Religion: Roddenberry was right!!

[Praetor]

Agreed. I guess I just disagree with faith having to be blind faith. Just because you read the Bible and believe in it doesn't mean you have to deny the facts presented by science. I am skeptical that mankind will ever fully understand everything about the way the universe works, but I am confident that in five hundred years our observations now will probably be as quaint as the notion that the Sun revolved around the Earth. While I see your point regarding the Holocaust, I think there is a difference in denying recorded historical fact than denying extrapolated scientific fact.

I had several science teachers that taught me about the scientific age of the Earth and its eras who were also literalistic Christians who accepted that the Earth was 6000 years old and had no problem keeping the two separate or using one to question the other. One in particular, when asked about it by one of my classmates, simply said she knew there was a reconciliation but also knew she wasn't wise enough to know what it was. It was as simple as that for her.

I see denying science with religion as the same as some people who adhere to science without allowing for the possibility of the spiritually unknown. They can coexist.

 

[Ryan8bit]

I guess I just disagree with faith having to be blind faith.

Oh, it doesn't have to be, it's just that so often it is.

Just because you read the Bible and believe in it doesn't mean you have to deny the facts presented by science.

I guess it depends on how you believe in it. What you get out of it and how you apply it.

I am skeptical that mankind will ever fully understand everything about the way the universe works

Perhaps not. If there are no mysteries to be solved, then humans sure would be different. Perhaps we might even feel worthless because of that. Or maybe our destiny is to transition into a state more like God himself. Who knows? At any rate, there will undoubtedly be more findings in science that question faiths such as Christianity (unless we all kill ourselves first).

I had several science teachers that taught me about the scientific age of the Earth and its eras who were also literalistic Christians who accepted that the Earth was 6000 years old and had no problem keeping the two separate or using one to question the other. One in particular, when asked about it by one of my classmates, simply said she knew there was a reconciliation but also knew she wasn't wise enough to know what it was. It was as simple as that for her.

Isn't that sort of a cognitive dissonance though? I can understand questioning everything... that's the nature of science. But I don't think you can believe in two different mutually exclusive ideas without some sort of psychological conflict. Simply put, I'm not sure I would trust what such a person might have to say in several matters.

 

[Praetor]

I had several science teachers that taught me about the scientific age of the Earth and its eras who were also literalistic Christians who accepted that the Earth was 6000 years old and had no problem keeping the two separate or using one to question the other. One in particular, when asked about it by one of my classmates, simply said she knew there was a reconciliation but also knew she wasn't wise enough to know what it was. It was as simple as that for her.

Isn't that sort of a cognitive dissonance though? I can understand questioning everything... that's the nature of science. But I don't think you can believe in two different mutually exclusive ideas without some sort of psychological conflict. Simply put, I'm not sure I would trust what such a person might have to say in several matters.

If it was a cognitive dissonance, then it's one she knew she had and made it a point not to make it a point. What this teacher in particular taught us wasn't couched in any sort of religious context, and the only reason she even addressed it here was because one of us asked. (My family knew her family outside of school and so knew of her religious devotion.) She taught by the science book and never presented any religious information as fact. You might have distrusted her, but she never showed a sign of discomfort nor compromise of the material.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

the one thing I've never understood about religion is why people are so offended when you bring up views even possibly contrary to what they believe. If someone told me that they believe in pluto has life, I would say I don't agree but I wouldn't become offended. Not only are religious people offended by mentions of their religion.. they are almost ready willing able and even wanting to be offeneded by it. I can't wrap my head around that.

 

[Praetor]

I don't really understand that either. I am not offended by much at all.

I also don't think that all or even majority of religious people get offended - moreso, I think the ones that do are essentially just so 'loud' that they become a stereotype.

For me personally, maybe it's because I'm not exactly set in any one religion or denomination - I don't attend services regularly or anything like that, and that's all because I was somewhat jaded by organized religion when I was younger. So maybe I'm a bit jaded and don't mind people questioning something that I question myself.

I think a lot of Christians feel persecuted because they were once the majority and in power and now feel like that's threatened. In any case, I don't see a thing wrong with questioning when it's a part of rational debate and discussion.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

the one thing I've never understood about religion is why people are so offended when you bring up views even possibly contrary to what they believe. If someone told me that they believe in pluto has life, I would say I don't agree but I wouldn't become offended. Not only are religious people offended by mentions of their religion.. they are almost ready willing able and even wanting to be offeneded by it. I can't wrap my head around that.

When someone has a dispassionate debate with me, provides sources, takes care to use proper logic to the extent that is possible in such a debate, and generally conducts themselves with intellectual honesty, I am not bothered. That is a legitimate debate. And sad to say, true rational debate, especially in a forum like this, is extremely rare.

When someone insists on bringing their emotions to the table, using insulting or degrading language either towards the belief or those who hold the belief, then I find it insulting. Not the fact that the person disbelieves--but the contemptuous attitude they allow to show through their words and behaviors.

 

[Arya]

well, maybe we may have moved past that in the 23rd centruy but i think that that would be really sad! many races are BECAUSE of what they belive!!! but whatever..... think what you want, because i cannot change your mind!

 

[Infinitus]

Roddenberry was wrong. No matter how scientific mankind becomes, there will always be religion. Having said that, people need religion because people want to believe that someone is out there watching over them.

Personally, I believe that there is a higher power other than myself. And if you look at all the religions of the world, they are pretty much the same. They all have a Creator diety, a savior of mankind, an evil entity that opposes the Creator, and a final battle between good and evil. In my opinion, not every religion is right. Nor are they false. Every religion is but a piece of one real truth. Maybe the real God is different than the God in all of the religions. Maybe the real God is only an observer, not interferring with the affairs of man.

And for all the athiests that want everyone else in the world to be an athiest, SHUT THE HELL UP! I don't care that you don't believe in God, but don't force your beliefs on me. Plus, the scientific theroies that you believe in are the same as the religions that others believe in. There is know way to prove the existance of God, but on the other hand, you also can't prove that the "Big Bang" actually happened. For all we know, the "Big Bang" could have been God's "Let there be Light!"

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Roddenberry was wrong. No matter how scientific mankind becomes, there will always be religion. Having said that, people need religion because people want to believe that someone is out there watching over them.

Personally, I believe that there is a higher power other than myself. And if you look at all the religions of the world, they are pretty much the same. They all have a Creator diety, a savior of mankind, an evil entity that opposes the Creator, and a final battle between good and evil. In my opinion, not every religion is right. Nor are they false. Every religion is but a piece of one real truth. Maybe the real God is different than the God in all of the religions. Maybe the real God is only an observer, not interferring with the affairs of man.

And for all the athiests that want everyone else in the world to be an athiest, SHUT THE HELL UP! I don't care that you don't believe in God, but don't force your beliefs on me. Plus, the scientific theroies that you believe in are the same as the religions that others believe in. There is know way to prove the existance of God, but on the other hand, you also can't prove that the "Big Bang" actually happened. For all we know, the "Big Bang" could have been God's "Let there be Light!"

there's a big difference between believing in a higher power and believing in religion. I mean, one can be ascertained from one's own belief. the other is purely a man-made bureaucracy that is all about power, and money, region territory time and control, and allows for rational people to stop thinking of for zealots to slip in.


As for myself, maybe there is a god, but what created god?

 

[3D Master]

Roddenberry was wrong. No matter how scientific mankind becomes, there will always be religion. Having said that, people need religion because people want to believe that someone is out there watching over them.

No, people do not need that at all.

And for all the athiests that want everyone else in the world to be an athiest, SHUT THE HELL UP! I don't care that you don't believe in God, but don't force your beliefs on me. Plus, the scientific theroies that you believe in are the same as the religions that others believe in. There is know way to prove the existance of God, but on the other hand, you also can't prove that the "Big Bang" actually happened. For all we know, the "Big Bang" could have been God's "Let there be Light!"

Ah, so hearing of people not believing in god, telling you about it, and explaining why is us forcing our lack of belief on you and that's bad; but it's apparently a-ok for every person that believes in anything divine to dump all their beliefs on us, over and over again, and then when we won't cave and still don't believe, you got add in the vitriol of how we're amoral and will burn in hell and get tortured there for an eternity.

Little hypocritical, aren't we?

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Roddenberry was wrong. No matter how scientific mankind becomes, there will always be religion. Having said that, people need religion because people want to believe that someone is out there watching over them.

No, people do not need that at all.

And for all the athiests that want everyone else in the world to be an athiest, SHUT THE HELL UP! I don't care that you don't believe in God, but don't force your beliefs on me. Plus, the scientific theroies that you believe in are the same as the religions that others believe in. There is know way to prove the existance of God, but on the other hand, you also can't prove that the "Big Bang" actually happened. For all we know, the "Big Bang" could have been God's "Let there be Light!"

Ah, so hearing of people not believing in god, telling you about it, and explaining why is us forcing our lack of belief on you and that's bad; but it's apparently a-ok for every person that believes in anything divine to dump all their beliefs on us, over and over again, and then when we won't cave and still don't believe, you got add in the vitriol of how we're amoral and will burn in hell and get tortured there for an eternity.

Little hypocritical, aren't we?

LOL funny. nopt only that... but people like that start when we are children and have no choice but to buy into these things. How insecure is religion that they have to start people out at the age when people haven't developed enough to challenge it.

As for Trek... it's always been about asking questions, analysing the answers, and as Sisko said, afinding NEW questions, rather than caving into to superstition

 

[Misfit Toy]

Roddenberry was wrong. No matter how scientific mankind becomes, there will always be religion. Having said that, people need religion because people want to believe that someone is out there watching over them.

Personally, I believe that there is a higher power other than myself. And if you look at all the religions of the world, they are pretty much the same. They all have a Creator diety, a savior of mankind, an evil entity that opposes the Creator, and a final battle between good and evil. In my opinion, not every religion is right. Nor are they false. Every religion is but a piece of one real truth. Maybe the real God is different than the God in all of the religions. Maybe the real God is only an observer, not interferring with the affairs of man.

And for all the athiests that want everyone else in the world to be an athiest, SHUT THE HELL UP! I don't care that you don't believe in God, but don't force your beliefs on me. Plus, the scientific theroies that you believe in are the same as the religions that others believe in. There is know way to prove the existance of God, but on the other hand, you also can't prove that the "Big Bang" actually happened. For all we know, the "Big Bang" could have been God's "Let there be Light!"

This thread has now degenerated to the "SHUT THE HELL UP" level. Great. Most participants have handled themselves in a wonderfully reasonable, adult manner. Looks like that's pretty much run its course.

Thread closed.