Slashdot Mirror
Britain's First Jedi Member of Parliament
earthlingpink writes "In his maiden speech to the House of Commons, the Hon. Member for Copeland, Jamie Reed MP, announced that he is a Jedi: "as the first Jedi Member of this place, I look forward to the protection under the law that will be provided to me by the Bill" (the quotation is a fair way down the page; search for 'Jedi,' not surprisingly). How long before we have a Congressional equivalent?" Update: 06/29 23:15 GMT by T : Reader JE_Hoover adds a correction: "Although the previous MP for Copeland was the Hon. Member for Copeland, the current MP for Copeland is not a member of the privy council. Debretts make it all clear."
This whole Jedi religion dreck has now officially gone too far. To those misguided simpletons out there who insist on calling themselves 'Jedi knights', I offer you this chance to prove yourselves:
What's that...you can't? Don't have suitable raw materials, you say?
OK...that's fair...how about this, then:
Are you doing it? I'm not feeling anything...
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Jedi Academy Student
Jedi Programmer
Jedi Religious Member
And did he use the Official Jedi Name Generator?
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
Am I the only person who doesn't see the Jedi belief system flawed? I could only imagine the devestation to the republic if this became popular.
Peace out, homies.
This is not the article you are looking for.
Not every argument requires reduction to absurdity.
This is not the congressman you're looking for.
How long before we have a Congressional equivalent?
Oh, but we have. Problem is... they're all Siths. And the greedy kind.
"How long before we have a Congressional equivalent?"
They get Jedi, we get Sith...
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
As if there wasn't enough lunacy in Parliament.
Finding God in a Dog
So this has clear the way to have our first Starfleet member of Parliament. This is a great day indeed.
I'm glad that he's paying attention to this ridiculous bill by showing how daft the implications of it would be. Hopefully, along with Rowan Atkinson's recent attack, the bill will be defeated
I'm not stressed. I'm just terribly, terribly alert.
This gives immense insight into the type of people that get voted into Parliment. The voters are either oblivious, don't care, don't know better or maybe they are also members of that movement.
Either way, the next time the British Parliment critizes something in the world I will be rethinking where they are coming from.
Evolution or ID?
Or maybe Count Obama?
Somehow "Master Kennedy" just doesn't have the same ring to it. And "Darth Delay" is only slightly better than "General Grievous"
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Sith Congressmen
How long before we have a Congressional equivalent?
But aren't Jedi supposed to be good??
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
I know what all the supporters of this person are thinking:
"It's as if millions of voices cried out "D'oh!" and suddenly smacked themselves on the forehead with the palm of their hand"...
"What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
Pay any attention to the last election much, didja?
You can't get elected to a school board in the US if you're not the "right" religion.
Of course there's always California...
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Jedi...? We need no stinking Jedi here! We need leaders who serve the people in the government. We don't don't need anymore self-righteous idiots running around the talk shows swinging their color-of-the-month light sabers. Bah... What's next? A Sith Lord running for President?
I would suspect that a large proportion of Sith lords are already present in the current administration.
Here is Jamie Reed's MP page on My Society's excellent TheyWorkForYou project.
And here is the screen scraped debate, that you can comment on like a blog.
You cant make anything foolproof, they'll only invent better fools.
godalmighty, there should be a sense of humor test for mods.
> Furthermore, as the first Jedi Member of this place, I look forward to the protection under the law that will be provided to me by the Bill.
Mr. Han Solo (Corellia) (Reb):
Listen, Mr. Reed, hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side.
Greedo (Tatooine) (Hutt):
free-boo-blee~fttz~Solo wise. Solo speak truth. Lucas speak false. Smuggler from Corellia shoot first. Still not having paid campaign donations, mind you.~ftttzgrbl~
Okay... either the word Jedi have a difference meaning before George Lucas used it... or that guy is on crack and watches WAY too much Star Wars... or maybe an attempt at a joke. ... I hope its a joke.
In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
This is an absolute insult to those of us who hold religious beliefs. Now the faiths of Christianity, Judaism and Muslimism are on par with something made up in a movie!
Clearly, the Congresscritters in the US will never go Jedi, as they're already devotees of the Book of Bokonon. This can be seen by their tendency to speak in foma, or as the rest of us call them, "reassuring lies." ;-)
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
put down your money now.
will it be a jedi congressman first?
or will it be a scientologist first?
(cue tom cruise bouncing around)
both "religions" spewed from sci-fi... so why not a race to the white house from the pages/silverscreen?
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
Emporer Palpatine will be along shortly
to dissolve the Senate.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
You have to realise that the British don't take anything too seriously, especially politics and religion.
In the US, I suspect a politician making light of religion in this way would upset a lot of people in The Bible Belt.
I give you Ted Kennedy - http://www.federalobserver.com/content_images/arti cle_fat_ted_feeding_tube.jpg11127175362708.jpg
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
Okay, did anybody actually read the article? Did anybody bother to check the background?
Or did people not even think that he was making a satarical attack against the new bill that Labour are seeking to impose?
I read it, and then instantly saw the humour in it. Or did no one else think to read between the lines.
Again, the slashdot community attempt to do the javelin and 100m sprint events together.
A long time, I hope. Serving in Congress is serious business (or at least it ought to be). Not the place for people who fantasize about fictional religions invented by second-rate movie directors.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Doesn't he need to prove himself in front of the councel or something before he can just call himself a "Jedi". And where is this "councel" he proved himself too. Also, doesn't he need a master under which he trained. He can't just go around anouncing this stuff, he must stick to the order of things.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
12345
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
If you read some of the rest of the debate --- surprisingly good stuff, provided you skim it and don't get bogged down in the interminable speeches --- you'll realise that the statement was in the context of a debate on the Racial And Religious Hatred Bill, now undergoing reading for the second time. I'm not entirely sure why the hon. Gentleman saw fit to follow it up with a rather long lecture on Cumbrian history, that was only brought short by his running out of time and the Speaker cutting him off...
And a Death Star. Woo Hoo!
Find coupons in Greeley
Not really.
It's entirely different to claim to believe in Jedi and to claim to BE a Jedi. According to the books I've read and the movies, a Jedi is capable of performing these actions. They all have their "talents" but to be a Jedi you have to be able to manipulate the force in some tangible and demonstrable way.
The water to wine thing doesn't hold. It's not a commonly held dogma (leaving backwoods ministers from crazyville out) that Christians are given controllable powers. If they were claiming to be Jesus, on the other hand, by all means, ask for proof. Thomas did, and got to stick his fingers through the nail wounds.
Never confuse volume with power.
Most of the religious nutcases we have in Congress today are far loonier than this guy.
Some of these morons allegedly actually CROWNED the Reverend Sun Myung Moon in an official ceremony in an official US government building!
Can this Jedi loon beat that?
Aleister Crowley had the right idea: "The Christians to the lions!"
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
I hear the Republicans are gearing up to filibuster before letting e Jedi have a seat!
NOOOOOOO!
We'll have a Jedi Senator years before we'll have an atheist one.
No, that's just Cornwall.
that this guy is actually an undercover Erisian, especially since he's gloating about the "protection under law"...seems like a mockery. :)
Sure us Americans will help you, rightly. We will send you some healthy stock from appalachia to shore up the numbers and you will be whistling dixie in no time.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Ok, I didn't read it either, but I skimmed it.
The Jedi thing was nothing compared to the rest of the speech - are all Parlimentary speeches in England that long? Holy shit. He walked through his whole constitutency house by house and described what everyone did. What kind of speech is that?
Fish-out-of-thin-air guy wasn't a Christian. He was a Jew.
We've already got the two required Sith Lords for President and Vice-President...
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
STARWARS - Fact NOT Fiction (Episodes 4 to 6 inclusively)
George Lucas quite naturally believes that he wrote "Starwars", when, in reality, he was told telepathically what to write in the original first three Episodes (4-6), by the very "Force" to which the films refer, and was "forced" to make only episodes 4-6, first, as a very important step in the preparation of mankind for the long-awaited TRUTH, about the real reasons for human life on Earth ("what on earth am I doing here?"), the meaning of life and its purpose, contained in "The Way home or face The Fire", from which episodes 1-3 should have been made, as I did my best, frequently, to tell him....continued...
So the Jedi can hold elective office? Why didn't they simply form a delagation in the Senate and kick Palps bottom at the ballot box rather than beating on a poor, helpless old man. Shame on those nasty fanatics!
So on which side does Alastair Campbell fall? Hmmm ... they don't do the God thing, but maybe they're schooled in the ways of the Force ;-)
I believe that he is an undercover spy from the silly party.
Let's look at the real makeup of the current US Congress:
92% Christian
8% Jewish
What seems to be missing? Oh yeah, every other religion along with the 15% of Americans who don't identify with any religion (which drawfs any non-Christian group).
Americans have elected an openly gay congressman, but are still not ready for a congressman who is not Christian or Jewish.
-B
I've seen miracles performed in the name of Jesus that are far more impressive than water into wine.
For example the healing of severe burns, where the skin had turned black and begun to flake off, the affected hand was made as good as new as we watched.
I know it wasn't a trick because it was my hand that was burnt in an industrial accident and it was healed because the woman who is now my wife (who was there) prayed for healing in the name of Jesus. Had she not had the courage to pray and ignore the heckling of by standards I would haver had permanent and disfiguring damage.
... Oh, wait. House of *Commons*.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
and Ice-9 too...
Bokonon was a lazy bastard. Its time for the hook!
(This message brought to you by the friends of bokonon)
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
So when Lord/Master Jamie Reed is challenged by a fellow MP, what's he gonna do? "Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the [failed objective], or given you clairvoyance enough to [failed objective]" I thought the Jedi were above petty squabling with governmental bodies. Is it because Jamie's not on the council?
Ok, this one isn't quite as simple or as amusing as the summary makes out, I'm afraid.
One of the live issues here in the UK at the moment is the "Incitement to Religious Hatred" bill that Blair is currently pushing through Parliament. This is broadly similar to the existing laws on "Incitement to Racial Hatred". The difference is that, under current laws, only Jews and Sikhs are protected, according to some interpretations. Christianity is protected separately, under some rarely (read "not in my lifetime") enforced blasphemy laws. Muslims, on the other hand, are not technically recognised as a racial group, so you can argue that they're not protected. This, the Blairites say, means that people can hurl racial abuse at Muslims with impunity. This is obviously bollocks, of course, since this would count as racial hatred anyway, so all the situation really needs is for existing laws to be enforced...
Now, the reason why this is being pushed through is that the Labour party has taken a lot of flak over Iraq from the UK's Islamic community, which is normally a staunch supporter of Labour. Indeed, a deeply unpleasant specimen by the name of George Galloway (he of "Sir I Salute Your Indefatigability" fame) managed to beat a sitting Labour MP in a normally safe seat at the last general election, standing on an extremist anti-war, anti-establishment platform (which is a little ironic considering his own lifestyle). Therefore, Labour introduces this bill in an effort to get the UK Islamic community behind them again.
Now, this leads to two problems. First of all, a lot of people, particularly commedians, notice that this has serious implications for freedom of speech. One can no longer ridicule a religion or its texts and be sure of being on safe legal ground. Now, Blair's response to this was to say that the letter of the law would not be enforced. This is obviously a pretty pathetic argument and kind of missing the whole point of "the law" (that it lets people know whether they are behaving legally or not). It also leaves the door open to all kinds of future abuses.
The other problem is that if Blair honestly doesn't intend to see the law enforced, then he's creating a lot of false expectations among the UK Islamic community and other particularly devout religious groups. A lot of these people are expecting that, come the enactment of this, it will be illegal to say anything critical of their religion or to call any aspect of it into question. If this doesn't happen, there could be a lot of disappointment, some of it violent.
So all in all, this story is a little more serious than it first seems.
Mr. Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab):
Would the Sargeant-at-Arms please arrest the hon. Mr. Solo for inciting violence against me and my religion? Please note that his subtle reference to a weapon (his "blaster") and "hokey religion" are intended to intimidate me into not practising my religious beliefs, on threat of violence.
The problem with laws like this is that they trade freedom for security, or more properly, the illusion of security. There's some quote from one of the Founding Fathers about the wisdom of trading freedom for security, I'm sure if I google, I can find it somewhere ...
-paul
Pistol caliber is like religion: everyone has their favourite, and theirs is the only right choice.
Oooh a long time yet. Americans have an underdeveloped irony center and so take themselves particularly seriously. Don't worry, we'll send you some more comedians to sort you out.
Deleted
...you're doing waving your hand around like that?
I'm a Congressman. Mind tricks don't work on me. Only money.
What ever happened to the seperation of Senate and Jedi?
It's a tough job, but as an American, I'm willing to do my part.
No, vote for someone who believes in the Easter Bunny or Xenu if you want.
But it would be nice if you didn't have to be born-again and ostentatiously show up at various churches in order to consider running for a political post. You don't have to believe Jesus is literally God and coming back to live a moral life.
Consider the possibility that some of those non-believers might have a clue about managing things too.
Last I checked God wasn't paying my property taxes. For a public servant knowledge of proper accounting principles and fiscal conservatism is worth more than fake righteousness anytime.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
. . . I'm thankful my ancestors had the good sense to get a on a leaky boat and cross the Atlantic.
"I worked hard for it. I deserve it. And I have it," Campbell said. "It's all mine."
I'm fairly certain that Jesus never claimed to do miracles -- the witnesses to his actions did. In fact quite often he reportedly told those that he helped to _not_ tell anyone else about it.
:^)
None of those witnesses ever claimed that he produced fish out of thin air.
By the way, the persecution you were looking for via negative mods hasn't happened yet.
More people need to RTFA. No, I'm not new here, but still. Usually, people manage to get it somewhere on topic. This discussion is just completely out there.
This member of Parliament isn't really proclaiming himself as a Jedi or anything of the sort. He's trying to make the consequences of potential legislation easier to understand.
Basically, they're working on a bill which would make stirring up hated against members of a religion, illegal. But the bill is total crap, so much so to the point where it would make any and all religions virtually immune to criticism.
Those of us who live in America, and are into the topic of religion, namely online discussion on forums and the like (so that's why this is on Slashdot!), often enjoy a high amount of freedom in questioning the legitimacy of Jesus, or the Muslim world's seemingly-manic obsession with demonizing Christianity, or anything else which might brand you as a heretic in that religion's home-base.
If this bill were passed, any who enjoy that right and excercise it in public would potentially be committing an illegal act.
Of course, in the Western world the Internet is still largely a frontier for government monitoring and regulation. It's too dynamic. In public, however, there's little doubt that any statement or action which might even remotely irritate a member of a certain religion (double points if it's a minority) would be regarded as hate-inciting and therefore illegal.
The bottom line is, there goes another freedom! Unless this bill is stopped.
I think that this is somewhat missing the point...
The guy anounced this because of a new law in england that makes it illegal to incite religious hatred...
i.e. mocking Star Wars fanboys who declare themselves Jedi, can get you jailed now...
KeS
There are always 2. No more, no less.
So, is Darth Bushifus the master, or the apprentice?
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
How long before we have a Congressional equivalent?"
Why would a Sith-controlled organization allow a Jedi to join?
-Valiss
Sorry I couldn't resist.
insert inflammatory anti-microsoft comment here
I find your lack of faith disturbing...
Seriously, I get the whole "Jedi as a religion to prove a point" thing in England, but if he REALLY was a Jedi wouldn't he need some form of yoda-esque training? Shouldn't he be considered a "believer in the force" or something? Just because you are Jewish does not make you a Rabbi, just because you are Christian does not make you a priest, and just because you worship Lucas does not make you a Jedi.
With all these people going Jedi on us, I'm wondering how many people check their roots and realize that it is not the Jedi that they are, but Numenorians??! Why do people give up on teh Valar so easily?
I think most of our Congress in Gungan actually.
Don't blame me, I voted for Cthulhu.
I guess the real joke will be if this clown gets re-elected....
Sounds like it to me.
I always laugh when someone attacks the opposite side of the political aisle by calling them "Sith Lords" or "Darth Whatever." It has to be the most ineffective way to demonize an opponent, because Darth Vader is infinitely cooler than any light side Jedi. Admit it! Now! Feel your throat tightening yet?
The Honorable Tripmaster has neglected an few important matters in his suggestion of the second part - namely, that only *naughty* (former) Jedi force-choke people, and that the force-choke ability *may* be distance dependant. I move that we nominate a panel to investigate my second postulation. Hrrmph.
Disturbing your lack of faith is
yuo have a very good point, people are blinded by religions very often, and dno't fid the underlying similarities
Check out Website development, maintenance and accesibility cons
...you really think theres a single American politician with the balls to make fun of religion in public?
Its not like there hasn't been ample opportunity of late either. Answers on a postcard: how come you can do this sort of stuff in a country with an absolute union between state and the state religion (nb. Her Brittanic majesty is both head of state and head of the church of england) but you're in deep shit if you try it in the US with a written constitution ensuring free speech? I'm at a loss as to figure out how this state of affairs has arisen. I am however reasonably sure its not what the founding fathers had in mind.
I would much rather be a Gunslinger http://www.thedarktower.net/wiki/Main/Gunslinger
How long before we have a Congressional equivalent?
Dah, never. A sith on the other hand, too many to count...
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
Bah Jedi. I'm eagerly awaiting the first Flying Spaghetti Monsterist congressman.
Ridiculous. However, I do approve of this kind of "reality-hacking". To me, this is no more ridiculous than worshipping a Bearded Sky Wizard.
The house of commons will have to move the red lines so they are two light-saber lengths away instead of the current two sword lengths.
Lucky for him, there are no active volcanos in the British Isles.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
You're right, and the Jedi religion has already been shown to be a hoax.
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
My guess: less than 12 parsecs
- AJ
your comment is far too forceful...
Oh well, what the hell...
Since you're at 4-interesting, I guess that your post is a testament to the power of long entrenched atheism?
I am still not a Christian
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
because they get all the good chicks? I dunno, but less competition is good on that field I thought.
Besides 50 quid will get you laid if you are willing to stoop. Or did you mean that 'those geeks' raised the price too much by their insatious demand?
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Let's hope not in our lifetime.
And this from other belief systems differs... how?
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
I doubt anyone claiming to be Jedi will hold a non-trivial political office anytime soon. In case you haven't noticed, Libertarians can't even get elected in the US. I'm sure sooner or later though, that there will be a mayor who is Jedi. He will be from a town with a population of 30. The Daily Show will then do a piece about him. We can only hope it is Mo Rocca!
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
If they were claiming to be Jesus, on the other hand, by all means, ask for proof. Thomas did, and got to stick his fingers through the nail wounds.
Thomas did ask for proof, yes, and he got his proof. But Jesus castigated also him for it. Daring to ask for proof was seen as a much weaker for of faith than belief without seeing.
Such a philosophy goes a long way towards explaining the current climate in the US.
Download my free songs!
For those of you interested in a great laugh, and to you mod's out there I realize this is off-topic but I just can't resist, here are the lyrics from the Tool song Eulogy. I have heard it was about L. Ron Hubbard, although I can verify that; read the lyrics and it seems applicable to many many things...
Eulogy
He had alot to say.
He had alot of nothing to say.
We'll miss him. (2x)
We're gonna miss him (2x)
So long.
We wish you well.
You told us how you weren't afraid to die.
Well then, so long.
Don't cry.
Or feel too down.
Not all martyrs see divinity.
But at least you tried.
Standing above the crowd,
He had a voice that was strong and loud.
We'll miss him. (2x)
Ranting and pointing his finger
At everything but his heart.
We'll miss him. (2x)
We're gonna miss him (2x)
No way to recall
What it was that you had said to me,
Like I care at all.
But it was so loud.
You sure could yell.
You took a stand on every little thing
And so loud.
Standing above the crowd,
He had a voice so strong and loud and i
Swallowed his facade cuz I'm so
Eager to identify with
Someone above the ground,
Someone who seemed to feel the same,
Someone prepared to lead the way, with
Someone who would die for me.
Will you?
Will you now?
Would you die for me?
Don't you fuckin' lie.
Don't you step out of line. (3x)
Don't you fuckin' lie.
You've claimed all this time that you would die for me.
Why then are you so surprised when you hear your own eulogy?
You had alot to say.
You had alot of nothing to say.
Come down.
Get off your fuckin cross.
We need the fuckin' space to nail the next fool martyr.
To ascend you must die.
You must be crucified
For your sins and your lies. [sic]
Goodbye...
Sounds like he needed therapy.
"Hmm. I am to metaphor cheese as metaphor cheese is to transitive verb crackers!"
L Ron Hubbard didn't wait thousands of years to start his psycho religion, and now that religion has half the fucktards in Hollywood dumping their money into it. With such a proven track record, why should the Jedi nerds wait thousands of years to start theirs?
what the FUCK?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Also, He wasn't Fish-out-of-thin-air guy, he was more of a fish-out-of-fish-and-bread-out-of-bread-that-norma lly-would-have-only-fed-five-not-thousands guy.
Gravity Sucks
How long before we have a Congressional equivalent?
A non-Judeo-Christian congressman? It took us ninety years to let blacks in there, and over 130 years before the first woman, so it'll take a while longer before we start letting the unwashed heathens run our country.
No, thats scientology. Mormons believe that Jesus had something to do with the american indians.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Here is the background to this story from a UK political perspective
The UK has a national census every decade. Last time, they asked for people to indicate their religious inclination. Naturally, the census form included boxes to tick for the well-known ports of religiosity, and the option for "other" where you could enter a religion.
Anyway, someone found out that if more than a certain number of people mentioned the same religion in "other", it would become officially recognised. This led to a campaign amongst those who thought that religion was either just fictional or nothing to do with the government to play with the beaurocrats.
So, those who thought that "religion" had no place on the census form were encouraged to tick "other" and write Jedi. And, guess what? Jedi passed the threshold, and the government are still trying to find some reason why it should not become a recognised religion in the UK.
I bet that the next census will not have this question.
ATime is life: speed saves it. LJK Setright
A member of Parliment can't be a jedi, since everyone knows only members of the Imperial Navy speak with an English acent, he is an imposter.
British humor folks, you either get it or you don't. The comments were made during deliberations on the religious hatred bill before Parliament.
He wasn't just being a nerd declaring his Jedi affiliation out of the blue.
including he was pleased to be 'the fact and fiction section of the Wattford public library' and it might have been recorded as 'from Edinborough.'
Hansard in Canada has the same problem. The staff end up working overnight and errors (like somebody in the next room watching a DVD,) may get confused in, along with the occasional contents of a ham sandwitch and milk that went up someone's nose at a guffaw.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Answer: Never. Or when the U.S. changes over to proportional representation, whichever comes first.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
Padawan wannabe!
IANAL, but I've seen actors play them on TV
because the Force is with them.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
No realli! She was Karving her initials on the Jedi
with the business end of a double-bladed lightsaber given to
her by Svenge - her brother-in-law - an Oslo Sith Lord and
star of many ILM møvies: "The Høt Hands of an Oslo
Sith Lord", "Gungans of Passion", "The Mani Mitichlorians of Horst Nordfink"...
I hope you will next time. We need people like this to stand up against any trend towards religiousity becoming part of government (as distinct from part of state) in the UK. For the many people who consider religion to be no more than fiction or, at best, mythology, those who will mock its place in parliament are to be encouraged and voted for. A
Time is life: speed saves it. LJK Setright
He claimed to be God! He proved this by His resurrection from the dead among other things.
Please show me where it says in the bible that God caused life to appear out of nowhere. Please show me where the bible references TIME at all after those first seven days, when God was creating humans, plants, and animals. There is no indication whatsoever that God snapped his fingers and life suddenly appeared. By believing in this man-invented concept of creationism, you are claiming to understand how your god did these things and how long it took him.
Your catagorical disbelief of evolution (as opposed to specific objections, like irregularities in the evidence) is not supported by the world around us, and it is not supported by the very book you claim to follow. It is illogical, irrational, extremely arrogant, and is modded flamebait for very good reason.
As for the "it's just a theory" horseshit, well, if you haven't figured out how worthless that statement is by now, you really are beyond all reason. Things like eletricity and gravity and relativity and nuclear fission and nuclear fusion are all theories, and have all field very real, practical results. Evolution, too, has shown itself to be real as best it can, but no one can prove it to be absolutely, unquestionably true any more than they could prove that an electrons are real by picking one up and showing it to me.
But you go ahead and keep believing that electrons aren't real because you can't observe them directly. Just try not to get hit by a bolt of lightning...
All Catholics are Christians. They believe in the Christ. Not all Christians are Catholics. There are many varieties of Christians.
I'm your father !
As a Mormon, I can assure you that you are wrong.
Money didn't save the Jews from the Germans, or the Russians, or the Spanish, or the French... Or any of the other peoples who turned on the Jews in order to steal their money. The real "Force" is going with the tao of the universe to survive the downturns. There the Jews have claim to some power: staying power.
--
make install -not war
"There was only one Christian, and he died on the cross." ...2 points for the attribution.
PS: I'd like to know what percent of American christians believe that Jesus was literally a man-god, as opposed to a godly man. Yes, I'm sure there are those out there who would bet their life that an omnipotent sky dweller is responsible for everything, but I doubt it's really a large percentage. Pulled-out-of-my-ass statistic: maybe 25% of american christians (and that's a highball).
Keep in mind that the ones who are the most extreme correspond highly with those who are most vocal.
And before the slashdot conserva-posse comes to lynch me, I do not hate christianity, only lunacy. Frankly, I think the saddest part of christianity today is that there is so much of value which is totally ignored for the benefit of those who wield the devotion of the masses.
"You can flame me now. My heart is full of love." ~somebody else's sig
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
And that's the special kind of humor, with a "u", that we Yanks can only see on Prime Minister's Questions on CSPAN. It really makes the US Congress look like a bunch of pitiful sausagemakers.
All I can say in response to this joke is "waggh waggh harrumph harrumph haw haw haw" or whatever it is all the MPs say in response to a particularly funny or pointed remark.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
Once upon a time, there was a group of warriors appointed by the King to administer justice in the domain and protect the citizenry from outside agression. For hundreds of years these lords of the realm took their hereditary responsibilities seriously, and, working with a body of representatives of the common citizenry, managed to maintain the kingdom in relative peace.
Then one day the citizenry and the monarch reduced their status from hereditary protectors of the realm to common citizens, and rescinded the hereditary responsibilities.
Now, in the 21st century, common elected officials are self-promoting themselves to knighted protectors of society...
IMO, a "knight" is respected because he holds himself to a higher standard than is expected of non-knights. Knighthood is an acknowledgement of the person's willingness to hold to these high standards. No self-respecting knight would run for the office of knighthood (though he might kill for the hereditary title).
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
So was Jesus.
I once heard a story about a pastor who asked the members of his board of elders to drink poison to prove they have faith.
The pastor and all the elders died except one.
When asked why he didn't drink with the others he said "It is written, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Luke 4:12".
The problem is not a lack of "super powers" but a lack of understanding of the Bible.
When Christians don't understand what the Bible teaches they are bound to do stupid things "in the name of God".
Jesus said:
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?' Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.' " -Matthew 7:21-23
I for one welcome our new Jedi overlords.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There is a very clear and significant difference between claiming to be a Jedi and claiming to be a christian. Christianity was founded on the basis of a "true" document and it has withstood more than 2000 years of scrutiny. Jedi-ism(?) has only been around for about 30 years and is based on what is clearly a work of fiction. Jedi-ism is analogous to scientology.
If scientology is a religion then Jedi is also .
Both are Made up , its just that the Jedi Faith is a lot cheaper(as in price , not actual value )
So in this vein , i announce the formation of replicantism , As i believe that Philip K Dick was a far better Sci-fi writer than lucas and hubbard combined.
That said , Lucas is far far better than Hubbard and Hubbard was a quack.
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
He says he's a Jedi - big deal, what's his mitochlorian count?
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned piece of paper!" - George W. Bush Nov. 2005
compared to Scientology, this one is much more palatable. As long as the Dark Side gets equal representation, of course. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I would suspect that a large proportion of Sith lords are already present in the current administration.
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes".
You can hardly claim that either the administration or any other governing body is full of Sith or Jedi. They are just people like you or I, trying to take what they think is the best course of action - that goes for Republicans, Democrats, Greens, and so forth and so on. To claim any one is a sith basically reduces your argument to noise.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Keep up at the back, there....
My web domain.
Really? I always got the impression that the Jedi existed a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away... *shrug* Then again, a "long, long time" could be just any period. For a child, it can be a matter of minutes.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
^_^ If I knew you IRL as a good friend, I'd probably be smiling and saying, "Sure you are... you just don't know it." However, given not all people are cool with confrontational theology as my friends are, I'll just point out that one can be christian (embodying the ideals of Christ) without being Christian (believing in the actual and metaphysical existence of Jesus Christ). Personally, I try for both.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
The prophecy was that he would bring balance to the force, not destroy the sith. Balance would be the Jedi and Sith having equal power, but since that would just be non stop war, having only 2 of each (discounting EU) left, Obi-Wan and Yoda, and Vader and the Emporer, achieves a pretty good balance.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
It'll be a big problem when he shows his lightsaber to an intern. Jedi-stock?
Italy has any number of porn stars in their parliament. We had Sonny Bono.
Quote from the Bill The Cat For President campaign comes to mind..."This time, why not the worst?"
"Muslims, on the other hand, are not technically recognised as a racial group, so you can argue that they're not protected. "
:) (I have only started the book "The Race Myth" [http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=65-05 25948252-2%5D -- but I'm far enough into it to recommend it as a powerful, important book)
What do you mean "technically"? Islam is a religion, *not* a racial category.
And that's setting aside whatever you think of the merits of thinking of people as belonging to races in the first place
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Actually, all Christian....make that most all monotheistic religions believe God to be an extra-terrestrial.
If God created the world, he must not be native to it, thus he is by definition an extra-terrestrial intelligence. To say he isn't is to say he is terrestrial, negating the argument that he created the world.
Am I the only one imagining a dark side Sir Humphrey trying to assist him?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I've got a bad feeling about this...
"I have great faith in fools: Self confidence my friends call it." ~Edgar Allan Poe
For the ones who claim that this is no different than other religions: Jedi is officially and acknowledgedly fiction - George Lucas (or whoever created it) claims that it is fiction - NOT TRUE. Other religions themselves don't claim that they're false - Jesus Christ, Profet Mohammed or Buddha didn't say that what they said was false. Get a clue dumbasses, the retards who are following Jedi religion are following something which was created solely for the purpose of entertainment. People who follow religions are (according to just my opinion of course) dumb or misled; people who follow Jedi religion are dipshit dumbass retards. And no, star wars wasn't *that* good.
It's a traaaaaaaap!
As I see it, the Jedi don't look too bad compared to any religion. The light side strives for balance which makes it some kind of hyperactive Buddhism while the dark side goes forth and slayeth its enemies and pushes its issues, very much like Christianity or Islam. Now, if you go and actually compare the numers (or even percentage) of violent nutcases in any religion, you'll notice that the Jedi in the real world don't go on crusades on a pure whim, don't cause massive overpopulation in 3rd world countries and don't provide a blanket cover for suicide bombings or killing Palestinians, Pakistani or Kurds (that right?).
So I'll welcome our new Jedi representatives, even though I guess it'll take some time until we get one of those in Germany.
Fight hunger. Filet a politician and send him to a 3rd world country of your choice.
Some people will find any excuse to get the Star Wars logo on the front page.
The list of celebrity Scientologists also includes Nicole Kidman, Priscilla Presley, Lisa Marie Presley, John Travolta and his wife Kelly Preston, Mimi Rogers, Karen Black, Kirstie Alley, Anne Archer, and Juliette Lewis.
Sig cancelled due to lack of interest
Looks like now the Hon has a Solo member who's Jedi... *ducks*
That is all.
Evan Prodromou | evan@prodromou.name | http://evan.prodromou.name/
can only be a bad thing. Have we learned nothing from the Star Wars movies? Those who have not studied science fiction films are doomed to live them.
I swear PowerPoint is going to be the downfall of higher education in western society.
His sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped him conjure up the WMD in Iraq, or given him clairvoyance enough to find Osama Bin Laden.
Um, no. The term is "transubstantiation", meaning a change of substance. As I was taught, the assertion is quite literal.
"what honestly makes you think Jesus wasn't either a crook or a madman?"
Because every one of the twelve put their lives on the line for what they had witnessed. Of them only John was not directly put to death for this belief but banished to an island. Now, they might have been able to fool others into dying for Jesus in the hopes of getting rich or powerful. This happened then and still happens today, but when it finally came down to the lions or the cross for them personally, they would have bailed.
Some thing incredible happened between the Gospels and Acts. The disciples were stupid. Jesus told parables that they still were not understanding after three years with him. They were greedy. They argued over who would be the greatest in the kingdom. When it hit the fan they were afraid. They hid. They didn't even have guts enough to go check on the body. The women did that. Even after being told, they were skeptical. Thomas had to touch the wounds before he changed his mind.
Then something happened and they were out there preaching. They were unafraid of the Roman authorities and their own religious leaders. They were mostly uneducated but converted thousands in an age when you had to spread the message face to face. They saw something and it changed them. Not just a few of them either, but all of them. If it had been a sham that they were all in on, someone would have cracked at some point. This is the strongest evidence, in my opinion, for the resurrection. It's not what people say, but what they do that speaks to whether or not they really believe.
Let's see... Show proof that a god exists. And please don't use any circular logic, like "it says so in the Bible" or "you can see it in His creation". . . .If you claim that something exists, I guess it's on you the burden to prove it.
Why? I claim that no proof can be made for either position. The statement that only proven things should be thought to exist is itself either unproven, or based upon unproven assumptions.
If I am correct, and no proof for either atheism or theism can be made, then whichever alternative is chosen must in fact be an arbitrary decision. Or, as it is frequently referred to in religious circles, faith.
The lack of a proof against the existence of any god is not compelling reason to believe in any god, but neither is the lack of a proof for the existence of any god compelling reason to disbelieve in any god. Unless independent, and arbitrary (as all pure assumptions, or first axioms, are) assumptions are made, the only logically viable position on the question of religion is pure agnosticism.
Of course, that could be taken to its logical extreme. Because assumptions cannot be proven, we must throw them ALL out! Which leaves you with solipsism.
Or, the assumption that unfounded assumptions are bad could be thrown out instead, which leaves you with a much more usable life and philosophy (of course, the idea that a life and/or philosophy should be usable is an assumption in itself). Then, you are free to make assumptions as you like, but you should always be aware that the results of those assumptions are, in a very fundamental way, faith.
Sure, a Pink Elephant God would be improbable,
And there's another assumption. Where do we get the idea that a Pink Elephant God is unlikely? Moreover, you seem to implicitly claim that no god at all is quite likely, by not even investigating the likelihood of that option. Yes, one could say that the likelihood of no god is 1 - (likelihood of the union of all god possibilities)... but is that really a feasible evaluation? Are you really going to evaluate the likelihood of all possible gods? It seems much more reasonable to evaluate all the likelihoods in question individually, including that of no god at all. Not that I think this is a particularly good way of going about things in any case...
I do not presume here to give a mechanism for choosing which possibility is correct, I am merely trying to show that if you really throw out the assumptions, that atheism is on an equal footing with a great many religions. I am glad you do not think that the existence of any god is disprovable, but I question your requirement that any religion must offer proof, when you don't require it of your own beliefs.
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
Don't worry. Chancellor Bush will instigate a great Jedi Purge if they start to get out of hand.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
and how is that any better?
If I am correct, and no proof for either atheism or theism can be made, then whichever alternative is chosen must in fact be an arbitrary decision.
This is only the case if both alternatives are equally simple. They aren't. In this situation most people apply Occam's Razor - choose the simplest option. The simplest option is probably atheism.
You go into this without the councils backing or support.
Ok, then prove Occam's Razor. The decision to apply Occam's Razor is, once again, purely arbitrary. Where does Occam's Razor come from? I would be willing to bet a lot of money that on some level, it comes from (guess what?) an unprovable assumption. In which case it is, as I said, arbitrary.
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
You will reject this bill.
Ok, then prove Occam's Razor. The decision to apply Occam's Razor is, once again, purely arbitrary. Where does Occam's Razor come from? I would be willing to bet a lot of money that on some level, it comes from (guess what?) an unprovable assumption. In which case it is, as I said, arbitrary.
It is not something that can be proved. It is a philosophical tool. It has been shown to be useful because it usually works. In descriptions of the universe, it is almost always the case that the simplest explanation seems to be correct. A good example is relativity - there are many different formulations of the equations, but the simplest ones give the best results.
So, the decision to use it is not arbitrary at all - it has proved its worth.
They don't expand
So, you're basing it on the statement "because something has worked in a number of known cases, it should be applied to others". A decent statement, and one that I can generally agree with, but can you prove that? Additionally, I really don't think that using Occam's Razor constitutes any sort of proof. Which is most certainly acceptable. However, it supports my claim that atheists do not have any more proof for their position than theists do for theirs. Which leads me to my puzzlement that atheists should ask for proof from theists, when, as I said, they do not require it of themselves.
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
I once read a Non Sequitur sketch which to my mind sums up the main problems with religion. People can believe what they want, but the problems arise when they try to force others to adhere to the same beliefs. By that token, if you absolutly believe in the force and consider yourself a Jedi Knight then right on! I'm sure you have your reasons, even if it seems daft to me, however thats your decision (hopefully).
Warning, comments may not have been passed by the sanity department of my brain.
Speaking as a jew, I'd say it has something to do with the production or consumption of food. Just look at all our holidays, weddings, bar/bat mitzvahs, and indeed, any jewish event.
..then we eat it.
My guess is, come Judgement Day (the one without the Governator), we cook the world's last meal..
So, you're basing it on the statement "because something has worked in a number of known cases, it should be applied to others". A decent statement, and one that I can generally agree with, but can you prove that?
No, I can't. But doesn't it seem reasonable?
Which leads me to my puzzlement that atheists should ask for proof from theists, when, as I said, they do not require it of themselves.
I don't understand why you are puzzled. If the principle of 'choose the simplest' explanation works for almost all situations in life, philosophy, science, etc., then if someone decides not to choose the simplest explanation in one case, it is reasonable to ask why they are not using this principle in this particular case.
Occam's razor is not just a principle for debate - it is something that sane people automatically use all the time without even thinking about it. (When I get in my car, I assume that it runs on petrol and there is not an invisible pink elephant pushing it. To ask 'prove there isn't an pink elephant there' is rather silly, isn't it?)
A working lightsabre, he has not. Better a "padawan wannabe" we should call him.
There you are, staring at me again.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess this guy _wasn't_ going around talking about being a Jedi BEFORE he was appointed. (Or whatever the hell) :P
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
Alright. So does Occam's Razor constitute proof, pure, logical proof, of atheism? If not, then why should theism require proof when atheism doesn't?
I certainly admit that people have reasons why they are atheists. This does not puzzle me. What does puzzle me is that they demand proof, and not simply arguments for, theism. After all, I do not see atheists presenting proof, but only arguments for, atheism. And yes, I am well aware that not all atheists do this. But some do, as we have recently seen.
I do not think that assumptions are unreasonable. If I did, I would be a solipsist. But I do think that someone in an unprovable position should not ask someone who claims to also be in an unprovable (but incompatible) position for proof of that position.
I most certainly use Occam's razor, and I don't take issue with people using it to decide in favor of atheism. In the case of the car analogy: if someone were to claim that there were a pink elephant, I suppose I might demand evidence of this statement. However, I don't think that I would ask for a proof. Yes, asking "prove there isn't an elephant" is silly. My point is, so is asking "prove there is an elephant".
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
He never judged anyone. Didn't preach to people. Read his bible quietly and would sprinkle a few "Praise Jesus" non-sequiturs in such a way that would almost make me want to believe.
Most Christians I meet are judgemental, impossible to talk to about any topic: current affairs, politics, pop culture. Holier-than-thou, conservative, vindictive to non-believers.
What does puzzle me is that they demand proof, and not simply arguments for, theism.
I'm beginning to see what you mean. I was assuming the discussion was about which of atheism or theism one should choose if there is no evidence, not about proof. Because, of course, you can't really prove anything.
Perhaps it is better to say that the argument is about having to 'justify' or 'back up' a choice, not prove it is correct.
Given two choices, we tend to choose the simplest. This does not prove anything, it is simply a useful way to think and live.
My point is, so is asking "prove there is an elephant".
Can I put this in a better way? What I mean is that, given the choice between the explanations 'my car runs on petrol', and 'my car runs on petrol and pink elephant pushing', if you chose the second explanation, you should definitely expect people to be surprised by it and for people to ask you lots of questions about why you chose it. You would not be entitled to say 'why aren't you asking all these questions to those who did not mention pink elephants'!
I would suggest that when atheists say 'prove it', what they really mean is that theists are the ones who have to justify their choice, not atheists, because theism is more complicated - it is the 'pink elephant' choice.
I don't mean any disrespect if you have beliefs; I am just trying to explain a point of view.
And I'm the first Klingon King to rule Antartica.
---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"
Darn right. Muslimism is a perfectly cromulent word. And even if it wasn't, we should all be able to tamevulant our own hijamadoos, because it doesn't affect communicatismness at all.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Fair enough. However, that is not the impression that I typically get. Perhaps I am just misinterpreting, but atheists (at least the particularly vocal ones) typically seem (to my perception) to claim the logical higher ground, and I do not think this is justified.
Also, I do think that the question of theism/atheism is significantly less clear cut than the petrol/pink elephant situation. It is a good analogy, but the determination of which is simpler is, no pun intended, not that simple. On the surface, I suppose it is "universe runs on universeness" vs. "universe runs on universeness + God"? Presented that way, it would seem quite obvious, but there are certainly other ways to state the matter. For example, one possibility for theism is "universeness runs on God, universe runs on universeness". (nobody seems to have trouble adding more layers, so long as each layer is simpler than the one before, to wit, atoms, then nucleus, then protons/neutrons, then quarks, then ?strings?) Or, breaking down "universeness" into physical laws and such, one might argue that it seems a lot more complicated than just God running it. (Not that I would take that position, actually, I think simpler physical laws tend to point to God, rather than the other way.) And of course, that is not comprehensive, nor does it include various rebuttals to those arguments, but I just thought I'd throw it out there.
Just in case you're curious, yes, I am a Christian, and also a scientist. (I just finished my undergrad junior year of physics, and I'm working at Fermilab for the summer.) Additionally, one of my beliefs which results from my more basic Christian beliefs is that what I am called by God to do is to oppose, by means of decent arguments, atheism, specifically in academic and scientific communities.
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
If he doesn't protect the trademark, in a couple of years anybody who wants to can start selling "Jedi Joe" dolls...
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Just in case you're curious, yes, I am a Christian, and also a scientist. (I just finished my undergrad junior year of physics, and I'm working at Fermilab for the summer.)
Very interesting - I wish you luck.
Additionally, one of my beliefs which results from my more basic Christian beliefs is that what I am called by God to do is to oppose, by means of decent arguments, atheism, specifically in academic and scientific communities.
Well, I love debate. I can begin to accept some sort of deity as proposed by Spinoza, but nothing more.
By the way, I am not saying that Occam's razor is always right! Personally, I find the idea of string-theory strings and branes to be far from simple (although they may turn out to be simple when we have the right point of view).
Force Choke is a DARK power, and I'm not going down that path!
To be a Jedi. .
1. Follow a path of Serving Others rather than Serving Self.
2. Use force only for defense.
3. Do not allow strong emotions to rule your thoughts and actions.
4. Believe that one's Focus Determines One's Reality.
5. Do not allow attachments into your life.
6. Learn how to manipulate the 'Force'.
7. Learn martial arts with respect to the sword.
There's probably other elements, but that's all I could think of off the top from the films.
My thoughts on those points by number. .
1. Agree wholeheartedly with the principal. Hard to do in this reality where eating kills and everybody has baggage they're working through.
2. Fits with the first point.
3. Hmm. Sounds like a good idea, but I'm not entirely clear on this. I think love and compassion, and emotion in general are really, really important to explore and understand within yourself. Shutting them off does not allow self knowledge, but rather puts up walls which cause problems.
4. Absolutely. "Your Focus determines your Reality". This is an incredibly powerful function of this reality. This is difficult to understate. This is the easiest route to so-called 'magic' I've ever seen. Anybody can make anything happen, but watch out for anticipation. That and wishful thinking will derail you every time.
5. Yes, but it's a very easy thing to screw up. A blanket law of not being allowed to love makes it easy to follow, but is probably crippling in the long run. In the end, learning how to love without attachment is one of THE big goals in this reality.
6. Energy works rather differently here than it does in the Star Wars universe, but the general idea is there.
7. Why not? How can one expect to master the ephemeral if one cannot master the physical?
Those are just my thoughts. --Plus this last one; I don't think Jedi can be considered a religion in the classic sense, (besides the fact that it's made up), in that religions typically involve (petty) god worship at some point, (that and not asking too many questions). Whereas 'Jedi' seems to be more like the study of spirituality without such limitations; self-exploration and the exploration of reality through the interaction of consciousness and spirit with the universe. Not the same as no fish on Fridays and believing in Roman social engineering/population herding propaganda (the Bible).
-FL
Did you guys realise that if Prince Charles got really fat, his big ears would give his head the appearance of a Tie-Fighter. Darth Chuck.
The Chronic *WHAT* les of Narnia!
I like that this was modded up as "informative".
I wished he was my MP. Not only did he make a point about the ridiculous scope of the religious hatred bill he also talked about how he wants to actually have a sensible debate about nuclear power.
"Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
"This is not the Copeland person you seek..."
Big whoop.
The US has a Sith president!
"I refuse to prove that I am real," say the Jedi's, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
/. hack, "the midichlorians are a dead giveaway aren't they? They could not have evolved by chance, but rather only as some cheap, ill-considered plot device. They prove that you are real, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you aren't. Q.E.D."
/. hack, and for an encore goes on to prove that lemon is lime and gets himself fatally poisoned with his next homemade Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster.
"But," says random
"Oh dear," say the Jedi, "We hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanish in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says
Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
The Jedi religion is mostly Taoist thought in new wrapping.
The difference between
I'm Chinese and let me tell you, basically my entire extended family believes in Chi force, especially the older ones. The belief is even stronger in rural areas, and hundreds of millions of my countrymen practice Tai-Chi on a regular basis. While Tai-Chi is not strictly about manipulating your chi force, it would certainly seem to suggest that many in asia still believe in chi.
Please don't be so quick to foist your ignorance on others and make blanket statements about societies you have probably never visited.
> the power of those styles. Even in asia, fery few people believe in chi these days.
I totally agree with you based on my experience with Goju Karate, Jujitsu, Shorinji Kempo, Chi Kung, Baguazhang, and Kung Fu. No question, chi is just a convenient way of thinking about your body and isn't actually real---that was my experience.
Except then I accidentally measured the damn stuff.
Surprised the heck out of me when I did it---I was TOTALLY expecting a different result. So I repeated the experiment. And again. And again. And...well, I explained the result to friends kinda like this:
I was sitting in a research talk about databases, and having trouble paying attention because I'd just presented and it was right after lunch. The speakers were passing around wireless heat sensors, so I started playing with one when it came around to me. The standard demo was to hold it in one hand and then cup your other hand over it - the sensor would pick up the heat change, and the assosciated data stream being shown on the screen at the front of the room would spike up to a new level accordingly.
After doing that a couple of times, I was bored again. I decided it would be fun try pretend to channel chi into it; nothing would happen, of course, but the idea was worth a few seconds of chuckling---flinging chi at a doctorate-level research project! Amusing notion, but with only one problem:
I was wrong.
I did a half-hearted two seconds of a standard little meditation/visualization meant to build up chi, and pictured it flowing through my arms down into the sensor, fully expecting the continuously-updated data display to be wholly unchanged. You can imagine I was a mite surprised, then, when the sensor output spiked at the exact moment I was doing this.
My immediate thought was that it was pure coincidence - the sensor's readings probably spike randomly every now and then no matter what's going on. If I waited a little while, I figured, I'd see a similar spike without me doing anything, and that would be that.
So I waited.
Nothing.
Okay, first two hypotheses---that nothing would happen and that it was a coincidence---were false. But it was probably a fluke---I doubted it'd happen again.
So I did the little two-second meditaty thing again...and the sensor spiked again, exactly at the instant I was visualizing the chi hitting it. So much for hypothesis #3.
At this point, I figured it was pretty clear that I was indeed causing the spikes in the sensor readings, but how? I guessed that maybe I'd been inadvertently tensing my hands a little, moving them closer to the sensor cupped inside. So, of course, I test that, doing the channel-thing again, but this time keeping _very_ careful watch on my hands to see that they're completely motionless.
Spike!
I ran that test a second time, holding my hands motionless through the both tests and the maybe-it's-coincidence-after-all? waiting period in between; spikes (only) at the instant of channelling, just as before. Hypothesis #4 bites the dust.
Well, alright, I thought, if I'm doing something to influence the sensor, is it just yes/no, or is it actually measuring something? If I'm theoretically channelling _more_ chi, will I get a bigger spike in the readings?
Hypothesis #5.
This time I do the building-chi visualization for a little longer, maybe 3-4 seconds, and visualize a more powerful stream of chi flowing through my hands into the sensor.
And the sensor spikes like I've never seen before, not when I was doing the previous tests, not when I or anyone else was cupping and uncupping our hands around it, never---this spike is significantly larger than any other change I'd seen the sensors detec
-- "I can't tell the future, I just work there." -- The Doctor
Why would this particular religion be bizarre while others are not? They're all mythologies with fairytales and fables anyway.
All MPs are Honourable Members. Membership of the Privy Council makes one the Right Honourable Member for Footown.
(S)
The comment was made during a debate on a new bill which would outlaw religious hatred and the MP in question was trying to make a "witty" point against the bill by claiming to be a Jedi. I don't what's more inane - him thinking he was being funny, or you guys taaking it seriously.
..or however you spell it.
It does, it just isn't presented in the web interface... If you use a tool like psybnc which supports translation via babelfish, you can manually specify english to english and it will turn good english into very broken english..
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
You'll be first in the clink, matey.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Me sirs think we should grant exceptional temporary power forever to the supreme chancellor to meet this terrorist emergency....
Notice at Papaltine's red robe and medalion when he apeared to the Galatic Senate in Episode III.
> appear mottled. Your hand also probably feels cooler. This is due to changes
> in blood flow. I guess you were measuring the increased heat given out by the
> increased blood flow.
I had considered that, hence my original "physiological changes" suggestion; however, upon thinking about it there is no actual evidence for that hypothesis, and there are three pieces against it:
1) There was no observable change in my hands, either at the time (although I couldn't see the palms, for obvious reasons), or now (when I can see the palms).
2) There was no lag---the sensor spikes coincided exactly with the "channelling" period. For a blood-heat-based explanation---which was (and still is) one of the stronger hypotheses I've considered---I would expect at the very least a residual effect due to the surrounding tissues absorbing some of that heat and releasing it after the blood rush. There was no such moderating effect observed.
3) The temperature difference between the inside of my cupped hands in a medium-temperature room and that same condition with a rush of blood sounds like it would be a lesser change than the difference between having the sensor exposed to the air or cupped in my hands; however, that was not the observed result. By far the largest change was observed during "channelling", even though the likely temperature difference between my cupped hands (29C or more---since I'm male, they tend to stay pretty warm) and my blood (37C at core, 31C in arms) is likely to be lower than that between my hands and the ambient temperature in the room (~20C), yet the sensor observed a much greater difference during large "channelling".
My bias is to look for a purely-physiological explanation, but so far I haven't found one that satisfactorily explained the data. And, after all, data is king---any hypothesis which fails to match the data is discarded.
> heat-generation/blood flow to at least parts of your body than any mystical/ethereal force?
Possibly, although I haven't found a mechanism which fits the data yet---see my response to the previous poster.
> (which doesn't necessarily mean that that isn't what "chi" *is*... one can
> think of many useful things for increased blood flow/heat generation)
Yes, which IMHO is a more useful approach than bickering about what it actually is, at least at this point. There are observable effects from various traditional medical practices---for example, one of the top hand surgeons in Rhode Island became very interested in acupuncture after observing gall bladder surgery with no anaesthetic other than acupuncture (he was carrying on a conversation with the patient during the procedure)---and at this early stage, measuring and categorizing the observable effects is more productive than attempting to form a hypothesis on the underlying cause.
Basically, gather data, then explain the data.
Note to self: (1) Don't make jokes on /., or (2) make better jokes.
Actually, I always thought his name was "Elron"
No, you're confusing him with Hugo Weaving.-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
Nobody has ever observed the Big Bang (nor something unequivocally attributable to it), nor a superstring. You could argue about quantum physics, but it would be an uphill battle. Embryology... hmmm... we still have Earnst Haeckel's frauds being touted as truth in textbooks after more than a century. That doesn't bode well.
Not only is "founded on mathematics" about as much snake-oil as "contains herbs" (what herbs? parsley? spinach? lawn clippings? banana leaves? and does an 0.01% inclusion have in impact on the nutritional value?), you'll have woken up all of the mathematicians, now, so the whole thread'll degenerate into painstakingly exact and clever proofs of stuff which has no conceivable physical application. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
"My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." Read the next verse, too.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
"I'm not saying the Jedi stuff isn't silly, but is it really any sillier than any other faith?"
Exactly. The answer is: no, it isn't more silly then any other faith or belief, though this will be disputed by those that adher to other beliefs, ofcourse. As long as you can avoid anything that would be contradicted by proof (like all other religions and belief-systems do), then there is no valid argumentation possible that belief in the Force is any more or less 'valid' then belief in God or the Bible.
"The whole idea of religion is antithetical to a rational mind."
Hear, hear.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Comment removed based on user account deletion
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/07/01/AR2005070100611_2.html
tripmaster made the washington post (online)
The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
Also, there was no mention of Hell in the Old Testament.
I would like this explained.
Did God, create hell after Jesus or did he not care enough about his choosen people to warn them about hell? As far as I have come to find is that most modern Jews do not believe in hell as most Christians define it.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)