Bill Nye dosnt like star wars?

[Adam Reynolds]

The best argument regarding the negative elements of mysticism in Star Trek is DS9, in which the atheistic Federation is proven objectively wrong. The "gods" even destroy an entire Dominion fleet and Sisko is uplifted as a servant of the gods. Science and technology does almost nothing to influence this story arc. I believe similar issues were shown in Voyager to a degree, though I haven't watched that show enough to know.

However, most people associate Star Trek with Kirk or Picard, as opposed to Sisko or Janeway. So I'm not sure that is a perfect argument. Certainly someone like Bill Nye would associate it with Kirk, as he probably remembered it mostly from his childhood.

[Batman]

Have you slept through the Dominion War arc? By the time the Sisko got Jesusised the war was over and the Founders killing the Dominion reinforcements was the only time they interfered with the war. Science and technology did such minor details as finding a counter to the shield-circumventing Dominion weapons, create the self-replicating minefield, hack the weapons platforms in the assault on Cardassia, detect and identify Founder infiltrators or pretty much everything else that happened in that war. 'Almost nothing' my ass.

[Simon_Jester]

Is it official Federation policy to deny the existence of "gods?"

Is it official Federation policy to deny the existence of the Founders as such, regardless of whether they are to be revered as gods?

Is it official Federation policy to disrespect, ignore, or marginalize the Bajoran religion(s) that revere the Founders as gods?

I'm pretty sure the answer to all three of those questions is "no." And if the answer to all those three questions is "no," then how is it "proving the Federation wrong" when it turns out that part of their victory in the Dominion War comes from convincing the Founders to take sides and help them against an enemy?

Would it be "proving the atheistic Federation wrong" if the Federation asked Q nicely to help them against the Borg, and Q cooperated? I don't see the difference there.
______________

Certainly the Federation doesn't explicitly encourage religion. And they have a long history of encountering false 'gods' and either destroying or unmasking them; they have plenty of reasons not to take 'this entity has great powers we don't understand' as evidence for 'this entity is a god.'

However, the Federation is not as such an "atheistic" state; it is simply a state which views religion as a part of specific cultures (which it tolerates as a matter of policy), but not as a uniquely sacred part of those cultures.

[Lord Revan]

Simon(and others) I think you mixed the Prophets (aka the wormhole aliens) who are the defacto gods of Bajor with the Founders (aka Odo's species) who are the Dominion gods (and leaders of the Dominion)

[Simon_Jester]

...Crap.

I was thinking "Prophets" (the entities controlling the Bajoran wormhole) but somehow wrote "Founders" every single time.



Thanks for catching that. Obviously, the post should read:

Is it official Federation policy to deny the existence of "gods?"

Is it official Federation policy to deny the existence of the Prophets as such, regardless of whether they are to be revered as gods?

Is it official Federation policy to disrespect, ignore, or marginalize the Bajoran religion(s) that revere the Prophets as gods?

I'm pretty sure the answer to all three of those questions is "no." And if the answer to all those three questions is "no," then how is it "proving the Federation wrong" when it turns out that part of their victory in the Dominion War comes from convincing the Founders to take sides and help them against an enemy?

Would it be "proving the atheistic Federation wrong" if the Federation asked Q nicely to help them against the Borg, and Q cooperated? I don't see the difference there.
______________

Certainly the Federation doesn't explicitly encourage religion. And they have a long history of encountering false 'gods' and either destroying or unmasking them; they have plenty of reasons not to take 'this entity has great powers we don't understand' as evidence for 'this entity is a god.'

However, the Federation is not as such an "atheistic" state; it is simply a state which views religion as a part of specific cultures (which it tolerates as a matter of policy), but not as a uniquely sacred part of those cultures.

[Lord Revan]

In your defense Simon you were not the only one who seems to have those 2 mixed in this thread.

[Batman]

Yup. Guilty here too.

[DarthPooky]

one thing I don't think I made very clear in my first post is that I felt that (and this is probably just me) that Bill is saying that because the tone of trek is more scientific that it is therefore better then star wars. But of cores nether one is better then the other there just different with different tones. of cores he could just be stating the reasons he likes star trek more but there's that little part of me that's telling me the former but its probably just me.

[Lord Revan]

It's most likely "I like Star Trek more because..." then an authority statement of quality as most people couldn't care less about the VS. debates or at most consider them a curiosity not to be taken too seriously.