• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Religion: Roddenberry was right!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wasn't being snarky or flaming him, I merely pointed out why these trends in 'athiesm' never catch on - because there's always some power that seeks to replace the religion (usually the athiests themselves), often violently, and these powers are fallable and, more importantly, mortal. TGT's own explanation, in his own words, exemplified this perfectly.
 
And TGT writes it off as a good thing overall. Just something to consider.

The objection to God, as far as I can see, by these types - people who, without batting an eye, can accept entities like Trelane and the Q, whom each shoe god-like abilities, is that God is (through religion) a moral authority - which is the real sort of resentment.

The objection has nothing to do with the possibility of God, but morality itself. Again, look at the 'response' to religion indicated - systematic murder of billions of people.
 
Religion must die for mankind to live.

Don't think so. Intolerance must die for mankind to live. Basic freedom and all that. I want to spend my weekends baptizing dead people in the Palmyra Temple that's my call, ain't no one going to take that right away from me... I've never once tried to force my religion on anyone. Ever.

On the other hand two-three times a week I get someone trying to convince me (with full profanity and rage) that religion is a waste of time.

Its a sad thing when you become what you hate, and these sorts of people just don't see that forcing their non-belief on me is just as wrong as someone forcing a belief on them.

Billions of people every day worship in peace without raising a finger or a voice against anyone else... the crackpot fundamentalists and extremest groups are the ones that give the rest of us a bad name.

So go ahead. Send your death-squad to round me up in the name of a religion-free future. You've become just like the ones you seek to suppress. :)
 
That's the thing -- in Rodenberrys future you wouldn't be persecuted for practising religion, that would be your choice. BUT you wouldn't be practising religion because mankind then will not need it and will have moved on from it.
 
Religion must die for mankind to live.

Don't think so. Intolerance must die for mankind to live. Basic freedom and all that. I want to spend my weekends baptizing dead people in the Palmyra Temple that's my call, ain't no one going to take that right away from me... I've never once tried to force my religion on anyone. Ever.

On the other hand two-three times a week I get someone trying to convince me (with full profanity and rage) that religion is a waste of time.

Its a sad thing when you become what you hate, and these sorts of people just don't see that forcing their non-belief on me is just as wrong as someone forcing a belief on them.

Billions of people every day worship in peace without raising a finger or a voice against anyone else... the crackpot fundamentalists and extremest groups are the ones that give the rest of us a bad name.

So go ahead. Send your death-squad to round me up in the name of a religion-free future. You've become just like the ones you seek to suppress. :)
I admit, I didn't write that line, but, when taken in full context, I really am starting to agree with it. Sure people can talk about religion giving a moral compass for children and culture, but in the scheme of humanity it's done mo0re harm than good.

Here's the context of that quote:

The irony of religion is that because of its power to divert man to destructive courses, the world could actually come to an end... Plain fact is, religion must die for mankind to live. The hour is getting very late to be able to indulge having in key decisions made by religious people. By irrationalists. B those who would steer the ship of state not by a compass, but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of a chicken. George Bush prayed a lot about Iraq, but he didn't learn a lot about it... Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking. It's nothing to brag about. And those who preach faith and enable and elevate it are intellectual slaveholders keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction. Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who don't have all the answers to think that they do. Most people would think it's wonderful when someone says, "I'm willing, Lord! I'll do whatever you want me to do!" Except that since there are no gods actually talking to us, that void is filled in by people with their own corruptions and limitations and agendas... And anyone who tells you they know, they just know what happens when you die, I promise you you don't. How can I be so sure? Because I don't know, and you do not possess mental powers that I do not. The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt. Doubt is humble, and that's what man needs to be, considering that human history is just a littany of getting shit dead wrong... This is why rational people, anti-religionists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves. And those who consider themselves only moderately religious really need to look in the mirror and realize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you comes at a horrible price... If you belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence, and sheer ignorance as religion is, you'd resign in protest. To do otherwise is to be an enabler, a mafia wife, for the true devils of extremism that draw their legitimacy from the billions of their fellow travelers. If the world does come to an end here, or wherever, or if it limps into the future, decimated by the effects of religion-inspired nuclear terrorism, let's remember what the real problem was. We learned how to precipitate mass death before we got past the neurological disorder of wishing for it. That's it. Grow up or die.
 
I wasn't being snarky or flaming him, I merely pointed out why these trends in 'athiesm' never catch on - because there's always some power that seeks to replace the religion (usually the athiests themselves), often violently, and these powers are fallable and, more importantly, mortal. TGT's own explanation, in his own words, exemplified this perfectly.

You obviously read into what he wrote too much.

Intolerance must die for mankind to live.

To a degree, intolerance is a part of many religions. However, I'm of the opinion that mankind will live regardless of intolerance or religion, and that the two will always exist.
 
Religion must die for mankind to live.

Don't think so. Intolerance must die for mankind to live. Basic freedom and all that. I want to spend my weekends baptizing dead people in the Palmyra Temple that's my call, ain't no one going to take that right away from me... I've never once tried to force my religion on anyone. Ever.

On the other hand two-three times a week I get someone trying to convince me (with full profanity and rage) that religion is a waste of time.

Its a sad thing when you become what you hate, and these sorts of people just don't see that forcing their non-belief on me is just as wrong as someone forcing a belief on them.

Billions of people every day worship in peace without raising a finger or a voice against anyone else... the crackpot fundamentalists and extremest groups are the ones that give the rest of us a bad name.

So go ahead. Send your death-squad to round me up in the name of a religion-free future. You've become just like the ones you seek to suppress. :)
I admit, I didn't write that line, but, when taken in full context, I really am starting to agree with it. Sure people can talk about religion giving a moral compass for children and culture, but in the scheme of humanity it's done mo0re harm than good.

Here's the context of that quote:

The irony of religion is that because of its power to divert man to destructive courses, the world could actually come to an end... Plain fact is, religion must die for mankind to live. The hour is getting very late to be able to indulge having in key decisions made by religious people. By irrationalists. B those who would steer the ship of state not by a compass, but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of a chicken. George Bush prayed a lot about Iraq, but he didn't learn a lot about it... Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking. It's nothing to brag about. And those who preach faith and enable and elevate it are intellectual slaveholders keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction. Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who don't have all the answers to think that they do. Most people would think it's wonderful when someone says, "I'm willing, Lord! I'll do whatever you want me to do!" Except that since there are no gods actually talking to us, that void is filled in by people with their own corruptions and limitations and agendas... And anyone who tells you they know, they just know what happens when you die, I promise you you don't. How can I be so sure? Because I don't know, and you do not possess mental powers that I do not. The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt. Doubt is humble, and that's what man needs to be, considering that human history is just a littany of getting shit dead wrong... This is why rational people, anti-religionists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves. And those who consider themselves only moderately religious really need to look in the mirror and realize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you comes at a horrible price... If you belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence, and sheer ignorance as religion is, you'd resign in protest. To do otherwise is to be an enabler, a mafia wife, for the true devils of extremism that draw their legitimacy from the billions of their fellow travelers. If the world does come to an end here, or wherever, or if it limps into the future, decimated by the effects of religion-inspired nuclear terrorism, let's remember what the real problem was. We learned how to precipitate mass death before we got past the neurological disorder of wishing for it. That's it. Grow up or die.
I couldn't have put it better myself. Religion has to go. FACT
 
I don't think Roddenberry's prediction about religion withering away was correct at all in terms of the real world.

But I do think it's an interesting what-if scenario that is one of the unique features of Star Trek, and that the atheistic nature of the Federation and Starfleet should be emphasized more in the future. It would have been interesting if in DS9, for instance, Sisko's evolving role as the Emissary of the Prophets had been more of a conflict with his role in Starfleet rather than everyone being so cool about it. Is it really okay to have a Starfleet officer with divided loyalties like that?

When you look at the Star Trek universe, religion hasn't withered away at all. Most advanced societies have religion; some like Bajor and the Dominion are downright theocratic. Looks to me like the humans are the only ones who have given up religion, which is okay. It makes humans more interesting - they do tend to get lost in the shuffle, what with all the more-interesting aliens around them.

And this thread is a bit off topic - shouldn't we be focusing on religion in Star Trek? Religion in the real world is a topic for Misc or TNZ.
 
Tuln said:
The irony of religion is that because of its power to divert man to destructive courses, the world could actually come to an end... Plain fact is, religion must die for mankind to live. [snip] That's it. Grow up or die.
I couldn't have put it better myself. Religion has to go. FACT

Oh, please. Not fact. Opinion. Capital letters don't make it a fact.

And I disagree that Trek is atheistic. Agnostic, yes.
 
Here's a question that's never occurred to me before. Most advanced societies in Star Trek have some form of religion - Romulans, I'm not sure about; Borg don't seem to need one. But Klingons, Bajorans, Cardassians, the Dominion, Vulcans and Ferengi all have religions that are important to their societies.

So why did the residents of Earth give up religion when it's far from common? Theories?
 
Didn't Phlox attend a Catholic Mass during the 2150's? I'm pretty sure it was implied to be a large gathering in the city that he attended, and stated he had experienced other Earth belief systems, so I'd assume many of them are still around 150 years from now at least. Christmas and Thanksgiving being shown in TOS and TNG, the Hindu Festival of Lights, the traditional wedding ceremony (Chapel and all), Chakotay having Native American Indian (sorry if that isn't quite accurate) beliefs. Nope, hasn't gone anywhere.
 
Here's a question that's never occurred to me before. Most advanced societies in Star Trek have some form of religion - Romulans, I'm not sure about; Borg don't seem to need one. But Bajorans, Cardassians, the Dominion, Vulcans and Ferengi all have religions that are important to their societies.

So why did the residents of Earth give up religion when it's far from common? Theories?

I don't understand what makes so many people so sure that the residents of Earth "gave up" religion. It's like some kind of "received truth" or something. There are references to religion in all of the shows, including a TNG episode cited in an earlier post that specifically mentions a Hindu ceremony. Hindu is a religion, right? (Or is "Hindi" the right word?) And in TOS, as somebody already mentioned, there's a chapel on the Enterprise. Why would they call it a chapel if it didn't have at least some vague, eucumenical religious function?

In fact, if I remember correctly, we actually see a crewmember (the one who was going to get married and whose fiance was killed during the episode) kneeling the chapel. Now maybe she was just crying, not praying, but we. don't. know. All we know for sure is that she went to this chapel to mourn.

Humans just don't talk about religion much, and they sure the heck don't fight about it. That doesn't mean it's all gone. We in fact have no idea how many people practice religion during the Trek eras. None.
 
I couldn't have put it better myself. Religion has to go. FACT

It had to happen. You cannot have a civil discussion involving religion or politics without someone who it totally intollerant taking the "It has to be my way, period" stance.

People like to blame religion for problems that are actually based on intolerance. Thanks for proving that you don't have to be religious to be intolerent.
 
I stand by everything that I posted. That said, I'm agnostic. I belive that there is something. Maybe it could be called god. I don't know. One thing I do know is that religion has little to do with it. Religion is always a man made thing, a buerocracy between man and god created by man, and its alsways something that's sold to the common people. It's always, without fail. cursumstantial. Meaning that it depends on the region and time period that a person is born into. If you were born in ancient greece, you are likely to believe in Zeus. If youa re born in South Afriica today it's unlikely you'd be A Christian. If you are born on Bajor in the 24th Century you'd believe in the Prophets and not the Klingon gods.
 
Here's a question that's never occurred to me before. Most advanced societies in Star Trek have some form of religion - Romulans, I'm not sure about; Borg don't seem to need one. But Klingons, Bajorans, Cardassians, the Dominion, Vulcans and Ferengi all have religions that are important to their societies.

So why did the residents of Earth give up religion when it's far from common? Theories?

It's not that they gave it up, it's just that it's not as important or at least not portrayed. To show one religion, then they'd have to start showing them all, and a lot of them conflict. The last thing that was wanted was conflict among humans, so toning down religion was probably one way of doing that.

Plus, no reason to risk alienating the audience.
 
I stand by everything that I posted. That said, I'm agnostic. I belive that there is something. Maybe it could be called god. I don't know. One thing I do know is that religion has little to do with it. Religion is always a man made thing, a buerocracy between man and god created by man, and its alsways something that's sold to the common people. It's always, without fail. cursumstantial. Meaning that it depends on the region and time period that a person is born into. If you were born in ancient greece, you are likely to believe in Zeus. If youa re born in South Afriica today it's unlikely you'd be A Christian. If you are born on Bajor in the 24th Century you'd believe in the Prophets and not the Klingon gods.

All that is also true about science. It is situational. It is based on what is already known. It changes as knowledge is gained. It is sold to the common people as fact. If you were born in ancient Greece you were taught that the world is flat. In the 70's you were taught that Aids can only be transmitted through intercourse. Scientists with new ideas are persecuted. Does not mean that science is altogether wrong. But if you are closed minded about the possibilities of something different you are not going to make any great scientific discoveries.
 
What I want to know is, why the hell are we talking religion on a STAR TREK forum? I read all these comments and I think what a waste of time. The ONLY reason why some of the posters even bother to reply on this particular forum is to convert NON-belivers to there side ''or'' to have the belivers become NON-belivers! That's just how I see it. I just figured I'd give it my two cents! Continue to jibber jabber on without me! I will be in the TREK 11 forum, See you there.
 
Uh, true. But of course, with science you can observe, research, and measure. You can revise and even change results. People cling to the Bible which was written long before newer evidence contradicted what was possible in the Bible. The point you are making is interesting, but it really doesn't hold up to real scrutiny. You could once believe that babies come from storks, but obviously they don't. Religion might tell you that thunder is God bowling, but we know now what it really is.
 
It's getting awfully judgmental and OT in this thread (and no doubt some of that OTness is my fault), so I don't think I have anything further to add. By "judgmental," mean that not only am I referring to the fact that I don't particularly like being judged (on the basis of a few posts in a BBS thread), but I don't really approve of some of the judgments I'm starting to make, so I'd better quit before I say something I'll regret.

I'll lurk for a while and see if we get back on thread.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top