This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Nuclear Messiah: I have removed this because it reads too much like flame bait: However, the way Clarke shows the "outgrowing" is completely unrealistic: special viewers allow to see history as it really was, and the author pretends this is enough to make religion vanish. When, in the real world, do real believers accept evidence as refutation for their own superstitionfaith?
Drive By Editor: Gee, I don't know ... maybe because there's no faith-breaking evidence out there? The same thing goes for atheists. Atheists have absolutely no scientific evidence to support their denials, but they have faith that they are correct (although they like to say they "know" there is no God and "know" they are right, much like religious people "know" their religion is the truth). The atheists who say Jesus never existed at all often dismiss any historical evidence that would claim otherwise. The godless guys really need to get off their high horse, especially with their insistence on Subtextual Take Thats labeling religion/faith as superstition. (Looking at you, Nuclear Messiah. Seriously, pulling Flame Bait out of a topic while sneaking bits of your own Flame Bait into discussion? Not cool.)
Nuclear Messiah: I wasn't aware I put flame bait in there since all I said was I have removed this because it reads too much like flame bait. There is a colon after that showing that what I removed was However, the way Clarke shows the "outgrowing" is completely unrealistic: special viewers allow to see history as it really was, and the author pretends this is enough to make religion vanish. When, in the real world, do real believers accept evidence as refutation for their own superstitionfaith? Maybe I should have hit the enter key, and by the way, I am a Muslim, not an atheist.
Logical Dash: Hi, I am a Weak Explicit Atheist
. I disbelieve in the existence of God because I find that the world makes less sense the more I try to imagine some reason for it all. (Which is not to say that I don't have any arguments against the existence of God, but they are not the main reason for my atheism.) Drive By Editor, your views on atheism are stereotypical and misinformed. I suggest you read our Useful Notes entry on Atheism.
As it happens, I think that Outgrown Such Silly Superstitions is a silly trope, and not a very effective way of arguing against religion. Simply representing more rationalist points of view would probably work better.
Kizor: Evangelic Lutheran, and I agree with the silliness. I don't think anyone doesn't. Except for the authors, I suppose.
Blork: Removed this from the example about The Light of Other Days because it's not quite right:
- Although the time of the crucifixion is blocked from sight by the attempts of billions and billions of people trying to use the device to witness the same moments in time. So a bit of doubt remains.
The time portals were able to watch the crucifixion, they just couldn't make out Jesus' last words (The Bible gives three different versions so it would be interesting to see which, if any, was correct). In the context of the book there is no doubt that Jesus did not rise from the dead.
Muninn: Removed this bit that was added by some random dbe.
- * Truth in Television? We'll just have to wait.
Premonition_45: I had an alternate title for this trope: Atheiopia. I was thinking of making it a YKTTW until I realized it was exactly like this trope. What do you think of it?
MILLENIUM_KING: Was the quote supposed to be ironic? Kirk immediately follows it up with "We find the one to be quite sufficient." Isn't there a better quote from the socialist/secular humanist/ridiculous BS that was ST:TNG?
