Trek's View of Religion

[scotpens]

. . . Now comes Christianity, which at that time period was considered by the majority to be a cult (No offense towards anyone, but I've always viewed this bit of info a bit ironic considering how society kind of looks down on “cults” today.)

Definition of cult:

1. Any religion that isn't currently in fashion.

2. Any religion weirder than your own.

 

[3D Master]

I think the whole point is to name things that were done in the name of god that were BAD. ... The crusades were ... a GOOD thing.

That's a very ... novel perspective on history.

Not really. In Europe, only those who had their head in the sand during their history lessons think differently. Everywhere else whenever someone is talking about the Crusades, they're talking as if the Muslims were these sweet nice guys who hurt no one, and the evil Christians just up and went to invade them.

This simply isn't true. The Muslims spent their time invading Europe, and then started killing pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem. The Crusades are a response to Muslim aggression.

 

[DevilEyes]

Nope, not at all. Nowhere did I even come close to considering that Christianity is wrong...

Oh yes you did.

No, I didn't.

Well, I suppose you might not have actually said it was wrong, just "the intolerant, murdering, persecuting one [religion] that believes in an imaginary being". I assumed that you think that being intolerant, murdering, persecuting is a bad thing... sorry, I didn't realize that you might think those are OK things! Maybe you were actually paying it a compliment?

There's nothing bigoted about the truth. And I indeed never said they should be killed or beaten up. Anyone who tries to place those words in my mouth, is a liar and a charlatan.

:facepalm:

Thank you for proving my point.

You're right. People who believed in the prophets are a bunch of superstitious nutcases that believe some aliens living in a wormhole are gods, and when those gods are shown to be not quite as all powerful as they imagined, they turn to worshiping essentially the devil as a way to get back at them.

Sounds about right to me.

This is hilarious in so many ways that I don't know where to begin - from the inaccuracies (the idea that all or the majority of Bajorans switched to worshipping the Pah-wraiths), to the presumptiousness (they were such nutcases for believing that wormhole aliens were 'gods', but in fact they just had enormous powers and super-human abilities... um, you were saying?) and the entire "did not watch the show very carefully" impression one gets - and, not the least, the amusing spectacle of someone who claims to be an atheist acknowledging the existence of the devil. Like, those fictional people are nutcases for thinking of those fictional aliens as gods! But on the other hand, it's perfectly legitimate to think of those other aliens as "the devil"!

Hmmm. So to sum up your position:

"I am not intolerant. Really! I am only intolerant of intolerance. And your beliefs are intolerant by nature, they've led to many atrocities throughout the history. No, don't try to convince me that the people who did those were supposedly not true to the essence of your faith and all that crap. You're trying to redefine your beliefs! Face it, your beliefs are by nature intolerant, they pollute society, not to mention that one has to be an idiot to believe in them in the first place. And therefore the world will be better when your beliefs die out."

Tolerance my ass.

Apparently you do not understand what tolerance means. To tolerate something, is to allow something, to give a pass to people doing something you find not desirable. They can continue to live without you hurting them, killing them, or otherwise make their lives a living hell.

It does NOT mean that you can't speak out about your belief that it is not desirable, nor that you can't try to convince people it is indeed not desirable.

If I thought superstition was completely nice and sweet, I wouldn't need to be tolerant toward it.

You are obviously such an expert on tolerance, I must concede to your opinion! I confess, I had no idea that tolerance in fact meant anything that doesn't involve murder or physical violence. Allowing those people you dislike to exist! Wow, this is really tolerant!

I guess you are not familiar with the concept of hate speech... or maybe you have just redefined the concept. So, I now realize, after having been educated and enlightened by you, that there is absolutely nothing intolerant about statements such as, say: "Muslims are terrorists", "Atheists are immoral", "Homosexuality is a disease that should be cured", "Jews are greedy and sneaky and they control the world", "Women are inferior to men" or "Blacks are congenitally prone to criminality"... because neither of those implies killing people or beating them up!

I can see someone saying any of those and going: "I am not a racist/homophobe. It's not like I hate those people. I am just telling it like it is, and there is nothing bigoted about the truth. I am a very tolerant person - I'm letting them live and I'm not hurting them, killing them, or making their lives a living hell. But that doesn't mean I can't speak out about my beliefs in what is not desirable, nor that I can't try to convince people it is indeed not desirable!"

 

[3D Master]

Oh yes you did.

No, I didn't.

Well, I suppose you might not have actually said it was wrong, just "the intolerant, murdering, persecuting one [religion] that believes in an imaginary being". I assumed that you think that being intolerant, murdering, persecuting is a bad thing... sorry, I didn't realize that you might think those are OK things! Maybe you were actually paying it a compliment?

There are two entirely different meanings to the word "wrong", friend. There's the wrong, is that they are incorrect, and even bad. Then there's wrong, as in: they must be battled at all costs, right down to murdering the sobs.

If was using the former meaning, you attempted to put the latter meaning into my mouth. When I say, "I didn't say such a thing", I never said the meaning you're trying to put in my mouth.

:facepalm:

Thank you for proving my point.

Done no such thing.

This is hilarious in so many ways that I don't know where to begin - from the inaccuracies (the idea that all or the majority of Bajorans switched to worshipping the Pah-wraiths),

And I said that where? ...oh, yeah, that's nowhere, but you know, keep putting words in my mouth.

to the presumptiousness (they were such nutcases for believing that wormhole aliens were 'gods', but in fact they just had enormous powers and super-human abilities... um, you were saying?)

Yeah, that doesn't make them gods. Just being with a lot of power, but no gods.

and the entire "did not watch the show very carefully" impression one gets - and, not the least, the amusing spectacle of someone who claims to be an atheist acknowledging the existence of the devil. Like, those fictional people are nutcases for thinking of those fictional aliens as gods! But on the other hand, it's perfectly legitimate to think of those other aliens as "the devil"!

I don't personally believe they are the devil, and you know that too. If you do not understand that in Bajoran's religion the Pah-wraiths are the devil, and that that means that to Bajoran starting to worship the Pah-wraith is worshiping the devil, not my own belief in any such things... well, I got nothing.

Well, I got lots of things, but... those would get me a warning.

Hmmm. So to sum up your position:

"I am not intolerant. Really! I am only intolerant of intolerance. And your beliefs are intolerant by nature, they've led to many atrocities throughout the history. No, don't try to convince me that the people who did those were supposedly not true to the essence of your faith and all that crap. You're trying to redefine your beliefs! Face it, your beliefs are by nature intolerant, they pollute society, not to mention that one has to be an idiot to believe in them in the first place. And therefore the world will be better when your beliefs die out."

Tolerance my ass.

Apparently you do not understand what tolerance means. To tolerate something, is to allow something, to give a pass to people doing something you find not desirable. They can continue to live without you hurting them, killing them, or otherwise make their lives a living hell.

It does NOT mean that you can't speak out about your belief that it is not desirable, nor that you can't try to convince people it is indeed not desirable.

If I thought superstition was completely nice and sweet, I wouldn't need to be tolerant toward it.

You are obviously such an expert on tolerance, I must concede to your opinion! I confess, I had no idea that tolerance in fact meant anything that doesn't involve murder or physical violence. Allowing those people you dislike to exist! Wow, this is really tolerant!

I guess you are not familiar with the concept of hate speech... or maybe you have just redefined the concept. So, I now realize, after having been educated and enlightened by you, that there is absolutely nothing intolerant about statements such as, say: "Muslims are terrorists", "Atheists are immoral", "Homosexuality is a disease that should be cured", "Jews are greedy and sneaky and they control the world", "Women are inferior to men" or "Blacks are congenitally prone to criminality"... because neither of those implies killing people or beating them up!

I can see someone saying any of those and going: "I am not a racist/homophobe. It's not like I hate those people. I am just telling it like it is, and there is nothing bigoted about the truth. I am a very tolerant person - I'm letting them live and I'm not hurting them, killing them, or making their lives a living hell. But that doesn't mean I can't speak out about my beliefs in what is not desirable, nor that I can't try to convince people it is indeed not desirable!"

Yeah, keep putting words in my mouth. Nowhere did I say anything about "JUST not hurting or killing them", I said, "allowing them live as they wish." That means also, no attempt to make laws that make it illegal, no jail time, nothing anywhere that says you can't live your life as you see fit.

Of course, then there's the fact all those things would wrong, NOT the truth, and therefor the opinions of backward people who have no grasp of reality. But hey, keep thinking that correctly assessing, believing in something that doesn't exist, that has massive contradictions in them within itself as well as with reality, that has built in clauses that one must hate others who do not believe like you do and must all be killed, as superstition, backward thinking, and is prone to intolerance as being on the same level as hating people because of their genes and biology are somehow anywhere the same.

 

[lawman]

Wrong in the sense of "factually untrue"? Yes, of course. But in the sense of "deserving punishment"? No. You snipped the quote out of context to exclude "shouldn't be allowed, shouldn't have the right to do things, and generally should be punished with eternal torture or torment." And no, he didn't suggest any such thing.

Um, no. I didn't "snipe [sic] it out of context". I addressed the first part of the statement (Nowhere did I even come close to considering that Christianity is wrong...) and then the second (shouldn't be allowed, shouldn't have the right to do things, and generally should be punished with eternal torture or torment)...

Yeah, that's right. You "addressed" it by repositioning that clause to make it seem that he was advocating what he was actually criticizing. Real honest, there.

You aren't just disagreeing. I disagree with a lot of what Christians believe, but I don't feel I need to offend every Christian and their beliefs. You, however, are stereotyping an entire religion, denying it any worth, accusing the religion itself for every crime ever committed in its name, basically calling anyone who believes in it a moron or deluded.No, you're not saying that they should be punished, but you're saying that the only way they could be OK members of the society is if they abandoned their awful, ignorant, intolerant beliefs.

You seem very fond of arguing against an exaggerated caricature of what your opponent says, rather than what he actually says.

Offense is in the eye of the beholder... and as I've noted, many believers (of every stripe) seem to take "offense" at the very fact that anyone publicly disagrees with them or criticizes their belief system. I can't help that. But what they obviously want is for critics simply to shut up, and that I'm not going to do.

Caricature? What was a caricature about that? I just summed it up. Can you tell me one thing that was different about what you actually said, only in a lengthier way?

I'm not going going to do a line-by-line rehash here. I'll just leave it to reasonable readers to draw their own conclusions.

The kind of people and beliefs he's railing against, as he states quite clearly, is those who "are intolerant, incapable and unwilling to make any kind of compromise," thereby leading to "murdering, persecuting" practices directed at others. This is, indisputably, the history of organized Christianity in every time and place at which it's held serious political power, as well as of most other religions in a comparable position.

True. But it also happens to be true that every state where atheism held a similar position (as opposed to simply secular states where matters of state and matters of religion are separate, and where pluralism of thought is allowed) were equally intolerant, incapable and unwilling to make any kind of compromise.

Key problem with your rebuttal here: atheism has never "held a similar position."

Atheism is not an organized belief system. It has no creed, it has no leaders, it does not recruit, it does not punish, it advocates no goals or policies. It's merely an adjective to describe people who don't believe in gods. No temporal ruler has ever claimed that his legitimacy flowed from the authority of atheism.

I do, however, see a few people painting all Christians, or even all religious people, with the same brush.

No, you don't. What you see is people painting the beliefs with the same brush (i.e., pointing out their common and intrinsic negative characteristics), which is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. Criticizing the beliefs is not the same as criticizing the people.

Oh, I agree that you can't deny anyone the right to be considered Christian, Muslim, atheist, socialist, conservative, feminist... whatever. But there are and have been all sorts of different versions of Christianity, just as there have been all sorts of Islam, socialism, capitalism, liberalism, feminism, you name it. A fact that seems to escape you.

No, it doesn't escape me, it's just not particularly relevant. Please point me to even one version of Christianity that makes no supernatural truth claims, that asserts no invisible higher power as the source of moral authority, that eschews any social distinctions between believers and unbelievers. Do that, and I'll concede you may have a point here, albeit a vanishingly small one. (Unitarian Universalists are about as close as you can get, and yeah, they're basically harmless, but they still don't entirely step outside those common characteristics I described.)

The point is, as soon as you assert the legitimacy of Christianity as an organized belief system, without there being any a priori way to distinguish the "real" Christians from the "fake" ones, you implicitly endorse the actions taken in its name by true believers... including the unsavory ones.

Any belief system based on "faith" rather than reason is setting itself up to attract — indeed, inviting — people who think in "frakked up" ways.

The burden of proof here is on you. You have to prove that your generalization is right.

What burden of proof? Faith is the absence of reason. People who don't think reasonably are... people who don't think reasonably. It's a matter of definition.

(And c'mon. Are you seriously contesting that organized religion attracts people who think in "frakked up ways"? History is chock-full of examples, right up to the present day. All I did was point out one of the reasons.)

I can name any number of regimes operating under atheistic philosophies that committed horrible atrocities.

No, you can't. No atrocity has ever been committed "in the name of atheism"...

Oh come on. That's just a cop-out. Those atrocities were indeed committed in the name of a certain ideology/philosophy... That ideology was communism, and atheism was its integral part.

No cop-out at all. As I've already pointed out, atheism is not an ideology. What the Soviets called "communism" is, but it's all about economics and state authority, and asserting that atheism was an "integral part" doesn't make it so.

Heck, you say it yourself...

Marx and Engels didn't say that religions should be banned or persecuted...

Quite right. Calling something the "opiate of the masses" (a phrase oftentimes applied to TV nowadays) is a far cry from calling out for its ruthless suppression. It's a description, not a prescription.

...I don't remember Jesus ever saying that non-believers should be persecuted, do you?

3DMaster has already alluded to this, but I'd point you to Luke's variation on the Parable of the Talents, in Luke 19. It's an allegory about how things will be when God's judgment comes, and it concludes: "those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me." Seems fairly straightforward to me... and certainly not hard for True Believers to interpret in a way that justifies just about anything.

So, sorry, no double standard involved here. Christianity, and most other organized religions (as well as the theology and power structures that accrete around them), both implicitly and explicitly endorse discrimination against, and oppression of, nonbelievers. (Often justified in the name of their "immortal souls.") Atheism quite simply doesn't.

Finally:

Apparently you do not understand what tolerance means. ...
It does NOT mean that you can't speak out about your belief that it is not desirable, nor that you can't try to convince people it is indeed not desirable.

Very well put. There's a world of difference between respecting someone's rights, and agreeing with them about anything. It mystifies me that some people can't grasp this distinction.

 

[DevilEyes]

No, I didn't.

Well, I suppose you might not have actually said it was wrong, just "the intolerant, murdering, persecuting one [religion] that believes in an imaginary being". I assumed that you think that being intolerant, murdering, persecuting is a bad thing... sorry, I didn't realize that you might think those are OK things! Maybe you were actually paying it a compliment?

There are two entirely different meanings to the word "wrong", friend. There's the wrong, is that they are incorrect, and even bad. Then there's wrong, as in: they must be battled at all costs, right down to murdering the sobs.

If was using the former meaning, you attempted to put the latter meaning into my mouth. When I say, "I didn't say such a thing", I never said the meaning you're trying to put in my mouth.

Done no such thing.

And I said that where? ...oh, yeah, that's nowhere, but you know, keep putting words in my mouth.

Oh right. You never said that Christianity was a "murdering, persecuting" religion by its very natyre, and that it, if not every religion, had intolerance, oppression and murder of non-Christians in its very essence. Putting words in your mouth? How the hell did I do that, when I was just quoting you in my previous posts?

Are you aware that you and lawman are basically claiming that religions - or at least Christianity - are as bad and dangerous as nazism and fascism? And before you start with another "you're putting words in my mouth" rant, nope, I am not. I'm just stating the fact. Read your posts.

So, I won't put words in your mouths. Instead, I'll ask you: do you think that it makes as much sense to officially ban all religions, as it makes sense to ban any expression of nazism or fascism? In some democratic countries today, like Germany, it is illegal to display nazi symbols; does it make as much sense to make crucifix and other religious symbols illegal? Come on, tell me. I am curious to know.

Yeah, that doesn't make them gods. Just being with a lot of power, but no gods.

Meaning what? Define "gods".

They had powers far beyond those of any humanoid beings, and they had a strong connection to Bajor. Why wouldn't it make sense for Bajorans to consider them "gods"? Relative to them, one may say they practically were.

What is the issue? They were not all-knowing and all-powerful? Look at the gods of the Greek mythology: they were never described as all-powerful or all-knowing. They were also never portrayed as good - but rather, as a bunch of capricious, jealous, ruthless, vengeful, selfish, childish assholes who constantly argued with each other, and had no problems with raping humans, manipulating them, or doing horrible things to them out of pettiness, jealousy and revenge. They were just portrayed as beings that were far more powerful than humans, and therefore able to control their lives.

I don't personally believe they are the devil, and you know that too. If you do not understand that in Bajoran's religion the Pah-wraiths are the devil, and that that means that to Bajoran starting to worship the Pah-wraith is worshiping the devil, not my own belief in any such things... well, I got nothing.

So let's see if I'm understanding this right: you are claiming that
1) Bajorans are nutcases for thinking of the Prophets as "gods", but
2) you also think that no Bajoran must ever decide to worship the Pah-wraiths because those Bajorans who believe that the Prophets are gods also believe that the Pah-wraiths are the devils?

So what is your stance, really? How can you claim that the Bajoran traditional beliefs are stupid and crazy, and simultaneously claim that they must adhere to those beliefs? You're being very contradictory.

You know very well that those Bajorans who chose to worship the Pah-wraiths did not believe that they were "the devil" - they did not say "they are evil, they are devils, so we are going to worship them". They believed that the Pah-wraiths were the true gods of Bajor.

Aren't people allowed to decide to convert to another religion, or create another religion? That's basically what the Pah-wraiths worshippers did.

 

[lawman]

Are you aware that you and lawman are basically claiming that religions - or at least Christianity - are as bad and dangerous as nazism and fascism? And before you start with another "you're putting words in my mouth" rant, nope, I am not. I'm just stating the fact. Read your posts.

I've read them. I'm not sure what you read, however, because 3D Master didn't do what you're saying here, nor did I. Neither one of us drew any comparison between Christianity and Nazism and/or fascism.

You, on the other hand, did draw a direct connection between atheism and totalitarian communist states.

So who's being unfair with the comparisons here?

So, I won't put words in your mouths. Instead, I'll ask you: do you think that it makes as much sense to officially ban all religions, as it makes sense to ban any expression of nazism or fascism? In some democratic countries today, like Germany, it is illegal to display nazi symbols; does it make as much sense to make crucifix and other religious symbols illegal? Come on, tell me. I am curious to know.

I'm not sure why you're suddenly so curious about this, since both 3DM and I have repeatedly stated we do not desire or support political suppression of religion. For that matter, I don't support political suppression of any political doctrine, either, including neo-Nazism. I'm all for freedom of thought and expression. The state has no business interfering with that.

I, however, as a private individual with my own freedom of expression, have every right to say exactly why and how I think religious thinking is both factually wrong and socially destructive. (Just as I would decry noxious political doctrines, obviously including neo-Nazism.)

All clear now?

 

[Deks]

Oh right. You never said that Christianity was a "murdering, persecuting" religion by its very natyre, and that it, if not every religion, had intolerance, oppression and murder of non-Christians in its very essence. Putting words in your mouth? How the hell did I do that, when I was just quoting you in my previous posts?

Are you aware that you and lawman are basically claiming that religions - or at least Christianity - are as bad and dangerous as nazism and fascism? And before you start with another "you're putting words in my mouth" rant, nope, I am not. I'm just stating the fact. Read your posts.

So, I won't put words in your mouths. Instead, I'll ask you: do you think that it makes as much sense to officially ban all religions, as it makes sense to ban any expression of nazism or fascism? In some democratic countries today, like Germany, it is illegal to display nazi symbols; does it make as much sense to make crucifix and other religious symbols illegal? Come on, tell me. I am curious to know.

Religion certainly has the potential of being as dangerous as 'Nazism' and 'Fascism'.
But let's look at current state of affairs:
In many countries, religious signs are openly displayed in schools and institutions that have NO connection to religion in virtually any capacity (apart from perhaps an academic one).

Also, from what I am able to tell, many religious individuals are also in positions of power, and you may have noticed how the general population certainly has a tendency of following ways of a 'dominating religion'.
I personally find that hideous.
Instead of them being neutral as they should, religion is openly pushed into virtually all aspects of our lives, and it's anything but balanced.

Meaning what? Define "gods".

They had powers far beyond those of any humanoid beings, and they had a strong connection to Bajor. Why wouldn't it make sense for Bajorans to consider them "gods"? Relative to them, one may say they practically were.

What is the issue? They were not all-knowing and all-powerful? Look at the gods of the Greek mythology: they were never described as all-powerful or all-knowing. They were also never portrayed as good - but rather, as a bunch of capricious, jealous, ruthless, vengeful, selfish, childish assholes who constantly argued with each other, and had no problems with raping humans, manipulating them, or doing horrible things to them out of pettiness, jealousy and revenge. They were just portrayed as beings that were far more powerful than humans, and therefore able to control their lives.

If you have a desire to ascribe virtually any individual with capabilities exceeding your own as a 'god' (an entirely primitive and idiotic concept to begin with - in my own personal opinion), that's your right.

The 'wormhole aliens' were nothing more than that ... alien beings with abilities that exceeded those of the Bajorans and the Federation.
The Bajorans perceived them as 'gods' simply because they constructed their entire system around religious notions (not to mention the fact the aliens in question directly influenced the Bajorans), and breaking that pattern would probably result in a fundamental shift of their development.
If you noticed, some Bajorans in the show described SF officers as a threat to their religion and way of life.

As for 'Greek gods' ... lol ... that just proves how people's definition of a 'god' (at least for those who use it) varies.

Let's also not make a mistake here ... just because someone has the ability to control you, doesn't mean they are a 'god'.
It simply means they have the ability that you (possibly for the time being ... or unfortunately, entirely and will ever) lack.

That doesn't put anyone in a position of a 'god' or a similar ridiculous notion.

A similar analogy could be compared between animals and humans (well, we are also technically speaking animals).
We have the ability to construct buildings, computers, space shuttles, nuclear warheads, and we can end practically all life on the planet at a press of a button (just to name a few), and yet, we are not 'gods'.

As I said, it's a simple matter of ability ratio.

Even if some kind of a conscious entity was responsible for the creation of this universe and ourselves, and I found myself face to 'face' with it ... I still wouldn't perceive it as a 'god'.
As I said, such a notion is ridiculous to me on so many levels it's not even funny.
I'd simply perceive that kind of ... entity, as nothing more than an entity with an ability I don't have.
Nothing more, nothing less.
I can do things many other humans cannot ... that still doesn't elevate me to any kind of 'superior' status.
More advanced, or having natural abilities we lack, yes ... but 'god', that's just idiotic (for me).

So let's see if I'm understanding this right: you are claiming that
1) Bajorans are nutcases for thinking of the Prophets as "gods",

My personal opinion on this particular aspect would be 'yes'.
Same goes for Sisko who over the course of the series degraded his way of thinking to a more primitive level.
If anything, exposure to the aliens in question would give him the insight to understand them much better and then describe them in as accurate way as possible ... I find it very insulting he would stoop to such a primitive level of Bajoran (religious) descriptive aspects.
Then again, I'm not the type who is satisfied with just taking everything at 'face value', so I personally require a definition that isn't necessarily bound by primitive descriptions.

2) you also think that no Bajoran must ever decide to worship the Pah-wraiths because those Bajorans who believe that the Prophets are gods also believe that the Pah-wraiths are the devils?

So what is your stance, really? How can you claim that the Bajoran traditional beliefs are stupid and crazy, and simultaneously claim that they must adhere to those beliefs? You're being very contradictory.

Let's see ... the blue wormhole aliens are relatively peaceful and do not want to eradicate the Bajorans or other species in the Milky Way galaxy or dominate the said galaxy.
The red wormhole aliens on the other hand, DO.

When it comes to the matter of life and death (your own no less in the long run) and you actually want to ... you know, LIVE, will you try to side with the blue ones or the red ones?

Bajorans are morons for perceiving the wormhole aliens as 'gods' all the time to be frank.
The fact their 'prophecies' came to be is nothing more than a result of careful manipulation over the Bajorans and influence of the said wormhole aliens.
If Bajorans had some brains in them, they would have realized some time ago that if all these 'prophecies' are fulfilling themselves, then it was also possible something was manipulating the events into that particular direction.

You know very well that those Bajorans who chose to worship the Pah-wraiths did not believe that they were "the devil" - they did not say "they are evil, they are devils, so we are going to worship them". They believed that the Pah-wraiths were the true gods of Bajor.

Aren't people allowed to decide to convert to another religion, or create another religion? That's basically what the Pah-wraiths worshippers did.

Converting to (or creating) another religion is the sole right of individuals who decide to undergo such a notion to begin with.

What exactly was your point with this last one?

The Bajorans that sided with the red wormhole aliens were manipulated in an even more direct capacity than what blue ones did over time, and the reds specifically kept the knowledge of annihilation hidden from their 'followers' if I remember correctly.

Unless you are the type of person who wants to see the Galaxy burn, why exactly would you side with those who want to achieve this?

Furthermore, Bajorans demonstrated their inherent weakness.
The inability to think for themselves and simply taking sides for the most part ... either with the blue ones or the red ones.

There's a descriptive term that I like to use for a large number of general population in the real world ... that would be: 'sheep'.

 

[Infinitus]

Sorry that I haven't commented in a while. But having read that some people think that religion involves a bunch of intolerent, zealous individuals who want everyone to think the way they do and want to control everyone. Listen us. PS, for the record, I am an athiest, but I am open minded to the idea of some form of Higher Power beyond myself. So here are my counterexamples:

1) Intolerence: There are a bunch of intolerent people in that world who are athiest. Just because someone believes in something known for intolerent views against other people that sometimes lead to violence, doesn't mean that that individual is like that. Only the most extremist members of that group are like that.

2) Zealous: An example of an Athiest Zealot is the Amazing Athiest on youtube. Seriously that guy is the most zealous bastard I have ever seen. All is videos are pretty much the same: I'm an Athiest and let me tell you why God doesn't exist and those who follow him are morons. Not just that, but there are Athiest Conventions. Seriously, who in their right mind though that was a good idea. I'm am going to say to these people like I say to people preaching in the streets trying to convert people: Shut up! No Body gives a crap what you believe. Keep you beliefs to yourself. Don't be a dick about them.

3) Brannon Braga: I just hate this guy. I personally believe that he and Rick Berman single-handedly destroyed the Empire Roddenberry created.

4) People Trying to Convert other People into their way of thinking: That's been going on since that dawn of time. Not just with religious crap, but with political, environmental, even people trying to make you think that Twilight is good. It's just going to keep happening.

Those are my counterexamples to way people think is religion is a bad thing. Though I am an athiest, I have a deep respect of all religions(Scientology doesn't count). Also, This thread is suppose to be about View's of Religion in Star Trek. Not the views of Religion in general. So if you please, talk about Trek.

 

[3D Master]

Well, I suppose you might not have actually said it was wrong, just "the intolerant, murdering, persecuting one [religion] that believes in an imaginary being". I assumed that you think that being intolerant, murdering, persecuting is a bad thing... sorry, I didn't realize that you might think those are OK things! Maybe you were actually paying it a compliment?

There are two entirely different meanings to the word "wrong", friend. There's the wrong, is that they are incorrect, and even bad. Then there's wrong, as in: they must be battled at all costs, right down to murdering the sobs.

If was using the former meaning, you attempted to put the latter meaning into my mouth. When I say, "I didn't say such a thing", I never said the meaning you're trying to put in my mouth.

Done no such thing.

And I said that where? ...oh, yeah, that's nowhere, but you know, keep putting words in my mouth.

Oh right. You never said that Christianity was a "murdering, persecuting" religion by its very natyre, and that it, if not every religion, had intolerance, oppression and murder of non-Christians in its very essence. Putting words in your mouth? How the hell did I do that, when I was just quoting you in my previous posts?

Are you aware that you and lawman are basically claiming that religions - or at least Christianity - are as bad and dangerous as nazism and fascism? And before you start with another "you're putting words in my mouth" rant, nope, I am not. I'm just stating the fact. Read your posts.

They most certainly can be, and most of them, their holy texts, support goals ever bit as sickening if not more so than the nazis had. Indeed, remember that whole thing about only 144,000 people going into paradise? If you understand that "paradise" is the new eden, the new Earth created after the final apocalyptic battle between good (those 144,000 thousand followers of their cult) and evil (everybody else) you understand that the cults that helped form Christianity planned to slaughter everyone and everything except their 144,000 own, that included scores of Jews that were their neighbors and fellow country men that weren't quite pure enough. Now Nazism was pretty sick, but not even Hitler managed the stoop that low.

However, we are lucky that most people don't actually follow the texts they purport the follow. They simply created their own morals that are quite a bit more sane than the disgusting stuff that is the bible and the Q'uran and ignore or rewrite in their heads those books to fit their more sane and generally good morals.

It's just sad that most of them don't realize it. They're morals are their own, not informed by any god or holy book, quite the contrary, they often go directly against what the books claims they should be doing. For after all, if they but realize this, they can reject the books and the religion altogether, and what a better world would it be. All that would be left is people who believe in their own personal view of god, completely unencumbered by books and priests getting their hooks in them, and atheists. (Ironically enough, morals being their own even goes for those who wish to persecute homosexuality, because that's about the only thing the bible doesn't condemn and actually gives a ringing endorsement too, heh.)

So, I won't put words in your mouths. Instead, I'll ask you: do you think that it makes as much sense to officially ban all religions, as it makes sense to ban any expression of nazism or fascism? In some democratic countries today, like Germany, it is illegal to display nazi symbols; does it make as much sense to make crucifix and other religious symbols illegal? Come on, tell me. I am curious to know.

Allow me to repeat myself for the third or fourth time: no, it doesn't make much sense, it is in fact wrong. Condemning both religious symbols and nazi symbols is wrong, for so many reasons. It is not surprising that the largest Neo-Nazi movement is in the country that bans the symbolism the most. You try to bury things, hide it, they gain a whole new "mystical" power. The best way to fight bad things is with education, to see it, to understand it. You achieve the opposite if you try to hide them.

Yeah, that doesn't make them gods. Just being with a lot of power, but no gods.

Meaning what? Define "gods".

They had powers far beyond those of any humanoid beings, and they had a strong connection to Bajor. Why wouldn't it make sense for Bajorans to consider them "gods"? Relative to them, one may say they practically were.

What is the issue? They were not all-knowing and all-powerful? Look at the gods of the Greek mythology: they were never described as all-powerful or all-knowing. They were also never portrayed as good - but rather, as a bunch of capricious, jealous, ruthless, vengeful, selfish, childish assholes who constantly argued with each other, and had no problems with raping humans, manipulating them, or doing horrible things to them out of pettiness, jealousy and revenge. They were just portrayed as beings that were far more powerful than humans, and therefore able to control their lives.

Yeah, remember that TOS episode with the Greek "god" Apollo? Remember how the episode made it rather clear he was NOT a god? In fact, he was so low as to need a machine, technology to perform his feats of power. And human technology kicked his' ass.

The basic concept of for example the one-god, is that he is being so far above humanity, that no human, not even humanity in collective, could EVER equal him, no matter if there was another million billion years of evolution.

In other words; a being that does not exist.

Hell, not even "creating a universe" (or this universe) can be claimed as the purview of gods anymore, seeing as scientists have a good idea how to do it. In fact, there's a good shot that somewhere in the next century some guys in white lab coats in a lab, will create a universe. (You know, it would be amazing if some alien stepped through a wormhole one day in a lab clothes, going, "Howdy, we created this universe. How are you all doing?")

I don't personally believe they are the devil, and you know that too. If you do not understand that in Bajoran's religion the Pah-wraiths are the devil, and that that means that to Bajoran starting to worship the Pah-wraith is worshiping the devil, not my own belief in any such things... well, I got nothing.

So let's see if I'm understanding this right: you are claiming that
1) Bajorans are nutcases for thinking of the Prophets as "gods", but
2) you also think that no Bajoran must ever decide to worship the Pah-wraiths because those Bajorans who believe that the Prophets are gods also believe that the Pah-wraiths are the devils?

So what is your stance, really? How can you claim that the Bajoran traditional beliefs are stupid and crazy, and simultaneously claim that they must adhere to those beliefs? You're being very contradictory.

You've got a very 01, black white, way of thinking do you?

Hmm, I think as an ATHEIST believing in the supernatural is superstitious, thus believing in gods and devils (or evil gods) as backward. Yes, when I say, as an ATHEIST, they should not worship gods, and I say they should not go and worship devils, either that must be contradictory... or... or maybe, maybe there's a third road. Let me think, what would I as an ATHEIST, consider a third road, something they should be doing instead. Hmm, let me think, an ATHEIST, me...

Oh, right! That's it! The Bajorans should reject all religious, supernatural bullshit dogma and become... ATHEISTS!

Who'd a thunk it!

You know very well that those Bajorans who chose to worship the Pah-wraiths did not believe that they were "the devil" - they did not say "they are evil, they are devils, so we are going to worship them". They believed that the Pah-wraiths were the true gods of Bajor.

Yeah, that would be the point, wouldn't it? For 20,000 thousand years the Prophets are the gods of Bajor. Bajorans have worshiped them as gods. The Pah-wraiths have always been considered evil, they choose DUKHAT as their emissary, they were beaten and defeated by the Prophets, and then those that reject the Prophets... go an run into the next bunch of manipulating, gods, who got beaten by prophets... with DUKHAT as their emissary, who spends his time screwing the women.

In short people were so utterly imbalanced, so totally screwed up in the head, that the Prophets shown to be not infallible and all-powerful and they did not have the balance of mind to simply say - "Well, that bit about me believing them being all-powerful was wrong, that means they're either still gods but not as great as I imagined them to be, or they're not gods after all, but the ones they defeated and trapped are obviously no more powerful than they are..."

Instead, they went to worship the trapped ones, under guidance of Dukhat, who taught them that fucking him was a good decree of the Pagh-wraiths. Stable bunch there... really.

Aren't people allowed to decide to convert to another religion, or create another religion? That's basically what the Pah-wraiths worshippers did.

Sure, they're completely allowed to do that. People are allowed to be idiots, and superstitious fools in a free society. But just because they're allowed to create a new religion, doesn't make them any less superstitious when they do so.

It's still telling they went to worship what they were taught were devils and demons. I mean, if you are indeed so imbalanced you need some superstitious nonsense to function, how about Christianity, Islam, Deism, Buddhism, an Andorian religion, start studying logic, Klingon religion, re-enact slaughtering your gods, fun - or hell, start worshiping Q. I mean, if there is one group of beings that would be closest to actually being gods, and actually exist, it's the Q. Q could annihilate both the Prophets and the Pagh-wraiths with but one snap of his fingers.

Instead they went to worship the Pagh-wraiths under the perverted leadership of Dukhat.

 

[CoveTom]

Might I just point out that the majority of this thread -- not all of it, mind you, but the majority -- for the last few pages has derailed from its original purpose of discussing Trek's view of religion to debating religion vs. atheism? I find that... unfortunate.

 

[3D Master]

Might I just point out that the majority of this thread -- not all of it, mind you, but the majority -- for the last few pages has derailed from its original purpose of discussing Trek's view of religion to debating religion vs. atheism? I find that... unfortunate.

Trek's view of religion is that it is superstitious nonsense that should be done away with, and something humanity will do away with.

This discussion of atheism versus religion is actually an defense of an attack on Star Trek's view of religion.

 

[lawman]

PS, for the record, I am an athiest, but I am open minded to the idea of some form of Higher Power beyond myself.

Not following you here. Sounds like you're agnostic at the most, then, not atheist. Out of sincere curiosity, what sort of evidence would you consider sufficient to establish the reality of such a Higher Power?

Just because someone believes in something known for intolerent views against other people that sometimes lead to violence, doesn't mean that that individual is like that.

Accepting a belief system that's known for intolerant views doesn't mean holding intolerant views? Say what? Yes, it does, pretty much by definition...

...unless of course (as 3D Master points out) you're just cherry-picking the parts of the belief system that are congruent with your own beliefs anyway. (But in that instance, honestly, why bother?)

I'm am going to say to these people like I say to people preaching in the streets trying to convert people: Shut up! No Body gives a crap what you believe. Keep you beliefs to yourself.

Do you actually say this to people on the street? I find myself skeptical.

At any rate, people simply speaking up about their beliefs in the attempt to persuade others honestly don't bother me. I don't mind free speech. My problem is with those who try to use political power to intrude their beliefs in my life, and/or who assume those beliefs deserve some privileged position of dominance in society, insulated from criticism.

Though I am an athiest, I have a deep respect of all religions(Scientology doesn't count).

You "respect" all of them (when you're not telling them to shut up)... except for one? Seriously? What's so much worse about Scientology than any of the others?

Also, This thread is suppose to be about View's of Religion in Star Trek. Not the views of Religion in general. So if you please, talk about Trek.

Fine. Back on topic: in a science-fictional future world where humanity is presented as having transcended the petty differences that divide us, in which society has been rebuilt on a foundation of humanistic philosophy and advanced scientific understanding, it would astound me if religion had not fallen by the wayside. Religion, after all, tends to fly directly in the face of humanism, and throughout history has served to divide us and provoke conflict more than any other ideological force you could possibly point to.

The fact that humanity has moved past its attachment to superstitious thinking, of course, does not mean that various alien cultures it encounters will have done the same. That, too, is consistent with the universe seen in Trek. Humanity, given its respect for diversity and self-determination, would of course not interfere with anyone else's right to believe as they wish. They would also not, however, assume any such superstitions as they may encounter to have any actual truth to them.

However, we are lucky that most people don't actually follow the texts they purport the follow. They simply created their own morals that are quite a bit more sane than the disgusting stuff that is the bible and the Q'uran and ignore or rewrite in their heads those books to fit their more sane and generally good morals.

It's just sad that most of them don't realize it. They're morals are their own, not informed by any god or holy book, quite the contrary, they often go directly against what the books claims they should be doing. For after all, if they but realize this, they can reject the books and the religion altogether, and what a better world would it be.

Indeed. Most "believers" think and act exactly as they would otherwise, but use a superficial sheen of religion to rationalize that behavior. (Often with a sense of moral superiority to go along with it, on the grounds that their morals supposedly come from some "higher authority"!)

Makes no sense to me... but people have incredible psychological mechanisms for self-justification, so "making sense" isn't necessarily a high priority for a lot of people.

...or hell, start worshiping Q. I mean, if there is one group of beings that would be closest to actually being gods, and actually exist, it's the Q. Q could annihilate both the Prophets and the Pagh-wraiths with but one snap of his fingers.

Indeed. It's amazing no version of Trek has ever done a story about anyone worshiping the Q, actually.

 

[CoveTom]

Trek's view of religion is that it is superstitious nonsense that should be done away with, and something humanity will do away with.

Is it? Really? Or is that merely the view of two people, Gene Roddenberry and Jean-Luc Picard?

Because despite all the grandiose statements about religion from those two people, I don't really see evidence that what they say is what the Trek universe really portrays.

Let's leave Enterprise out, because it's set closer to our own time.

But looking at the entirety of Trek, from TOS through Voyager, it seems as though religion is still alive and well. It might not be as publicly practiced, or it might simply be that we don't see a lot of the religious ceremonies depicted in the episodes we see.

But the evidence seems to point away from the idea that religion is dead and buried by the 23rd and 24th centuries. Everything from Kirk's statement to Apollo that "we find the one [god] quite sufficient" to Chakotay's practice of Native American spirituality to Data's message mentioning the Hindu festival of lights would seem to suggest that religion, in some form, is alive and well in the Trek universe.

 

[3D Master]

Trek's view of religion is that it is superstitious nonsense that should be done away with, and something humanity will do away with.

Is it? Really? Or is that merely the view of two people, Gene Roddenberry and Jean-Luc Picard?

Because despite all the grandiose statements about religion from those two people, I don't really see evidence that what they say is what the Trek universe really portrays.

Let's leave Enterprise out, because it's set closer to our own time.

But looking at the entirety of Trek, from TOS through Voyager, it seems as though religion is still alive and well. It might not be as publicly practiced, or it might simply be that we don't see a lot of the religious ceremonies depicted in the episodes we see.

But the evidence seems to point away from the idea that religion is dead and buried by the 23rd and 24th centuries. Everything from Kirk's statement to Apollo that "we find the one [god] quite sufficient" to Chakotay's practice of Native American spirituality to Data's message mentioning the Hindu festival of lights would seem to suggest that religion, in some form, is alive and well in the Trek universe.

And I never said it wasn't. I said that Star Trek portrays and considers it superstitious nonsense, and the large majority of the people there believe this too. Not that everyone in existence in the ST universe believes the same way, nor that all of it has been eradicated.

 

[DevilEyes]

This thread has definitely turned from "Trek's View of Religion" into a "Why a religion is bad" thread for a bunch of people to name all the reasons why religion is dangerous, stupid, murderous, awful... with just a couple of people with moderate views trying to talk some sense. But where have the Christians are other religious posters from this forum been for the last few days? You'd think that they'd want to defend their views, rather than let a non-believer do it for them.

Oh well...

Um, no. I didn't "snipe [sic] it out of context". I addressed the first part of the statement (Nowhere did I even come close to considering that Christianity is wrong...) and then the second (shouldn't be allowed, shouldn't have the right to do things, and generally should be punished with eternal torture or torment)...

Yeah, that's right. You "addressed" it by repositioning that clause to make it seem that he was advocating what he was actually criticizing. Real honest, there.

Oh please. Is that the best you can do?

To anyone with any brains it is blatantly obvious that I didn't misrepresent anything, I merely proved that 3-D Master has claimed that Christianity is wrong, bad, evil, dangerous... call it whatever you like - by simply quoting him. And in the meantime, he's repeated the same things over and over, and so did you, and not just about Christianity but religion in general. So what the hell are you trying to argue here?

You seem very fond of arguing against an exaggerated caricature of what your opponent says, rather than what he actually says.

What you are saying is already so extreme and ridiculously exaggerated that nobody could possibly make an exaggerated caricature out of it even if they wanted to.

Offense is in the eye of the beholder... and as I've noted, many believers (of every stripe) seem to take "offense" at the very fact that anyone publicly disagrees with them or criticizes their belief system. I can't help that.

While you, on the other hand, are not like that at all.

Key problem with your rebuttal here: atheism has never "held a similar position."

Oh yes it has, as it has already been stated some ten times already in this thread.

Criticizing the beliefs is not the same as criticizing the people.

And saying that, quote: "Followers of the "son" are intolerant, incapable and unwilling to make any kind of compromise" is not criticizing people at all, right? It's not a sweeping generalization about all Christians being intolerant. Not to mention the quote about a "murdering, persecuting" religion. How can a religion be murdering and persecuting, if not through people?

No, it doesn't escape me, it's just not particularly relevant. Please point me to even one version of Christianity that makes no supernatural truth claims, that asserts no invisible higher power as the source of moral authority, that eschews any social distinctions between believers and unbelievers.

That's like saying "please point me out to one version of socialism that doesn't involve any kind of state interference in the economy. You can't? Well, then any differences between them are irrelevant."

What burden of proof? Faith is the absence of reason. People who don't think reasonably are... people who don't think reasonably. It's a matter of definition.

Collins Cobuild Dictionary:
faith, faiths. 1. If you have faith in someone or something, you have a strong feeling of confidence, trust, and optimism about that person or thing.EG I had faith in Al - I knew he could take care of me... You're destroying all my faith in the medical profession...The experience that gave me faith that people can change...I've got faith in human nature. 2. A faith is a particular religion such as Christianity, Buddhism, Islam etc. 3. Faith is also a strong religious belief in a particular god. 4. If someone breaks their faith in a belief, ideal, or organization they support, they stop acting in a way that supports that belief, ideal, or organization.

And c'mon. Are you seriously contesting that organized religion attracts people who think in "frakked up ways"? History is chock-full of examples, right up to the present day. All I did was point out one of the reasons.)

All sorts of beliefs attract people who think it frakked up ways. 20th century history certainly proved it... and frankly, if an alien just came here and read this thread, I'm sure they'd get the impression that it's the atheists who are the intolerant ones.

No cop-out at all. As I've already pointed out, atheism is not an ideology. What the Soviets called "communism" is, but it's all about economics and state authority, and asserting that atheism was an "integral part" doesn't make it so.

Please tell me you aren't seriously claiming that communism is not a political philosophy. Please explain how "The Communist Manifesto" does not denounce religion and suggest that it should be abolished.

Are you aware that you and lawman are basically claiming that religions - or at least Christianity - are as bad and dangerous as nazism and fascism? And before you start with another "you're putting words in my mouth" rant, nope, I am not. I'm just stating the fact. Read your posts.

I've read them. I'm not sure what you read, however, because 3D Master didn't do what you're saying here, nor did I. Neither one of us drew any comparison between Christianity and Nazism and/or fascism.

And I never said you did. I said you claimed that religion was a belief system that is bad, intolerant, murderous, dangerous in itself, by its very nature. If that were true, it would make it as bad as nazism and fascism, which are intolerant, dangerous belief systems by their very nature.

You, on the other hand, did draw a direct connection between atheism and totalitarian communist states.

Um, because there really was a direct connection between atheism and totalitarian communist states. Which doesn't mean that atheism itself is bad. Atheism can exist and does exist with nothing to do with totalitarian communist states. But those communist states still had atheism as an integral part of their underlying political philosophy, and persecuted religion, just as other states persecuted in the name of religion.

So who's being unfair with the comparisons here?

You are.

I never said there was anything wrong with atheism itself. You are constantly claiming that religion in itself is bad.

So, I won't put words in your mouths. Instead, I'll ask you: do you think that it makes as much sense to officially ban all religions, as it makes sense to ban any expression of nazism or fascism? In some democratic countries today, like Germany, it is illegal to display nazi symbols; does it make as much sense to make crucifix and other religious symbols illegal? Come on, tell me. I am curious to know.

I'm not sure why you're suddenly so curious about this, since both 3DM and I have repeatedly stated we do not desire or support political suppression of religion. For that matter, I don't support political suppression of any political doctrine, either, including neo-Nazism. I'm all for freedom of thought and expression. The state has no business interfering with that.

Well, for the record, I am for the suppression of neo-Nazism, as for the suppression of extreme and dangerous examples of hate speech,and I think that state very much has business interfering with that. There's a line to be drawn, and free speech does not extent to public speech that openly calls for murder or genocide, or spreads hatred against entire groups, implying that they should be eradicated through any means.

 

[stj]

Voyager had some interesting episodes centering on religion.

But, first, there was Chakotay, whose religious experiences were induced by technology. This seems highly reductive, very close to saying that LSD or mescaline can provide "valid" religious experiences. There seems to be a very post-modern notion of truth in Voyager. This element was rapidly dropped, almost certainly on network command. Dropping this aspect of Chakotay's character was a major step in making him pretty much a nullity.

In the first season epsiode Emanations, Voyager stumbles upon a planetoid with dead bodies mysteriously deposited there by random space warps. Harry Kim is accidentally transposed with a dead body, finding himself in a sort of coffin in place of the dear departed in a funeral ceremony. His presence causes great furor amongst the faithful, who expect their bodies to be resurrected in the next emanation instead of merely rotting. On Voyager, the Doctor successfully uses advanced medical technology to resurrect a recently deceased corpse. The woman cries out that it wasn't supposed to be that way. Baffled she risks her life to return, and fails. Where ever Kim is (usually photographed at odd angles,) Kim learns that the inhabitants, convinced of the real existence of the next emanation, have a very different attitude toward death. Kim trades places with a man who is being euthanized, to successfully returned to Voyager. The man runs away rather than place his faith in his religious teachings. Finally there is a revelation by Janeway that an electromagnetic field has anomalously high levels of "activity." That is definitely not what is taught by the "thanatologists," however. That, plus the euthanasia, makes the overall attitude decidedly negative, unless you simply choose to focus solely upon the hint that something somehow survives.

In Mortal Coil, Neelix undergoes a crisis of faith when his dead for a prolonged time, because his faith in the Great Forest says that he should have passed to the afterlife. He becomes suicidal upon the loss of his faith. He surpasses the crisis, finding meaning in friendship etc. instead of supernatural revelation. In a wonderful final scene, Naomi Wildman dreams of the Great Forest. The moral, that religion is for children, (and not needed by adults,) could hardly be blunter.

In Innocence, Tuvok encounters children who mysteriously disappear. He attempts to save them. It turns out that they are aliens who age backwards, and these "children" are in the very last phase of their lives. Tuvok's reason cannot rescue them. Tuvok can comfort them. The moral seems to be that we are all children in the face of death.

In Course: Oblivion, the silver blood duplicates, or possibly modified copies of them, are traveling homeward. They begin to decay. Despite all desperate efforst, they are unable to save themselves. Even their last effort to merely release a log of their exploits fails. The moral is that not only do we all die, but in the end we won't even be remembered.

In Sacred Ground, Kes is stricken down by a shrine for breaking some taboo. Janeway, reading her anthropology, believes that she will endure some initiation ordeal to gain information from the priests of the shrine. She goes into the temple, meets some old folks who want her to just sit but she moves on to face her trials. Eventually, getting desperate, she ends up just sitting with them. They after a little desultory conversation give her a possible cure, but she'll just have to have faith that a second exposure will save Kes. Janeway then exposes Kes, who is promptly cured. The Doctor then comes up with a scientific explanation he previously couldn't. Janeway seems to be reconsidering the value of science and reason. Or the viewer can interpret her as reconsidering the misunderstanding of religion by the preconceived notions of the rationalist (the expectation of ordeals and so forth.) But, since the old folks can be either the real spirits or just old folks jerking Janeway around, it is impossible to actually decide what Sacred Ground is saying. This is a rare example of genuine ambiguity in Trek, but like most examples of ambiguity it is a sign of failure. In this case, to be honest, I think. Most people read this as pro-religion but they don't seem to wonder what the old folks were.

This is getting very tiring actually, so I'll stop with one more: The Omega Directive gives the Borg a religion, a cult of perfection, which focuses on the Omega molecule, which has wonderful but catastrophic properties. This seems to stand in for Christian notions about seeing God. The destruction of the Omega molecule suggests that the episode rejects such religious ideals as inherently destructive. But Voyager's efforts to turn the Borg into real characters always foundered upon the schizophrenic characterization of Seven.

 

[DevilEyes]

At this point I'm getting really bored with this debate that's been just going round in circles, and 1) I need to have dinner and 2) there's a VOY episode on TV now - and even VOY is more fun that this... so I just cut this short, and briefly summarize my views on what the thread is supposed to be about - you know, Trek's View of Religion.

Trek's View of Religion has, in fact, been a lot more varied, layered and ambiguous than many people here make it seem.
See: DS9, VOY, and even TOS.

Bajoran religion is a perfect example. Since the very episode of DS9, there is no doubt that the wormhole aliens called the Prophets exist, and do, in fact, have abilities to, as we would say, "see the future", and powers beyond those of humanoids. Unlike with real life religions, there is no question whether Bajoran gods exist. Facts: they are real, they are more powerful than you, they know the past and the future; deal with it. Whether someone calls them "Prophets" or "wormhole aliens" is a matter of semantics. Whether one thinks they're good or bad, is a matter of opinion. Whether one worships them, rejects them, respects them, loves them, hates them, is indifferent to them, is a matter of choice. But it makes no more sense to claim that it is "idiotic" or "nutty" of someone to have faith in them, than it is to claim that someone is stupid and crazy to vote for a particular political party.

As I've already pointed out, the definition and understanding of "gods" varies, and gods are not necessarily seen as either all-powerful, infallible, or perfectly good. In Trek, it doesn't always imply worship, either: the Klingons even claim that they killed their own gods.

Saying that Bajorans are being manipulated by the Prophets also misses the point completely - as this is actually exactly what a religious Bajoran would say: that their life is a part of an intricate plan by the Prophets. The difference is only in the value judgment: you see it as something bad, they see it as something good.

Trek - particularly DS9 - also shows that faith/religion has equal potential to be a positive or a negative thing. People can draw strength and hope from it, but it can also make them intolerant and dangerous. (And it's not that one can't be intolerant and dangerous without religion: see Tahna Los, who didn't seem to care about the wormhole aka "Celestial Temple", but that didn't stop him from being an extreme Bajoran nationalist/isolationist and dangerous terrorist.)

Might I just point out that the majority of this thread -- not all of it, mind you, but the majority -- for the last few pages has derailed from its original purpose of discussing Trek's view of religion to debating religion vs. atheism? I find that... unfortunate.

Trek's view of religion is that it is superstitious nonsense that should be done away with, and something humanity will do away with.

This discussion of atheism versus religion is actually an defense of an attack on Star Trek's view of religion.

ODO: I don't think I'll ever forget the look on his face when he died. He seemed so content.
KIRA: The last thing he saw was one of his gods smiling at him. If you ask me, he was a lucky man.
ODO: Nerys, please.
KIRA: No, listen to me. I know to Starfleet the Prophets are nothing more than wormhole aliens, but to me they're gods. I can't prove it, but then again, I don't have to, because my faith in them is enough. Just as Weyoun's faith in you was enough for him.

(DS9 "Treachery, Faith and the Great River")

SISKO: Sure. I heard about what happened at school. Did Mrs O'Brien call off classes?
JAKE: No. There was only me and four other kids left, but she still kept the school open. She changed the lesson to teach us about Galileo. Did you know that he was tried by the Inquisition for teaching that the Earth moved around the sun?
SISKO: Tried and convicted. His books were burned.
JAKE: How could anyone be so stupid?
SISKO: It's easy to look back seven centuries and judge what was right and wrong.
JAKE: But the same thing is happening now with all this stuff about the Celestial Temple in the wormhole. It's dumb.
SISKO: No, it's not. You've got to realise something, Jake. For over fifty years, the one thing that allowed the Bajorans to survive the Cardassian occupation was their faith. The Prophets were their only source of hope and courage.
JAKE: But there were no Prophets. They were just some aliens that you found in the wormhole.
SISKO: To those aliens, the future is no more difficult to see than the past. Why shouldn't they be considered Prophets?
JAKE: Are you serious?
SISKO: My point is, it's a matter of interpretation. It may not be what you believe, but that doesn't make it wrong. If you start to think that way, you'll be acting just like Vedek Winn, only from the other side. We can't afford to think that way, Jake. We'd lose everything we've worked for here.

(DS9 "In the Hands of the Prophets")

 

[stonester1]

At this point I'm getting really bored with this debate that's been just going round in circles,

A veteran of many of these discussions/tail chasing fests in the NZ, I can tell you that on a board like this, this is inevitable.

There are those who believe. There are those who don't. The twain will never meet. And the extremes of the two see the other as representing everything that's "wrong". The science uber alles types tend to dominate this fandom, as one might expect.

Trek from the beginning has always had a problem with false gods and fraudulent religion, yet has always maintaned that faith can be a good thing as well as bad (true) and has always postulated that mystic/supernatural things could be going on, that those who were open to such things weren't just "delusional". But it was open to interpretation.

It's the rare piece of science fiction that flatly denies religion and makes it absolutely meaningless in it's world. But even those that do (I'd list Michael Moorecock's "Behold the Man" and the film "Man From Earth" as examples), they still do it in ways that allow for a universe of wonder and mystery and give reason to question, rather than suck it all out, killing mystery and creating a dead universe (I've yet to see any example fo that, and I don't think it would be very good).

 

[DevilEyes]

Hmm, I think as an ATHEIST believing in the supernatural is superstitious, thus believing in gods and devils (or evil gods) as backward. Yes, when I say, as an ATHEIST, they should not worship gods, and I say they should not go and worship devils, either that must be contradictory... or... or maybe, maybe there's a third road. Let me think, what would I as an ATHEIST, consider a third road, something they should be doing instead. Hmm, let me think, an ATHEIST, me...

Oh, right! That's it! The Bajorans should reject all religious, supernatural bullshit dogma and become... ATHEISTS!

Who'd a thunk it!

Silly me. I would have "thunk" that, as an ATHEIST, you wouldn't think of them as gods or devils... Hmm...

You know very well that those Bajorans who chose to worship the Pah-wraiths did not believe that they were "the devil" - they did not say "they are evil, they are devils, so we are going to worship them". They believed that the Pah-wraiths were the true gods of Bajor.

Yeah, that would be the point, wouldn't it? For 20,000 thousand years the Prophets are the gods of Bajor. Bajorans have worshiped them as gods. The Pah-wraiths have always been considered evil, they choose DUKHAT as their emissary, they were beaten and defeated by the Prophets, and then those that reject the Prophets... go an run into the next bunch of manipulating, gods, who got beaten by prophets... with DUKHAT as their emissary, who spends his time screwing the women.

Their emissary was a Babylon 5 character? Now that is weird!

In short people were so utterly imbalanced, so totally screwed up in the head, that the Prophets shown to be not infallible and all-powerful and they did not have the balance of mind to simply say - "Well, that bit about me believing them being all-powerful was wrong, that means they're either still gods but not as great as I imagined them to be, or they're not gods after all, but the ones they defeated and trapped are obviously no more powerful than they are..."

Instead, they went to worship the trapped ones, under guidance of Dukhat, who taught them that fucking him was a good decree of the Pagh-wraiths. Stable bunch there... really.

Aren't people allowed to decide to convert to another religion, or create another religion? That's basically what the Pah-wraiths worshippers did.

Sure, they're completely allowed to do that. People are allowed to be idiots, and superstitious fools in a free society. But just because they're allowed to create a new religion, doesn't make them any less superstitious when they do so.

It's still telling they went to worship what they were taught were devils and demons.

So let me get this straight: you are saying that they were wrong to adhere to their tradition and worship who they were taught were gods... but turning against that tradition was still wronger? Or, in other words: there are no gods and devils and the Bajorans were morons to think of some aliens as gods or devils, but siding with the "devils" is still especially wrong. O-kay...

Make up your mind. If you are claiming that Bajoran tradition and beliefs were rubbish and nonsense, you can't be accepting their beliefs as legitimate when it suits you.

You've got a very 01, black white, way of thinking do you?

Look who's talking...