Except I'm arguing from the point that says Picard believing there may be something after we die, or even a belief in unicorns and such wouldn't mean he wasn't an atheist. The premise of the thread is that if Picard was an atheist, whether implied, implicit, or openly stated, that his belief that he may have felt the presence of his grandmother belies that, when it doesn't. That is what I'm discussing.
Sure.
Picard did't say he believes in afterlife in literal sense. While I think his comment upon the subject in 'Where Silence Has Lease' is noncommittal bullshit that is supposed to sound thoughtful but ultimately means nothing, he certainly nevertheless clearly rejects traditional afterlife even in that comment. Considering his behaviour and attitude in other occasions, I'd interpret the nonsense in that episode merely be poetic way to describe the idea that while our existence may not continue in literal sense after death, our influence, and thus our presence is continued in those who remember us.
Okay, but nonetheless, the notion of an immortal sole as it relates to humanity is traditionally of the divine nature, ghosts, angels, & the like. Where in any context have those been present without the connection to some grand divine design?
Much of anything we can reference in the show is open to interpretation like that, & all the traditional interpretations get tossed on their ear with how much supernatural stuff goes on as well, but I've always taken that comment as something genuine he's sharing (even if the writers didn't know wtf they were doing). I think he probably does dismiss traditional notions of afterlife, Heaven, Vahala, etc... but it does really seem to appear he expects that the end of his life must not be the end of him in a very real sense.
But to believe in something that hasn't been discovered yet is to believe in something unproved, which is faith, & the opposite of atheistic philosophies imho. Just because we haven't discovered that something or someone created us & the universe yet, doesn't mean we won't find out that to be the case at some point. Same difference. Some people choose to believe it to be so without proof, & some don't
Atheism is the lack of a belief in Gods. What you're describing is not the opposite of atheism.
That's a very different kind of faith than religious faith of course. Faith and belief are such vague terms.
Indeed. It really is this simple. This is the whole of atheism.
Yup, & in my opinion, there really is no sense in advocating for a lack of beliefs in gods, if you don't also advocate for the lack of belief in things just as unproven.
Advocation is not a requirement of atheism. And beyond that, your opinion on the sense or otherwise of being atheist and not advocating a lack of belief in other things makes no difference.
Because the word can have a broader sense placed upon it, much like the word asexual, which in its standard sense is meant to indicate the nonsexual reproductive function of organisms like earthworms, but in its more liberal sense can be used to refer to a human, who by design is an organism that has sexual function, but lives without the use of it
