Kirsten Beyer invitation in VOY forum

[Allyn Gibson]

Roddenberry wasn't an atheist. He certainly seemed to believe that there might be some higher guiding force in the universe. He was just skeptical, to use Picard's words from Howard Weinstein's novel Power Hungry, "that any structure or philosophy devised by man could ever hope to represent or replicate divinity." He rejected organized religion, but understood that organized religion is not the only form of faith or spirituality.

Roddenberry was a self-described secular humanist. Secular humanism is a subset of atheism. Ergo, Roddenberry was an atheist.

 

[j3067]

^Christopher is too, apparently, based on that equivocation. That may or may not be a surprise to him. More details on the structure and hierarchy of Atheism may be edifying to others who may not be aware of their own atheism.

 

[captcalhoun]

"structure and heirachy of atheism"?



what structure and heirachy? there's no structure or heirachy to not believing in God!

 

[j3067]

That is what I thought too, but apparently there are sub-sets subordinate to atheism.

 

[elaithin]

Meanwhile, some of us are perfectly content to reject any sort of organized religion, and are simply content with having faith.

The idea of organized athiesm is one that I find patently ridiculous.

 

[Sci]

Roddenberry wasn't an atheist. He certainly seemed to believe that there might be some higher guiding force in the universe. He was just skeptical, to use Picard's words from Howard Weinstein's novel Power Hungry, "that any structure or philosophy devised by man could ever hope to represent or replicate divinity." He rejected organized religion, but understood that organized religion is not the only form of faith or spirituality.

Roddenberry was a self-described secular humanist. Secular humanism is a subset of atheism. Ergo, Roddenberry was an atheist.

Roddenberry also sometimes expressed belief in something sounding vaguely like animism.

I think it's safe to say that Gene Roddenberry changed his mind a lot.

ETA:

Speaking as an atheist, I absolutely reject the idea that United Earth and/or the Federation are atheistic societies. I concur that they are secular governments, but to say that atheism has "triumphed" to me sounds as creepy as saying that Christianity has triumphed or Islam has triumphed. I'm sure that United Earth and the Federation are both pluralistic societies in which every modern faith system has survived, albeit in far more liberal forms than are common today. I'm also sure that exposure to alien faith systems has led to the emergence of entirely new religions, and to some Humans adopting alien religions (and some aliens adopting Human religions). Pluralism and syncretism in action!

Also, the Prophets transporting Sisko to their realm and then returning him to Bajor is not a violation of Star Trek's science-minded ethos, because the entire idea that there's a tension between the idea of the Prophets being gods and the idea of the Prophets being extremely powerful noncorporeal extradimensional entities is an idea that's culturally-specific. If you actually think about it, the definition of a god is inherently compatible with the idea of a powerful noncorporeal extradimensional entity -- after all, if a god has created the world, then that god by definition cannot be native to that world, nor can its abilities be those common to this particular dimensional realm. Really, the only question in contention is whether a given noncorporeal entity's powers and nature obliges one to worship it.

Thus, Sisko's return is, just like the nature of the Prophets themselves, something that depends on your cultural biases. If you're scientifically-minded, Sisko's return from the Celestial Temple is no more remarkable than the U.S.S. Voyager's return from the Q Continuum in "The Q and the Grey;" if you're religiously-minded, then the Emissary of the Prophets has returned from the realm of the gods.

And I think that nothing quite honors Star Trek's vision of pluralism quite so well as the idea that maybe both interpretations are valid.

 

[BillJ]

Meanwhile, some of us are perfectly content to reject any sort of organized religion, and are simply content with having faith.

 

[HoneyBLilly]

Meanwhile, some of us are perfectly content to reject any sort of organized religion, and are simply content with having faith.

This

The idea of organized athiesm is one that I find patently ridiculous.

I find half the people who say that they are atheist ridiculous, "atheist" means you believe in nothing not just that you don't believe in God. If you are atheist you believe in nothing: not the earth, not love, not happiness, etc etc.


But I doubt Roddenberry even came close to atheism, he was more pacifist and humanist to me.

 

[Thrawn]

a-theist

not-theist

does not believe in God

That's it. I'm an atheist and I believe in the earth, love, and happiness. Whoever told you that is full of shit.

 

[Sci]

"atheist" means you believe in nothing not just that you don't believe in God. If you are atheist you believe in nothing: not the earth, not love, not happiness, etc etc.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

 

[captcalhoun]

i believe in the earth and love and so on, because they're demonstrably there.

god, not so much.

 

[Darth Duck]

I find half the people who say that they are atheist ridiculous, "atheist" means you believe in nothing not just that you don't believe in God. If you are atheist you believe in nothing: not the earth, not love, not happiness, etc etc

Uh, no, beaing an atheist means you don't believe in a deity, the opposite of being a theist, someone who does believe in a deity. Words have meanings.

 

[flemm]

If you are atheist you believe in nothing: not the earth, not love, not happiness, etc etc.

...and you enjoy killing kittens. I know I do

Seriously, though, what you are describing is more like a nihilist, who might suggest that nothing has any objective or intrinsic value. (Though, it must be said, I'm not sure what you mean by not "believing" in the earth or happiness.)

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Meanwhile, some of us are perfectly content to reject any sort of organized religion, and are simply content with having faith.

This

The idea of organized athiesm is one that I find patently ridiculous.

I find half the people who say that they are atheist ridiculous, "atheist" means you believe in nothing not just that you don't believe in God. If you are atheist you believe in nothing: not the earth, not love, not happiness, etc etc.


But I doubt Roddenberry even came close to atheism, he was more pacifist and humanist to me.

Uh, "atheist" doesn't mean that. It just means you aren't a theist. Theism is the belief that one or more deities exist. Thus, an "a-theist" is someone who rejects theism.

ETA: Derp! I see someone else already explained this. Carry on.

 

[Christopher]

^Christopher is too, apparently, based on that equivocation. That may or may not be a surprise to him. More details on the structure and hierarchy of Atheism may be edifying to others who may not be aware of their own atheism.

I don't call myself an atheist. I don't want to define myself merely by what I don't believe. That's too negative. Too many people spend too much time being against things and not enough time being for anything. I define myself by the things I do believe in, like the rationality of the universe and the ability of human beings to give meaning and richness to their own and each other's existence. Within the context of my belief system, religion is a human construct, a symbol system that motivates human efforts and choices. And if it motivates humans to make other people's lives better rather than worse, if it motivates them to be for things rather than just against things, then my belief system is not hostile to it.

 

[j3067]

^Christopher is too, apparently, based on that equivocation. That may or may not be a surprise to him. More details on the structure and hierarchy of Atheism may be edifying to others who may not be aware of their own atheism.

I don't call myself an atheist. I don't want to define myself merely by what I don't believe. That's too negative. Too many people spend too much time being against things and not enough time being for anything. I define myself by the things I do believe in, like the rationality of the universe and the ability of human beings to give meaning and richness to their own and each other's existence. Within the context of my belief system, religion is a human construct, a symbol system that motivates human efforts and choices. And if it motivates humans to make other people's lives better rather than worse, if it motivates them to be for things rather than just against things, then my belief system is not hostile to it.

That is kind of what I figured. Many people that I encounter who identify as secular humanists don't all describe themselves as atheists. I was just trying to point out that the strokes the previous poster had used to paint these philosophies may have been excessively broad.

 

[Zman1]

I also believe bringing Janeway back into the current plot line would be very interesting.

How so?

We've already got a fleet commander, and Voyager has a captain and XO. Does Afsarah get demoted? Can't have 2 fleet commanders, and she doesn't need a boss onsite. Chakotay is doing just fine as Captain, do we demote him? Does Paris have to go back to the helm?

Or do we try to squeeze Janeway in as an observer, without an official role right away? Then we get the fairly predictable stories of her turning around when Kim calls out for the Captain, her chomping at the bit wanting to take over, but trying to respect the current chain of command. In a moment of crisis, does she try to take over (as they always do), only to find out Chakotay or Eden was right all along? Suppose we could kill off one of those characters, so she has something to do...

Or she's back to doing what she was before, which is basically not much. Make up little side stories where she's attending dinners and negotiations again and whatnot. Of course, that's what sucked about the earlier books post-Endgame. She didn't have much to do, and was sucking up screen time just because she was a main character, so you HAD to show her doing something. If she's back in the AQ, is she just sitting by the the phone waiting for updates (before she eventually forces her way out to the fleet, or some random personal crisis demands Janeway's presence, and then we do the stuff from the last paragraph?

I honestly just don't see a place for her at the moment. I like the character, and like the series, I'm just very happy with the current direction, and don't want them to stop to try and shoehorn in the predictable angst that trying to add Janeway to this mix would cause. Let her rest for a while, and maybe towards the end of this new DQ adventure, there might be a better story to fit Janeway back into. I mean, there's an out for Eden's character once she finds out her backstory, Janeway would probably be a pretty qualified candidate for the Fleet commander position, no?

I'd like her as a ships cook! Out with the captain's mess... In with the leola root!!

 

[Deano2099]

I find half the people who say that they are atheist ridiculous, "atheist" means you believe in nothing not just that you don't believe in God. If you are atheist you believe in nothing: not the earth, not love, not happiness, etc etc.

That's odd, given that the actual word 'atheist' was coined by religious people as a pejorative term for people that didn't believe. There's no actual need for it as a word. All it means is lack of belief in a god. I don't see any more need for that than the need for a word to say that I don't believe in pink elephants.

Most of the "atheist activists" would more correctly be described as anti-religious. Plus that makes it a lot easier for people like me, who sympathise entirely with their actions and the mind-set of the humanist movements, but do actually believe in a god, despite being strongly anti-religion.