|
|
Post by merkavah12 on Mar 16, 2011 5:49:58 GMT
scifi.soentertain.me/?p=499The Jedi face a challenge greater than that of the Mandolorians, the Sith, or even George Lucas' desire to make money. Gotta say, did not see this one coming.
|
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Mar 16, 2011 7:01:01 GMT
The Jedi face a challenge greater than that of the Mandolorians, the Sith, or even George Lucas' desire to make money. Gotta say, did not see this one coming. New book coming out - "The Force Delusion"? I guess the atheists will combat the Jedis with their Brights sabers! (sorry!) |
|
|
|
Post by merkavah12 on Mar 16, 2011 9:20:08 GMT
I guess the atheists will combat the Jedis with their Brights sabers! (sorry!)  Have an awful pun right back at ya! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by eckadimmock on Mar 17, 2011 0:59:04 GMT
I think some of the New Atheist brigade could tick the 'no sense of humour' box too.
|
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Mar 17, 2011 1:51:09 GMT
I think some of the New Atheist brigade could tick the 'no sense of humour' box too. Or maybe the "a census is a serious business" box. We have a census coming up here in Australia and the Atheist Foundation of Australia is running a campaign to make people think more carefully about what they say in response to the "Religion" question. And for good reason. Most measures indicate that Australia is a distinctly non-religious place. Surveys indicate that a paltry 7.8% of the population attend religious services (church, synagogue, mosque, temple) regularly. Yet religious spokesmen like to point to the census results to argue that "most people are religious". The problem is that "most people" tend to tick a religion box in the census not because of what they actually believe, let alone what they practice, but because of some vague semi-tribal afflication. I know a girl who believes in a grab bag of New Age quackery, is convinced about reincarnation, says she doesn't think Jesus existed but insists she's an Anglican. Exploring this further, I found that not only had she never been baptised and had only darkened the door of a church at the odd wedding, but her parents hadn't been baptised either. So why was she "an Anglican". She explained it was because "my grandmother told me that's what we were." Anglican prelates who claim the right to a seat at the political table, whose thinking dominate certain wings of certain parties and who are currently trying to shut down a trial of ethics classes as an alternative to "scripture" in public schools will, of course, claim this "Anglican" along with all the other non-Christian, irreligious "Anglicans" who fill out their census without thinking this year. And so the numbers of "Anglicans" along with "Catholics" and "Orthodox" will artificially pump up the actual numbers of religious believers once again. Unless people think a little more. The AFA campaign also notes about the silly "Jedi" idea: What happens if I write Jedi Knight?It gets counted as 'Not Defined' and is not placed in the 'No religion' category. This takes away from the 'No religion' numbers and therefore advantages the religion count. It was funny to write Jedi once, now it is a serious mistake to do so.Not exactly unreasonable. Of course, such a campaign is not likely to reduce the indications of religious believers in the census results to the true figure of a small and shrinking number of people who genuinely believe and practice their faith. But if it reduces the warping of the figures and the distorted picture it produces and therefore an inordinate and unwarranted level of political influence by religious leaders just a little, that would be a good thing. I would have thought religious people, given their scrupulousness about true belief and a supposed attachment to truthfulness, would have supported this campaign wholeheartedly. Strangely, they have not been very supportive at all. I wonder why ...  |
|
|
|
Post by noons on Mar 17, 2011 2:02:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by eckadimmock on Mar 17, 2011 4:36:47 GMT
I think some of the New Atheist brigade could tick the 'no sense of humour' box too. Or maybe the "a census is a serious business" box. We have a census coming up here in Australia and the Atheist Foundation of Australia is running a campaign to make people think more carefully about what they say in response to the "Religion" question. And for good reason. Most measures indicate that Australia is a distinctly non-religious place. Surveys indicate that a paltry 7.8% of the population attend religious services (church, synagogue, mosque, temple) regularly. Yet religious spokesmen like to point to the census results to argue that "most people are religious". The problem is that "most people" tend to tick a religion box in the census not because of what they actually believe, let alone what they practice, but because of some vague semi-tribal afflication. I know a girl who believes in a grab bag of New Age quackery, is convinced about reincarnation, says she doesn't think Jesus existed but insists she's an Anglican. Exploring this further, I found that not only had she never been baptised and had only darkened the door of a church at the odd wedding, but her parents hadn't been baptised either. So why was she "an Anglican". She explained it was because "my grandmother told me that's what we were." Anglican prelates who claim the right to a seat at the political table, whose thinking dominate certain wings of certain parties and who are currently trying to shut down a trial of ethics classes as an alternative to "scripture" in public schools will, of course, claim this "Anglican" along with all the other non-Christian, irreligious "Anglicans" who fill out their census without thinking this year. And so the numbers of "Anglicans" along with "Catholics" and "Orthodox" will artificially pump up the actual numbers of religious believers once again. Unless people think a little more. The AFA campaign also notes about the silly "Jedi" idea: What happens if I write Jedi Knight?It gets counted as 'Not Defined' and is not placed in the 'No religion' category. This takes away from the 'No religion' numbers and therefore advantages the religion count. It was funny to write Jedi once, now it is a serious mistake to do so.Not exactly unreasonable. Of course, such a campaign is not likely to reduce the indications of religious believers in the census results to the true figure of a small and shrinking number of people who genuinely believe and practice their faith. But if it reduces the warping of the figures and the distorted picture it produces and therefore an inordinate and unwarranted level of political influence by religious leaders just a little, that would be a good thing. I would have thought religious people, given their scrupulousness about true belief and a supposed attachment to truthfulness, would have supported this campaign wholeheartedly. Strangely, they have not been very supportive at all. I wonder why ... Oh, I guess you're right regarding a serious business, but I find it difficult to muster outrage: given the influence of pop culture on people's beliefs "Jedi" is probably as accurate a description as "no religion". Surely 'not defined' is much the same as 'no religion', and it seems unlikely that the Jedis are a threat to the irreligious: No-one is likely to assume that George Pell speaks for the 'undefined' people. If you guys want to inflate your numbers, you might be better off targeting those who put "Christian" (or whatever) for tribal reasons rather than genuine belief. |
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Mar 17, 2011 6:06:17 GMT
Oh, I guess you're right regarding a serious business, but I find it difficult to muster outrage I don’t see any “outrage” about the Jedi joke on the AFA’s site. They just note that given the census has a serious purpose, it makes more sense for people who are genuinely not religious to indicate that. The initial link overstates the UK atheist “outrage” as well. The bigger and more accurate the “No Religion” the result the harder it is for us to be ignored. That’s the point. That’s exactly what the AFA campaign does. The Jedi part I quoted is one answer on their FAQ and nothing more. And they aren’t looking to “inflate” our numbers, they are looking to make them accurately reflect the true number of non-religious people in a very non-religious country. As I said, 7.8% of Aussies attend religious worship regularly. The figure for our parliamentary representatives, however, is three times that. Religious people are already massively over-represented in the political sphere and that’s even without the influence of spectres like the odious Cardinal Pell and his bouncing puppet, Tony “Mad Monk” Abbott. |
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Mar 17, 2011 6:59:49 GMT
It's not all a joke, it is certain some people were genuine though we don't know that portion. Given that, it's a bit odd to assume most are being insincere when we don't have accurate data on that. Though of course if all non-religious Jedi tick No Religion this round, the campaign can be said to have been successful.
I'd also like to point out the possibility of religious people claiming to be Jedi.
|
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Mar 17, 2011 20:02:47 GMT
Most measures indicate that Australia is a distinctly non-religious place. My experience Tim, say in the workplace and family, is that most people are neither religious nor anti-religious. They do not choose to go to church or call themselves "christian", but neither would they call themselves "atheist" (on whichever definition is offered). Many have a very vague belief in a god of some sort, but don't care to decide any more rigorously. In my experience, most Aussies would say something like: "I'm not religious, but I think there may be something out there."So entering the "non-religious" box might be as misleading as entering the "CofE" or "Catholic" box. |
|
|
|
Post by Al Moritz on Mar 17, 2011 20:18:54 GMT
In my experience, most Aussies would say something like: "I'm not religious, but I think there may be something out there."That is what probably most Europeans would say too. I think only a small percentage would deliberately, by conviction, label themselves as atheists. I agree. |
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Mar 17, 2011 20:27:02 GMT
Most measures indicate that Australia is a distinctly non-religious place. My experience Tim, say in the workplace and family, is that most people are neither religious nor anti-religious. They do not choose to go to church or call themselves "christian", but neither would they call themselves "atheist" (on whichever definition is offered). Many have a very vague belief in a god of some sort, but don't care to decide any more rigorously. In my experience, most Aussies would say something like: "I'm not religious, but I think there may be something out there."So entering the "non-religious" box might be as misleading as entering the "CofE" or "Catholic" box. Then it would be up to them to decide if their vague "something" is enough to classify themselves as religious or, if not, "non-religious". But I can't see how it's accurate for people who don't subscribe to the Nicean Creed can classify themselves as "Anglican" or "Catholic". And "non-religious" doesn't mean anything like "anti-religion". I'm not "anti-religion", but I'm definitely "non-religious". |
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Mar 17, 2011 21:09:49 GMT
Then it would be up to them to decide if their vague "something" is enough to classify themselves as religious or, if not, "non-religious". But I can't see how it's accurate for people who don't subscribe to the Nicean Creed can classify themselves as "Anglican" or "Catholic". In my experience, most christians find that as unrealistic and frustrating as you do. The problem arises if (as appears likely from what you are saying), the strong atheists want to claim these people for their "side", which is just as inaccurate as claiming them for the christian side. After all, you are right that surveys show that something around or less than 10% attend "church", but the same surveys also show that something around 70%+ believe in God. (Amazingly, about 50% of Aussies say they believe in the resurrection even thought they don't identify as christians.) I think we really need another few categories - "Vaguely theistic", "Too muddled to think about it" and "Couldn't give a stuff either way". |
|
|
|
Post by noons on Mar 18, 2011 3:15:13 GMT
The way I see it, what we put on the census largely is about semi-tribal affiliation. And what we identify as might not say very much, one way or the other, about what we specifically believe, either religiously or politically. So one cannot equate " personally identify as x" with "sign on to the y agenda", though all kinds of advocacy organizations do just that.
However, opinion polls on much more specific questions make it much harder for advocacy organizations to use census data to their advantage.
|
|
|
|
Post by eckadimmock on Mar 18, 2011 3:58:45 GMT
I think we really need another few categories - "Vaguely theistic", "Too muddled to think about it" and "Couldn't give a stuff either way". There's a lot of confusion all around. It appears from another survey that 21 % of atheists believe in God. One can picture the scene on survey day: "Gladys, what religion are we?" "It's that one with the Queen in it: starts with an "A" " "Right, "atheist" that must be it.." |
|
