Picard Isn't Really An Atheist

[CorporalCaptain]

Even Moore's story that you mention shows that Roddenberry was still in the habit of approving scripts in season 4.

Well, no, by what Moore said, Roddenberry had no influence on "Family," he was taken all the way out of the process of influencing revisions at the point of "Family," and the implication is that that was done because TPTB found that what Roddenberry wanted done would have been ridiculous. There was only one episode in season four before "Family," so that means Roddenberry could not have influenced two or more scripts in season four, again taking Moore's remarks at face value.

But I agree that it seems plausible that Roddenberry made contributions to or had an influence on the scripting of other episodes well after "Datalore," based on what Moore said, but none after or even including "Family," which if Moore's right was the last straw.

 

[suarezguy]

How does one be "not an atheist per se" without being an atheist?

The OP seems to be arguing, and it often is otherwise claimed or implied, that atheism means rejection of the supernatural more broadly and/or rationalism in general (and rationalism in turn is associating with rejecting the supernatural). I think Picard does also (especially in "Who Watches the Watchers") express valuing of rationalism even though he doesn't hold to it all the time.

 

[Prax]

Well, no, by what Moore said, Roddenberry had no influence on "Family," he was taken all the way out of the process of influencing revisions at the point of "Family," and the implication is that that was done because TPTB found that what Roddenberry wanted done would have been ridiculous. There was only one episode in season four before "Family," so that means Roddenberry could not have influenced two or more scripts in season four, again taking Moore's remarks at face value.

But I agree that it seems plausible that Roddenberry made contributions to or had an influence on the scripting of other episodes well after "Datalore," based on what Moore said, but none after or even including "Family," which if Moore's right was the last straw.

Moore turns in a script(Family) to Roddenberry. Roddenberry sits at his desk and reads it, then says "I hate it. It's soapy baloney" or something to that effect. Berman/Piller tells Moore "Don't worry. Finish the script. We like it."

It gets filmed anyway. This might mean that Berman went back and coaxed Roddenberry, or that he went and told him "Well, everyone else likes it. I'm going to film it anyway. Sorry, Gene."

Either way, it doesn't preclude him from continuing to review scripts afterwards. He was an EP on the show, and worked there everyday. His influence would have only completely ended when he died, or became too ill to participate.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Moore turns in a script(Family) to Roddenberry. Roddenberry sits at his desk and reads it, then says "I hate it. It's soapy baloney" or something to that effect. Berman/Piller tells Moore "Don't worry. Finish the script. We like it."

It gets filmed anyway. This might mean that Berman went back and coaxed Roddenberry, or that he went and told him "Well, everyone else likes it. I'm going to film it anyway. Sorry, Gene."

Either way, it doesn't preclude him from continuing to review scripts afterwards. He was an EP on the show, and worked there everyday. His influence would have only completely ended when he died, or became too ill to participate.

Oh, yes it does, if you go literally by what Moore said there, because More said this about Gene Roddenberry: "He just stopped kind of throwing out scripts and chaning [sic] things from that point forward, and just started slowly to change."

Stopped changing things. Seems clear enough.

 

[Prax]

Ok, fair enough.
So he became disengaged in after that.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Yeah, and honestly it sounds unfortunate.

 

[Prax]

He might still have offered suggestions...

Or he might have stopped talking to people and hatewatched the rest of the season.

 

[Mojochi]

Faith is a belief IN something, not the absence of belief. Faith and unbelief are antonyms. Atheism is an unbelief in God/s. Why do you keep trying to push the "atheism means you state for a fact that God doesn't exist" angle?

It's not just me saying that. Others have adopted the term to mean that you CAN use it that way also. I'm saying that a belief IN there being unequivocally NO god, is still a belief about god, wherein the term atheist should no longer apply, but we do apply it that way now. They're called gnostic atheists. They have no belief of there existing any particular god, but instead hold a doubtless belief of the nonexistence of god. The word has been adapted.

Following up on that, I see nothing wrong with adapting the word to the sense that believing in divine things like eternal human souls is synonymous with believing that god exists, because such is a godly attribute, & since Picard has professed believing in such things, it's my opinion he couldn't very well be staunchly atheist, (Like me), just like an asexual person isn't staunchly asexual, biologically speaking, like an earthworm.

That argument asserts that all propositions are equally reasonable, though, whether or not you have any convincing evidence to support it. I would argue that believing something not proven but supported by evidence and disprovable is a more 'neutral' position than believing something not supported by evidence and not disprovable. Just like believing in dark matter is less 'faithful' than believing the missing mass is hidden by alien cloaking devices.

Is god existing supported by any less evidence than god not existing? As I see it, both propositions are equally unreasonable to believe. So I, for one, don't believe either that god exists or that it doesn't. That's atheism, not having a belief, in any way, one way or the other, about the existence of gods, but these days, that person is called an agnostic atheist, to differentiate the 2 ways to take atheism we currently employ

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I'm saying that a belief IN there being unequivocally NO god, is still a belief about god, wherein the term atheist should no longer apply

That's nonsensical gibberish and gobbledygook.

 

[Mojochi]

That's nonsensical gibberish and gobbledygook.

Seems like pretty straight forward logic to me

Believing that god does not exist & believing that one does are both god beliefs, even if polar, neither of which is any more provable or disprovable than the other... Atheism being the opposite of god beliefs. I didn't invent this line of reasoning.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I can define the set of all integers that are both odd and even. That set is the empty set. There are no such integers. The fact that I defined the empty set that way doesn't give reality to an integer that is both odd and even. Now, that's pretty straightforward logic.

 

[Longinus]

since Picard has professed believing in such things

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your interpretation, man. He has said no such thing.

Is god existing supported by any less evidence than god not existing? As I see it, both propositions are equally unreasonable to believe.

"Is invisible unicorns existing supported by any less evidence than invisible unicorns not existing? As I see it, both propositions are equally unreasonable to believe."

 

[Prax]

No offense, but comparing belief in God/disbelief in God to belief in invisible unicorns/disbelief in unicorns is a bit intellectually dishonest, or works as an analogy in only the shallowest of terms.

 

[Tosk]

Yeah, change it to Santa.

 

[Longinus]

No offense, but comparing belief in God/disbelief in God to belief in invisible unicorns/disbelief in unicorns is a bit intellectually dishonest, or works as an analogy in only the shallowest of terms.

Why? To me it seems pretty shallow to claim something is intellectually dishonest without giving at least some justification for such a claim.

It is also disrespectful towards Unicornists.

 

[Prax]

Does my comment really require an explanation? Believing/disbelieving in God is an existential question, and one with philosophical and spiritual implications. Humans have been debating the question since the dawn of history, and will continue to debate it for the rest of time.

They won't be debating the existence of invisible unicorns. Here's a story:

All my life my socks have been mysteriously disappearing. And now that I'm allll grown up, they continue to, and my kid's socks disappear from time to time also. Where do they go? Well, it's obvious. The sock monster eats them. At least that's what we say... There's no doubt a more rational explanation. Maybe if I took my washer apart, I'd find 7 years worth of renegade socks.

What implications does this have on the nature of reality, how I conceptualize existence, or why existence exists?

Like invisible unicorns, there are no implications.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

No offense, but comparing belief in God/disbelief in God to belief in invisible unicorns/disbelief in unicorns is a bit intellectually dishonest, or works as an analogy in only the shallowest of terms.

It's only intellectually dishonest if you take the idea of god more seriously than the idea of unicorns, which some people do not.

Like invisible unicorns, there are no implications.

Unless we're all going to unicorn hell for not believing in a Unicorn Messiah...

 

[Tosk]

We're talking about the belief or disbelief in something that has no evidence to exist. All examples are valid.

 

[Prax]

It's only intellectually dishonest if you take the idea of god more seriously than the idea of unicorns, which some people do not.

If the implications are not fully understood, then it is not intellectual dishonesty, and merely a shallow analogy.

 

[Longinus]

Does my comment really require an explanation? Believing/disbelieving in God is an existential question, and one with philosophical and spiritual implications.

If you choose to apply such to it. You can also apply such implications to unicorns. For example, unless you think happy thoughts daily, unicorns will get sad and angry. When this happens they will radiate bad luck around them.

Humans have been debating the question since the dawn of history, and will continue to debate it for the rest of time.

They won't be debating the existence of invisible unicorns.

People certainly have historically debated existence of unicorns and other fairy tale creatures. Ontologically this is really no different.

Here's a story:

All my life my socks have been mysteriously disappearing. And now that I'm allll grown up, they continue to, and my kid's socks disappear from time to time also. Where do they go? Well, it's obvious. The sock monster eats them. At least that's what we say... There's no doubt a more rational explanation. Maybe if I took my washer apart, I'd find 7 years worth of renegade socks.

What implications does this have on the nature of reality, how I conceptualize existence, or why existence exists?

Like invisible unicorns, there are no implications.

I don't know, even if it was merely the fate of my socks at stake, existence of invisible sentient creatures, living in my house, possibly possessing magical powers, would seriously affect my world view.

Besides, people have believed in all sorts of faeries and spirits and they did believe that how they behaved towards then could affect their lives, as those creatures had magical powers. It seems silly of course to think that if you forget to leave cookies to faeries they would punish you, but that's really no different than superstitions relating to god.