|
swickles posted:My point is that staunch atheists are as certain in their belief about something inherently unprovable as the super religous are about the existence of said thing, and don't recognize the irony of it. The belief or disbelief in God is falsifiable, but ardent atheists do not approach it as such in the same way the strictly religious don't. I think that many other atheists, angry and annoying or not, would be comfortable saying that they don't know with absolute certainty that there is no god. That said, there is a point where something becomes so unlikely that it's pointless to entertain it as a real possibility, so I don't. Edit: Baronjutter said it better. Anarchist Mae fucked around with this message at 06:41 on Feb 2, 2018 |
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 06:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 05:33 |
|
|
Measly Twerp posted:I think that many other atheists, angry and annoying or not, would be comfortable saying that they don't know with absolute certainty that there is no god. That said, there is a point where something becomes so unlikely that it's pointless to entertain it as a real possibility, so I don't. That would make them agnostic, not atheist. I have been very careful to attach modifiers to single out the aggressive atheist, not the one that simply doesn't believe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 06:42
|
|
|
by and large, militant atheists are either new atheists insecure in their atheism and seeking reassurance in their rightness through successful confrontations, or deeply unpleasant people in the first place it would have been out of place for the orville to be in-your-face about its atheism. part of growing up as a civilization is getting over not just religion but also visceral distaste for religion. it simply isn't a factor most of the time, but when it is, respect wins the day - that's what a majority-atheistic society that rejects all kinds of religious strife looks like.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 06:50
|
|
|
swickles posted:That would make them agnostic, not atheist. I have been very careful to attach modifiers to single out the aggressive atheist, not the one that simply doesn't believe. No. I don't believe in a god. I'm an atheist, that is what the word means. Acknowledging that there is a chance that I am wrong does not change that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 07:00
|
|
|
There's also a lot of confusion between atheist and areligious. I don't believe in any religion but I don't have a drat clue why there's something instead of nothing, and there being a creator (even if it's an alien running a computer simulation or whatever) is plausible. I find it extremely unlikely that worshiping them would do any good if they do exist though e: Not saying that this thread in particular is confused about these terms just that the two concepts are often used interchangeable when they are subtly different ee: and in normal english when you aren't trying to be insanely precise atheist just means doesn't believe in a god so it's incredibly lame to try to gotcha atheists by saying "so you're absolutely CERTAIN in every possible way that there's no god?" cheetah7071 fucked around with this message at 07:17 on Feb 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 07:14
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:it would have been out of place for the orville to be in-your-face about its atheism. part of growing up as a civilization is getting over not just religion but also visceral distaste for religion. it simply isn't a factor most of the time, but when it is, respect wins the day - that's what a majority-atheistic society that rejects all kinds of religious strife looks like. I don't think there has ever been even a simple majority science-atheist human society in all of history so idk how you can present this as fact.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 07:49
|
|
|
Keep in mind that atheism and agnosticism are not exactly about the same thing. An atheist doesn't believe in a god, whereas an agnostic believes that such a thing could exist (or could not). You can "not believe that a god exists" and also think that it's possible. It's "belief" versus "knowledge". Something like that, anyway. I'm not explaining it very well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 08:35
|
|
|
My philosophy teacher had a good joke about this. He was Indian so imagine someone saying this in an Apu from the Simpsons accent. The believer says "Yes, there is a God." The athiest says "No, there is no God." But! (Waggles finger for emphasis) The agnost is the most arrogant of them all, he says "If there is a God: let him humble himself before me and prove his existence!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 09:55
|
|
|
drunken officeparty posted:I don't think there has ever been even a simple majority science-atheist human society in all of history so idk how you can present this as fact. I wonder how religious Trekkies are compared to the general population, if you correct for key demographics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 10:18
|
|
|
swickles posted:That would make them agnostic, not atheist. I have been very careful to attach modifiers to single out the aggressive atheist, not the one that simply doesn't believe. Like, you can just say some atheists can be weirdly passionate and off-putting without having to come up with some kind of gotcha position to make them look worse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 10:46
|
|
|
The only time I think about or have typically thought about being an atheist is when a religious person gives me poo poo about it. I don't live in a particularly harsh part of the world for that but even as recently as a few weeks ago I heard my boss make (like seriously, not joking) a pretty disparaging comment about non believers in front of me because he presumed I wasn't one. IMO there's still a lot of low level discrimination towards the non religious in general and I feel this probably drives some of the militancy of some atheists. I mean I couldn't imagine how I'd feel if I had to live someplace in the US's bible belt and put up with that poo poo all the loving time
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 11:04
|
|
|
I'm teaching a class for muslim students, including a few fairly fundie ones (fresh outta Syria and one gotten more fundie here), and the other day the topic was evolution of religion. One of the texts I picked was an interview with Dawkins, cause it was the best well-written German-translated text I could find on the topic. I introduced it with "ok guys, this guy has a major hard-on for religion, you'll see this crucial passage here, the other passages are extremely hostile towards religion, we can ignore these", and it was actually fine. The only somewhat personal question I got that day was how atheists deal with science not giving them any firm grounding in the end (I had shown a text by Dawkins claiming X, and another by some other researcher claiming anti-X, and said we can't right now really show which one is right), how that wasn't really confusing and in the end impossible to live with. I wonder what viewer numbers for Star Trek vs. Star Wars are in Muslim countries, or muslim populations in the west. Tighclops posted:The only time I think about or have typically thought about being an atheist is when a religious person gives me poo poo about it. I don't live in a particularly harsh part of the world for that but even as recently as a few weeks ago I heard my boss make (like seriously, not joking) a pretty disparaging comment about non believers in front of me because he presumed I wasn't one. IMO there's still a lot of low level discrimination towards the non religious in general and I feel this probably drives some of the militancy of some atheists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 11:07
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Dunno what you mean by "simple majority science-atheist human society", but the Germanic and Scandinavian nations and France are majority atheistic. Probably no different? I have several far right evangelical christian relatives who are also big fans of star trek. I haven't seen them in years so I don't know what they think of the new one though. There isn't much the religious right would consider immoral about star trek. Starfleet officers don't swear, or get drunk, do drugs, or cheat on their spouses, they don't steal or vandalize property. Starfleet officers are good people, and religious people consider themselves good people. Christians would consider the fetal rights record pretty good. Voyager had a nice married lady abruptly separated from her husband find out she was pregnant decide that keeping the baby was the right decision. Everyone on the ship considers that decision cool and good. There is never any negative consequences for keeping the baby, so it was obviously the correct decision. DS9 invented the fetal transplant. The life of the fetus is so important that they found a way to transplant it to another woman of a different species. Fetal transplant can make abortion completely obsolete, as the fetus' right to life no longer conflicts with a woman's right to body autonomy, if she doesn't want to carry a child she can adopt it out at any stage of the pregnancy. Once voyager brings back maturation chamber technology I assume the federation will finally invent the artificial womb and you won't even need a second woman to transplant the fetus into. The life of the fetus is a completely separate issue from the life of the mother. Gays? We don't see many same sex relationships at all, and where the issue comes up it involves aliens, not two humans. Riker gets involved with a lady from a single-sex species who consider having a gender identity at all to be a mental illness, he wants her to be allowed to live as a female, but in the end the traditionalists win and she conforms to her society's norms. Crusher gets involved with a male Trill who becomes a female Trill, and Crusher can't deal with it despite it being represented as completely the same person and ends the relationship. Dax has one of her ex spouses show up in a same sex body and they fool around a bit, but ultimately decide it is wrong. Religion exists in the federation, but is considered a personal matter. No official religion, no official chaplains on ships, but also no obvious restrictions on religion. So religion exists, but no one talks about it, and no one is shamed or belittled for their religious beliefs. We don't see christianity being practiced, but there's also nothing to say that religious crew members aren't having bible studies or sacrificing goats or whatever is appropriate to their faith. With the holodeck they can have a copy of literally any venue for their ceremonies, including recordings of famous sermons or livestreams of a distant religious leader. Honestly most religious people would rather have it off screen, because if it is on screen they show is going to get it wrong. Nobody wants to find out their favorite character is a heretic who believes the wrong flavour of christianty.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 11:36
|
|
|
As an atheist, I think maybe this should be taken to one of the religious discussion threads because pages of this doesn't seem conductive to getting people new info on the show or helping them figure out if the show is for them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 11:37
|
|
|
Facebook Aunt posted:Probably no different? I have several far right evangelical christian relatives who are also big fans of star trek. I haven't seen them in years so I don't know what they think of the new one though. Think about it like this: there is probably some positive correlation between liking science fiction and openness, and a negative correlation between religiosity and openness. There's correlations with gender on both. Probably correlations with urban vs. rural, with age, with educational status. Religious people differ from non-religious people on a much more fundamental level than a set of ethical beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 11:44
|
|
|
Eiba posted:Even the staunchest of obnoxious internet atheists is probably a "weak" atheist- someone who just doesn't believe, rather than someone who actively believes in the absence. Cingulate posted:Ha, I have to respect the way you think, but I also think it's fundamentally wrong. Our interests aren't governed by checking a list of boxes - does this violate any of may dogmas? If yes, I love it! That's just not how things work: Confirmation biases sure don't take sides.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 12:19
|
|
|
Sorry, what?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 12:45
|
|
|
How long does this show take to stop being amateurish productions of bad Voyager episodes?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 13:05
|
|
|
sassassin posted:How long does this show take to stop being amateurish productions of bad Voyager episodes? Wrong thread? Edit: I mean to say, worst Orville is better than all but the very best Voyager so gently caress off with that The Bloop fucked around with this message at 13:40 on Feb 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 13:31
|
|
|
Gromit posted:Keep in mind that atheism and agnosticism are not exactly about the same thing. An atheist doesn't believe in a god, whereas an agnostic believes that such a thing could exist (or could not). You can "not believe that a god exists" and also think that it's possible. It's "belief" versus "knowledge". Gnosticism is not about whether God could exist, it's about whether it's fundamentally possible to know if God exists or not. Gnosticism/agnosticism and theist/atheist are separate spectra. All it requires to be an atheist is a lack of belief as most of us have for, say, Poseidon, or for a god you've never even heard of it considered one way or the other. Being agnostic is more about saying "it's impossible to ever actually know" and doesn't address your personal belief on the question of existence at all. Of course, pop culture turned "agnostic" into a waffley middle ground on a simple yes/no question of "do you believe X exists?" rather than "do you believe it's possible to know whether X exists?" But the popular version is nonsense because it's a yes/no question and the supposed middle ground is only useful as a cop out answer to avoid social discomfort.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 13:37
|
|
|
The Bloop posted:Gnosticism is not about whether God could exist, it's about whether it's fundamentally possible to know if God exists or not. It's in the history of the word: The gnos in gnosticism is cognate with know, at some point in English/Germanic history the g shifted into a hard k which gives us the Old English cnāwan meaning "to know", it then later became silent probably due to Norman French influence. Also related is the Old English cennen meaning to make known, which gave us ken meaning to know or understand something. I'm not sure what that has to do with gnosticism however. I ken that I'm a hopeless nerd, and that the History of English Podcast is great.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 14:16
|
|
|
The Bloop posted:Of course, pop culture turned "agnostic" into a waffley middle ground Measly Twerp posted:It's in the history of the word: See http://philosophybites.com/2017/11/katalin-farkas-on-knowing-a-person.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 14:24
|
|
|
The Bloop posted:Of course, pop culture turned "agnostic" into a waffley middle ground on a simple yes/no question of "do you believe X exists?" rather than "do you believe it's possible to know whether X exists?" But the popular version is nonsense because it's a yes/no question and the supposed middle ground is only useful as a cop out answer to avoid social discomfort. Sometimes, living in the US I wonder if for some people it comes down to the word itself, even though the person is more or less atheist by definition. You can identify as agnostic, but saying you're an atheist (the bad A word) can end relationships and really change how your peers view you. Agnostic is still in a somewhat safe zone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 14:29
|
|
|
Joe Mama Poonana posted:Sometimes, living in the US I wonder if for some people it comes down to the word itself, even though the person is more or less atheist by definition. You can identify as agnostic, but saying you're an atheist (the bad A word) can end relationships and really change how your peers view you. Agnostic is still in a somewhat safe zone. You can be an Agnostic person and still have faith, but you can't as an Athiest. You can even be an Agnostic Christian(or whatever religion). Agnostic people are not "more or less Atheists".
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 14:48
|
|
|
sassassin posted:How long does this show take to stop being amateurish productions of bad Voyager episodes? Well, seeing as I already know the motivations and personalities of the main characters pretty much as of the pilot... ...the pilot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 14:54
|
|
|
Doesn't stop people from using it that way. His point is that atheist has such a negative connotation, especially in America, that saying you're agnostic is a softer way of expressing that you don't believe without seeming aggressive. It may be technically dishonest but I'm not gonna judge people for using it as I know it can be annoying to be challenged when you say you firmly don't believe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 14:55
|
|
|
Outing yourself as an atheist just makes the Christians in your circle become more annoying about god.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 14:56
|
|
|
There are even agnostic theists. ..people who have belief in a God, but say that the existence of God is unknowable...the two most famous are probably Kirkegard and Descartes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 14:58
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Languages change all the time. "Agnostic" means somebody who doesn't commit to there being or not being any god, either because they just happen to not know, or because it is unknowable. True, but if you don't actually have a positive belief then you are, also, an atheist. By definition. In the US, at least, many people don't want to say that because it stirs up a bunch of unpleasant poo poo. Also, probably most people never contemplate the distinction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 15:03
|
|
|
I'm really disappointed in the lack of Orville fan art.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 15:06
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:You can be an Agnostic person and still have faith, but you can't as an Athiest https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxFsIhzshiE Checkmate  And if you had any doubt left that atheists need faith ... Watch this again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yijcWsLda8 Epicurius posted:There are even agnostic theists. ..people who have belief in a God, but say that the existence of God is unknowable...the two most famous are probably Kirkegard and Descartes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 15:08
|
|
|
What is it called when you don't give a poo poo about god, but the concept has powerful and inescapable effects on your personal life? Sometimes I think about how much money, time, and effort I've expended due to a diety I don't believe in or care about. Up to a point, it's ostensibly humanist to do so, but sometimes I'm kneeling at mom's church or driving grandma through a blizzard to Christmas services, and I'm just like what am I doing? This is weird! Hell, I never dreamed I'd have to talk so many people out of wanting to get my baby's head wet for their own peace of mind.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 15:10
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:] You're right. For Descartes, read Pascal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 15:12
|
|
|
The Bloop posted:True, but if you don't actually have a positive belief then you are, also, an atheist. Epicurius posted:You're right. For Descartes, read Pascal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 15:12
|
|
|
Regy Rusty posted:Doesn't stop people from using it that way. His point is that atheist has such a negative connotation, especially in America, that saying you're agnostic is a softer way of expressing that you don't believe without seeming aggressive. It may be technically dishonest but I'm not gonna judge people for using it as I know it can be annoying to be challenged when you say you firmly don't believe. While that might be true in your neck of the woods, or even in the greater part of the U.S., it doesn't actually change what these terms mean and agnostics=athetists is not suddenly true, nor is the idea that people can't be agnostic. Just because you didn't want to upset Grandma during Sunday dinner doesn't change what these words actually mean and how they should be used. I don't mind you doing that either, but we've got guys in here acting like Agnosticism isn't even a real viewpoint, so at some point that misuse becomes detrimental to an actual discussion of the topic. It's like when you say something is ironic that's actually just humorous coincidence, sure people might understand what you're saying but it doesn't make you suddenly correct because there's a consensus of ignorance. To loop the discussion of this back to Star Trek, and The Orville, I think both shows fall more into the Gnostic category, because the idea that we can know these greater powers/beings is fairly in theme with the general idea of discovery and exploration. They both might in some cases distance themselves, or as with the Orville's couple of episodes portray organized religion as a faulty social structure; I think you'd be hard pressed to say that either show has portrayed knowledge of God as an absolute 'Nope! Doesn't exist!'
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 15:14
|
|
|
One thing Q demonstrates is that an all-powerful personal being who can in principle give you eternal pleasure or pain if you don't do what they want does not by these acts and capabilities make their wishes objective moral truth. So in a way TNG is saying: even if God existed, it wouldn't really change what matters. Picard would still follow his own principles, even if Jesus/Muhammad/... reappeared and said that yes, God is perfectly clear on the point where adulterers should be stoned.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 15:18
|
|
|
PaybackJack posted:While that might be true in your neck of the woods, or even in the greater part of the U.S., it doesn't actually change what these terms mean and agnostics=athetists is not suddenly true, nor is the idea that people can't be agnostic. Just because you didn't want to upset Grandma during Sunday dinner doesn't change what these words actually mean and how they should be used. I don't mind you doing that either, but we've got guys in here acting like Agnosticism isn't even a real viewpoint, so at some point that misuse becomes detrimental to an actual discussion of the topic. I don't use it that way. But it doesn't change the fact that it is how it is broadly used and you can't just sweep away the cultural pressure that has driven that use.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 15:37
|
|
|
drunken officeparty posted:
doesn't it kind of follow naturally from the premise of religion not really being a factor in most people's lives and nobody fighting over it? obviously there are all sorts of directions an atheist society could conceivably go, such as deciding to eradicate all religion they encounter or whatever, but that doesn't fit with the kind of society that the Union demonstrably is, one which is highly respectful of cultural autonomy. personal, intense distaste for something tends to require that the "something" actually be present in a person's life in some way. it doesn't make any sense for a society like the Union to even have militant atheists in any large quantity, let alone conduct diplomacy from an anti-religion standpoint as some posters wished the show had depicted. and i think that's a good thing; a better society than one where ships warp all over the galaxy giving smug speeches to primitive species about how they're such losers for believing in sky dad
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 15:40
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:The meaning of a word is, arguably, defined by its usage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 15:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 05:33 |
|
|
The Bloop posted:Sure, but there is no true exchange of ideas without shared definitions. At least for the sake of a confined discussion like this thread, prescriptive language and explicit definitions are ideal. Alt. answer: Pinker, his mind racing. Wittgenstein, his face a frown.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 16:25
|
|