• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Picard Isn't Really An Atheist

Status
Not open for further replies.
Prax said:
If the implications are not fully understood, then it is not intellectual dishonesty, and merely a shallow analogy.
Click to expand...
Implications of thing's existence do not affect the methods of assessing its existence. If Superman would really exist it would have greater Implication than if Charlie Brown really existed. Nevertheless, I am not more likely to think that Superman really exists than that Charlie Brown really exits. I'm pretty confident in my assessment that both of them, along with unicorns, gods and Russell's famous teapot, are merely products of human imagination.
 
Longinus said:
but that's really no different than superstitions relating to god.
Click to expand...
But this isn't about superstitions relating to God, or traditions/legends concerning fairies, or the theological beliefs of those who believe in the existence of God and practice some form of religion.

It's about belief/disbelief in God's existence, and those ontological questions married to it. To reduce the question to "invisible unicorns" is either disingenuous, or shallow.

Or do you simply dismiss the question outright, ignore any such philosophical queries, and use satire to mock others that don't?
 
Prax said:
It's about belief/disbelief in God's existence, and those ontological questions married to it. To reduce the question to "invisible unicorns" is either disingenuous, or shallow.

Or do you simply dismiss the question outright, ignore any such philosophical queries, and use satire to mock others that don't?
Click to expand...
You have have failed to engage the ontology of the matter and show how logically gods and unicorns differ. You just claim 'philosophical implications!' and fail to demonstrate any. That is disingenuous and shallow.

The unicorn comparison may seem like mockery and it certainly partly is. However, it, and similar examples, are used to demonstrate the faulty logic people often use when they argue about the existence of god. The bottom line is that generally people assume that things that existence to which there is no evidence do not exist. Some people however fail to apply that obvious logic to god.
 
I believe in God, He exists.

As for Picard I think he was aware that he shouldn't believe in a god or God, which is rather reactionary.
 
The implication of the question of God is THE question: What is existence? And why does existence exist?

I sincerely doubt Picard would make either claim "There is no God" or "There is a God."
 
Existence - state of living/being or having objective reality. The devil (or God) is in the detail of of what 'objective' reality is when it actually becomes subjective reality. However, I don't have problem with 'subjective' because it too.. exists.

Sorry about another metaphor but God is the elephant in the room for the claim there is no *God* or there is a *God*. He is considered a noun/entity in both those sentences.
 
I always find it interesting how a discussion about a fictional character's spirituality (or lack thereof) basically just becomes a platform for people to parrot and sell their own views and see them reflected in the character who is up for discussion.

Pretty much ends up being 6 pages of wasted high school debate team-level stuff.
 
Nerys Myk said:
Your point? Nouns apply equally to fictional and non fictional entities. The part of speech the word belongs to doesn't grant it reality.
Click to expand...
Right.

Refuge said:
So is a black hole.
Click to expand...
Say what? In the case of black holes, there is actually a lot of observational, you know, evidence. Not so in the case of Santa Claus, unicorns*, and that other thing we've been talking about.

* - narwhals notwithstanding.
 
Vger23 said:
I always find it interesting how a discussion about a fictional character's spirituality (or lack thereof) basically just becomes a platform for people to parrot and sell their own views and see them reflected in the character who is up for discussion.
Click to expand...
Not surprising, considering that's how the thread started.
 
CorporalCaptain said:
Right.


Say what? In the case of black holes, there is actually a lot of observational, you know, evidence. Not so in the case of Santa Claus, unicorns*, and that other thing we've been talking about.

* - narwhals notwithstanding.
Click to expand...
I don't remember the last time I saw a black hole, do you? It being so observational and all.
 
I guess you have your anecdotal, empirical, and logical frames of reference and in some cases evidence.

Regards Picard I'm not entirely convinced he shook off the presence of God or there being a God.
 
Refuge said:
Regards Picard I'm not entirely convinced he shook off the presence of God or there being a God.
Click to expand...
Neither am I, but does it even mean the same thing any more when you live in a universe where the Q exist? (Or any number of other godlike beings.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top