complained about writing not being lucrative enough before founding $cientology.

You can't get fined, but...

[gill]

This could be the start of something else terrible...

From a followup article about a month later in the same magazine:

"Neither have the Obi-wan Kenobi wannabes thought through the possible
downsides to their plan. What happens if 10,000 Darth Vaders declare themselves
for the 'Dark Side'? Would it be possible for the two churches to live together in
harmony? No chance. It's only a matter of time before some unrepentent Luke
Skywalker ends up tied to a stake on the village green with Darth Maul lighting a
bunch of faggots under him."

Please, use the force carefully regardless of your luminescent or sexual preference.

Reported in major British news media:

[thejake316]

Census Officer: What's all this then? You've put down bleedin' "Jedi Knight" as religion, you bloody well can't do that. I could give you a whopping big fine for that. Let's see some flippin' identification, mate, or it's off to clink for you faster than you can say "Bob's your uncle."
Jedi: You don't need to see my identification.
Officer: I don't need to see your identification.
Jedi: You can't fine me for anything.
Officer: I can't fine you for anything.
Jedi: I can go about my business.
Officer: You can go about your business.
Jedi: Move along.
Officer: Move along. Move along now.

Re:Its a good alternative for Aetheists . . .

[SuiteSisterMary]

Actually, I always thought that Lucas just didn't know how to pronounce 'Mitochondria.'

Long Term Play - but worth it?

[squaretorus]

I would think that if I could give strong evidence that my great grandparents believed in a 'religion' which had been consistently expressed during the past 100ish years I could swing 'official' status even without an ethnicity / old god / holy weed to wave around.
That the key practices of the religion had been suppressed by the government during that 100 years shouldn't prevent them being applicable once official status has been gained.
The question is - what do we call this religion? And what are its core beliefs?
How about slashdot and freedom. Simple. The key practices of the followers is to share what they have with other followers - slashdotters are as one!
Lets do it people - in 2121 they'll make documentaries about us and our insightfulness! interestingness! and funnyness! and thank us for eliminating redundant comments from the world! ;-)

Discordianism still based on real religions

[coyote-san]

Discordianism might have been a joke, but it has a lot in common (and perhaps was even based on) real religions.

Ever hear of Coyote?

Or Raven?

Or Erdu?

Or Loki?

Or Lucifer, in his early days?

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that all polytheistic religions contain a Trickster. Despite a few thousand years of Christian propaganda, they aren't "evil" or "destructive," just embracing of the unpredictable, of the wild. This is only a problem if you're a control freak (*cough* Leviticus *cough*).

I believe this is also why Discordianism before, and Trickster religions today (e.g., "Coyote Zen") are so popular among techies, even if we can't agree on definitions. Our working lives have to be extraordinarily controlled, so it's only natural that we're attracted to something that introduces some healthy unpredictability into our lives. Contrawise, people who have extremely chaotic lives are attracted to the highly regimented "everything has a rule" religions and cults.

On the larger issue, in the US there's the concept of the "Jeffersonian Cult of One." A religion does not require recognition from the government, does not require a minimum number of followers, etc., all it takes is ONE person who honestly believes in its tenets. Historically, like the "free exercise of religion" clause the religion still had to based on Christianity, but recently pretty much anything goes, provided you don't break (most) civil laws. But some civil laws can be broken, e.g., a recent case involved a local city that restricted the number of cars that could be parked on a city street for any household. A small church gathered in a private home, and routinely violated this law and was ticketed. The church sued, claiming the law had the de facto effect of unduely restricting First Amendment rights of assembly and religion since they did not block the street or other residences, only briefly took up most parking spaces once a week. They won, the law was thrown out as unconstitutional.

So in the US Wicca and pagan groups can get full First Amendment protection (although, in practice, there are still plenty of bigoted judges who feel no shame in proclaiming that a woman is unfit as a child's custodian because she's a Wiccan), and a "Jedi religion" would almost certainly qualify as well.

In the UK, the situation is much murkier since there's an official state religion.

Re:religion is not about the existance of god.

[Reality Master 101]

they would not start a war now.. and that would prevent WWIII.

Actually, we're fighting the war now to prevent WW/III in the future. A war will be fought: we can choose to fight it now when our enemies are relatively weak, or we can fight in the future, when our enemies have taken the entire middle east.

Duplication

[alexburke]

At the referenced PDF, page 92 (PDF page 18), there is a duplication: codes 325 and 332. (See what I mean?)

Re:religion is not about the existance of god.

[Reality Master 101]

usualy we do not do it because we are sooo convinced about it but because we think that the rules are good for our society.

To address another one of your points, I've often thought that I would like to see a "religion" without God. I see a lot of benefit to have a place (such as a church) where moral and ethical issues are discussed. That and the fellowship are one of the positive aspects of religion.

If we could only get rid of the supernatural stuff out of religion, it would be great.

Re:Hello. . . Fourth alternative anybody?

[cje]

And "None" is just, well. . , nice life. Hope Hollywood and Sony Entertainment are able to fill all the gaps in your heart; the things of man get pretty dry after a while.

Wait a minute there, boyo. You open up your post by complaining (quite reasonably, I should say) about how Christ-centric religious people tend to be, but then you conclude it by asserting that all people who hold no supernatural views have "gaps in their heart" (whatever that means.) This is a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black. While I have no problem with people who hold on to one religious view or another to placate themselves, it is a mistake for you to assume that your spiritual neediness is a common malady that affects all Mankind (it doesn't.)

Re:Extremely unlikely...

[bungalow]

I can provide more evidence that Luke Skywalker existed (several hours of full motion video, action figures, cards, etc...) the you can produce about Jesus Christ (a book.)

...but less evidence that George Washington existed. Sure, there are movies and texts about him, also. He even appears on coins. Jesus never appeared on any coins that I've seen, only pictures in churches.

But how many people have spoken to George Washington lately? The movies are after all, only depictions of him-who-fell-the-apple-tree-and-did-not-tell-a-lie .

This "country" that our dubious "founding fathers" are purported to have created is merely a conglomeration of people who occasionally choose to attempt to follow the whichever laws are handed down to them.

And what of those laws? The peope, who call themselves "loyal citizens" are often caught speeding, running stop signs, using drugs, lying, cheating, and murdering each other, AND staying up past 10 on a school night! All of which are clearly aginst the "norms" that these people are supposed to uphold. (its 10:00. Do you know where your children are?)

Surely, if George Wasington really existed, the citizens of the United States if America (or whatever belief system its called) would be more dedicated to following his 10 commandments ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H ammendments to the constitution.

In the absence of credible evidence to the contrary, and in the preponderance of illegal activity by those people who claim loyalty to the cause of the Founder, I can positively assert tic that George Washington did not exist.

Re:Why Austrailia and the UK are mad...

[Glytch]

Tunisia was the Tatooine setting.

Re:religion is not about the existance of god.

[Reality Master 101]

That is racism. Every arab is NOT a potential terrorist.

In any case, it's irrelevent anyway. It's like saying for every Nazi we kill, we just create more Nazis. That might or might not be true, but it's irrelevent. You have to keep killing them until there aren't any left, because they are the aggressors. They have set the rules, which is that we either kill them, or they kill us. I personally am not going to die just so they can be happy that they have found a scapegoat for their own problems.

Re:non-cognitivists

[Tassach]

There is no point at all in engaging in a conversation of the empirical existence of an "unie" until it is first defined what the hell and "unie" is.

That is true, to a point. However, just any adult raised in Western society has a fairly consistant definition of what you are talking about when you use the word "God". The common presumption is that by default you are referring to the Judeo-Christian diety and the attendant belief that there is an afterlife where people who follow this diety's rules will be rewarded and those who don't will be punished. Society gives us a common frame of reference, at least in the broadest terms.

False Jedis!!!

[seanmeister]

Everybody knows that a real Jedi would send the census-taker away with a wave of his hand and something like "These aren't the statistics you're looking for.. go about your business."

Re:Some comments on the list...

[susano_otter]

069 House Church - Not to be confused with Trance Church, Jungle Church, or Industrial Church.

113 Monk - 1st Edition Monk or 3rd Edition Monk? Anyway, not to be confused with Cleric.

899 None - Not to be confused with

319 Humanist,

333 Secularist, or

351 Realist

Re:religion is not about the existance of god.

[Tassach]

There are religions without dieties and dogma. Buddhism, for example. Unitaritanism comes pretty close. There are a lot of other organizations out there which share a common belief system and moral code without having a supernatural justification for it; just look around to find one that's compatable.

Re:Santa Claus?

[DrCode]

No eyewitness accounts? I see him at the mall every year, as do millions of others.

A good reason why...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Okay, I'm following the idea of why a census would be useful for analyzing racial inequality, sexism, poverty, etc. But how does religion fit into this?

Because, contrary to what many ill-informed, cynical people on this thread have been spouting, the government of the UK does try to prevent unjustified discrimination against people, including discrimination on the grounds of religion. The only easy but relatively fair way they can tell if this is going on is to compare profiles in, for example, promotion within a company to the overall profile of the population. And the only way they can get that overall profile is to ask people what their religion is. All you smart-asses who claim they don't need to know are actually damaging the efforts to stop religious discrimination so please grow up and form some of your own opinions instead of perpetuating this rubbish.

Now, as to how they justify asking for personal details such as name, address and employer (as opposed to, say, geographical area of work and job title), that's an entirely different matter. The request to provide a matching name & religion pair is the reason why many people I know objected to that question.

Re: Simplify: or attempt to further confuse?

[MaxGrant]

The average member of humanity tends to profess a belief in one god or another...so I'd say that the default is to believe in some sort of supreme / divine being.

The average member of humanity circa 3000 BC probably believed the Earth was flat and at the center of their universe. Neither the strength of their beliefs nor the number of their adherents was enough to make reality bend.

I was raised by parents who did not indoctrinate me into any religion. I can assure you, after seeing how it happens, that religion is essentially brainwashed into small children at about the age of four. Four year olds do not have the critical capacity to reason these things through, but they do have the curiosity about the world that leads them to asking the existential questions. Helpful adults give them easy answers and the first answer the child gets sticks, and it's awfully hard to change his mind thereafter. The fact that it's done by everyone to everyone is the only reason it's so pervasive.

Re:religion is not about the existance of god.

[MaxGrant]

I've often thought that I would like to see a "religion" without God.

It's called Bhuddism. Though it has its own issues (such as its medieval-style caste system).

ERROR

[MaxGrant]

By blindly adopting a belief system without any supporting evidence, they fall into the same logical trap as theists.

What I'm sure you meant to say was, "by casually rejecting an entire set of unprovable and uneccesary premises such as God and the afterlife . . ." you imply by your logic chopping that I am substituting my non-god for god. That is not the case. I have moved beyond that, and I am not grappling with that question anymore at all. Atheism is a direct statement of "there is no god, nor any need for one." Agnosticism is "god may or may not exist, but we don't know that, really." I do not need to prove, or even worry about, the non-existence of a being you invent to explain things. That is the fundamental difference. I have not invented a being to take the place of God. I have simply dismissed the question as no longer worth arguing about.

Most of what God was invented to explain is now understood. We know the mechanism whereby the Earth was created, or at least we think we're close. We know what makes the stars shine. We know what makes our hearts beat. We have some good ideas about the building blocks of matter and energy. None of these things require us to furrow our eyebrows about what role God has in things. This compendium of non-god-related premises is not a competing set of beliefs, it's the scientific and technological foundations upon which modern society was built. You cannot go anywhere in this world (well, except maybe the hills of Afghanistan) without being close to, and possibly dependent for your survival on, the technological benefits of this process. Not a leap of faith at all.

Re:ERROR

[Tassach]

It all boils down to semantics. I'm not a deist, by any strech of the imagination. I self-identify with the label "agnostic", because I personally feel that it is the most widely-understood term which begins to describe my personal philosophy -- that there is no credibile evidence to support belief in the existance any supernatural beings or forces. I don't need a religion to give me a moral code - I'm perfectly capable of working one out for myself. Personally, I'd be quite happy if our species gave up the fallacy of religion, but that's not likely to happen any time soon -- you can lead a fool to knowledge, but you can't make him think.

I personally find the term "atheist" inappropriate and mildly offensive, because to me it implies the same lack of critical thinking that plagues religion. We both have our personal definitions of what "agnostic' and "atheist" mean to us; the labels we use to define our belief systems are less important than what those belief systems are. Actually, despite semantic differences, I'd wager that our actual beliefs are pretty close.

That being said, shared belief systems are powerful things, and you ignore them at your own peril. It doesn't matter if you call it "God", "democracy", "chivalry", or whatever. "God" the being may not exist, but "God" the idea certainly does. It doesn't really matter if God-the-being exists or not, as long as people act as if he does.

Chinese religions

[Pseudonymus Bosch]

There's only over a billion Chinese people, but let's just lump all their religions together.

Maybe I am an ignorant, but I thought that the main religion in China is pick-and-mix depending on the moment in your life and your necessities.

Buddishm isn't that.

[Inoshiro]

There are lots of flavours of Buddishm. Some are about re-incarnation, some are about tantric fun, some are about minimalism. All are about Nirvana, but everything else differs.

It'd be nice if they didn't lump them all together and foster stereotypes like this. I don't say that if you're a Christian, being a Baptist Christian or a Catholic is the same.

Re:Hello. . . Fourth alternative anybody?

[(void*)]

But suppose the questioner gets really irritating, or that you've ceased being amused by the question. But the questioner would not let go until he gets a yes or no answer.

Since the question is just one of semantics (ie. it really does not matter), can't you just flip a coin, and give that random answer? Why or why not? (What point do you think I am trying get across?)

mod this up!

[Redking]

werd