Kahless

[jg73340]

Well, it's nice that this has turned from a semi-humorous commentary about a fictional character to an escalating full-on rant against atheism and atheists (in response to some pretty tame comments, too, considering the purposefully antagonizing way the topic was presented).
I guess this was the plan all along. Good job, sir. Good job.

I am simply replying to the points that are being made.

It's a no-win scenario (a Kobayashi Maru). If I don't say anything, you will declare victory in the argument (even though most of the replies have been lame and have basically ignored the points I have been making). If I reply, you will accuse me of having some ulterior motive, or you will nit-pick to death every sentence I say, and delude yourself into thinking you’re winning the argument.

Most of the people here defending the Kahless character are religious zealots, but they don't realize it. Their religion is Star Trek, and they clearly think it is infallible.

 

[SonicRanger]

It's a no-win scenario (a Kobayashi Maru). If I don't say anything, you will declare victory in the argument (even though most of the replies have been lame and have basically ignored the points I have been making). If I reply, you will accuse me of having some ulterior motive, or you will nit-pick to death every sentence I say, and delude yourself into thinking you’re winning the argument.

I don't think you have an ulterior motive; however, if you honestly believe what you're arguing and you post your thoughts in a public discussion forum, expect some debate that, for the most part, will be good natured. You're the one who started being derogative towards those who don't agree with you. Did you just want a series of replies like "Yeah, you're right!"? Do you think that my opinion that Kahless is more King Arthur than Jesus is "lame"? Why?

Most of the people here defending the Kahless character are religious zealots, but they don't realize it. Their religion is Star Trek, and they clearly think it is infallible.

You're new to this board apparently. No one here treats Trek like a religion, and certainly no one considers it infallible -- I have yet to encounter anyone who doesn't dislike (or outright hate) something about Trek.

 

[DonIago]

If you believe that those debating with you would interpret your silence as meaning that they had somehow "won", then my question would be...why does it matter whether they believe they've won?

Sometimes the only winning move is not to play.

 

[SonicRanger]

If you believe that those debating with you would interpret your silence as meaning that they had somehow "won", then my question would be...why does it matter whether they believe they've won?

Sometimes the only winning move is not to play.

Well, don't just encourage him to take his ball and go home... We're here to play.

 

[DonIago]

I agree, but he didn't seem to share our interest in doing so.

 

[jg73340]

You're new to this board apparently. No one here treats Trek like a religion, and certainly no one considers it infallible -- I have yet to encounter anyone who doesn't dislike (or outright hate) something about Trek.

If that's true, then please cut me some slack for not liking the way Trek has treated religion and/or Jesus. In my view they've not been very charitable to either.

But......maybe that's just my view. Maybe I'm bias. There. I admitted something. Are you guys looking at this completely objectively?

 

[MikeS]

There was earlier TNG episode called "Justice" which was even more stupid in its depiction of religion. It's that episode where Wesley gets the death penalty for accidentally stepping on someone's lawn while it was being watered. (WTF )What kind of nut-case religious scenario is that?

I'm not arguing that the scenario wasn't silly, but what did that part of Justice have to do with religion? It was clearly about law and "justice". The "God-creature-alien" in the episode was interested in protecting his people, "it" didn't make the law that caused Wesley and Picard problems.

 

[iguana_tonante]

It's a no-win scenario (a Kobayashi Maru). If I don't say anything, you will declare victory in the argument (even though most of the replies have been lame and have basically ignored the points I have been making). If I reply, you will accuse me of having some ulterior motive, or you will nit-pick to death every sentence I say, and delude yourself into thinking you’re winning the argument.

Well, that's a discussion board for ya, mate. Not sure what you were expecting.

Most of the people here defending the Kahless character are religious zealots, but they don't realize it. Their religion is Star Trek, and they clearly think it is infallible.

lol wut

 

[Durek]

Jesus was not a violent man and did not advocate any of these things. The description is much more accurate of Mohammed (and Islam), who used military force to spread the faith.

That's not true. Muhammad NEVER used military force to spread the faith. He only used it to defend against persecution.

 

[Durek]

This was also the main sticking point I had with Gene Roddenberry. I felt he had a negative view of religion, and God.

 

[MikeS]

I think that Roddenberry was just trying to say that any creature that was far advanced enough, would, to less advance creatures appear god-like. Just as we would appear to be gods if we could travel back in time and pay Homo-erectus a visit (please don't come back with any creationist crap). It is a reccuring theme in Trek, and is meant to show us that we can aspire to be better than we are, to evolve.

What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how
infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and
admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like
a god!