Religion and Star Trek

[Phoenix219]

As a Mormon I will tell you that Mormons have been Space Mormons since the 1840s.



Which is why I don't think that "tolerance" can really be a virtue. Because tolerance must be inclusive of views that destroy itself.

The reality is that we all have limits to what we consider acceptable behavior in others.
Case in point:


Meaning, you think differing views can only be tolerated when they are not outwardly expressed. But does a person truly have the right to believe what they will if they do not have the right to express that belief outwardly? For any outward expression of one's views would not be tolerated.

What people seem to want is just the right amount of tolerance that includes everything they support, but excludes anyone who disagrees with them.

To put it succinctly, with all the cries for tolerance from all sides, there seems to be little actual tolerance being expressed.

I was being vague as to not get off topic or generate hostilities. By internalized, I mean not negatively affecting other people's lives or freedoms. Express it verbally, sure. Enjoy your personal freedom's, absolutely. Take actions to the point where it affects the way other's live their lives, and it might be a problem. But, that is true of todays culture, but not the past. In the past, it would have been "sticks or stones" .... But in today's world, it seems expressing verbally a dissenting or unpopular position can actual damage oneself, and tolerance seems only a one way street from whatever side is commanding the argument. True tolerance is bi-directional, 100% of the time. Anything else is hypocrisy.

 

[BillJ]

True tolerance is bi-directional, 100% of the time. Anything else is hypocrisy.

I'm tolerant of facts, not bullshit.

 

[TwoJakes]

Learning? Yes being told their belief system is wrong and they need to convert or go to hell? no

But it is more likely that a ship composed of atheists would be the one to tell a society that their religious belief system was wrong. Regardless what their religious beliefs were they would be automatically wrong in the eyes of atheists owing to being religious at all.

The "go to hell" component would be missing, but there still could be a advocacy to convert to non-religious society.

There have been a lot of studies of what religion does to the human brain. It ain't pretty.

You're talking about the general better mental health and lower suicide rate among religious people?

 

[BillJ]

But it is more likely that a ship composed of atheists would be the one to tell a society that their religious belief system was wrong. Regardless what their religious beliefs were they would be automatically wrong in the eyes of atheists owing to being religious at all.

More likely? I doubt it. But the action would be just as wrong, regardless of who is carrying it out.

I don't think that there are atheist missionaries that go to foreign lands with the intent of making everyone read the atheists' handbook.

 

[uniderth]

There have been a lot of studies of what religion does to the human brain. It ain't pretty.

there is very little difference between a cult and a culture.

I don't think it's rational to decry the problems of religion without also decrying those same effects in culture. Just look at the effects of materialism and statism in our culture. Any belief system is going to have effects on the brain whether that belief system invokes a deity or not.

I was being vague as to not get off topic or generate hostilities. By internalized, I mean not negatively affecting other people's lives or freedoms. [...]
But, that is true of todays culture, but not the past. In the past, it would have been "sticks or stones" .... But in today's world, it seems expressing verbally a dissenting or unpopular position can actual damage oneself, and tolerance seems only a one way street from whatever side is commanding the argument. True tolerance is bi-directional, 100% of the time. Anything else is hypocrisy.

Agreed. I don't mean to invoke the current American political dichotomy. It seems that in general there is only a desire for tolerance of things one agrees with. And as you said whoever commands the discussion will not extend tolerance for those things they disagree with. And also as you said, that is hypocrisy.

Express it verbally, sure. Enjoy your personal freedom's, absolutely. Take actions to the point where it affects the way other's live their lives, and it might be a problem.

But I think this points to our culture's current individualistic attitudes. We do affect eachother's lives constantly. We are communal creatures and what one person does has an affect on other. So I don't think its realistic to say(not that you said it), "you can practice your beliefs as long as they don't affect anyone else." Because what we do will always affect others.What is determined to be acceptable depends on what is perceived as good in any society. In general our culture views killing* as wrong. So if you hold a belief that involves killing others, that belief is not tolerated. However, many ancient societies viewed human sacrifice as acceptable.

For others simply knocking on their door and sharing your beliefs with them as an affront, constitutes shoving your beliefs down their throats, and not tolerated.

I don't think it realistic to say, sure practice your beliefs on your own as long as they don't affect me. Because affecting other is what we do as humans it's going to happen. But at the same time society is always in flux in determining what the tolerated level of people affecting each other is. So maybe in the 23rd-24th centuries humanity punishes any form of outward expression of beliefs that don't follow societal norms. Actually that sounds pretty much like every other culture, and not a more enlightened one.

Who am I kidding, I completely lost my train of though on this comment and now I'm just rambling.

I'm tolerant of facts, not bullshit.

So in other words, you're intolerant. Haha

 

[Philip Guyott]

Kirk Vs. Jesus (Well actually an alien pretending to be Jesus):

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[fireproof78]

Space travel is dangerous and missions are time consuming. I have hard time willing to believe missionaries willing to brave space travel are going to take no for an answer. If history is any indication, the missionaries will make planet fall with a bible in one hand a phaser in the other.

Possibly. Or you might meet the missionaries who live among the natives, learn about them and translate their holy scriptures in to a language that was unknown until then. For every bad story, there is likely a more positive story of missionaries that goes unreported because it isn't interesting.

Also, isn't the point of Star Trek that space travel is far more common, and not a one way trip? Also, ask the missionaries who come to my door how often I tell them "No" after a nice conversation and coffee.

There have been a lot of studies of what religion does to the human brain. It ain't pretty.

Having studied psychology for the past ten years, I'm curious, since my schooling and research have indicated that having a religious or spiritual beliefs has actually been indicated for people to develop as part of their general well being.

tl:dr It can go both ways, both good and bad. Maybe we shouldn't focus just on the bad.

 

[Phoenix219]

I'm tolerant of facts, not bullshit.

True tolerance would be tolerating other's bullshit, whether you agree with it or not. To each, their own. What I do and think is my business. What other's do and think is their business. Its that simple, or should be...

 

[BillJ]

True tolerance would be tolerating other's bullshit, whether you agree with it or not. To each, their own. What I do and think is my business. What other's do and think is their business. Its that simple, or should be...

It should be that simple, but I constantly have variations of Christians knocking on my door wanting to know if I found Jesus.

 

[Phoenix219]

But it is more likely that a ship composed of atheists would be the one to tell a society that their religious belief system was wrong. Regardless what their religious beliefs were they would be automatically wrong in the eyes of atheists owing to being religious at all.

The "go to hell" component would be missing, but there still could be a advocacy to convert to non-religious society.
You're talking about the general better mental health and lower suicide rate among religious people?

Isn't that what we witnessed all through TNG?

I kid, I kid.....

 

[uniderth]

It should be that simple, but I constantly have variations of Christians knocking on my door wanting to know if I found Jesus.

And that should be forbidden becasue...?

 

[stardream]

It should be that simple, but I constantly have variations of Christians knocking on my door wanting to know if I found Jesus.

That never happens to me. Maybe I am sending out a secret signal that I don't know about.

 

[BillJ]

And that should be forbidden becasue...?

Because what goes on in my house, and how or if I chose to worship is my business. I understand they are from the building with the big "t" on top, if I want to know about Jesus, I know where to look.

But the thing that is irritating is the total disconnect Christians have. They constantly claim they are being marginalized and that they are having agendas shoved down their throat, when they are doing the very thing they are accusing others of. Either they don't see the hypocrisy or they are intellectually dishonest. Neither speaks well of them from my point of view.

 

[JeffinOakland]

And that should be forbidden becasue...?

Because it's intrusive, obnoxious and disruptive.

 

[2takesfrakes]

Isn't that what we witnessed all through TNG?

I kid, I kid.....

 

[BillJ]

Because it's intrusive, obnoxious and disruptive.

No different than getting calls from people wanting to sell me something.

 

[JeffinOakland]

No different than getting calls from people wanting to sell me something.

Except, in this case, they come into your house sit on your furniture and try to sell you something that might not even exist.

 

[BillJ]

Except, in this case, they come into your house sit on your furniture and try to sell you something that might not even exist.

That's only if you let them in!

 

[Kemaiku]

Except, in this case, they come into your house sit on your furniture and try to sell you something that might not even exist.

A LibDem government?

 

[uniderth]

But the thing that is irritating is the total disconnect Christians have. They constantly claim they are being marginalized and that they are having agendas shoved down their throat, when they are doing the very thing they are accusing others of. Either they don't see the hypocrisy or they are intellectually dishonest. Neither speaks well of them from my point of view.

It is interesting, and I think many groups have this. But if you believe you are right and someone else is wrong. Then you aren't going to feel bad about proving to that person that you are right. In fact, in the case of Christianity It could be more akin to believing that if someone was about to walk off a cliff, of course you would try to help them. Even if they didn't want you to. So while from an outsider perspective it may seem hypocritical, but from in insider's perspective it is the only logical way to proceed. It really does depend on the point of view.

Because it's intrusive, obnoxious and disruptive.

So are a lot of things, but that's life. We affect each other even when it is unwanted. I find Enterprise, JJTrek and their associated Memory Alpha entries intrusive, obnoxious and disruptive.

No different than getting calls from people wanting to sell me something.

And you are free to not answer the door or the phone in either case. or put up a sign that indicates you find such communication disruptive. I don't think the default should be the assumption that human interactions are going to be intrusive, obnoxious and disruptive, and therefore must be forbidden.

A LibDem government?

How about any government. I particularly find the IRS more intrusive, obnoxious and disruptive than any missionary.