Who Watches the Watchers?
- Thread starter Willieck
- Start date
anyone claiming atheism is a religion obviously has an axe to grind. or they are very ignorant about what constitutes a religion. it's such a silly claim that it's really not worth responding to. if you follow gomtuu20's logic, not believing in the tooth fairy is a religion.
atheism is not a religion just like theism isn't a religion. religion is not just a belief or a disbelief. that's an oversimplifcation of what religion is.
Last edited:
Men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities- his eternal power and divine nature- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be be wise, they became fools.
-Romans 1:19-22
-Romans 1:19-22
1, as said Atheism is not a religion. I've heard this argument before regarding other things, including trying to say Darwinism is a religion. It's bollocks.
2, not sure why your quoting the bible, but those verses don't really add to the discussion. They say nothing of the episode, nor do they say anything regarding the topic of atheism which has snuck itself in.
3, I never really got this whole "Anti-Religion" beef towards TNG. In some cases, maybe a little, but thats been a part of Trek since TOS. And if you don't think so, listen to Kirks speech to Apollo about outgrowing the need for gods. Even then, I don't think it was as severe as people say, or atleast never was to me. When Picard talked about setting them back, I understood it as "They once believed this stuff, now they don't. But because of us, they do again. Our interference is whats wrong, not their belief."
The US Supreme Court has ruled that religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the US Supreme Court described secular humanism as a religion.
On August 19, 2005, the US Federal 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Wisconsin prison officials who violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion. The court said "Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,"
Atheism is a religious belief system pertaining to God (or deities), religion, worship, faith and/or the church. No it not a positive belief, but a negative one. But it is a belief.
Only if you're completely neutral on the subject can you truly say you have no religion.
But if you say "I don't believe in God," congratulations you've just expressed a religious belief.
Bravo for stepping up.
A
Amaris
Guest
The US Supreme Court has ruled that religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the US Supreme Court described secular humanism as a religion.
On August 19, 2005, the US Federal 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Wisconsin prison officials who violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion. The court said "Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,"
Atheism is a religious belief system pertaining to God (or deities), religion, worship, faith and/or the church. No it not a positive belief, but a negative one. But it is a belief.
Only if you're completely neutral on the subject can you truly say you have no religion.
But if you say "I don't believe in God," congratulations you've just expressed a religious belief.
Bravo for stepping up.
No. Atheism is a lack of belief, not an anti-belief. Having a lack of belief in a giant invisible turtle does not mean one has an anti-turtle religion. It simply means one does not accept what does not exist. There is no "anti" anything involved. Being "anti"-belief would be actively against something. For example, "I do not believe in the existence of a god" is a lack of belief. However, if I said, "I do not believe your god is the right god", now we have an anti-belief, as it's not simply a statement of non-belief, but an active statement against the belief of another. Atheism is not a religion, and not everything is black and white.
Definition taken from Dictionary.com
re·li·gion
[ri-lij-uhn]
–noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7.
religions, Archaic . religious rites.
8.
Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
Point number one really says it to me, although nothing there really fits with atheism. But #1 says "moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." Atheism doesn't have that, atheism is simply "i don't think a god exsists."
re·li·gion
[ri-lij-uhn]
–noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7.
religions, Archaic . religious rites.
8.
Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
Point number one really says it to me, although nothing there really fits with atheism. But #1 says "moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." Atheism doesn't have that, atheism is simply "i don't think a god exsists."
A
Amaris
Guest
Atheism has no moral code in and of itself. What usually happens is that Atheists tend to also be humanists, so you have secular humanism, which is a moral code, tied in with Atheism, although one does not require the other.
Which is kind of the point. Religion requires it, it's part of what religion is. The only thing thats required to be an atheist is that you don't think there is a god. Beyond that, there is no organization, no doctrine, no rules, it's all whatever you want it to be.
A
Amaris
Guest
).
Religion is a system of belief.
Atheism cannot be classified as a system of belief because there is no system and there is no belief.
It's like calling the off switch on your television a channel. It's like calling bald a hair color. It's intellectually dishonest and an oxymoron.
People who call atheism a religion are either so caught up in their own beliefs that they can't comprehend what a lack of belief is, or they just don't care that what they are saying makes no sense. Or they are just trying to troll atheists.
Atheism cannot be classified as a system of belief because there is no system and there is no belief.
It's like calling the off switch on your television a channel. It's like calling bald a hair color. It's intellectually dishonest and an oxymoron.
People who call atheism a religion are either so caught up in their own beliefs that they can't comprehend what a lack of belief is, or they just don't care that what they are saying makes no sense. Or they are just trying to troll atheists.
Perfect, I love it.
This particular episode is average (or even slightly below).
Liko makes the Pakleds seem like geniuses with him and his belief of 'The Picard.' IIRC, the Pakleds are frontin' as nimrods anyhow.
Also, the fact that the make-up people make Liko's head so huge bothered me; although, now that I think of it, it also comes off as an interesting contradiction.
In the classic Outer Limits episode, 'The Sixth Finger,' Gwyllm's (sp?) head was huge because of his intelligence growth. Too, his brain grew as well.
With Liko, it's the opposite. His head was huge, but the brain....not. so. much.
Not one of the best episodes, IMO.
Liko makes the Pakleds seem like geniuses with him and his belief of 'The Picard.' IIRC, the Pakleds are frontin' as nimrods anyhow.
Also, the fact that the make-up people make Liko's head so huge bothered me; although, now that I think of it, it also comes off as an interesting contradiction.
In the classic Outer Limits episode, 'The Sixth Finger,' Gwyllm's (sp?) head was huge because of his intelligence growth. Too, his brain grew as well.
With Liko, it's the opposite. His head was huge, but the brain....not. so. much.
Not one of the best episodes, IMO.
A
Amaris
Guest
For me, this is a favorite episode. I like the dynamic and seeing the effects of a religion through another's eyes is rather interesting.
Let's look at the first def'n:"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." Granted, atheism usually discounts the superhuman agency or the supernatural, but if you believe in Darwinism and secular humanism, you have a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. You can't really argue with that. It effects your moral code. If you think people are just animals that evolved out of the ooze, then why is it wrong for them to behave like animals? Who sets the standards? Is it just whatever society and government says? If people are just animals, then is humal life really all that precious? I think something happened in the 1940s that demonstrated what can happen with that thought process. In reference to Kirk's conversation to Apollo, when he said they had outgrown gods, he said they found the one God quite sufficient. When I was trying to convince myself I was an atheist years ago, that episode annoyed me because of that line.
And you will recall Bread and Circuses where the sun they worshiped was the Son.
Look, I don't look to a TV show to form my belief system. As much as I love Trek, it is just entertainment. Art always reflects the time in history in which it is produced. TOS was produced in the sixties and had space hippies. By the time TNG came around, Modernism (all truth can be ascertained by rational thought and the scientific process) was all the rage in intellectual circles. TNG, and this episode in particular, reflect this way of thinking because it is a product of the time in which it was created. TNG's atheistic attitude was really strong in this episode. TOS was in many cases humanistic, but it was never outright hostile to people of faith. Society as a whole was not hostile to people of faith. When TNG was produced, Society was starting to become a little more hostile. Roddenberry liked to think of himself as a "Progressive" and had the thought that by the 24th century, people would evolve beyond religion. In the 21st century, Society is becoming increasingly hostile to people of faith. Postmodernism is all the rage now. Postmodern's paradigm is that there is no absolute truth. It assumes that truth, if it even exists, is not knowable with certainty and is subject to individual interpretation....but I'm getting off track.
Anyway, atheism fits the def'n of a religion. I must say though, that I have gotten a kick out of remarks involving invisible turtles and other things of that sort. I also enjoy conversing with fans in other countries. I never get to hear someone use the term "bullocks".
And you will recall Bread and Circuses where the sun they worshiped was the Son.
Look, I don't look to a TV show to form my belief system. As much as I love Trek, it is just entertainment. Art always reflects the time in history in which it is produced. TOS was produced in the sixties and had space hippies. By the time TNG came around, Modernism (all truth can be ascertained by rational thought and the scientific process) was all the rage in intellectual circles. TNG, and this episode in particular, reflect this way of thinking because it is a product of the time in which it was created. TNG's atheistic attitude was really strong in this episode. TOS was in many cases humanistic, but it was never outright hostile to people of faith. Society as a whole was not hostile to people of faith. When TNG was produced, Society was starting to become a little more hostile. Roddenberry liked to think of himself as a "Progressive" and had the thought that by the 24th century, people would evolve beyond religion. In the 21st century, Society is becoming increasingly hostile to people of faith. Postmodernism is all the rage now. Postmodern's paradigm is that there is no absolute truth. It assumes that truth, if it even exists, is not knowable with certainty and is subject to individual interpretation....but I'm getting off track.
Anyway, atheism fits the def'n of a religion. I must say though, that I have gotten a kick out of remarks involving invisible turtles and other things of that sort. I also enjoy conversing with fans in other countries. I never get to hear someone use the term "bullocks".
Well said. Thank you.The US Supreme Court has ruled that religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the US Supreme Court described secular humanism as a religion.
On August 19, 2005, the US Federal 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Wisconsin prison officials who violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion. The court said "Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,"
Atheism is a religious belief system pertaining to God (or deities), religion, worship, faith and/or the church. No it not a positive belief, but a negative one. But it is a belief.
Only if you're completely neutral on the subject can you truly say you have no religion.
But if you say "I don't believe in God," congratulations you've just expressed a religious belief.
Bravo for stepping up.
A
Amaris
Guest
"Supernatural" is a misnomer. If something is greater than nature, then it is not of nature. It is outside of nature. If it does not adhere to the laws of physics inside the universe, then it is not of the universe and not a part of nature on any level.
As for "superhuman", well there are lots of things that are superhuman. Elephants, for example, are superhuman.
The definition:
Definition 1 is immediately disregarded. Definition 2 does exist, as I mentioned above, in any creature or natural event that goes beyond the normal power, size or capability of a human being.
No, you don't. The origin of the universe and the nature of the universe doesn't refer to secular humanism at all, and "Darwinism" is an outdated description of Evolution, if that is to what you are referring. "Darwinism" hasn't been used in many decades, because it's not about Darwin anymore. He got the ball rolling, but the Theory of Evolution (scientific Theory, not linguistic theory) has advanced on a massive scale, with vast amounts of data supporting it at this point. As for the purpose of the universe, that is a philosophical question, and has nothing to do with Evolution, Atheism or secular humanism in any way.
Human life being relegated to this sole planet, in this solar system out toward the middle of nowhere? 7 billion inhabitants in the entire known universe? Yes, human life is precious. As for who sets the standards, it's the same thing it's always been: humans. Whether you believe in Divine Right or Providence, the texts, rituals and observances we have were published, designed and endorsed by humans.
It's a television show. Apollo wasn't a god, and Kirk spoke only for himself, regardless of his use of the royal "we".
There are millions of religions on this planet. Do you believe that because they are worshiped and observed that they must all be true?
You just used one to support your reasoning behind why you believe what you do.
Do you have the statistical data to back that up?
That's Roddenberry's prerogative, but it doesn't speak for everyone. Not even close. Even so, during the run of TOS, Roddenberry was an agnostic and humanist. What you saw on TV didn't always reflect his views. The TV censors of the day liked to add their own views into the mix. Adding religious dialogue to various television shows was one of those common practices.
The faithful (all religions combined in the U.S.) outnumber atheists 10 to 1. I doubt society is getting hostile to people of faith. I have the statistical data to back that up.
Firstly, the number of Christians in the United States as of 2004: 224,437,959
2001: 159,030,000
1999: 151,225,000
As you can see, the number of Christian faithful in the U.S. has increased over this span.
The number of Non-Religious/Atheists in the U.S. as of
2004: 38,865,604
2001: 27,539,000
1999: 13,116,000
The number has certainly increased, but it's nowhere near the behemoth that is Christianity. When you add in all the faiths, they outnumber Non-religious/Atheism approximately 10 to 1.
Statistical Data
Atheism is not a religion. It does not have an eschatological structure, it does not have a theological framework. It is 'A' = "lack of" and 'theist' = "belief in god or gods". It has no tenets. No place of worship. No moral code. No sacred text. It is very clear cut and straightforward that Atheism does not fit the definition of a religion, or even that of a philosophy.
The definition of religion according to Merriam-Webster:
Link to the definition
Atheism does not fit a single definition in this group. Atheism is, once more, 'A'= "lack of" and 'theism' = "belief in god or gods". That's it. That's the whole of it in a nutshell. If you want to talk about secular humanism that's fine, but it's not Atheism in whole or in part. Atheism is not a religion.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
