Fans Disenfranchised with Utopia?

[TheGoodStuff]

If you don't like a TV show with optimistic and/or utopic views for society in the future, then why not just dislike it and watch something else? Like you do with every other show you don't like for various reasons?

You know, there's probably an interesting show to be made about life in a futuristic utopia, but STAR TREK isn't it.

As I keep pointing out, STAR TREK was not essentially about life in an "utopian" Federation, it was about exploration and adventure on the far frontier, where danger, disease, and conflict were still very much part of the package. Last time I checked, the opening spiel did not go like this:

"Earth, far from now. This is the world of the 23rd Century, where peace and progress reign supreme and humanity is free to achieve its full potential. Its mission: to forge a better future throughout the United Federation of Planets!"

Again, that could be an interesting show, but that's not what TOS--or even the later shows--were really all about. IMHO.

Actually I think such a tv series would be boring. I mean if all the problems are solved and everyone gets along what exactly is going to drive the stories?

but the vast majority of the population have managed to free themselves of such superstition.

Yeah, that probably isn't going to ever happen since there are a lot of different religons in the world that have existed for a very long time and probably got through way more belief challenges than just aliens showing up one day.

Thats a sad yet overly optimistic view in my opinion. As society advances, I'm confident religion will continue to die. Simply because something HAS been, does not mean it shall always be.

but the vast majority of the population have managed to free themselves of such superstition.

Yeah, that probably isn't going to ever happen since there are a lot of different religons in the world that have existed for a very long time and probably got through way more belief challenges than just aliens showing up one day.

IMHO, it should be understandable why I shouldn't enjoy terms like "atheist Earth". That implies that everyone on Earth has abandoned religion, and of course that's not going to happen - it wouldn't, unless everyone was MADE to abandon it, and I would think no one would want that. Besides, isn't it enough what we've got now, in that regard? I live in the US, and we don't have an official state religion or anything like that. We have plenty of freedom of religion right here, and also freedom from it. Why should anyone want to completely erase it? Why is my freedom OF religion such a threat to those who want freedom FROM it?

Of course it's a fine thing to want freedom, but The GoodStuff, if you're going to insult people of faith by calling their religion "superstition", that is rather telling, I think. Besides, if I'm not allowed to worship with other people, then I really don't have freedom of religion, do I?

Im afraid you are simply speaking from a theistic viewpoint. Simply because you cannot envision a world without religion does not imply that it cannot happen. Nobody would be forced into anything, people will simply realize that religion is poison and through technological advancement, social development and contact with alien worlds, religion will naturally decay and die...devolving into a very niche, obscure culture.

I dont feel the need to enter into a huge religious debate with you. The U.S.A as you cite, is flooded with religion [bible belt anyone? 'One Nation Under God'?] and is nowhere near as free from it as you think. Additionally, humanity should want rid of it due the overwhelming death and suffering it has caused on our planet [crusades, inquisition, genital mutilation, aids, subjection of women etc etc etc]. Sadly, religion running free damages us as a species.

I call it 'superstition' because it is. Thats not derogatory or insulting, merely fact. If you believed in Wombles I would likewise call it superstition.

To Quote Captain Picard in 'Who Watches the Watchers': "Horrifying... Dr. Barron, your report describes how rational these people are. Millennia ago, they abandoned their belief in the supernatural. Now you are asking me to sabotage that achievement, to send them back into the dark ages of superstition and ignorance and fear? No!"

but the vast majority of the population have managed to free themselves of such superstition.

Yeah, that probably isn't going to ever happen since there are a lot of different religons in the world that have existed for a very long time and probably got through way more belief challenges than just aliens showing up one day.

I think Trek strongly implies that after developing technology and solutions that solved hunger and medical problems, people in large numbers abandoned the need for religion-as if to say it failed to solve those problems.

Exactly

 

[Sci]

I'm sorry to see so many of my fellow atheists speaking with such disrespect and prejudice about the nature of religion.

Meanwhile, I'm confident that in the world of Star Trek, religious tolerance is seen as a virtue, and that atheists, agnostics, and followers of all of the world's belief systems -- and probably those of a few other faiths that have either developed after First Contact or been imported from alien worlds -- have learned to work together in peace and mutual respect.

 

[maneth]

A world without religion? I guess it depends on what you mean by that. Undoubtedly there are humans in the 24th century Trek era who have some kind of religious or spiritual beliefs. However, in a world where material needs are taken care of, where everyone has access to universal healthcare and no one needs to go hungry, and where everyone who wishes to do so can engage in lifelong learning, the likelihood of a secular culture gaining the upper hand is much more likely. Religions developed as a way to explain why horrible things happen to people, and organized religions were developed to keep the unwashed, uneducated masses in line. Those issues are much less, if at all, relevant in the 24th century.

 

[HaventGotALife]

I'm sorry to see so many of my fellow atheists speaking with such disrespect and prejudice about the nature of religion.

Meanwhile, I'm confident that in the world of Star Trek, religious tolerance is seen as a virtue, and that atheists, agnostics, and followers of all of the world's belief systems -- and probably those of a few other faiths that have either developed after First Contact or been imported from alien worlds -- have learned to work together in peace and mutual respect.

As a fellow atheist, I think Star Trek's explanation of the end of religion was stupid. People face hardships and when they do they turn to God. There were no shortage of hardships in the 24th century. I think it would've been interesting to see what religious beliefs were around after the Dominion War. Would there be a surge in belief now that we've struggled? A movement towards Nihilism? Would there be a xenophobe movement, an isolationist movement, because of finding the Borg in the Delta Quadrant and the Dominion in the Gamma? If Star Trek had religion, I think it could cover more sociological ground. Space travel, as pointed out in First Contact (the episode) would change religious beliefs. That's something Enterprise could've made hay out of. But that doesn't mean it would go away.

A world without religion? I guess it depends on what you mean by that. Undoubtedly there are humans in the 24th century Trek era who have some kind of religious or spiritual beliefs. However, in a world where material needs are taken care of, where everyone has access to universal healthcare and no one needs to go hungry, and where everyone who wishes to do so can engage in lifelong learning, the likelihood of a secular culture gaining the upper hand is much more likely. Religions developed as a way to explain why horrible things happen to people, and organized religions were developed to keep the unwashed, uneducated masses in line. Those issues are much less, if at all, relevant in the 24th century.

I think there are more reasons for religion than not having healthcare. I think religious belief gives people a sense they are not alone. That when they find love, it will transcend our human form. When we are good people, we are rewarded for it. When we face death, we know it is not the end. People still die. People still are bullied (re: Star Trek 2009). People are facing an existential threat in the Borg and the Dominion. It would seem to me that the 24th century would be ripe for religious belief. And people are confusing the faithful who pray everyday and the powerful that wish to control everyone's actions.

 

[2takesfrakes]

Science is an imperfect tool used, as a source of knowledge. Religion, likewise, is an imperfect tool, used in the search for knowledge. The abuses of both have had very detrimental effects on not only people, but the world around us. And it was never money that was the root of all evil, but the love of money - greed.

I personally cannot imagine any kind of a world without these three motivating factors, and I certainly don't want to. With me, being Catholic isn't so much a belief system, although that's certainly the core of what being so is about for me. I was raised in a Catholic community, went to Catholic schools and Catholicism has some very beautiful traditions, as do many faiths. My Faith has given me everything that's worth anything.

And science alone can only tell me how life arose, what it's comprised of and how it's evolved. It can't offer guidance on how to live it. To be presented with this indignant attitude that faith is only so much superstition and ignorance is, in itself, very ignorant. You know, America's got a lot of serious problems with how it's run and what it's doing to its own, but I'll tell you one thing it got right: Freedom of Religion. And I hope that the world will always try to emulate that and cherish that into the 24th Century and beyond ...

 

[Edit_XYZ]

I'm sorry to see so many of my fellow atheists speaking with such disrespect and prejudice about the nature of religion.

lol.
I see you once again use semantic falsities and rhetoric to support a far-left view:
respect =/= lying through one's teeth to make the subject of your post look better than he actually is.
prejudice =/= de facto telling the facts about the subject of your post.

 

[Commishsleer]

I dont feel the need to enter into a huge religious debate with you. The U.S.A as you cite, is flooded with religion [bible belt anyone? 'One Nation Under God'?] and is nowhere near as free from it as you think. Additionally, humanity should want rid of it due the overwhelming death and suffering it has caused on our planet [crusades, inquisition, genital mutilation, aids, subjection of women etc etc etc]. Sadly, religion running free damages us as a species.

I call it 'superstition' because it is. Thats not derogatory or insulting, merely fact. If you believed in Wombles I would likewise call it superstition.

How did religion cause aids?
Or is it supposed to be God's wrath on gay people? (sarcasm)

A lot of things like the crusades, inquisition and subjugation of women also have a lot to do with some people thinking it was 'fact' that they are superior to another group of people. That they need to save people from their superstitions.

In my utopia people would be free to have any religious beliefs they wished provided they didn't feel the need to enforce their beliefs on other people. And also didn't break any civil laws or freedoms. And part of that utopia would involve people not being condescending of other people's beliefs.

I don't remember Picard or Kirk or Janeway being intolerant of religion.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

organized religions were developed to keep the unwashed, uneducated masses in line.

Im afraid you are simply speaking from a theistic viewpoint. Simply because you cannot envision a world without religion does not imply that it cannot happen. Nobody would be forced into anything, people will simply realize that religion is poison and through technological advancement, social development and contact with alien worlds, religion will naturally decay and die...devolving into a very niche, obscure culture.

I dont feel the need to enter into a huge religious debate with you. The U.S.A as you cite, is flooded with religion [bible belt anyone? 'One Nation Under God'?] and is nowhere near as free from it as you think. Additionally, humanity should want rid of it due the overwhelming death and suffering it has caused on our planet [crusades, inquisition, genital mutilation, aids, subjection of women etc etc etc]. Sadly, religion running free damages us as a species.

I call it 'superstition' because it is. Thats not derogatory or insulting, merely fact. If you believed in Wombles I would likewise call it superstition.

Well, so much for tolerance, eh?

 

[Robert Comsol]

And science alone can only tell me how life arose, what it's comprised of and how it's evolved. It can't offer guidance on how to live it.

Concise in a nutshell, beautifully and well said!

Bob

 

[Sindatur]

I dont feel the need to enter into a huge religious debate with you. The U.S.A as you cite, is flooded with religion [bible belt anyone? 'One Nation Under God'?] and is nowhere near as free from it as you think. Additionally, humanity should want rid of it due the overwhelming death and suffering it has caused on our planet [crusades, inquisition, genital mutilation, aids, subjection of women etc etc etc]. Sadly, religion running free damages us as a species.

I call it 'superstition' because it is. Thats not derogatory or insulting, merely fact. If you believed in Wombles I would likewise call it superstition.

How did religion cause aids?
Or is it supposed to be God's wrath on gay people? (sarcasm)

I think the implication there is that Religious Intolerance and stygmatizing of HIV/AIDS/Being Gay, delayed the fight against HIV/AIDS and caused additional suffering and lack of compassion early on

 

[Commishsleer]

I dont feel the need to enter into a huge religious debate with you. The U.S.A as you cite, is flooded with religion [bible belt anyone? 'One Nation Under God'?] and is nowhere near as free from it as you think. Additionally, humanity should want rid of it due the overwhelming death and suffering it has caused on our planet [crusades, inquisition, genital mutilation, aids, subjection of women etc etc etc]. Sadly, religion running free damages us as a species.

I call it 'superstition' because it is. Thats not derogatory or insulting, merely fact. If you believed in Wombles I would likewise call it superstition.

How did religion cause aids?
Or is it supposed to be God's wrath on gay people? (sarcasm)

I think the implication there is that Religious Intolerance and stygmatizing of HIV/AIDS/Being Gay, delayed the fight against HIV/AIDS and caused additional suffering and lack of compassion early on

Any proof of that aside from the writings of the far-right religious nuts? Some of which also deny the holocaust.

The implication is that only religious people were afraid of HIV/AIDs initially and the rest of society was perfectly reasonable at the time which I know was not the case. Everyone was afraid of getting HIV/AIDS at the time because no-one knew how it was spread.
The lack of compassion was from society as a whole.

 

[Jonas Grumby]

I don't feel the need to enter into a huge religious debate with you. The U.S.A as you cite, is flooded with...etc. etc.

I love it when someone states they have no interest in hearing your side of the debate, but then go ahead to regurgitate their own side at length anyway.

I'm sorry to see so many of my fellow atheists speaking with such disrespect and prejudice about the nature of religion.

I quite agree.

 

[Sindatur]

How did religion cause aids?
Or is it supposed to be God's wrath on gay people? (sarcasm)

I think the implication there is that Religious Intolerance and stygmatizing of HIV/AIDS/Being Gay, delayed the fight against HIV/AIDS and caused additional suffering and lack of compassion early on

Any proof of that aside from the writings of the far-right religious nuts? Some of which also deny the holocaust.

The implication is that only religious people were afraid of HIV/AIDs initially and the rest of society was perfectly reasonable at the time which I know was not the case. Everyone was afraid of getting HIV/AIDS at the time because no-one knew how it was spread.
The lack of compassion was from society as a whole.

I am merely going by what i read into the post. To me that's what the post is implying. I'm not suggesting it reflects the actual reality of the time, I am saying the post implies the poster believes that Religious intolerance was responsible for additional suffering and delaying the fight.

Though, I was born in 1964, so, I have been alive long enough, that I know for a fact that Religious Stigma and intolerance did indeed cause additional suffering. Religious Stigma/intolerance definitely delayed getting the message out of using condoms to reduce your chances of becoming infected

 

[TheGoodStuff]

How did religion cause aids?
Or is it supposed to be God's wrath on gay people? (sarcasm)

I think the implication there is that Religious Intolerance and stygmatizing of HIV/AIDS/Being Gay, delayed the fight against HIV/AIDS and caused additional suffering and lack of compassion early on

Any proof of that aside from the writings of the far-right religious nuts? Some of which also deny the holocaust.

The implication is that only religious people were afraid of HIV/AIDs initially and the rest of society was perfectly reasonable at the time which I know was not the case. Everyone was afraid of getting HIV/AIDS at the time because no-one knew how it was spread.
The lack of compassion was from society as a whole.

The Papacy, Catholic priests etc urge against condom use. Thus, AIDS and HIV has been allowed to spread like wildfire as a result.

I am very tolerant of peoples right to believe as they wish however I have no respect for religion. It does nothing but harm us as a species. Of course this will upset the theists on the board but alas the cookie and the way it crumbles.

For a true Utopia, religion in all its forms needs to wilt and die.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I am very tolerant of peoples right to believe as they wish however I have no respect for religion.

That is a contradiction in terms.

To be tolerant of a thing, you must logically respect its right to exist.

 

[TheGoodStuff]

organized religions were developed to keep the unwashed, uneducated masses in line.

Im afraid you are simply speaking from a theistic viewpoint. Simply because you cannot envision a world without religion does not imply that it cannot happen. Nobody would be forced into anything, people will simply realize that religion is poison and through technological advancement, social development and contact with alien worlds, religion will naturally decay and die...devolving into a very niche, obscure culture.

I dont feel the need to enter into a huge religious debate with you. The U.S.A as you cite, is flooded with religion [bible belt anyone? 'One Nation Under God'?] and is nowhere near as free from it as you think. Additionally, humanity should want rid of it due the overwhelming death and suffering it has caused on our planet [crusades, inquisition, genital mutilation, aids, subjection of women etc etc etc]. Sadly, religion running free damages us as a species.

I call it 'superstition' because it is. Thats not derogatory or insulting, merely fact. If you believed in Wombles I would likewise call it superstition.

Well, so much for tolerance, eh?

This always amuses me. Religion in its life has been intolerant, and has persecuted: women, homosexuals, atheists, opposing religions, differing interpretations of the same religion...

We are entitled to criticize religion. Crying 'intolerance' is just misguided. I have stated repeatedly that a persons right to be religious should be defended but I openly admit to loathing religion and to finding it completely irrational, silly and unmeasurably damaging to our species.

To be frank, its about damn time that religion was openly questioned and criticized. 'Tolerance' has nothing to do with it.

 

[TheGoodStuff]

I am very tolerant of peoples right to believe as they wish however I have no respect for religion.

That is a contradiction in terms.

To be tolerant of a thing, you must logically respect its right to exist.

No its isn't. You're logic is flawed here. I respect freedom of thought and speech. That is not religion, religion in that scenario is a by product.

I respect a right to believe what one wishes however that does not demand respect to the thing that is believed.

For example, I believe in your right to chose a political allegiance however if you chose Fascism, I have absolutely no respect for Fascism. Its rather simple.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

If you don't want to be accused of being intolerant, perhaps you should not use broad brushstrokes to describe religious people. Not all religions, religious people, or religious organizations participate in culture wars. Indeed, Wiccans ought not be accused of trying to restrict birth control.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

I am very tolerant of peoples right to believe as they wish however I have no respect for religion.

That is a contradiction in terms.

To be tolerant of a thing, you must logically respect its right to exist.

You are contradicting yourself - assuming your goal is a tolerant society.

TheGoodstuff is tolerant of different attitudes, but NOT tolerant toward intolerance. And religion is built on intolerance - to other religions, to not respecting its dogma, etc.

Which is the logical attitude to have, if one's goal is a tolerant society as opposed to far-left propaganda. You see, being tolerant of intolerance destroys tolerance without fail.

 

[TheGoodStuff]

If you don't want to be accused of being intolerant, perhaps you should not use broad brushstrokes to describe religious people. Not all religions, religious people, or religious organizations participate in culture wars. Indeed, Wiccans ought not be accused of trying to restrict birth control.

Im afraid that is just a weak generalization. Religion has caused vast damage to culture and life around the globe. It naturally does by placing emphasis on doctrinal rules and other worlds.

I am very tolerant of peoples right to believe as they wish however I have no respect for religion.

That is a contradiction in terms.

To be tolerant of a thing, you must logically respect its right to exist.

You are contradicting yourself - assuming your goal is a tolerant society.

TheGoodstuff is tolerant of different attitudes, but NOT tolerant toward intolerance. And religion is built on intolerance - to other religions, to not respecting its dogma, etc.

Which is the logical attitude to have, if one's goal is a tolerant society as opposed to far-left propaganda. You see, being tolerant of intolerance destroys tolerance without fail.

Thank You.