Why Not A Starfleet Ships Chaplain As A Main Character?

Discussion in 'Future of Trek' started by Knight Templar, Oct 7, 2012.

  1. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    T'Girl
    Why? Uhura doesn't say "They insinuate the he's the son of God." Or, "These moronic primitives think this carpenter is the son of God."

    Uhura says: " It is the Son of God."

    How can you possibly know what the Roman government spokesman said on the radio?

    Why clarify it? They could have just left them "Sun Worshipers."

    But beyond mere words, there is vocal inflection and also facial expression. Uhura's voice held the same joy and wonder my own does when I speak of God. As did her smiling face. Most TOS episodes are available on YouTube, should you wish to view the scene for conclusive proof. Empirical evidence.



    :)
     
  2. Longinus

    Longinus Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    I've seen the scene quite recently. "Not sun in sky but Son of God", she has to say that. "Not sun in the sky but Jesus the Palestinian rabbi", does not make sense if she is attempting to explain the sun/son confusion. And yes, they were glad about it, and at least Uhura and McCoy thought very highly of Christ." And so do I. But I don't think he was a god.

    From the production perspective, it certainly was a something for the Christian audience of the show. But that doesn't mean that the characters in the show were Christians.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2012
  3. TREK_GOD_1

    TREK_GOD_1 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    Location:
    Escaped from Delta Vega
    Your "studies" are not universal fact. It is illogical to base a sweeping opinion on a study which cannot account for billions who pray(ed) with results not necessarily known throughout history.

    Wrong--you are the one attacking the merit/effect of prayer, thus the burden of proof (that it does not work) is yours, otherwise, you are simply posting in the negative for the sake of atheist agenda, which does not walk hand in hand with truth about prayer, or anything else.
     
  4. TREK_GOD_1

    TREK_GOD_1 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    Location:
    Escaped from Delta Vega
    Again you place your hope in a scientific study, when it is clear the spiritual is beyond man's attempt to treat it as though it was a chemical formula.

    George Lucas tried that with his "midichlorian" nonsensical explanation for the "Force" in the 1999-2005 prequels (when it was necessary to justify a spiritual/"mystcial" power in the original films), and was flooded with criticism for trying to turn his creation's most defining plot motivator (the "will" of the Force and those who employ it) for even trying to turn it into something ro be explained in a lab.

    You must look at the chain of filmed evidence: the more rational explanation is that he "prepped" McCoy at that moment, but the transfer was not complete, for as you say, Spock was still alive for a few minutes beyond that, but once he suffered physical death (thus any other physical hold on his soul was severed), it was only sometime after that (beginning of ST3) that Spock;s Katra--the living spirit--took enough of a hold to influence McCoy's thoughts, speech, etc.


    Again, you make the woefully false leap to a conclusion that all is justified or explained in some scientific manner. To use your own words, your quote above is pure conjecture and not supported by on screen evidence, as the notion of the Thasians or Organians having a scientific explanation for their respective powers was not mentioned by the subjects themselves, nor by any observers.

    You are allowing atheist dogma to seek answers to questions deliberately never asked. Star Trek is very clear: when something requires a scientific explanation, writers have attempted to provide said explanation, whether it is the way transporters work, or how the Genesis "torpedo" terrforms barren worlds, but the spiritual is not apporached in this manner, as such abilities/practices/beliefs are accepted for whatever they are said to be.

    No, this does not inlcude device driven "superbeings" such as Apollo, Trelane, or humans genetically augmented by external forces (Gary Mitchell).


    She was not obligated to recognize his identity/status, as she was adding her own observations about the broadcasts; she just as easily could have focused on his message of brotherly love as being the driving force of the anti-Roman movement. Someone--whether they are an atheist, or non-Christian would be more likely to employ such a clinical analysis for Christ 's status and what was happening, but she did not for a reason, no matter how much you wish the dialogue to say something else.
     
  5. Longinus

    Longinus Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Do you understand how studies work? We do not have to ask every voter in the nation for the surveys to get rather reliable results on voter behaviour. We do not have to test a new drug on all the people in the world to know how effective it is.

    Now, you can believe what you want, but believing in prayer affecting the external world is exactly the same as believing that broken mirrors cause seven years of misfortune. It is superstition.

    Furthermore, I have no 'atheist agenda' if anything I have rationalist agenda. I do not want prayers to be ineffective, it certainly would be nice if we would magic things better, but that just does not seem to be the case. I am for finding what is the truth, regardless of whether that truth happens to be something we like. And Russel's Teapot should illustrate why proving the negative is a ludicrous endeavour. That is not how humans operate regarding any other information, and information on religious matters should be no different.
     
  6. Longinus

    Longinus Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Your idea that everything that is not given a sufficient technobable explanation must work by magic is an odd one. And no, I am not going be able to prove to you that this is not the case any more I can prove to you that prayers do not work. I just have to wonder why the hell would you think that.

    And comparison to Star Wars is actually good one. These two franchises have marked difference in tone. SW is more of a fantasy story set in space whereas Star Trek has always been a pure Science Fiction series, albeit rather soft one.
     
  7. TREK_GOD_1

    TREK_GOD_1 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    Location:
    Escaped from Delta Vega
    The very reason studies of that nature are often rendered suspect when its selected subject base is so small and skewed that it cannot accurately represent the habits or interest of the greater population, particularly in the case of a practice as old as prayer in the annals of human civilization. Further, studies with a pre-concieved conclusion ("prayer does not work") do not consider the near-endless generations of accounts from those who say prayer had specific results.

    The moment one does not consider that wealth of believer accounts throughout history, you are left with something as flawed as asking an isolated group of loyal Fox News viewers if they believe Obama is leading the U.S. in the right direction; such a skewed sample to obtain an obviously pre-concieved conclusion is not comprehensive, thus its results cannot be taken seriously.

    Translation: more reactionary atheist screaming for that which you cannot comprehend, while deliberately ignoring accounts throughout history of individuals citing the benefit and/or effect of prayer.

    The last four or five pages would seem to prove you are driven by the stated agenda.
     
  8. Longinus

    Longinus Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Age of a belief is not an indication of its veracity. People used to believe thousands of years that world was flat. Then that Sun revolved around the Earth. Furthermore, the plural of anecdote is not data.

    And scientific studies actually control how they select their samplings. How can you trust the studies on medicine, politics or anything else if you cannot trust them on this?
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2012
  9. Xhiandra

    Xhiandra Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2012
    The fundamentalism of some of this board's posters is both incredibly scary and depressing.
    Anyway, a chaplain would just about be the most un-Trek element to add to the franchise.

    Though I'll grant that fundamentalist oxymora are hilarious. "Atheist dogma". XD.


    Edit:

    Heh, he's basically re-stating the 4 classical categories and adding more intermediates:

    - Strong theist/gnostic theist=Dawkins' "1".
    - Weak theist/agnostic theist=Dawkins' "2" and "3".
    - Weak atheist/agnostic atheist=Dawkins' "5" and "6".
    - Strong atheist/gnostic atheist=Dawkins' "7".
    His 4 is impossible: rationally you can think it's 50/50, but from there you either believe or not; some you're either a 3 or a 5.
    But the point is true: gnostic atheists (7s) don't really exist outside of strawmen whereas theists are found both in agnostic (most of ours in the EU) and gnostic/fundie (plenty of them in the US and Middle East) varieties.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2012
  10. Longinus

    Longinus Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    The description of category 4 is not the best possible, but I still think the category in itself is valid. There certainly are people who are genuinely agnostic, and refuse to take stand in one way or another. Though most self described agnostics seem to fall closer to Dawkins' category 5. They say they're agnostic but in practice behave as there is no God.
     
  11. Darkwing

    Darkwing Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Location:
    This dry land thing is too wierd!
     
  12. 137th Gebirg

    137th Gebirg Vice Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2000
    Location:
    Who is John Galt?
    While I would not consider myself a fundamentalist, I do profess a belief in a Supreme Being. How can what has been posted by anyone here so far be classified as "fundamentalism"? Others here believe in God. Why can't they be allowed to say so without being labeled? There has been no advocacy of snake handling, speaking in tongues, self-flagellation, or any of the other things that most people would ascribe to a fundamentalist way of thinking. Some people are unapologetic in their spiritualism. Why should that automatically categorize them as a fundie by your or anyone else's standards?

    Everyone is entitled to their opinion - but atheists telling believers that they are misguided in their beliefs and not expect an argument is just as ignorant (and hypocritical) as believers telling non-believers they're going to hell and not have a problem with that. It is opinion. Not fact. You may not like it and that's perfectly fine, but it doesn't mean it shouldn't at least be recognized and respected as what they believe without verbal persecution.
     
  13. Longinus

    Longinus Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    What you mean by this?

    Let's just say we disagree on that.

    Thank you for this enlightening character analysis, I guess.

    Certainly. Effects of Christianity on the western society and culture will be felt for centuries or even millennia after people stop believing that the mythological aspects of it are true. Think Greco-Roman mythology; we are still familiar with it and it is still referenced today. We understand what Mars and Venus (or Ares and Aphrodite) symbolise, even though this religion they belonged to has been dead for ages.
     
  14. Longinus

    Longinus Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    I do not think anyone here has been shown themselves to be a fundamentalist. However, the exact reasoning (or lack thereof) can and often is used to defend fundamentalist ideas.

    I used rather harsh language regarding the effect of prayer. This is because that is exactly the kind of thinking that is behind creationism; that God can (and will) directly affect the world, and even though scientist may explain that there is absolutely no evidence for this and plenty to contrary, the scientists are just labelled as liars and fools, and the creationists keep pushing their hokum.

    Personally I have little problem with someone believing in a non-interventionist creator who just started it all, using the laws of physics as his tools. Providing of course that believing in such God do not entail preaching morals beyond common human decency.

    Thing is, there actually is a truth. Things are in one way or another. Either broken mirrors cause bad luck or they don't. It is not just a matter of opinion. And we can examine these things. I do not believe that religious beliefs require any more (or less) respect than other beliefs. And when religions make claims about observable world, then they invite those claims to be challenged and tested.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2012
  15. 137th Gebirg

    137th Gebirg Vice Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2000
    Location:
    Who is John Galt?
    It's cool Longinus :techman: and you make some valid points and offer an interesting perspective into the atheist philosophy. I don't necessarily agree with all of them, but that's cool too. :)

    I was responding primarily to Xhiandra's generalized (and rather over-exaggerated) labeling of those who don't happen to share her opinion.
     
  16. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    T'Girl
    Belief (there's that word again) that the world was flat, was held by a few relatively small population groups in historical times. The Mayans and the Egyptians knew thousands of years ago the general shape of the world. To most primitive peoples the shape of the world wasn't important.

    How, in the smallest way, is the use of the term "Atheist Dogma" inappropriate or incorrect in this discussion?

    Is the use of this obviously derisive term on your part an indication that you find your own position and discussion points weak? Given that this a discussion involving religion, it has (until now) been remarkable polite and civil.

    My suggestion is that you mind your manners, or crawl back into The Neutral Zone.

    :)
     
  17. Longinus

    Longinus Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    I don't think you're correct. Egyptians believed that world was a flat disk surrounded by water. Pretty much all early cultures believed something like this. IIRC it was the Greek philosopher Pythagoras who first postulated that Earth was in fact a sphere. It took centuries for this to became commonly accepted. Chinese believed Earth to be flat till 17th century.

    But that is details anyway. The main point was that a lot of people have really long time believed all sort of stuff that is completely bogus.
     
  18. T'Girl

    T'Girl Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    T'Girl
    I first read the seven percent figure in "Dictionary of Wars" by George Childs Kohn (http://books.google.com/books). I've since seen the figure in numerous references, differing by a percentage point (up or down) depending on where I saw it.

    Prior to the 20th century, in historical times, approximately 40.4 million people were killed in wars. Just in the last century the number is approximately 169 million. The majority of people killed in the 20th century died in secular wars, largest group was in WWII (no surprise there). I find it odd that some people attribute a high percentage (sometimes half) of all wars and war deaths, to religion.

    From my studies, the leading cause of war is territorial expansion, and resistance to it. There are other causes of course, including religion.

    :)
     
  19. Darkwing

    Darkwing Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Location:
    This dry land thing is too wierd!
    The propaganda on the issue of sexual orientation is treated as divine writ, handed down from the mountain.

    Of course we will. But it is factual that he changed, and IMO, not for the better.

    I hope you actually consider it and learn something about yourself from it. If not, :shrug:.
     
  20. Darkwing

    Darkwing Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Location:
    This dry land thing is too wierd!
    Thanks, I'll have to look that up. I'd always heard that religion was THE leading cause of war, but of course, no data to back it up.
     

Share This Page