Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2016 4:38:51 GMT -7
What science do you have to back up that definition? What Theology training have you had to qualify you to create this definition?
It's not that your definition is a bad one. It's a good attempt to pin down a "God", but it seems directed at one god in particular. There are many Gods who are not credited with the creation of the universe (or even the world). Neither Ra, nor Odin created the universe - and that's just a couple of the big names. Quetzalcoatl didn't create the universe either - just humans.
I figure Kevin Uxbridge would be a good example of a Ra-like being.
|
|
|
Post by Gorn on Oct 2, 2016 8:18:35 GMT -7
#1 is only "directed at one god in particular" if you're a christian or muslim chavenist, and assume any statement must by default be about YOUR religion. There are and have been many religions throughout history that have made exactly that claim. You don't need Science to "back up" stating the claim any religion MAKES about the Universe's origin - that religion will TELL you, whether you want them to or not. You don't need theology training to state the claim any religion MAKES about the Universe's origin - that religion will TELL you, whether you want them to or not. D'uh.
#2 Trelane never showed up on Earth in the past? He didn't create this Universe? Then he's an omega class alien. The Metrons never showed up on Earth in the past? They didn't create this Universe? Then they're omega class aliens. Apollo and his group DID show up on ancient Earth and mess with the Greeks? Then they are the gods of Greek Mythology. That's what the Greeks called them. That's what humanity identified them as. Add the qualifier of "omega class aliens" to their description at Memory Alpha if you like.
If you want to go and pray to Trelane in STO, be my guest. It doesn't make him a god because your STO character is a nutbag. If you want to go and pray to Trelane in reality to save the life of someone you heard about on the internet, be my guest. It will be just as effective as praying to any other god ever thought up by any civilization. You'll probably be from a very select few of nutbags, but it doesn't make you much more of a nutbag than any other religious person knowing it's a fictional character from a TV show.
(I used Trelane instead of the more popular John DeLancie Q mainly because he hasn't been finished with yet in terms of stories in STO. And who knows what shit the JJcamp will pull if they shove him in the movie series in the future? We might even get Trelane as a Q again.)
|
|
|
Post by brickwall on Oct 2, 2016 10:40:02 GMT -7
A few observations, the original series showed Hindus with Bindis, don't recall that from the next generation. Also I want to move to Tubulaar IV in time to celebrate Radicall. But if I'm not totally tubular, when I wipe out I'll be cursed and go to Gnarly. lolz. Unlike @ironnerd and his Shortboardian church, I'm of the Longboardian tradition, and we know that "Gnarly" is nothing to celebrate. Infidels. Question to this scenario: what would be the faith of those on Tubulaar IV who are strict land-lubbers? You know, the farmers and city builders and dwellers near mountain ranges? The folks who make the "brewskies" so they can get buzzed during Radicall? Or are those places considered "forbidden areas" and the people there thought of as "too square to care about"? Just asking, nothing more.
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Oct 2, 2016 11:01:00 GMT -7
This illustrates part of the problem with gods. Because they are imaginary there is no actual description of a god. A god might be this, a god might be that, this might be a god. It's madness. No one is confused about what a squirrel is because it is a real thing. You can go get one and pick it up and quantify its characteristics. You can say, "No, that's not a squirrel, it's a sugar glider." or, "a weasel." Or you could say, "That is a squirrel, but it's a red squirrel." or, "a grey squirrel." This is because we have real information to go on. We understand squirrel behavior and biology, and we know exactly what makes an animal a "squirrel".
On the other hand we have no idea what a god is. We cant even agree on whether or not a god is the creator of the universe or not. Does it have a long white beard? Does it care what we do with our genitals? Is it alone, or part of a group? We have no idea. Of course adherents to a particular faith describe aspects of what they think is a god, but those aspects are very often different and commonly contradict the descriptions of other faith's gods. Unfortunately, the faithful, when pressed, are all to happy to back off and defend a very generic god when defending their own proves too hard.
From what I can tell the only common denominator in those generic gods seems to be, "significantly more powerful than us". So, by that definition, yes. The Q, Trelane, Kevin, The Traveller, Wesley, The Caretaker, Apollo, that thing at the center of the galaxy, and any other number of things out there in the Star Trek universe all qualify. Of course, to the faithful the answer is "No." Those would all be powerful beings playing at god. Its all a mess because in an argument about fiction everybody is both right and wrong all the time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2016 12:25:15 GMT -7
JAFisher44 - I love that answer.
I would only (slightly) disagree with "Of course, to the faithful the answer is "No.". To the faithful the answer is "Yes", unless we are talking about someone else's god... then it's "No".
In Star Trek:TMP, McCoy (or was it Decker) even said "We all make God in our own image".
And, I agree, we're all wrong and right - after all, we're talking about fiction here.
|
|
|
Post by Gorn on Oct 2, 2016 15:21:11 GMT -7
Or, as Hitchens said "Religious people are already Atheists towards everyone else's gods. We just go one more."
TOS itself basically told us there are no actual gods or god. Just Omega class type 3 aliens (type 2 in the case of Vaal) that can act and move through other dimensions. It's the worshippers who declare it to be a god of any sort.
|
|
|
Post by pericles on Oct 2, 2016 17:18:18 GMT -7
You don't have to have cosmic powers to be worshipped. Haille Selassie is at the core of Rastafarianism and he was just a regular old human.
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Oct 2, 2016 20:28:26 GMT -7
And I'd argue that Christopher Hichtens is at the center of another kind of "religion" - even if his followers don't realize it... Hmmm... starting to sound like this could be part of an episode of Southpark: southpark.cc.com/clips/2y8xoh/atheist-war
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Oct 3, 2016 6:09:02 GMT -7
And you would be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Oct 3, 2016 6:44:42 GMT -7
I have to admit these are very good points. Some have compared each religion to viewing a particular 'aspect' of the allmighty (6 men of hindustan to learning much inclined). Not sure if I buy that but at least it's a window toward coexistence.
It's very cool that the concept of 'super-powerful' aliens has come back. Cool story, Once I broached that topic on separate occasions with a very religious friend and again with my very atheist friend. Neither one wanted to go there, the religious friend because she feared it would invalidate god (blasphemy), the other for precisely the opposite reason. Either way All-powerful aliens are not "god', though in perspective they may be 'god-like', I'd hope to behave like Picard in that eventuality. The scary thing is if the alien could subvert your free will like Q did with Picard.
For my part I get aggravated with people who claim to have a 100% evidentiary world view and use that delusion to attack other people. An 'honest' atheist has to admit they don't always know everything, but that's something many atheists can't bear to admit, since it means they might have to admit they are proceeding from 'belief'.
But I'm with Thunderf00t on this, people can do whatever they want as long as they don't scare the horses. I respect atheism even if I don't respect the actions of some atheists. To be clear, based on your own example I don't mean to lump you in with them. You are certainly more temperate than your peers. Thanks for that anyway.
Starcruiser is just pointing out the tendency of some atheists to be dogmatic and unreasoning. You don't seem to share that, and I recognize that atheists are not a monolith. In practice their behavior (evangelism, dogmatic irrationality) is religious in nature, the perfect example of a religious mindset, they create their own little reality in their own little world where they are king.
Also Atheism isn't the rejection of "one less' god, it's a rejection of ALL gods. Since some christians believe in a God, they cannot be atheists.
Just to tie this back into Star Trek, worm hole aliens or no, I think if the Bajorans showed up on the scene, anywhere they went they would have converts in droves, having a more physical connection to their gods and a direct conduit (via orbs) to religious experience that apparently anyone or any species could have.
But back on topic, i can't think of any other noteworthy star trek religions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2016 14:57:37 GMT -7
A few observations, the original series showed Hindus with Bindis, don't recall that from the next generation. Also I want to move to Tubulaar IV in time to celebrate Radicall. But if I'm not totally tubular, when I wipe out I'll be cursed and go to Gnarly. lolz. Unlike @ironnerd and his Shortboardian church, I'm of the Longboardian tradition, and we know that "Gnarly" is nothing to celebrate. Infidels. Question to this scenario: what would be the faith of those on Tubulaar IV who are strict land-lubbers? You know, the farmers and city builders and dwellers near mountain ranges? The folks who make the "brewskies" so they can get buzzed during Radicall? Or are those places considered "forbidden areas" and the people there thought of as "too square to care about"? Just asking, nothing more. Not all who follow the most righteous Big Kahuna, hear the same song. Though many hear the sweet song of wind and wave, others hear the whisper of the forest, or the slow chant of the mountain. Those most mellow are called to the land to till the soil and patiently bring forth its bounty, yeah? And He has blessed many with the gift of turning this bounty into righteous brew, hewing fallen trees to boards long and short, or even raising their voices in joyus song for all to enjoy. Whether we live upon wave, or hillock, forest, or beach, the Big Kahuna has but one righteous message, "Be excellent to this world I have made for you, and be excellent to each other." Only those who are heinous and break the Big Kahuna's one law are cast out as Squares, Bra. But even those who have wiped out, can surf again, so all righteous Doodes and Doodettes do what they can to help Squares find their path of the Big Kahuna so they too may ride the Epic Celestial Wave. Above all else, we are all Doodes in the eyes of the Big Kahuna. Good Times, Bra. Good Times.
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Oct 3, 2016 18:41:14 GMT -7
Not all who follow the most righteous Big Kahuna, hear the same song. Though many hear the sweet song of wind and wave, others hear the whisper of the forest, or the slow chant of the mountain. Those most mellow are called to the land to till the soil and patiently bring forth its bounty, yeah? And He has blessed many with the gift of turning this bounty into righteous brew, hewing fallen trees to boards long and short, or even raising their voices in joyus song for all to enjoy. Whether we live upon wave, or hillock, forest, or beach, the Big Kahuna has but one righteous message, "Be excellent to this world I have made for you, and be excellent to each other." Only those who are heinous and break the Big Kahuna's one law are cast out as Squares, Bra. But even those who have wiped out, can surf again, so all righteous Doodes and Doodettes do what they can to help Squares find their path of the Big Kahuna so they too may ride the Epic Celestial Wave. Above all else, we are all Doodes in the eyes of the Big Kahuna. Good Times, Bra. Good Times. Teach it, Bra. Preach it.
|
|
|
Post by Gorn on Oct 3, 2016 21:00:15 GMT -7
The point Hitchens articulated uniquely well, starcruiser was that religious people DO act Atheistically - to anyone else's god. They do NOT believe in "the others'" at all. His unique ability for articulation is why intelligent people admire Hitchens, not "worship" "religiously"; (equating those who distinctly SAY they don't do that to religious dolts is mere trolling worthy of pericles) While I agree that there are a significant number of Atheists who hold to it out of belief instead of education, they aren't a problem - since they do adhere to what happens to be correct. The Atheists who claim they don't know if there is a god or not should admit they are simply paying apologetic lip service. Yes, the probability there is no god is not zero. But only an idiot would immediately seize on that vanishingly small number and blow it 766 666.667 times out of proportion as proof that the probability of gaaaahhhhddd = 1. (No-prize for those who figure out where I got that factor). The religious Atheistically dismiss the flying spaghetti monster as ludicrous. How is their ludicrous fantasy any more likely? When I hear Scientists say "it is possible god exists, sure." They should immediately ALSO say "it is equally possible the flying spaghetti monster created all reality, sure." Since this was about our TV franchise fantasies, let me end by saying that if any of the alien species did appear here in the past, then by the definitions of those ancients, they ARE the gods. The fact that they do not merit worship due to modern identification as type 3 aliens is irrelevant. Didn't Kirk already go over this with Apollo???
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Oct 4, 2016 7:32:01 GMT -7
Sorry - you missed the point...
Can't see the forest for the trees. You and JA are in the middle of a forest of fellow atheists and can't see what's actually going on around you.
Point 1: Prophets and martyrs - Currently, atheism has Hitchens (recently passed) and Dawkins as prophets of their "faith" that there is no God (or gods etc...). There are many others from the past and some of those were persecuted by established religions etc. Point 2: Dogma and theology - The atheist movement has been creating this underlying structure off and on for centuries. There are already schisms forming as some don't agree with mainstream atheism on certain points. Point 3: Infrastructure (aka temples/chuches) - There are atheists pushing for the establishment of "meeting halls" or the like where they can gather in private and discuss their ideas (nothing wrong with that but...).
This will lead to the next steps in the forming of an organized religion:
Forming of some type of hierarchy to manage this organization. Collection of donations to support meeting halls (costs money to have those), applications for NPO status to avoid paying piles 'o taxes on that money. Portraits being hung of the "prophets" and "martyrs" (won't be called that, of course but...). Then, someone will suggest creating a book condensing the primary sources of atheism into one easy to access reference (aka "bible" - that's all the bible really is), and so on and so forth ad infinitum etc...
Neither of you can see this yet and neither of you will admit it but, from the outside looking in - all the signs are there. Atheism is turning into an organized religion, whether you like that or not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2016 8:00:08 GMT -7
Alright you freaks - take all that reality stuff to another thread. The topic line specifies "Not the Real World".
Crazy kids.
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Oct 4, 2016 8:25:37 GMT -7
D'OH!!!
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Oct 4, 2016 9:16:23 GMT -7
@ironnerd you're the one who brought the Salty Surf of Tubulaar IV into this. Have you not seen the tide? Have you not felt the rhythmic stillness of the depths? There is no synergy between those of the land and those bathed in the saline truth of Tubulaar. You must choose, for the grain of sand which stays in the surf ceases to exist. Gorn makes it very tempting to use invective even though in this instance he's arguing with more candor than I'm used to from him. I know you don't care what I think Gorn but I do appreciate the gesture however subtle. Please notice that none of us here are above lampooning the vagaries of religion, also how Tubulaar faith (radical!) plays into your point. That said you should convert to Tubulaarism for the sake of your bodaciousness or you'll be gnarly forever. You are onto something, as Bertrand Russell said (paraphrasing) if the statement that there is a God is nonsensical, the statement that there is no God is equally nonsensical.". I know what hitchens meant. While watching a good hitchslap is enjoyable, he is probably wrong in this instance. It's one of his inconsistencies but IMHO that doesn't detract from his other more eloquent points. He's overlooking the fact that most religions admit "other" gods. Dawkins and Hitches frequently argue against their preferred strawman rather than against theology/deism at it's most robust. That's their right, of course...but it's nevertheless shortsighted. Even if one is talking about fiction they should take care to get the fiction right. After all Voldemort isn't the lord of Mordor. lol. Religions historically avoid the paradox by saying their god is the "one true" god, as has been implied in this thread. But starcruiser what you are describing can also be broadly described as "scientific humanism", the tit-for-tat comparisons between atheists and religionists notwithstanding. It's an ancient argument and it's tribalistic in nature "you're wrong, i'm right and therefore better than you." *ahem* Scientific humanism could eventually be a leading and optimistic world view (that is, if it were better represented by people who could be painted with that brush). www.amazon.com/Religions-Star-Trek-Ross-Kraemer/dp/0813341159 One topical book on the subject, maybe I'll get it. What was that voyager episode with Harry Kim (yawn) where he found an alien race that killed their people at a certain age and transferred them to a literal afterlife? Even after he revealed the cause they left it stand (Prime directive) but if I remember right suggested those people were better off with their afterlife as it was.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2016 9:49:21 GMT -7
@ironnerd you're the one who brought the Salty Surf of Tubulaar IV into this. Have you not seen the tide? Have you not felt the rhythmic stillness of the depths? There is no synergy between those of the land and those bathed in the saline truth of Tubulaar. You must choose, for the grain of sand which stays in the surf ceases to exist. Whoa... Deep thoughts, Bra. I guess I have to let some reality in... Bummer...
|
|
|
Post by Gorn on Oct 4, 2016 17:16:01 GMT -7
Starcruiser:
1) ONCE AGAIN. equating those who distinctly SAY they don't do that to religious dolts is mere trolling worthy of pericles. You DON'T GET to equate Scientist Atheists to the religious. We are NOT that. That is the one thing that we precisely aren't. I do NOT have prophets (people privy to 'secret' knowledge that others cannot possibly have) and I do NOT have 'faith' (unquestioning BELIEF in dogma) that the religious do. STOP trying to equate us with a "you too" fallacy. 2) Not sure what you're applying dogma and theology to, but if you're trying to apply it to Atheism, you're claiming that Abstinence is a sexual position. STOP trying to equate us with a "you too" fallacy. 3) "religion" is thinking there is an invisible magic skydaddy that no human could possibly equal, so they better give up their thinking entirely and follow without question exactly what it commands. That is entirely different from Atheists, who come to their Atheism by throwing off precisely that. STOP trying to equate us with a "you too" fallacy.
Atheism is NOT a religion any more than OFF is a TV channel.
I don't care what idiots think rabid; if someone thinks that by his own Amazing Brainpowerâ„¢ of philosophy he knows better than Science conclusions - that makes him an idiot. In the modern age of information nobody has an excuse to not know how Science works or the conclusions it has discovered. Once, long ago, people respected the Scientific mindset Spock represented. Then alot of the uneducated population turned to scorn and mockery. I do the same thing in reverse.
The most important question is from what basis and what reason do you lampoon the vagaries of religion. The next question for you, rabid, and in fact all other members is - are you what I would consider an idiot?
Keep in mind that I did not invent ONE SINGLE SCIENCE CONCLUSION. I just report them.
* * * *
I would like to ask ironnerd why he is calling people a piece of female lingerie, but since I'm on his ignore list, and the answer would probably be nonsensical...someone please tell him "Could you please write more coherently, Fruit of the Looms?"
|
|
|
Post by pericles on Oct 4, 2016 19:22:31 GMT -7
That's where you are wrong gorn. I only troll YOU. Try and get it right next time you take my name in vain.
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Oct 4, 2016 19:59:49 GMT -7
I don't care. I'm not one of your students. I don't have to prove shit and regardless of what you think I'm in the lab everyday. Your passive aggressive invectives are beyond old, save it for the poor hapless brats you are supposed to indoctrinate into your own unreasoning bias educate.
Only to immediately assume a lifelong obligation to hector strangers on the internet.
Atheists aren't religious? What a joke. This is coming from YOU, the worst kind of dogmatic ideologue. Note how quickly you rush to dust off Hitchens whenever anyone derides him, fatheaded and heedless, idiotic drunken slob that he was. You can't even take a joke about religion and your lack of good humor belies any pretense of intelligence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2016 3:22:23 GMT -7
Looks as though Pericles and Rabid are responding to something Gorn posted. This would support my argument that Gorn's presence in a thread puts it on a path to monkey poop fight. I think a few found this topic enjoyable to discuss, some found it humorous (I know I did), but Gorn had to show up and start calling people idiots and pointing out how his way is the only right and true way.
I started the thread, but the Forum will not permit me to lock it, perhaps the Mods can do this before Gorn causes it to further degenerate.
I'm over this.
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Jul 27, 2017 22:28:48 GMT -7
I've been asked to unlock this thread. Please behave.
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Jul 27, 2017 22:50:08 GMT -7
that's one heck of an olive branch Ja. :~{0
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2017 4:31:09 GMT -7
Indeed it is. Thank-you, JAFisher44 I'll remind everyone that this is not a thread to discuss actual real-life religion. Y'all can run down that rabbit hole in some other forum all together (as it leads nowhere). This thread is for the discussion of religions in the fictional universe of a science-fiction television show.
I rewatched "Who Mourns for Adonais?" a few days ago. It's one of TOS dumber episodes, but after watching it I found myself wondering. Why not simply tell the over-acting Apollo, "Dude! We have a space ship. Give us a couple of weeks and we can find a group of people in need of a God! Win-Win, Dude. How 'bout it?" Then you get Khan's people from Ceti Alpha V, and bring them to Pollux IV to meet their God. There is no way Apollo will let Khan and his follwers (and they are followers) leave Pollux IV, and Khan would find the situation completely intolerable. And it gets around any (more) prime directive issues. The crew could also have taken Apollo to Talso IV, where both he and the Talsoians would have been very entertained.
|
|